166 i n t e r n a t i o n a l f a c t o r s- During the fi rst half of 1949, Israel was able to conclude armistice
agreements with her four immediate neighbors— Egypt, Lebanon,
Jordan, and Syria. These agreements are still in force. - Israel has made strenuous eff orts to bring about a settlement of
outstanding issues between the Arab states and herself, but so far
without success... - Twenty- four countries are diplomatically represented in Israel to-
day [March 1952]. These include USA, USSR, Great Britain, almost
all the countries of Eu rope [East and West] Turkey, leading Latin
American states and others.^2
Israel was arguing that both countries had adopted similar stances to-
ward a number of international developments, and its positions on issues
such as nonalignment (“nonidentifi cation,” in Israeli parlance), Asian soli-
darity, recognition of communist China, socialism, peaceful co- existence,
and demo cratic rule were close to Nehru’s. By mentioning Turkey estab-
lishing diplomatic ties, Israel was hinting at its ac cep tance by a promi-
nent Islamic country and was attempting to allay India’s apprehensions
over possible, perceived, or potential Islamic opposition to normalization.
Above all, as discussed in the introduction to this book, Israel was using
the foreign- policy statement that Nehru had made in the Lok Sabha to
explain and communicate its own understanding of the world situation
and its approach to emerging global problems.^3
Yet the conventional wisdom has been that the Israeli leadership was
no diff erent from the yishuv and had nothing in common with India,
whereas the Arab countries were favorably disposed toward India. In the
words of G. H. Jansen, the Zionists “were only interested in having the
support of [Mahatma] Gandhi, with his worldwide reputation; they made
no attempt to contact the Indian National Congress, a fact which under-
lines their basic lack of concern with Asian nationalism as such. The
Congress consequently identifi ed itself fully with the Arab nationalist
movements in West Asia.”^4 Contacts between the Arab nationalists and
their Indian counterparts fi gure prominently in Indian discourses on
the Middle East.^5 This trend does not obtain in discussions on Zionist-
Indian contacts. As discussed earlier, Zionist- Indian contacts were rich,
diverse, and at times colorful. Shared values with the Arabs such as anti-
imperialism, decolonization, and Afro- Asian solidarity are widely recog-
nized, while Israel’s pro- Western policies and linkages to imperial powers
(especially during the 1956 crisis) were used to justify Indian indiff erence