‘Iran must know that there is a very high price tag attached to its military nuclear ambitions’Pranab Dhal Samanta Jun 03 2012
In this Idea Exchange moderated by Deputy Editor Pranab Dhal Samanta, Israeli ambassador Alon Ushpiz speaks about the Feb 13 attack on an Israeli diplomat in Delhi and says Iran is going “in a systematic way after diplomats. This is not a rare phenomenon, this has become a policy”
Pranab Dhal Samanta: Could you begin by saying a few words on Indo-Israeli relations, the situation in the Middle East and Israel’s concerns in a heightened security scenario.
Since January, we have been celebrating the 20th anniversary of bilateral relations. You are a continent, tremendously big and you have a tremendously wide spectrum of challenges. We, on the other hand, are very small. We are less than a third of Delhi’s size, with a population of 7.8-7.9 million. Nevertheless, we’re faced with a wide range of existential challenges. And when you’re that small with that many challenges, you have no option but to pick and choose. Otherwise, you get swallowed by an ocean of problems.
Today, we have a set of relations that deals with existential issues—security, civilian trade and agriculture. We must also consider the ridge beyond the horizon and from our point of view, this has three baskets of issues—water, energy and homeland security. These are the six domains that have to be dealt with if we don’t want to pay a price, as individuals and as societies.
Pranab Dhal Samanta: Tell us of your experience in dealing with states and chief ministers. Is it very different from dealing with the Central government?
We have had a very good experience in dealing with India at the federal level and at the level of the states. We have been privileged to find partners who look at priorities in the same way that we look at them and there is quite a solid agreement on the things we have to do together. We’ll work with whoever wants to be our partner. We don’t do pick-and-choose. We have been interacting with a large number of chief ministers. We find them to be very effective, dedicated leaders. And we enjoy this type of cooperation.
Shekhar Gupta: Are you concerned that for many years now, we haven’t been getting the same high-profile visits that we used to in the past? There is an obvious shyness on the part of the top leadership, particularly in India, on visits to Israel.
Once you have reached the conclusion that a set of relations is an existential one, it obviously becomes a multifaceted thing. One should not ignore that interactions between high-level political leadership is an indispensable part of this. In the last couple of years, we had quite a spectrum of exchange of visits. For example, 2012 opened with the Minister of External Affairs of India visiting Israel to commemorate the 20th anniversary of relations. We are flooded with visits of ministers and of officials. And I haven’t yet encountered a visit which was not productive.
Manu Pubby: Recently, our army chief was to visit Israel but the trip was cancelled. The official reason given here was that the situation in the Middle East was not conducive to his visit. Was this a setback?
We don’t see it as a setback and we are determined to keep cultivating, promoting bilateral relations. A delay of a visit is not something that you cannot overcome in a very short span of time.
Shekhar Gupta: Do you worry about the ban on some of your companies by the Ministry of Defence?
We strongly believe that India and Israel face a difficult neighbourhood, including terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. We have also been victims together of terrorist actions—26/11. My predecessor went through very difficult days in Mumbai. In February 2012, something similar happened in Delhi. One of our colleagues was targeted in a calculated, cold-blooded way by state-sponsored terrorism in New Delhi. Israel has the best defence industries in the world. Reliable, cutting-edge technology, innovative.
Dilip Bobb: What was the cooperation like between India and Israel on the 26/11 case? Did you find anything that Indian investigators didn’t?
We have full confidence in your relevant agencies and we are tremendously grateful for their cooperation.
Shubhajit Roy: Can you take us through the first five hours of February 13, when the Israeli diplomat was attacked in Delhi. What happened?
People should not mistake diplomacy as something that is done in greenhouses or in laboratories. Nevertheless, it is very different when you run an operation and you have to stand by the bed of a friend and colleague. To target a mother of two children who was on her way to school to pick them up, is evil and bad and these people, the government who sent them, have to pay a price. Within the first hour or two of the incident, I had the privilege of getting phone calls from some of your leaders here in India. Your bureaucracy was very quick, efficient and determined to deal with the incident. This determination was reflected in the practical outcome of the investigation. About four weeks after February 13, your agencies put out names of Iranians and took legal action. From the very first hour, they took security measures so that my friends, my colleagues in the Israeli embassy felt very safe and secure. We had taken a very calculated decision after the attack that we wouldn’t change anything in our schedule. There was a very warm response from your leadership and from Indians. But for those who were targeted, hit in these attacks, it does not end with February 13. These people carry with them very deep scars and baggage. We have all been in touch with our friend Tal (Yehoshua, the diplomat who was attacked). Those who are responsible must be brought to justice. There is a whole state apparatus behind this. There are people, institutions, elected officials, responsible for these actions.
Vijaita Singh: How sure were you about Iran’s involvement in the February 13 attack?
One hundred per cent.
Vijaita Singh: Hours after the attack in Delhi, there was a similar attack in Georgia that was aborted. How did you link the two? After the botched terror attack in Bangkok, your ambassador there spoke about how these plots were linked but investigating agencies here took time to establish this.
We were very sure, very quickly, 100 per cent, that all of these are connected and related to Iran.
Pranab Dhal Samanta: What is the kind of evolution that has happened in Iran’s strategies and abilities to take such bold actions which have been rather rare in the past?
