Tag: Gabi Ashkenazi

India Votes Against Israel in Three UNHRC Resolutions, Abstains on One

In the latest session of the UN body, India voted against two motions, one sponsored by China and another focused on Iran, while abstaining on other resolutions dealing with the human rights situation in Nicaragua, Belarus, Syria, Georgia and South Sudan.

New Delhi: At the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), India abstained on one resolution on the human rights situation in Palestine but voted in favour of three other resolutions condemning Israel on the Golan Heights, its expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and in support of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

While the vote on the resolution critical of Sri Lanka was the cynosure of all attention, India’s voting pattern in other resolutions that criticised the human rights situation in countries ranging from Iran to Israel also reflected India’s long-standing policies.

The UNHRC’s 46th session concluded on Wednesday with the passage of 30 resolutions and one decision. There was voting on 15 resolutions, while the rest were adopted without a vote.

In the resolutions that went to vote, India abstained seven times, voted in favour in six cases and pressed the ‘No’ button only twice.

During the 46th session, there were four Israel-related resolutions before the Council. India abstained from voting on L.31 resolution, titled “Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice”.

 

The draft resolution, submitted by Pakistan on behalf of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) members, merged and replaced two previous resolutions on Palestine, as per sources.

Also read: At UNHRC, India Slams Pakistan, Turkey, OIC for ‘Baseless’ Remarks on Kashmir Issue

When these two resolutions were tabled last year, India had voted in favour of the resolution criticising human rights violations in Palestine but abstained in the second resolution about accountability and justice. While India had not explained the reasoning behind its vote, the second resolution had included a reference to the ongoing procedures at the International Criminal Court, to which India has not acceded.

In the latest iteration, the UNHRC had called upon Israel “to comply immediately with its international law obligations to the protected occupied population, and ensure non-discriminatory access to vaccines for immunisation against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including in coordination with the government of the state of Palestine”. The preamble to the resolution mentions that Palestine acceded to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute in 2015. This was presumably the reason India abstained, and it is loath to back resolutions that accord primacy to the ICC.

In line with its previous votes, however, India backed three other resolutions critical of Israel on the human rights situation in Syrian Golan, the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and Israeli settlements.

Israel’s foreign minister, Gabi Ashkenazi ,tweeted that the UN Human Rights Council had proved to be “an anti-Israel, discriminatory, and hypocritical body”. “I thank all the countries who chose not to lend a hand to this circus and the systematic discrimination against Israel,” Ashkenazi said.

 

The Sri Lanka resolution was not the only country-specific resolution that India abstained on in votes this week. It also abstained on resolutions about Nicaragua, Belarus, Syria, Georgia and South Sudan – all of them mainly supported by the EU and the western bloc.

The UNHRC also adopted a resolution on Myanmar, without a vote, which means all 47 member states supported it. The resolution extended the mandate of the special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar and asked the UN independent expert to report on the situation since the military junta’s coup of February 1.

The Council also urged the special rapporteur to seek an urgent visit to Myanmar and to provide oral updates in the forthcoming sessions this year, along with recommendations.

The country-specific resolution that India voted against was on Iran. India was among the 12 countries that voted against the resolution which extended the mandate of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran for one year. It also calls on Iran to cooperate and permit the special rapporteur to visit the country.

India’s only other negative vote was on a resolution submitted by China. This is the second consecutive year that China has tabled this resolution and India has voted against it.

When China had first brought this resolution in 2018, India had not been a member of the Council.

The China-sponsored resolution, on promoting “mutually beneficial cooperation” in the field of human rights resolution, was passed by 26 votes in favour, 15 against and six abstentions. India’s South Asian neighbours, Bangladesh and Nepal voted in favour of this resolution.

Last year, the international NGO, Human Rights Watch had urged members to vote against this controversial resolution as it sought to reframe international human rights law “as a matter of State-to-State relations”.

India’s explanation on its vote stressed that it understood the need to have the consent of states in augmenting and implementing human rights obligation.

However, India’s vote on the resolution was mainly motivated by the language used in the resolution.

“However, we have reservations on the use of the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” in the title of the resolution and several other paras, and on the preambular para that calls for building a community of shared future for human beings. It is our firm belief that these formulations could have been based on the already agreed language of the SDG framework rather than bringing in elements which have not found universal acceptance. These new formulations are not within the framework of India’s policy in this regard. In light of the above, India will vote against this resolution,” said the Indian diplomat on March 23.

Indian diplomats have been wary of China introducing phrases from Chinese President Xi Jinping’s political ideology in multilateral documents.

Another Chinese turn of phrase – “community of shared futures” – was inserted in another resolution on Right to Food, which was adopted without a vote.

The Indian representative made a pointed intervention that resolutions adopted without a vote should encourage a “spirit of cooperation in the Council”. Accordingly, we would urge all states that universally accepted concepts and languages should be used in all its resolutions so as to garner universal trust and support. Phrases like “community of shared future” should not be brought in the resolutions as it has not found universal acceptance,” she said.

Israel: Why the Campaign of The Generals Who Challenged Netanyahu Failed

The three former IDF chiefs – Benny Gantz, Moshe Ya’alon and Gabi Ashkenazifailed – failed in their efforts to create a new centrist, non-ideological bloc that would replace Netanyahu’s ruling right-wing bloc.

The close results of the April 9 Israeli elections, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the apparent winner, represent a missed opportunity for his centrist rivals.

