international factors 181
manitarian eff orts by the President of Uganda to have all the hostages
released.^82In short, according to India, which endorsed this stance, Israel was the
aggressor at Uganda. It had nothing to say about the Palestinian guerril-
las who hijacked the Air France plane and separated Jewish and non-
Jewish passengers with the intention of executing them. India was will-
ing a partner in this partisan revisionism.
On the whole, however, India has followed the general consensus in
the Middle East regarding the Palestinians. The only notable exception
was its refusal to recognize the All- Palestine Government of September
1948, which was recognized by some Arab states. Otherwise, it has fol-
lowed the general Arab sentiments of recognizing the po liti cal rights of
the Palestinians and the PLO. Its reservations regarding the PLO cove-
nant that called for the destruction of Israel, a state recognized by India,
were never explicitly stated. The same was true for the Jordanian annexa-
tion of the West Bank, and before 1967 India never invoked the “inadmis-
sibility” of the acquisition of territory through war. This became a con-
stant Indian theme vis-à- vis Israel following the June 1967 war. On the
issue of terrorism, it sided with Palestinians even though the wanton
killing of innocent civilians went against the Gandhian concept of ahimsa
or nonviolence.
Thus, the Pakistan factor and the growing importance of Arab and
Islamic countries resulted in India recognizing the po liti cal usefulness
of a pro- Arab and pro- Palestinian position. With the Soviet Union provid-
ing an ideological ambiance for such a policy, during the cold- war years,
India’s policy on Israel ranged from unfriendliness to outright hostility.
As Israel’s circle of friends began diminishing following the Arab oil
embargo, India became increasingly hostile toward Israel. Only a major
international upheaval would be able to jolt India out of its position.