India established full-fledged diplomatic relations with Israel in January 29, 1992. Since 1994 Indo-Israeli civilian trade has risen from some $250 million annually to $1.5 billion today with Indian purchases of Israeli defense products estimated as high as $900 million annually.^*1 Contacts at many levels have become quite common when the Bharata Janata Party (BJP) came to power in March 1998. The relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duels between Pakistani and Indian forces in Kargil. Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a booming defense trade and rising commercial ties. In the summer of 2000, the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, and the Home Minister L.K. Advani visited Israel, followed by India's National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra's visit. In Jerusalem, of all places, Singh attributed India's decades-long Palestine policy to the 'Muslim votebank.' The then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, came to India twice - in August 2000 and January 2001. As a prelude to Sharon's state visit to India later in the year, Mishra was even invited to speak at the Annual Dinner held by the American Jewish Committee on May 8, 2003 in New York. The Dinner was attended by many hawkish supporters of Israel. Explaining the basis for the warm relationship between the two nations, he said, "India, the United States and Israel have some fundamental similarities. We are all democracies, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity."^*2 

To cement the relationship, recently Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel ended his official visit as an invited guest of the Government of India. During the Vajpayee-Sharon meeting, New Delhi was promised to acquiring Phalcon airborne early warning system and anti-ballistic missiles from Israel. United States, which had earlier opposed the sale of AWACS to India (and as a prelude to its own sale of nuclear and space technologies to follow in 2004), gave its nod. Speaking to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the assembled media, Sharon proposed that India and Israel work together to combat terror: "Today, Israel and India are embattled democracies and sharing values and the challenge of terrorism. United in our quest for life, liberty and peace, our joint determination to fight for these values can inspire our hope for a better future for our people."

So, here again (like Mishra earlier), Sharon - a war criminal, who is guilty of killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, who opposed every peace deal, who personifies evil and exemplifies anti-thesis [for the pursuit] of 'life, liberty and peace' - spoke about sharing and fighting for common values with the Vajpayee-Advani's India. Since when has the apartheid state of Israel promoted a "vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity?" Isn't it a fact that the Israel is a Jewish state, which discriminates against non-Jews on the basis of religion? Palestinian people are even denied basic human rights. Could Mishra or Sharon explain why there are scores of UN Resolutions and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Reports, which condemned Israel for war crimes? If Israel promoted pluralism, why did its leaders oppose a bi-national state since 1918, a position that has remained unchanged to this very day? Wasn't it Dr. Weizmann, who in 1918, when asked by the British Secretary Balfour if coexistence of the Jews and Arabs was possible, argued against it by saying: "... the democratic principles reckons with the relative numerical strength; and the brutal numbers operate against us for there are five Arabs to one Jew"?^*3 But that was then: some 86 years ago, before they uprooted nearly three quarters of a million Palestinians from their ancestral homes; Jews are now a majority in Israel. Has that shift in demography changed their position? No, not in 1967 when they occupied the West Bank and Gaza; and not now, with nearly a million Russian Ashkenazim Jews settled in their midst. They [Israelis] are still opposed to the return of the Palestinian refugees. The raison d'etre, which has never changed, was reiterated by Moshe Dayan on June 11, 1967 in an interview with the CBS TV program "Face the Nation". He explained: "It would turn Israel into either a bi-national or poly-Arab Jewish state instead of the Jewish state, and we want to have a Jewish state." So much for the Israeli brand of pluralism!

A nation is often assessed in terms of its treatment of the minorities. In Israel, the Palestinians living within the pre-'67 borders are treated as the Fourth Class citizens (after Ashkenazim Jews, Sephardic Jews and Falasha Jews - in that order). As far as the Palestinian people living inside the Occupied Territories are concerned, they are not even treated as human beings, a fact that is corroborated by hundreds of eyewitness accounts.^*4 Even the former speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg of the Labor Party described Israel as a "nation [that] rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice."^*5 The indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian targets, routine demolition of homes, confiscation of lands, blockade of roads, denial of medical care and water rights, collective punishment and relentless harassment of the Palestinian population are all kosher things in the dictionary of Israeli leaders. As such, the massacre of Palestinians in Deir Yasin, Kafr Qassem, Qibaya, Sabra, Shatila, Tel et-Zaatar, southern Lebanon, Gaza, Jenin and other parts of the Occupied Territories and the resulting unfathomed misery and suffering of the Palestinian people are only a few footnotes to be repeated over and over again in the bloody history of Israel. 

