India and Ahmadinejad's visit

Friends with Iran or kiss of death?

Rediff News April 28, 2008 15:01 IST
As he touches down in New Delhi on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be having the last laugh. Not long ago Prime Minister Manmohan Singh skipped a summit meeting just to avoid being seen with the Iranian leader. What began as a stopover en route from Sri Lanka has blossomed into a hectic State visit.

This is a compromise between a full-fledged State visit and keeping distance from Iran. Not to be left behind, Pakistan hosts the Iranian leader on his way to Sri Lanka. During the few hours in the capital, the visitor would be meeting top Indian leaders, including President Pratibha Patil, Vice President and former ambassador to Iran M H Ansari, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and perhaps Congress President Sonia Gandhi. It is still not clear if Leader of Opposition L K Advani would be meeting the visitor separately.

The visit marks an interesting phase in India's foreign policy. This is the first formal meeting between the mercurial Iranian leader and Prime Minister Singh. Ever since he was elected President in July 2005, Ahmadinejad has been trying to consolidate his stature and international acceptance. With Western criticisms and disapprovals getting louder, he needed to be seen in different parts of the world and courted by prominent world leaders.�He visited all major non-Western powers such as China, Russia and of course Venezuela, which has emerged as the torchbearer of growing anti-Americanism in the Third World.

Partly to further Indo-Iranian ties, but primarily to enhance his international profile and acceptance, Ahmadinejad has been keen to meet Indian leaders. Such an opportunity came in June 2006 during the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Council where both India and Iran are 'observers'. Timing, however, was bad. Photo opportunity with Ahmadinejad, the Indian leader feared, would have hardened the critics of the nuclear deal then on Capitol Hill. Hence, Dr Singh skipped that meeting and instead sent Petroleum Minister Murli Deora.

Indeed when Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went to Teheran in February last year, the Iranian officials ambushed him by suggesting a summit meeting among leaders of India, Iran and Pakistan to sort out their differences over the gas pipeline.

Thus, by hosting the Iranian leader, what does India convey to the outside world? Going by the working of the UPA government, one can infer a few possible explanations.

The visit is most likely to be used by the government to exhibit its 'independent' foreign policy vis-a-vis the US. This would partially assuage the Left and its supporters within the establishment. Spin doctors might stretch it further and hope that by hosting the Iranian leader the government could make the Left 'flexible' on the nuclear deal.

The sudden silence adopted by the US following its initial displeasure over the Indian decision should also be seen within this context. Washington might see the visit as a small price for larger cooperation with India. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad's visit would not turn things around.

It is more likely that the visit is a signal that the UPA government has given up on the nuclear deal. India courting the Iranian leader is the last thing US President George Bush needed to pacify the critics of the nuclear deal, especially when the Administration is preparing tougher economic sanctions against the Iranian banking system. With the American presidential elections only weeks away, New Delhi is perhaps least concerned about needling Washington.

Two, as a host of developments such as loan waivers, pay commission report, creamy layer debate etc indicate, India is definitely in election mode. Diplomatic parlays with Islamic countries are politically sensible and advantageous to the Congress party. This visit comes within days after Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee's much delayed trip to Saudi Arabia.

As National Security Advisor M K Narayanan unabashedly admitted, there is a Shia angle to Ahmadinejad's visit. In simple English, do not forget the elections in Karnataka!

Three, as Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi recognised in 1989, anti-Americanism plays well during Lok Sabha elections. A person who was keen to promote closer ties with Washington, he suddenly threw caution to the winds and publicly warned: naani yaad dilayenge. Hence, one should not rule out the possibility of negative reactions from the US after the visit playing a prominent role in electioneering in India.

Four, there are suggestions that outstanding disputes with Iran over the energy supplies could be resolved during the visit. All the three major energy deals with Iran -- namely, pipeline via Pakistan, LNG supplies and energy exploration -- are entangled in price disputes, technological difficulties or other controversies. They cannot be resolved amicably during the short visit but both sides might establish a mechanism for resolution and claim 'breakthrough or win-win deal'.

