Indo-Israel: News and Discussion

[ShauryaT]

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.

And in that mode, continues to become non-indic like. Therein lies the danger for India. It will be biggest loss to the Indian civilization. Happening right in front of our eyes.

[Sanku]

Viv S, Shyamd -- you have both chosen to respond to me on how peace is possible and the violence is a rather unnecessary manifestation of a temporary 2008 truce break or because of xyz <put your fav date here>

however none of you have chosen to respond to this part of Johann's reply here

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.

Clearly what you are saying and what Johann is saying is incompatible, since he has clearly drawn out the root of conflict to 1947 at the very least.

In that sense I agree more with Johann than with you since to my mind it does a better job of exploring the root cause of the issue and tackles the fundamentals -- I also agree with his assessment of a bloody stalemate.

However let me return to the points I made and were sought to be addressed by shyamd

1) West Asian Arab countries openly tone down their anti-Jew stand

Shyamd says it it done -- I say not, west asia has miles to go before the "anti-jew" stand has to be toned down. Saying that hey they are anti everybody is fine and true but in no sense legitimizes their anti Jew stand, further it is the Jews who have to live in the west asia and not everyone else (who have by now been relocated else where)

So saying "they have toned down they only hate Jews while liking the progress of state of Israel rather than hating both" or "they hate everyone" is not meaningful study of reality in this context.

And oh everyone forgot Iranian theocrats here?

The point clearly remains -- there is hate for Jews. Period.

2) Accept Israel --

Even Shyamd does not say that it has happened, the best is "we are ready to accept Israel is XYZ happens" -- all right I will not be holding my breath for it. Wake me up when it happens.

What I am looking for is a declaration by Syria and KSA saying "Israel" is brother member of the west asia structure, and we recognize its validity and right to live, we however have issues with them which we will resolve amicably over time.

(btw the above is OUR stand with China and Pakistan and still the ideological root cause divisions cause so much pain -- and you are asking for peace when there is no paper acceptance even)

3) Stop funding the Palestinians towards terror activity.

If GCC says US funding Israel is same as Syria et al funding the Hamas terror -- that is Lahori logic at best, something I fully expect from GCC, but no reason why we on BRF should lend any crediblity to it eh?

The basic thing remains -- there is a deep ideological divide in west asia, which is lack of acceptance of Israel and as a valid state belonging in west asia -- till that is addressed this is a no show.

[shyamd]

however none of you have chosen to respond to this part of Johann's reply here

Wow....I thought we were talking in the context of Gaza conflict of 2006. If you want to go back to the crux of the problem then we can debate that.

Clearly what you are saying and what Johann is saying is incompatible, since he has clearly drawn out the root of conflict to 1947 at the very least.

In that sense I agree more with Johann than with you since to my mind it does a better job of exploring the root cause of the issue and tackles the fundamentals -- I also agree with his assessment of a bloody stalemate.

Some of what Johann says is correct, Gaza cannot survive on its own and neither can West bank, they need to go to Egypt and Jordan ultimately. I have said that before and you can check it in my previous posts.

However let me return to the points I made and were sought to be addressed by shyamd

1) West Asian Arab countries openly tone down their anti-Jew stand

Shyamd says it it done -- I say not, west asia has miles to go before the "anti-jew" stand has to be toned down. Saying that hey they are anti everybody is fine and true but in no sense legitimizes their anti Jew stand, further it is the Jews who have to live in the west asia and not everyone else (who have by now been relocated else where)

So saying "they have toned down they only hate Jews while liking the progress of state of Israel rather than hating both" or "they hate everyone" is not meaningful study of reality in this context.

And oh everyone forgot Iranian theocrats here?

The point clearly remains -- there is hate for Jews. Period.

West asia has miles to go before they accept *other* cultures, as they are mentally still in the dark ages. Besides GCC has openly said they will accept israel.

2) Accept Israel --

Even Shyamd does not say that it has happened, the best is "we are ready to accept Israel is XYZ happens" -- all right I will not be holding my breath for it. Wake me up when it happens.

Why does the gulf have to give everything up?? Has Israel come forward and negotiated with GCC? The Israeli's dont have to, they have the backing of the US and are in a strong position. Leaving Gaza and West Bank was the first step forward towards peace. Besides, Israel HAD embassies in Qatar and Oman. Trade offices in other GCC countries that still operate to this day. When Israel was offered peace again by GCC in exchange for a settlement freeze, israel said no, no negotiation, just a plain no.

What I am looking for is a declaration by Syria and KSA saying "Israel" is brother member of the west asia structure, and we recognize its validity and right to live, we however have issues with them which we will resolve amicably over time.

Quote from US State Dept website on KSA.
"A charter member of the Arab League, Saudi Arabia supports the position that Israel must withdraw from the territories which it occupied in June 1967, as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Saudi Arabia supports a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict but rejected the Camp David accords, claiming that they would be unable to achieve a comprehensive political solution that would ensure Palestinian rights and adequately address the status of Jerusalem. Although Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic relations with and suspended aid to Egypt in the wake of Camp David, the two countries renewed formal ties in 1987. In March 2002, then-Crown Prince Abdallah offered a Middle East peace plan, now known as the Arab Peace Initiative, at the annual summit of the Arab League in which Arab governments would offer "normal relations and the security of Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab lands, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of Palestinian refugees." In March 2007 the Arab League reiterated its support for the Arab Peace Initiative by emphasizing that it could be the foundation for a broad Arab-Israeli peace. In November 2007, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal attended the Annapolis Conference, along with more than 50 representatives of concerned countries and international organizations. The Conference was convened to express the broad support of the international community for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders' courageous efforts and was a launching point for negotiations designed to lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace."

