Indo-Israel: News and Discussion

[Viv S]

I'll take Israeli figures over Palestinians ones, thanks.

Wonderful. Israeli figures follow:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/2009090 ... es_Eng.pdf
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

BTW, the revised figures quote over 1000 civilians killed.

Incidently, even official IDF figures put the number of women and children killed at 150. The highlight of the campaign was when it bombed the second largest hospital in Gaza City as well as UN schools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... rael-obama

I understand the concept of collateral damage, but the IDF operations were carried out with abandon. Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, engaged in low intensity urban warfare without killing anywhere close to 1000 civilians in 20 days.

1) India doesn't have a favourable image in the world. Not. Even. Close. Fortunately, though, we are almost always being ignored (a very good thing) because everyone is focused on China and Islamic countries at the moment. Which parallel world are you referring to?

How favorable the national image is, doesn't have anything to do with the level of media scrutiny.

Pursuing a intense strategic relationship with the Israel and getting the Saudi king to be the chief guest at the Republic Day at the same time. Something the US with massive financial and political clout struggles with. Most Muslim nations have been generally silent on the Kashmir issue(much to Pakistan's frustration), unlike Palestine, Chechnya or Bosnia. Which has led to the world generally subscribing to India's view on the insurgency. That's damned good diplomatic work, in this world.

2) Pakis isolated themselves through their own stupidity. If we were facing half-way intelligent enemies, we would be the ones isolated. Insha'Allah, Pakis will continue with their short-sightedness because we certainly can't count on any Chankianess from GoI.

True enough, the Pakistan is responsible for its own image, but India's done its part in publicizing it.

3) Won hearts and minds in Kashmir? Which Kashmir is this? I assume it's the one in the parallel world you referred to earlier.

Its not UP yet nor will it be so in the years to come. But, compare it with about 15 years ago and you'll find the change has very very prominent.

But where does that leave your claim of Israel destroying this fabulous golden age of positive perceptions which it had pre-Cast Lead?

They had a level of tolerance within the Muslim world born out of a grudging acceptance of the Israeli state's permanency. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey have full diplomatic relations(strained after the Gaza campaign) and other OIC countries were beginning to tone down the hostility.

It was(and still is) a foundation that can be built upon to eventually establish peace(long as it may take). Instead Israel embarks on a campaign reverses all progress made in years.

[Viv S]

Well this is a matter subject to some debate. I'm not so sure it was pointless, although the scale of it was indeed mind-boggling. What is quite noteworthy IMHO is the effectiveness of the targeting (of course, I'm not saying there was no collateral damage). But the targets they chose were (largely) those they hit. To appreciate this, one must undertake a visit to Beirut. The Shiite suburb of Dahiye still sees the infrastructural damage, and it is a daily reminder of the price to be paid. And even the areas IMMEDIATELY around it are untouched. The difference is noticeable as soon as you enter Dahiye.

And precisely because of the mind-boggling scale, Hizbollah will certainly pause for thought before trying anything like that again. They got some temporary PR gains, but that was it. Local politics in Beirut is local politics. What Hizbollah gained from their PR success is questionable. In fact, in psyops terms, it probably worked against them with all but their specific constituents - this is my assessment based on extensive interactions with locals in-country.

Umm.... that's the Lebanon campaign, I was referring to the Gaza campaign Dec 08-Jan 09.

Finally, our situation in Kashmir and their situation is hardly comparable. And reams have been written on BR on just this topic. For starters, the population of Israel proper is about half of that of Kashmir, and secondly the objective of their adversaries is to wipe out the nation, push them into the sea so to speak, and this is declared. There has been no formal reversal on that position, although there have been suggestions from the same adversaries that this posture need not be taken literally.

Except for supporting the Fateh faction, it doesn't seem like Israel's actively working towards a solution of late.

So their survivalist mindset is not entirely groundless. Nor is it clear that they lack any long-term planning or outlook. It may simply be that they have chosen not to articulate their long-term outlook.

I don't see how killing 1000 civilians in a less than a month figures in their long-term outlook.

Again, while the idea of not publicising it jingoistically is sound, there is no reason why we should be any less forthright about our relationship with Israel than, say, the US, Russia or China is. All of them have good relationships with Israel and make no effort to "hide" it. There is no need to have undue concern over third-party senstivities.

Well its bad PR. Especially vis-a-vis gulf countries with whom India shares good relations. Our relations are better than Russia's. US and China on the other hand simply have more financial clout, so... :shrug:

Furthermore, why should we limit it to politico-military level? Socio-economic interaction may prove to be even more beneficial in years to come, with co-operation in business and high-tech non-military business opportunities in particular a focal point. A normal relationship with Israel across all fronts, while maintaining overall prudence, is absolutely the way to go IMHO.

And I am fairly certain that is the way we will go.

I doubt if the scale of economic opportunity in non-strategic sectors is worth ratcheting up the public face of cooperation. Which is not to say that cooperation isn't possible or feasible, but just that it can be conducted without the fanfare. Also, the Israeli govt. is unlikely to be troubled if India doesn't make an overt display of growing ties.

[JE Menon]

>>Umm.... that's the Lebanon campaign, I was referring to the Gaza campaign Dec 08-Jan 09.

Not sure how I missed that one. Anyways, don't mean to be glib about it, but frankly, Hamas is even more forthright about their intentions vis-a-vis Israel. So complaining that Israel is doing a bloodier job than Hamas is not much more than rhetoric. The Palestinians, who voted in Hamas, are basically complaining because they are on the receiving end, while simultaneously demanding the destruction of Israel as per Hamas' "covenant", which they too have not pulled back from.

>>Except for supporting the Fateh faction, it doesn't seem like Israel's actively working towards a solution of late.

What "solution"? Broadly speaking the Palestinians have certain immutable positions. So have the Israelis. There is no give there. Now it is simply a matter of deciding whether you mind particularly if the Palestinians are battering the Israelis, or vice versa. Right now the Israelis are dishing it out. Meanwhile, why should we not engage with the Israelis full-spectrum. It is not charity on our part. There is gain.

>>I don't see how killing 1000 civilians in a less than a month figures in their long-term outlook.