Whatever the outcome, India would be paying more for the LNG deal than what then Oil Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar signed in January 2005.

Five, Ahmadinejad is the third Iranian President to visit India since the 1979 Islamic revolution. The visits by Hashemi Rafsanjani in April 1995 and Mohammed Khatami in January 2003 happened when Iran abandoned its belligerency towards the outside world and was adopting a more conciliatory policy towards its Arab neighbours.

Ahmadinejad is literally antithetical to both these leaders. Not only he is moving the country back to radicalism, but has adopted stands that unnerve a number of Iran's Arab and non-Arab neighbours. His periodic Holocaust denials have displeased even Khatami who publicly rebuked the Iranian President.

The nuclear bellicosity has put Iran on a confrontationist path not just with the West. The three resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council (two of them unanimously) do not speak well of Iran's international stature. Even friendly countries such as Russia and China are no longer willing to accept the Iranian version on the nuclear issue.

Six, though they could never say it in public due to geo-political compulsions, the Arab countries are equally worried about Iran. Even without the nuclear genie, Iran has not hesitated to be a regional bully and ready to play the Shia card whenever necessary. Many Iranian officials are gleeful about the failure of American policy in Iraq and the resultant Shia crescent that extends from Bahrain to Bekaa valley in Lebanon.

Not long ago Saudi King Abdullah accused Teheran of 'converting' Iraqi Sunnis into Shia faith. Indeed, Ahmadinejad's stopover which comes within days after Mukherjee's Saudi visit would cause anxieties in Riyadh.

The foreign policy establishment has often got things wrong, and its 'reading' of the Nepalese elections is the latest example. Wishful thinking often masquerades as assessment. Iran should not be different. Driven by short term gains, India is rolling out the red carpet to Ahmadinejad.

There is nothing wrong if the Indian government concluded that friendship with Iran is more important than the nuclear deal or closer ties with the US. One can recognise, discover and if necessary even invent Iranian virtues. But if India pretends that it would be business as usual the day after, then it would find Ahmadinejad's visit to be a kiss of death.

Web version:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/28guest.htm

Mubarak's Chutzpah

Cairo treating India with contempt
New Indian Express (Chennai), Monday April 14 2008 16:39 IST

On Thursday a section of the Indian media reported that Egyptian diplomats in New Delhi were hoping for a summit meeting between the leaders of the two countries before India goes to polls sometime next year. Following Tuesday Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inaugurated the first summit meeting with a host of African heads of states. Later that evening an eminent panel headed by Vice President M H Ansari announced that the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding for 2007 would be bestowed upon India's long-time friend and President of Iceland Dr Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.

What is common to all the three developments that happened in the first week of April is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak! Cairo's hope for a summit "before" the next Lok Sabha election is an unconcealed euphuism for its leader being the chief guest at the 2009 Republic Day celebrations. If other Middle Eastern leaders such as Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika (2001), Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (2003) and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (2006) were given such honours, how could India ignore Mubarak?

At the African summit, Egyptian President was the most noticeable absentee. Some leaders make powerful statements by their presence and some by their conspicuous absence.

Mubarak opted for the latter. His action is yet another reminder of not only the state of IndoEgyptian relations but also the contempt with which Cairo treats India and its leadership.

This is in quiet contrast to his attitude towards others where Mubarak uses his charm offensive. He was in Beijing 2006 when China hosted a summit meeting with African leaders in November 2006. Indeed just weeks ago, he had a highly successful visit to Moscow. For long New Delhi, however, has not figured in his radar screen.

Thirdly, the panel which announced the Nehru award for 2007 could not be unaware that for over a decade the prize money and citation for 1995 is gathering dust because Mubarak could not find time to come to New Delhi and receive the honour.

