Aletho News

India employing Israeli oppression tactics in Kashmir

Jimmy Johnson, The Electronic Intifada, 19 August 2010

The 2010 summer in the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir, administered by India, has been marked by popular protests by Kashmiris and crackdowns by India’s military. The stream of violence has left more than fifty dead, mostly young protestors. The situation in Kashmir has some parallels with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even borrowing the term intifada to describe the uprising. But the connection is more than analogy — Israel’s pacification efforts against Palestinians have proven valuable for the Indian police, army and intelligence services in their campaigns to pacify Jammu and Kashmir with numerous Indian military and security imports from Israel leading the way.

India and Israel had a limited relationship prior to 1992. India, as a prominent member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), had helped to form the NAM political positions on Palestine as part of the “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, racism, including Zionism and all forms of expansionism, foreign occupation and domination and hegemony” (1979, Havana Declaration). Beyond its anti-colonial and Third World solidarity politics, India also had realpolitik reasons for keeping a distance from Israel. The nation had a developing economy with a huge need for petroleum resources, of which it had no domestic source. Good relations with the Arab League and the Soviet Union helped to secure access to resources necessary for India to become the regional and global economic power it aspires to be.

With the beginning of the Oslo negotiations process between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1990s and the end of the Cold War, India was free to pursue relations with Israel from a NAM standpoint. An end to the Israeli occupation was assumed a formality under Oslo by most international observers, especially early on — and had, by that time, gained the economic strength to pursue a policy taking it, as described in a US Army War College (USAWC) analysis, “from a position of nonalignment and noncommitment to having specific strategic interests taking it on a path of ‘poly-alignment.'” The report states that India has been in a “scramble to establish ‘strategic relationships’ with most of the major powers and many of the middle powers,” including Israel.

Israel rendered limited military assistance to India in its 1962 war with China and the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan. It was not until after the Oslo process began though, that the limited military contacts developed into a fuller strategic relationship. According to The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, in 1994 “India requested equipment to guard the de facto Indo-Pakistan Kashmiri border. New Delhi was interested in Israeli fences, which use electronic sensors to track human movements” (Thomas Withington, “Israel and India partner up,” January/February 2001, pp.18-19). The remaining years of the decade were peppered with arms sales from Jerusalem to New Delhi, most notably unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems.

The strategic military relationship picked up even more steam in the new millennium and annual arms sales average in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The shift of Israel being a major defense supplier to a strategic partner was formalized in a September 2003 state visit by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India where the Hindu nationalist government then in power, the Bharatiya Janata Party led by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, hosted the Israeli delegation and coauthored the Delhi Statement on Friendship and Cooperation between India and Israel. The statement’s longest segment is on terrorism. It declares that “Israel and India are partners in the battle against this scourge” and that “there cannot be any compromise in the war against terrorism.” The relationship has expanded drastically since 2000 with, in some recent years, Israel even supplanting Russia as India’s largest arms supplier. Surface-to-air missile systems, naval craft, advanced radar systems and other remote sensing technologies, artillery systems and numerous joint production initiatives ranging from munitions to avionics systems have all further boosted the relationship.

But as the Kashmiri uprising enters its third decade, the most telling part of the relationship is the export of Israeli pacification efforts against Palestinians to India, and their use in Jammu and Kashmir (and elsewhere as India faces multiple popular revolts). Israel has trained thousands of Indian military personnel in counterinsurgency since 2003. According to a 2003 JINSA analysis, “Presumably to equip these soldiers, India recently concluded a $30 million agreement with Israel Military Industries (IMI) for 3,400 Tavor assault rifles, 200 Galil sniper rifles, as well as night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment.”

In 2004, the Israeli intelligence agencies Mossad and General Security Services (Shin Bet) arrived in India “to conduct the first field security surveillance course for Indian Army Intelligence Corps sleuths.” The Globes article on the topic cites an Indian source stating “The course has been designed to look at methods of intelligence gathering in insurgency affected areas, in keeping with the challenges that Israel has faced.” The further acquisition of UAVs, their joint production and the acquisition of other surveillance systems, notably 2010 agreements for both spy satellites and satellite communications systems, have all helped to further India’s pacification campaigns in Jammu and Kashmir. A notable example of how deeply embedded in India the Israeli counterinsurgency and homeland security industries are is the May 2010 agreement whereby Ra’anana-based Nice Systems will provide security systems and a command and control center for India’s parliament. Parliament security head Sandeep Salunke noted the context for the $5 million contract being “In light of the recent increase in global terrorism” (Nice Systems press release, 25 May 2010).