I did not say it did. I'm simply saying maybe they have not chosen to articulate their long-term outlook. Not killing 1,000 civilians a month does not indicate they have one. Essentially, the above statement is a rhetorical one. The killing of 1,000 civilians, sad as it may be, is incidental - one more datapoint in their ongoing conflict. The difference is that nobody is going to do anything particular about it. Why? Because everybody knows that the Palestinians are no angels themselves, especially their radical elements, and this has been demonstrated over decades of failed policies and approaches on their part. In short, this conflict can be seen as two attack dogs going at each other, and one is better at application of violence and containing the third-party repercussions.

>>Well its bad PR.

Maybe, but why is it worse PR than when US/Russia/China does essentially the same things. Are the Arabs complaining more? If so, we need to ask them why there is this particular difference in perception - especially if several Arab countries are themselves reasonably engaged with Israel.

>>Especially for gulf countries with whom India shares good relations. Our relations are better than Russia's. US and China on the other hand simply have more financial clout, so

Certainly we are more closely engaged with the Gulf states than Russia. Whether China has more financial clout there is not clear. They have less social clout and influence there IMHO. The US is more deeply engaged, but it is also more deeply engaged with Israel than we are. And finally, the Gulf Arabs, the people and leaders, are more form than substance where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned. The dynamic varies from state to state. They would be more than happy to resolve relations with Israel if the Palestinian headache somehow "goes away". It will not, of course, and so they play the game.

[Viv S]

Not sure how I missed that one. Anyways, don't mean to be glib about it, but frankly, Hamas is even more forthright about their intentions vis-a-vis Israel. So complaining that Israel is doing a bloodier job than Hamas is not much more than rhetoric. The Palestinians, who voted in Hamas, are basically complaining because they are on the receiving end, while simultaneously demanding the destruction of Israel as per Hamas' "covenant", which they too have not pulled back from.

True, but then does the State of Israel wish to be treated at par with Hamas? Israel has a population of some 7 million and a GDP of over $200 billion. Perhaps in line with its status as a modern nation(an OECD member no less), it should revise its military doctrine, and analyse why despite their massive accomplishments in other fields, they've failed spectacularly at counter-insurgency.

What "solution"? Broadly speaking the Palestinians have certain immutable positions. So have the Israelis. There is no give there. Now it is simply a matter of deciding whether you mind particularly if the Palestinians are battering the Israelis, or vice versa. Right now the Israelis are dishing it out. Meanwhile, why should we not engage with the Israelis full-spectrum. It is not charity on our part. There is gain.

There is no insurgency/freedom-struggle(depending on who wins) without a core-committed group that is not willing to make any concessions or even negotiate. The idea is to marginalize them, spur public opinion, and seek international support. Israel's achieved the opposite on every count.

I did not say it did. I'm simply saying maybe they have not chosen to articulate their long-term outlook. Not killing 1,000 civilians a month does not indicate they have one. Essentially, the above statement is a rhetorical one. The killing of 1,000 civilians, sad as it may be, is incidental - one more datapoint in their ongoing conflict. The difference is that nobody is going to do anything particular about it. Why? Because everybody knows that the Palestinians are no angels themselves, especially their radical elements, and this has been demonstrated over decades of failed policies and approaches on their part. In short, this conflict can be seen as two attack dogs going at each other, and one is better at application of violence and containing the third-party repercussions.

Again, it goes back to whether Israel strives for normalization or is it satisfied with the status quo. If it wants to live in a peaceful neighborhood it should stop following strategic policies akin to Afghan warlords.

Engaging in a campaign, resulting in civilian casualties in four figures by state forces in full view of the international media was stupidity of the first order. I'd have understood if innocent people died in necessary military operations or intelligence operations. It happens... war is ugly and collateral damage is a reality. As long as there's a strategy, the end justifies the means. The IDF's actions on the other hand lacked any and all sense of proportionality.

Maybe, but why is it worse PR than when US/Russia/China does essentially the same things. Are the Arabs complaining more? If so, we need to ask them why there is this particular difference in perception - especially if several Arab countries are themselves reasonably engaged with Israel.

Certainly we are more closely engaged with the Gulf states than Russia. Whether China has more financial clout there is not clear. They have less social clout and influence there IMHO. The US is more deeply engaged, but it is also more deeply engaged with Israel than we are. And finally, the Gulf Arabs, the people and leaders, are more form than substance where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned. The dynamic varies from state to state. They would be more than happy to resolve relations with Israel if the Palestinian headache somehow "goes away". It will not, of course, and so they play the game.

I'm not in the least suggesting that India should disengage with Israel. On the contrary, we should increase cooperation especially in joint ventures in R&D. What I am suggesting is that India should err on the side of caution. It would be prudent to keep everything low key. Our ties will gain little political or strategic mileage by extensively publicizing our cooperation.

[pgbhat]

True, but then does the State of Israel wish to be treated at par with Hamas? Israel has a population of some 7 million and a GDP of over $200 billion. Perhaps in line with its status as a modern nation(an OECD member no less), it should revise its military doctrine, and analyse why despite their massive accomplishments in other fields, they've failed spectacularly at counter-insurgency.

How? really how many bomb blasts occur in israel on a day to day basis? being on Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and every other islamist groups hitlist?
Is it not basic doctrine of COIN to take the fight *away* from the cities/populated areas?

[Sanku]

True, but then does the State of Israel wish to be treated at par with Hamas? Israel has a population of some 7 million and a GDP of over $200 billion. Perhaps in line with its status as a modern nation(an OECD member no less), it should revise its military doctrine, and analyse why despite their massive accomplishments in other fields, they've failed spectacularly at counter-insurgency.

How? really how many bomb blasts occur in israel on a day to day basis? being on Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and every other islamist groups hitlist?
Is it not basic doctrine of COIN to take the fight *away* from the cities/populated areas?

A population of 7 million completely surrounded by states such as
Syria
Lebanan
Jordan
Egypt
Iraq
Saudi Arabia

Which would not like to see anything more than see Israel go down.

Do you want to count their population and GDP?

This is NOT insurgency, this is proxy war, just like we have in Kashmir.

And please count the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing attacks when you talk of the grand success (in short, total failure) of the west at it.

[Viv S]

How? really how many bomb blasts occur in israel on a day to day basis? being on Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and every other islamist groups hitlist?
Is it not basic doctrine of COIN to take the fight *away* from the cities/populated areas?

