# Israel-Hamas War: Does Abstaining From UN Resolution On Relief To Gaza Serve New Delhi's Ambitions? | Geeta's World, Ep 66

An episode of [Geeta's World](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1635741757), 31 Oct 2023, 47 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/57457963/31_oct_23_gw_31_oct_128.mp3

At the UN General Assembly, India chose not to vote on a resolution promoting an immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas. Was it a clever diplomatic move on India's part, considering they don't want to ruffle feathers with Israel and the United States? On the one hand, the resolution seeks to prevent further escalation of the conflict and increase humanitarian aid for Gaza, while on the other, the Israelis are intensifying their attack. What purpose does the resolution even serve? Listen in! Produced by Anna Priyadarshini Sound Mix by Kapil Dev Singh

## Transcript

[0:00] This is India Today podcasts. At the You and General Assembly, India chose
[0:07] not to vote on a resolution for an immediate humanitarian truth between Israel and Hamas.
[0:13] But was it a clever diplomatic move on India's part considering they don't want
[0:18] to ruffle feathers with Israel and the United States. It's a diplomatic move.
[0:22] If it was not a diplomatic move, and you would have been brazen,
[0:25] you would have voted in favor. But will this diplomatic move serve you in
[0:30] the longer run? When people are saying that we're supposed to be looking to
[0:34] become the voice of you know, they pressed the voice of those who don't
[0:38] have a voice. But on one hand, the resolution seeks to prevent further
[0:43] escalation of the conflict, while on the other the Israelis are intensifying their attack.
[0:48] So what purpose does the resolution even serve? The resolutions are important because
[0:54] they become part of your historical record. The idea is to send out a
[0:59] political mass message. Hello, I'm Anna Pradashani with India Today TV's Foreign Affairs
[1:04] editor Gita Mohan, where with Geta's astute and incisive trasp of world affairs.
[1:11] We delve into all that is urgent and pressing in world politics and comprehend how
[1:17] these developments in other countries could shape India's global ambitions of being a wish for
[1:23] Guru. Let's unravel Geita's World. Hello and welcome. This is the sixty
[1:29] six episode of Keitah's World. And for the past three weeks or two weeks
[1:34] one we missed, But for the past two weeks, Gita, we have
[1:38] been discussing Israel Palestine because every week there's been like latest, very significant developments
[1:46] we can developments, new turns, new shifts. Yeah, so a lot
[1:52] of geopolitical impact then, I mean, and repercussions that have been felt.
[1:57] Yes, and it has reached a point where we should be discussing not just
[2:01] the failures of the international community, but also whether if it serves Palestine's purpose
[2:07] to have pro Palestinian supporters across the world go violent. Yeah, that also
[2:12] become a concern. Concern exactly and which actually will be discussing a bit in
[2:17] our the later part of the discussion. But first, you know, a
[2:23] small gestrel give in terms of the conflict, which is ongoing and has now
[2:28] entered its fourth week if I'm not wrong, and Israeli Prime Minister Nathan Yahoo
[2:34] has declared the fighting's transition into its second stage, indicating the commencement of a
[2:38] ground incursion, and now Palestinians in northern Gaza reported fierce air and artillery strikes
[2:46] as Israeli troops back back tanks pressed into the enclave with a ground offensive,
[2:53] and as always, a near complete communications blackout in Gaza has impeded emergency rescue
[3:00] efforts. Meanwhile, the restricted humanitarian access to Gaza has been decried as a
[3:07] catastrophic failing by the head of the Red Cross, with UN officials continuing to
[3:13] appeal for a ceasefire and now overwhelmingly last Friday voting in his favor. So
[3:19] let's pick it from here, Gita. Just last week, the one ninety
[3:23] three member United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling for
[3:30] an imagate humanitarian truth between Israel and the Palestinian Armed Group HAMAS. So this
[3:38] resolution was drafted by a group of twenty two Arab countries by a margin of
[3:43] one twenty to fourteen, with forty five countries abstaining. India was one of
[3:47] them. The United States and Israel voted no. But obvious, so let's
[3:54] raise this fact why India abstained it? Because what India has said that it
[4:01] chose to abstain the final text of the resolution because it did not cover all
[4:06] elements of India's approach to the issue, particularly the lack of explicit condemnation of
[4:13] the Hamasad attack on seventh of October. So I want to understand in terms
[4:19] of like a you know, a diplomacy level, does this decision align with
[4:25] India's long standing policy of non alignment basically saying that they aim to you know,
[4:31] maintain that neutrality and not take sites in international conflicts. But in the
[4:38] past, India has voted with the Arab resolutions against Israel as a matter of
[4:44] routine. So is it that the non alignment factor or it necessarily indicates a
[4:50] pro Israel stance. Well, the circumstances, like we were discussing, the
[4:56] circumstances are different because of the kind of attack that we saw on October seventh.
