Wolves in the Sacred Land: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 May 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
25 May 2017
• Wolves In The Sacred Land
By Imtiaz Alam
• Saudis Need to Be Wary of Trump’s Intentions
By M. Ziauddin
• A Perspective of Trump Visit to KSA
By Dr Muhammad Khan
• Defending Malala
By Dr Shenila Khoja-Moolji
• Indo-Israel Connect
By Syed Qamar A Rizvi
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Wolves in the Sacred Land
By Imtiaz Alam
May 25, 2017
US President Trump proclaimed his exceptional achievement in uniting the Arab Sheikhdoms with Israel on “shared concerns” about Iran. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu was also quick to acknowledge the development as “promising” and said that “common threats have turned former enemies (most Arabs) into allies”. This is the outcome of the dance of the wolves in the sacred land. We should have kept out of this since we can neither be neutral nor play the role of mediator.
The summit meeting between the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) resolved to isolate and target Iran as the harbinger of terrorism while putting the Palestinian issue on the backburner and diverting the focus from fighting the predominantly Wahhabi/Takfeeri terrorism to Shia militia like the Hezbollah, the Alawites in Syria and Zaidi Houthis in Yemen. The price was too high for an Ummah that is bitterly divided on sectarian and nationalist lines between the Arabs and Ajamis – who have been historically too willing to be prompted by the imperialist powers, the US in particular – to continue to indulge in a fratricidal conflict.
Trump reaped the benefits via unprecedented military sales worth $110 billion for a miniscule (“Muslim Nato”) army of 34,000 men and over $240 billion of business contracts plus the loyalty of the Arabs to tame Iran and strengthen Israel. The promise for peace between Israel and Palestinians remains an eyewash due to the heavy US tilt towards Israel at the cost of the Palestinians and the unreliability of this maverick American president, not to mention the Arab betrayal.
The follow-up Arab-Islamic-American Summit was just to showcase the alignment of a major part of the ‘Ummah’ with the US under Muslim-basher Trump against Iran at a time when the Iranian moderates and reformists had defeated the rabid right-wing candidate with a big majority for President Rouhani in both local council elections and the presidential race. In his response, President Rouhani kept his cool while vowing to pursue the reform process at home and the dialogue process with the West.
What is, however, not understandable is why non-Arab Muslim countries, including Pakistan, were at the summit where they were taken as mere lackeys at the cost of causing a sectarian divide among and in Muslim-majority countries? Even more ridiculous was the way the Pakistani media ridiculed the plight of its clueless prime minister and praised the ‘attention’ General (r) Raheel Sharif got as the helmsman of a supposedly mercenary army in the service of the House of Saud.
Ever since the colonisation of the Middle East, redrawing of its map and creation of a settler Jewish state after the Holocaust, by displacing the Palestinians, the region has remained in the grip of a variety of conflicts, thanks to ethnic and sectarian divisions and the competing interests of the colonialists. The first challenge to imperialist domination was made by the then prime minister of Iran, Dr Mossadegh, who nationalised the oil companies owned by foreign powers. He was overthrown by the CIA with the help of its lackeys and Reza Shah Pahlavi was brought to power to become the policeman of the region.
A series of nationalist and Baathist revolutions and the success of the Algerian national liberation movement created a countervailing authoritarian popular force to challenge American and European hegemony and exploitation of Arab resources. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision to take over the Suez Canal infuriated the Western powers and a nationalist wave swept the Arab world. But the defeat of the Egyptian and Syrian armies at the hands of Israel in 1967 broke the back of Arab nationalism. While Egypt under Sadaat took the road of Camp David for capitulation with Israel and Shah Husain of Jordan made a separate peace with Tel Aviv, the Palestinians were left alone to suffer in the occupied lands in the Gaza strip and the West Bank.