Twenty years ago, Iran operatives took down our embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people were killed. In the last couple of years, there have been serious instances where Iranian operatives have got guidance to go after the lives of Israeli diplomats. About six months ago, Iranians tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC. On February 13, our friends in Bangkok were targeted by numerous sticking bombs. In Georgia, it was the same thing. So I don’t see it as a rare attempt, it is a pattern. You have a state going in a systematic way after diplomats. This is not a rare phenomenon, this has become a policy. Iran is the number one terrorist-sponsoring state. In our close neighbourhood, you see the very solid intensive support they have given to organisations like the Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Even in West Asia, there are examples. Look at the things happening in Iraq, Bahrain. Iran is the number one element of instability in the region. Last, but not least, is Iran’s constant action to acquire military nuclear weapons. This is a game-changer not only for Israel but for the entire international community which is reflected in the Security Council resolution. We believe that actions have to be taken in order to stop this. And we believe that the most effective set of actions that should be taken immediately and kept implemented are economic sanctions and political isolation. There should be a clear understanding for the Iranian leadership that there is a very high price tag attached to their military nuclear ambitions.
Pranab Dhal Samanta: It is said that Israel believes that the point of no-return has already been achieved in the Iranian nuclear programme. Is your patience running out?
Sudeep Paul: If I may add to that, Israel’s defence chief, Benny Gantz, recently took a position on Iran that was rather different from the government’s—that Iran is not capable in the near future of developing nuclear weapons.
There is nothing like a point of no-return. This is not about timelines and dates, this is about understanding that this should not end with Iran acquiring nuclear military capabilities. Let me put the case on the table: does anyone here believe that a nuclear Iran will be the last nuclearised country in the Middle East? Will this promote stability in West Asia or take it away? Do you think it will be helpful to events in Iraq or inflict more damage? The minute you reach a conclusion that it is bad, you have to take actions against it. It is not only an Israeli problem, it is something shared by many people and many countries. All options are on the table, which also include serious tangible diplomatic options. We Israelis will be more than happy if this thing is resolved through diplomatic means. Taking into account February 13, do you think Iranian behaviour after being nuclearised will be more restrained when it comes to spreading terrorism outside of Iran or lesser? I leave the question open to you.
Sandeep Das: You said India-Israel ties are multifaceted. But the fact is that a large chunk of the oil we import is from Iran and a large chunk of our Basmati rice is exported to Iran.
We don’t decide Indian policies and it is none of our business. We believe that a nuclear Iran is a very serious danger. We believe there is an obligation to prevent this. We also believe that all options are on the table. The only measures we can think of are economic sanctions and political isolation. When I say economic sanctions, each economy and government has to look at its own basket of economic interactions and make a good usage of it.
Monojit Majumdar: Defence minister Ehud Barak said several months ago that time was running out (for action against Iran). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tehran’s government was irrational enough to put ideology above national survival. However, armed forces chief General Benny Gantz said the Iranian leadership is rational. Where exactly does the national debate in Israel stand now?
There is a consensus in Israel that a nuclear Iran is a serious threat. It is a multi-dimensional issue. It goes beyond the nuclear issue. All the Israelis agree on this. They agree that if Iran becomes nuclear, the damage inflicted will go beyond West Asia, the echo will be heard in many other places. This is something which should be avoided. You will find a group of people who will have difference of opinion on measures and timelines. But there is a consensus that all options are on the table and nuclear Iran is a dangerous issue.
Anjanay Mishra, student, MAXFORT SCHOOL: For many years you have been struggling for your existence. What steps will you take to maintain peace in your country and the neighbouring countries?
I have been dealing with the peace process for 10-15 years, it was the backbone of my career. The most important thing about this ongoing venture in the Middle East is to never lose hope. You have to understand that there is a peace process and this is going to end up with a two-state solution and you have to contain the crisis. You have to understand that on the other side, there is a partner, he is a human being, there are mothers, fathers, families and children. And you have to be very restrained and calculative and never lose sight of where you want to go. One of the most indispensable things from an Israeli point of view is security. If we don’t find a formula to provide Israelis with security, the peace will not last. Israel was conceived in the cradle of the horrible events of World War-II and the Holocaust. This cradle brings us to help us identity ourselves as a Jewish state. And the minute you reach this conclusion, there is a certain importance to other side accepting you as who you are.
Nishta Aggarwal, student, MAXFORT SCHOOL: How do you view relations between India and Israel in the coming five years or so?
We are going through a very positive process of increasing mutual understanding and recognition. Look at the number of tourists travelling between the two countries—it is almost one lakh people a year. India has become the largest origin country in Asia when it comes to tourism in Israel. For Israelis, India has become a kind of milestone. We are investing a huge amount of money into culture in India.
Manu Pubby: Recently, there have been concerns in India about the situation in the South China Sea. What is the Israeli position on the South China Sea and the freedom of the seas in the area?
We have a complicated set of our own challenges. I believe the best solutions are peaceful and diplomatic solutions. No one can ignore what has been happening in the international community in the last decade or so. The biggest Israeli embassy in Asia is in New Delhi. We also have a good representation of diplomats in China. China is a partner on civilian issues, trade, research and developments and education. China is a partner of India. Our relations with India are a standalone bilateral issue and our relation with China is a standalone bilateral issue too. We are seasoned enough to maintain these kind of relations.
Transcribed by Priyanka Sharma and Nandini Thilak