Bharat Rakshak

X Posted from the Terroristan thread.

anupmisra wrote:

Vips wrote:Palestine has decided to recall its ambassador to Pakistan, Walid Abu Ali, for sharing a stage with Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief and 26/11 Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan, Palestinian envoy to India Adnan Abu Al Haija said on Saturday. "The Palestine government has told Ali that he was not anymore its envoy to Pakistan," Haija told PTI.

"We are supporting India in its fight against terrorism and because of that my government decided to directly call our Ambassador to go back home, not to be Palestine ambassador to Pakistan anymore," Haija told ANI.

Retracting one's envoy just does not cut it. It has no meaning. What would be necessary now is an official statement by the Palestinians on where they stand on the Kashmir issue. Let that be forthcoming and future Indian stand on Palestine should be guided by that statement. If it's against the Indian position, India should immediately revise it's vote in the UNGA.

800% in agreement.

anupmisra wrote:Retracting one's envoy just does not cut it. It has no meaning. What would be necessary now is an official statement by the Palestinians on where they stand on the Kashmir issue. Let that be forthcoming and future Indian stand on Palestine should be guided by that statement. If it's against the Indian position, India should immediately revise it's vote in the UNGA.

Absolutely true.

At the least, until a clear public enunciation of its stand on Kashmir & terrorism is forthcoming from Palestine, the Indian PM's state visit must be kept in abeyance.

Obviously, the Palestine ambassador had shared the stage with Hafeez Saeed at least once earlier.

Either GoI missed it or played down the incident. This cannot be tolerated.

Further discussion on this should be continued in the Foreign Policy thread.

Looking at the official notification from PLO (firing the palestinian ambassador), I don't think the palestinians are ever going to state their official stand on J&K. The classic "run with the hare and hunt with the hounds" stratus quo.

From Israel to Doklam, a year of many firsts in foreign policy - Indrani Bagchi, ToI

2017 was the year when, in foreign policy at least, India tried to defy precedents and confound expectations. The result is that India is venturing into areas it dared never before — whether this is reckless or visionary, only the coming years will tell.

The Doklam crisis was a defining moment in more ways than one. Quite apart from military lessons, India chose this time to object to a creeping action by China that has gone unremarked by Indian governments for years. Doklam has placed India and China squarely on opposite sides, no matter how the two countries try to dress it up. The stand-off and its resolution showed maturing of the two rising Asian powers but also showed once again the precarious nature of Indian defence preparation. India was lucky the crisis happened in an area where India is at a situational and military advantage. There are two takeaways here — first, how would India have shown up against China in a different theatre? on the other hand, India showed it was willing to go far, very far, in its stand against China. That was an inflexion point for both India — and China.

New Delhi's opposition to OBOR put it in a minority of one — that is until other countries gradually discovered OBOR was another mode of Chinese colonialism. Here, India was again willing to defy its tested precedent of not seeming to be isolated in world affairs. In the coming years, India will need to put teeth to this opposition, either by presenting a credible alternative or by getting China to change its ways.

The decision to take the Kulbhushan Jadhav case to the ICJ surprised even Indians because it is an article of faith in India's foreign policy template to not take bilateral issues to the international level. Successive Indian governments have made "internationalisation" a bad word. The early success of getting the ICJ to stay Jadhav's execution will draw attention to the final arguments and verdict in the coming weeks. But the ghost has been slain.

India's multilateral appetite has only grown in the past year. The campaign to put Dalveer Bhandari back as ICJ judge was brutal to say the least, but once again defied conventional practice that India did not go up against a P-5 member. MEA and PMO burned phone lines and pumped flesh in the kind of outreach that is normally seen in Indian domestic elections. It was tough work — even India's closest buddy, Japan, voted against Bhandari in these elections!

Ironically, India's victory might make it much more difficult for it to get into the NSG — a consequence of the Indian determination to plod along its trajectory to becoming a "leading power" appears to have convinced the Chinese system to double down on its opposition to India. According to sources, their calculation appears to be this — if India gets into the NSG, it would have overcome the "NPT hurdle" and its path to a permanent seat in the UNSC would become easier. China will, therefore, contest India's determination with its own.

So, the jury remains out on whether it's a good thing — or not — for India to have an open global appetite. Some say India should "bide its time", but proponents of this policy in the government say, India should take what is available and wait for the next level to open up.

In 2018, the Indian system will go all out once again to get back into the Human Rights Council — expect another high energy campaign. This is also one of the reasons why India voted the way it did in the recent UNGA resolution on Jerusalem. On the one level, India believes, like most others, that Jerusalem's fate is tied to a final resolution. On another level, India could have defied precedent and changed its vote for two best friends, Israel and US. It did not. In the final calculation in the government, the top leadership decided it made sense for India to stay in the "space" it occupies in the UN — with the developing world and the Islamic world.

Similarly, India took a decidedly left turn when it refused to take up the opportunity of walking out of the Paris accord after Donald Trump opened the way for a cop-out. Instead, India is now a champion of climate change policies, and the forthcoming International Solar Alliance summit will demonstrate that sources said.