Consider also a specific example: in Hebron, 85% of water is diverted to 600 Uzi-totting Zionist settlers, while the 240,000 Palestinians are allotted the remainder 15% of water. That is equivalent to providing the share of 2267 Palestinians to a single Israeli illegal settler. Are these signs of equal opportunity, democracy or pluralism? How about the Settler 'Apartheid' wall that separates Palestinian farmers from access to their land? An example of Qalqilya is enough to demonstrate the harmful effect of this wall. The 40,000 Palestinian inhabitants of the town of Qalqilya live on one side of the wall; the land they farm and actually live off is on the other. It is estimated that when the wall is finished - almost 300,000 Palestinians will be separated from their land. The modus operandi of the Israeli state is typical of an apartheid state and not of a genuine democracy where people are treated equally. From its very conception to the present state, Israel has always been a colonial enterprise, established in the image of Cecil Rhodes' Rhodesia, with rights limited to her Jewish people, in exclusion of her indigenous Arab population.^*6 

N. D. Jayaprakash, a member of the Delhi Science Forum, India, aptly sums up the newly-discovered 'common vision' between Israel and India: "Mr. Mishra's claim of shared vision obviously rests on the ignoble Sangh Parivar's (self-proclaimed group of fanatical "Hindu" organizations) version of history. According to them: 'Just as the Hindus of India are fighting for their survival in the very land of their origin and forefathers, so too are the Jews of Israel confronting the very same threats to the nation that is theirs by historical and religious birthright. Hindus and Jews both face exactly the same danger: Islam."^*9 

So, once again we notice that both these countries have identified Muslims as their common foes and are cementing the relationship on the basis of the Machiavellian mantra - 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.' The troubling question is: has the United States eventually come out of the closet to join this anti-Muslim crusade? Otherwise, why would Bush in a statement from Monterrey, Mexico on January 12, 2004 pledge to help India with its space and nuclear technology?^*10 Calling India and the United States "partners" in the effort to stop the proliferation of WMD, Bush said collaboration "will deepen the ties of commerce and friendship between our two nations and will increase stability in Asia and beyond." India will not be asked to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indeed, Indian leaders made clear that, as a nuclear country, they would not sign the treaty. India's neighbors in the region are denied any such privilege. Only six years ago the Clinton administration imposed economic sanctions after India's nuclear tests in May 1998. The restrictions barred military sales and the transfer of military technology to India. Since then there has been much thawing in the relationship between India, Israel and the United States. The Bush administration waived the sanctions against India in September 2001 as a reward for cooperation against terrorism.

America has been fighting its war, both directly and indirectly, against the world of Islam for quite some time, since its use of cluster bombs against the Moro Muslims of the Mindanao Islands in the southern Philippines almost a century ago. It has also been providing billions of dollars worth of military, economic and technical aid to the rogue state of Israel for more than half a century. In recent days, Israel has also become the middleman to sell American technology and arms to third parties, with tacit US approval. So, with the official visit of Sharon to India, and the guaranteed sale of sophisticated weapons, it was only a question of time when USA itself would join the club. With Bush's announcement in Mexico, it is obvious that that time has come. 

It can surely be argued that these three countries, representing three world religions, are now united on the basis of a toxic ideology of hatred against Islam. Their 'common vision' is to defeat Muslims globally. The current 'war on terrorism' is a ploy to that end.^*11 Demonization of the 'other' people legitimizes unilateral, lawless violence that otherwise would not be condoned. And this is precisely what we are seeing now. In today's India, historical revisionism to spread hatred against Muslims has official BJP sanction. A similar disturbing trend is also up-and-coming in the United States where anti-Islamic bigotry is at an all time high. A visit to any of the bookstores or public libraries (let alone the media outlets like the TV, Radio, newspapers and magazines) is enough to smell rotten anti-Muslim bigotry. Malicious anti-Muslim materials are now easily downloadable from scores of hate websites, some affiliated with the Religious Right (whose 60 million strong Christian fundamentalists, now representing the single most powerful voting block in American history, are the greatest backers of the Bush Administration).^*12 Almost all the Muslim charity organizations have been shut down under the pretext of illegally aiding groups like the Hamas.

A very large number of Muslims, mostly with minor immigration violations, are still locked up in detention centers across the country with no official charges brought against them in more than two years.^*13 In a manner reminiscent of the Dreyfus case in France, Muslim Army chaplains, translators and others working at Camp X-Ray in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been charged in military court on various charges.^*14 Many of President Bush's spiritual mentors,^*15 political advisers and powerful members within his Administration - from Attorney General John Ashcroft^*16 to Pentagon's Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin^*17 - have made disparaging remarks about Islam. And none of these individuals was officially reprimanded for their offensive remarks. Since 9/11, Bush, in total disregard for Muslim sensitivity, has also appointed some anti-Muslim hawks to important posts.^*18 And to add insult to injury, Bible-belt missionaries have been dispatched to preach Christianity in Iraq and Afghanistan.^*19 

Bush's pledge to India comes at a very odd time when India and Pakistan are talking - taking the first step towards peacefully resolving their problems. It is bound to enhance India's ballistic missile and weapons programs, thereby strengthening India's military capabilities and escalating an arms race in the region. It is irresponsible, if not immoral. 

One also wonders if the term 'stability' means something different in Bush's dictionary. I am sure no one is fooled by such an oxymoronic justification from the Bush Administration. The message from Washington is quite clear for all to understand. Just as Israel has been armed to the teeth so as to make the rogue nation the Goliath that it is today, India is now groomed for a similar role in South Asia.