[Even if the writer herself does not properly belong to the core constituency of the RSS/BJP/Modi, her views on West Asia are evidently not much different. That's why her sense of profound unease, and a lame attempt to explain away the inconsistencies, is worth taking note.]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Indias-flip-flop-on-Israel-raises-brows/articleshow/39015771.cms India's flip-flop on Israel raises brows Indrani Bagchi, TNN | Jul 26, 2014, 05.48AM IST NEW DELHI: Should India have abstained in the UNHRC resolution against Israel? The government's stand on the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza has swung so wildly that it has attracted criticism of being confused and directionless. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has clearly indicated a change in foreign policy where in West Asian context, India would be more even-handed, leaning more towards Israel, given New Delhi's growing convergence with Tel Aviv. It was clear even before he formed the government when Modi spoke to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu on the day of his victory. The point was buttressed when the government refused to slam Israel for the ongoing conflict in its official statement on July 10. Last week in Parliament, external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj tried to prevent a debate because with her well-honed political instincts she knew the policy had changed. Unfortunately, the memo did not land on the desk of foreign office mandarins. The UNHRC statement and vote as well as the UN Security Council statement showed continuity of the West Asia policy. It would have been fine had been the same. But the fact that the policy had changed somehow escaped notice. Even in the Fortaleza Declaration of BRICS, India stuck to the old language which made it confusing for observers wondering whether the MEA statement and the government stand on Parliament debate was an exception. The UNHRC statement incorporated some language from the MEA statement, but the overall sentiment was virulently anti-Israel. The UN Security Council statement went even further. Questioned about the swing in the government stand, some officials stressed there was "no change" in India's position on the West Asian conflict. India's UN statements certainly reflected that it was the same stand India has taken for decades. Others said the government had leaned too far towards Israel in the MEA statement and it was time for course correction at the UN. But India's flip-flop ignored a couple of things. First, with the change in bilateral relations with Israel, it's natural for India to introduce a more nuanced approach to the issue. Most important, the new government under Modi wants a very different relationship with Israel than what MEA has been used to. Second, India could have finessed its position on the current crisis. Nobody should condone killing of children and innocent civilians but equally New Delhi should not shy away from naming Hamas as a terror outfit that dislikes India intensely and has a position on Kashmir that it cannot possibly approve. Third, if India did not want to show a sharp change in policy, it could have abstained. After all, it was only a few months ago that India abstained on a UNHRC vote against Sri Lanka. More recently, India has refused visas to UN investigation teams which want to investigate Sri Lanka's activities. Abstention is a legitimate choice, and actually, an Indian favourite. India stuck to the old policy on West Asia, but it's not clear whether the Indian political leadership had endorsed it. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
