Selective Outrage

"Today, in The Hague, you will sit in judgment.

Today, I will bury my husband, my heart has been cut in two.

I am not a politician.

I am appealing to you as someone who has lost her husband, a woman whose heart has been silenced - and awoman whose tragedy the separation fence could have prevented.I was married to Yehuda for 21 years.

He was the love of my youth, since I was 15.

Yehuda's sister is the wife of Israel's Economic Attache in The Hague and works in the Embassy there.

For months, she, her husband and the Embassy staff have been trying to open the world's eyes.

For months, they have been fighting for the rights of the State of Israel.

As for me, what could I have asked for? Only for my small right, my husband's right, the right to seeour children grow and prosper, go to school and serve in the army.

I will no longer receive this right.

But today, you can see to it that other Israeli families will merit this basic thing - to raise a happyfamily, to get up in the morning without bereavement, without gravestones, and without cemeteries. Today, asyou begin your deliberations with open eyes,think, just for a moment, about the ordinary people behind thisbloody conflict. Think for a moment about the golden heart of my husband, Yehuda, and about our young son,Avner.

Maybe you can explain to him - he's only ten years old - why in God's Name he doesn't have a father anymore?

People will enter your hall today, who will speak, who will accuse. Mourners will enter my home and Iwill be unable to understand and I will certainly not be consoled.

This evening, you will go home, kiss your spouses, hug your children - and I will be alone.

True, the politics are far from me, but now as the pain is far too close to me, I think that I haveacquired, with integrity      and with tears, the right to appeal to you and say: Ifthere had been a fence all along the length of the state, then maybe I,      justlike you, could kiss my husband this evening. Do not judge my country; do not restrain it from preventingadditional      people from becoming victims.Today, I am burying my husband; don'tyou bury justice. - Fanny Haim"

-- An open letter to the judges of the International Court of Justice from the wife of a Jeriusalemsandwich-seller, who was among the innocent civilians killed in the explosion in a Jerusalem bus earlier thisweek by a suicide bomber, believed to be from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, close to Yasser Arafat's PalestineLiberation Organisation (PLO). This was published in  the Israeli daily Yediot

Since February 23, 2004, the International Court of Justice has been hearing a reference from the UNGeneral Assembly questioning the legality of Israel's action in trying to protect its innocent civilians --men, women and children -- from the suicide bombers infiltrating from the occupied territories now under thecontrol of the PLO by constructing a protective barrier or fence around the areas under the control of thePLO.

The laws of all civilised countries of the world grant  their citizens what is called the right ofself or private defence -- the right to protect and preserve their life from any attack by an assailant. Themotive of the assailant for attacking is immaterial. The Indian law, which accords a similar right to all ofus, even lays down that one can exercise the right of private defence not only to protect and preserve one'sown life, but also the lives of others if they are perceived to be in danger.

The Indian law even lays down that this right of private defence even extends to causing the death of theassailant if the victim of the assault perceives that there is no other way of protecting his or her life orthe life of a third person. The only category of persons to whom this right does not apply is  criminalswho kill a policeman trying to nab them. The criminal cannot say he apprehended a threat to his life and hencekilled the policeman.

Under international law, what applies to individuals under domestic laws applies to States too, but not tonon-State actors. A state has the right and the obligation to protect the lives and property of its citizens. A state, which does not and cannot do it, withers away.

No people have suffered more at the hands of suicide terrorists than those of Israel and no State has agreater right to take all protective measures than the State of Israel. Nearly 900 innocent civilians--men,women and children-- have been killed by suicide bombers in Israel  since the beginning of this century.More than in any other country of the world. More than even in India.

They were not victims of what is called "collateral damage". They were victims ofdirectly-targeted attacks by the organisations sending the suicide bombers across one after the other. Men, women and children travelling by bus, eating in restaurants, taking a stroll in the streets or doingother daily chores of life. They were killed not because they were members of the security forces orintelligence agencies, but because they were Israelis, they were Jewish people. They were the easiest to kill.

We in India are rightly  shocked and outraged every time innocent civilians fall fatal victims toterrorist strikes through the use of explosives and other means. The people of the US and the rest of theworld were rightly shocked and outraged  when Al Qaeda terrorists killed over 3500 innocent civilians onSeptember 11,2001.

Why is the rest of the world is not equally shocked and outraged when dozens of innocent Israelis arekilled every other week, if not every other day, by suicide bombers? Because they are Jews? Is a jewish lifeless precious than that of a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or other religions?

We in India rightly accuse the USA of practising double standards in its counter-terrorism policies. Itdoes not condemn terrorist strikes against Indian nationals with the same anger, outrage and vehemence as itdoes terrorist strikes against its nationals. It reserves to itself the right to do whatever is necessary toprotect the lives and properties of its citizens, but does not concede the same right to us in India.