In July 1997 with much fanfare and also with some diplomatic calculations, a panel headed by the then Vice President K R Narayanan selected the Egyptian leader for the Nehru award for 1995. Besides recognising his contribution to international peace, especially to the Middle East peace process, the move was aimed at garnering some diplomatic mileage.

Ever since India normalised relations with Israel in January 1992, a chill wind was blowing from Nile as Cairo emerged a major critic of India's new-found fondness for Israel. Hence, New Delhi hoped that an award named after Nehru, who is still remembered and revered in the region, might mitigate and assuage Egyptian sensitivities. Partly for this reason soon after the normalisation of relations with Israel, it opened the Maulana Azad Centre for Indian Culture in Cairo.

More than a decade later, however, the Nehru award is yet to be conferred upon Mubarak. On two occasions his visit was cancelled at the last minute. Once President Narayanan was indisposed and on another occasion, turbulent events in the region prevented Mubarak from making his trip. But ten years is far too long even for genuine diplomatic excuses.

As per the procedure, the panel that selects the Nehru award is headed by the Vice President with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court functioning as the ex-officio member. Since July 1997 when the award for Mubarak was announced, India had three Vice Presidents and as many as ten new Chief Justices.

Avoiding names, in December 2002 the government told Rajya Sabha that the Nehru award for 1995 "was awarded in the year 1997. Despite concerted efforts having been made, the Awardee has not yet been able to come to India to receive the award."

For their part, the Egyptian diplomats were equally ingenious. Without offering any reason or explanation for the inordinate delays, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry proudly claims that New Delhi "continuously renews the invitation to President Mubarak to … receive the prize." Indeed, Mubarak has also skipped or avoided multilateral summits organised by India such as the G 15 summit in 1994.

The behaviour of Egyptian leader is in complete contrast to the attitude of many other leaders and figures. During the past decade New Delhi has become the favourite destination of many world leaders, East and West and Developed and Developing.

Among others, it has hosted two sitting US Presidents, heads of states of all the major powers, scores of western leaders and Third World personalities. Many countries of the Middle East have discovered the growing importance of India and want to capitalise on its economic growth through high-profiled visits. Egypt was not one of them. Even the highly publicised visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in September 2003 was insufficient to galvanise the Egyptian indifference.

By conferring honours named after leaders such as Nehru, India hopes to promote its interests and influence in different parts of world. Unlike political leverages and economic clout, cultural diplomacy resents the soft power and is both effective and harmonising. The attitude of Mubarak, thus, raises serious questions about the rationale behind such cultural diplomacy.

The Egyptian failure to arrange Mubarak's visit for nearly a decade also indicates the current status of Indo-Egyptian relations. This is in contrast to the heydays of friendship between Nehru and President Gamal Abdul Nasser. Both leaders met over a dozen times and Cairo was a constant stopover for many of Nehru's sojourns to Europe.

World has changed a lot and so is the Egyptian attitude. While Mubarak could not be forced to come to India, the latter could learn something out of this bitter experience. If India and its leaders are less important, there is no reason for New Delhi to be generous towards Cairo. Having treated the award named after India's first Prime Minister with such distain and contempt, Egypt now wants a sweetener.

But expecting Mubarak to be the Chief Guest at next year's Republic Day celebrations is nothing short of chutzpah.

Web version:

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE720080414061744&Page=7&Title=TheOped&Topic=0

India Egypt

Mubarak's chutzpah

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE720080414061744&Page=7&Title=TheOped&Topic=0

Mubarak's Chutzpah

Mubarak's Chutzpah - Cairo treating India with contempt
New Delhi hopes that an award named after Nehru might mitigate and assuage Egyptian sensitivities

New Indian Express (Chennai), April 14, 2008

Web Link:

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE720080414061744&Page=7&Title=TheOped&Topic=0

On Thursday a section of the Indian media reported that Egyptian diplomats in New Delhi were hoping for a summit meeting between the leaders of the two countries before India goes to polls sometime next year. Following Tuesday Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inaugurated the first summit meeting with a host of African heads of states. Later that evening an eminent panel headed by Vice President M H Ansari announced that the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding for 2007 would be bestowed upon India's long-time friend and President of Iceland Dr Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.