Modi became the first Indian leader to visit Israel this year, a sign of the growing relationship between the two countries. But the important piece of signalling was the dehyphenation — that was something no previous government had had the political courage to do.

Palestine could very likely be practising the Mohammadden belief based lying doctrine of dissimulation aka Taqiyyah when they said “On the basis of the principled and firm Palestinian position, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates considered the participation of our Ambassador in Pakistan in a mass rally in solidarity with Jerusalem, held in Rawalpindi on Friday and in the presence of individuals accused of supporting terrorism is an unintended mistake, but not justified”.

This is after all not the first time that Palestine Ambassador Waleed Abu Ali has committed the unintended mistake of associating with UN Designated Terrorist and mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attack, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed.

Two newspaper articles datelined August 18, 2014 from media of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan disclosing fact that Palestine “Ambassador” Waleed Abu Ali addressed the “Palestine Unity Caravan” organised by Jammat ud Dawa (JuD) and attended by UN Designated Terrorist and mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attack, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed.

From Dawn (Clicky) :

………………….. Hafiz Saeed was speaking at JuD-sponsored ‘Palestine Unity Caravan’ that marched from Nasser Bagh up to Masjid Shuhada on The Mall.

In Lahore, Palestinian ambassador Waleed Abu Ali spoke to the rally by phone. ………….

In his telephonic address, Waleed Abu Ali appreciated the efforts of the JuD emir in highlighting the Palestine issue not only in Pakistan, but all over the world.

From Express Tribune (Clicky):

Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek must include “peace in Palestine” in their charter of demands and press the government to take practical steps to stop the “genocide of Palestinians Muslims in Israel,” Jamaat-ud Dawah amir Hafiz Muhammad Saeed said on Sunday.

He was addressing the rally Palestine Unity Caravan organised by the JuD. ……………………..

Palestinian Ambassador to Pakistan Waleed Abu Ali, …………………..and leaders of several other religious organisations addressed the Palestine Unity Caravan. …………………..

In his telephonic address to the protesters, Palestinian Ambassador to Pakistan Waleed Abu Ali appreciated Saeed’s efforts in highlighting the Palestinian cause not only in Pakistan, but all over the world. …………………….

I concur with arun above that Palestine is indulging in taqiyyah.

• The Palestine Ambassador says, "Our [Paki] Ambassador doesn't know this person.When he starts speaking,he asks who is this person?". Does anyone believe this? The job of an Ambassador is to keep his eyes & ears open. LeT's Hafeez Saeed is a world famous terrorist and we have to believe that a diplomat living in Pakistan is not aware of who he was? This is lying of the highest order. In fact, the Palestine Ambassador in India must also be recalled by Palestine for lying so brazenly.
• We now know that in 2014 as well, the same Palestine Ambassador had attended the Diffa-e-Pakistan meeting with Hafeez Saeed and other jihadis
• In its statement, Palestine has unnecessarily mentioned 'occupation by Israel' which is an insidious attempt to introduce extraneous issues to dilute the issue on hand and to drive a wedge in the relationship between India and Israel.
• Palestine has, at the same time, failed to mention the 'occupation by Pakistan' in Kashmir, which was more relevant to the issue on hand.

The PM must postpone his proposed trip to Palestine, if not cancel it altogether.

Decency, Justness, Civility, Righteousness means nothing when it comes to matters of the faith and supporting the ummah. While we continue to be nice and choose our words carefully in our discussion, we skirt around the fact that a Malsi group or country will always side with another Malsi group or country especially if the opponent is Kafir. Rest all is taqiyyah and buying of time.

SSridhar wrote:

anupmisra wrote:Retracting one's envoy just does not cut it. It has no meaning. What would be necessary now is an official statement by the Palestinians on where they stand on the Kashmir issue. Let that be forthcoming and future Indian stand on Palestine should be guided by that statement. If it's against the Indian position, India should immediately revise it's vote in the UNGA.

Absolutely true.

At the least, until a clear public enunciation of its stand on Kashmir & terrorism is forthcoming from Palestine, the Indian PM's state visit must be kept in abeyance.

Obviously, the Palestine ambassador had shared the stage with Hafeez Saeed at least once earlier.

Either GoI missed it or played down the incident. This cannot be tolerated.

Further discussion on this should be continued in the Foreign Policy thread.

It would be very interesting to see how the urdu press is reporting this palestine ambassador withdrawal issue.

There may be some insights there.

Was the Iranian ambassador to Pakistan also present at this event?

Indian vote on palestine was not coz of our solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It was because of our relations with UAE, SA and iran. India is keen to improve relationships with these countries and means to appease them. But at the same time, India nodded its head in support of USA by getting bhutan to abstain in the vote. It should be no surprise that Bhutan vote was the actual indian vote. The participation of palestinian envoy, though regretable, doesn't affect any of the variables that are in the indian equation. So indian stance is unlikely to change.

From DAWN,

Ambassador Walid Abu Ali had on Friday attended the gathering in Rawal­pindi’s Liaquat Bagh under the banner of Difa-i-Pakistan Council, a grouping of dozens of jihadi parties, in support of the Palestinian cause. JuD, which is the leading party in the alliance, had hosted the ‘Tahaffuz-i-Baitul Muqddas’ rally.

