India shifts its position on #Palestine in the General Assembly debate.
1. At the UN Security Council @ambtstirumurti said at the end, “I reiterate India’s strong support for the just Palestinian cause n our unwavering commitment to the 2-state solution.”
1. At the UN Security Council @ambtstirumurti said at the end, “I reiterate India’s strong support for the just Palestinian cause n our unwavering commitment to the 2-state solution.”
https://twitter.com/indiaunnewyork/status/1394007698795110401?s=21
https://twitter.com/indiaunnewyork/status/1395519464700002306
2. India chose to speak again on the subject in the General Assembly debate.
That ‘unwavering commitment to the 2-state solution’ became “seek durable peace, in line with the vision of the two States living side by side within secure and recognized borders.”
3. The formulation
That ‘unwavering commitment to the 2-state solution’ became “seek durable peace, in line with the vision of the two States living side by side within secure and recognized borders.”
3. The formulation
in the UN Security Council, which was explicit in its strong support to Palestine, was dropped in the General Assembly.
4. This was the ONLY bit that was changed from the UNSC formulation. General Assembly text is at para 8, the last one: pminewyork.gov.in/IndiaatUNGA?id…,,
5. Both, in
4. This was the ONLY bit that was changed from the UNSC formulation. General Assembly text is at para 8, the last one: pminewyork.gov.in/IndiaatUNGA?id…,,
5. Both, in
the UNSC n the General Assembly India unequivocally condemned ‘indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza into Israel.’
6. In both, India refuses to condemn Israel, only saying: “The retaliatory strikes into Gaza have also resulted in deaths and destruction.”
7. In both, India
6. In both, India refuses to condemn Israel, only saying: “The retaliatory strikes into Gaza have also resulted in deaths and destruction.”
7. In both, India
only generally condemns “all acts of...violence...” Why make distinctions in condemning it then?
8. Begs the question, why was only the ‘strong support to the just Palestinian cause’ bit changed, while the rest of the UNSC formulation was carried forward?
9. Calling it ‘in line
8. Begs the question, why was only the ‘strong support to the just Palestinian cause’ bit changed, while the rest of the UNSC formulation was carried forward?
9. Calling it ‘in line
with the vision of’ indicates not ‘unwavering commitment’ to the ‘2-state solution’, but support for a single territory with defined borders for 2 communities.
What a fall for Indian diplomacy!
10. The earlier Indian statements included reference to UNSC Res 2334 eg, which ONLY
What a fall for Indian diplomacy!
10. The earlier Indian statements included reference to UNSC Res 2334 eg, which ONLY
recognises the borders as it existed in 1967, AND declared ALL Jewish settlement activities illegal as per international law! 👇🏽
https://twitter.com/ambtstirumurti/status/1392163395416338432?s=21
https://twitter.com/ambtstirumurti/status/1392163395416338432
11. It is like India progressively has watered down its commitment to the Palestinian cause through these days at the UN.
Deeply disappointed.
Thread
@ambtstirumurti @NagNaidu08 @IndiaUNNewYork @DrSJaishankar @PMOIndia @MEAIndia
Deeply disappointed.
Thread
@ambtstirumurti @NagNaidu08 @IndiaUNNewYork @DrSJaishankar @PMOIndia @MEAIndia
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