What is common to all the three developments that happened in the first week of April is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak! Cairo's hope for a summit "before" the next Lok Sabha election is an unconcealed euphuism for its leader being the chief guest at the 2009 Republic Day celebrations. If other Middle Eastern leaders such as Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika (2001), Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (2003) and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (2006) were given such honours, how could India ignore Mubarak?

At the African summit, Egyptian President was the most noticeable absentee. Some leaders make powerful statements by their presence and some by their conspicuous absence.

Mubarak opted for the latter. His action is yet another reminder of not only the state of IndoEgyptian relations but also the contempt with which Cairo treats India and its leadership.

This is in quiet contrast to his attitude towards others where Mubarak uses his charm offensive. He was in Beijing 2006 when China hosted a summit meeting with African leaders in November 2006. Indeed just weeks ago, he had a highly successful visit to Moscow. For long New Delhi, however, has not figured in his radar screen.

Thirdly, the panel which announced the Nehru award for 2007 could not be unaware that for over a decade the prize money and citation for 1995 is gathering dust because Mubarak could not find time to come to New Delhi and receive the honour.

In July 1997 with much fanfare and also with some diplomatic calculations, a panel headed by the then Vice President K R Narayanan selected the Egyptian leader for the Nehru award for 1995. Besides recognising his contribution to international peace, especially to the Middle East peace process, the move was aimed at garnering some diplomatic mileage.

Even since India normalised relations with Israel in January 1992, a chill wind was blowing from Nile as Cairo emerged a major critic of India's new-found fondness for Israel. Hence, New Delhi hoped that an award named after Nehru, who is still remembered and revered in the region, might mitigate and assuage Egyptian sensitivities. Partly for this reason soon after the normalisation of relations with Israel, it opened the Maulana Azad Centre for Indian Culture in Cairo.

More than a decade later, however, the Nehru award is yet to be conferred upon Mubarak. On two occasions his visit was cancelled at the last minute. Once President Narayanan was indisposed and on another occasion, turbulent events in the region prevented Mubarak from making his trip. But ten years is far too long even for genuine diplomatic excuses.

As per the procedure, the panel that selects the Nehru award is headed by the Vice President with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court functioning as the ex-officio member. Since July 1997 when the award for Mubarak was announced, India had three Vice Presidents and as many as ten new Chief Justices.

Avoiding names, in December 2002 the government told Rajya Sabha that the Nehru award for 1995 "was awarded in the year 1997.

Despite concerted efforts having been made, the Awardee has not yet been able to come to India to receive the award."

For their part, the Egyptian diplomats were equally ingenious. Without offering any reason or explanation for the inordinate delays, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry proudly claims that New Delhi "continuously renews the invitation to President Mubarak to … receive the prize." Indeed, Mubarak has also skipped or avoided multilateral summits organised by India such as the G 15 summit in 1994.

The behaviour of Egyptian leader is in complete contrast to the attitude of many other leaders and figures. During the past decade New Delhi has become the favourite destination of many world leaders, East and West and Developed and Developing.

Among others, it has hosted two sitting US Presidents, heads of states of all the major powers, scores of western leaders and Third World personalities. Many countries of the Middle East have discovered the growing importance of India and want to capitalise on its economic growth through high-profiled visits. Egypt was not one of them. Even the highly publicised visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in September 2003 was insufficient to galvanise the Egyptian indifference.

By conferring honours named after leaders such as Nehru, India hopes to promote its interests and influence in different parts of world. Unlike political leverages and economic clout, cultural diplomacy resents the soft power and is both effective and harmonising. The attitude of Mubarak, thus, raises serious questions about the rationale behind such cultural diplomacy.