Besides speaking on Al Quds, leaders at the rally had lashed out at India for its oppressive actions to subdue the uprising in the occupied valley.

“We consider it our prime responsibility to liberate Kashmir from India. We will free Kashmir in fulfillment of (Mohammad Ali) Jinnah’s dream,” Hafiz Saeed had said on that occasion.

The Palestinian envoy had been active after President Donald Trump decided to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel coordinating with political and religious parties’ reaction in Pakistan over the American move. A few weeks back, he had visited Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa, who had told him that Pakistan viewed Kashmir and Palestinian disputes similarly and both issues had “public, moral and political” support of the people of the country.

When contacted by Dawn, Ambassador Ali said he would not comment on the decision.

Trikaal wrote:Indian vote on palestine was not coz of our solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It was because of our relations with UAE, SA and iran. India is keen to improve relationships with these countries and means to appease them. But at the same time, India nodded its head in support of USA by getting bhutan to abstain in the vote. It should be no surprise that Bhutan vote was the actual indian vote. The participation of palestinian envoy, though regretable, doesn't affect any of the variables that are in the indian equation. So indian stance is unlikely to change.

Why couldn't we have voted, for a change, against the resolution and nodded our head for the OIC-sponsored resolution by asking Bhutan to vote for it? After all, that would also have been India's vote.

I do not think that Bhutan acts according to our whims and fancies. It is such arrogance that does not work in foreign relationships. India-Bhutan relationship is at a delicate stage with China breathing down the combined necks and India wouldn't be dictating to Bhutan.

If Indian stance will not change even after this slap across our face, then this NDA government will learn yet another lesson from Palestine after learning lessons from Pakistan recently.

SSridhar wrote:
Why couldn't we have voted, for a change, against the resolution and nodded our head for the OIC-sponsored resolution by asking Bhutan to vote for it? After all, that would also have been India's vote.

I do not think that Bhutan acts according to our whims and fancies. It is such arrogance that does not work in foreign relationships. India-Bhutan relationship is at a delicate stage with China breathing down the combined necks and India wouldn't be dictating to Bhutan.

If Indian stance will not change even after this slap across our face, then this NDA government will learn yet another lesson from Palestine after learning lessons from Pakistan recently.

What possible reason could a country like Bhutan have to defy the will of majority of the world? Remember, bhutan is a country that is world renowned for being non confrontational. Hell, they try to 'talk' with china when china is actively snatching their lands and building roads.

Nothing happens in geopolitics without a reason. I am not taking Bhutan for granted but this is one point where i think there vote was definitely controlled by india.

^^ what evidence is there to suggest that Bhutan would vote the way we actually meant to? Om the contrary, everything suggests we voted as we always did and Bhutan voted in a non confrontational way.

Secondly, as Sridhar asked, why couldn't we jave voted fpr Israel and got Bhutan to vote the way we did in the past?

People have been asking why we did not vote for Israel and voted against US supporting the Palestinians when the perfidious Palestinians put the proverbial knife in our back?

We are assuming that the Indian Foreign Policy is crafted in isolation, with the IFS babus clearly in alignment with the MEA and the PMO. And there is zilch influence from the opposition. And there is no "domestic" influence.

It is a fact that the Indian "opposition" (CONgoons, SAPA, BASPA, JDU and the assorted commies and all the 2-3 bit parties) support palestinians and are rabidly anti-US and totally sickular. Imagine any vote against Palestinians and the number of calls that are made in the op-eds of their #mediapimps and the ruckus in parliament. With several important bills like the Triple-T hanging in balance, it is important that the "opposition", particularly the sickular parties in the opposition support such communal bills like the Triple-T.

Look at this statement:

Meanwhile, not just the government of India, even the opposition took a stance at the Ali-Saeed meeting. Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari took to Twitter and wrote, “Presence of Palestinian Envoy Waleed Abu Ali at JUD/LET Rally with Hafiz Saeed has larger implications for India than recognising/not recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... er/995804/

In that sense, the palestinians did us a big favor by showing up with Hafiz Suar. They managed to put their vociferous sickular supporters in defense.

As for the rona-dhona that is going on in (and several other threads), one has to understand that 65 years of bad policy and nehruvian ideology based foreign diplomacy cannot be converted into a pro-active realpolitik over night. For that change to happen, do direct your angst against the current opposition parties. Let them know the snakes they are feeding while eating from your trough.

Trikaal wrote:What possible reason could a country like Bhutan have to defy the will of majority of the world?

Trikaal, you should choose between whether Bhutan voting was controlled by India or not. If it was controlled, then what I suggested was equally plausible. Or, are you suggesting that such a control could only influence Bhutan up to the point of 'abstention' and not beyond into actually forcing them to vote 'for' the OIC resolution?

disha wrote:We are assuming that the Indian Foreign Policy is crafted in isolation, with the IFS babus clearly in alignment with the MEA and the PMO. And there is zilch influence from the opposition. And there is no "domestic" influence.

disha, by the same logic, we should accept Sharm-el-Sheikh, for example, also happily without questioning, shouldn't we?