India’s political trend towards poly-alignment whereby it can have both strategic energy agreements with Iran and strategic defense agreements with Israel is part of a broader strategy the USAWC report noted by which “India will fiercely protect its own internal and bilateral issues from becoming part of the international dialog (Kashmir being the most obvious example).” This hostility towards international engagement with its occupation is not the only resemblance to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Both were born out the the end of the British colonialism, both are seen as front lines of the “War on Terror,” both the Kashmiri and Palestinian armed groups are erroneously seen as illegitimate in their own right, being mere tools of a foreign aggressor (Pakistan for Kashmir and Iran or Syria for Palestine), both have widespread abuses of human rights, and the Israeli public’s general apathy about or hostility towards Palestinian self-determination is surpassed by the domestic discussion in India, where Kashmiri self-determination isn’t even an issue, though pacifying Kashmir and securing the border with Pakistan is.

The analogy between the two conflicts can only be taken so far, but the direct connection by which Israel’s pacification industry exports tools of control developed for use against the Palestinians (and Lebanese) to be deployed against Kashmiris (as well as against the Naxalites and others in India) shows a deep linkage between the two conflicts and how one feeds the other. So long as Israel seeks to maintain control over Palestine it will continue to develop pacification tools, and so long as India continues its campaigns in Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmiris can expect to taste the fruits of Palestinian pacification.

Jimmy Johnson is a Detroit-based mechanic and an organizer with the Palestine Cultural Office in Dearborn. He can be reached at johnson [dot] jimmy [at] gmail [dot] com.

August 19, 2010 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Massive anti-US rally held in Afghanistan

Press TV –  August 18, 2010

In eastern Afghanistan, hundreds of people have taken to the streets to protest against the mounting civilian death toll in US-led raids in the war-torn country.

Some 600 demonstrators blocked the main highway linking the Capital, Kabul and the eastern city of Jalalabad on Wednesday. The protesters were chanting slogans against the growing foreign presence in the country and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

An Afghan father and his son were killed when their house in Nangahar Province was stormed overnight by NATO soldiers, triggering an outcry that led to the demonstrations.

The US-led forces in the country say they killed two militants in the operation, a claim local villagers have firmly rejected.

Earlier this week, a similar rally was held in the eastern province of Wardak.

A UN report published earlier this week said that 386 civilians were killed by NATO or Afghan forces in the first six months of 2010.

On Monday, at least five Afghan civilians, including a woman and her three children, were killed after a NATO supply vehicle hit their motorcycle in southern Afghanistan. According to Afghan officials, the accident took place on a road in Helmand province, a Press TV correspondent reported Sunday.

Civilians have been the main victims of violence in Afghanistan, particularly in the country’s troubled southern and eastern provinces. The issue of civilian casualties has caused friction between Washington and the Karzai government in Kabul.

August 18, 2010 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Was the tree really on Israeli territory? Not quite.

By Ann El Khoury | Pulse Media | August 6, 2010

In the aftermath of the bloody border skirmish between Lebanon and Israel, much of the Anglophone press seems to have dutifully accepted the UN’s assertion that the hapless tree at the centre of it all was on the Israeli side. Blogs have followed suit, publishing retractions or corrections to their earlier posts that the border had been breached by the IDF. But, as so often is the case, the devil is in the detail. The tree was located north of the Israeli self-erected ‘technical fence’, and south of the Blue Line. As Bart Peeters points out, the blue line is not an international border, nor an internationally recognised border, but simply an armistice line (and a contested one at that) set up by the UN in 2000 to mark the line of the Israeli withdrawal from its 18 year occupation of the south of Lebanon. The Blue Line is disputed by both Lebanon and Israel in many places. The tree, now removed, was located in a no-man’s land and apparently has no legal border status.

Particularly in this case, the UN has resembled a seriously frazzled parent who, faced with a normal child and a rogue child, apparently makes a small but disingenuous concession in a desperate and expedient attempt to quell the bad apple child’s accusations of their being biased in favour of the victimised normal child and regain some influence. “See? I’m not really biased or taking sides”, the UN is effectively signalling in this misguided attempt at even-handedness. The issue of who started this particular incident — was it Israel’s provocation because they went ahead, refusing a UN request to delay the tree cutting until it could be cleared with the Lebanese side, or Lebanon because it fired warning shots and the possible first fatal shooting? — has to be located against the backdrop of literally thousands of ongoing Israeli violations of UNSC 1701, that fragile ceasefire that formally ended the hafrada regime’s last destructive assault on Lebanon in 2006.