The Egyptian failure to arrange Mubarak's visit for nearly a decade also indicates the current status of Indo-Egyptian relations. This is in contrast to the heydays of friendship between Nehru and President Gamal Abdul Nasser. Both leaders met over a dozen times and Cairo was a constant stopover for many of Nehru's sojourns to Europe.

World has changed a lot and so is the Egyptian attitude. While Mubarak could not be forced to come to India, the latter could learn something out of this bitter experience. If India and its leaders are less important, there is no reason for New Delhi to be generous towards Cairo. Having treated the award named after India's first Prime Minister with such distain and contempt, Egypt now wants a sweetener.

But expecting Mubarak to be the Chief Guest at next year's Republic Day celebrations is nothing short of chutzpah.

Bribes threaten Indo-Israeli military ties

Investigations into corruption and bribes surrounding the Barak missile deal threatens to upset growing Indo-Israeli ties, ISN Security Watch (01/04/08)

Military ties, the most visible manifestation of Indo-Israeli relations, are being undermined from within by corruption and bribery. To ensure the smooth functioning of its growing military exports, leading Israeli companies have greased a few Indian palms – actions that are now threatening to blow up into a major controversy.

In October 2000, under the government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, India signed a US$250 million Barak missile deal with Israel. Within months, media began revealing large-scale corruption involving senior political figures and arms merchants.

Besides the usual defense agents and greedy politicians, the scandal has also involved members of the naval fraternity. Suresh Nanda - son of the former naval chief who headed the Indian navy during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war - is the prime suspect. He is estimated to have earned about US$100 million in commissions for the Barak deal, while some smaller amounts went to the friends of George Fernandes, India's defense minister at the time the deal was signed. The investigative agencies have also questioned Admiral Sushil Kumar, the then-commander of the Indian Navy.

Furthermore, recommendations against the procurement of Barak by APJ Abdul Kalam, the-then scientific advisor and later on president, worked against the deal, especially when bribes appeared to have tilted the scales.

Defense deals have always been controversial, especially since New Delhi sought to lessen its dependency on Russia. Because its ties with Moscow were tightly controlled and managed, one never heard of money changing hands even when the USSR remained India's most favored arms supplier. Its desire to diversify defense procurements brought in arms merchants who understood and worked within the pulses of the Indian establishment.

In the 1980s, a bribery scandal involving the Swedish Bofors Company adversely affected the electoral prospects of then-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and cost the Congress party dearly. The long-drawn controversy was largely responsible for the party losing its nation-wide appeal and popularity.

Since then, Indian leaders have been arguing against using middlemen and agents in defense contrast. However, given the complexity of the process, legendary Indian bureaucratic bottlenecks and cut throat completions, conducting major defense deals without agents is nearly impossible.

For its part, the Indian defense establishment is maintaining that the Barak deal was a good acquisition that was badly executed. Similar arguments were put forth by the army at the height of the Bofors scandal: good gun, bad procedure.

Partly with political calculations in mind, upon coming to power in May 2004, the government of Manmohan Singh instituted probes into 48 major defense contracts signed by the previous government. And the Barak deal is not the only one under scrutiny.

According to media reports, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz is investigating Moshe Keret - the CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for 20 year until 2005 for his role in the Phalcon spy plane deal. The judiciary in Israel has issued a gag order against disclosing the identity of another arms dealer involved in the probe.

As per the original deal signed with China, Israel was to supply four spy planes for US$1 billion. When the US scuttled that deal, Israel found a new buyer in India and agreed to sell three planes for US$1.1 billion. According to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, though the Indian deal is still in the implementation phase, "the agent has received an advance of millions of dollars with many more millions promised."

The investigative agencies are closing in on the Indian beneficiaries of the Barak deal, but at the same time, the Indian government will not be able to remain silent on the role played by the Israeli companies.

Already the communist parties who are highly critical of India's defense ties with Israel have jumped at the opportunity and have demanded the blacklisting of Israeli companies involved in the scam. Should the Indian government accept their plea, leading firms such as the state-owned Rafael will be affected as it is involved in a number of defense deals with India.