[5:02] If this were the past, in all probability, India would have voted
[5:06] in favor, which has been the case on the question of Palestine, because
[5:12] India has been a traditional supporter of the two nation solution or the two state
[5:17] solution. But in this case, the fact that they were. Now,
[5:24] what is let's just talk about the resolutions first and then we'll get to the
[5:29] nittigrity is a UN resolution binding? That becomes the first question because then your
[5:36] abstensions, you're in favor and you're against. Yes, the impact Now,
[5:43] Security Council resolutions, they say, are binding, not the General Assembly Sessions.
[5:48] Resolutions at the Security Council legally binding. Yeah, binding for the countries
[5:54] to follow through. You see, there's no following through of the UN g
[5:58] Emergency Session resolution that was past. So the week before that, there were
[6:02] two resolutions that were moved at the Security Council. One was moved by Brazil
[6:08] for humanitarian aid, so on and so forth, supported by other countries such
[6:15] as Russia, China, and was vetoed by America saying that this does not
[6:21] also include a condemnation of the Hamasa. Then there was another resolution that was
[6:29] moved which was blocked or vetoed by Russia and China given that it only spoke
[6:36] about the condemnation to the US yes, and not really highlight the importance of
[6:46] a humanitarian pause for humanitarian aid, So both sides are very clear in what
[6:54] they want to achieve rather than making it all encompassing. When your Security Council
[7:01] resolutions or moves fail, that's when you are allowed an emergency session at the
[7:08] United Nations General Assembly, which was what was called with Jordan moving a resolution
[7:15] that we call the Arab Resolution because all the Arab countries endorsed it. There
[7:18] were more than thirty five nations I think who co sponsored, which included the
[7:25] twenty two Arab nations, and that resolution focused on humanitarian aid again and did
[7:30] not mention Hamas. A few key things were about humanitarian aid, secession of
[7:40] the attacks and the air raids, revocation or rescinding the order by Israel to
[7:47] evacuate northern Gaza Yah they said you cannot be ordering, and the two state
[7:56] solutions, so all of that, and in that there a lot of people
[8:00] say the Indian side certainly has given its own reasons in its explanation of vote,
[8:05] they have not specifically mentioned why they They did not specifically mention the fact
[8:13] that they did not or they abstained because there was no mention of YouTuber seventh
[8:20] was not explicitly mentioned. Yes, yes, but the EO v The explanation
[8:24] of vote that was given by the Deputy Permanent Representative did not mention that it
[8:31] just was very broad based, that we we condemned terrorism all of all kinds
[8:35] and there can be no equivocation and that there should be zero tolerance. Basically
[8:43] hinting towards why they did it. Then, Sauces told India today and you
[8:48] know others that the resolution was adopted in this session and India's vote was guided
[8:56] by the by the consistent position of the country. The while the explanation of
[9:05] of vote explains that it also adds according to sources, that there can be
[9:09] no equivocation on terror. So while which is which is which just means that
[9:16] it just means, okay, that terror that if you you cannot have,
[9:20] you cannot compare terrorism and say but yeah, yeah, but Anna, this
[9:26] was a resolution for humanitarian aid. Yes, I'll give you another example of
[9:31] another country that voted in favor and it had gone way against its own principle,
[9:39] which is Iran Iran and voted in favor of the resolution. But they
[9:43] landed with a lot of criticism asking them if you the resolution also speaks of
[9:50] two state solution. Yeah, and Iran has never acknowledged the existence of Israel.
[9:56] Wow, so they said, you've never You've never acknowledged the existence of
[10:00] Israel. You don't even want it? Then, how did you agree to
[10:03] a two state solution clause in the entire thing to which the Iranian side's explanation
[10:13] of vote is this yes, I mean. The concern was that why did
[10:18] India not speak of an image it cease fire as was done by all one
[10:24] twenty countries that voted in favor, as well as by some countries that chose
[10:28] to abstain, So at least India could have done that. So Iran's explanation
[10:35] was that although some parts of the resolution like two state solution are contradictory to
[10:41] our principal position, we agree with the purpose of the resolution, that is
[10:45] the immediate succession of hostilities. Moreover, we believe a negative or abstention vote
[10:50] was in favor of Zionism that attempted to divide the votes and weaken the resolution.
[10:56] So, in the interest of the love that you're good, where secession
[11:01] of hostilities and humanitarian aid was the focus in a very focused manner, they
[11:07] voted in favor. They did not abstain because they said, if you would
[11:11] have abstained or voted against just because it had this one two states in hat
[11:16] clause, it would have been against the idea of humanitarian aid. So sometimes
[11:22] the larger picture has to be So when if you wanted a resolution on a
[11:28] condemnation of the terror attack, you could have said, okay, we will
[11:33] agree to this, but then let's have a separate resolution and pass that as
[11:35] well, and get that passed with a condemnation of har Mass as well,
[11:41] which maybe a lot of the Arab states would not have voted for. Some
[11:45] would have abstained, but that's an abstention is as good as as good as
[11:50] not voting against. So it's in favor, right, So that would have
[11:56] really helped matters for them. But to abstain for now India has given its
[12:03] position, but I'm just saying that Iran also had a stronger position because they
[12:07] do not believe in yes in a two state solution, and yet they did
[12:11] it. But India has allies and pat partners and US and Israel, and
[12:18] to vote against or to vote in favor of this resolution would have meant that
[12:28] you would have been creating a wedge between India and Israel. And the United
[12:35] States of America and clearly most of their Western allies. So it chose to
[12:39] like not so instead of it chose the middle path, which is what is
[12:45] given in the UN to abstain. So they abstained, which is like,
[12:48] do you think it's a clever diplomatic move. It's a diplomatic move. Yeah,
[12:54] if it was not a diplomatic move and you would have been brazen,
[12:58] you would have voted in favor. But it's a diplomatic move too. But
[13:03] will this diplomatic move serve you in the longer run when people are saying that
[13:07] we're supposed to be looking to become the voice of you know, they're pressed
[13:13] the voice of those who don't have a voice, and in such a scenario
[13:16] where leadership role is required, just to be diplomatic, does it help?
[13:22] That's the question. But on the contrary, does it also mean that India
[13:28] will have to now outrage to the Arab world and explain Deli's abiding commitment to
[13:33] Palestinian's full statehood just just hours after the vote in New York phone the phone
[13:41] call was a cci presence because you needed to you needed to reach out to
[13:48] Egypt to explain that well, we know the situation on the ground. So
[13:52] they could have done this with the US and Israel as well. I mean
[13:54] just a phone, but a call does not translate into them understanding vote in
[14:00] favor. Everybody diplomatically is working, We working the phones to ensure that the
[14:07] countries who work who they consider their allies and friends vote in favor of them,
[14:13] which would have meant a negative vote, which in they would not have
[14:15] done, or an abstension. It certainly would not have meant it in favor
[14:20] at the United Nations. So you are you are being called to justify all
[14:28] the friendship in born and partnership that you've spoken of in the past. And
[14:33] today the countries are saying, okay, well, this is where we stand.
[14:37] We have been attacked. It was a terror attack and doesn't seem to
[14:41] reflect because everybody's looking at the disproportionate reaction that they're calling it and so we
[14:50] need you to stand by us. And so India chose the diplomatic past of
[14:56] reiterating its position on two state solution, which is just part of the entire
[15:00] thing. Yeah, but saying yeah, but also saying that we are also
[15:05] victims of terror in any country that suffers terrorism. There should be zero tolerance.
[15:09] But again I go back to the fact that this resolution was not about
[15:13] the terror attack. They could have had a different resolution, US resolution on
[15:18] the terror attack, and India would have voted in favor of that as well,
[15:22] and you could have had this where you're talking about humanitarian aid. Irrespective,
[15:28] it was a resounding win and the resolution was adopted. Ultimately, this
[15:33] was a result, Like you said, this was an emergency Assembly after these
[15:37] two other resolutions and the Security Council the Security Council, so that was the
[15:41] larger, you know idea. But coming back to and we have discussed the
[15:48] United Nations as a forum in our previous episodes as well. But coming back
[15:52] to the point where you said that, you know, it's non binding in
[15:54] nature, it's not legally binding. So is really you an ambassador Gillett Eden?
[16:02] He suggested after this vote for Humanitatian truths, he said, he said
[16:07] that it might not lead to peace, but could constrain Israel's action, and
[16:12] that the only place this resolution belongs is quoting him is in their dustbin of
[16:18] history. So at a fortum, when all these members are voting and stressing
[16:23] the need to avoid a wider escalation of the fighting and demand you know,
[16:30] increased humanitarian aid for Gaza. Uh the on the other hand, the Israelies
[16:34] are intensifying their attack. So what kind of purpose does do these resolutions even
[16:41] serve? Then? How viable is it? So the resolutions are important because
[16:48] they are they become part of your historical record. So people go back saying
[16:56] that this was the this was the resolution, and this is this is an
[17:00] number with which it was pasted. It just shows the kind of consensus you
[17:03] were you managed to garner when when your country was in crisis and when they
[17:08] needed you to get to get the support of the international community. So that
[17:15] wait matters. Now, like I said, Security Council resolutions are binding.