It was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and its affiliates under Yasser Arafat that kept the flame of national resistance alive. But the Palestinians were repeatedly massacred and their resistance regularly crushed by both Israel and the Arabs. While promoting fundamentalist movements against nationalist regimes, which were quite repressive, and strengthening an exclusionary democratic Israel, the US and its Nato allies continued to patronise reactionary monarchies and military regimes in Pakistan and Turkey. Thanks to the cold war and a bi-polar world, the nationalist regimes survived and a steadfast front was created to counter Israel and Western hegemony.
The Iranian revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini and the Saur revolution of Afghanistan were a huge setback to American hegemony in the region. Then the US and its allies launched the Afghan Jihad with Gen Ziaul Haq as their henchman. That not only created a community of jihadi warriors but also a jihadi doctrine that continue to bleed the Muslim world and threaten the West with terrorism that climaxed with the 9/11 attacks.
With the end of the cold war and voluntary dissolution of the Soviet Union, the space for nationalist authoritarian Arab regimes was also eroded. One by one, all nationalist countries, including Iraq, Libya and Syria, were torn apart and leaders like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain were eliminated. The Arab Peace Plan was floated and the Oslo initiative brought together Israel and the PLO. Later, the two-state formula was floated; it was accepted by the PLO, but the Israelis continued their occupation as well as expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied lands. We witnessed the Intifada and then a division in Palestinian ranks.
With the fiasco of the Arab Spring, reactionary forces were strengthened in the Arab world and Iran emerged as a theocratic revolutionary power against the most archaic regimes. In the meanwhile, the void created by the destruction of nationalist regimes was filled by extremist Sunni militias. With the survival of the Bashar regime in Syria and expansion of Iranian influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, the Middle East has turned into a sectarian killing field – of Muslims by Muslims.
All this happened through a policy of divide, control and plunder. Multinationals made huge revenues from oil trade and Arab sheiks lived on rent for wasteful consumption – leaving little for real progress of their people except building huge concrete structures.
Pakistan, except for the Bhutto period, has remained a loyal ally of the US all through its history. Exceptionally, the Pakistani Parliament recently rightly decided not to take sides and keep out of the quagmires of Syria and Yemen. That is why it was even more troubling to see Pakistan’s name included – without the official consent of the government – in the formation of the so-called ‘Islamic Army’. The powers that be somehow pushed Pakistan towards the Saudis, with Gen (r) Raheel Sharif accepting King Salman’s offer to become the commander of an army that has estranged yet another important neighbor of Pakistan – Iran – with whom we don’t have any territorial dispute.
The prime minister should have avoided the embarrassment of participating in a conference that did not suit our national interests. Realising the dilemma, he has tried to beat a retreat by saying that Pakistan has not yet decided about its participation in this alliance that suits the US and Israel.
After our Afghan Jihad disaster, this is yet another defining moment. We need to avoid committing yet another fatal mistake that may cause the implosion of our state from within. We have to get out of conflict with all our neighbors and focus on our economy, institution building, consolidation of democracy, peace in the region and above all on efforts to uplift our people, 60 percent of whom live under the poverty line.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/206466-Wolves-in-the-sacred-land
-----
Saudis Need to Be Wary of Trump’s Intentions
By M. Ziauddin
May 25, 2017
For a number of reasons Pakistan could not have refused Saudi invitation to attend the so-called Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh on Sunday.
First, Pakistan is already a significant part of the Saudi sponsored military alliance of several Muslim countries, though nobody as yet knows the exact number and nobody has an authenticated list of the members of the alliance.
Second, the military alliance which was touted to have been put together to confront the ISIS terrorism, is being commanded by our own former Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General (retired) Raheel Sharif who is by far the most experienced general in the entire alliance as far as fighting terrorism is concerned and a successful one too at that as his Zarb-e-Azb campaign had almost completely routed the menace from Pakistan.
Third, millions of Pakistanis earn their livelihood in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. And the remittances that they send back home plays a crucial role in keeping our economy afloat.
Had we refused to join the Summit perhaps the brunt of the retaliatory anger would have fallen on these innocent jobbers and ultimately the consequent adverse impact would have cast our national economy into serious disarray.
