Revisiting the Palestine issue

Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

In answer to a question based on unspecified reports, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs recently stated that there was no change in India’s position of support for the Palestine cause. The position has been one of voting in favour of the Palestine-related resolutions in the UN. Neither the ‘reports’ nor the denial by the government attracted much attention in the media. 
Foreign policy is all about national interest. Sentiment should have very little place in it, except of course when one’s own nationals are concerned. The same principle of national interest should be applied while determining the approach to the Palestinian issue. However, as the adage goes, all foreign policy ultimately is domestic politics; domestic factors inevitably influence decisions in the external sphere.
There should be no objection per se in taking a ‘look’ at our position on any issue. The BJP manifesto did suggest that it would take another look at the ‘no-first use’ commitment in our nuclear doctrine, but subsequently declared that there would be no change in that doctrine. There is no intrinsic merit in following a policy simply because it has been observed over several decades.  Consistency for the sake of consistency is not necessarily a virtue in international relations. Naturally, if it is decided to modify a long-established position which has served the country well over decades and which has been generally accepted by the principal parties concerned, it has to have a convincing justification in terms of national interest.
India's approach to the Arab-Israeli question has always been the subject of internal debate and discussion in India, including in the Ministry of External Affairs. The wisdom of complete support to the Arabs on this issue has often been questioned on the ground that the Arabs did not support us on the Kashmir question, that the OIC routinely adopted Pakistan-sponsored resolutions on Kashmir, etc. Our stand was sought to be justified on the ground that Pakistan's support for the Palestinian cause was in fact equally strong, if not stronger than ours, that we had huge interests in the Arab world, that we needed to ensure that they did not take an anti-India position in the United Nations, and most importantly, that the Muslim population felt strongly on the Palestinian issue. The explanation was not without logic. It seems Nehru was inclined to establish full diplomatic relations in his time, but refrained from doing so at the urging of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
During the 1980s and 90s, our relations with the United States were not what they are today. It was felt in the MEA that establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel would help in getting a more understanding response from the US. The Jewish lobby in the US was expected to use its considerable influence in that respect. Accordingly, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao decided to upgrade the relations to the diplomatic level from the level of consulate general. By that time, two important Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan, had established diplomatic relations with Israel following the Oslo Accords signed by Arafat and the Israeli leaders. China too established diplomatic relations with Israel just before we did. Thus, India did change its stance at that time on the ground of national interest. Apart from a few elements, the Muslim community did not protest too much; Indian Muslims are no less patriotic than any other community, but they drew comfort from the fact that our basic position of support to the Palestinian cause was not diluted, nor was our stance on Jerusalem. Soon after, the Narasimha Rao government stopped co-sponsoring Palestine-related resolutions, but kept up the positive vote and strong rhetoric. Rajiv Gandhi lost no time in recognising the Palestinian state in 1988 and Manmohan Singh hosted the Palestinian Authority President a few times and even financed the construction of the Palestine embassy in Delhi. 
Since the establishment of diplomatic relations, our relations with Israel have grown exponentially. Israel has much to offer in the field of hi-tech, better irrigation methods, improved agricultural practices, etc. It also has a highly developed defence industry. We import nearly $10 billion worth of vital defence equipment from Israel. Israel is our second most important defence supplier after Russia. We buy nearly 1/3rd of Israel's defence production. Thousands of Israeli tourists visit India every year, not all of them engaged in healthy practices. Our relationship with Israel is not a one-sided affair, but is based on mutuality of interest.
Would a change in our voting pattern on the Palestinian question bring us additional benefits from Israel, benefits which otherwise would not be available? If yes, what could those advantages be? Of course, Israel would thank us, but gratitude should never form the basis of foreign policy.  Will Israel stop selling us the military hardware unless we   change our vote? Not likely at all.  
Disadvantages, on the other hand, can be several. The Arab governments will react very negatively. Even though many of them have no love lost for the Palestinians, and some are even anxious to deal with Israel at the official level, they are extremely reluctant to do so, since their public opinion, the Arab ‘street’ would be up in arms. Following the phenomenon of Arab Spring, the authorities in all Arab states have been compelled to take a stronger line on the Palestinian issue. Diluting support for the Palestinian cause would make it difficult for the Arabs to maintain the same positive attitude towards India as heretofore. The Arab media will certainly be most negative and Pakistan will exploit the situation fully to embarrass us.
We have huge interests in the Arab world. More than 2/3rd of our energy imports come from the region. Nearly seven million of our compatriots are employed there and remit tens of billions of dollars back home to their families. The      Arab world, as a whole, offers a huge market for our products. If the 'Make in India' campaign works, as we hope, we   would need markets for our goods. The Gulf countries in particular can play an important part in India's infrastructure development, given their capital surplus. Israel cannot compete with its neighbours in this respect.
There is also the question of timing. The Western countries are gradually veering around to taking a more pro-Palestinian stance during recent months. Sweden has recognised the state of Palestine, the British and French parliaments have overwhelmingly voted to recommend to their governments to follow Sweden's example. Pro-Palestinian sentiment is generally growing in the world, largely because of Israel's continued illegal occupation of the West Bank and relentless expansion of settlements. The recent decision of the Israeli Prime Minister to present draft legislation in the Knesset to declare Israel a Jewish state has aroused strong negative reaction, including in Israel. As many as 1,000 Israelis have signed a petition appealing to the European parliaments to recognise the state of Palestine and ‘save Israel from the wickedness of occupation’. 

On December 30, the Security Council failed to pass a resolution on Palestinian statehood; eight members voted in favour, including France, Russia, and China. Two  voted against -- US and Australia (no surprise there) -- and five abstained, including Britain, Rwanda, Lithuania, South Korea and Nigeria; the first four no surprise, and Nigeria after an urgent call from Secretary Kerry to the Nigerian President. 

Several factors go into the making of foreign policy, not least the impact on domestic politics. All political parties in India support the traditional policy on the Palestinian issue. The reaction of our Muslim citizens would definitely be quite negative, since a change from ‘yes’ vote to ‘abstention’ would be quite drastic. If at all the government was taking another look, It is comforting that it decided to adhere to the well-established policy after no doubt taking into consideration all these factors  and making a careful cost-benefit analysis.