[17:21] General Assembly they're not. Resolutions are not binding. However, however, politically
[17:27] what happens is that even if it's not legally binding, they go for consensus.
[17:33] Why do they go for consensus? Why if you know that it is
[17:36] not binding, you can just move a resolution and call for vote and you'll
[17:40] see what happens or doesn't happen. But no, the idea is to send
[17:44] out a political message and in that that's where they start working. The phones
[17:49] working the personal channels back channels to ensure that they have maximum of the one
[17:56] ninety five members in their in their of in favors, so that it looks
[18:03] like a resounding win for the cause that their spouse through that resolution. Now,
[18:11] since nineteen forty five, a total of thirty six United Nations Security Council
[18:18] draft resolutions related to Israel Palestine have been vetoed by one of the five permanent
[18:23] members either it is Russia, US, China with THEO France. Out of
[18:30] these, thirty four were vetoed by the US and two by Russia and China.
[18:36] So all the vetos were used by the United States of America primarily to
[18:41] protect Israel. The US has vetoed resolutions on Israel a total of forty six
[18:45] times, including over Israel's invasion of south southern Lebanon as well as Israel's annexation
[18:52] of the Syrian Golan Heights. Now with this you can see that and the
[18:56] nineteen seventy two draft resolution, the only time US did not veto was brief
[19:02] and generic calling upon all sides to seize immediately all military operations. Now you
[19:07] can see with this that there is a consistent manner in which the Security Council
[19:14] is used precise to the interest of either party. That is what I and
[19:21] the Israel Palestine conflict can never be resolved if you have a Security Council that
[19:26] is so skewed with veto powers. You have Russia China that will continue now
[19:33] to support Palestine and veto any US move, and then you have US vetoing
[19:40] every resolution that has ever come to the Security Council, and if it is
[19:45] passed in the Security Council, it will be combinding their right to exist.
[19:51] For Israel cannot mean that the extreme elimination of Palestinians if they have a right
[20:00] to exist. Palestinians already existed on that land. They were given a part
[20:06] of that land, and they've taken a lot more. I'm not saying what
[20:10] is right and what is wrong over here. What I'm just trying to say,
[20:12] Anna, is this that your United Nations has failed to deliver on a
[20:19] solution that should have been given or brought about long ago. That if you
[20:26] created a state out of a land that was not theirs, how is it
[20:32] that Palestine still has not been accorded statehood? And the United Nations, in
[20:37] all it might girth the body that it is, you know, the weight
[20:45] that it carries or it shows that it does, has not managed to just
[20:55] bring to stop a lot of these cases in instances of violence perpetrated by certain
[21:02] powers, whether it was Iraq, whether it's Yemen, Syria, or for
[21:07] that matter, Russia, Ukraine and now over the lasts. It has had
[21:15] little effect on Moscow's policy because of the veto powers, because of the veto
[21:19] power and the reforming of the Security Council and the United Nations is of utmost
[21:26] importance. And that is how the question has to come down to whether these
[21:30] veto powers have helped the Global South, the ones who are dependent on the
[21:37] United Nations to rule in favor against them, whether it has helped them at
[21:42] all or not. Because then you always have to align yourself or tie yourself
[21:47] to one of the p fives to ensure that you're protected at the Security Council.
[21:52] Should another country that does not like you or your face today take you
[21:56] to Security Council for some violation or of human rights or something, you know,
[22:02] yeah, I mean yes, Like it's so tragic that you have on
[22:07] one level, your Security Council which is like marred with such VETO powers,
[22:11] it never passes, then the others images step then is the assembly where it's
[22:17] not legally binding. So it's like a vicious cycle. It is. It
[22:22] is the kind of forum that you know it projects, like you said,
[22:25] it's just so there's no like you know, even potential to uh for the
[22:30] VETO system to be restructured. Not right to allow, not right now,
[22:33] unless and until there's an overhaul, which would mean change of the system and
[22:40] the constitution of the United Nations and how it was built, and then bring
[22:44] about those changes with votes to ensure there is expansion of the United Nations.