Fourth, Pakistan has already declared that come what may it will defend the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia if ever the Kingdom was attacked and would protect the holy sites in Makka Mukarrama and Madina Munawwara with all its military might.
Fifth, Pakistan is highly obliged to Saudi Arabia for supplying us in the past the badly needed crude at concessional rates and that too on deferred payment arrangement which most of the time had remained deferred for good.
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly the decision was made for us by our running feud with India which lately has been trying to isolate Pakistan regionally as well as internationally.
New Delhi had successfully sabotaged the SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad late last year by boycotting it and taking along with it Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.
Next, it snubbed our delegation to Heart of Asia Conference in New Delhi early this year which was being led by PM’s advisor on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz. Most of the speeches delivered on the occasion had castigated Pakistan for what most speakers said Islamabad’s policy of using non-state actors to wage terror war against its neighbours.
In view of the raging rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the best policy on our part should have been to keep out of the Saudi sponsored military alliance, not allow General Raheel Sharif to accept the Saudi offer to lead this military alliance and politely refuse to attend the Sunday summit in Riyadh.
But, one recalls the Saudi and Gulf countries’ animosity that we attracted when our Parliament openly ruled out Pakistan joining the Saudi aggression against Yemen.
Also, in the US eyes we had been reduced meanwhile, to a nobody from being its Non-NATO ally, thanks largely to the Indian lobby in Washington which had barely missed consigning Pakistan into a pariah state allegedly sponsoring terrorism in neighboring countries.
With no friends in Washington and India pressing ahead its campaign to isolate us using its expanding international economic clout it would have been only madness to annoy Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states who out of pique could have sent home our workers, called in all past loans and handed over the command of the military alliance to any retired general from Bangladesh, a country which today is more hostile towards Pakistan than India itself.
So, it was strategically the right decision to not only join the Saudi led military alliance, allow General Sharif to lead the alliance and also accept the invitation to attend the Sunday summit.
That Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was not allowed to speak at the forum and was not even offered a meeting with President Trump did appear more like an insult to Pakistan but the summit and its main protagonists—the Saudi King and the US President—actually escaped embarrassment that Nawaz Sharif, if he had been allowed to speak, would have caused by talking more moderately about Iran and by emphasizing extending a hand of friendship towards Tehran rather than pointing accusatory fingers at it.
Meanwhile, the Saudis need to be very careful with their dwindling finances as oil prices do not seem likely to rebound. Trump being a businessman would make all kinds of sales pitches to clinch orders for supplying arms and weapons to Saudi Arabia but is hardly likely to keep the promises he has made in return.
In late April, according to Yoel Guzansky and Sigurd Neubauer ( Why Trump will disappoint Saudis?—May 10, 2017—Foreign Affairs) the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, appointed one of his sons, Prince Khalid bin Salman, as the Kingdom’s new ambassador to the United States. The appointment was part of larger reshuffling at the top of the Saudi government. Khalid’s ascent was a sign of the growing power of his older brother, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudi minister of defense.
Khalid’s appointment is also largely seen as an attempt by King Salman to boost ties between the Saudi royal family and U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has delegated significant foreign policy responsibilities to his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
After years of strained relations with former President Barack Obama, the Saudis appear to be optimistic about the new president. Trump has a well-established record of hostility toward the kingdom’s main rival, Iran, and in particular toward the Obama administration’s Iran deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), which Saudi Arabia only reluctantly came to terms with.
The optimism is evident in the Saudi state media’s coverage: a March meeting between Trump and the deputy crown prince was hailed as “a historic turning point” in the U.S.–Saudi alliance, and after the first phone call between Trump and the King, in January, the Saudi news agency proclaimed that “the leaders see eye to eye on issues on the agenda.” In a second conversation, in April, King Salman praised Trump for his “brave” decision in April to launch missiles against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.
Yet despite Saudi optimism, U.S. policy toward the Middle East remains adrift. No coherent national security doctrine has been crafted, and Washington’s principal objectives in the region are unclear. Although Trump surely wants to differentiate himself from his predecessor, it is doubtful that he will significantly tilt U.S. policy in a pro-Riyadh direction, whether by pushing for the removal of Assad or by confronting Iran with anything more than rhetoric to ensure that Tehran complies with the JCPOA.