There you have it, GCC has openly said that they are willing to accept Israel as a brother if they fulfill certain conditions.

3) Stop funding the Palestinians towards terror activity.

If GCC says US funding Israel is same as Syria et al funding the Hamas terror -- that is Lahori logic at best, something I fully expect from GCC, but no reason why we on BRF should lend any crediblity to it eh?

The basic thing remains -- there is a deep ideological divide in west asia, which is lack of acceptance of Israel and as a valid state belonging in west asia -- till that is addressed this is a no show.

This is how they will view it: Israeli's use bullets, tanks etc to fight. Palestinians will use rockets etc to fight.

[Sanku]

In March 2002, then-Crown Prince Abdallah offered a Middle East peace plan, now known as the Arab Peace Initiative, at the annual summit of the Arab League in which Arab governments would offer "normal relations and the security of Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab lands, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of Palestinian refugees."

There you have it, GCC has openly said that they are willing to accept Israel as a brother if they fulfill certain conditions.

1) Interesting conditions in the above -- I am surprised they forgot to add "all the Joos who have come to Israel in 67 must return home to where ever they came from"
2) GCC has no business in making conditions (forget the above) but frankly any conditions, first accept, then stop terror then we talk -- as the first and constant aggressor they owe Israel that.

This is how they will view it: Israeli's use bullets, tanks etc to fight. Palestinians will use rockets etc to fight.

Yes and that is how it is going to remain, till the Arabs are able to supply the Palestinians with more (which means they have reached a situation where they can stop worrying about what Israel will do to them in return)

[Surya]

An interesting way to show your displeasure

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/1 ... 20252.html

I wish we could do this to Downer or some Aussie diplomat

[Singha]

amazing track record...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opini ... ks.html?em

Op-Ed Columnist
The Tel Aviv Cluster

Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates

Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.

In his book, “The Golden Age of Jewish Achievement,” Steven L. Pease lists some of the explanations people have given for this record of achievement. The Jewish faith encourages a belief in progress and personal accountability. It is learning-based, not rite-based.

Most Jews gave up or were forced to give up farming in the Middle Ages; their descendants have been living off of their wits ever since. They have often migrated, with a migrant’s ambition and drive. They have congregated around global crossroads and have benefited from the creative tension endemic in such places.

No single explanation can account for the record of Jewish achievement. The odd thing is that Israel has not traditionally been strongest where the Jews in the Diaspora were strongest. Instead of research and commerce, Israelis were forced to devote their energies to fighting and politics.

Milton Friedman used to joke that Israel disproved every Jewish stereotype. People used to think Jews were good cooks, good economic managers and bad soldiers; Israel proved them wrong.

But that has changed. Benjamin Netanyahu’s economic reforms, the arrival of a million Russian immigrants and the stagnation of the peace process have produced a historic shift. The most resourceful Israelis are going into technology and commerce, not politics. This has had a desultory effect on the nation’s public life, but an invigorating one on its economy.

Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.

As Dan Senor and Saul Singer write in “Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle,” Israel now has a classic innovation cluster, a place where tech obsessives work in close proximity and feed off each other’s ideas.

Because of the strength of the economy, Israel has weathered the global recession reasonably well. The government did not have to bail out its banks or set off an explosion in short-term spending. Instead, it used the crisis to solidify the economy’s long-term future by investing in research and development and infrastructure, raising some consumption taxes, promising to cut other taxes in the medium to long term. Analysts at Barclays write that Israel is “the strongest recovery story” in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Israel’s technological success is the fruition of the Zionist dream. The country was not founded so stray settlers could sit among thousands of angry Palestinians in Hebron. It was founded so Jews would have a safe place to come together and create things for the world.

This shift in the Israeli identity has long-term implications. Netanyahu preaches the optimistic view: that Israel will become the Hong Kong of the Middle East, with economic benefits spilling over into the Arab world. And, in fact, there are strands of evidence to support that view in places like the West Bank and Jordan.

But it’s more likely that Israel’s economic leap forward will widen the gap between it and its neighbors. All the countries in the region talk about encouraging innovation. Some oil-rich states spend billions trying to build science centers. But places like Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv are created by a confluence of cultural forces, not money. The surrounding nations do not have the tradition of free intellectual exchange and technical creativity.

For example, between 1980 and 2000, Egyptians registered 77 patents in the U.S. Saudis registered 171. Israelis registered 7,652.

The tech boom also creates a new vulnerability. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has argued, these innovators are the most mobile people on earth. To destroy Israel’s economy, Iran doesn’t actually have to lob a nuclear weapon into the country. It just has to foment enough instability so the entrepreneurs decide they had better move to Palo Alto, where many of them already have contacts and homes. American Jews used to keep a foothold in Israel in case things got bad here. Now Israelis keep a foothold in the U.S.

During a decade of grim foreboding, Israel has become an astonishing success story, but also a highly mobile one.

[Surya]

and now Israel does an embarassing backtracking on the tiff with Turkey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8458085.stm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1142344.html


So dear jingoes - is it better to do the tamasha and then do this back flip??

Or is it worth it.