Within a short span of 15 years, Israel has emerged as the second largest arms supplier to India and New Delhi the prime export destination for Israeli arms. In recent months, both countries are moving into joint defense research and other forms of security cooperation. Despite some disquiet in countries such as Iran and Egypt, both are keen to establish a long-term defense partnership.

Seen in this larger context, the Barak scandal is a major setback and will haunt both defense establishments for a long time to come.

For web version:

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=18805

Israel and Hamas

Israel, Hamas need a strategy

New Indian Express, (Chennai), Wednesday 26, 2008

ONGOING violence between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas is heading for one interesting pos sibility, namely, both sides burying their hatchet and seeking a temporary truce. While full recognition and formal negotiations are still far off, some form of rational interaction between the warring sides is increasingly become inevitable. It is matter of "when" and not "if."

For both sides, military option has become ineffective and politically problematic. A growing number of countries feel that Israel's response to the barrage of Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip has been disproportionate.

Even those who sympathise with Israel and endorse its right to defend its civilian population are extremely concerned over the mounting Palestinian civilian casualties. In the latest round, the Israeli forces killed over 100 Palestinians, a vast majority of whom being non-combatants.

Advanced technology and human intelligence significantly diminish the chances of civilian casualties. But the world is yet to witness a weapon that only targets militants, leaving the unarmed unharmed. As Israel often recognises, even targeted killing would have to be extremely accurate, if civilian deaths were to be avoided.

Moreover, as the world once again learnt, Israel lacks an effective military strategy vis-à-vis the militants. Since the late-1980s, it has been fighting a host of militant groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and factions of mainstream Fatah. More than two decades later, however, Israel is yet to evolve an effective and successful military strategy against non-state actors. In short, Israel's response has not only been disproportionate but also ineffective. If it were to protect its civilian population from rocket attacks, Israel needs a strategy that works.

Even for Hamas the military option has been ineffective and costlier. For months Palestinian militants have been launching Qassam rockets against Sderot in the Negev. In recent weeks, they managed to strike the port city of Ashkelon north of the Gaza Strip. While Israel's human casualties remained small, these rockets have completely disrupted the daily lives of thousands of Israeli civilians, made them vulnerable and exposed the limitations of national defence. Minimal property damage was accompanied by large-scale psychological hardships and fear among Israelis.

By escalating the rocket attacks against Israel, Hamas not only exhibited its capability but also challenged Israeli military might. That it was able to launch Qassams despite massive Israeli responses underscore Hamas' determination, arsenal and organisational effectiveness. The large scale destruction of civilian infrastructure by Israel has not weakened the militants. Put it mildly, Hamas is unable to provide basic necessities to the people of the Gaza Strip but can still deliver Qassam rockets against Israel! This however has not changed the fortunes of the Hamas. International sympathy for the Palestinians is accompanied by widespread disapproval of rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Even those Arab countries which have little sympathy for Israel are unable to understand let alone endorse the strategy pursued by Hamas-held the Gaza Strip authorities. Not even in private mainstream Arab leaders are prepared to endorse rocket attacks against Israel.

Moreover the military strength has not resulted in any improvement in the political fortunes of Hamas. The political isolation of Hamas-held the Gaza Strip is far from over. Despite the obvious limitations, the international community or those who matter, continue to rely on the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas. The widespread Arab sympathy over Israeli reprisals has not transformed into pro-Hamas sympathies. No Arab ruler is prepared to shift his support from Abbas to Hamas.

Thus, Hamas also needs a strategy that would end its isolation and garner political dividends. While Qassam rockets can ensure its military strength, they are not a sign of Hamas' political acceptance.

Thus, their failed military strategy would eventually force Israel and Hamas to re-examine their attitude towards one another. For Israel, Abbas-led Palestinian Authority is preferable because it is moderate, believes in co-existence and also worked with Israel for over a decade.

But on the flip side, it lacks popular support and becoming increasingly marginalised.