This incident clearly illustrates the untenability of a status quo predicated upon, from the Israeli side, military deterrence and informal arrangements in the lack of a clearly defined border. For the Lebanese, it may also illustrate the treachery of relying on the UN as an arbiter, though the incident has also had a rallying effect in support for the LAF. It is worth remembering that the Blue Line was signed off on with a great deal of reservation by the Lebanese. As the bloggers at Friday Lunch Club do well to point out, here is the actual conversation between then Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright about the Blue Line in 2000 (another account detailing the episode can be found here):

Madeline Albright to President Emile Lahoud: “The Israelis pulled out, and we need you to ratify that so that we can proceed at the UN …”
Lahoud: “but Mrs. Secretary, they have not … I have an officer at the border who informs me that over a million square meters are still occupied…”
Albright: “… you sign off on the ‘withdrawal’… and I promise you, we’ll deal with that later…”
Lahoud: “No, I will not … Unless the withdrawal is complete, I will not allow it…”
Albright: “DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING TO? I am the representative of the government of the USA!”
Lahoud: “And I am very tired (after 3:00AM) and I need to go to bed… Goodnight!”

Most of the territory was later evacuated prior to ratification, but the government of Lebanon signed off “with reservations.”

According to Lebanese political analyst Michel Samaha (as cited by Shmaysani), “Annan and then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright conspired to send Terje Rød-Larsen to delineate a Blue Line instead of implementing resolution 425. The aim was to make the pullout look like a full withdrawal according to the Truce Line. So Larsen invented the Blue Line and the Lebanese government cried foul because of the many gaps that kept Lebanese areas, including strategic spots and water sources, under occupation.”

Ret. Gen. Amine Hotait, who was the head of the committee to verify the Israeli pullout, told Al-Manar that

Our main concern was to determine the international border, but the Israeli enemy had changed the landmarks in several border areas. We started our mission based on official maps, but the Israelis made use of the so called ‘rolling borders’ and sought to delineate a new line that served its avarice, so it demanded a delineation based on more advanced methods. The United Nations adopted the Blue Line but we refused to recognize it as the international border since it missed at least 13 points. After tough negotiations we managed to gain back ten points, and three points remained outstanding: Rmeish, Odaisseh, and Metula.

And where did the incident happen? Right near Odaisseh.

Robert Fisk, to his credit and despite his clear dislike of Hezbollah, is one of the few who have qualified their analyses with recognition of this basic fact about the Blue Line and the lack of a border. Daniel Levy also has a fair summation of the situation and analysis on the perceived implications.

In the Israeli press, two pieces are worth mentioning. The first is an account by Nahum Barne in Yedioth Ahronoth which is revealing of the IDF attitude and segues well into the second piece by Gideon Levy in ‘Only We’re Allowed‘:

Maj. Gen. Eisenkot happened to be in the headquarters of Division 91 in Biranit at the time.  He took control of the incident immediately.  Eisenkot aspired to an outcome that would take a heavy toll from the Lebanese army, but would also not harm civilians and UN soldiers and would not drag the sides into war.

The shells that the tank fired did nothing but make noise.  Therefore, Eisenkot ordered an attack on the forward outpost of the Lebanese army in the mountain located behind [the incident], Nabi al-Awadi.  The Lebanese army outpost in the village Taibe was also attacked.  Helicopter gunships and artillery were deployed.

The outcome was disappointing, as far as OC Northern Command was concerned.  On the Lebanese side, there was a total count of five dead, four soldiers and a civilian.  He expected a number three times as high, a number that would make it clear to Lebanon that such incidents have a price.

As one state grapples with the fall-out of the death of Hariri (and the other the death of Harari), Gideon Levy writes:

In this overheated atmosphere the IDF should have been careful when lighting its matches. UNIFIL requests a delay of an operation? The area is explosive? The work should have been postponed. Maybe the Lebanese Army is more determined now to protect its country’s sovereignty – that is not only its right, but its duty – and a Lebanese commander who sees the IDF operating across the fence might give an order to shoot, even unjustifiably.

Who better than the IDF knows the pattern of shooting at any real or imagined violation? Just ask the soldiers at the separation fence or guarding Gaza. But Israel arrogantly dismissed UNIFIL’s request for a delay.

It’s the same arrogance behind the demand that the U.S. and France stop arming the Lebanese military. Only our military is allowed to build up arms. After years in which Israel demanded that the Lebanese Army take responsibility for what is happening in southern Lebanon, it is now doing so and we’ve changed our tune. Why? Because it stopped behaving like Israel’s subcontractor and is starting to act like the army of a sovereign state.

And that’s forbidden, of course. After the guns fall silent, the cry goes up again here to strike another “heavy blow” against Lebanon to “deter” it – maybe some more of the destruction that was inflicted on Beirut’s Dahiya neighborhood.

Three Lebanese killed, including a journalist, are not enough of a response to the killing of our battalion commander. We want more. Lebanon must learn a lesson, and we will teach it.

And what about us? We don’t have any lessons to learn. We’ll continue to ignore UNIFIL, ignore the Lebanese Army and its new brigade commander, who has the nerve to think that his job is to protect his country’s sovereignty.

August 6, 2010 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment