THE CONTEXT: The UN’s highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent all acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention. The court was ruling on the nine provisional measures requested by South Africa in its genocide claim against Israel.

WHAT IS THE CASE BEFORE THE WORLD COURT?

• Earlier, South Africa approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to seek an immediate order affirming that Israel had violated its commitments under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
• South Africa accuses Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip through military operations.
• In its application, South Africa argued that Israel, in its ongoing Gaza assault, has transgressed from the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention. This article defines the term “genocide” to mean “acts committed with intent to destroy, wholly or partly, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”.
• South Africa has also sought interim relief for the Palestinians and asked the ICJ to order Israel to immediately suspend all military operations in Gaza, as an interim measure.
• They argue that Israel’s actions meet the specific criteria outlined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
• The court did not agree to South Africa’s request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. However, it directed Israel to allow the entry of basic services and humanitarian assistance into the Palestinian enclave.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

• The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN).
• The International Court of Justice is also known as the World Court. It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
• The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands).
• Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, ICJ is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
• Its official working languages are English and French
• All members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the statute, but this does not automatically give ICJ jurisdiction over disputes involving them.
• The ICJ gets jurisdiction only on the basis of the consent of both parties.
• The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organisation and came into force on 24 October 1945.
• The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.
• The ICJ consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for nine-year terms.
• These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies.
• The Court does not include more than one national of the same State. Moreover, the Court as a whole represents the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.

GENOCIDE CONVENTION

• The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) is an instrument of international law that codified for the first time the crime of genocide.
• The Genocide Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. It signified the international community’s commitment to ‘never again’ after the atrocities committed during the Second World War.
• According to the Genocide Convention, genocide is a crime that can take place both in time of war as well as in time of peace.
• The definition of the crime of genocide, as set out in the Convention, has been widely adopted at both national and international levels, including in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• The Convention establishes on State Parties the obligation under Article IV to take measures to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, including by enacting relevant legislation and punishing perpetrators, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”.
• That obligation, in addition to the prohibition not to commit genocide, have been considered as norms of international customary law and therefore, binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified the Genocide Convention.
• The Genocide Convention has been ratified or acceded to by 153 States (as of April 2022, with Zambia). Other 41 United Nations Member States have yet to do so. From those, 18 are from Africa, 17 from Asia and 6 from America.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ICJ RULING ON ISRAEL

• Rules based international order: The outcome holds significance not only for mitigating the crisis in Gaza but also as a crucial test for the “rules-based international order.” The ICJ‘s decisions in the coming months will play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of the international legal framework.
• Protection of human rights: The judgement stands as a cornerstone in international efforts to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. It will act as a beacon in the pursuit of justice and the protection of human rights on a global scale.
• Legal accountability: The order is a moral and legal allegation of Israel for bombing health facilities, designated safe areas, and densely populated areas. The ICJ has directed Israel to take effective and immediate measures to ensure humanitarian assistance and basic services to Gaza.
• Preventing genocide: While Israel and its allies highlight the absence of an order to stop military action, it cannot be ignored that the order is tailored to achieving the objective of preventing genocide. That most of the provisional measures were favoured by a 15-2 majority shows a high degree of consensus on steps to prevent genocide.
• Prompting humanitarian action by Israel: The order makes it difficult for Israel to choose a policy of deliberate non-compliance. The ruling asks for a report in one month on steps taken to implement the measures can only mean that Israel has to demonstrate progress on the extent of humanitarian aid it has permitted.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Compensation for Palestine: There is a need for effective and immediate measures to ensure humanitarian assistance and basic services to Gaza to provide interim relief for the Palestinians.
• Israel Comply with ICJ: Israel must comply with ICJ’s order to prevent genocide, step up aid in Gaza at the earliest and immediately suspend all military operations in Gaza as an interim measure.
• Prevent genocide: There is a need to establish a credible expectation that the perpetrators of genocide and related crimes to held accountable as it can effectively contribute to a culture of prevention of genocide.
• Strengthen institutions: Efforts should be made to strengthen institutions like ICJ and UNSC in upholding international law and addressing human rights violations.

THE CONCLUSION:

Despite the absence of an explicit call for a ceasefire, the ruling handed down by the International Court of Justice is a momentous one that binds Israel to its obligation to prevent acts of genocide in its ongoing military operations in Gaza.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS  

Q.1 “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled back.” Discuss. (2018)

Q.2 ‘Too little cash, too much politics, leave UNESCO fighting for life.’ Discuss the statement in the light of the US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘anti-Israel bias’.(2019)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Recently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. In this regard, discuss the impact of the ICJ ruling on the ongoing war and the challenges associated with its implementation.

NOTE: REFER TO DAILY NEWS ANALYSIS OF 29^TH JANUARY FOR MORE INFORMATION.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/momentous-ruling-on-israel-and-the-international-court-of-justice-order/article67786288.ece#:~:text=Despite%20the%20absence%20of%20an,ongoing%20military%20operations%20in%20Gaza.

THE CONTEXT: The International Monetary Fund recently in its report raised concerns about India’s sovereign debt, i.e. the total debt burden on the Union plus State governments. It has sparked critical reactions from the Indian Government.

IMF RECENT REPORT:

• IMF’s annual Article IV consultation report, which is part of the Fund’s surveillance function under the Articles of Agreement with member countries has been released. It made two observations:

1. It has raised concerns about the long-term sustainability of India’s debts.

2. It reclassified India’s exchange rate regime and termed it as a “stabilised arrangement” instead of “floating”.

• The report also acknowledged India’s effective inflation management and projected a balanced outlook for India’s economic growth.
• The IMF states that India’s general government debt, including the Centre and States, could be 100% of GDP under adverse circumstances by fiscal 2028.
• It stated “long-term risks are high because considerable investment is required to reach India’s climate change mitigation targets and improve resilience to climate stresses and natural disasters.

GLOBAL TRENDS OF DEBT:

• The United Nations, notes that the countries are forced to make the difficult decision between providing for their citizens and paying off their debt. It states, in 2022, 3.3 billion people live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on education or health.
• Global public debt: Global public debt has increased more than fourfold since 2000, outpacing global GDP, which tripled over the same period. In 2022, global public debt reached a record USD 92 trillion.
• Rise of debt in developing countries: Public debt has increased faster in developing countries compared to developed countries over the last decade. Developing countries accounted for almost 30% of the total, of which roughly 70% is attributable to China, India and Brazil. The number of countries facing high levels of debt increased from 22 in 2011 to 59 in 2022. The rise of debt in developing countries is due to growing development financing needs intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, and climate change.
• Asymmetric debt: The burden of debt is asymmetric between developed and developing countries as the latter even without considering the costs of exchange rate fluctuations have to pay higher interest rates than the former. For example, the countries in Africa borrow on average at rates that are four times higher than those of the United States and even eight times higher than those of Germany. This higher borrowing costs undermines debt sustainability of developing countries. The number of countries where interest spending represents 10% or more of public revenues increased from 29 in 2010 to 55 in 2020.

THE CHALLENGE FOR INDIA:

1. Credit ratings

• S&P Global Ratings states that Credit ratings are forward-looking opinions about the ability of debt issuers, like corporations or governments to meet their financial obligations on time.
• They provide transparent global language for investors and other market participants and is one of the inputs which is considered as part of their decision-making processes.
• Elevated debt levels and substantial costs associated with servicing debt impact credit rating.
• Even being the fastest growing economy, India faces the challenge of enhancing its credit ratings. Sovereign investment ratings for India have remained the same for a long time.
• Both Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings have kept India’s credit rating unchanged at ‘BBB- with stable outlook’. It should be noted that BBB- is the lowest investment grade rating and India has been on that scale since August 2006.
• India’s credit ratings are undermined by the

1. government’s weak fiscal performance

2. burdensome debt stock

3. India’s low per capita income

2. Managing public debt:

• India is facing challenge of managing public debt to ensure that it does not breach sustainable levels.
• The weight of debt can act as a drag on development due to limited access to financing, rising borrowing costs, currency devaluations and sluggish growth.

a). Breach of FRBM target:

• • The 2018 amendment to the Union government’s FRBM Act specified debt-GDP targets for the Centre, States and their combined accounts at 40%, 20% and 60%, respectively.
  • The central government’s debt was ₹155.6 trillion, or 57.1% of GDP, at the end of March 2023 and the debt of State governments was about 28% of GDP.
  • Finance Ministry stated that India’s public debt-to-GDP ratio has increased from 81% in 2005-06 to 84% in 2021-22 and is back to 81% in 2022-23. This is way higher than the levels specified by the FRBM Act.
  • These high levels of debt-GDP ratio can be attributed to the disruptions due to the pandemic, which resulted in a major deterioration in the debt-GDP ratios.

b). Fiscal slippage:

• • There are worrying signs on the fiscal fronts as well. Despite growth in tax collections, there is the possibility of a fiscal slippage in FY24, according to a report by India Ratings and Research (IR&R).
  • IR&R attributes this to higher expenditure on employment guarantee schemes and subsidies.
  • For example, Budgeted fertilizer subsidy of ₹44,000 crore was almost over by end-October 2023 and the Union government has now increased fertilizer subsidy to ₹57,360 crore.
  • Similarly, due to sustained demand for employment under MGNREGA, a sum of ₹79,770 crore has already been spent till December 19, 2023, as against the budgeted ₹60,000 crore and an additional sum of ₹14,520 crore has been allocated through the first supplementary demand for grants.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Need of fiscal corrections: There is a need for fiscal correction particularly in this election year to avoid worst-case scenarios.
• Debt sustainability: To manage and achieve the debt sustainability, there is a need for more prudent management of debt in the medium term. It can be done by narrowing the gap between expenditure and tax revenues as well as increasing the efficacy of our expenditures and increasing revenues.
• Human capital: India needs to spend considerably more on public funds for enhancing human capital, i.e. on primary healthcare and primary education. Also, there is a need to fund research and innovation via public universities. This suggests that new and preferably concessional sources of financing are needed including greater private sector investment in this scenario.
• Government borrowing: The government borrowings can play a vital role in accelerating development, as governments can use it to finance their expenditures and invest in people to pave the way for a better future.

THE CONCLUSION:

There is increasing concerns regarding the rise of global debt as it has potential implications for economic stability and the capacity of financial systems. Thus, there is a need to strike the right balance between debt accumulation and economic growth.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q.1 Do you agree that the Indian economy has recently experienced V-shaped recovery? Give reasons in support of your answer. (2021)

Q.2 The public expenditure management is a challenge to the Government of India in the context of budget-making during the post-liberalization period. Clarify it. (2019)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q.1 Rising global debt levels often raise concerns about debt sustainability, especially in the case of government debt driven by reckless borrowing for populist programs. Discuss with specific reference to the Indian scenario.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-dispute-on-indias-debt-burden/article67701846.ece#:~:text=As%20stated%20by%20the%20Finance,Budget%20Management%20Act%20(FRBMA).

THE CONTEXT: Israel continues deadly bombardment of Gaza with latest attacks reported in the Nuseirat refugee camp and Khan Younis. Israel continues to state that it will continue the war in Gaza “with or without international support”.

BACKGROUND:

• Theodor Herzl, one of the founders of modern political Zionism, wrote in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), a pamphlet published in 1896. It was stated in the pamphlet that the Jewish state would form a part of a wall of defence for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilisation against barbarism,”.
• It was argued that security for Jews could be guaranteed only by the creation of a separate national state for them and requested the Ottoman Sultan to give Palestine to the Jews.
• It was promised to undertake the regulations of the whole of Turkey’s finances in return.
• The movement Herzl began culminated in the creation of the state of Israel in historical Palestine in 1948.
• More than 75 years later, the civilisational outpost that Herzl had imagined is now continuing its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and is fighting a calamitous war on the Gaza Strip.

