Abstention Does Not Mean Opposition: On India's Current Policy Towards Palestine

We've to separate Modi’s statement condemning terrorism from the MEA reiterating support for a sovereign Palestine.

It was, therefore, right to separate Modi’s statement specifically condemning terrorism against Israel and the subsequent political statement by the External Affairs Ministry reiterating our support for a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

India abstaining on a recent resolution in the UN General Assembly on a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza has generated quite some domestic political controversy.

Prime Minister Modi expressing solidarity with Israel immediately after the monstrous terror attacks against it on 7 October, without at the same time re-stating our support for the Palestinian cause, had already been criticised by the opposition as a departure from our traditional position.

For the government, it was important to condemn the heinous nature of Hamas' terror attack forthrightly and not link it to the unresolved Palestinian issue as the cause. India has been a victim of terrorism for years, with Pakistan drawing a parallel between the Kashmir issue and Palestine and justifying its support of terrorism in Kashmir as one to a “liberation struggle” in Kashmir.

In this background, India has worked successfully at the international level to gain acceptance for the position that no cause justifies a recourse to terrorism.

The August 2023 BRICS summit declaration expressed “strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed.” The G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration said more explicitly: “All acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.”

Abstention Does Not Mean Opposing the Resolution

If India, while condemning the unspeakable terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October had, in the same breath, also supported the long-denied legitimate demands of the Palestinians for their own independent state and an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories following the 1967 conflict, we would have acknowledged a justification for the terrorist mayhem caused by Hamas.

It was, therefore, right to separate Modi’s statement specifically condemning terrorism against Israel and the subsequent political statement by the External Affairs Ministry reiterating our support for a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel. The word “viable” is important because of the way Israel has established settlements in the West Bank and split the land with security corridors, a viable, integrated Palestinian state cannot emerge as things stand.

With Israel bombing Gaza relentlessly, destroying buildings, cutting off food, water and fuel supplies, severely limiting the flow of humanitarian aid into the territory, forcing a million plus Gazans to move from the north to the south of the Strip to facilitate Israeli military operations, and the UN Security Council unable to agree on a resolution calling for a ceasefire, the UN General Assembly went into action and passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire, release of hostages, provision of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza population, and a two-state solution as per the UN resolutions.

India abstained on the resolution because there is no reference in it to the 7 October terrorist attacks and voted for an amendment that was moved to include a reference to the Hamas terrorist attacks but it failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. Our effort to get Jordan, which moved the UNGA resolution, to include a reference to 7 October in the text having apparently failed, India decided to abstain.

Abstention does not mean opposing the resolution; it merely means that a country cannot give a resolution unqualified support either because it is not adequately balanced or does not include elements that are of importance to the country in question.

Arab Countries and the Palestinian Cause

The ferocity of the Israeli response to terrorist attacks by Hamas, the collective punishment being imposed on the Palestinians in Gaza, alongside settler activity accompanied by violence in the West Bank, have inflamed the Arab street. Not only that, massive street demonstrations have taken place against Israeli pummelling of Gaza in European and American cities and campuses, and even on Capitol Hill in Washington D C in which Jewish groups have also participated.

The UN Secretary-General has, while condemning the Hamas terrorist attacks, also contextualised them, fervently drawing attention to the long sufferings of the Palestinian people and the denial of their legitimate rights. This has earned the searing ire of Israel, which has called for his resignation and an apology.

The Arab governments have been put on the defensive by widespread street demonstrations and have rallied to the Palestinian cause from which they were distancing themselves because of their changed national and regional priorities. These were focused on economic development, keeping in view to adapt to a post-fossil fuel green world economy, modernisation and de-Islamisation of their societies to allow better international integration, lowering regional tensions to foster a pro-growth and investment climate, and acceptance not only of the reality of Israel’s existence but also leveraging its technology and other capabilities to promote regional growth.

The Palestinian cause was no longer central to the concerns of the Arab countries, especially the Gulf monarchies, for a variety of other reasons too. Iran remains the strongest supporter of the Palestinian cause. Turkey has chosen to support it as part of its ambition to lead the Islamic world, with the Ottoman era as an inspiration. Qatar, with its Muslim Brotherhood affiliations that Turkey’s Erdogan also shares, is a strong financial supporter of Hamas. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt see the Muslim Brotherhood as a political threat. They have had serious differences with Qatar. They also view the Hamas, with its Muslim Brotherhood links, as a destabilising political force.

The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have normalised ties with Israel knowing the determination of Prime Minister Netanyahu to prevent a two-state solution, the right-wing governments in Israel supporting the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the cynical manipulation of Hamas by Israel to keep the Palestinian movement divided etc. Saudi Arabia itself was in advanced talks with the US on the normalisation of Saudi Arabia-Israel ties as part of the Abrahamic accords.

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor was announced at the New Delhi G20 summit in full knowledge of Netanyahu’s anti-Palestinian policies, as was the earlier announcement of the I2 U2( India, Israel, UAE and US grouping) to promote regional economic cooperation.

India's Ties With Israel and the Arab World 

The renewed support of the Arab governments for the Palestinian cause has therefore to be seen with some scepticism. No doubt the dynamic of normalisation of Arab-Israel ties has been arrested for the time being. Hopefully, the progress achieved recently in the normalisation of ties between Israel and key Arab countries will not be reversed. That will be a setback to India-Israel ties too in terms of regional cooperation in West Asia.

However, to argue that India has lost its standing in the Arab street because of the perception it took a pro-Israeli position and only belatedly rectified it by reverting to its traditional position on Palestine is not convincing.

India has, over the years, developed very close ties with Israel. Netanyahu has visited India and Modi has visited Israel. Defence ties are flourishing. This has not interfered with our ties with the Arab world with which we have simultaneously become closer too. It is the key Arab countries that very recently normalised ties with Israel that have to explain to the Arab street why they did so at the cost of the Arab Palestinian cause.

The view in some circles in India that we should have taken leadership and worked with the Global South to forge a consensus on the UNGA resolution so that we could vote in its favour rather than having to abstain is naive. Iran, Turkey, the major Arab states, Pakistan or Malaysia would not have yielded to India a leadership role on this Arab/Islamic issue.

This view also does not take into account that the US is determined to support Israel in its bid to destroy Hamas, which is why it supports a humanitarian pause to let humanitarian relief go into Gaza but opposes a durable ceasefire as that would allow the Hamas to “refit”. India would have had to persuade the US to change its declared position. It would have to deal with divisions amongst European countries.

Some have voted for the resolution and others have voted against or abstained. Most wanted a condemnation of Hamas’ 7 October terrorist attacks. The Arab countries, whatever their views in private about Hamas, just could not afford politically to condemn its actions as terrorism in view of the highly charged public opinion in their own countries consequent to Israel’s terrible retaliation.

Vote bank politics and domestic political concerns should not enter the domain of India's foreign policy. On terrorism, there should be no equivocation in our body politic, as we have grievously suffered from it as a nation and the threat to us is not over. It could be revived by elements which may draw inspiration from what Hamas has succeeded in doing against a powerful security state like Israel.

(The author is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India’s Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)