180 i n t e r n a t i o n a l f a c t o r s5,500 square miles of the territory of the Palestine, which as a whole
was 10,423 square miles. The present [that is, the pre- 1967] area of Israel,
according to the latest fi gures available, is said to be 7,993 square
miles, that is to say 45 percent in excess of that authorized by the UN
Resolution.”^77 Interestingly, India was not vocal in expressing its opposi-
tion to the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem
following the 1948 Arab- Israeli war. Likewise, it is diffi cult to accept that
New Delhi was unfamiliar with the PLO covenant, which explicitly called
for the destruction of Israel, until its annulment following the Oslo Ac-
cords.^78 The Jordanian action and PLO charter clearly ran counter to
India’s recognition of Israel. A more likely explanation could be that it
had reservations but was reluctant to spell them out due to po liti cal
compulsions.
On the sensitive issue of terrorism, India has adopted a mixed ap-
proach. In an offi cial statement about the Munich massacre, issued on
September 6, 1972, India declared that the tragedy “shocked us. Sports and
terrorism go ill together. We thought it a good augury that Arabs and Is-
raeli sportsmen were participating in the Olympics in the traditional spirit
of sportsmanship.”^79 This was one of the strongest Indian statements on
terrorism.^80 However, when questioned about the po liti cal status of al-
Fatah, in 1970 Foreign Minister Dinesh Singh declared that “there is no
question of al- Fatah being a terrorist or ga ni za tion. It is a revolutionary or-
ga ni za tion in West Asia of considerable importance.”^81
At the international level, India’s general attitude was one of sympathy
and understanding toward the Palestinians. While the NAM maintained
a complete silence on the Munich massacre, it condemned Israel for its
rescue operation in Entebbe. The po liti cal declaration of the 1976 sum-
mit in Colombo categorically stated:
The conference noted with serious disappointment the failure of the
United Nations Security Council to condemn the Israeli military ag-
gression against Uganda on 4 July 1976. The Conference expressed
grave concern at the tragic loss of human life, damage and destruc-
tion of Ugandan property caused by the Israeli aggression.
The Conference strongly condemned Israel’s fl agrant violation
of the Republic of Uganda’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and
the deliberate and wanton destruction of life and property at En-
tebbe Airport and further condemned Israel for thwarting the hu-