Israel, India and eggshells

During Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s recent visit to Israel, he departed from his prepared text at a ceremonial reception hosted by his counterpart President Reuven Rivlin. Much to the apparent consternation of his hosts, Mukherjee denounced violence and said that India always advocated the peaceful resolution of all disputes.

While this denunciation did not sit well with Israel, Mukherjee went on to seek an assessment from Israel of recent developments, which he said held direct implications for India. This certainly struck a raw nerve. Israel was in no mood to provide any explanation for how it is dealing with the Palestinians, claimed Sanjay Kapoor in The Star newspaper.

“Mukherjee’s tightrope trip raises tension” was Kapoor’s headline assessment of the trip; from the standpoint of outcomes, the visit fell way short of the mark. “Neither did Mukherjee endear himself to the Israelis,” he wrote, “nor did it really clear the haze on when India’s itinerant Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, will be going to Tel Aviv.”

What was Israel’s expectations from the BJP-led Indian government? According to Kapoor, it was that India would show greater support for Israel after the manner in which New Delhi abstained from a crucial UN Human Rights Council resolution that demanded an international inquiry into Tel Aviv’s violence in Gaza.

As traditional party to party allies, the BJP and Likud leaders had believed that Modi’s election to power would entrench their friendship. This may be so at a personal level, but as Mukherjee’s visit demonstrated, tensions between the countries remain.

For example, Mukherjee wanted to give computers and technical equipment to the Palestinian University, but was denied permission by the Netanyahu regime to do so. Apart from being humiliated, the Indian president was understandably angered and this probably explains why, during his stopover in the Occupied West Bank, he quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English and France to the French.”

Gandhi was opposed to Zionism and its plans to overrun Palestine. To quote him, as Mukherjee did, sent a strong signal of New Delhi’s traditional support for the Palestinians.

As Kapoor confirms, the Times of Israel lent context to Gandhi’s quote by reminding its readers that India’s leader had criticised Zionism in 1938, and its efforts to reduce the proud Arabs. Haaretz also headlined India’s unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause even as it sought closer ties with Israel. Despite Netanyahu’s friend Modi occupying India’s highest seat of power, it seems pretty clear that New Delhi’s opposition to the Israeli occupation hasn’t changed, nor has its advocacy of two states within the 1967 borders.

Any hope cherished by Netanyahu of radical changes have been dashed. Modi may be a “dear friend” who has opened up India’s defence and military wallets by expanding huge new contracts with Israel, but politically, the latter remains on tenterhooks, walking on eggshells.

The writer is an Executive Member of the Media Review Network in Johannesburg

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.