Israel-Hamas conflict: Is Modi trying to take political advantage?

The State-sponsored terrorism by the Pakistani establishment can hardly be compared with that of Hamas’s attack. Palestinians have been deprived by not being given a nation or State of their own. Their land has been snatched from them. How can you compare Palestinian people with the Pakistani State? Is it not the worst form of political opportunism? The BJP is only trying to take advantage of the conflict in a far-remote place to communalize the discourse in India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi exploits every single issue to his political advantage. He has done the same in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Indian foreign policy has undergone a distinct change since Modi took over. He is not inclined to maintain any continuity. This is not to emphasise that every country follows this principle that no change in foreign policy is made without any diplomatic compulsion. Normally, the change in government does not bring any change in foreign policy except for some cosmetic changes. The Modi government has abandoned this basic principle. It has drastically changed Indian foreign policy. The irony is that most of the time, the changes have been inspired by the motive to strengthen the narrative propagated by the Sangh Parivar. Indian policy on Palestine has deeper ideological roots. Our freedom struggle has shaped it. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru have hugely influenced the response of the Indian National Congress to the Palestinian issue. It was in consonance with the ideas of self-determination, secularism, and the resolution of conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation. The colonial rulers always ignored these principles. They believed in coercion and armed interventions. The western colonial powers in the Middle East were only interested in their own business interests and created an Israeli State in order to serve them. They exploited post-World War I geopolitics to destabilise the region of Palestine. The Arabs and the Jews had a shared history of hundreds of years when the forced Jewish settlements came up under the patronage of the British, who had a mandate here after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1. In a 1917 declaration, the British promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Jews had claimed the land on the ground that it was their holy land. Mahatma Gandhi unambiguously opposed it. He said in 1938, “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.” He criticised Zionism, saying that migration to Palestine was a religious act. He said that no religious act can be performed with the help of a bayonet or bomb. He was referring to the British bayonet. He said that Jews could settle there only with the goodwill of Arabs.

Gandhi’s policy was inspired by his opposition to the formation of nation-States on the basis of religion. How could he support a nation-State on the basis of religion when he was facing the same problem in India?

Did Gandhi ignore the persecution of Jews in Europe? No. Gandhi compared the plight of Jews in the Christian world to the untouchables among Hindus. He argued that even a war against Hitler was justified to stop him from persecuting Jews.

India recognised Israel in 1950. However, diplomatic ties between the two countries had to wait until 1992. The PV Narasimha Rao government established it. However, Indians never abandoned the Palestinian cause. From Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh, there has been consistency in Indian policy despite progressively better relations with Israel. The Modi government has departed from traditional policy. Prime Minister Modi has been projecting himself as a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has established very close defence ties with Israel. His tweet over the Hamas’s attack on Israel reveals his inclinations: “Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour.”

By omitting reference to the plight of Palestinians, he has clearly sided with Israel. Is this the correct stance? It is not only inconsistent with our traditional foreign policy but also against our strategic interests. The Arab world may not be supporting the terrorist attack by Hamas, but that hardly means they are going to support Israel and abandon the Palestinian cause. Our diplomatic needs necessitate a balancing act like the Indian government has been doing on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We must criticise Israel for its treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We must call for restraint on the part of Israel. The siege of Gaza has left Palestinians with nothing other than to die without food and water. Israel has blocked all humanitarian aid and is constantly bombarding the area. Why is Modi pursuing this policy? Is it a principled stand?

The statement of the BJP reveals the motive behind Modi's “government’s stand. Israel faced a dastardly terror attack, just like Mumbai was targeted on November 26, 2008. Israel has declared war, and their military has struck back. What did India, under a weak-kneed Congress, do?” Says the BJP. Is it not resorting to the same Hindu-Muslim card that the BJP has been playing all these years? Reference to Pakistan is integral to the narrative of the BJP. The comparison lacks any insight. The State-sponsored terrorism by the Pakistani establishment can hardly be compared with that of Hamas’s attack. Palestinians have been deprived by not being given a nation or State of their own. Their land has been snatched from them. How can you compare Palestinian people with the Pakistani State? Is it not the worst form of political opportunism? The BJP is only trying to take advantage of the conflict in a far-remote place to communalize the discourse in India.

In fact, the Congress’ response is more nuanced and consistent. “The Indian National Congress condemns the brutal attacks on the people of Israel. The Indian National Congress has always believed that the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a life of self-respect, equality, and dignity must be fulfilled only through a process of dialogue and negotiations while ensuring the legitimate national security interests of the Israeli people. Violence of any type never provides a solution and must stop,” says the party.