And other issues may provide further sources of friction: the U.S–Russian détente, which Trump promised to pursue on the campaign trail, could strengthen Assad and therefore Iran; and Trump’s quest to restart the Israeli–Palestinian peace process may require pressuring Riyadh to bring Ramallah to the negotiating table. In short, the Kingdom’s hopes for a full reset are likely to be dashed.
The JCPOA has been a major source of U.S.–Saudi tension over the past few years. Trump railed against it as a presidential candidate, and his running mate Mike Pence promised to “rip up the Iran deal” once they were in office. But at least for now, it appears that Washington has no intention of renegotiating, let alone terminating, the JCPOA.
This is in part because defeating the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) is Trump’s top regional priority, and the United States’ anti-ISIS efforts still depend on the support of Iraq’s various Shiite militias, many of which are closely linked to Iran. Washington is therefore limited in how much it can push Tehran without endangering its campaign against ISIS. Instead of abandoning the deal, it now appears that Trump will seek to meticulously enforce it while continuing to oppose Iran’s activities in the broader region—instead of tearing the deal up.
Source: pakobserver.net/saudis-need-wary-trumps-intentions/
----
A Perspective of Trump Visit To KSA
By Dr Muhammad Khan
May 25, 2017
IT was very disgusting once President Trump listed the countries, affected by terrorism in his speech at Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Saudi Capital. To the horror of experts and researchers on global wave of terrorism, there was no mention of Pakistan among this list, prepared at White House and Pentagon and presented by the World’s number 1 leader. President Donald Trump said in his speech at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, while speaking to a gathering of 55 Muslim countries that, ‘India was among nations that have been victims of violent terrorism attacks.’ President Trump further said that, “Few nations have been spared the violent reach of terrorism. America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks from the atrocities of September 11 to the devastation of the Boston bombings to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando. The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and South America. India, Russia, China, and Australia have all been victims.”
It is unclear as who wrote the speech of President Trump, must be someone either unaware of the sacrifices of Pakistan or it was a deliberate effort of alienating Pakistan at the most critical time and place. Alienating Pakistan by making no mention of its contributions at Saudi Capital and that too on the eve of shifting balance of power in Middle was unfair. This is despite the fact that the former Army Chief of Pak Army has been assigned the task of heading the 42 Muslim State Military Alliance, being established to counter the extremism and terrorism from Middle East and broader Muslim world. Moreover, Pakistan has been an important US Ally though out in its seventy-year history. Besides, Pakistan has been partner of Saudi Arabia and GCC countries too. Who would know the sacrifices and economic losses of Pakistan better than US, which used Pakistan for its strategic gains against former Soviet Union and elsewhere including during the on-going war against terrorism?
The massive scale of terrorism, Pakistan confronted ever since the start of global war on terror in 2001, is unique and incomparable. Till-date Pakistan lost over 70,000 people which also include over 8000 personnel of security forces. Economic losses of over 130 billion USD is in addition to the massive reduction in FDI, which has crumbled the Pakistani economy in last one and half decade. Besides, it was Pak Army, which helped NATO and US forces in the drawdown from Afghanistan, where these forces under the banner of ISAF, faced humiliation at the hands of Taliban. Indeed, US President was persuading the Indian case in the heart of Muslim world, and with Muslim countries for an acceptability of India in the Muslim world. US President was not briefed by his officials and even the Muslim hosts that, Indian forces have killed over 115000 Kashmiris in last two and half decades. India is perpetrating the worst human rights violations in IOK and humiliating the Muslims all over India. It is worth mentioning that, killer of Muslims; Indian Prime Minister Modi was awarded with the highest civil award by King Salman, just a year earlier. The biases against Pakistan at the Summit were demeaning and unfair for Pakistan nation.