ISRAEL NARRATIVE OF WAR:

• Israel objectives:

1. To free the hostages as Hamas had taken some 240 hostages during its raid.

2. To “dismantle” Hamas.

3. To rebuild Israel’s deterrence so that another attack would not happen.

• Large number of killings: In a short span of time, Israel, has killed 20,000 Palestinians, a vast majority of them women and children, wounded over 50,000 and displaced almost 90% of the enclave’s population. It has managed to turn Gaza into what the United Nations called a “graveyard for children and a living hell for everyone else”.
• Unequal power: In terms of military capabilities, Hamas does not stand even for a distant comparison with Israel. Israel is a nuclear power and a developed economy, which is politically and militarily backed by the United States, equipped with some of the world’s most advanced offensive and defensive weapons. Israel also controls all of Gaza’s border except the Rafah crossing in the south into Egypt. Hamas, on the other side, has roughly 50,000 fighters with assault rifles and short- to medium-range rockets.
• Unsuccessful in hostage operation: Israel has managed to free only one hostage through its military operation and the other over 100 hostages who were released were part of a brief ceasefire deal that Israel had struck with Hamas.
• Not good in unconventional wars: While Israel has an excellent track record against its conventional rivals in the region, its record against non-state actors has always been mixed. Israel has not fought a conventional war in 50 years.

1. Invasion of Lebanon: In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to push the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) out of the country. It was expected the war would bring “40 years of peace”. But the war itself lasted 18 years, even after Israel pushed the PLO out of Lebanon. In 2006, it invaded Lebanon again, this time to crush After a month of intense ground battle, Israel had to accept a ceasefire, leaving Hezbollah politically stronger. Ever since, Hezbollah has rebuilt its military strength many times.

2. Attack on Gaza: After it withdrew from Gaza in 2005 following the second intifada, Israel carried out at least four major bombing campaigns in the enclave aimed at weakening Hamas. Still, it could not prevent the October 7 attack, the deadliest cross-border attack since 1948.

3. Current war: Israel’s main narrative is that Hamas is like the Islamic State (IS) and it aims to destroy it like the physical structure of IS was destroyed. But this sweeping narrative overlooks some fundamental complexities in West Asia. The IS was an outgrowth of al-Qaeda which exploited the chaos in the region to capture territories and spread terror.  It imposed itself on the peoples of Syria and Iraq and lacked any social or political cause. But in the case of Israel-Palestine, the fundamental contradiction is Israel’s continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories. Hamas might be a terrorist outfit for Israel but for a vast majority of other regional actors, it is fighting Israel’s violent occupation.  Hamas has a social and political cause which is the liberation of Palestine and is deeply entrenched in Palestinian society.

IMPACT OF THE WAR

• Attacking Israel economy: A long war would expose Israel’s weaknesses, Israel has mobilised some 3,00,000 reservists, which is adding stress to its economy. Hamas, which uses Gaza’s extensive tunnel networks to hide and fight, continues to fire rockets into Israel, terrorising communities and disrupting local economies.
• Isolating Israel: The high civilian casualties and the sheer brutality of Israel’s offensive in Gaza have isolated the Israel globally. The U.S. still stands with Israel, but recent remarks by U.S. President that Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing” would isolate it globally suggest toward this.
• Arab-Israel normalisation on halt: The Arab-Israel normalisation is on halt and can be said as dead, at least for now.
• Unstable West Asia: Houthis, the pro-Iran Shia rebels who control much of Yemen, are widening the war by targeting tankers in the Red Sea. It is threatening one of the busiest global shipping lanes and drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict.

THE CONCLUSION:

Israel’s objective to eradicate Hamas, free hostages and bolster its own deterrence, seems not achievable even after weeks of intense bombing campaigns of this century. It is in a way increasing the complexities of the power relations of west Asia region.

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q) “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled ”. Discuss. (2018)

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION

Q) Israel’s narrative of Hamas equating it with the Islamic State overlooks some fundamental complexities in West Asia. Comment.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/israel-is-fighting-in-the-dark-in-gaza/article67666853.ece#:~:text=Hamas%2C%20which%20uses%20Gaza’s%20extensive,isolated%20the%20Jewish%20state%20globally.