On the critical question preventing Qassam rockets, the effectiveness of Abbas is less than zero. Any meaningful Israeli strategy against Qassam therefore would mean Israel seeking some tacit understanding with Hamas, even if this means undermining Abbas and his determination to isolate the Islamic militants. In short, if Israel were to stop Qassam rockets, Abbas is not the address.

Even if this does not mean mutual recognition, sooner or later Israel will have to deal with Hamas politically.

The Islamic militants also have no option but to deal with Israel politically. Ironic as it might sound, the ability of Hamas to end its diplomatic isolation depends upon Israel. In September 1993 the White House rolled out a red carpet welcome to Yasser Arafat because the Palestinian leader was acceptable to Israel. This changed radically when Arafat ceased to be a peace partner. Israel's isolation of the Palestinian leader resulted in the US disengaging from the Palestinian leader. Pro-Arafat Arab countries did nothing to his confinement within his Ramallah compound.

The fate of Hamas will not be different. Its ability to emerge as a player in the Middle East peace process would inevitably require some Israel acquiescence, acceptance and gradual recognition. Without that Hamas will not be able to convert its military attacks against Israel into political dividends. By offering security guarantees to Israel in the form of suspension of Qassam attacks, Hamas could emerge as meaningful political player in the Middle East.

For its part, ensuring civilian security is of paramount importance to Israel rather than ideological rigidity towards dealing with Hamas. If it can rein in and control its rank and file Hamas will find Israel to be its partner. An effective hardliner like Hamas is a rational choice for Israel rather than ineffective moderates like Abbas.

Israel may be less sensitive towards the sufferings of the Palestinians but it is hyper about its own casualties. This will inevitably force Israel to re-examine its policy towards Hamas.

Here the Palestinians are at a great disadvantage. By elevating them as martyrs, Hamas has reduced the Palestinians as a cannon fodder for its suicidal policies. Time has thus come for Hamas to re-examine the efficacy of its military strategy within the context of Palestinian suffering. Palestinians lives should be protected and cherished and not squandered on mindless militant ideology. If it wants the international community to abhor the killing of innocent civilians, the Palestinian leadership, especially the Hamas should start valuing the lives of the Palestinians. The living souls are as valuable as the dead. When they start valuing lives of their own people a bit more seriously, the Israel-Hamas cooperation becomes inevitable.

Gaza crisis

Exodus to catastrophe?

New Indian Express, Chennai, Feb 12, 2008

THE massive humanitarian catastrophe along the Gaza-Egypt border underscores the shortsighted attitude of various Middle Eastern leaders and the apathy of the international community. Literally over half a million Palestinians broke into Egypt, something many had not anticipated. Cornered by prolonged Israeli economic blockade, international isolation and Arab indifference, there were no option before the people of the impoverished the Gaza Strip.

For months the Gaza Strip was like a tightly sealed pressure cooker waiting to explode. The intensification of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip in mid-January was followed by severe shortage of fuel and food supplies.

Recognising the internal tensions, Hamas literally broke down the fragile barriers with Egypt north of the Rafah crossing and opened the floodgate.

Thousands of Gazans moved into the Sinai Peninsula to buy and stock up basic necessities such as bread.

However, given the magnitude of the human exodus, restoring status quo ante along the Gaza-Egypt border will be easier said than done. With none of the major players having any viable option, "stabilisation" is perhaps the best anyone could hope for, if that is possible.

The crisis once again underscored the limitations of Israel's skewed policy following its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. While pulling out from the Strip enjoyed widespread domestic support, it did not lead to an overall reshaping of Israel's foreign policy priorities. The Gaza pullout should have been followed by a similar withdrawal from large portions of the West Bank. While unilateralism was feasible in the Gaza Strip, any Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank would have to be a negotiated arrangement. The tragic stroke suffered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and inept leadership of Ehud Olmert meant that the Gaza withdrawal became an end in itself. It failed to become a part of a larger Israeli arrangement with the Palestin ian leadership.