India should have abstained. It would have sent a message to both parties. By voting against, we not only went against our reliable partner (if not friend) Israel, but we failed to admit that Jerusalem belongs to them. Saw a tweet yesterday, Jerusalem was Israel's capital long before even the birth of Islam. Also, it would have sent a message to Palestine that it can't take us for granted, if it needs our support, it has to earn it. Too late for it anyway.

SSridhar wrote:

disha wrote:We are assuming that the Indian Foreign Policy is crafted in isolation, with the IFS babus clearly in alignment with the MEA and the PMO. And there is zilch influence from the opposition. And there is no "domestic" influence.

disha, by the same logic, we should accept Sharm-el-Sheikh, for example, also happily without questioning, shouldn't we?

No. S-e-S is totally orthogonal and the logic of "continue happily without questioning" does not apply.

With SeS, we went and declared ourselves as in the same rank as Bakis. Bakis are terrorists and we went and declared we are like you too. And hence S-e-S will remain the most stupid macabre blot on our nation.

In fact, if any., the then opposition would have hailed MMS if he went and declared that Bakis are suffering their own karma because they are terrorists. So again, there was no domestic compulsion for MMS to go and do an equal-equal. At the worst, he could have just remained silent.

In case of Trump's Jerusalem decision, US is isolated. In fact, US has factored in such isolation in its foreign policy and will happily chug along with a "devil may care" attitude. UN denouement or not. So supporting a UN denouement is just doing a same-same along with europeans and other asians and the mid-west (mid-east for US).

I would go to the extent we showed some realpolitiks in our UN vote, since we do need friends in Oman and UAE and Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and CAR and to a certain degree in Syria. By voting against US, we ensured that our friends in the mid-west can continue to support us and making Bhutan, Fiji & Trinidad-Tobago abstain showing US-Israel that we appreciate their concerns., I think we showed some real maturity. This also put the domestic sickulars in the barn, which was effectively bolted when the palestinian ex-amby showed up with terrorist Hafiz Suar.

And look at further implications, any future palestinian social-climber-as-an-amby realizes that showing up with Hafiz Suar (or anything that pleasures the Bakis) may enhance their street creds but Indian displeasure will definitely ruin their career. This goes not just for Palestinians but for any other nation, Palestinians just being the canary in the mine. Another intangible? Palestinians have put themselves into a less advantageous position. Now they have to grovel all over the place to just get out of "we are terrorists only" dugout they created for themselves.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

Also on Sunday, the Palestinian Authority recalled its representative in Pakistan, Walid Abu Ali, after he was photographed at a Pakistani “rally in solidarity with Jerusalem” standing beside Hafiz Saeed, a terrorist wanted by both the United States and India for his involvement in 2006 and 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

India protested the envoy’s appearance with Saeed. Abu Ali appears to have been dismissed from his diplomatic post.

“The Palestinian Authority supports India’s war on terrorism,” the government in Ramallah, West Bank, said in a statement.

SSridhar wrote:I do not think that Bhutan acts according to our whims and fancies. It is such arrogance that does not work in foreign relationships. India-Bhutan relationship is at a delicate stage with China breathing down the combined necks and India wouldn't be dictating to Bhutan.

The above is an orthogonal statement. It is not making any sense to me. Please correct me here, this is what I understand:

If India asked Bhutan to abstain
-> it is arrogance on India's part
-> such arrogance does not work in foreign relationships
-> Bhutan has a very independent foreign policy and does not act according to our whims and fancies.
-> Indo-Bhutan relationship is at a delicate stage with China is breathing down combined necks (of India and Bhutan and hence India would not have asked or Bhutan would not have complied as such)

However, China breathing down combined necks of India and Bhutan means (to me)
-> China is the overlord of Asia and can breathe down India's and Bhutan's necks
-> China's breathing down another Asian giant's neck is NOT arrogance and such foreign relationship works!

Bhutan could NOT have seen its foreign policy align with India's, particularly after receiving India's help in Doklam and would NOT have abstained to "curry favour" with US, but abstained only out of realpolitik (which?) and particularly since China is breathing down our necks.

If Indian stance will not change even after this slap across our face, then this NDA government will learn yet another lesson from Palestine after learning lessons from Pakistan recently.

India does not have to change anything. If at all, the Palestinians have to once in a while put out a statement:

“The Palestinian Authority supports India’s war on terrorism,” the government in Ramallah, West Bank, said in a statement.

before doing any visit to India to watch Appu Ghar and gather Indian support for their government operating out of Ramallah. Since Palestinian Authority are also proxies for Barbaria, they have in fact committed their masters to "supports India's war on terrorism".

disha wrote:No. S-e-S is totally orthogonal and the logic of "continue happily without questioning" does not apply.

It is not orthogonal. It was in response to what you said,

We are assuming that the Indian Foreign Policy is crafted in isolation, with the IFS babus clearly in alignment with the MEA and the PMO. And there is zilch influence from the opposition. And there is no "domestic" influence.

If Indian policy is an amalgam of various thoughts, then S-e-S was also all right, because our self-implication in Balochistan, which was what MMS' action finally amounted to, was not taken in his personal capacity.

disha wrote:The above is an orthogonal statement. It is not making any sense to me. Please correct me here, this is what I understand . . .