Interesting maybe our mandarins know what they are doing

[pgbhat]

How to be anxious ---- Pratap Bhanu Mehta

The debate over root causes has bubbled again to the surface. But there are confusions in this debate. Some problems, like the Palestinian problem, need to be addressed because of the intrinsic issue of justice involved, not simply because they might not be fomenting terrorism. And the US cannot expect that it can act like an imperial power, widening its arc of intervention on one pretext or another, without generating sites of violent resistance. And on these fronts the news has indeed been depressing. Some of Israel’s actions have been repeatedly crossing the threshold of moral acceptability as even its own intellectuals, like the incomparable David Shulman, have been pointing out. And for all of Obama’s rapprochement strategy, his inability to rein in Israel is making the prospects for peace even more dim. And it is becoming increasingly likely that the US will increase its arc of military and political entanglement in places like Yemen, yet again shifting the frontier of this war.

These issues have to be addressed. But it cannot be denied that there is also something sui generis about the challenges being posed to liberal societies. For one thing, so-called protests from root causes do not address a fundamental asymmetry. We can protest against the US or Britain. But how do we protest against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Second, even when there are legitimate grievances, there have been more imaginative and morally compelling ways of creating political movements; and certainly Palestine would have achieved a lot more if the political strategy of its leaders had been more credible. Terrorist groups are as much a product of the crisis of authority in the societies they come from; and certainly a lot of the terrorist violence is now intra sectarian. The numbers involved may be, in the larger scheme of things, still small. But then terrorism was never about strength in numbers. It was about magnifying small numbers into large political effects.

[Karna_A]

Wonder how much Israel would charge to give a TNW design to India so India can also participate in Samson option whenever it comes?
It would be mutually beneficial to both countries in long term.

[JE Menon]

Why would we want to "participate"?

[Karna_A]

Major reason Israel hasn't been attacked using JDAM is the threat of Samson option.
Its fallacy to think TSP jarnails are worried of Indian BMs as TSP BMs would wreck much greater destruction in Indian than Indian BMs mostly because TSP doesn't have much to destroy.
However, if Samson option is on table, even a cave pakjabi will come to senses.
Samson option is the reason Israel gets away with Murder whereas India is not able to get away with hazaar appeasement.
Actual participation is not needed, just the threat and the capability is enough to deter JDAMs.

Why would we want to "participate"?

[ramana]

Wonder how much Israel would charge to give a TNW design to India so India can also participate in Samson option whenever it comes?
It would be mutually beneficial to both countries in long term.

What do you think all those "chotus" are?

[JE Menon]

>>Major reason Israel hasn't been attacked using JDAM is the threat of Samson option.

What is the major reason that India hasn’t been attacked using JDAM?

>>Its fallacy to think TSP jarnails are worried of Indian BMs as TSP BMs would wreck much greater destruction in Indian than Indian BMs mostly because TSP doesn't have much to destroy.

Quantitively and qualitatively their counter-value targets are thinner on the ground. But a home is a home. Whatever they have is whatever they have, and they can be decimated just like everyone else. In any case, what has this got to do with our negotiating a “participation” in Israel’s Samson Option (although if they go for it, we might get involved willy-nilly).

>>However, if Samson option is on table, even a cave pakjabi will come to senses.

We have been quite clear about our response in the case of a nuclear attack. And it is not the cave Pakjabi who needs to be convinced.

>>Samson option is the reason Israel gets away with Murder whereas India is not able to get away with hazaar appeasement.

Our circumstances are different. We are not really threatened with extinction, literally. And I’m not sure Israel gets away with “Murder”. It gets away because it is able to exercise its influence and power towards that end. This has little to do with the Samson Option, which would actually be the result of a total failure of Israeli policy as it would mean the destruction of the state of Israel.

>>Actual participation is not needed, just the threat and the capability is enough to deter JDAMs.

Are you saying we don’t have the capability?

[Karna_A]

Q: What is the major reason that India hasn’t been attacked using JDAM?
A: Because enemy so far has believed Death by a Thousand Cuts is easier. But of late there is realization that cuts need to be deeper.

Q:Quantitively and qualitatively their counter-value targets are thinner on the ground. But a home is a home. Whatever they have is whatever they have, and they can be decimated just like everyone else. In any case, what has this got to do with our negotiating a “participation” in Israel’s Samson Option (although if they go for it, we might get involved willy-nilly).
A: There is a perception that TSP is just one M country out of 50+ whereas India is the only H country. With further radicalization, there is growing belief that Heaven is better than TSP home.

Q: We have been quite clear about our response in the case of a nuclear attack. And it is not the cave Pakjabi who needs to be convinced.
A: Not as clear as Israel has been. A samson option from Israel would involve destruction of most of Asia.



Q: Our circumstances are different. We are not really threatened with extinction, literally. And I’m not sure Israel gets away with “Murder”. It gets away because it is able to exercise its influence and power towards that end. This has little to do with the Samson Option, which would actually be the result of a total failure of Israeli policy as it would mean the destruction of the state of Israel.
A: Israel would possibly lose just a city and a third of its population, but its retaliation would result in 10000 years of desert all around.
It will be more a failure and destruction of radicalization in middle-east than a policy failure on Israel's part.


Q: Are you saying we don’t have the capability?
A: When India has second strike capability of 200 TNW then it'll have that capability.