While Israel has had a good counter-terrorism record its gains in counter-insurgency are remarkable diminutive for a conflict that's been raging for about 60 years.

[pgbhat]

While Israel has had a good counter-terrorism record its gains in counter-insurgency are remarkable diminutive for a conflict that's been raging for about 60 years.

no sh!t. Have you had a look at their peaceful neighborhood?
As JEM said we don't have to disapprove/approve of *everything* they do.

[Viv S]

A population of 7 million completely surrounded by states such as
Syria
Lebanan
Jordan
Egypt
Iraq
Saudi Arabia

Which would not like to see anything more than see Israel go down.

Do you want to count their population and GDP?

Actually that list is a lot less imposing than it seems.

The numbers regime only works in a conventional scenario. And Saudi Arabia apart from Israel is more than a match for all the rest put together by a large margin. And that's without going into US support.

Until recently; individually addressing the countries, the active support Hamas would get no questions asked is from sections of GCC members(that are outside US influence). Jordan and Egypt have over decades had extensive problems with Palestinian refugees including the well know events of Black September in 1970. Syria too has had its troubles with the Arafat's PLO. Though unproven its believed, the Syrians unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate him on more than one occasion.

This is NOT insurgency, this is proxy war, just like we have in Kashmir.

And please count the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing attacks when you talk of the grand success (in short, total failure) of the west at it.

Whatever be the case, 1000 dead civilians in barely a few weeks long operation will have an effect that far transcends just bad publicity.

[Viv S]

no sh!t. Have you had a look at their peaceful neighborhood?

They do live in a pretty tough neighborhood. All the same its surprising they're no closer to a solution today than they were in 1973.

As JEM said we don't have to disapprove/approve of *everything* they do.

Definitely not. The Indo-Israeli strategic partnership is not and should not be undone. Though it should be a low noise high substance affair.

[shyamd]

Individuals on the thread raised some questions, these posts were from during the war was going on and after. They answer some of the questions raised on the thread.

Six Questions for Desmond Travers on the Goldstone Report

By Ken Silverstein
Desmond Travers was one of the four members of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which produced the controversial Goldstone Report. Travers is a retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. He also served in command of troops with various UN and EU peace support missions. I recently spoke to Travers by phone about the report. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

......We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I’d store munitions would be in a mosque. It’s not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques—one where worshippers were killed—and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship.[/quote]

Went to a talk by Sari Nusseibeh. He is a former negotiator between Israel and PA. Former Member of PA and the current President of the Al Quds University in Jerusalem.

He was extremely open and frank about it, which was good.

Last year he met Tony Blair at the British Consulate in Jerusalem. He came out depressed because Tony didn't seem to have a clue at all about the situation in the middle east or its history.

Similar to what my hamas gaza source tells me, He mentioned that in Gaza, the reason why Hamas was sending rockets is because even after the pull out in Gaza, the Israeli's were controlling all the borders and signed agreements with the EU and Egypt not to allow import and export. This was against the agreement and the understanding after the pull out. So, the world basically blockaded Hamas, and it is a little unfair to them, because they were never given a chance to show what the Islamic side had to offer (My comment: Some of you are probably thinking, well Hamas is the one who are sending in suicide bombers etc so what could they have to offer? Well, the Palestinian Authority's Al Aqsa Martyrs brigades are just as bad. Both have been involved in killing of Israeli's, so whats the harm in trying Hamas out.). He also mentioned that Hamas or the PA are not negotiating because there is nothing serious on the table. He said if there was something serious on the table coming from the international powers and israel, we could take hamas to task and convince them.

My comment: Hamas basically says that of course there would be peace if Israel opened up the borders to trade, at least with Egypt, like they were supposed to after the pull out.

He agreed that the current PA government acted despicably in not helping Hamas or the civilians in Gaza and they were party with Israel in the killing of civilians. He said this act could be the downfall of the PA, and the actions of ME govt's in support of Israel may be the start of the downfalls in the authoritarian regime's of the ME.

In the past, people saw themselves as "Palestinians", today they are "muslims".

In the end, he said you should tell your government not to give money to us(PA), and instead give money for health and education. "PLEASE STOP GIVING MONEY TO US!" is what he said. And perhaps israel as well, he joked. Focus more on health and education in Palestine.

- He was saying "We won the war". Only 48 Hamas armed wing soldiers died in this war. Israeli's soldiers were soo shit scared to enter Gaza city. (my comment: some moderates within the group were like WTF??)
- Soldiers in the tanks were afraid to take a piss, they were wearing diapers apparently
- 11 members of his family were "martyred".
- Apparently, its a victory because, all of a sudden people who weren't previously Hamas supporters are now becoming Hamas supporters due to their own personal suffering

Some norwegian doctors were in Gaza. They were interviewed by BBC. The guy was saying that the hospital had received 800 wounded. The journalist asked whether Hamas fighters have been bought in. He said off the injured and dead that were bought in, only 2 were fighters, rest all civilians, mostly women and children. This was before Israeli army allowed the 3 hour humanitarian ceasefire. He was saying that Israeli army was stopping humanitarian aid to that particular area and hospital because it was not in a war zone. The doctor was like "look around, how do they know this is not a war zone? Did they come and see? We are going to run out of medicine in a day".

I dont think the Israeli's have been able to cause major damage to the fighters in the initial strikes, according to Debka, Hamas has still put up a co-ordinated response..

CNN Confirms Israel broke ceasefire first

India has to take clear side with Israel as long as they are after the terrorists. I think Hamas is clearly a terror group which has to be alienated and destroyed if they are threat to the lives of the Israelis.

By this definition, so should the PA. They are worse than Hamas and have also launched suicide terror attacks in the past. They didn't have any control over Islamic Jihad and the other groups. At least Hamas did. When IJ launched rockets in the beginning of the ceasefire, Hamas went over and beat the crap out of the people who launched the rockets. Hamas has better influence over these groups than the PA.

Hamas is also better at running the strip than the PA.

Local Muslims and leader in Gaza should ask these fighters to fight directly with Israeli army or give up themselves and fight politically Israelis not with arms. Hamas should not fight being among the people and then Israelis have to destroy the buildings for their protection.

