India to back Palestinian bid for U.N. membership

[Tomcat]

would you say the same if india was in this postion yusuf

 

[Yusuf]

would you say the same if india was in this postion yusuf

In what position?

 

[Tomcat]

in the same postion as israle if some one says to us that a new state with no historical backgroud is to be created ( ho wait we al ready did didnt we ) would we

 

[LETHALFORCE]

in the same postion as israle if some one says to us that a new state with no historical backgroud is to be created ( ho wait we al ready did didnt we ) would we

We have done this and no one asked us.

 

[Yusuf]

in the same postion as israle if some one says to us that a new state with no historical backgroud is to be created ( ho wait we al ready did didnt we ) would we

Who says there is no historical background? Come on mate. You are bringing in some lane stuff. Ask pack leader, Israel themselves would be happy to give the Palestinians their state provided off course it's acceptable to their security needs.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

What if Kashmir Separatists go to the UN and ask for statehood? Who will veto that in the UN for us?

Is that a possibility?

 

[asianobserve]

What if Kashmir Separatists go to the UN and ask for statehood? Who will veto that in the UN for us?

Is that a possibility?

YES. It's really deserving to India's strategic interests to be entangled in pointless excursions. India's pro-Palestinian vote only goes to show that India still has a long way to go to be a serious geopolitical player on par with the current bigwigs. It still vote at the UN using its feet.

 

[mayfair]

I wonder why are we so fixated with Palestinian issue while maintaining a stony silence about simila issues elsewhere- Kurds, Ilangai Tamizhs, Baluchis etc. I struggle to recall any instance in the past when Palestinians or their leaders have come out in support of India's stand on various issues, especially those involving Pakistan. I'll be happy to be corrected if they have done so.

 

[KS]

Falling again in the paki trap ?

Both situations are different. For one kashmiris weren't thrown out of kashmir.

When Indians like you fall for it and start making comparisons then naturally outsiders will also do it.

It doesnt matter what I think ! Dont you understand ?

It about what others - will make out of our support to Palestine.

Like it or not Kashmir issue is in UN and obviously now noises are going to be made and there will be supporters for that.

These people are like if you give them an inch they will ask for a metre.

 

[KS]

Palestinian issue is as old as the Abrahmic religions. The Israelites and Philistines as they were called have been at each other for 3000 years. Even before Islam was born and Palestinians became Muslims[/U][/B]. Some how history keeps the Israelis and Philitines at each others throats.

BTW there was no such group as "Palestinians" before the WW I

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

 

[The Messiah]

What if Kashmir Separatists go to the UN and ask for statehood? Who will veto that in the UN for us?

Is that a possibility?

russia will.

infact the entire security council will. and even if they dont then they still cant force us.

 

[civfanatic]

Why are we still comparing Kashmir and Palestine? They are completely different scenarios.

For one, we are not stealing Kashmiri land, nor are we colonizing Kashmir with Indians from other parts of the country.

A more appropriate comparison would be Palestine and POK. Pakis have filled their part of Kashmir with Punjabi settlers.

 

[The Messiah]

Why are we still comparing Kashmir and Palestine? They are completely different scenarios.

For one, we are not stealing Kashmiri land, nor are we colonizing Kashmir with Indians from other parts of the country.

A more appropriate comparison would be Palestine and POK. Pakis have filled their part of Kashmir with Punjabi settlers.

only two types of people compare kashmir to palestine:

1. pakis
2. rss

why ? because both see things only through a religious prism.

 

[sob]

It is very well known and has been reported in the media extensively that the Govt. Most often views our relationship with the Gulf countries through the prism of vote bank politics. Our own DM is on record favouring a slow down on engagement with the US as it impact on the local elections.

With UP elections around the corner this and other statements are to be expected.

 

[KS]

only two types of people compare kashmir to palestine:

1. pakis
2. rss

why ? because both see things only through a religious prism.

You guys dont know to think anything beyond RSS ?

 

[The Messiah]

You guys dont know to think anything beyond RSS ?

You guys dont know to think anything beyond religion ?

 

[pmaitra]

russia will.

infact the entire security council will. and even if they dont then they still cant force us.

Probably US, Russia, France and UK, but I would not count on PRC.

However, we need only one veto and yes, my assumption concurs with your's; Russia will veto it.

 

[sob]

