Bharat Rakshak

Dhiman wrote:

Sanku wrote: 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.

Sanku wrote: No I am not asking for that and the Jews did not ask for exclusive rights when they first came, the issue started because the peaceful return of Jews was countered violently.

Also the statement that Jewish interests were represented is a LIE -- Jews were progressively chased out from a region which was their original home (Israel) and the remaining handful were living as Dhimmi's

As far as can Muslims and Christians also return to Levant, the idea is badly flawed because

1) Unlike Jews, for whom Israel was THE homeland, for Xians and Arabs this was NOT their home land initially and the only homeland even by settelers

The Jews tried to peacefully make their lives in their homeland, the existing conditions did not allow it so they made it happen through their valor and hard work.

Sanku wrote:Look Dhiman; all this is pointless, you are avoiding the central question
Did Jews have the right to return peacefully or not -- that is the root cause.

Dhiman wrote:

Sanku wrote:Look Dhiman; all this is pointless, you are avoiding the central question
Did Jews have the right to return peacefully or not -- that is the root cause.

Again sir, if the Jews have the right to return peacefully then everybody who can trace their origins to this region has the right to return and/or stay here peacefully irrespective of who did what to whom in the past. As for the rest, I agree its pointless and know where it is going (in a never ending loop), so I will take it as your personal opinion and respect that.

Having said that the only important thing to remember here, at least from my side is the pros and cons of various Indian interests involved while dealing with any party involved in this conflict and staying and being perceived as staying completely neutral and uninvolved

Sanku wrote:a strong association with Israel is good and necessary.

Dhiman wrote:

Sanku wrote:a strong association with Israel is good and necessary.

Disagree

shravan wrote:Bollywood soft diplomacy big hit in Israel

January 10, 2010
Rinku Ghosh | Tel Aviv

One of the world's biggest powers and one of its smallest countries have discovered enough in common to forge a thriving friendly relationship based largely on mutual defense interests.

This week, Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, spent three days in Delhi, less than a month after his opposite number, the Indian chief of staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor visited Israel.

It was the first time any Israeli chief of staff had ever visited New Delhi.

The frequency of these visits denotes the burgeoning relationship between the two armies on several levels.

First, Israel has become India's No. 1 supplier of arms and ammunition, overtaking Russia. India accounts for roughly half of Israel's exports of defense items and about one-third of India's import list.

Second, after purchasing the Israeli Arrow anti-missile missile's Green Pine radar, Gen. Kapoor has said his government also wants to buy the missile itself, though not the Arrow 2 which is in service with Israel's Defense Forces, but Arrow 3 and Arrow 4, the Super Arrow which is still in development.

The Indian army chief's purpose in visiting Israel in November was for a rundown on the joint US-Israeli Juniper Cobra 10 exercise for testing defenses against ballistic missiles. This war game was watched avidly by the world's generals and strategists as the most comprehensive and advanced maneuver ever conducted by any army on this subject.

Gen. Kapoor was tireless in his requests for briefings on the lessons drawn from the unique two-week exercise.


US components in an Israeli military item limit its sale


Some of India's most pressing requests pose Israel with dilemmas, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources note. On the one hand, New Delhi appears to be winding down its military procurements from Russia and turning increasingly to Israel. On the other, Israel is bound by overriding commitments to its senior ally, the United States.

When Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh visited Moscow on Dec. 7, he ended a spat over India's purchase of a retired Soviet aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov - undelivered because of delays and cost overruns for its refurbishment. Even if Singh agreed to hand over the extra $1.2 billion demanded by Moscow to cover the costs, it was clear to both sides that this was India's last arms purchase from Moscow for the time being.

But although Israel's defense industry stands to gain from this cutoff, the more sophisticated the arms on India's shopping list, the more American components and technologies they contain. This means that their transfer to a third country is subject to Washington's veto and both Jerusalem and New Delhi will become increasingly dependent on US permission in the pursuit of their arms transactions.

The case of the Super Arrow is a good example. The United Sates has invested advanced technology in the development of the system as well as covering 60 percent of the costs of research, construction and operational testing of this advanced missile interceptor.


Israel has strong strategic ties with Singapore


Rather than approving an Israeli sale, Washington might decide to supply India with the Super Arrow itself, although thus far, the United States defense industry has never shown interest in entering the Indian arms market. So Israel might be given the go-ahead for Arrow 4 on certain conditions. The US and Israel too might ask India to carry part of the cost of development on behalf of one of the two parties or as an extra.

Furthermore, at some point, Israel and India will have to decide whether their expanding arms trade makes them strategic allies or merely trading partners.

In the past, Israel supplied highly sophisticated hardware in the Super Arrow class only to strategic partners. In recently years, a strategic partnership has been established between Israel and Singapore whereby Israel's military industries supply most of the island's electronic defense systems and are now developing a fleet of unmanned warships.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources report that a similar strategic alliance is evolving between Israel and South Korea. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi has dropped in on Seoul in the course of his current Asian tour.

Washington may object to a specific transaction, but has no real trouble with Israel's military ties with Singapore and South Korea.

India's case is in a different category; its standing in Washington is still undecided. A decision on this by the Obama administration will determine the extent to which Israel-Indian defense ties can develop.

shravan wrote:Bollywood soft diplomacy big hit in Israel

January 10, 2010
Rinku Ghosh | Tel Aviv

Dhiman wrote:

Sanku wrote: 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.

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).

Sadler wrote: The ignorance of affairs in the Levant that this post exhibits is truly shocking.

There was no peace. Unless living as dhimmis is peaceful.