[22:48] Question of VETO, will the new members get VETO power or not, or
[22:52] will VETO be withdrawn completely? A lot of these questions will have to be
[22:56] answered. And even as we are speaking about this, the fact is that
[23:00] Israel has already rejected the resolution exactly and in fact, there have been massive,
[23:07] massive air raids, you know, just a day after, like after
[23:12] much delays, now seeming that just a day after you had air raids,
[23:18] you had land raids. And now we're also listening and hearing about ground invasions,
[23:26] even if it's limited ground invasion and fronting back and then Hazibula, apparently
[23:33] we've only heard through reports has opened front and has attacked and reached the Iron
[23:38] Dome. So this is blowing up. Resolution or no resolution, United Nations
[23:45] or no United Nations. Look at the failure of the UN and humanitarian aid
[23:49] itself. I was speaking to one of the diplomats. They said that there
[23:53] were about five thousand trucks minimum that are required to go in to the kind
[24:00] of destruction that you know the Agaza has seen, and instead they are only
[24:04] one hundred and seventeen trucks that have gone up until since October seventh, which
[24:11] is not enough, not even enough to feed the people and provide the medical
[24:17] aid. You are seeing young kids being operated on the floor of a makeshift
[24:23] so called hospital on the floor, not a sanitized theater, on the floor,
[24:30] with very little anesthesia, and they just held the chin of the boy
[24:34] up so that he does not choke himself. Imagine the pain of being amputated
[24:40] without anesthesia. And I'm talking about amputation of a kid as high as you
[24:48] know our desks. Yeah, so it is just the most terrible thing.
[24:52] And I think the world has to come together on humanitarian aid. A lot
[24:57] of people talk about proportionate action and does not apply in this case. And
[25:06] I don't want to say but of anything to the Hammas attack. The fact
[25:10] that they still hold children hostage is just horrid and terrible. The fact that
[25:15] there are some cases of the end reports that we're hearing of absolute brutality by
[25:21] the Hamas is terrible. But somebody has to be the better person when it
[25:26] comes to civilians, and it cannot be non tactical. Your attacks have to
[25:32] be tactical. It cannot be this. You cannot give twenty four our period
[25:40] window period for evacuation of the whole of North Gaza, even if it's two
[25:44] point two million people staying over there, let's say half of them one point
[25:48] million to evacuate in twenty four hours. And it is day twenty two,
[25:53] twenty three. And if you ask the IDEF for about the ground invasion,
[25:57] they say, we're evacuating people from the border towns. Do you know what
[26:03] the population would be in the border towns. Every Kippozza village would have a
[26:07] few hundred people, that's all right or less every village. And they're taking
[26:12] so much time to evacuate such such few people. And they expected them to
[26:18] expected no Ghaza to be evacuated in twenty four hours exactly. And and go
[26:23] where, and go where, go to the southern part of Gus which was
[26:26] also bombed, which is also bombed. I mean, what is this thought
[26:30] again? I say that we did not bomb they themselves are bombing their own
[26:33] people. We are nobody to judge who we are, but we are nobody
[26:37] to say who did or who didn't. Just the fact that they're not safe
[26:41] there as well. And if they're not safe anywhere, then your your attacks
[26:48] cannot be impulsive just because you were hit. It has to be more tactical.
[26:52] But exactly, and eight eight thousand bodies in counting, three five hundred
[26:57] children in counting. Yeah, you know, like as we speak, it's
[27:00] so of course we're speaking on a diplomatic level, where like you have often
[27:07] mentioned that morality doesn't come in the picture. But it's so tragic that on
[27:11] the civilian level, like if you browse through all these social media platforms,
[27:17] it's so tragic that there's so many influences who are mocking their plight. And
[27:22] mostly it's the you know, the Israelis who are mocking the they're saying that
[27:27] okay, you know, there's some parents who are holding their babies. They're
[27:33] dead babies, you know, copses in their hands, and people are mocking
[27:37] them saying that, oh my god, these are just dolls. So because
[27:40] there because there was a photo that had emerged of a child having been taken
[27:45] to a hospital in one of the border countries or somewhere, and it was
[27:52] so ash leaden. Yeah, it almost looked like a doll till the farst
[27:57] till they actually showed a video and of the father holding the same child saying,
[28:02] this is not at all, it's just it's just and and for those
[28:07] troulls, just for those truths, you know, do not have the heart.
[28:14] You should have the heart for everyone, of course, not just for
[28:18] I mean, it was sad. It's sad to see those visuals of kids
[28:22] in the laps of hamas terrorists. Yeae, it is just sad. It's
[28:26] just really heartbreaking. But it's also heartbreaking to see parents hold their kids bleeding
[28:33] or hold their dead child, which is the worst punishment in the world.
