It is not quite clear why New Delhi has chosen this time to accord full diplomatic recognition to the PLO and invite its chief, Mr. Yasser Arafat, to visit this country. But the decision is unexceptional in terms of principle as well as the stand India has consistently taken on the question of the future of the Palestinian people. Even setting aside the history of the establishment of the state of Israel and the partition of Palestine, there can be no question that the Palestinian people constitute a distinct nation in the fullest sense of the term and that they are, therefore, entitled to a state of their own whatever its final boundaries. Tel Aviv itself cannot deny the reality of the Palestinian nationhood, though it fiercely contests their right to a state of their own. And as far as this country is concerned, it has always supported their legitimate aspirations and just demands. India has also been realistic enough to recognize that the Jewish state is a fact which cannot be undone except at the grave risk of a major conflagration, in all probability involving nuclear weapons and the two super-powers and has, therefore, been willing to accept partition of Palestine provided of course, Israel agrees to vacate the Arab territories it occupied in 1967. New Delhi like other capitals is ready to ignore Israel’s expansion in 1948.
It is, however, obvious that New Delhi’s present decision does not confer much advantage either on it or the PLO. The Arab world is in worse disarray than it has been ever before. Egypt under President Sadat has chosen not only to seek unilateral peace with Israel more or less on the latter’s terms, but also to forge a virtual alliance with the United States. This by itself is enough to deny the Arabs the option of going to war with Tel Aviv to press the just cause of the Palestinian people. As it happens, other leading Arab countries are too preoccupied with their domestic problems to be able to give the Palestinian issue top priority. Syria, for example, faces the threat of sectional war and Iraq is principally concerned over the impact of the so-called Islamic revolution in Iran over its Shia majority. Mr. Arafat has somehow managed to ensure the PLO’s survival amidst various crises, the worst being the civil war in Lebanon and the virtual occupation of the south of Litani by the Israeli- supported Christian militia and its autonomy amidst intra-Arab conflicts and frequent shifts of policy by states which finance it.
It also remains without doubt the only true representative of the Palestinian people. But Israel continues to refuse to negotiate with it in any form and the United States has once again backed away from its move to establish contacts with it. Of late, there have reports that the PLO might well have established a dialogue with Jordan’s King Hussein and that it may agree to his negotiating a deal with Tel Aviv on the question of the future of the West Bank. In the circumstance the diplomatic recognition of the PLO can merely be a symbolic gesture of goodwill.