You can't do anything in Gaza without civilians around, every single person who has been there has said the same thing. Even the UNRWA head, who was on CNN, said the same thing.

Also please understand what drove the people to supporting Hamas. It is because Hamas can govern the strip without/less corruption. Hamas also happens to be getting things done, in terms of day to day governance, like building roads etc.

Although I do agree, that India should blame Hamas for the violence, like Egypt etc has done.[/q

------------
apologies for the editing, had to take off a few quotes as BR only allows 2 quotes at a time

[Johann]

Whether or not you agree with the morality of collective punishment, it has been one of the cornerstones of Israeli strategy against the Palestinians and the Lebanese going back to 1940s. That is, if any one of you hit us, we will hit *all* of you ten times as hard.

Once again, regardless of morality, the question is, has it worked?

In the longer term Israel (ie the last 62 years) has survived but the Palestinians have never stopped fighting, and Hezbollah has steadily grown more dangerous. Israel has the military upper hand, and the support of the most powerful states, but the Palestinians and Lebanese have a much larger share of global sympathy, including a larger share of non-Muslims.

In the more immediate present Israel has deterred both Hamas and Hezb'allah with its 2006 and 2008 operations - this is ironically because these organisations depend on grassroots support, and collective punishment bit very deeply indeed. Hamas now arrests anyone who tries to launch rockets in to Israel, something you never saw during Arafat's time.

But unless there is some negotiated prospect for the blockade of Gaza to end Gazans have nothing to lose from lashing out even if it results in Israeli reoccupation of the strip.

In fact what you're seeing in Gaza is the defection from many of those in Hamas armed wing to salafi jiihadi groups. Although Fatah/PLO is supporting the process the biggest driver is the fact that Hamas and Israel are stuck in a stalemate. The longer this stalemate continues, the more likely that Gaza will become the first full fledged Salafi jihadi emirate in the Arab world (unless you count the short lived business in Fallujah), and certainly the first on the shores of the Mediterranean. At that point either the Israelis or Egyptians will have to intervene.

Something else worth noting - Israel could not have sustained something like the 2006 Lebanese and 2008 Gazan operations for as long without the *full* diplomatic backing of a power like the United States. Any slackening in US support for Israel against attacks by Hamas and Hezballah will result in the weakening of the deterrence that has been built up.

Americans sympathise and identify with the people who make up the majority of Israel today - the Ashkenazi (usually of Russian or Polish) and Sephardi (mostly Moroccan or Iranian descent) who embrace modernity. They cant identify with or sympathise with the ultra-orthodox Haredim (either Ashkenazi or Sephardi) who are bearded religious fundamentalists, and who keep growing in numbers and political influence. Not even most American Jews find it easy to support the Haredi, since they are treated as Goyim or non-Jews by them. Plus of course there is the Arab demographic explosion within Israel's borders, which only the Haredi seem to be keeping up with.

In the long term strategic stalemate over the Palestine question does not serve Israel.

[Sanku]

This is NOT insurgency, this is proxy war, just like we have in Kashmir.

And please count the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing attacks when you talk of the grand success (in short, total failure) of the west at it.

Whatever be the case, 1000 dead civilians in barely a few weeks long operation will have an effect that far transcends just bad publicity.

Frankly I think the part I highlighted from your reply is a good indicator of your mindset. According to you, come what may Israel is guilty as charged and also as will be charged on whatever new grounds are discussed in future.

In a WAR like the one between Israel and Hamas, cribbing about collateral damage is ridiculous beyond belief, considering the damage in ANY war by the western doctrine in recent years.

Considering the Indian operations is different because India has been very careful and fighting mostly a defensive battle (in 47, 65, 62) and in cases it was on offensive, the population in BD was friendlies.

I dont see how ANYONE could achieve its goals with less collateral damage. Otherwise IDF would have the same fate as IPKF, something I do not wish for any professional army fighting for just cause to have.

[Sanku]

In the long term strategic stalemate over the Palestine question does not serve Israel.

Well let me say some basic things outright

The best Israel can hope for in short medium term is a stalemate -- the other option is its annihilation.

What Israel has is as good as it gets, any slack in any of the sides (US support, letting Palestine get more operating space etc etc) will only make things worse for them.

Israelis are not idiots there is a reason why

That is, if any one of you hit us, we will hit *all* of you ten times as hard.

has been one of the

cornerstones

That is THE only thing they can do to SURVIVE

[shyamd]

Frankly I think the part I highlighted from your reply is a good indicator of your mindset. According to you, come what may Israel is guilty as charged and also as will be charged on whatever new grounds are discussed in future.

In a WAR like the one between Israel and Hamas, cribbing about collateral damage is ridiculous beyond belief, considering the damage in ANY war by the western doctrine in recent years.

The problem was the explicit target of civilians and even civilian infrastructure. Like I said, the number of actual Hamas fighters who died is <100. The war began by Israel targetting all hamas Infrastructure. As Hamas is the legitimate govt, they naturally control most aspects of life in Gaza. The Israeli's in the initial attacks targeted unarmed traffic police even.

You can't do anything in Gaza without being surrounded with civilians. Ross Kemp has done a special on Gaza, the first part was on sunday. It goes through some of the issues.

Has Israel really done its job to prevent rockets being fired?? Hamas is still sending its rockets into israel. There is a lot of local politics that is going on that we dont get to hear about in the media. Fact of the matter is Israel broke the ceasefire first(no arguments here, western sources have all confirmed it, and even after the incursion UNRWA says Hamas tried again to obserrve the truce which was broken again by Israel) and the rockets were hitting israel only because Israel didn't live up to its end of the agreements according to the people on the ground.

[Viv S]

Frankly I think the part I highlighted from your reply is a good indicator of your mindset. According to you, come what may Israel is guilty as charged and also as will be charged on whatever new grounds are discussed in future.

You're absolutely mistaken. And yes Israel is completely guilty on the charge of massively disproportionate use of force especially against a civilian population.

In a WAR like the one between Israel and Hamas, cribbing about collateral damage is ridiculous beyond belief, considering the damage in ANY war by the western doctrine in recent years.

Again... does Israel wish to treated at par with western countries or would like it like to continue its zero sum game with Hamas.

Take any period 20 days from ANY war waged by the western doctrine; none resulted in this scale of civilian deaths from direct deliberate fire by western forces.

