How should it be viewed?

Lt. Gen. (Retd) Syed Ata Hasnain
A couple of things you need to know if you are angry about India voting against the US and Israel on the issue of the recognition given to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by the US under the Trump presidency. First, it wasn’t Trump who was the first to moot such recognition; in 1995 the US Congress passed a law that the US embassy in Israel be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As goes with US laws its non-implementation needs a Presidential waiver every six months. Three Presidents before Trump gave such a waiver continuously since then. Even Trump signed the waiver last time but this time waivered on the waiver and did not sign it. Second, under UN Resolution 181  Jerusalem was to have the status of ‘corpus separatum’, or a ‘separated body’, with a special legal and political status, administered by the UN. Admittedly, the Jewish community accepted that but the Palestinians did not. Since then while the Resolution remains alive history has witnessed attempts to change the status by force by both sides. The international community at large does not give recognition to any change by force and recognizes only Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital. Third, repeated attempts at resolving the Israel-Palestinian discord have in the past come to naught. However, President Trump in his presidential campaign promised to resolve the Israeli Palestinian discord through an ‘ultimate deal’. He has never been averse to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories and therefore the Palestinians have never really expected a solution from him.
Trump appointed his son in law Jared Kushner as the envoy on the Middle East and the latter has been in and out of Saudi Arabia. However, with the Palestinian Israel discord under no real pressure for immediate resolution and far more important issues relating to the stabilization of the Middle East at stake how did this conflict get raked up to further complicate an already overflowing cauldron? It is much to do with the Trump style of disruptive leadership. While sometimes such a style does trigger fresh approaches stemming strongly established narratives which can hardly change, it is also a truism that without a combination of facilitating circumstances and factors no disruptive style can work either. On a dispute as historical and deep rooted as this a trigger without an attempt to take others along does not work in serious diplomacy. Talmiz Ahmad, the former Indian envoy to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and a well-known expert on the Middle East, has in an interview averred to the need for Trump to play the American Jewish card along with that of the Evangelical Christian community in the US to garner electoral support in an era of his diminishing popularity. Even if we accept or not accept that argument it’s a natural wonderment whether anyone in his team has thought through the  situation and emerged with something so transformational that it will lead to an eventual ‘ultimate deal’. It was initially thought that Saudi and perhaps even GCC support for the move was already secured by Jared Kushner. However, the condemnation by Saudi Arabia has put paid any such overhauling and earth shaking action.
While Trump said “We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel”, perhaps a matching statement of support for the Palestinian demand for its capital ultimately being East Jerusalem could have created room for more positivity. However, Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for the two state arrangement and his support for the settlements will now only rake up Palestinian sentiments for more confrontation. The US embassy may not move in five years as a 91 acre plot allotted in Jerusalem has yet to be developed for construction. Or it could simply move to temporary premises to make a statement. Either way the possibility of a positive process towards the ‘ultimate deal’ seems far.
Before looking at the Indian connection and stance taken by India on the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution there may be a few interesting points of observation. The draft resolution rejecting the US move on Jerusalem had been vetoed in the UN Security Council by the US after 14 members voted in its favor before it was sent to the UNGA. The blatant US threat to cut off financial aid to nations voting for the motion did work to an extent with nine nations (mostly small South Pacific nations) supported the US. However, 35 nations abstained and 128 voted for the motion, including India.
In India informed discourse will optimally judge the government’s support for the UNGA resolution but with our emerging strategic partnership with the US and strong defence and technological relationship with Israel there will be a trend towards disappointment and some dismay. The best way to view this with strategic maturity is the manner in which Prime Minister Modi approached the whole issue of balancing India’s relationship with the Gulf/Arab world and Israel from the time he came to power. He carefully nurtured the relationship with the former for three years and then visited Israel. The Ministry of External Affairs has all along perfectly balanced the relationships which are both crucial. India can never tire of remembering the strategic outcomes of both relationships. Energy, diaspora, Chahbahar (Iran too is important), remittances and cutting edge technology, all are involved in these. Issue based approach which plays to our national interests is essential as outlined by successive governments. After all Israel and Iran remain sworn adversaries but India has maintained a relationship with both. Besides that in the world of strategic diplomacy only upfront attitudes don’t count; there is much which happens behind the scenes. Since 1992 when India established full diplomatic relations with Israel there has been little change in our approach towards the Palestinian cause and yet we have established a strong relationship with Israel. It is not as if the Jerusalem issue is going to blow into conflict tomorrow. All that India is following is a large scale international consensus which goes along with the original UN resolution that Jerusalem is neither the capital nor the territory of the two parties to the conflict. As to an abstention which many on social media favored, it may be prudent to be aware that a sudden change from support to abstention is akin to a major alteration of foreign policy; it is not as if not supporting either cause places India into a neutral dock.
(The Author is former GOC of  Srinagar based 15 Corps)
(By arrangement with Swarajya.com)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here