[Karan Dixit]

Mumbai, Jan 14 : Visiting Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer paid tribute to those killed by terrorists at Nariman House, the Jewish cultural centre in Mumbai, in November 2008.

http://www.calcuttanews.net/story/588351

[Dhiman]

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.

...

I said this before somewhere and I will say it again, the Israel-Palestine conflict is such a mess that it will help any neutral uninvolved observer keep their moral compass straight. The "morality of collective punishment" may be up for debate in Israel and among Islamic terrorists, but it is certainly not up for debate in most of the rest of the world as far as I know. The rest of the world refers to "collective punishment" as terrorism because it mainly involves targeting innocent civilians.

Also, there is no legal concept of "collective punishment" in existence today anywhere in civilized world.

Punishment always has to be proportional to the crime. Both the English common law (which is the foundation of legal system of many countries) and traditional Indian legal systems are based on proportionality of punishment with respect to the crime that was committed.

The traditional Indian legal system often goes one step further: if two entities commit the same crime, both of them deserve to be proportionally punished, but the entity that is of higher status should be awarded a more severe punishment (the reason being that the higher status entity should have known better).

So call it "terrorism", not "morality of collective punishment" since that is the current accepted terminology for such acts.

[Dhiman]

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.

If 5% of the Muslim population in India decided that they have had enough with Israeli violence in middle-east, I can assure you that that would be the end of India-Israel relationship. Because no government in India, in their right mind, would sideline the feelings of 5 million of its own law abiding population that is living, protecting, and contributing to the secular Indian state (irrespective of whatever our personal definition of "secularism", as has been debated on this forum many times, may be) in order to further its relationship with religious state of Israel (and its 5 - 7 million citizens) in the middle east that has been in a state of perpetual war for over 50 years.

Having said that, its to the credit of Indian Muslims that they have largely ignored the crap that goes on in middle-east (and one will find many articles written on this). So if Muslims in India can ignore the crap that goes on in middle east, I don't see any reason why Hindus can't do the same.

Our relationship with Israel should purely be dictated on self-interest because it certainly can't be based on moral grounds. So if Israel is our "strategic defense supplier" that provides weapons to protect borders against say TSP, Iran (arguably Israel's arch enemy) is our "strategic geopolitical partner" that worked with India for decades to limit Taliban influence in Afghanistan.

Tone down the relationship to practical matters and don't push it, otherwise you may end up alienating the right people in India for the sake or wrong people in middle east. As for completely cutting off relationship is concerned that really doesn't work these days (in fact it often causes bigger problems as in the case of Myanmar drifting under Chinese influence).

Best regards.

[Kanson]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Just over a year after IDF Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, former OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia on Sunday predicted that another war with Hamas was practically inevitable and would take place in the near future.

"We are before another round in Gaza," Samia told Army Radio in an interview. "I am very skeptical about the possibility that Hamas will suddenly surrender or change its ways without being hit much more seriously than it was during Cast Lead."


....


In related news, Hamas on Friday boasted that it had managed to smuggle new types of weapons into the Gaza Strip despite the blockade, and published photographs of some of the arms it allegedly obtained.

Izz al-Din al- Kassam Brigades published photographs of newly acquired weapons including missiles with a double warhead, 107-mm caliber missiles designed to penetrate fortified structures, and a new type of armor-piercing RPG missile.

Hamas spokesman Abu Ubeida warned that the group has "thousands of fighters and good weapons capable of harming Israel."

[Surya]

Very easy to sit somewhere else and pontificate to the Israelis about morality.

Wouldn't we like to administer a collective jhapad tothe pukis if we could????

When you are small and surrounded by larger enemies - all general guidelines gets thrown out of the window.

[shyamd]

1) Interesting conditions in the above -- I am surprised they forgot to add "all the Joos who have come to Israel in 67 must return home to where ever they came from"

Can't debate with someone who's mind is already made up.

2) GCC has no business in making conditions (forget the above) but frankly any conditions, first accept, then stop terror then we talk -- as the first and constant aggressor they owe Israel that.

Wait a second...Again, I say, so GCC and Hamas have to give up everything and do all the negotiating(not really negotiation if one side just says F off everytime you come to the table). Classic... When has Israel ever come to the table and negotiated with GCC? You are right, forget the GCC, Israel isn't even putting anything on the table with the PA! But the PA still allows joint ops in security with the Israeli's... hmm....

Yes and that is how it is going to remain, till the Arabs are able to supply the Palestinians with more (which means they have reached a situation where they can stop worrying about what Israel will do to them in return)

Yes, people have been waiting for years for peace and Israeli's knew that this situation will one day come where extremists will come to power as people have lost all hope. It all makes sense of course, media is just going to have sympathy for the Israeli's, Israel has an excuse not to negotiate now. Who wins with extremists in power? Its Israel. Even the US and EU can't push Israel into negotiations now, even if Hamas has offered its hand of peace. The zionists must be celebrating.

[pgbhat]

If 5% of the Muslim population in India decided that they have had enough with Israeli violence in middle-east, I can assure you that that would be the end of India-Israel relationship. Because no government in India, in their right mind, would sideline the feelings of 5 million of its own law abiding population that is living, protecting, and contributing to the secular Indian state (irrespective of whatever our personal definition of "secularism", as has been debated on this forum many times, may be) in order to further its relationship with religious state of Israel (and its 5 - 7 million citizens) in the middle east that has been in a state of perpetual war for over 50 years.

Israeli violence? I am assuming Arabs are all Gandhian here.