Furthermore, as highlighted by the second Lebanon war in the summer of 2006 and the ongoing rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, Israel has not developed an effective response to militant groups. At one level, Israel cannot afford to expose its citizens to the constant barrage of Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip but at the same time, it is unable to go beyond retaliatory strikes that are ineffective.

The electoral victory of Hamas in January 2006 and its taking full control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of last year, meant Israel imposing a virtual embargo upon the nearly million and half Palestinians. When Israel tightened the restrictions, Palestinians broke through the barrier. As some Hamas leaders have warned, next time around Palestinians will flood into Israel, with ominous consequences.

Egypt is equally in a precarious situation. No country could accept such a large-scale uncontrolled movement of foreigners into its territory. What happened in Sinai was a virtual invasion.

Already fighting domestic militants, President Hosni Mubarak does not need another militant-related humanitarian crisis. Having sided with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian National Authority over the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, Mubarak has no option but to deal with the Islamic movements to re-establish border control. Even though success cannot be guaranteed, Egypt has very little option other than to re-engage with Hamas.

Progress on border control will heavily depend upon Cairo's ability to offer significant political concessions to Hamas and its preparedness to be a mediator between rival Palestinian factions. Though Mubarak had played such a role in the past, this time around, he would be doing it under duress, necessitated by the Palestinian exodus into Egypt.

At third level, the crisis has undermined the position of Abbas and his extravagant claims of being the sole representative of all Palestinians. Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, described by some as coup d'état, Abbas was unable to set foot in the Gaza Strip. Partly aimed at his western audience and supporters, he has scrupulously avoided any negotiations with Hamas.
In recent days Abbas has expressed his willingness to take ‘control' of the Gaza-Egypt border. This is a daydream. This will be possible only if Abbas is able to cooperate with Hamas. Otherwise the recognised Palestinian leadership will be a nonplayer in resolving the Gaza exodus.

Other players are also equally busy.

If the US is in the middle of an intense election campaign, the others have rarely changed anything in the Middle East for the better. As various other regional problems highlighted, the Arab League is reduced to being a talking shop.

Contrary to widespread perception, Hamas also has not come out well. By blowing up the fences, it was able to let go the internal tensions and provided a temporary air to the beleaguered peo ple of the Strip. By forcing Cairo to reengage with it, the group has also obtained some political mileage. The current crisis might also compel President Abbas to reevaluate his refusal to deal with Hamas. These are not insignificant.

But, if one takes a broader look, Hamas has also come out badly from the crisis. Ever since it's electoral victory in January 2006, the organisation has brought more miseries to Palestinians than benefits. While Israeli intransigence and Arab indifferences are crucial, Hamas also cannot escape from its share. Since the Oslo accord of 1993, Hamas has consistently challenged the legitimacy and authority of the Palestinian Authority and its chairman Yasser Arafat. It did all it could to sabotage the peace process.

After the 2006 electoral victory, Hamas sang a different tune: total Palestinian acceptance of its legitimacy, especially on the peace process.

Even the Saudi mediation which resulted in the Mecca accord was insufficient to bridge the internal schisms. Rather than working in tandem with the other groups, especially Fatah, Hamas violently challenged the authority of Abbas and took full control of the Gaza Strip.

Not many would have forgotten masked Hamas militants stamping over the portraits of Arafat when they took over Palestinian offices.

Not only has it refused to negotiate with Israel, Hamas has been continuously launching rockets into Israel, especially at the western Negev town of Sderot. Its refusal to reign in rocket attacks has resulted in Israeli retaliations and economic sanctions, which in turn ended in the Gaza-Egypt crisis. Hamas can divert the attention and blame Israel and others for the problem. But in the long run, it cannot escape the inevitable question: Is Hamas ready to take responsibility and start governing? Without serious soul searching by all major players, the current crisis is a step closer to catastrophe for Palestinian national aspirations.