First condemnation, now clarification, what did India say on Israeli occupation of West Bank?
India on Friday supported the two-state solution to the Palestine issue at the United Nations. At the same time, more than 100 countries and international organizations became part of the joint statement, in which they condemned Israel’s efforts to establish illegal settlements in the West Bank. However, India did not join the first statement with 80 countries and organizations. But a new statement was supported by 20 other countries including India.
When Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was asked in the weekly media briefing on Friday why India did not become a part of the initial statement, Jaiswal replied that the countries and organizations had not negotiated the document, as is common practice.
Also read: Big blow to Donald Trump, US Supreme Court declared tariffs illegal
Randhir Jaiswal further said that the UN joint statement signed by India was not a compromise document condemning Israel’s West Bank expansion. New Delhi’s stance on the issue of expansion has already been expressed at the India-Arab League ministerial meeting. Jaiswal said that India associated itself with the Palestinian initiative as per the position stated in the joint statement.
On January 31, a ministerial meeting of India and the Arab League was held in New Delhi. In the joint statement, both sides called for a sovereign, independent and functioning Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, which would exist alongside Israel. Both sides also supported the exercise of the essential rights of the Palestinian people.
Also read: Rape case: YouTuber Mani Meraj gets bail, will have to marry the victim in 2 weeks
In a joint statement, all 100 countries described Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory as illegal and demanded the evacuation of all settlements in the West Bank. All countries and organizations also reiterated their promise to take concrete steps in accordance with United Nations resolutions and the July 2024 advisory of the International Court of Justice.
Comments are closed.