[28:40] You know, somebody had once said that the only proof in this world when
[28:45] you say that God doesn't exist is when a parent is holding his dead child.
[28:51] Or has to shoulder the his his dead child to to to his his
[28:59] burial. So that's the only time you say there is proof that there is
[29:03] no God. And to see children die like this is just the worst thing.
[29:10] It's a war, that's like, that's just are these children? Mm?
[29:15] You know, I although we shouldn't be giving that much importance to all
[29:19] these truths, but we I don't know, it's just our mind you know,
[29:23] like no the sig mentality, the mindset of people who can pull out
[29:30] photos of children, their children make fun of them. Yeah. And I
[29:34] saw this tweet online with some shared by some in person who said that there
[29:41] was a picture of a young boy. It was all covered in the rubble
[29:45] and his face is you know, like very scarred. And this person has
[29:49] shared it saying that fair and lovely ad you know, like whitewashing it.
[29:55] And the picture is standing like at the very left, which is like the
[29:57] darker version, and there they're fair in lovely act. That's how sad.
[30:02] That's aesthetic imagine, like you can't even speak of the brutality and that's hot.
[30:07] That's just even if this war ends, I mean it is, people
[30:11] will have to live through this. But also somewhere down the line they have
[30:17] to live through this that they did this, Yeah, that they celebrated death,
[30:22] that they celebrated death of children just because there's certain religion, certain ethnicity,
[30:30] certain community, And it's the other way around also, you know,
[30:33] and when we're discussed and we're wiginning this podcast that pro Palestinian protesters going violent
[30:41] is just massive disservice to the cause of Palestine. Because if you're if you
[30:45] cannot hold yourself today to to the deck room of protesting and not becoming a
[30:53] menace entering Augistan an airport where an Israeli plain landed to take on the Israelis,
[31:00] and and and you know, create violence is unacceptable. Going to the
[31:08] Cooper College in New York, Manhattan, and the Jewish students were had to
[31:15] be locked up for their safety in the library because this she centered the building
[31:18] they were They were firstly, uh, protesting, non violent protests, and
[31:26] suddenly they decided that they want to go and bang on the Imagine the trauma
[31:30] that the students must have felt. Whatever it is. You might agree to
[31:34] disagree, you might disagree, but you're in a foreign land and you are
[31:41] taking out your anger on students who are not involved, or even if they're
[31:47] supporting or not supporting, you cannot. What you're doing is disservice to the
[31:52] Palestinian cause. Anywhere else in the world you can carry out massive protests.
[31:56] They're massive protests in London and everywhere else. But it's but it has to
[32:05] be just a silent demonstration. It cannot be a violent role. So to
[32:09] them, as I would say to these trolls, there is no comparison,
[32:15] because nobody you must be the lowest in the in the order of life.
[32:23] You must stand at the lowest order to celebrate death of children. It doesn't
[32:31] matter where they are come from, it doesn't matter who they are. It's
[32:36] just a reflection of how polarized we are, like be you know, the
[32:40] COVID pandemic does in India. Way we saw what kind of polarization that.
[32:46] I mean. It's just like if we talk about this, we go the
[32:51] fact that you can celebrate and and so every I don't know, we're not
[32:55] here to talk about philosophy. This is real diploma. See and at the
[33:00] end of the day, the trolls meet their life and their death on those
[33:06] social media pages itself, because it's for all times to come, you will
[33:10] be able to see that this one said this, this one said that,
[33:14] but once the story is dead, you only revisited if the story is alive
[33:17] or if it's back in news. But for us, a resolution who voted
[33:23] in favor, who voted against, and who abstained that is forul here to
[33:28] stay. Yes, who gave what explanation for their abstention or they're in favor
[33:35] is here to stay. Whether it's India saying that, well, it should
[33:38] have been a more rounded resolution or Iran, which said well it had problems,
[33:44] that it had clauses which we have problems with, but we wanted to
[33:47] vote for the larger good. True. Yes. So the fact that the
[33:53] added world has come together, irrespective of the Shia Sunni sectarian different salvans strife,
[34:00] irrespective of the fact that some have recognized Israel some have not, irrespective
[34:05] of the fact that some want diplomatic tize of Israel something they've derailed important processes,
[34:12] they all have come together under the Palestine umbrella. And it has nothing
[34:17] to do with whether if they criticized Hamas because some countries wouldn't have some countries
[34:22] would have agreed to say something. They just wanted a clean resolution where there
[34:28] is no difference between the Arab amongst the Arab world on the Hamas paragraph.