As a foreign policy scholar who researches Israeli politics, I believe that perhaps the greatest irony of the election was the failure of Netanyahu’s challengers, the newly formed “generals’ party,” to contest his approach to security.

Security has long been the central issue in Israeli politics. It’s the one area in which this unique party would presumably have had the most to say. Former Israeli generals and retired intelligence chiefs have traditionally been the nation’s most outspoken critics of Netanyahu’s security policies.

Yet, the generals did not capitalise on their security credentials by offering a real alternative to the government’s policies, especially the government’s hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. Instead, their “Blue and White” ticket chose to turn this election into one more referendum on Netanyahu’s character.

In doing so, they failed in their effort to create a new centrist, nonideological bloc that would replace Netanyahu’s ruling right-wing bloc.

Control of Israel’s government, the Knesset, seen here, is at stake in the election. Credit: Reuters/Ronen Zvulun

Military at home in politics

The participation of retired generals in Israeli politics is nothing new. The Israel Defense Forces, or IDF, has always been the country’s most revered institution, and it has been common practice for generals to enter the political arena upon retirement.

Three of Israel’s 12 prime ministers – Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon – were retired generals, and numerous other military veterans have entered the political fray over the years, some more successfully than others.

But the unified list of three former IDF chiefs – Benny Gantz, Moshe Ya’alon and Gabi Ashkenazi – who teamed up in February to unseat the prime minister was without precedent.

The generals’ Blue and White ticket was co-led by the popular centrist politician Yair Lapid, whose enigmatic views on security issues mirrored the vague centrism of the three generals. The party tried to attract both right-of-center and left-of-center voters by running a campaign that was largely devoid of substance.

It studiously avoided engaging in key issues, such as the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blue and White offered only banal policy pronouncements and a Trump-like “Israel First” slogan.

Netanyahu’s agenda lives

Netanyahu received bad news in the midst of his election campaign. In February, Israel’s attorney general announced his intention to indict him on three separate corruption cases.Pa

By focusing on Netanyahu’s flawed character and homing in on his corruption scandals, the Blue and White candidates convinced centre-left voters to abandon the traditionally left-leaning Labor and Meretz parties.

But they did not convince right-of-centre voters to abandon Netanyahu.

I believe that by failing to offer a coherent alternative to the right’s hard-line national security approach, the leadership of Blue and White failed to sway voters from Netanyahu’s camp over to their centrist slate.

Instead, they took votes from the left-bloc parties. Indeed, Tuesday’s results show that both Labor and Meretz suffered stinging defeats, with Labor falling to historic lows – their voters shifted over to Blue and White.

Also read: Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu Secures Fifth Term as Prime Minister

Likud in the lead

To be sure, replacing Netanyahu’s dominant Likud party was no small ambition – not even for generals who once led their country into the battlefield.

The right-wing bloc has dominated the Israeli political scene for years. That’s due to several factors, including Israelis’ reaction to the violence that accompanied the second Palestinian intifada in the early 2000s, more violence – still ongoing – that followed Israel’s decision to unilaterally leave the Gaza Strip and years of on-again, off-again failed peace talks.

Indeed, a preelection survey found that a plurality of Jewish Israelis, 40%, wanted to see the formation of a right-wing government. Just 25% preferred a right-centre government; 16%, a centrist government of national unity; and a centre-left or left-wing government was the least preferred option at 15%.

Even so, this election was a missed opportunity to do what the opposition in Israel has long failed to do: to present a distinct alternative security agenda.

Netanyahu’s hardline approach on the Palestinian issue is the only approach with which young Israelis, who have grown up with Netanyahu, are familiar. His narrative of Israel’s failure to reach peace with the Palestinians – it’s the Palestinians’ fault – is their only version of that story.

Not surprisingly, a preelection poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 18-24-year-old voters overwhelmingly preferred Netanyahu to the more moderate Gantz – the opposite of the trend among Israelis 65 and older.

Letting Netanyahu off the hook on security issues allowed him to maintain his self-cultivated image as “Mr. Security.” It also enabled him to put the generals on the defensive, warning that they would establish a Palestinian state that “will endanger our existence.”

Who defines Israel’s national interest?

The security community, composed of veterans of the IDF and Israel’s intelligence agencies, has for years argued the opposite.

Several organisations of senior security establishment veterans have argued that the two-state solution is the only way to preserve Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state. They include the Peace and Security Association and the more recently formed Commanders for Israel’s Security, and are supported by hundreds of former generals and intelligence chiefs.

The silence of Gantz’s team on the two-state solution also enabled Netanyahu to move the security discussion from a status quo policy, which critics call “creeping annexation,” to a full embrace of the hard-right’s agenda to annex the occupied territories.

Just three days before the election, Netanyahu vowed to annex West Bank settlements, a step he had always resisted but apparently felt he needed to take to shore up his right flank.

It was also a step he could take in the absence of countervailing pressure from his centrist rivals, who could have emphasised – but didn’t – the dangers of annexation to Israeli national interests.

Netanyahu was therefore able to get away with a dramatic policy shift that, if carried out, would bury the prospects for a two-state solution. He endorsed that position in June 2009, but has since abandoned his pledge.

The last two IDF chiefs who beat a Likud prime minister – Rabin in 1992 and Barak in 1999 – offered clear alternatives to the incumbent’s policies. By calling for a reordering of national priorities, they were able to form left-of-centre governments, a scenario that is impossible today due to the decimation of the left.

Guy Ziv, Assistant Professor, American University School of International Service.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.