I dont see how ANYONE could achieve its goals with less collateral damage. Otherwise IDF would have the same fate as IPKF, something I do not wish for any professional army fighting for just cause to have.

Unless Israel actually plans to kill all Palestinians in a phased manner, its actions were akin to Pakistan's at Kargil; it was responsible for the breakdown of ceasefire, causing (possibly irreparable) damage to its public image, and most importantly busted the chances of peaceful negotiations continuing.

[Viv S]

Well let me say some basic things outright

What Israel has is as good as it gets, any slack in any of the sides (US support, letting Palestine get more operating space etc etc) will only make things worse for them.

Israelis are not idiots there is a reason why

That is THE only thing they can do to SURVIVE

You seem to be under the impression that the situation in the middle-east is akin to that in 1948 or 1967, lonely Israel surrounded on every side by overwhelming odds, fighting ruthlessly for its survival. None of it is true today. Truth is next to the US, Israel's top dog around there with the biggest military and strongest intelligence agency. Just because they don't recognize its existence or keep calling for it to be destroyed doesn't mean Muslim countries in the region don't know how permanent Israel is or how unfeasible their stated position is. They're is still a chance for peace.

But, my point throughout has been different, Israel caused the ceasefire with Hamas to break down and then went on what on only be described as a rampage. From what I can make out(who knows, I may be wrong), their strategy was to hit the population till popular support turns against the Hamas(who like it or not, were elected by the people). But, unlike the Lebanon campaign they actually hit the people(killing over a 1000). It achieved the exact opposite and was a colossal mistake by Israel that's made peace so much more elusive.

It certainly made me(a firm Israel supporter) wonder how seriously Israel was committed to peace.

[shravan]

Take any period 20 days from ANY war waged by the western doctrine; none resulted in this scale of civilian deaths from direct deliberate fire by western forces.

Second Battle of Fallujah

[Philip]

I agree entirely with Johann that the unending stalemate in the MEast has not served Israel well.Moderates have been routed,Arafat is dead-opportunity for a setttlement missed, and Hamas and the Hiz rule the opposition to Israel,both ultra-hardline outfits who will obtain help from the worst fundamentalist Islamic states.Events in Turkey,where fundamentalism is growing,which was for most of the time a friend of Israel,shows that the US's adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan has only produced more hotheads around the world,influenced by what they see on telly like the Detroit would be bomber,willing to blow themselves up for any anti-US/west/Israeli cause.The cornering of Iran over its nuclear ambitions might produce even more support for anti-Israeli forces especially if Iran is subjected to an attack against its nuclear facilties.

While moderates are still around (Abbas has thrown in the towel in frustration), Israel must seize the momentum and in small but significant steps can improve life in the occupied territory for the Palestinians so that they are weaned away from violence and are more amenable to a final settlement that ensures Israel's security,the contours of which must be worked out while there is still time and individuals willing to work towards it.What recent terrorist events have shown is that the entire globe (we've seen it in the UK for example),especially the Islamic nations are becoming nurseries for terrorism and that the world's democratic nations cannot police every state like Sudan,Somalia,Iraq,Iran,Yemen,Pakistan to Afghanistan in trying to stem the rot.ASs long as M-East peace remains unresolved,it will beckon would be bombers for decades and generations to come and the sophistication of weapons being used will dramatically increase.Just one WMD used would be a catstrophe for Israel.

[Viv S]

Take any period 20 days from ANY war waged by the western doctrine; none resulted in this scale of civilian deaths from direct deliberate fire by western forces.

Second Battle of Fallujah

I suppose one could arguably draw parallels with Fallujah. But that was more of battle in the conventional sense. For one it lasted almost thrice as long. Over a 100 coalition troops dead, 1500 losses within insurgents another 1500 surrendered. Even civilian casualties were in terms of absolute numbers lower. Unlike Israel's punitive bombing campaign, this was part of a war in a more tangible sense.

[Johann]

Philip,

Frankly I think any Israeli agreement with Hamas will be far more enduring than anything signed with Arafat, a man who was completely unstrustworthy and opportunistic. An Israeli agreement is Hamas is possible, and is likely to be far more durable.

There has to be fundamental changes for the stalemate to be broken though, and I think it will come only with time.

The primary attachment of the majority of Palestinians is not to the abstract notion of a country 'Palestine', but to the village that they fled from in 1947-48. The majority of the Palestinian diaspora is still in the ME, and they've maintained the old patterns of settlement to an amazing extent - the same families live next to each other in camps and neighbourhoods, marry each other, etc.

What that means is that an enduring 'two-state' solution is impossible at this time - no matter how convenient that would be for the rest of us, because the central issue for the majority of Palestinians is the 'right of return' to their home villages, which the vast majority of Israelis utterly oppose because of its demographic implications.

That is one of the main reasons Arafat could not sign the deal with Ehud Barak in Camp David in 2000 - if he had done so he would have lost all legitimacy with the majority of Palestinians, and that is why Hamas today has internal difficulty promising more than a 'hudna'.

Personally, I think that as we move to the fourth and fifth generations of Palestinian refugees, and those actually born in those villages die off the goals of the Palestinian diaspora will shift and change, and a 2-state solution, including land and population swaps will become much more feasible. That is going to change long before Israeli Jews are willing to be a minority in a state.

Sanku,

The Israelis aren't 'idiots' - but they like any one else are often crippled rather than helped by historical memories.

The greatest Israeli fear is that of showing weakness. It is a fear that is based far more on the Jewish experience in Europe than the realities of the local and regional situation where actors routinely posture to look bigger and meaner than they are as a form of deterrence.

These enemies - first Fatah and PFLP, and more recently Hamas, Hezb'allah have *no* ability to threaten the survival of Israel, but they can kill Israeli civilians through terrorism and place psychological pressure on the Israeli nation. Many Israelis were sure that they could stop terror through collective punishment.

Even when it was clear that it wasn't enough, they stuck with it because they were afraid that anything less would signal weakness to Arab states.

If you talk to Israelis of any age who were around in 1967, the year that Israel became the regional superpower they will admit they didn't think that Israel would have gotten to the stage where they were forced to talk to the Palestinians as peers, or that they could have imagined that something like Hezb'allah could have emerged.

