normalization and after 253more so when coupled with religious fundamentalism. Our mutual de-
termination to combat terrorism is the basis for discussions with Israel,
whose reputation in dealing with such problems is quite successful.”^47
Not only did he choose Israel as the destination for his maiden foreign trip
as home minister, but he was accompanied by se nior offi cials responsible
for internal security.^48 Back in the opposition, in February 2007 Advani
hosted an interreligious dialogue attended by Hindu, Jewish, and Islamic
scholars. Moreover, since the visit of Rajasthan’s chief minster (later In-
dia’s vice president) Bhairon Singh Shekhawat in June 1994, various state
leaders of the party have traveled to Israel. It was during the reign of the
BJP that India gave a red- carpet welcome to Prime Minister Sharon.
The attitude of the leftist parties was complex and at times contradic-
tory. They were not enthusiastic about Rao normalizing relations with
Israel, but, overwhelmed by the tragedy of the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, the communists were fi ghting for self- preservation. With both of
the largest parties, the Congress Party and the BJP, supporting normal-
ization, there was very little they could do. Refl ecting the prevailing na-
tional consensus, the left eventually came around to the idea that forging
closer ties with Israel was in India’s interest. In the summer of 2000, the
chief minister of West Bengal and veteran communist leader Jyoti Basu
visited Israel. Around the same time, Somnath Chatterjee, another com-
munist personality and, later, speaker of the Lok Sabha, led a business
delegation to Israel to promote investment opportunities in his home
state of West Bengal. These two visits marked a diplomatic coup for Israel
and signaled the larger Indian consensus on normalization.
The spoiler came in the form of the al- Aqsa intifada, which began in
September 2000 and prompted the Indian left to revert to its cold- war
ideological rhetoric. Disapproving of Israel’s handling of the Palestinian
uprising, it demanded that the Indian government recall its ambassador.
The BJP being in power during this period added a domestic twist to the
communist logic, which perceived the Indo- Israeli ties as part of the anti-
Muslim agenda of the BJP. Se nior leaders of the CPI(M) argued that by
seeking “special ties” with Israel, the BJP had abandoned the Palestin-
ians and brought shame to the country. In the words of CPI(M) General
Secretary Prakash Karat:
The chauvinist positions and military attacks by Sharon and his
right- wing government fi nd a positive response amongst the BJP and
its RSS mentors in India. The war against the Palestinians is seen