Our relationship with Israel should purely be dictated on self-interest because it certainly can't be based on moral grounds.

What is this? I completely disagree, not at all possible. We should all be robots to do that.
I agree with this.....

Foreign policy, we know, is not just governed by the cold calculus of interests. It is governed by an amalgam of prejudgments, cultural representations, and ideological constructions.

precisely why when sh!t has hit the fan, Arabs/Persians have supported Pakistan, Israel has supported India.

Having said that, its to the credit of Indian Muslims that they have largely ignored the crap that goes on in middle-east (and one will find many articles written on this). So if Muslims in India can ignore the crap that goes on in middle east, I don't see any reason why Hindus can't do the same.

IMs don't give a crap because he/she has a lot more issues/responsibilities on his plate on a day to day basis. An average Indian does not give rats musharraf about Pakistan either, until an attack happens on Indians in India. Israel Palestine issue is next to non-existent in India, precisely because of that.

[Dhiman]

Wouldn't we like to administer a collective jhapad tothe pukis if we could????

No, since there is no one (even remotely associated with Indian establishment) has ever advocated "collective punishment" against Pakistanis. Unfortunately the days of collectively criminalizing entire populations for acts committed by few is long gone (at least in the civilized mindset).

Having said that I am not claiming that Pakistani establishment is not propagating terrorist acts against India. They are, but that doesn't mean one apply racial stereotyping to bundle all Pakistani's together into one monolithic unit and inflict this so called "collective punishment" on them. That is not even done in war. Such middle-age barbaric mentality is only fit for what goes on middle-east and this type of mentality is exactly what led to Nazi exploits against "collective Jewish population" of Europe.

When you are small and surrounded by larger enemies - all general guidelines gets thrown out of the window.

Israel is not the victim here by any stretch of imagination and their "offensive" capability is many times that of their neighbors (and I am not even counting the nukes yet)

[muraliravi]

Wouldn't we like to administer a collective jhapad tothe pukis if we could????

No, since there is no one (even remotely associated with Indian establishment) has ever advocated "collective punishment" against Pakistanis. Unfortunately the days of collectively criminalizing entire populations for acts committed by few is long gone (at least in the civilized mindset).

Having said that I am not claiming that Pakistani establishment is not propagating terrorist acts against India. They are, but that doesn't mean one apply racial stereotyping to bundle all Pakistani's together into one monolithic unit and inflict this so called "collective punishment" on them. That is not even done in war. Such middle-age barbaric mentality is only fit for what goes on middle-east and this type of mentality is exactly what led to Nazi exploits against "collective Jewish population" of Europe.

Sorry sir, completely disagree, the life of one indian in my eyes ( and I would assume is the same case with anyone defending Indian borders) is worth much more than all pakis put together. It is a different issue that no one openly advocates such action

[Surya]

aha Dhiman of course you are going to say that -

care to take a poll on BRF whether we would love to give a collective jhapad to the pakis???

And you cannot pick and choose what you want from Israel and continue to lecture them. shove all moral rubbish aside. Sooner or later push comes to shove if you want access to Israeli help (in whatever form) you need to make a choice.
Yes certain class of people who need vote banks might try it but it will not work.

Otherwise be willing to accept the same lecture with respect to our internal issues

As for such practices do not exist - err care to tell that to the Serbs??? oh sorry that was surgical bombing

And I will not even care to respond to your unsavoury equal equal attempt with the Nazis.

[Rahul M]

Israel is not the victim here by any stretch of imagination and their "offensive" capability is many times that of their neighbors (and I am not even counting the nukes yet)

dhiman, if you don't consider nukes I don't see how that is true.

[Dhiman]

care to take a poll on BRF whether we would love to give a collective jhapad to the pakis???

And you cannot pick and choose what you want from Israel and continue to lecture them. shove all moral rubbish aside. Sooner or later push comes to shove if you want access to Israeli help (in whatever form) you need to make a choice.

Sir,

Instead of taking a poll of BRF, I suggest electing a GoI that would be willing to subscribe to Israeli sense of "collective punishment" and shove (Gandhi, Buddha, Ashoka, Dharma, etc) morality aside as you state. I will wait and watch until that happens. Until then good luck to you.

Yes certain class of people who need vote banks might try it but it will not work.

The vote bank you refer to are full citizens of India whose viewpoints are more important than the crap that goes in in middle-east.

And I will not even care to respond to your unsavoury equal equal attempt with the Nazis

No equal-equal there, and my apologies if I gave that impression, but a classic example of what happens when "morality is shoved aside".

Best regards to you sir.

[Virupaksha]

OT

Gandhi - never opposed Indian recruiment for WWII and was a volunteer for Boer war
Ashoka - within 50 years his empire was lost
Dharma - have heard the song, "yeh dharm yudh hain" or kurukshetra as dharm yudh.

Basically Mr. Dhiman you need to understand that all of them are complex characters and can be read as your world vision is. Of course since your world vision says, hate israel- its your call. But dont bring the above people into your rhetoric before you understand them or what they represent.

[Dhiman]

OT
Gandhi - never opposed Indian recruiment for WWII and was a volunteer for Boer war
Ashoka - within 50 years his empire was lost
Dharma - have heard the song, "yeh dharm yudh hain" or kurukshetra as dharm yudh.

Basically Mr. Dhiman you need to understand that all of them are complex characters and can be read as your world vision is.

