My last post as I have said enough, unless something interesting is thrown up.
Trikaal wrote:I am not assuming abstention means opposition, only in the case of bhutan's vote am i saying that. You quoted a lot of countries position below but u left out the key country under discussion, bhutan.
What did Bhutan say? I couldn't find anything. Similarly, I couldn't find anything about what India said too. Post them here if you have. I am not sure if they even decided to speak on the resolution.
Trikaal wrote:Foreign policy is not a zero sum game. Voting with oic doesn't mean not having or damaging relations with israel. That is the entire point of using bhutan as proxy. Sure, india could have shown neutrality too. But why go against the world on a non issue like this. Even US position on this issue isn't coherent and us policy makers are confused. Remember, us intends to move embassy to west jerusalem, but not recognize jerusalem as under israel, saying they want the 2 sides to solve it 'bilaterally'. Doesn't make much sense. True policy paralysis would be to be neutral even on an issue as straight forward as this. Why stay neutral when u can vote against an obv dumb move which won't change anything on ground.
If voting with OIC wouldn't damage relationship with Israel, simply abstaining wouldn't have damaged relationship with the OIC either, would it? How come that more assertive (or negative in another perception) action is less damaging than a neutral one?
As for the Jerusalem issue raked up by the US, I am not interested whether the US action makes sense or not. I am interested in India alone.
Who says abstention or neutrality is policy paralysis? After all, being policy-active does not mean we have to take a decision in every matter one way or another. The usual cliched black & white and sometimes shades of grey too. Being neutral can be equally Chanakyan.
Trikaal wrote:Oic has never been our friends. But u only make peace with ur enemies.
And, we have been making peace with the OIC since that ill-fated Rabat conference?
Trikaal wrote:Kashmir has become like a cornerstone for ummah to pay lip service. No number of resolutions or statements will change ground realities. They all realize that. Which is why they score brownie points with pakistan and muslim fanatics by paying lip service and passing dead duck resolutions. India needs to do the same. Pay lip service to palestine cause, Earn brownie points and dollars from arabs on similar useless and inconsequential votes while siding with israel strategically and through intelligence sharing. At the same time, sour relations between pak and arabs and over time, change their position on kashmir(very hard since they need to appease local populace too when the issue of kashmir comes up). That would be the true chanakyan politics.
No, that wouldn't pass. If you want us to 'pay lip service' to the Palestine cause, then this voting does not do justice to that because we have supported Palestine and Arab position openly. If this is the definition of lip service, then I would like OIC to do the same lip-service to India by ceasing its annual statements against us or condemning us in the UN, while continuing to help Pakistan openly and/or clandestinely. We should have no objection to such a lip-service, shouldn't we?
Besides, such an articulation presupposes that somehow we can vote against Israel (rather than remain neutral) and Israel would understand that and continue to cooperate with us as if nothing happened while the OIC countries would not not even understand our neutral position and would not exhibit a similar behaviour like Israel and that would be disastrous for us!
God save us if, as you say, GoI is currently toiling under an assumption that somehow we can "change their [OIC] position on Kashmir". Why am I reminded of the 'prodigal son', 'long lost wayward brother' theories about Pakistan?
Trikaal wrote:What u see as canadian neutrality is tacit support for us imo. Same for australia and paraguay. Mexico's response is obv pro us that it's somewhat funny. How u see these statements as those of neutrality i cannot say.
I didn't say they were neutral, did I? I repeat what I said, "It is very clear that abstention meant several things to several persons. Very nuanced to be simply dismissed as 'opposition'."
Trikaal wrote:Could india have given a similar 'neutrality statement'? Yes, ofcourse. But the difference is that these countries haven't spent the last 3 years trying to improve relations with middle east unlike india. If u r trying to sleep with a girl, u hv to agree with her when she bitches about ur friends. Doesn't mean u break off with ur friends. If u try to give the girl a neutral statement, u won't be getting lucky. (i know my analogies are getting pretty weird so i am going to stop with them now)
First of all, I disagree that it is only in the last 3 years that we have been trying to improve our relationships with the West Asian (correct nomenclature) countries. It has been going on for a long time. To be fair to the previous UPA, Man Mohan Singh made tremendous contribution to that. My problem comes, in spite of being a trenchant critic of the INC, when everything is condensed to the last three years.
Secondly, that doesn't mean that bend over backwards justifying the indefensible, at least IMO.
Thirdly, yes, the analogy is weird.
Trikaal wrote:I mentioned ind-us relations as us could theoretically take offence against countries that voted for the resolution. Chances of that happening are low but that is why i think ind did this entire drama with bhutan vote. Trump is a temperamental president and nothing could be taken for granted.
U say it was our impotence, i say this issue wasn't important enough to show our real hand. There was no need to prove our manhood and blow our wad early on a non issue while undoing the progress made with arabs over the last 3 years.
I am not sure if Israel considers this voting as a 'non-issue' as you have decsribed. Looks like our focus, at least in your interpretation, has been to appease the OIC and ensure that somehow they were not displeased. Probably we felt that we can manage the fallout, if any, in the Isareli relationship as a result of this voting. Abstention, even if not a negative vote, would have elevated us from an impotent status to at least an 'ambiguous' status, IMO. We missed the bus badly. You keep referring to Bhutan (even though we agreed to eschew that) but I consider that as a non-sequitor.
Trikaal wrote:I am not prioritizing ind-oic relations over ind-us relations. U hv to understand the situation. If us decides to take offence, theyhv to do so against every major economy in the world like china, eu, etc. Chances of that happening are very slim. On the other hand, if we did as u said, proved our potency to our judah brothers, then arabs could very easily go back to the status we shared before, undoing all our progress. Ind-sa relations would go back in cold storage. Uae won't stop anti india activities and so on. U cannot deny that india has made tremendous progress with these countries over the years and throwing all that away for a non issue like this would be stupid.
In the above you got me wrong on the potency issue which you seem to have latched on. We don't have to show our potency to anybody else, not the least 'our judah brothers', as you put it. We do things in our interest and only in our interest. Somehow, in all the arguments I have seen so far, I see only an awe-inspiring West Asia and OIC to which we don't seem to have any option but to genuflect.
The incredible statement you are making about 'arabs going back to the old status undoing our progress'. I see at least two wrongs in that. The West Asia-India progress has been achieved over several decades going as far back as PVNR's days (at least in recent memory). It is wrong to claim that everything is of recent origin, as I have pointed out earlier too. Besides, the West Asian monarchies have essentially lost their leverage too. Their economies are floundering. Oil has lost importance as a weapon to threaten others with. Moreover, Indian demand is such that they would neglect us only at their very peril and disaster. This is not the 1970s. UAE & KSA started cooperating with India in intelligence sharing and deporting criminals much before c. 2014.