For the US President, this pleasuring trip to Middle East has earned over $400 billion including $110 billion for the sale of military hardware. Trump himself said that these deals would revive the US economy and create millions of jobs for US nationals, a promise he made during election campaign, the America First. Defence Deal of $110 billion will revive US war economy, replacing the old military hardware from the US defence industries to the deserts of Arabs and manufacturing more modern weaponry to create new wave of terror internationally. President Trump said that, “Of course, there is still much work to do. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”
Whereas, the Muslim leaders were lectured about the honesty and fair play at the global level, between the lines they too were tasked to follow the suit and have similar defence deals with US for their security and safety of elite class at least. They were directed to fight out terrorism and extremism under the wider umbrella of United Sates. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the causes of terrorism, exploitation of Muslims and about those, who created terrorists’ and extremists’ networks. In fact, these networks are created, nurtured and then used for strategic usage. Only Iran was blamed in the summit for the promotion of this evil, as if others were as neat and clean as US.
Source: pakobserver.net/perspective-trump-visit-ksa/
----
Defending Malala
By Dr Shenila Khoja-Moolji
May 24, 2017
A PTI MNA recently claimed that the attacks on Malala Yousufzai were staged. She then went on to name different girls from Pakistan — particularly, those succeeding in schools — calling them, “not Malala.”
Such sentiments are not new. When Malala’s autobiography was published, the chief of the All Pakistan Private Schools Federation, Kashif Mirza, noted that while the 152,000 private schools had supported Malala when she was shot, they had now decided to ban Malala’s book: she “was a role model for children, but this book has made her controversial…Through this book, she became a tool in the hands of the Western powers.”
In Western contexts and liberal circles, comments like the above are read as representing backward, pre-modern elements of Pakistan because any critique of Malala is read as a critique of human rights. And since human rights are the dominant vocabulary for justice and emancipatory projects in the current moment, such critiques are easily dismissed.
However, there is an undercurrent here that must be examined. One way to do this is by making a distinction between Malala the idea/representation, and Malala the person.
Malala, the idea, tells a particular story about people in Pakistan. She is represented as the girl who defied the cultural logics operative in Pakistan, and who now embodies a transnational, secular modernity exemplified by her emphasis on the autonomous self, enactment of choice, advocacy for freedom and arguments for gender equality. Instead of being a symbol of the courage of Muslims and Pakistanis to stand up against local forms of violence, Malala is shown to be an exception.
Through extensive media coverage and uptake of her image by international organisations, she is individualised in her courage and successful performance of empowerment. She is presented as succeeding against all odds, as a heroine or, as TIME magazine calls her, the “champion for girls everywhere.” She is made into an exception by practices such as celebrating “Malala Day,” receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, and book deals. Even the title of her book, I am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban (2013), centres her person, emphasising her uniqueness.
To create the idea of Malala as the exceptional Muslim girl entails individualising and abstracting her from the local environment and cultures, and connecting her positive attributes to another source, such as her formal education, desire for success, and ambition. Her courage, then, is not read as grounded in Pashtun cultural practices that valorise social justice. Instead, she is positioned as a singular force against local customs and cultural elements.
Malala as an idea, thus, sustains assumptions about Muslims and Pakistanis that are deeply hurtful. It transforms all Pakistani, Muslim men into terrorists, and all Muslim women as victims or potential-victims. Malala is distanced from other Muslim girls. She is made to simultaneously stand in for, represent and symbolise the oppressed Muslim girls, and positioned as the empowered girl who is not one of them. The idea of Malala denies other Muslim girls similar forms of empowered subjectivities. More importantly, it sustains the façade of Islam as an oppressive faith, positioning interventions — such as through universal education of girls, empowerment projects, or even drone attacks — as necessary or even ethically imperative.
It is important to note, however, that Malala herself, the person, cannot be blamed for how she is taken up and talked about. She has time and again highlighted her radical specificity as a Muslim, and as a Pakistani.
