In what position?would you say the same if india was in this postion yusuf
We have done this and no one asked us.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.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
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.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?
It doesnt matter what I think ! Dont you understand ?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.
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.
russia will.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?
only two types of people compare kashmir to palestine: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.
You guys dont know to think anything beyond RSS ?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 religion ?You guys dont know to think anything beyond RSS ?
Probably US, Russia, France and UK, but I would not count on PRC.russia will.
infact the entire security council will. and even if they dont then they still cant force us.
The EU position on this matter again is very clearJerusalem 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.
.
.
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.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."
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.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.
.
.
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.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."
.
.
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.^^^^
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.