Try not to blow insignificant aspects out of proportion. Gandhi is significantly known for leading a peaceful struggle for independence against British and also for inspiring South African struggle against apartheid along with civil rights movement in united states. Ashoka is significantly known for giving up violence and propagating a peaceful ideology (Buddhism) throughout Asia. Dharma is "morality", irrespective of how you interpret it, it is still morality and not something that can be cast aside.

Of course since your world vision says, hate israel- its your call. But dont bring the above people into your rhetoric before you understand them or what they represent.

I don't "hate" Israel, I hate Israeli violence just like I hate Islamic terrorist and also the way these two factors pollute the entire global environment and often feed off each other in a never ending chain. So coming back to the topic of discussion here, I don't see any reason why we (India) should be participating in any form in this chain of violence that does not concern India.

[Virupaksha]

OT once again

Try not to blow insignificant aspects out of proportion. Gandhi is significantly known for leading a peaceful struggle for independence against British and also for inspiring South African struggle against apartheid along with civil rights movement in united states. Ashoka is significantly known for giving up violence and propagating a peaceful ideology (Buddhism) throughout Asia. Dharma is "morality", irrespective of how you interpret it, it is still morality and not something that can be cast aside.

i) significantly known - doesnt make it truth
ii) Ashoka - for all his principles and pillars, his empire crumbled under his watch because he didnt give his sons the strategic and military thought process required for sustaining an empire. Thus actually ruining India in the long run and making it unable to resist the hun invasions. What Chanakya achieved Ashok threw away.
iii) Dharma is NOT morality. "Thou shall not lie"- is a moral, but if a lie protects an innocent in say a riot? this is what dharma tries to teach. And then there is swadharma - personal dharma and rajdharma, both of which can be contradictory.

I don't "hate" Israel, I hate Israeli violence just like I hate terrorist violence and the way these two factors pollute the entire global environment.

What is this global environment? Can you eloborate

[Dhiman]

i) significantly known - doesnt make it truth

Sir, I don't know about you, but I know for sure that there are hundreds of millions of people who follow Buddhism today because of work done by Ashoka, and there are hundreds of millions of people who are free today because of work done by Gandhi. So it my world view, its certainly "true". Best regards to you and this is my hopefully my last message since the discussion is getting off topic and I really don't have much else "on topic" things to say.

[Karan Dixit]

In my humble opinion, it is not the purpose of this thread to engage in Israel bashing. The purpose of this thread is to identify the areas where India and Israel can work together to further each others interests. View of Indian muslims matter and so does the view of Indian Hindus, Jews, Christians, etc. National security is the most important issue and anyone who is not on board on this issue will be left behind. I have participated in this Israel vs Arab debate on various occasions and have learned that Israel is definitely the victim. All the wars were started by Arabs; yes, they got the thrashing though. Just because Arabs lost all the wars that does not make them a victim. It simply means that their military skill is poor.

---

MUMBAI: The Research and Development (R&D) operations between India and Israel are set to get a push, with both countries readying to set up a dedicated R&D fund.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/14151010.htm

[JE Menon]

Karna_A,

>>A: Because enemy so far has believed Death by a Thousand Cuts is easier. But of late there is realization that cuts need to be deeper.

Any indication of this change of mindset in Pakistani statements? I presume you are saying that they are preparing to use the JDAM against India soon, in the knowledge that a massive retaliation response will not follow.

>>A: There is a perception that TSP is just one M country out of 50+ whereas India is the only H country. With further radicalization, there is growing belief that Heaven is better than TSP home.

While I won’t question your assumptions about what is “growing belief” in Pakisatan, this is based on assumptions that India will not respond across the board. There is no reason for such assumption by anybody. Including other Muslim countries, especially those that have helped Pakistan reach where it is.

>>A: Not as clear as Israel has been. A samson option from Israel would involve destruction of most of Asia.

Actually, it could involve destruction of most of the world. But Israel has not tested no? How do we know their TN will work? Israel takes the position it does because it believes that is the best position for it. We take ours because we believe it is best for us. There is no need for us to “participate” in Israel’s Samson option or negotiate anything along those lines.

>>A: Israel would possibly lose just a city and a third of its population, but its retaliation would result in 10000 years of desert all around. It will be more a failure and destruction of radicalization in middle-east than a policy failure on Israel's part.

Boss, it seems you haven’t really read up on the Samson Option thingie. Israel will only go that far if its survival and existence is threatened – so it is unlikely to be “just a city and a third of is population” that will go. Israel’s position is that if Israel is threatened with extinction, then it will take as much of the world as it can with it, with the MENA guaranteed to be included.

>>A: When India has second strike capability of 200 TNW then it'll have that capability.
OK understood.

[Sanku]

1) Interesting conditions in the above -- I am surprised they forgot to add "all the Joos who have come to Israel in 67 must return home to where ever they came from"

Can't debate with someone who's mind is already made up.

It does not change the fact that the preconditions that GCC has imposed expose the fact that GCC is trying to act too smart by half, Israeli's thankfully dont need to play along (unlike we at S e S)

Wait a second...Again, I say, so GCC and Hamas have to give up everything and do all the negotiating(not really negotiation if one side just says F off everytime you come to the table). Classic... When has Israel ever come to the table and negotiated with GCC? You are right, forget the GCC, Israel isn't even putting anything on the table with the PA! But the PA still allows joint ops in security with the Israeli's... hmm....

Give up everything? NO I asked for mere simple acceptance of Israel and then negotiate.