Further confirmation of the strange times we live in was provided by Mr Singh in his speech which marked a formal departure from India's long-standing position on Palestine whose formulation was in keeping with the UN Security Council's Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, which was adopted following the Six-Day War in which David beat Goliath to pulp. The operative portion of Resolution 242 calls for the "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Extrapolating from Resolution 242, India's position on the demand for Palestinian statehood was restricted to reiterating support for a two-state solution based on the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel and Palestine and their right to live side by side in peace within secure and recognised boundaries". On occasion, there were minor deviations (especially when politicians spoke extempore without a prepared text) but broadly the thrust would remain the same. Mr Singh has now introduced, in his standard and sly manner, a new element to India's position on a crucial issue without bothering about the need for public deliberation or parliamentary debate. In his address to the General Assembly he went out of the way to raise a contentious issue in whose resolution India has no perceivable role and which really is of no concern to us: "The Palestinian question still remains unresolved and a source of great instability and violence. India is steadfast in its support for the Palestinian people's struggle for a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secure and recognisable borders side by side and at peace with Israel."
That's a bizarre proposition, not the least because reiterating support for East Jerusalem as the capital of a 'united' state of Palestine amounts to endorsing the belligerence of those who wish to see Israel "wiped off the map of the world". A 'united' Palestine, as in a state with a single territorial identity, is a geographical and political impossibility; Palestine, as and when it gains statehood, will be no different from Mohammed Ali Jinnah's "moth-eaten Pakistan" and in due course will collapse into two entities. That apart, Mr Singh calling for the inclusion of 'East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine' from no less a platform than the UN General Assembly may serve to excite the imagination of wannabe Islamists who dwell in sequestered mohallahs in Azamgarh and similar places across India and aspire to join the ranks of God's Army, but it is not going to bring about any change on the ground.
The Green Line belongs to the past, as does the Ottoman Empire's occupation of the House of David. Mr Singh is expected to be aware of basic historical facts, including the UN's 1947 resolution declaring Jerusalem a "corpus separatum" which was accepted by Jews on the premise that Arabs, too, would accept it. But that resolution was rejected by the Palestinians and Arabs do not even concede the legitimacy of Israel.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/link-article/10425-azab-desh-ki-ghazab-kahani.html

Due to some reason I am unable to highlight the relevant sections from the above article.

 

[ejazr]

^^^^

Kanchan Gupta really going for another low blow and ideological bias with statements like "wannabe Islamists of Azamgarh". Or that somehow supporting the 1967 borders as a beginning point of negotiation (which even President Obama metnioned who has been so Pro-Israel that some have even called him the first Jewish President of US Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now -- New York Magazine) is supporting the annhilation of Israel . I don't see any rational argument and just bandying about the bogeyman of crazy Muslim fanatics as the reason why India is supporting the Palestinian statehood. Obviously because its so easy to bash Muslim fanatics to score points.

Lets look at the facts:
If he had actually read the UN resolutions, he will see that it calls for the belligerent parties to withdraw to the 1967 borders and that would mean West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem all of which are Arab majority regions at that time. Lets forget India and look at what the INTERNATIONAL and UN positions was for the occupied territories.

No International country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem because of its disputed nature. Combining with the UN resolution 242 and 478 - both of which hold the fundamental law that territories can not be annexed by conquest and were passed pretty much unopposed (East Jerusalem was conquered in 1967). 478 in fact clearly mentions that Jerusalem final status is still disputed and this is reiterated by almost all countries.

As recently as 2009, UN SG Ban ki Moon reiterated the international position on Jerusalem

Jerusalem must be capital of both Israel and Palestine, Ban says

Jerusalem must be the capital of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all, if peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned today.

"This is the road to the fulfilment of both the vision of [United Nations] Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, and the yearning for peace of people from all over the world," he said in a message to the Jerusalem International Forum in Rabat, Morocco, in which he stressed that the international community does not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.
.
.

The EU position on this matter again is very clear

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor - Lessons From a Gaza Trip - NYTimes.com
.
"The European Union set out its position in a statement of principles last December. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security. A viable state of Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines. A way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both Israel and Palestine."

Neither the US, EU or Ban ki Moon are pandering to the so called "wannabe Islamists from Azamgarh" or calling for the "destruction of Israel" But are in fact in most cases staunch supporters of Israel.

More interestingly, Kanchan Gupta probably has no idea of what the NDA position under Vajpayee was about Palestine.

Here are some articles that he should read.

PM praises Sonia, backs Palestine
.
.
Notwithstanding its friendly relations with Israel, Vajpayee asserted India's principled stand on Palestine and said: "We continue to champion the cause of the Arab world. An independent Palestinian state should be established, those who have been uprooted should be resettled and violence must stop," he said.

"Violence is no solution to any problem and whatever is happening there, we are against it," said Vajpayee, who is also expected to refer to the West Asia crisis in his address to the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow.

He said Sonia Gandhi was under pressure to boycott the meeting, from some supporting parties and the Third Front and she ignored it.

"This was a good gesture on the part of Sonia Gandhi," he said. She carried out her responsibility as the Leader of the Opposition by meeting Sharon and 'I thanked her'," said Vajpayee.
.
.

In his visit to Syria (recall that US and Israel both treat Syria as a state sponsor of terror), this is what Vajpayee discussed there in 2003 Occupied territories according to Un refers to West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem or basically any territory past the 1967 lines. Again, this is not an Indian position its a UN position.

The Hindu : We fully support Palestinian cause, says Vajpayee
.
.
Mr. Sinha said that both India and Syria condemned terrorism.

In response to a question whether the Prime Minister spoke specifically about ending the occupation of the Golan Heights, Mr. Sinha said that when India spoke of withdrawal from "occupied territories" this included the Golan Heights, taken by the Israelis in 1967.