THE CONTEXT: Two months after Israel’s bombardment of Gaza residents in retaliation for the terror attacks by Hamas, India joined the global call to stop the bombing. It voted in favour of a resolution at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) along with 152 other nations.

BACKGROUND:

• The United Nations Secretary-General invoked Article 99 of the UN Charter, urging the UN Security Council to act on the war in Gaza.
• Article 99 allows the secretary-general to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”.

UN RESOLUTION:

• The 193-member UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the draft resolution ‘Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations’.
• It was initiated by Egypt, at an Emergency Special Session of UNGA with 153 nations voting in favour, 10 against and 23 abstentions. .
• Those voting against included Austria, Israel and the US while Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ukraine and the UK were among those who abstained.
• The resolution demanded

1. An immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza
2. An observance of international humanitarian law
3. The unconditional release of all hostages by ensuring humanitarian access

• The 193-member United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) expressed grave concern over the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the suffering of the Palestinian civilian population.
• While the UNGA does not have the power to enforce its resolutions as the UNSC does, it carries the sentiment of the global community against the Israeli bombardment of Gaza that has rendered more than a million people homeless.

INDIA’S STAND:

• India’s vote was a shift from its previous vote at the UNGA resolution on October 27, when India had decided to abstain from voting for a resolution that called for a ceasefire.
• The government explained this to be a matter of principle, as part of India’s “zero-tolerance” approach towards terrorism, as the earlier resolution did not contain an “explicit condemnation” of the October 7 attacks.
• However, while the UNGA resolution passed recently bears no direct mention of the terror attacks, India has voted in favour.
• Although the government has yet to detail the rationale, there could be several reasons:

1. High casualty: There is high casualty with 18,000 dead and the highest such toll of nearly 90 journalists.
2. Hostages: More than 80% of the entire population is homeless. More than 100 Israeli hostages remain in Hamas custody.
3. Indiscriminate use of missiles: Israeli defence forces have gone far beyond their original mandate of eliminating Hamas capacity and freeing the hostages and led to forced occupation of more territory. Even the U.S., Israel’s biggest ally, estimates that nearly half of the 29,000 air-to-ground munitions deployed by Israel thus far are “unguided” or indiscriminate missiles.
4. Global opinion: Global opinion, including Indian public opinion, has moved from sympathy with Israel, to horror at the unfolding aftermath. India could not have been immune to entreaties by Palestine and the Gulf States to take a relook at its vote.

IMPLICATIONS:

• It may be too early to see India’s UNGA vote as a reversal of its earlier position and a reversion to its original position in the conflict, where it has traditionally called for peace.
• Much will depend on the role India chooses for itself in ensuring the ceasefire is effected and holds, given that Israel has already rejected the UNGA

WAY FORWARD:

• India’s Principled Stand: India should reiterate its support for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue and call for diplomacy and dialogue to resolve the conflict.
• Balanced Approach: India has always shown a balanced approach and it should continue doing this. For example, even with closer ties to Israel, India continued supporting Palestine. India’s External Affairs Ministry voiced support for direct negotiations towards a sovereign Palestinian state, showing a balance in its stance.
• More vocal position: India must take a more vocal position on Gaza with Israel. India will need to mobilise its diplomatic skills and goodwill with the main actors to negotiate in the coming times.
• India role for peace in west Asia: India’s role in multilateral organizations requires constant efforts in cooperation with all related parties to achieve security and stability in the Middle East and West Asia”.

THE CONCLUSION:

India’s recent vote in UN General Assembly reflects its balanced approach to international conflicts.  It underscores India’s commitment to principles of diplomacy and its focus on a negotiated resolution to complex global issues.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q.1 “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled back.” Discuss. (2018)

Q.2 ‘Too little cash, too much politics, leave UNESCO fighting for life.’ Discuss the statement in the light of the US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘anti-Israel bias’.(2019)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q.1 India is currently facing dilemma with respect to ongoing Israel Palestine conflict. Suggest the diplomatic and political efforts that can help India protect its geopolitical interests.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/principled-shift-the-hindu-editorial-on-indias-stand-on-gaza/article67638569.ece

THE CONTEXT:  India has explained its decision to abstain at last week’s vote at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict as its way of protesting the omission of any “explicit condemnation” of the heinous October 7 terror attack by Hamas militants on Israel.