Yes and that is how it is going to remain, till the Arabs are able to supply the Palestinians with more (which means they have reached a situation where they can stop worrying about what Israel will do to them in return)

Yes, people have been waiting for years for peace and Israeli's knew that this situation will one day come where extremists will come to power as people have lost all hope. [/quote]

I dont know what exactly you are saying here. I dont know which people were waiting for peace and all that. As far as I see from Israeli's standpoint, its been consistent -- the change has to come from the GCC block, since they are the "root cause" of the problem.

Cheers....

[Dhiman]

the change has to come from the GCC block, since they are the "root cause" of the problem.

Sir, in 1947, Jews, Christian, and Arabs were living in peace and tolerance in the region (and no one on any side of this conflict disputes this).

The current state of affairs started when Jews from Europe decided (at the encouragement of British and the Nazi's before them) to create a "Jewish religious state/homeland" in the middle-east - a Jewish homeland outside of Europe where Europe could dump its "Jewish problem"

So the attempt to establish an "intolerant religious state" at the expense of secular (and peaceful) state of affairs that existed in the region is the "root cause" of the problem. As the European Jews took the easy way out and started moving to middle-east (instead of campaigning for a homeland for European Jews in Europe), all hell broke loose in an otherwise peaceful area where Jews, Christians, and Arabs lived in peace (and off course Europe was quite successful in get rid of a large chunk of its "Jewish problem.").

Best regards to you.

[Sanku]

the change has to come from the GCC block, since they are the "root cause" of the problem.

Sir, in 1947, Jews, Christian, and Arabs were living in peace and tolerance in the region (and no one on any side of this conflict disputes this).

Dear me dear me dear me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history

ONLY highlighting "recent pasts"

Historian Martin Gilbert writes that in the 19th century the position of Jews worsened in Muslim countries.[citation needed]

There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[20] In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[21] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[20]

In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian monk and his Muslim servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread or Matza. A Jewish barber was tortured until he "confessed"; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation. In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakech and Fez in Morroco. In 1869, 18 Jews were killed in Tunis, and an Arab mob looted Jewish homes and stores, and burned synagogues, on Jerba Island. In 1875, 20 Jews were killed by a mob in Demnat, Morocco; elsewhere in Morocco, Jews were attacked and killed in the streets in broad daylight. In 1891, the leading Muslims in Jerusalem asked the Ottoman authorities in Constantinople to prohibit the entry of Jews arriving from Russia. In 1897, synagogues were ransacked and Jews were murdered in Tripolitania.[21]

Benny Morris writes that one symbol of Jewish degradation was the phenomenon of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim children. Morris quotes a 19th century traveler: "I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan."[20]

The current state of affairs started when Jews from Europe decided (at the encouragement of British and the Nazi's before them) to create a "Jewish religious state/homeland" in the middle-east - a Jewish homeland outside of Europe where Europe could dump its "Jewish problem"

Yes of course the current state of affairs started when Jews started returning to their promised homeland, till such time Jews were universally being kicked around, no one had a problem, the problem started when Jews started kicking back.

So the attempt to establish an "intolerant religious state" at the expense of secular (and peaceful) state of affairs that existed in the region is the "root cause" of the problem. As the European Jews took the easy way out and started moving to middle-east (instead of campaigning for a homeland for European Jews in Europe), all hell broke loose in an otherwise peaceful area where Jews, Christians, and Arabs lived in peace (and off course Europe was quite successful in get rid of a large chunk of its "Jewish problem.").

Best regards to you.

Barring the nonsense of the once peaceful region, you have hit at the core of the issue, the lack of acceptance of Israel and Jewish immigration in the area.

You either consider that Jews have a right of peaceful return to their homeland -- which I do.

Or you believe that Jews should not have returned to Israel and if they were coming back they should be killed and persecuted -- which clearly you do -- the same platform that I have told Shyamd that GCC fundamentally has -- though he tried to brush it under the carpet.

In 1920 the British Mandate of Palestine started and the British had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. In the beginning, The pro-Jewish Herbert Samuel was appointed High Commissioner in Palestine, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was established and several big Jewish immigration waves to Palestine occurred – the situation seemed to be going well. Nevertheless. The Arab inhabitants of the Palestine weren’t fond of the Jewish immigration which increased and they began to oppose the Jewish settlement and the pro-Jewish policy of the British government by means of violent uprising and terror.

Arab gangs began performing terror acts and murders on convoys and on the Jewish population. After the 1920 Arab riots and 1921 Jaffa riots, the Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British had no desire to confront local Arab gangs over their attacks on Palestinian Jews. Realizing that they could not rely on the British administration for protection from these gangs, the Jewish leadership created the Haganah organization to protect their farms and Kibbutzim.

Large riots occurred during the Arab massacres of 1929 and the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

Due to the Arab violence the United Kingdom gradually started to backtrack from the original idea of a Jewish state and started to speculate in a binational solution or an Arab state which would have a Jewish minority.

[Dhiman]

Barring the nonsense of the once peaceful region, you have hit at the core of the issue, the lack of acceptance of Israel and Jewish immigration in the area.

You either consider that Jews have a right of peaceful return to their homeland -- which I do.

Or you believe that Jews should not have returned to Israel and if they were coming back they should be killed and persecuted -- which clearly you do -- the same platform that I have told Shyamd that GCC fundamentally has -- though he tried to brush it under the carpet.

