India's UN abstention from vote on Israel sparks criticism: UN resolutions aren't moral science lessons

Social media is on overdrive, yet again, on the question of India’s abstaining from the United Nations Resolution on Israel. Much of this criticism is based on the ‘everyone’ has signed, which is hardly an issue for a country to take. There is a need for clarity here and also a close examination of India’s stance. Politics of the resolution on Israel First, the UN resolution of 26 October,  introduced by the UN’s 22-nation Arab coalition, in a rather more than bizarre omission, made no mention of Hamas or its attacks that killed 1,400 or more Israelis. Instead, it chose to adopt an anodyne “Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks…” which is not at all the same thing and should not represent world opinion. Further, the resolution doesn’t once mention the word ‘hostages’, instead opting for ‘unconditional release’ of those held ‘illegally’. The whole text concentrates on a ‘durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities’ – which in operational terms means that Israel ends operations well before it achieves its stated aim of eliminating Hamas – or even reducing its clout substantially. Tied to that is the emphasis on providing essential goods and services to “‘civilians’ in the Gaza Strip including but not limited to water, food, medical supplies fuel and electricity…”. Given the severe circumstances operating in Gaza, that is laudable. However, it is unclear how the distinction is to be made between terrorists and civilians. Besides, there is every indication that Hamas’s operations in underground tunnels – which can house a virtual city – have been hampered by the need for diesel to run generators that can supply air. There is absolutely no assurance that the supplied fuels will not go to ‘non-civilians’. Lastly, the resolution is titled ‘Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory’. It seemed the text was designed to fail the litmus test of even-handedness. For better or for worse this ‘non-binding’ resolution, which essentially means no obligations on any of the signatories, was passed, allowing the Arab countries to claim a victory, even while each of them continued to refuse to allow Palestinian refugees into their lands. This is politics at its worst and showed the UN in an even worse light. The politics of voting The voting was even more politically oriented. Those against the resolution were just 14, (primarily the US with a host of small countries including Tonga and Papua New Guinea) and 45 abstained including India and Ukraine. Consider that the European Union was divided, with France voting for, even while ‘regretting’ the missing condemnation of terror attacks by Hamas. That position is hardly surprising. France has been torn apart by protests, which continue despite a ban. Yet the UK abstained as did Germany. The former has seen many protests which also continue, though Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to ‘stamp out’ anti-Semitism, intrinsic to many of these. Ireland voted for it, while Germany abstained. The latter has seen an alarming rise in anti-Semitism, reflecting the dark age of the past. East Europe is divided too, with Slovenia voting for, and Slovakia abstained, and the Czech Republic against as did Croatia. Meanwhile, across Europe, there is a quiet crackdown on protests, in what activists see as a complete erosion of free speech, which lies at the bedrock of European identity. Things are changing, and will change further. None of them want more refugees or migrants either. The numbers they do have are causing enough trouble. Politics of the Canada amendment Politics is also apparent in the voting on a draft amendment proposed by Canada which did name Hamas and did call for the release of the hostages. India supported that among the 88 who did with 55 against, with 23 abstentions. Why countries like Pakistan and a host of Islamic countries would refuse to support this is tied to the perception that Hamas is the ‘proximate cause’ – which is what the Pakistan representative to the UN said – and not the main issue which is Israeli ‘occupation’. Expectedly, Pakistan and a raft of non-democracies voted against it, as also did Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Nepal abstained. The question is whether India lobbied for their vote in favour. It if did, then this trend is worrying. China and Russia, both of whom opposed a US-proposed resolution in the Security Council as well, also voted against. Neither has the slightest sympathy with terrorism or hostage-taking. Again, this is yet again, Palestine’s interests being sacrificed at the altar of politics. India’s vote India’s explanation of the vote was unambiguous. It stated, “The terror attacks in Israel ..were shocking and deserve condemnation. Our thoughts are also with those taken hostages. We call for their immediate and unconditional release. Terrorism is a malignancy and knows no borders, nationality, or race. The world should not buy into any justification of terror acts. Let us keep aside differences, unite and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism.” That’s as clear as it gets. It also supported the two-state solution, calling for a ‘ sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine’. That’s always been India’s position. What was perhaps a step towards Israel, was the call to ‘de-escalate’  rather than a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and sent humanitarian aid. Abbas has been backing the fledgling peace process in West Asia but was seen as too moderate by the Hamas. Critics have called India’s position isolationist, observing that India has divided itself from the ‘Global South’. Others remark that everyone from Israel in the west, to the Republic of Korea in the east, have voted ‘for’, forgetting that this area is virtually shorn of democracies. In addition, the press picked up on the ’overwhelming’ vote against Israel, and India’s apparent isolation. The vote against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was even more ‘overwhelming’ with 141 for ( as against 120 on Israel) and 32 abstentions ( as against 45 ) where India again abstained. That didn’t seem to be presented as ‘isolationist’ but an example of Indian ‘independent foreign policy’. That should go to show, that the whole exercise was a political one both within and outside the country, with little to show that anyone cared about the Palestinians – who were about as bombed out as the Ukrainians. Voting patterns indicate, as noted above, deep divisions within democracies in Europe, leave aside the Global South. In short, India did what it must, on the basis of two specific points. It has no dog in this fight and was not about to compromise on its internal security or its relations with Arab states, or the increasingly important relationship with Israel. So it abstained. It’s as simple as that. To simplify this further, 10 years ago, these constraints did not apply since India has no relationship to speak of with Arab states or with Israel. As our international relations change, so does policy. That is how the world works. However, there is a problem with this stance. Anger against the US is likely to build further, resulting in a more marked drift to China. Some Indian commentators are also pointing out the wisdom in following the US line. That’s a dangerous attitude. Our position is based clearly on our interests, and not on anyone else. Being seen as doing otherwise is as unwise as it can get. A little more public relations is called for. The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. She tweets @kartha_tara. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s_ views. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.