The strategy of disproportionate retaliation and collective punishment in the medium to long term empower the most radical of their enemies in Palestine and Lebanon, the ones most likely to employ terrorism on an even larger scale. It was not, and is not the best counter-terrorism strategy for Israel. The need to keep escalating exponentially ties Israel down, and has reduced rather than enhanced its diplomatic and economic space.

This is not to suggest that the Palestinians are smart people doing the right thing - they're destroying themselves, and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world is egging them on. But as someone with strong ties to Israel who worries about its future, I care more about the direction Israel is going in.

[Sanku]

Well let me say some basic things outright

What Israel has is as good as it gets, any slack in any of the sides (US support, letting Palestine get more operating space etc etc) will only make things worse for them.

Israelis are not idiots there is a reason why

That is THE only thing they can do to SURVIVE

You seem to be under the impression that the situation in the middle-east is akin to that in 1948 or 1967, lonely Israel surrounded on every side by overwhelming odds, fighting ruthlessly for its survival. None of it is true today. Truth is next to the US, Israel's top dog around there with the biggest military and strongest intelligence agency. Just because they don't recognize its existence or keep calling for it to be destroyed doesn't mean Muslim countries in the region don't know how permanent Israel is or how unfeasible their stated position is. They're is still a chance for peace.
.

Thank you Sir!! That made my day. Reminds me of

I understand that we just entered a new decade but the old decade, was like, here just a day ago. A decade which started with a dastardly hi-jacking, warmed up with attacks on our Parliament and continued with sporadic acts of urban violence and ended with 26/11, all of them originating, beyond any scope of reasonable doubt, from a single land-mass to our West. Being that the case, the kind of amnesia that makes us want to “talk peace” with Pakistan, in a “people to people Track 2″ kind of way makes my mind boggle, in the same way that Jaani Dushman–Ek Anokhi Kahani did."

http://greatbong.net/2010/01/05/bhai-bhai/

---------------

Understand this -- there is no difference between any time in Israels history and NOW -- in either the intent or the number or the level of hostlity of its enemies.

The reason why Israel in not in 47 scenario is because it has both created and used power to carve a living space for itself. (I include US diplomatic support etc in power)

It is this power projection that keeps the bubble that Israel lives in.

The moment the bubble slips, the Arab states position suddenly becomes less unfeasible and then.....

[Sanku]

Sanku,

The Israelis aren't 'idiots' - but they like any one else are often crippled rather than helped by historical memories.

That Sir, is called institutional memory. And in this case it serves them well.

The greatest Israeli fear is that of showing weakness. It is a fear that is based far more on the Jewish experience in Europe than the realities of the local and regional situation where actors routinely posture to look bigger and meaner than they are as a form of deterrence.

No Sir, it is because they understand Arabs well, all bullys (be Nazis of XYZ) can be kept under check when you use their own medicine on them, that is it. Arabs are class A bullies as far as Israel is concerned.

These enemies - first Fatah and PFLP, and more recently Hamas, Hezb'allah have *no* ability to threaten the survival of Israel, but they can kill Israeli civilians through terrorism and place psychological pressure on the Israeli nation.

I fail to see the disconnect between ability to threaten the survival of Israel and killing Israeli's, I for one am glad that neither do Israelis.

Many Israelis were sure that they could stop terror through collective punishment.

I will not call it collective punishment, I will call it a no holds barred war.

Am not sure if they thought they would STOP terror, they probably thought If that wont stop terror nothing else will.

Even when it was clear that it wasn't enough, they stuck with it because they were afraid that anything less would signal weakness to Arab states.

And they are absolutely right.

The strategy of disproportionate retaliation and collective punishment in the medium to long term empower the most radical of their enemies in Palestine and Lebanon, the ones most likely to employ terrorism on an even larger scale.

That yo mind is very debatable, the success of operations against extreme ideologies opposed to your survival as been use of force, not calibrated but as much force as you can muster.

We have seen this in Chechnya (where the Russian vengeance finally quieted the Chechens) With LTTE, in Punjab in India, with Nazis in Europe etc etc.

Israel did absolutely the right thing. More power to them.

[Sanku]

Frankly I think the part I highlighted from your reply is a good indicator of your mindset. According to you, come what may Israel is guilty as charged and also as will be charged on whatever new grounds are discussed in future.

In a WAR like the one between Israel and Hamas, cribbing about collateral damage is ridiculous beyond belief, considering the damage in ANY war by the western doctrine in recent years.

The problem was the explicit target of civilians and even civilian infrastructure. Like I said, the number of actual Hamas fighters who died is <100. The war began by Israel targetting all hamas Infrastructure.

Well so it was a war, started by whose provocation is a different story.

Israel chose to wage a war to end a war by Hamas, and so far although the rockets did not stop they certainly lessened.

So while I am willing to accept that the "war" was not waged in the best manner possible, that discussion in my POV would be purely military one. I refuse to discuss the morality of collateral damage as one of the issue in a Israel-Palestine conflict.

[JE Menon]

Viv S

Can't really add to anything that Sanku and Johann have said. But on one or two issues, I will comment later when I get some time.

Generally speaking, it appears that your issue is not that we have excellent links with Israel, but rather that (a) they are being massively disproportionate in their response, (b) whether they wish to be equated with Hamas and continue the "zero-sum" game with them, and (c) that our links should be a "low noise high substance" affair.

On point (c) I cannot really disagree except that I do regard it currently as being a low noise high substance affair. It appears your concern is that the noise is not low enough.

Will respond to all above hopefully later in the day.

[Dilbu]

I am for more closer ties between India and Israel but it doesnt mean I have to support all the actions of Israel. The killing of unarmed civilians should be condemned whether it is done by Hamas or by IDF. Bombing of hospitals and schools, however inadvertent or accidental it may be, will not help Israel in the long run.