Obviously, I don't claim that this region (or as a matter of fact any region) was a bastion of peace in the world. However, the region was relatively peaceful before large-scale migration of European Jews began in this region. Its a complete myth that this region has always been violence ridden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqXGbGhROM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqczt149iI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcaQcqE5w0

And I don't think you really disagree with that (since as you state: the problem started when Jews started kicking back).

What I am implying is that if there was a Gandhi in Europe who would have created a homeland for European Jews in Europe (as an atonement for for Europe's anti-semitic activities) things would have been much better, rather than disturbing a relatively peaceful area where Jews, Christians, and Muslims were already living together in relative peace.

You either consider that Jews have a right of peaceful return to their homeland -- which I do.

Or you believe that Jews should not have returned to Israel and if they were coming back they should be killed and persecuted -- which clearly you do -- the same platform that I have told Shyamd that GCC fundamentally has -- though he tried to brush it under the carpet.

The interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would have been seved very well by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who were already living in the region in relative peace just like interests of Buddists are served in Sarnath-Varanasi without every single Buddhist having to move to Sarnath-Varanasi. Hopefully you can understand that without reading the destruction of state of Israel into it. In any case this is mainly a hypothesis at what could have been rather than what is.

[bart]

Dhiman,

Are you aware that the Muslims built a Mosque upon the temple mount, the holiest site of Judaism and till this day refuse to give the land back? According to Jewish tradition the Messaiah will enter Jerusalem through the golden gate in the wall. Take a look at the picture below, the doors are blocked up and have been so for several centuries. They were blocked by Muslims out of spite for Jews.


There was relative peace in Israel before the Jews came back, for the same reason that there is very less chance of civil war between majority and minority in Pakistan - The Jews/Minority had been wiped out and exiled since quite a while back.

Besides, the Jewish leaders post WWII had offered to have a multi-cultural state rather than a Jewish state and it was the Arabs who refused in their bigotry. Probably they were arrogant as they had both superior firepower and literally the higher ground in the skirmishes - driving from TLV to Jerusalem you can still see the damaged vehicles of the Jewish militias that were shot upon by Arabs fortified on the hills - either way the Arabs made a massive blunder.

Sure, there was no organized warfare on the current level but it was hardly the benevolent utopian setup that you describe.

[symontk]

While most of the Arab states supported / supports Pakistan, PLO continues to support India due to the September 1969 massacare done by Zia ul Haq. We cannot forget that PLO also gives great amount of Intelligence on the Islamic terrorists apart from Isreali intelligence which gives a very good picture of what is happening around in ME

[Sanku]

Its a complete myth that this region has always been violence ridden.

Dear Dhiman, the levant region is the crux of Europe and Asia interactions, the pivot, the prize. It has ALWAYS BEEN violence ridden -- for millenia. This is the home of the crusades, the first Mecca of Mohammad before jews spurned him, the promised land, the Birth place of Jesus (to free Jews from Roman yoke)

Specifically in the context of Jews, they have always been fighting in that area, either living as second class citizen. (and by that logic, Auranzeb had peace in Varanasai and Maratha's disturbed it. :roll)

And I don't think you really disagree with that (since as you state: the problem started when Jews started kicking back).

I guess the witticism was REALLY lost on you -- dear Dhiman, as long as Jews were Dhimmi all was well, when they tried to build a life which was not Dhimmi, by purchasing land from Arabs all hell broke loose.

And please dont show me PLO propaganda on you tube. Its worthless.

What I am implying is that if there was a Gandhi in Europe who would have created a homeland for European Jews in Europe (as an atonement for for Europe's anti-semitic activities) things would have been much better, rather than disturbing a relatively peaceful area where Jews, Christians, and Muslims were already living together in relative peace.

Yes and if my aunt had a mustache she would be my uncle.

If Mohamed had not preached Islam, there would actually be no muslims in the holy land and things would be one less ingredient

In fact if there was no Rome, Jews would still be there in Jerusalem,

etc etc....

More realistically if there was no Subhas Chandra Bose etc. we would still be protesting non violently under the absolutely gentlemen British.

The interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would have been seved very well by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who were already living in the region in relative peace just like interests of Buddists are served in Sarnath-Varanasi without every single Buddhist having to move to Sarnath-Varanasi.

And you decide that? Surely the Jews who WANTED to move there dont have a say?

When the Jews first came they tried their best to settle peacefully -- alas that was not to be.

Hopefully you can understand that without reading the destruction of state of Israel into it. In any case this is mainly a hypothesis at what could have been rather than what is.

No you can not arbitrarily decide that Jews did not have a right to return to their homeland from which they were scattered if they so chose.

And if you agree that they had the right you have no option but to flay the violence and terrorism against Jews since 1910s.

Its quite simple -- did the Jews have a right of return if they so chose or not? Every thing follows from there.

[Dhiman]

Its quite simple -- did the Jews have a right of return if they so chose or not? Every thing follows from there.'

Sir, what you are actually asking is whether Jews have the exclusive right to return to this area if they so please do to so. What you are ignoring here is: 1) Jewish interests were already represented in this region (just like Christian and Muslim interests) since there were Jews, Christian, and Muslims living in this area before large-scale migration of European Jews to the region. 2) the area is important for Christians and Muslims as well, so if Jews have the right to return to this area en-masse, so do Muslims and Christians - but we don't see that in practice do we?

Sir, one can't have the cake and eat it too at the same time.