MORE ON THE NEWS:

• India abstained on a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly calling for a humanitarian truce, choosing not to back the international community’s demand that there be an immediate halt to the violence.
• Israel has launched a massive counter-offensive against Hamas after unprecedented attacks by the militant group on October 7 killed more than 1,400 people.
• 193 members of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), which met in a resumed 10th Emergency Special Session, voted on the draft resolution submitted by Jordan and co-sponsored by more than 40 nations including Bangladesh, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa.
• The resolution garnered 120 affirmative votes, while only 14 countries, including Israel, the United States, Hungary and five Pacific island states, voted against. India was among the 45 countries that chose to abstain in the vote at an emergency session of the UNGA in New York.

ABOUT UNGA:

It was established in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations. It Comprised of all 193 Members of the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)  is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN.

The functions and powers of the UNGA:

• Elect the non-permanent members of the Security Council and the members of other United Nations councils and organs and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoint the Secretary-General.
• Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament.
• Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it.
• Initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international political cooperation, codification of international law, the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms, etc.
• Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among countries.
• Consider reports from the Security Council and other United Nations organs.

INDIA’S STAND:

• India said that the resolution did not mention Hamas and that the UN needs to send a clear message against terror.
• India is concerned about the security situation and  called for all parties to exercise
• India referred to the need for an “early solution” to the humanitarian and security situation.
• India has always supported a negotiated Two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine issue leading to the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, side-by-side in peace with Israel.

HISTORY:

• Emergence of Hamas (1987): In 1987, amidst the First Intifada (Palestinian uprising). Hamas was founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This political and military organisation emerged as a counterforce to the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), seeking to establish as Islamic state.
• Impact of Intifadas and peace Efforts: The two Palestinian uprisings, known as’ intifadas (1987-1993 and 2000-2005), profoundly influenced Israeli-Palestinian relations. The second intifada effectively ended the peace process initiated in the 1990, leading to the renewed era of conflict.

THE MAJOR POINTS OF CONFLICT:

• Two-state solution: An agreement that would create a state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel. Israel has said that a Palestinian state must be demilitarized so as not to threaten its security.
• Settlements:Most countries deem Jewish settlements built on land Israel occupied in 1967 as illegal. Continued settlement expansion is among the most contentious issues between Israel, the Palestinians and international community.
• Jerusalem: Palestinians want East Jerusalem, which includes the walled Old City’s sites sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, to be the capital of their state. Israel says Jerusalem should remain its “indivisible and eternal” capital.
• Refugees: Today about 5.6 million Palestinian refugees – mainly descendants of those who fled in 1948 – live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. About half of registered refugees remain stateless.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• The two-state solution calls for establishing an independent state for Palestinians alongside. that of Israel.

• The issue of equal rights for both Palestinians and Israelis can no longer be ignored. We need a new paradigm that emphasizes a rights-based approach, regardless of solution.

• India could have explored other options to register reservations regarding the UNGA resolution than abstention like France which used the “Explanation of Vote (EoV)” method.

THE CONCLUSION:

India’s abstention in the recent UN General Assembly vote reflects its balanced and nuanced approach to international conflicts. While it has drawn criticism from some quarters, it underscores India’s commitment to principles of diplomacy and its focus on a negotiated resolution to complex global issues.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION:

Q) “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled ” Discuss. (2018)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q) “The government lost an opportunity to make India’s voice heard in the growing geopolitical conflict”. Discuss in the context of India’s abstention from the recent UNGA resolution related to Israel -Palestine conflict.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/lost-voice-on-indias-abstention-on-the-gaza-vote-at-the-un/article67477119.ece