It should not come as a surprise if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who himself has a tainted record, repeated the same sentiments when he met the Indian leaders at New Delhi

I wish I could say the same thing about Israel. I was impressed by the modest, ascetic society it was when I visited Tel Aviv in the early 60s. I sat with young boys and girls under the open sky to commend their hard work and their vision about peace. Those were the days when there was a loose talk in the Arab world to dump the Jews in the sea. In reply, Jews would then say: "We want to live peacefully with our neighbouring countries."

The same Israel has travelled a long way. It has forcibly occupied bits of territory of neighbouring countries. The moderates have been pushed aside. The state has acquired a face, which is brutal and vindictive. True, terrorism or the fear of it has contributed a lot to what Israel has become today. But it does not realise that it has tried to solve political problems through the military. Instead of pointing out this, the joint statement issued by New Delhi and Tel Aviv gives the impression of our going along with Israel. We have avoided the name of Palestine. It is like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

New Delhi has, indeed, changed its policy when Palestine is not mentioned in the joint statement and when the visiting Israeli delegation say that "we and they" are on the same side. What would our friends in the Arab world, particularly the Palestine, infer? Sharon was the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit India. Although we recognised the country in 1950 we had no meaningful contacts with it till the mid-eighties. It was the BJP-led government which really befriended Tel Aviv and also entered into defence deals. Even Mossad, Israel's top intelligence agency, is said to have developed ties with our agencies.

The same BJP government invited Sharon. Did it mean that India was formalising a relationship which was suspect in the eyes of the Arab world? The BJP's agenda is political. It wants to exploit for its parochial purpose the Islamic fundamentalism which, among other things, confronts Israel. This is a policy which is directly opposed to the sensitivities of the Arab nations.

The reason for Arabs' anger was that Israel was planted in their midst despite their opposition. Still they could have been mollified if an independent state of Palestine was founded. This is what we should have been trying. But our efforts went awry.

Our stand on Palestine has been according to the complexion of the government of the day in Delhi. We seldom acted according to what the situation has demanded. In the first 40 years after independence we went overboard in our tilt towards the Palestinians. Now we have gone overboard in our tilt towards Israel. We have lost the art of staying equidistant. This has

affected our stock in West Asia. There is suspicion that we want to get closer to America through Israel. Even the Palestinians doubt us.

In an interview, Palestinian Foreign Minister Sha'ath said n Delhi a few days ago: "First of all, I see no need to go to Israel to reach the United States. The United States is open to India. I do not think that you need that intermediary." He alleged that we (Indians) were identifying ourselves with those who would like to dub all the Palestinian resistance as "terrorism."

Earlier, while criticising the visit of Sharon, President Yasser Arafat warned that this would further "fuel India-Pakistan tension." It is an unfortunate observation coming from a person who should be doing everything to span the distance between the two countries it hurts. Why should Sharon's visit be unwelcome to Pakistan when it is also toying with the idea of extending recognition to Israel?

Having good relations with Tel Aviv or doing business with it is not at the expense of Palestinians. The Indians support their aspirations to rule themselves. In fact, their struggle for independence reminds us of our struggle for independence. But ours was a non-violent movement, which knew of no bomb blasts and suicide squads in crowded market places or living quarters.

I wonder sometimes whether a non-violent movement by the Palestinians would have had more impact on the Jews and the civil society in America or elsewhere. But then our leader was Mahatma Gandhi who wore hand-spun khaddar. The Palestinians have Yasser Arafat as their President who prides himself for wearing a khaki uniform.

What has damaged Israel's image is the way in which it has expanded its territory beyond the borders which the UN had mandated while creating the state. Tel Aviv is seen using brutal force to spread itself in the name of survival. It is also apparent that Israel does not want to vacate the territories it has forcibly incorporated into Israel. Still more reprehensible is the lack of sensitivity on the part of Tel Aviv. It rolls out its tanks on the streets of Palestine at the slightest provocation. The worst type of actions is taken against Syria, Jordan or Egypt if Tel Aviv suspects that some people in their territory are terrorists. The governments are seldom consulted or warned.

What the Hamas or other militant organisations are doing is not our kind of politics. Gandhi said that if means were vitiated, ends are bound to be vitiated. Yet this does not mean that Israel should get away with what it is doing to the Palestinians. Arafat has been confined to his house for weeks. After all he is the President of Palestine.

Terrorism in which some Palestinian groups are indulging is no solution to the problem. The killings steel a nation's determination, not slacken it. This is what is happening in India. Neither Lashkar-e-Toiba nor the Hizbul Mujahideen, nor their masters are realising that they are only heightening the country's resolve to crush them, whatever the cost.

Still there is no doubt that the BJP-led government is giving all the credibility to Israel when it is not giving any honourable exit to the Arafat government. In fact, it is not even noticing its existence. New Delhi cannot be a party to that. The ultimate test for Tel Aviv's credentials will be whether it can live in peace with its neighbouring countries and reconcile itself to the independent status of Palestine. Sharon gave no such hope.

New Delhi should have tried to take him out of that frame of mind. I believe that the words like 'reconciliation and understanding' were being discussed for use in the draft joint statement when the recent attack by suicide bombers took place. America is talking about 'friendship' among the three, the US, Israel and India. But how can New Delhi support Tel Aviv in the excesses it is committing in a mood of vendetta? This is producing an atmosphere of conflict, disruption and retaliation in the region and even beyond.

World powers are silent because America is openly and consistently on the side of Israel. Maybe, Washington should push its own road map which it announced some time back. However inadequate, there would be some beginning.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.