Those who promote the ‘Palestinian cause’ speak of peace and justice. The cause of the ‘Palestinian’ people is the call for peace. It is the call for ‘justice’. Apparently, there can be nothing more Christian than the ‘Palestinian Cause’.
How do those who seek justice and peace behave? Is their behaviour consistent with a ‘peace and justice’ worldview?
For answers to these questions, look at the UN. At the UN, the world’s biggest democratic country is India. Traditionally, it’s been a staunch, dependable supporter of the ‘Palestinian’ Cause. With virtually every UN vote regarding Israel and Israeli actions, India has voted against Israel every time (Vijeta Uniyal, “Is India dumping the ‘Palestinian Cause’?”, Legal Insurrection, July 23, 2015). India’s support for the ‘Palestinians’ has been so predictable it’s been informally (and warmly) referred to as an ‘Arab state’ (ibid).
India isn’t an Arab state. It isn’t a Muslim state.
But something has happened. First, Indian elections in 2014 swept out the country’s ruling party from office (ibid). Then, second, India stopped being predictably anti-Israel at the UN (ibid).
It’s not certain what’s happened. But three things appear to be clear. First, Israel and India have been developing an increasingly close relationship (ibid). By 2013, India had become Israel’s 10th largest trade partner (Ohad Cohen, “Israel & India Economic Ties: Growth & Potential”, Times of Israel, July 14, 2015). In 2014, Israel and India began talks to establish cooperation between Indian and Israeli companies (“Specialized teams are discussing the establishment of a joint fund”, Economic News, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 16, 2014). One goal for this fund is to help assist Israeli developers and industrialists to deepen their penetration into the Indian market (ibid).
Such agreements reflect a growing friendship between Israel and India. Today, the Foreign Trade Administration in the Israeli Ministry of Economy has established multiple trade offices in India (Times of Israel, ibid). The number of Israeli trade officials in India makes India Israel’s third largest overseas trade delegation worldwide (ibid).
The sense of cooperation and mutual understanding between India and Israel grows. India and Israel are now discussing a Free Trade Agreement (Sachin Parashar, “India, Israel to restart free trade agreement talks”, The Times of India, February 1, 2015). It’s expected that a Free Trade Agreement will double India-Israel trade (ibid). If that happens, and other countries don’t double their own trade with Israel, India could leap-frog into 2nd place on the list of Israel’s top-ten trade partners (“Top Israel’s trade partners—world’s richest countries”, worldsrichestcountries. com, 2014).
Second, thousands of Indians are ‘slaughtered’ each year by Islamic extremists (Legal Insurrection, ibid). Indian officials are not insensitive to these killings (Legal Insurrection, ibid).
Third, India’s behaviour at the UN this year has turned towards Israel. For example, India didn’t support a recent anti-Israel vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). On July 3rd, 2015, the UNHRC voted on a Report that accused Israel of war crimes in the 2014 Gaza-Israel war (ibid). India abstained (ibid).
India abstained again on July 20th, when Israel lost a bid at the UN to deny a Hamas NGO accreditation at the UN (“India again abstains in Israel-related UN vote”, the Namo Patrika, July 21, 2015). In June, 2015, India had abstained at a smaller UN body that accredits NGOs. Israel had been unsuccessful in that smaller body to deny accreditation to that Hamas-related NGO. India had not voted against Israel.
If you’re counting, that adds up to 3 Indian abstentions in two months. Those abstentions did not go unnoticed.
In its own right, these abstentions are newsworthy. The predictable India hadn’t been predictable.
But what’s even more newsworthy is the Palestinian envoy’s response: it threatened India.
The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) UN envoy issued a veiled warning to India because of those abstentions (Legal Insurrection, ibid). The PA wasn’t going to let those abstentions pass without comment. It conveyed to India the threat that a pro-Israel stand at the UN could cost India a coveted permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)-–something India has wanted for decades (ibid).
It’s one thing for the ‘Palestinians’ to express disappointment over India’s abstentions. It’s also one thing to express anger over it. That’s legitimate. But threatening India? Blackmail?
‘Palestine’ isn’t yet a full Member State at the UN. It still needs a favourable vote from the UN to become a State. That it should threaten the world’s largest democracy reveals how comfortable the ‘Palestinians’ are with their UN prospects. Such a threat also suggests that the ‘Palestinians’ do indeed expect not only a seat at the UN, but a seat of power and influence. The threat shows the PA isn’t shy about throwing its weight around before it officially enters the UN.
The fact that the threat has become public knowledge suggests that India isn’t too pleased to be treated this way by a non-State observer at the UN.
The PA’s behaviour at the UN teaches us a lesson. It’s a very simple lesson: the ‘Palestinian Cause’ has nothing to do with freedom, justice or peace. It has everything to do with taking over.
You should remember that the next time you choose to defend the ‘Palestinian Cause’--or condemn Israel.
The PA: it’s where injustice begins and where just behaviour is ignored.