These are your interpretaions. I don't have to correct you.

Had we voted for Israel/ abstained it would have shown:

1- India’s foreign policy has come of age and is no longer a zero sum game
2- India isn’t afraid of taking a stand that is non-NAM compliant
3- India won’t be cowed by threats by the Middle East
4- Given confidence to Israel that we would stand by them and made it easier when we requested help from them

Modi’s visit was in the right direction when looking at it from the above aspects , but now it has been eclipsed by babudom

JohnTitor wrote:^^ what evidence is there to suggest that Bhutan would vote the way we actually meant to? Om the contrary, everything suggests we voted as we always did and Bhutan voted in a non confrontational way.

Secondly, as Sridhar asked, why couldn't we jave voted fpr Israel and got Bhutan to vote the way we did in the past?

Just about 9 countries voted abstention. The non confrontational thing to do was to vote with the rest of the world. Abstention is tantamount to going against the resolution here.
Evidence? Do u really expect there to be hard evidence for this? You have to read between the lines. I am afraid u will probably never get hard evidence.
If we voted directly for israel, it would have thrown a monkey wrench in our plans to improve relations with middle east. You can like israel all u want(i do too) but from from the perspective of national interests, better relations with oic are more important than israel. At the same time, india made a gesture towards us and israel by getting our proxy to abstain. U may not like me calling bhutan our proxy but thats the ground reality and i think it shows the maturity of india foreign policy. Every big power makes moves through proxies.

SSridhar wrote:

Trikaal wrote:What possible reason could a country like Bhutan have to defy the will of majority of the world?

Trikaal, you should choose between whether Bhutan voting was controlled by India or not. If it was controlled, then what I suggested was equally plausible. Or, are you suggesting that such a control could only influence Bhutan up to the point of 'abstention' and not beyond into actually forcing them to vote 'for' the OIC resolution?

I don't fully understand your statement but i will try to answer what i think you meant. I choose india as having control over bhutan vote. Now, india has a second vote which it cast for the other side, namely by making bhutan abstain. India used her primary vote to appease the oic and voted with them since the resolution would have been passed anyway. However, we uses the second vote to get a proverbial toe in on the other side too. Abstention on this vote is tantamount to opposition. A lot of countries show support for a cause with Abstention, nothing new there. There was no need to make bhutan actually vote against the resolution, just like there was no need to make bhutan vote with india in favour of oic, as that would have dedeated the entire purpose of having a second vote.
If i missed your point, forgive me.

JohnTitor wrote:Had we voted for Israel/ abstained it would have shown:

1- India’s foreign policy has come of age and is no longer a zero sum game
2- India isn’t afraid of taking a stand that is non-NAM compliant
3- India won’t be cowed by threats by the Middle East
4- Given confidence to Israel that we would stand by them and made it easier when we requested help from them

Modi’s visit was in the right direction when looking at it from the above aspects , but now it has been eclipsed by babudom

Indian foreign policy shouldn't be beholden to proving our independence and fearlessness. Such talk sounds good at a nukkad but falls flat on its face on international forum. The only consideration at the time of taking a policy decision should be the cold hard facts about what benefits the country more. Modi is trying and somewhat succeeding in drawing billions of dollars of investment and signing favourable energy deals with the oic that u so casually dismiss. He is also trying to sour the relationship between pakistan and oic, their principle backers. Voting against oic on a vote which was a foregone conclusion is tantamount to shooting yourself in ur own feet. Indian vote wouldn't have made a difference. Hell, even the resolution won't make a difference as us will go ahead and open its embassy wherever it wants. Then why should we be the ones to lose out in this exchange when showing so called fearlessness won't make any difference either way. It is much better to keep the arabs happy and take their riyals and dollars while offering false platitudes about supporting palestine and whatever else. Is it moral or the right thing to do? Hell no, but if u want to be a chanakya, then u have to keep ur morals at home.
About israel, what is the one thing that israel will change now that we voted against it? Not sell weapons? Ofcourse not, they need our money. Not help us in time of war? They helped us even when we voted against them on far more serious resolutions than this one. Sure they will bluster but then some deal for spike or radar will come along and they will be bff again. Even china voted against them, no1 country they export weapons to. If china doesn't care about 'offending' israel, why should we?

Trikaal, I see several flaws in the argument you have put up.

For one, I do not buy your proposition that Bhutan's voting was influenced or orchestrated by India. But, I will not press that point further.

Two, you are claiming that the weights of India's vote and that of Bhutan's are the same. There is tremendous inequity there in spite of their equality as two sovereign nations. Sovereignty bestows equality among all member nations of the UN but other factors bestow the clout and heft associated with the nations.

Three, whether abstention is tantamount to disagreement depends upon several factors. Abstention by no two countries can be treated similarly. Its effect depends upon the country which is abstaining, its equation with the country (countries) against which it is abstaining, the issue of voting etc. For example, Canada's abstention cannot be equated with Bhutan's.