For instance, if we read I Am Malala against the grain, we come face to face with vibrant cultures and societies, an abundance of strong-willed women, and kind, thoughtful men. The text reveals aspects of the Pashtun culture and its people; we learn about their hospitality, their oral traditions of poetry, their love for knowledge, the imperatives for kindness, and the beauty and precarity of mountain societies. There are incidences when the religion of Islam emerges as a source of generosity and peace. For instance, the only charities that stay behind to help local people after the earthquake in 2005 are local Muslim charities.
In I am Malala, we encounter women who shatter the trope of the victimised Muslim woman waiting for a saviour. From Malala’s namesake, the Malalai of Maiwand, who fought the British, and her great-grandmother, who “walked forty miles alone over mountains” in order to appeal for the release of her son, to the women of Spal Bandi “who had great freedom and were not hidden away,” we find evidence of women’s enactments of agency that are emergent within the constraints of socioeconomic and political structures.
These glimpses into the lives of Muslim women add complexity to, and work against, the narrative that reduces freedom to just ‘resistance’ against local practices. It would be simplistic to read these actions in broad strokes as moments of women’s empowerment and agency; yet, they do signal the possibility of differently constituted lives where empowerment and agency may or may not look the same as that proposed by Western liberal feminists. Here, women seem to be working to establish their rights within local frameworks and against domestic and global patriarchies.
We also come across a wide range of kind, thoughtful, and intelligent Muslim men who work for the betterment of their communities, including contesting the advances of the local Taliban-inspired militants. Figures such as Malala’s father, Ziauddin Yousufzai (an activist), Jehan Yousufzai (Ziauddin’s cousin who brought a gift on Malala’s birth), Uncle Dada (a conscientious teacher), Nasir Pacha (a stranger who helped Ziauddin complete his college education), Akbar Khan (Ziauddin’s mentor), Usman Bhai Jan (the beloved school-bus driver), and Dr Javid (the Pakistani-British doctor who arranged Malala’s hospitalisation in the United Kingdom) all strike at the heart of the ahistoricised and decontextualised figure of the violent, brown, Muslim man.
The key Taliban characters in the book, Fazlullah, Sufi Mohammad, and the mufti who tried to close Ziauddin’s school, are viewed as an irregularity, and their actions are contested by local men and women. Indeed, the challenge to Fazlullah comes from within the community — the Pashtuns called their assembly of elders to oppose him, and those who viewed him favourably earlier retracted their support when his initiatives did not align with their sensibilities. Challenges to Fazlullah’s militancy were also featured prominently in the local media.
Malala, the person, has spoken out against drone strikes in her meeting with President Obama; she has called for the rights of Palestinian girls; she has spoken out against the bombing in Afghanistan and the atrocities in Kashmir; and raised her voice for the betterment of refugees.
Hence, the critique of Malala must make the distinction between how she is represented and what those representations do to imaginations about Muslims, Pakistanis, girls, etc, and Malala the person. Malala the person has, thus far, shown remarkable grace and acute knowledge of local cultures, and deserves to be treated with respect.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1417401/defending-malala/
----
Indo-Israel Connect
By Syed Qamar A Rizvi
May 25, 2017
INDIA’S Prime Minister Narendra Modi is likely to visit Israel in July, a first for an Indian premier. In recent years, Israel’s Aerospace technology has been the main source of its military partnership with India. Although the scope of this relationship between the two has moved beyond the lines of traditional scope, the strategic and defence cooperation accompanied by secret intelligence operations has been the dominant feature of their relationship over the past many decades.
Modi’s planned trip follows a similar visit by the president of India in 2015 and reciprocal visit to India by Israel’s president in 2016.25 years after Tel Aviv and New Delhi established diplomatic relations, India has become one of the largest buyers of Israeli military hardware with annual defence deals worth over $1 billion. Since the Modi’s era ushered in 2014, security and defence cooperation has revitalized the status of their bilateral relationship.
Israel recently announced that it had been awarded the largest defence contract in the Israeli defence industry’s history, signing a $1.6 billion mega-contract with the Indian Army for medium-range surface-to-air missiles, advanced air and missile defence systems as well as additional long-range surface-to-air missiles and air and missile defence systems for Indian aircraft carriers. Another $400 million in contracts will go to another state-owned defence company, Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, which has also called India a “strategic and significant partner.”
