By: Gary Fitleberg
June 26, 2004

Is India’s new governmental regime favorable to Israel as its predecessor? Will it continue on the same course of the diplomatic road chosen by the former leaders such as Atal Behari Vajpayee who recognized the alliance would be in India’s best interest strategically in the “War on Terrorism” internationally. Especially one with arch enemy and neighbor Pakistan.

In a growing diplomatic, economic, military, political strategic alliance between India and Israel there may be a deeper commitment to the Arab Muslim world. One must keep a very close eye on the developing relationship between these to nations committed to peace and security and the fight against terrorism by extremist fanatical fundamentalists.

India`s new government values ties with Israel but will not be pursue them at the expense of relations with the Arab “Palestinians” and the rest of the Muslim world, according to Foreign Minister Natwar Singh.

Singh said it was unacceptable the “Quartet”-backed peace "Road Map" for Israelis and Arab “Palestinians” was stalled and that it was unrealistic to expect a solution without involving Palestinian Authority/Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yassar Arafat.

The new Congress-led government, which won power in a general election last month, laid a "very high importance on its relations" with the Muslim world, Singh told a news conference.

"We value our relations with Israel," he said. "But our relations with Israel will not be at the expense of sacrificing the legitimate rights and aspirations of the ‘Palestinian’ people."

The outgoing government of Atal Behari Vajpayee fostered ties with Israel, which has become the second largest supplier of military hardware to India after Russia.

But the Congress party, which ruled India for most of the first four decades after independence from Britain in 1947, has traditionally been more distant with Israel.

"All we are saying, and even the friends of Israel are saying, the United States is saying, that is what is happening now is unacceptable because the Road Map...has got stalled," Singh said.

"And to expect that you can find a solution for ‘Palestine’ without Mr. Arafat in our judgment is unrealistic."

One needs to clearly recognize that Arafat is the “Chairman of Terror” and is responsible for the murder and mayhem in a bloody campaign f hatred, incitement, terrorism, and violence which has exploded in the Middle East region because the world accepts him as a legitimate leader rather than what he truly is – a corrupt dictator and repressive ruler whose ego, financial self-interest, and symbolism is more important than proper clothing, food, healthcare and shelter for his own people.

Arafat had the opportunity for statehood but boldly and coldly turned his back and walked away from an unprecedented offer which would have given his people East Jerusalem as capital, 100% of Gaza, and 97% of the ancient biblical and modern “disputed territories” of Israel’s Judea & Samaria (wrongly called “West Bank” by most of the world today) without even so much as a counter offer.

Arafat must never ever be part of an so-called peace process.

Gary Fitleberg

(Gary Fitleberg is a Political Analyst specializing in International Relations with emphasis on Middle East affairs.)