[joshvajohn]

We have more enemies around us than friends - say China, Pakistan and others are sympathisers for this club than with India.
It is essential not only do business with Israel but strategically ally with them. Because naturally Israelis are closer to Indian in many ways values and straight forwardness and suffered long time in the hands of terror, surounded fully by Islamic nations who threat in one way or the other except a few sympathisers. It is essential for India to engage with Israel proactively even providing moral support at the time of threat of terror. Pakistan is a real threat to Israel and India though indirectly to Israel by supplying heavy Chinese arms through their borders to Palestinians to fight against Israel. In the case of war between Islamic countries and Israel, Pakistan will be forced to join the club fighting against Israel. In this sense we have a common jihadic problem to address. Though I tend not to see ordinary Muslims of Pakistan as threats to India or Israel. In this sense we need a long and short term strategic plans for support though Israel may not need much from India, but a moral support.

[Gagan]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1140862.html

By Amos Harel, Haaretz

The Iron Dome short-range missile defense system passed a series of tests over the last few days with flying colors, successfully shooting down Qassam rockets, Grad rockets and mortar shells one after the other.It even succeeded in determining which missiles to shoot down - those whose trajectory made them likely to land in a populated area - and which to ignore.

[Viv S]

Thank you Sir!! That made my day. Reminds me of

I have already mentioned the problems all of these countries have had with Palestinian groups and refugees(scroll up). They can be negotiated with.

Understand this -- there is no difference between any time in Israels history and NOW -- in either the intent or the number or the level of hostlity of its enemies.

We aren't talking about Israel's popularity in the region. Israel's aim should be arriving at a solution to the Palestinian problem, that's acceptable to all parties. That is unless its comfortable with its current predicament.

Israel CANNOT fight its way to victory this time, let alone bomb its way to victory. That's a reality and the sooner it sinks it, the easier it will be. The solution has to diplomatic and it has to be peaceful.

The reason why Israel in not in 47 scenario is because it has both created and used power to carve a living space for itself. (I include US diplomatic support etc in power)

It is this power projection that keeps the bubble that Israel lives in.

The moment the bubble slips, the Arab states position suddenly becomes less unfeasible and then.....

I don't think anyone really thinks Hamas can threaten Israel's survival. There is simply no probable scenario in which the Israeli state will collapse or be overrun. And no, Israel's military and industrial power is very very real, not an illusion to keep the wolves away.

[Viv S]

That Sir, is called institutional memory. And in this case it serves them well.

No it hasn't served them well.

No Sir, it is because they understand Arabs well, all bullys (be Nazis of XYZ) can be kept under check when you use their own medicine on them, that is it. Arabs are class A bullies as far as Israel is concerned.

Even if we assume Arabs in general are class A bullies, there is no reason why Palestinians should get the short end of the stick. Unless you think they too are bullies for being kicked out of their own lands. Even if we dismiss that as ancient history, we can still condemn them as bullies for being throttled by an economic blockade imposed by Israel, dependent on whatever aid Israel magnanimously permits them to receive.

I fail to see the disconnect between ability to threaten the survival of Israel and killing Israeli's, I for one am glad that neither do Israelis.

Simultaneous attacks by all of Israel's neighbors haven't been able to threaten the survival of the Israeli state. Can one reasonably expect Hamas to be able to do so.

I will not call it collective punishment, I will call it a no holds barred war.

Am not sure if they thought they would STOP terror, they probably thought If that wont stop terror nothing else will.

That yo mind is very debatable, the success of operations against extreme ideologies opposed to your survival as been use of force, not calibrated but as much force as you can muster.

We have seen this in Chechnya (where the Russian vengeance finally quieted the Chechens) With LTTE, in Punjab in India, with Nazis in Europe etc etc.

Israel did absolutely the right thing. More power to them.

The Punjab militancy was over in fifteen years, the Chechan saga in 20 years, the LTTE a little more. Israel has been saddled with the Palestinian quagmire for around 60 years, and there is every possibility that if Israel continues its current strategy it'll remain saddled with it for the next 60 years. At some point, they have to sit down and conclude it hasn't worked... and that's a fresh approach is necessary.

Sure you could argue that their strategy worked... Israel's still around isn't it. Well lots of Pakistanis believe their army is their savior.... because hey Pakistan's still around isn't it(well half of it atleast).

[Viv S]

Well so it was a war, started by whose provocation is a different story.

Its not actually. The question of why Israel violated the terms of ceasefire is extremely relevant.
As a matter of fact, to Hamas' credit, they actually continued to respect the ceasefire despite Israeli provocation.

Israel chose to wage a war to end a war by Hamas, and so far although the rockets did not stop they certainly lessened.

So while I am willing to accept that the "war" was not waged in the best manner possible, that discussion in my POV would be purely military one. I refuse to discuss the morality of collateral damage as one of the issue in a Israel-Palestine conflict.

That is the entire argument that spans the page from the top.
When necessary collateral damage is and should be very much acceptable. If killing 1000 civilians would have brought peace to the Holy Land, sure it could have been justified. But far from ending a war, Israel's bombing campaign has done the exact opposite and made peace so much more elusive.

[Sanku]

That is the entire argument that spans the page from the top.
When necessary collateral damage is and should be very much acceptable. If killing 1000 civilians would have brought peace to the Holy Land, sure it could have been justified. But far from ending a war, Israel's bombing campaign has done the exact opposite and made peace so much more elusive.

Viv S, I dont think you get this, there is not going to be peace in holy land for a long long long time.

That is a chimera which the Israelis clearly seem to be not chasing.

What they are doing is living inside a bubble of their making, since that is all they can do.

We will see if peace returns to holy land, AFTER

1) West Asian Arab countries openly tone down their anti-Jew stand
2) Accept Israel
3) Stop funding the Palestinians towards terror activity.

Those are the root reasons. Everything else that you mention -- the blockade, bombing on lands which have civilian bases supporting terrorist groups yada yada flow from there.

We want GoI to have a hard stand with Pakistan till it ceases terror activity and lets go of its illegal control of Indian boundaries.

I do not accept Israel to want less.

There is NO real intention of the Arabs (including Palestians) to live peacefully with Israel and as long as that exists, nothing else matters.

[Sanku]

I am for more closer ties between India and Israel but it doesnt mean I have to support all the actions of Israel. The killing of unarmed civilians should be condemned whether it is done by Hamas or by IDF. Bombing of hospitals and schools, however inadvertent or accidental it may be, will not help Israel in the long run.

Morally that is laudable, but practically impossible, when Hamas is a terrorist state with funding and support by the common "unarmed" civilian population, just what are Israels options?

Its not like they have not tried talking.