Four, IMHO, it is futile to expect that somehow we have balanced and hedged our bets through the Bhutanese vote (even assuming that Bhutan voted at our behest). Interested countries may not even link the two voting and even if they do, they will not be deceived by this simple obviousness. Anyone can see through such a game.

SSridhar wrote:Trikaal, I see several flaws in the argument you have put up.

For one, I do not buy your proposition that Bhutan's voting was influenced or orchestrated by India. But, I will not press that point further.

Two, you are claiming that the weights of India's vote and that of Bhutan are the same. There is tremendous inequity there in spite of their equality as two sovereign nations. Sovereignty bestows equality among all member nations of the UN but other factors bestow the clout and heft associated with the nations.

Three, whether abstention is tantamount to disagreement depends upon several factors. Abstention by no two countries can be treated similarly. Its effect depends upon the country which is abstaining, its equation with the country (countries) against which it is abstaining, the issue of voting etc. For example, Canada's abstention cannot be equated with Bhutan's.

Four, IMHO, it is futile to expect that somehow we have balanced and hedged our bets through the Bhutanese vote (even assuming that Bhutan voted at our behest). Interested countries may not even link the two voting and even if they do, they will not be deceived by this simple obviousness. Anyone can see through such a game.

You are right, it is pointless arguing about point 1.lets just agree to disagree about that one.

I never denied india's political clout. But why would india 'use' its political clout on a vote which means nothing for its interests and frankly is a dead duck even b4 being tabled. Sure the arabs will use theirs as this issue is imp to them. If the issue was, lets say about terrorism or rohingyas, issues that india is actively invested in, then sure india would use its diplomatic powers and then indian and bhutanese vote wouldn't be the same. But when india doesn't do that, then both votes just count as 1. Diplomatic power only means making ur allies vote with u on an issue which india had no need to do. India showed its power on that vote for icj judge. I hope i made my point clear.

Agreed, and in this scenario abstention meant going against almost the entire world which is tantamount to tacit opposition of the resolution.

Whether it is futile or not will be shown over the next few months. It was kindof like a bet u place rather than regret not placing a bet at all. You don't expect to win but u would rather do something than nothing. It is like calling a big blind in poker even when u hv a bad hand just to see the flop. Sometimes, u would rather call a bb than regret folding prematurely.
If india and usa relationship sours, then the bet was wasted. If it doesn't, then the bet was a good idea. Granted india and usa relationships couldve stayed good even without doing this but then again, it is a bet u would rather place and waste than not place it at all.

Amber G. wrote:

Merely for good order archival purpose …………….

Web link to BBC Urdu article that carries scan copy, in English, of statement of Palestine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates on their “Ambassador” addressing meeting attended by UN designated terrorist and 26/11 Mumbai attack mastermind Hafiz Mohammad Saeed:

BBC Urdu

Also weblink to our Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj’s twitter feed carrying a scan copy of the same:

Twitter

I find it rather distasteful that we basically voted against Israel. For what?

Considering our dependence on them for everything from the Barak 8 and MF-Star for our latest destroyers, Python, Derby and the Elta for the Tejas, Phalcon, etc. why curry favor from the muzzies and the turd world by risking all that?

chola wrote:I find it rather distasteful that we basically voted against Israel. For what?

Considering our dependence on them for everything from the Barak 8 and MF-Star for our latest destroyers, Python, Derby and the Elta for the Tejas, Phalcon, etc. why curry favor from the muzzies and the turd world by risking all that?

India exports by value:
UAE- $31 BILLION
SAUDI ARABIA - $5 BILLION
QATAR - $1.2 BILLION
IRAN - $0.25 BILLION
ISRAEL - $0.25 BILLION

I don't think there's any need to quote import nos or investment in india. This is why 'curry favour with muzzies'. Foreign policy cannot be determined based on religious bigotry or sentimental feelings.

Trikaal wrote:I never denied india's political clout. But why would india 'use' its political clout on a vote which means nothing for its interests and frankly is a dead duck even b4 being tabled. Sure the arabs will use theirs as this issue is imp to them.

If one turns the bolded part around its head, the same can also be said about India wasting its political clout by voting for a resolution which anyway was dead as a duck in the first place. India could have simply abstained, which was my original position. The assumption you are making is that abstention means 'opposition'. Definitely not. Abstention could also mean neutrality.

We assume that all these votes take place in vacuum in the UN. No, there is a lot of communication & signalling among countries before that. And, the countries also speak on the resolution giving their reasons for voting or absenting. The West Asian countries seem to have actively lobbied for votes. Friendly countries do explain their positions when lobbied, that is before voting itself. After all, this is an Arab Group & OIC sponsored resolution, not by a specific country and therefore no one country could feel offended, if at all, by India's 'neutral' abstention.

We see ghosts in every corner. It took us such a long time to establish diplomatic relationship with Israel but nothing happened with these West Asian countries when we did so in 1992. Even KSA is softening its stand vis-a-vis Israel these days.

Trikaal wrote:If the issue was, lets say about terrorism or rohingyas, issues that india is actively invested in, then sure india would use its diplomatic powers and then indian and bhutanese vote wouldn't be the same. But when india doesn't do that, then both votes just count as 1.

