New Delhi: India has abstained on the resolution approved by the UN’s decolonisation committee to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel’s “prolonged occupation” of Palestinian territory.On Friday, the UNGA’s fourth committee (Special Political and Decolonisation) passed a resolution – by 98 votes in favour to 17 against – to request the World Court to “urgently” weigh in on Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory”. It will now be recommended to the UN General Assembly for further action.India was one of the 52 abstentions. The Indian delegation gave no explanation of vote.The two questions for the ICJ framed in the operative paragraph 18 of the draft resolution are:“What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?”“How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status?”The last time the UN asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in December 2003.The General Assembly emergency special session adopted a resolution asking the ICJ to urgently assess the “legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel”. It was passed with a majority tally of 90 and eight votes against, and 74 abstentions on December 8, 2003.India had voted in favour of the referral to the ICJ, but no explanation of vote was given at that time.Also read: India’s Human Rights Records Will Be Scrutinised at Un. What Does It Mean?After the National Democratic Alliance government under Narendra Modi came to power in 2015, the Indian government has moved visibly closer to Israel, with high-profile bilateral visits having taken place in the last several years. India has not voted against resolutions criticising Israel at various UN bodies, but the frequency of abstention on some of them have increased.While India abstained on a resolution approving the request for ICJ opinion, New Delhi voted along with the large majority in favour of three other resolutions extending UNRWA’s extension, providing assistance to Palestinian refugees and another on revenue from properties of Palestinian refugees. India also voted in favour of two related resolutions on Golan Heights.Palestinian foreign minister Riyad Al-Maliki welcomed the vote and described the resolution as a “diplomatic and legal breakthrough” that will “open a new era for holding Israel accountable for its war crimes”.Israel’s UN ambassador Gilad Erdan said that by calling to involve the ICJ, “the Palestinians are decimating any chances of reconciliation”.Addressing the forum, he said: “The Palestinians have rejected every single peace initiative, and now they embroil an external body with the excuse that the conflict has not been resolved?”At the committee’s meeting on Thursday, the US deputy representative to the US, which voted against the resolution, said that an ICJ advisory opinion is “counterproductive and will only take the parties further away from the objective we all share of a negotiated two-state solution”.Among the five permanent members of the UNSC, Russia and China voted in favour of the resolution, while France and the UK abstained.Several member states complained that the clause related to the ICJ advisory opinion had been inserted late, which denied adequate consultation time.Singapore, which had voted in favour of the resolution, expressed reservations about operative paragraph 18. Similarly, Kenya said that while it had voted yes, the operative paragraph was “too prescriptive and preemptive”. Rather than increasing the chances for negotiations, it risks creating another barrier, said the Kenyan delegate.Voting in favour of the resolution, Namibia stated that requesting an advisory opinion is not a controversial or confrontational response to a deplorable situation, but rather a peaceful, civilised and legal initiative to allow the Court to pronounce itself on this matter.In its explanation of vote, Ecuador said it abstained on the inclusion of the clauses related to the advisory opinion, as it was not subject to consultations.Austria, France, the US and Singapore also expressed concern that the language used to describe Jerusalem’s holy sites should reflect their historical significance for all three religions. Singapore noted that references to Haram al-Sharif should, in fact, read Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif to reflect the site’s shared and complex history. The future choice of language may affect future support for these texts, noted France.(With inputs from Reuters)