“Nowadays, things have changed in the Middle East, and Israel has good relations with a few Arab countries,” said Israeli Ambassador to India Daniel Carmon. “We [Israel and some Arab states] have joint-interests with many others. On last Tuesday, India’s Western Naval Command conducted a trial firing of a medium-range surface-to-air missile from the INS Kochi stealth guided-missile destroyer. The missile, jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and India’s Defence Research and Development Organization and manufactured by Hyderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Limited.
Shortly before the test of Israel Aerospace Industries’ medium-range surface-to-air missile, India also conducted a test-fired Rafael’s surface-to-air SPYDER missile system from a test facility off India’s Odisha coast against a UK-made Banshee unmanned aerial target aircraft. The SPYDER short- and medium-range air defence missile system is designed to engage and destroy a wide range of aerial threats such as aircraft bombers, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), cruise missiles, UCAVs (unmanned combat aerial vehicles) and other stand-off weapons. Israel has also traded its Barak-8 air defence missiles for India’s Navy.
Recently the Integrated Underwater Harbor Defense and Surveillance System – developed by Elta Systems, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries— was installed at the Port of Mumbai, to enhance the security of valuable naval assets against asymmetric threats. Israel’s highly developed spy satellite ‘Polaris’ was installed into space (in 2014) by an Indian space launch vehicle that would also permit India to use certain images from this satellite.
Beyond the defence and security relationship, cooperation in the agricultural sector—water management, research and development, sharing of best practices— has moved forward, thereby giving special emphasis on building constituencies for Israel at the state level in India. Agricultural cooperation between both countries has been significantly growing on for a decade. The strongest instance of this are the Centres of Excellence, which were begun in 2009 and now exist in a large number of Indian states. More Centres of Excellence are likely to be set up. One of the evolving collaborations between Israel and India in the agriculture sphere is the Olive Plantation Initiative in Rajasthan. Plus, a number of states, the most recent example being Punjab, are keen to seek Israeli assistance in drip irrigation. Irrespective of the political affiliation of the party in power, states have welcomed such cooperation.
Another potential area, where India is trying to learn from Israel is IT start-ups. In view the Indian technocrats, Modi has sought to give a push to India in the sphere of technology, while also encouraging start-ups. During his meeting with Israel’s agriculture minister on the sidelines of the Vibrant Gujarat Summit in January 2017, Modi said India was also keen to learn from the start-up ecosystem of Israel and its incubation centres. Tel Aviv has been ranked as number five in the world in terms of providing an ecosystem for entrepreneurs.
The Indo-Israel partnership is not confined to purchasing of military equipments only, Indo-Israeli overt and covert connections are part of a dangerous strategic game in Asia shown by Raw-Mossad-NDS nexus to destabilise Pakistan. Nevertheless, it is no more a secret that both RAW and Mossad have remained mutually engaged in exploring secret military intelligence contact since 1960s, Israel was willing to help to the Indian army in its conflict with China and Pakistan . History is yet a reminder to the fact that thirty-eight years ago, in Sept 1968, when the Research and Analysis Wing was founded with Rameshwar Nath Kao at its helm, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked him to cultivate Israel’s Mossad. Kao established a clandestine relationship with Mossad. Here, it would not be wrong to estimate that both Mossad and the American CIA have been RAW’s mentors. This trilateral trajectory has gravely influenced the dynamics of international relations in the post 9/11 world.
Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu has had already made it clear in July 1997 saying, “Our ties with India don’t have any limitations—as long as India and Israel are friendly, it is a strategic gain.” Put strategically, the hidden core of growing congruence between Tel Aviv and New Delhi lies in the organically perceived interests — systematically explored and glaringly characterized by the policy features-cum-transgressions that these two states intransigently practice in Palestine and Kashmir.
Source: pakobserver.net/indo-israel-connect/
---
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/wolves-sacred-land-new-age/d/111272