Just over 3 months back, September 17 to be precise, the OIC issued a statement in the UN accusing India of grossly violating human rights in 'India Occupied Kashmir' and the denial of 'right of self determination' to the Kashmiris. The OIC, at the UN, expressed solidarity with Kashmiris in their struggle and demanded the security Council to act on its resolutions regarding Kashmir.

It is one thing for OIC to regularly pass its resolutions every year condemning India, but quite another thing to make a similar statement in the UN. This was the first time it had happened. Do we need to argue more on 'political investments'? Is there anything more important than Kashmir? And, we have been cultivating several important OIC countries for ages in some fond hope!

Trikaal wrote:Diplomatic power only means making ur allies vote with u on an issue which india had no need to do. India showed its power on that vote for icj judge. I hope i made my point clear.

India has shown its diplomatic strength many times before too. That's exactly the point I am also making. Many a time, we are like Hanuman, unaware of our potential. On making 'our ally vote with us' as you alluded to above, see below.

Trikaal wrote:Agreed, and in this scenario abstention meant going against almost the entire world which is tantamount to tacit opposition of the resolution.

I have already said that abstention never meant opposition, not in this case, not in every case. Let me quote what some of those countries that abstained from the Jerusalem voting said justifying their position:

Australia’s representative explained that she had abstained because although her country’s Government did not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process, it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. . . Canada’s representative said he had abstained because the resolution was one‑sided and did not advance the prospects for peace. . . Paraguay’s representative said he had abstained because his delegation’s position was that the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. . . Mexico’s representative said he had also abstained, while emphasizing that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress, he emphasized, noting that the international community was further than ever from agreement.

It is very clear that abstention meant several things to several persons. Very nuanced to be simply dismissed as 'opposition'. Indian diplomats, well known for their word play, could have easily trotted out a sophisticated and nuanced position too.

Trikaal wrote:Whether it is futile or not will be shown over the next few months. It was kindof like a bet u place rather than regret not placing a bet at all. You don't expect to win but u would rather do something than nothing. It is like calling a big blind in poker even when u hv a bad hand just to see the flop. Sometimes, u would rather call a bb than regret folding prematurely.
If india and usa relationship sours, then the bet was wasted. If it doesn't, then the bet was a good idea. Granted india and usa relationships couldve stayed good even without doing this but then again, it is a bet u would rather place and waste than not place it at all.

My whole argument was *NOT* based on India-USA relationship. The India-USA relationship is not a touchstone for this. It will not be impacted. My whole premise was entirely based on the duplicity of the OIC and our impotence to call the bluff. It so happened that it was strengthened by the Palestine Ambassador to Pakistan.

However, I am intrigued by the fact that you are all right with the India-USA relationship souring if the bet somehow goes a waste, but you are not willing to take a similar bet against the OIC.

In fact, from the India-USA perspective, I welcome the Indian vote because it showed a rare standing up to US bullying in recent times. My post here. But, that is besides the point.

SSridhar wrote: We see ghosts in every corner. It took us such a long time to establish diplomatic relationship with Israel but nothing happened with these West Asian countries when we did so in 1992. Even KSA is softening its stand vis-a-vis Israel these days.

I suspect that our stance all along had less to do with fear of Arab nations taking offence to the point that our strategic interests were impacted (which was a convenient excuse to throw at nationalist audience) and much more to do with the thought processes of our perverted commie/leftist crowd along with some local Islamists.

We could have actually used the valid reason that it was co-sponsored by Pakistan and hence tainted by association, to abstain.

SSridhar wrote:

Trikaal wrote:I never denied india's political clout. But why would india 'use' its political clout on a vote which means nothing for its interests and frankly is a dead duck even b4 being tabled. Sure the arabs will use theirs as this issue is imp to them.

If one turns the bolded part around its head, the same can also be said about India wasting its political clout by voting for a resolution which anyway was dead as a duck in the first place. India could have simply abstained, which was my original position. The assumption you are making is that abstention means 'opposition'. Definitely not. Abstention could also mean neutrality.

We assume that all these votes take place in vacuum in the UN. No, there is a lot of communication & signalling among countries before that. And, the countries also speak on the resolution giving their reasons for voting or absenting. The West Asian countries seem to have actively lobbied for votes. Friendly countries do explain their positions when lobbied, that is before voting itself. After all, this is an Arab Group & OIC sponsored resolution, not by a specific country and therefore no one country could feel offended, if at all, by India's 'neutral' abstention.

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.

SSridhar wrote: We see ghosts in every corner. It took us such a long time to establish diplomatic relationship with Israel but nothing happened with these West Asian countries when we did so in 1992. Even KSA is softening its stand vis-a-vis Israel these days.

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.

SSridhar wrote:

Trikaal wrote:If the issue was, lets say about terrorism or rohingyas, issues that india is actively invested in, then sure india would use its diplomatic powers and then indian and bhutanese vote wouldn't be the same. But when india doesn't do that, then both votes just count as 1.

Just over 3 months back, September 17 to be precise, the OIC issued a statement in the UN accusing India of grossly violating human rights in 'India Occupied Kashmir' and the denial of 'right of self determination' to the Kashmiris. The OIC, at the UN, expressed solidarity with Kashmiris in their struggle and demanded the security Council to act on its resolutions regarding Kashmir.

