At ‘Palestine: Endless Occupation, Permanent Crisis’, a colloquium organised by the Asian College of Journalism in Chennai on Sunday, a retired diplomat, an academic and a retired Air Force officer discussed the geopolitical implications of the Israel-Hamas war.
Former Indian diplomat Rakesh Sood said the idea of the ‘Two-state solution’ was “steadily undermined” by the right-wing governments in Israel for the last 25 years and the U.S. and the international community “did very little to stop that. They just stood by.”
U.S. relations with Israel are probably undergoing the “most severe test”, he said, adding the European Union was divided because it was scared of the “refugee outflow”. The Chinese liked the idea of the U.S. being distracted, but at the same time, they were “not comfortable with the economic fallout of the continuing or expanding conflict”, he said.
Professor P.R. Kumaraswamy, chair, Centre for West Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, pointed out that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who assumed office in 2004, visited India six times until now but he could not set foot in Gaza strip even once.
When one talks about Palestinians, “there is a de facto separation” which exists on the ground today, he contended, and asked: “If Israel can’t unite the Palestinians, what will unite?” Rejecting the ideas of ‘Three-state solution’ and ‘One-state solution’ for the Israel-Palestine conflict, Mr. Kumaraswamy contended that the “realistic solution” and “only viable option” was the ‘Two-state solution’, even as he acknowledged that it was quite difficult to achieve.
Though there were criticisms of the U.S., Professor Kumaraswamy contended: “No matter how difficult it is, how biased the U.S. is, today we don’t have anyone other than the U.S. to do the heavy-lifting.”
Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, chairman of The Peninsula Foundation said: “In geopolitics, the geopolitical interests are governed by ruthless economic interest, and in it lies exploitation and extraction for the great powers.” He said Israel was a “geopolitical outpost” of the great powers and the “villains” were the U.S. and the U.K.
The retired Air Force officer said the American concept of war-fighting is to use enormous firepower to demolish the adversary, and “they don’t make any difference” between the military and civilian targets. “The U.S. would say it is collateral damage. No!” he said, and went on to list various examples to reiterate his contention.
Earlier, setting the context for the session as its moderator, Stanly Johny, International Affairs Editor of The Hindu, pointed out that even after the Israelis pulled back from Gaza in 2005, Gaza “has not been freed” and had been under a blockade since 2007.
The United States’ continuing unconditional support for Israel’s military operation was creating other issues in the region -- both for the U.S. and for others in the region, Mr. Stanly said, and highlighted what he described as the “interesting” contrast between Washington’s policy towards different conflicts -- Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s attack on Gaza.
“With regard to Russia, the U.S. has mobilised western public opinion and imposed sanctions on Russia,” Mr. Stanly said, adding, “It has been 100 days of Israeli bombardment of Gaza and the Biden administration still has not even called for a ceasefire.”
Sashi Kumar, chairman, Asian College of Journalism, welcomed the gathering quoting Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts on the Israel-Palestine issue, published in Harijan in 1938: “My sympathies are all with the Jews. But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice.”
