Actually they both fit in the case of Palestine and J&K - they don't both fit in the case of the Uighurs.
For the purpose of a reader, 'both' here refers to the legal and the moral POVs in the cases mentioned.
@Agno: Why was Pakistan not interested in the moral+legal POV when its army(naa... lets say non-state actors) was hated for atrocities in the immediate aftermath of the invasion? And why not argue for an independent Kashmir then as bloggers like you want. And why not clarify on record that 'self-determination' fo Kashmir includes independence? That way you commit and force Indian Government to move forward. What happened to th legal POV when the tribal warriors invaded Kashmir?
I will tell you. A selfish ****** called expediency slid it under her dupatta. Plebiscite did not suit you then. It suits you now because Pak's hands are tied. That is the best it can get. Very soon even that wont be possible.
And however much you argue you are trying to be right, what you are trying to do is just finding a way which gives you moral high ground and Pakistan Kashmir. And THAT is expediency.
UN resolutions on Palestine clearly state for an independent Palestinian state around the 1967 borders.
the J&K UNSC resolutions call for joining only either India or Pakistan, not independence as Pakistan lobbied to remove that option.
So even speaking with respect to UNSC
http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/52111-kashmir-not-palestine-india-not-israel.html
Thanks Ejaz for pointing out.
Proxies are not 'terrorists' - once the US and India declare themselves 'State sponsors of terrorism' through their use of proxies in Latin America, Asia, East Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc. then we can discuss labeling Pakistan the same.
There are no terrorists. There are fighters, whether they have cause or not does not matter for the state, all that matters is whether they are for or against the state.
Actually why dont people here apply moral POV for Balochistan? Yeah I know because they genuinely believe that people there can be reconciled. Why can't they settle for the same hope with atleast Indian Kashmir so that everyone is happy?
People who show double standards on morals do not deserve to use them in arguments especially in legal arguments. Governments may do that because they have to be expedient to make ANY gain.
Secondly, attitudes and opinions amongst the masses would not result in the State being labeled anything, only actions by the State would do so, and here the point being made was about Indian attitudes as seen on the various platforms mentioned.
What platforms exactly? Gandhi declared his opposition to Zionism back then.
Third, regardless of what Pakistanis may say on this forum, there is far stronger evidence regarding Pakistani attitudes on terrorism and attacks on civilians in the polling data over several years by multiple credible international polling organizations.
OMG Are you trying to say the Pakistani people's support for insurgency is far less than Indians' moral support for Palestine? This is an international joke dude. Today you may atleast be given a benefit of doubt because Pakistanis know what terrorism can do. If you said this a decade ago, it would have made it to the Nobel Prize for humor or something.
Indians dont come out on roads for Palestine because it is a place far away. And (should I regret this?
) they dont get stirred up by mullahs about conspiracies to destroy them.
So your attempted canard is debunked right there, which you would have known had you read my earlier post a little more carefully and noted the reference to polling data establishing Pakistani attitudes towards terrorism and attacks on civilians, and the lack of such data in support of your contentions about the attitudes of the 'silent majority of Indians'.
The evidence was there in the form of opinions and letters written to 'The Hindu' parallel of 'The Dawn', it is the most respectable newspaper. And these are from among the few educated people who care about middle-east. Thats a very small subset. THAT is why you dont notice banners and protests.
Again, absent any other data/evidence, that is the only evidence, and that evidence, consistently over several years, paints only one rather negative picture of Indian attitudes on certain issues.
Its in the Pakistan's War section - I gave you the title, you can use the search feature to find it.
And I have gathered evidence - the rather bigoted and hateful opinions of tens of thousands of Indians, on certain issues, on mainstream Indian news sites, blogs, fora, Western News sites, blogs and fora, all paint a negative picture about Indian attitudes. I am completely open to changing my mind if you do present evidence contradicting that position.
Please publish your evidence somewhere, preferably online. I myself want to know and study the results.
And finally about the Indian official response to flotilla raid: So your point is if India does not hit out at Israel India is a villain and if it does it is a cunning villain. Without going into whether India truly supports Palestinian cause what exactly did Palestinians get out of the 'moral support' of all those countries including Islamic ones and Pakistan? More wars and raids?
And where exactly do you have evidence that Indians are anti-Palestinian? May be here you are going by the popularity of Zionist-Hindu alliance in Pakistan. But let me put it this way. Let me see one political party in India with a good base say something against Palestine and save its popularity? But there are left wing parties which could come out boldly against Israel several times. The harsh fact is most Indians dont care, they have their own problems. Even if only muslims in India 'morally support' Palestine, then by the neutrality(or rather no opinion) of the rest, it means INDIA 'morally supports' Palestine.
With regards to what India can do to force Israel, its zilch. What could 30 odd Muslim states achieve by forming groups giving statements? except of course giving Israel an allibi to point at and the feeling that they survive on God's will. Instead now India can mediate when both parties decide so with goodwill for both sides.
Pesonally my opinion is that Israel should not have formed in the first place. I go by Gandhiji's words:
Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
But in the last 50 years they have more than demonstrated their instinct for survival. One can only imagine why they left their countries. They STILL should not have messed up Palestine. But look at the issue now today. There is a new generation which might have lost links with their country of origin. Where will they go? They will not let Arabs take over the state when they can still fight and especially because they are in a position of power. Seeing the n countries gang up against them today they will resort to even more cruel acts if under threat not just against us but they will give the same treatment even to the hapless Palestinians. Already it is for us all to see that phenomenon. I don't want all that. The best solution would be to form a secular republic with option of return for all refugees.
All the bruhaha made by these 'supportive' countries is just rightly described by a saying in Tamil which roughly translates to: 'For some unrelated marriage in the village, all the dogs were running around' They merely scare the guests.
Here they merely delay a solution.
Thanks,
Ruby