It is one thing for OIC to regularly pass its resolutions every year condemning India, but quite another thing to make a similar statement in the UN. This was the first time it had happened. Do we need to argue more on 'political investments'? Is there anything more important than Kashmir? And, we have been cultivating several important OIC countries for ages in some fond hope!

Oic has never been our friends. But u only make peace with ur enemies. 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.

SSridhar wrote:

Trikaal wrote:Diplomatic power only means making ur allies vote with u on an issue which india had no need to do. India showed its power on that vote for icj judge. I hope i made my point clear.

India has shown its diplomatic strength many times before too. That's exactly the point I am also making. Many a time, we are like Hanuman, unaware of our potential. On making 'our ally vote with us' as you alluded to above, see below.

Trikaal wrote:Agreed, and in this scenario abstention meant going against almost the entire world which is tantamount to tacit opposition of the resolution.

I have already said that abstention never meant opposition, not in this case, not in every case. Let me quote what some of those countries that abstained from the Jerusalem voting said justifying their position:

Australia’s representative explained that she had abstained because although her country’s Government did not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process, it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. . . Canada’s representative said he had abstained because the resolution was one‑sided and did not advance the prospects for peace. . . Paraguay’s representative said he had abstained because his delegation’s position was that the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. . . Mexico’s representative said he had also abstained, while emphasizing that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress, he emphasized, noting that the international community was further than ever from agreement.

It is very clear that abstention meant several things to several persons. Very nuanced to be simply dismissed as 'opposition'. Indian diplomats, well known for their word play, could have easily trotted out a sophisticated and nuanced position too.

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. 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)

SSridhar wrote:

Trikaal wrote:Whether it is futile or not will be shown over the next few months. It was kindof like a bet u place rather than regret not placing a bet at all. You don't expect to win but u would rather do something than nothing. It is like calling a big blind in poker even when u hv a bad hand just to see the flop. Sometimes, u would rather call a bb than regret folding prematurely.
If india and usa relationship sours, then the bet was wasted. If it doesn't, then the bet was a good idea. Granted india and usa relationships couldve stayed good even without doing this but then again, it is a bet u would rather place and waste than not place it at all.

My whole argument was *NOT* based on India-USA relationship. The India-USA relationship is not a touchstone for this. It will not be impacted. My whole premise was entirely based on the treachery of the OIC and our impotence to call the bluff. It so happened that it was strengthened by the Palestine Ambassador to Pakistan.

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.

SSridhar wrote: However, I am intrigued by the fact that you are all right with the India-USA relationship souring if the bet somehow goes a waste, but you are not willing to take a similar bet against the OIC.

In fact, from the India-USA perspective, I welcome the Indian vote because it showed a rare standing up to US bullying in recent times. My post here. But, that is besides the point.

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.

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.

SSridhar Sir, you are correct, we both hv said enough on the topic and there's not much room for change of stance. Instead of replying to ur post pointwise, i will post my concluding remarks on this topic.

In my opinion, India needs to act based on which direction benefits us more. In this vote, the fallout from OIC would've been more than US or Israel. Both the countries are not in a position to act against India since that would mean acting against a lot more countries that voted the same as india. On the other hand, OIC wouldn't feel the same complusions on this vote since no major country is on the other side of the fence on this vote. Even abstention would've meant tacit support of this resolution. I can see not a single major country whose abstention can be counted as true neutrality in this vote and not supporting US. OIC does have a lot of avenues of acting against india as compared to these countries, primarily propping up pakistan. Over the years, due to the efforts of our foreign policy, arab support for pakistan has declined which can be easily seen in paki grumbling. Today, pakistan's darling is china, not arabs. It isn't worth it to throw away years of this progress for a non issue of a vote. I do not see ind-israel relations faltering because india voted for a reprimand to us for moving their embassy which is all this resolution was. Frankly, israel does not have a lot of options of retaliating against india. Weapon supply wont stop since that will hurt them. Similarly, currently we are unfortunately not in a position to retaliate against OIC actions on kashmir, since we are dependent on these countries importing goods worth billions of dollars from india and securing india's energy security. I dont like this but this is the reality. We need to bide our time, keep a smile on our face when it comes to arabs and slowly change the equation in our favour. The situation is much different from what it was 2 decades ago but we still aren't in command.

I am not in awe of arabs but i am also not in favour of showing our hand or throwing away years of progress made.

Trikaal, BTW, do not write SMS-type posts.

Sorry, i do not understand what u mean by SMS type. I am writing this on a mobile so maybe that has something to do with it.

let us wait and see if Modi visits the palestinians. He is certainly justified if he gives them a miss. They cannot complain after trying to have their cake and eat it too, especially since it was their own disastrous overreach.

That should tell us a lot about the way the MEA and Modi are thinking and it may not be the same.

Trikaal wrote:Sorry, i do not understand what u mean by SMS type. I am writing this on a mobile so maybe that has something to do with it.

I was referring to phrases such as 'even b4 being tabled' or 'u hv' etc...