Jews were the original inhabitants of the land. The real name of the West Bank is Judea and Samaria. We returned as we had the right to return. If that causes some moslems heartburn, not my problem.

The British did NOT support mass migration of jews into Israel. They wanted to establish this in Madagascar. Or in Africa. Strict numerical quotas were imposed. The Hagannah was created in part to coordinate the "smuggling" of jews into the levant. The Balfour declaration was not worth the paper it was written on.

How about you return Allah-abad, Aurang-abad etc to moslem porkistan? While at it give the Kashmir as well. Moslesm were living in peace in India but then the british, the french, the germans, and the residents of the ivory coast along with the dastardly hindoos started infilitrating into moslem areas. The peaceful islamic religion and its followers had of course no choice but to create their own homeland to protect their womenfolk (along with assorted farm animals). India has inflicted a brutal denial of river waters to porkistan, blah blah blah..................

shyamd wrote: So, if I built my house 5 years ago and sold it after living there for 3 years. I have a right to take it back from the rightful legal owner because I was the original inhabitant of that house? hey... I was the original owner, i built it. Sorry if it caused him/her heart burn.

ravi_ku wrote:

shyamd wrote: So, if I built my house 5 years ago and sold it after living there for 3 years. I have a right to take it back from the rightful legal owner because I was the original inhabitant of that house? hey... I was the original owner, i built it. Sorry if it caused him/her heart burn.

The operative word in your phrase is "sold".

quote="Lisa"]It has always puzzled me as to why so many are willing to act as if the
Palestinian cause is somehow a unique historical event. The partition of
India led to some 10 may be some 12 million people being moved, some
willingly and some by means of ethnic cleansing and I have as yet not
seen these same Indians ever canvas for their own brethren plight.

shyamd wrote:

Sadler wrote: The ignorance of affairs in the Levant that this post exhibits is truly shocking.

There was no peace. Unless living as dhimmis is peaceful.

Jews were the original inhabitants of the land. The real name of the West Bank is Judea and Samaria. We returned as we had the right to return. If that causes some moslems heartburn, not my problem.

So, if I built my house 5 years ago and sold it after living there for 3 years. I have a right to take it back from the rightful legal owner because I was the original inhabitant of that house? hey... I was the original owner, i built it. Sorry if it caused him/her heart burn.

The British did NOT support mass migration of jews into Israel. They wanted to establish this in Madagascar. Or in Africa. Strict numerical quotas were imposed. The Hagannah was created in part to coordinate the "smuggling" of jews into the levant. The Balfour declaration was not worth the paper it was written on.

The british gave the Haganah training and some were wearing British uniforms.

How about you return Allah-abad, Aurang-abad etc to moslem porkistan? While at it give the Kashmir as well. Moslesm were living in peace in India but then the british, the french, the germans, and the residents of the ivory coast along with the dastardly hindoos started infilitrating into moslem areas. The peaceful islamic religion and its followers had of course no choice but to create their own homeland to protect their womenfolk (along with assorted farm animals). India has inflicted a brutal denial of river waters to porkistan, blah blah blah..................

Wait a second...Palestinians can use the same analogy.

The problem is the way it was done, Jews need a homeland, its fine if Jewish Agency etc bought land rightfully(which they did to a certain extent). But palestinians were kicked out of their own land. It would be great to get an israeli perspective to things.

This is the Indo Israeli thread, maybe we can debate this elsewhere?

Lisa wrote:
P.S. It is my understanding that a great deal of the property acquired by
Jews in pre 47 Israel was bought from willing sellers, Sadler can correct
me.

Prem wrote: International relations among nations are based on Interests only and this basic lesson keep getting ingnored by many Indians.

Israle's help make us strong and help our defence , this all we should care.

JE Menon wrote: That snide remark of yours - "safe to say...etc" - is obviously a judgemental one. Suggests that BR is not up to your standards of probity. You may be right.

Prem wrote:Dhiman,
Beside Security , technology issues, Indians also have economic interests in relation with Israelis. Diamond businenss i one of them and they do have political clout as well deep integration with global economic system . The relations are good for both parties. We must take care of our own before wasting time to meddle in the affairs of others not related to us. Just National security issue alone ought to override any other concerns in our relation with them.

Dhiman wrote:Hopefully, in future, Israel will make it easier for us to pursue interests of mutual benefit with them.

symontk wrote: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

Q: There is concern in the Mideast about growing Indo-Israeli defense cooperation in recent times, which many fear could be at the expense of India’s traditional support for Arab causes. How do you address this concern?

A: I would submit that this concern is misplaced. Our relationship with no single country is at the expense of our relations with any other country. Indeed, India’s relations with the countries in West Asia give us the opportunity to interact in diverse ways with this very important region.

As far as India’s support for Palestine is concerned, this is an article of faith for us. Our solidarity with the people of Palestine predates our independence. India supports a peaceful solution that would result in a sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, side by side at peace with Israel as endorsed in the Quartet Road Map and the relevant Security Council Resolutions. We also support the Arab Peace Plan.

I recently had the pleasure of hosting President Mahmoud Abbas and reiterating to him our steadfast support for Palestine and its people.

Saudi Gazette

Purohit’s plans to bring about a Hindutva state were often fantastical. He claimed, the prosecutors say, to have secured an appointment with Nepal’s King Gyanendra in 2006 and 2007 to press for his support for the planned Hindutva revolution. Nepal, he went on, was willing to train Abhinav Bharat’s cadre, and supply it with assault rifles. Israel’s government, he said, had agreed to grant members of the group military support and, if needed, political asylum.