No "I think you hit 1 of us and we take out 100 of you" is the only solution which Israel has.

[shyamd]

Viv S, I dont think you get this, there is not going to be peace in holy land for a long long long time.

That is a chimera which the Israelis clearly seem to be not chasing.

What they are doing is living inside a bubble of their making, since that is all they can do.

We will see if peace returns to holy land, AFTER

1) West Asian Arab countries openly tone down their anti-Jew stand
2) Accept Israel
3) Stop funding the Palestinians towards terror activity.

Point 1.... Done a long time ago but depends which nations (KSA is pretty much anti every religion other than Islam), you have saudi princes on TV openly admiring Israeli educational models and bringing it to KSA. Kuwaiti Intelligence minister was invited to Israel last year too, but left in anger over some disagreement about visiting Bethlehem or something. Even today Dubai Oman Qatar Bahrain opened up to Israel for trade. Point 2 - done, most of them do business with israel and are ready to accept israel and it aint no secret either. Qatar, Oman(then later the rest of the big weights in the GCC would join) said they will announce relations with Israel if Israel announces settlement freezes but Israel rejected it. Point 3 - GCC will just say: Will the US stop funding Israel?

Israel doesnt have to respond to peace overtures because it is talking from a point of strength(US funding and military support). Same with Hamas or the PA, Israel doesnt have to respond.

We want GoI to have a hard stand with Pakistan till it ceases terror activity and lets go of its illegal control of Indian boundaries.

Thats what Israel did to Palestine. Hence why Israel pulled out of parts of "occuppied territories".

There is NO real intention of the Arabs (including Palestians) to live peacefully with Israel and as long as that exists, nothing else matters.

Well the arabs could easily say the same, Israel started the Gaza conflict for example and continues to control the borders despite announcing a pull out

[Johann]

The anti-Semitic propaganda that Palestinian and Arab groups inculcate in to their children makes the conflict much nastier, but it is not the root cause of the conflict.

The fundamental problem is displacement and incompatible nationalisms.

The Palestinians want to go back to the villages they were forced out of in 1947-48, and are willing to consider any and all means to do that. Israel is willing to consider any and all means to preserve a Jewish majority within Israel's borders.

Neither Palestinian terror, nor Israeli collective punishment for that terror can change that equation, and the bloody stalemate that it produces.

Palestine can draw on a billion Muslims (and whomever wants to keep those billion Muslims on their good side) to keep it going even when its stalemated.

Who can Israel draw on besides America? Israel's global support is a fragile thing. Power and legitimacy are resources that must be nurtured, not squandered because they are finite resources.

The failure to distinguish between existential threats, and threats to public safety will result in unsustainable exhaustion of these resources, and that is exactly what is happening.

[ramana]

Johann, Have you heard of the German film "White Ribbon"? It is mistakenly being portrayed as a proto Nazi film while its message is universal. My view is if children are inculcated to hate at an early age they grow up to be monsters. We see this in the madrasas run by TSP and funded by KSA.

[Johann]

Ramana,

My own experience has been that anti-Semitism of Saudi Arabia is far worse than the anti-Semitism you'd find in Lebanon or Syria.

Even in Egypt, I've seen most Egyptians overcome the pervasive state sponsored anti-Semitic propaganda of 60 years when they meet and deal with the many Israelis and Jewish Americans and Europeans who come as tourists, businessmen, academics and students.

The link between outrage in Egypt or Syria or Iraq over what happens in Palestine or Lebanon is more about Arab solidarity than Islamic prejudice - Muslim Arabs in Egypt get just as angry if Palestinian Christians are killed by IDF/AF Apaches, and the same is true of Egyptian Christian anger over Muslim Palestinian casualties.

I have far more fear of anti-Semitism in places like Somalia and Pakistan where the anger does not come out of a sense of Arab outrage over the death of fellow Arab civilians, but rather out of pure religious hatred.

[ramana]

Johann, What are the roots of the KSA, TSP's anti-Semitism?

[Viv S]

Viv S, I dont think you get this, there is not going to be peace in holy land for a long long long time.

That is a chimera which the Israelis clearly seem to be not chasing.

What they are doing is living inside a bubble of their making, since that is all they can do.

Peace is not impossible. All it takes to change the status quo is a few years of calm. Hamas(and Fatah) need to make sure no local fighting takes place within Palestinian lands. Rocket attacks by the Hamas(and others) need to stop and Israel needs to overlook the few that still occur. All of which is very much possible.

The most important step is Israel's prerogative; it needs to demolish illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian lands and grow out of the mentality of victim-hood.

And yes, they'll be no peace while Israel keeps breaking ceasefires and imposing punitive economic blockades.

1) West Asian Arab countries openly tone down their anti-Jew stand
2) Accept Israel
3) Stop funding the Palestinians towards terror activity.

I believe Shyamd has addressed each point quite succinctly.

Those are the root reasons. Everything else that you mention -- the blockade, bombing on lands which have civilian bases supporting terrorist groups yada yada flow from there.

Actually they don't. There was absolutely no rationale for Israel to have subverted the terms of ceasefire with Hamas in 2008. It wasn't forced to respond to rocket attacks from Gaza, quite the opposite in fact.

[Johann]

Johann, What are the roots of the KSA, TSP's anti-Semitism?

I do not have a complete explanation of course, but from what I've seen the social sources of hatred in Saudi and Pakistani society come from different places, even though there's a similar brand of Islam that is politically dominant in both places.

The Saudi state and its Wahabbi pillar were born in the Najd, which is the most isolated part of the Arabian Peninsula, a place whose combination of isolation and tribal hierarchy bred a nasty kind of xenophobia. Saudi society is still coming to grips with the larger world - its only been a couple of generations since the majority of the population was literate, or in touch with the larger world. Saudi society is undergoing profound changes, and there is space for slow, low key but steady liberalisation as people's horizons widen through education and media.

Pakistan on the other hand - the extremism of its Islam is driven not by isolation, but by cultural schizophrenia, a lack of national identity and a chronic lack of political legitimacy by the state. The state continues to lose legitimacy as problems multiply, and the reservoirs of poor and uneducated rather than shrinking, continues to grow. In other words, Pakistan (or parts of it) might quite possibly become a more fundamentalist society than Saudi Arabia 25 years from now.