Aren't we in India guilty of similar double standards when it comes to terrorist strikes against Israelicitizens and against Jewish people in other parts of the world? Most of the post-1967 modus operandi ofterrorists--hijacking of aircraft and ships, hostage-taking, use of explosives to kill civilians, suicidebombers etc--- emanated from the PLO and other organisations associated with it. In an interview to the NewYork Times  in the beginning of 1981, Gajender Singh, of the Dal Khalsa, called upon the Sikhs toemulate the example of the PLO. We were all wondering what he meant by that. We did not have to wait for longto find out what he meant. A series of hijackings, hostage-taking, killing of innocent civilians throughexplosive devices etc followed.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) came into contact with the Palestinian terrorist organisationsin the 1980s and became  adept in the use of suicide terrorism in its efforts to intimidate the State andcivil society. Sri Lanka has already paid a heavy price for it. We too in 1991 when the LTTE killed RajivGandhi through a suicide bomber -- a technique which it learnt from the Palestinian terrorist organisationsand perfected.

And we hesitate to publicly recognise the role of the Palestinian terrorist organisations and those alliedto it in creating newer and newer and deadlier and deadlier  mutations of terrorism. When an organisationin Jammu & Kashmir (J&K)  or other parts of India deliberately, cold-bloodedly, without the leastqualms of conscience kills dozens of innocent civilians through explosives and suicide bombers, we rightlycondemn them as terrorist organisations and their acts as terrorism.

But when the PLO and those allied to it similarly cause the deaths of dozens of innocent Israelis throughsuicide bombers, we maintain a muted response and avoid calling them terrorist organisations and condemningtheir acts as brutal terrorism.

We are outraged when President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan projects the terrorists as freedom-fighters anddescribes their terrorism as acts of freddom struggle. How shocked and disgusted we were when he said in a TVinterview from Agra in 2001 that deaths of innocent civilians were unfortunate, but could not be helped in afreedom struggle.

Is it not natural for the Israelis to feel a similar sense of shock and outrage when the internationalcommunity, particularly the people of India, fail to condemn acts of brutal terrorism against them?

India has always supported  the Palestinian  cause and expressed its solidarity with thePalestinian people. I am myself not a great admirer of Israel's counter-terrorism methods, with theirover-emphasis on the military approach and on an  eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mindset.

But, neither our sympathy for the cause of an independent Palestine State nor our disapproval of someaspects of the counter-terrorism policy of the State of Israel should make us close our eyes and keep ourmouth shut in the face of the serial killings of innocent Israeli citizens by the PLO and other organisationsallied to it. Just because Yasser Arafat condemns them in public does not mean that he has had no hand ininstigating and using them just as  because Musharrasf condemns jihadi terrrists post-9/11 does not meanhe has had no hand in creating and using them against us.

During the last 10 years, we have erected a barbed wire fencing along our borders with Pakistan in parts ofRajasthan, the whole of Punjab and now in the Jammu area. We rightly look upon it as a justified protectivemeasure to save the lives and properties of our citizens from the terrorists infiltrated from Pakistan. Werightly reject Pakistani protests over the construction of the fence in the Jammu & Kashmir area.

How can we question Israel's right to construct a similar barrier or fence to protect its citizens? Ofcourse, there is a qualitative difference between our fence and Israel's. Ours is in our territory and doesnot cause any economic hardships to the local people. Part of Israel's barrier is in areas claimed by the PLOas Palestinian territory and causes economic hardships to the Palestinian  people.

The question to be asked is not whether Israel has the right to construct the protective barrier, which itdefinitely has, but whether it has taken all necessary action to mitigate the resulting economic hardships tothe Palestinians of the area. It needs to be mentioned at the same time that there is no physical securitymeasure which does not cause hardship or inconvenience to somebody or the other. If it does, it has to beunderstood in the larger cause of the struggle against terrorism.

There is an anomaly in our developing relations with Israel. The State-to-State relations did not start in1992 when the two countries established full-fledged diplomatic relations. It started immediately after thebirth of Israel when India, under Jawaharlal Nehru, was amongst the first countries of the world to recogniseIsrael and to allow it to establish a Consulate in Mumbai (Bombay) to cater to the needs of the Jewishcommunity of South and West India wanting to emigrate to Israel.

The periodic track-II dialogue between the security experts of the two countries did not start in 1992. Itstarted in 1968 at the instance of Indira Gandhi, the then Indian Prime Minister. Since the establishment ofdiplomatic relations in 1992, the relations have developed in various fields---political, economic,military,security and intelligence co-operation etc.

There is a great fascination and admiration  for Israel, its security forces, intelligence community,industries and technological capability in the present Indian political leadedrship and bureaucracy.  Asimilar fascination and admiration is lacking in non-governmental circles, particularly in the academic andstudent communities and  political parties to the left of the political spectrum. The Palestinians enjoygreater access to these circles and greater support from them. As a result, the growing State-to-Staterelations have not resulted in growing people-to-people contacts between India and Israel. There is hardly anyinterest  in the Israeli people, their history, their culture, their agony at the hands of terrorists inlarge sections of the Indian elite.No university in India and no Indian think-tank studies in depth the Stateand people of Israel, the Jewish diaspora and the Hebrew culture.

As a result, when  Israeli men, women and children die at the hands of suicide terrorists, there isvery little stirring of conscience. We tend to see their deaths not through the same eyes with which we seethe deaths of our own civilians at the hands of terrorists. We tend to see them instead through the eyes ofthe likes of Arafat and Musharraf --- as unfortunate, but unavoidable.

If such an attitude persists, the international community's fight against terrorism will remainineffective.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director,Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF),Chennai Chapter. He recently visited Israel (from February 13 to 18, 2004) to attend a conference onIndia-Israel-US Strategic co-operation  )