[34:32] Otherwise they would have been a lot of amendments. So that happened, and
[34:37] there was one amendment that was moved to add Hamas attack and condemn it,
[34:43] which was rejected, so they had to adopt it out the way it is,
[34:46] and then they ended up uniting together under the Palestine Umbrella just for humanitarian
[34:53] aid. At this point in time, whatever the war efforts for Israel is
[34:59] going to be bring back the hostages and to ensure that Hamas does not have
[35:04] the wherewithal to attack Israel. Ever, again, it cannot be at such
[35:10] a disproportionate cost to the civilians of Gaza. So somewhere that line has to
[35:16] be drawn. Yeah, and you don't see that happening often gets blurred.
[35:21] Yeah, just you know, before we go, just one last question that
[35:24] I wanted to talk about when we mentioned reforms, and India has always been
[35:31] vocal about, you know, countering terrorism and all. In fact, yeah,
[35:36] like after abstaining also from the resolution, it's said that terrorism is a
[35:40] it knows no boundaries, so it knows no borders. Nationality or race.
[35:45] You know, remember when we talk about India getting a permanent seat in the
[35:50] Security Council or not, and we talked about the veto structure and everything.
[35:54] When India, or like other countries, they advocate for bringing in reforms to
[36:00] the Council, what are the things that you think India if you talk about
[36:05] India in particular, India would want to change about the unsc's day to day
[36:09] functioning so that it functions better for global security. What does India hope to
[36:15] achieve when it says reforms because I thought that is like India's idea of reforms
[36:22] limited to us being added as a permanent member of the UNSSE Not really,
[36:30] So the UN reforms is all encompassing. There would be a lot of things
[36:34] that would change in the processes. But yes, for India, apart from
[36:37] the fact that we're looking at UN reforms where a lot of the agenda setting
[36:42] on how and the processes have to be reformed. Security Council unlessen Until that's
[36:47] the top. Until Security Council is reformed and expanded, there is going to
[36:52] be no real representation. Why did we want an expansion of the Security Council?
[36:58] We started as a voice that said, well that has to be an
[37:01] expansion, we should be added. Then we became part of the G four
[37:06] where four countries together saying that we are now representative of the real world order
[37:12] and not just you guys, which included Japan, Germany, India and Brazil.
[37:20] So this was the G four. We were pushing it together. Then
[37:22] there was a realization that if G four, if G four has Japan,
[37:27] China will never support it. Yes, but today even if there's no Japan,
[37:31] China is not going to support India India. So it's a bad situation.
[37:37] But you wanted the expansion because the world order has changed. India is
[37:42] very important in representing this entire region. Yeah, and I'm not saying Asia
[37:49] because you'd say China is also South Asia. India is a very important leading
[37:53] country and is not represented. And if India is represented at the Security Council,
[38:00] then the interests of various other countries that really get down to or get
[38:08] boils down to whether China will support this country or US, that will not
[38:14] happen. Maybe there'll be a third player, which is India, which otherwise
[38:19] is either a Russia China block now or a US France block and the US
[38:24] UK France block. So it's a West versus the rest. But if India
[38:30] comes into the picture, if Germany comes into the picture, Brazil comes into
[38:35] the picture, all these other countries who are wuying to become a part of
[38:39] the expanded Security Council, then it will make a huge difference. But to
[38:45] come to your question on what will India bring to the table on security on
[38:51] terrorism, nothing, nobody can bring anything. And you know why because there
[38:55] is a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a treaty that was proposed in nineteen
[39:02] ninety six. And you know why, It's because the world has not been
[39:07] able to come and work on the on one thing that is terrorism. What
[39:15] is that at the United Nations, it's called the Comprehensive Comprehensive Convention on International
[39:20] Terrorism. And the world has not been able to agree to defining the word
[39:27] terrorism because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighters. Exactly. Hamas is
[39:35] a terrorist to many and freedom fighters to many others. And that is polar
[39:40] shoot itself whenever they so the convention, that's the Comprehensive Cciit has been under
[39:47] negotiation by the UNNGA, the UNG Committee of seventeen December nineteen ninety six.