"India has been consistently of the view that Israel has to vacate the occupied lands. So, it does not have to be reiterated again and again. It was sufficient for the Prime Minister to say that India was in favour of withdrawal of Israel from the occupied lands."
.
.

And since Kanchan Gupta is confusing the Kashmir issue with Palestine he should realize that they are completely separate issues and he is undermining Indian positions by this Pakistani inspired comparison.

Vajpayee rejects Palestine-Kashmir comparison - The Times of India
http://defenceforumindia.com/documentary/8475-kashmir-not-palestine-india-not-israel.html


The bottom line is that there may be valid reasons for say the PM should take this position or that, but it should be put in the perspective of International Relations and a realistic Foreign Policy. Not playing up some imagined domestic politics card like Gupta is doing here.
Sonia Gandhi in 2002 met with Ariel Sharon who was even indicted for War Crimes because he was a visiting PM of Israel. And Vajpayee reiterated the support of withdrawal of Israel from "occupied territories" on Syrian soil itself. This is because both had national interests in mind and acted based on those rather than just making a willy nilly statement. These are well thought out positions that are part of the broader FP strategy and doesn't just depend on "wannabe Islamists in Azamgarh". Unfortunately some people can't see that.

 

[KS]

^^^^

Kanchan Gupta really going for another low blow and ideological bias with statements like "wannabe Islamists of Azamgarh". Or that somehow supporting the 1967 borders as a beginning point of negotiation (which even President Obama metnioned who has been so Pro-Israel that some have even called him the first Jewish President of US Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now -- New York Magazine) is supporting the annhilation of Israel . I don't see any rational argument and just bandying about the bogeyman of crazy Muslim fanatics as the reason why India is supporting the Palestinian statehood. Obviously because its so easy to bash Muslim fanatics to score points.

Lets look at the facts:
If he had actually read the UN resolutions, he will see that it calls for the belligerent parties to withdraw to the 1967 borders and that would mean West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem all of which are Arab majority regions at that time. Lets forget India and look at what the INTERNATIONAL and UN positions was for the occupied territories.

No International country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem because of its disputed nature. Combining with the UN resolution 242 and 478 - both of which hold the fundamental law that territories can not be annexed by conquest and were passed pretty much unopposed (East Jerusalem was conquered in 1967). 478 in fact clearly mentions that Jerusalem final status is still disputed and this is reiterated by almost all countries.

As recently as 2009, UN SG Ban ki Moon reiterated the international position on Jerusalem


The EU position on this matter again is very clear



Neither the US, EU or Ban ki Moon are pandering to the so called "wannabe Islamists from Azamgarh" or calling for the "destruction of Israel" But are in fact in most cases staunch supporters of Israel.

More interestingly, Kanchan Gupta probably has no idea of what the NDA position under Vajpayee was about Palestine.

Here are some articles that he should read.


In his visit to Syria (recall that US and Israel both treat Syria as a state sponsor of terror), this is what Vajpayee discussed there in 2003 Occupied territories according to Un refers to West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem or basically any territory past the 1967 lines. Again, this is not an Indian position its a UN position.



And since Kanchan Gupta is confusing the Kashmir issue with Palestine he should realize that they are completely separate issues and he is undermining Indian positions by this Pakistani inspired comparison.

Vajpayee rejects Palestine-Kashmir comparison - The Times of India
http://defenceforumindia.com/documentary/8475-kashmir-not-palestine-india-not-israel.html


The bottom line is that there may be valid reasons for say the PM should take this position or that, but it should be put in the perspective of International Relations and a realistic Foreign Policy. Not playing up some imagined domestic politics card like Gupta is doing here. Sonia Gandhi in 2002 met with Ariel Sharon who was even indicted for War Crimes because he was a visiting PM of Israel. And Vajpayee reiterated the support of withdrawal of Israel from "occupied territories" on Syrian soil itself. This is what would a mature position on contentious issues looks like. Unfortunately some people can't see that.

If NDA supported the Issue then they too are fools who were afraid of revising the status-quo fearing coalition compulsions and adopting the correct posture towards the Israeli-Arab problem. That's it.

BTW the support to Palestine can be justified only on the circumstance that they agree to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on 1967 borders.

Thats the most any nation in a absolute position of strength vis-a-vis other (Israel, Palestine) will be willing to concede. No country will ever withdraw from areas it has conquered in a direct war with the opposite camp (except maybe India .. Infact it did in the 1965 war) that it did not even provoke.

How is it even reasonable for the Arabs to demand the areas conquered by Israel in 1967 to be returned when they were the aggressors in the first place ? Suppose if they had won the war would they have agreed to return land ?

Also the Palestinians are blatantly unjustified in asking for the Right to Return as it tantamounts to the demographic swamping of Israel in indirect terms.

If they agree to the West Bank and Gaza then I think Israel will be more than ready to offer them that. infact that is what every Israeli PM has said.

And yeah the initial policy regarding Palestine was not based on some ideals but to appease the Muslim community in India. Its not wrong entirely as they are also the citizens of India but that appeasement should be subservient to national interests..not vice versa.