[39:55] But as of now, even till date, there has been no consensus that
[40:00] has been reached for the adoption of the convention. Wow. Yeah, So
[40:06] that's the reason why if you say, what is going to change in the
[40:10] security structure and the apparatus and all of that, if there are veto powers,
[40:17] there will always be these trains, even if India enters with the Veto
[40:22] power. If you have US and China, I will always one way or
[40:25] the other they will be wielding the Veta power. Can I work with majority
[40:30] here? No? So till the time the world comes together together and says
[40:36] zero tolerance to terrorism defines terrorism and allows the space for certain dissent, Yeah,
[40:47] but which will not be in the realm of terrorism, but explains what
[40:55] under what circumstances an instance or a situation will be called a terror act or
[41:01] an act of terror unless and until that happens, you cannot move forward because
[41:07] the House will always be divided on whether if it was a terror act or
[41:12] not. Why do you think Hamas has not been condemned because this side calls
[41:17] them terror terrorists, but the other side calls them freedom fighter. So till
[41:22] the time this happens, and that has been the case with India. Also
[41:24] when it comes to us, our terrorists are our neighbors freedom fighters. So
[41:34] because of these problems, we will never see forward movement in an organization that
[41:40] is not legally binding on any country. It case only it can only tell
[41:45] you how to what to. It cannot say you have to. So there
[41:51] are known and that's the key difference. That's the difference. I think with
[41:54] that note will put an end. Although I had a couple of questions more
[41:59] than might but no, just sparing your gita. So we in this episode,
[42:07] I think we clearly established how toothless the United Nations. It is as
[42:12] body. So we'll have to say the best thing that we can do is
[42:16] just wait and watch how this limited ground invasion works and if actually Israel is
[42:23] able to decimate you know, Hammas, who is going to control Gaza.
[42:28] In fact, it's not about the United Nations failings because it because we focus
[42:32] on the on that in this episode. But what we have to wait and
[42:36] see is how the power dynamics moves and changes in the region. It no
[42:43] longer is a place where you will see the United States of America only taking
[42:47] a call. Although you see the Mediterranean Sea is now full of warships from
[42:53] from across the world. They've always centered upon this region. But you seeing
[43:00] the Arab world unite in a way you've never seen before. True, and
[43:07] if this unity continues, it is not good news for those who thought they
[43:12] were okay to you know, divide and have diplomatic space and maneuverability. So
[43:20] for them indicating towards the United States, yes, which is why the calls
[43:23] that went to US saying that you know, should you should this continue,
[43:29] uh Iran will get involved and there will be no criticism that they can that
[43:32] the Sunniar world can really uh you know, do to stop Iran. In
[43:40] fact, they will actually keep going and say, well, they're actually fighting
[43:44] our cause and literally taking you know, taking on the US and Israel.
[43:50] So which is why the calls that had gone to Israel saying that you know,
[43:53] hold off on the ground, invasion be limited in its uh in in
[43:59] in moving in, and is Red also is trying to see whether if they
[44:01] have the intellient capacity to enter in full force and not to have body bags
[44:07] because that will not work well for Netanyahu. So either way it is an
[44:13] existential crisis and threat for Israel. It is already but the existence of Palestinians
[44:20] is already already under threat. So while we're talking about existential threat over there,
[44:25] there are people who are dying in scores and that's why the international new
[44:30] community needs to come in. But I'm seeing a lot of power shift in
[44:35] the region, and let's see how that really plays out. The next few
[44:38] weeks are going to be crucial. We'll be focusing and monitoring the power shift
[44:44] and should we have the space to do it again, maybe we'll discuss this,
[44:49] or we'll also focus on some other big stories that are happening around the
[44:52] world. And I think Pakistan is also Pakistan. The mall deeds, India's
[45:01] India's winds and diplomatic losses in the region with the power dynamics changing over here.
[45:08] The Maldives, you know, has a different administration which looks quite pro
[45:13] China. It's asking our troops to leave, to leave exactly. So Sri
[45:17] Lanka are still continuing to do business. Bhutan't moving forward with the border talks,
[45:23] and there certain quarters have been saying let's open diplomatic channels with China.
[45:30] They don't recognize. There is no diplomatic recognition of each other right right now
[45:37] China and Bhutan. Should that happen, that's going to be disastrous. Nepal
[45:42] and other countries, you know, where we should be focusing and monitoring on
[45:45] how things are turning, how tides are turning there. So in our own
[45:50] region there's a lot to look at, and globally as well, yes,
[45:54] whether it's in their Canada and how the West is continuing to come out and
[45:59] so part of Canada, irrespective of what certain quarters. The way you think
[46:02] and say that Canada is isolated here, certainly reason it is not here.
[46:07] So there's a lot to discuss. But if we see a power shift in
[46:13] the region, we'll come back to Israel. Yeah, that we well shure.
[46:17] And so thanks a Lord Gither and we'll look forward to having you.
[46:22] Thanks to seeing you again and thank you and if you have any inputs to
[46:29] send in. The number is eight five, double eight nine, double six,
[46:31] double line six and the email idea is pots at the rate in there
[46:36] today dot com. Thank you, gether. We'll see you next week,
[46:39] all right,

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.