India-Israel Co-operation and Challenges

[Guest]

MAARIV INTERNATIONAL (ISRAELI ONLINE NEWSPAPER), FEBRUARY 17, 2004
<b>Preparing for the end game</b>

<i>Washington has gotten whatever it’s going to get out of the Iraqi campaign, and is refocusing on its core security concerns, Al Qaida and nuclear proliferation. The answer to both issues lies in Pakistan. The key allies are Israel and India. </i>

<i>Jonathan Ariel</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The situation in Iraq is still far from stable. However what we are seeing is a transformation from an insurrection primarily aimed against US troops to the beginnings of the battle for control of post US Iraq.

Washington has gotten whatever it’s going to get out of the Iraqi campaign, and is refocusing on its core security concerns, Al Qaida and nuclear proliferation. The answer to both issues lies in Pakistan. The key allies are Israel and India.

Jonathan Ariel

The situation in Iraq is still far from stable. However what we are seeing is a transformation from an insurrection primarily aimed against US troops to the beginnings of the battle for control of post US Iraq.
Washington has realized that the Iraqi campaign has been no more than a partial success. Saddam is gone, and that alone justifies defining the war as being a success. Ridding the world of a gangrenous political organ like Saddam was not the sole strategic goal of the campaign. The administration had hoped that the sight of US arms parading triumphantly along the shores of the Tigris and the Euphrates would be sufficient to generate a political and cultural upheaval in the Moslem world that would rid it of militant fundamentalism. This would have also been the end of Al Qaida, which would have seen its pool of recruitable human bombs begin to evaporate.

Iraq was chosen as the opening battlefield for three reasons: military, political, and historical. The terrain was the military one, an open flat country with relatively little natural cover for guerrillas, almost made to order for maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of US military capabilities. The US, embarking on its first unilateral major military undertaking since Vietnam, had to ensure a swift and decisive military victory. Iraq was the best place to ensure such an outcome.

The political reason was twofold. It was relatively easy to sell a war against Iraq, Saddam being Saddam. In addition, the Administration expected to uncover significant amounts of non-conventional weaponry, enabling the US to make a point that whoever develops such weapons without its tacit approval risked being ousted from power. This was especially important regarding North Korea and Iran, who together with Saddam occupied the central places in Bush’s axis of evil.

Historically Baghdad was, together with Damascus and Cairo, one of the centers of Arab power. The last Arab caliphate was ruled from Baghdad. In order to generate the kind of cultural and political whirlwind the Americans hoped to see uproot fundamentalism across Arabia, the target had to be Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, or possibly Mecca. For a variety of political considerations the most viable and convenient target was Baghdad.

However the other aims have not been achieved. The shock and awe did not resonate with sufficient force across the Shatt el Arab river separating Iraq from Iran, and the hoped for east European style peoples revolt that would rid the region of the Ayatollahs never happened. Evidence of WMD remains elusive, probably buried under the sands of the Syrian desert. The only way these aims may be achieved is via a war with Syria, as discussed in a previous article.

A US invasion of Syria or Iran is not on for now. Washington is about to go on the defensive in the Middle East theater of the war on terror. This means enough presence in Iraq to contain Iran and Syria, but no proactive measures beyond that.


From the two rivers to the Valley of the Indus

This explains the recent disclosure of Pakistan’s nuclear hanky-panky. However intelligence reports suggest that by the early nineties the CIA knew that Prof. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb had sold nuclear expertise to North Korea, Iran and Libya.

The most likely explanation why the Reagan, 1st Bush and Clinton administrations did nothing, despite having concrete information that Khan was peddling nuclear technology to rogue states, was that the US decided that he was carrying out Pakistani state policy. Pakistan has been a US ally since the onset of the cold war, and was the main conduit for US aid to the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet occupation forces. Even after the USSR collapsed, orthodox thinking reigned supreme in the foreign policy establishment.

It is becoming increasingly clear that policy regarding Pakistan is gong to go down in history as another great chapter of US folly. The US significantly upgraded the capabilities of the ISI (Inter-Service-Intelligence), Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, using it as its main tool in supplying the Afghan rebels. It failed to notice that the ISI itself had come under the command of militant Islamists, and had become the most influential force within the Pakistani military establishment. When Uncle Sam belatedly realized he was being had by his erstwhile allies, he preferred to bury his head in the sand rather than admit he had been played for a fool. As a result the ISI was able to effectively hijack Pakistani policy. It created the Taliban, and gave them the green light to turn Afghanistan into the base of an Islamic jihad against the West, while professing to the US that it was the sole lever of moderation over Mullah Omar.

One of the main supporters of the ISI within the Pakistani military was General Pervez Musharraf, who, it is believed, played a significant role in developing the Pakistani bomb. Just how deep a game Musharraf himself has been playing is unclear. His Indian neighbors have never trusted him, and have always maintained that he is a closet Islamic militant who actively supports Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. Their opinion is worthy of consideration.

Bush Sr. played a significant role in creating this mess, first as head of the CIA, subsequently as Vice President and President. His son is going to have to clean it up. The irony is delicious: the son, considered a foreign policy ignoramus, is having to deal with the problems created by his father, considered one of the biggest foreign policy mavens ever to occupy the White House.

To his credit, George W Bush doesn’t ignore his problems. His lack of foreign policy expertise is turning out to be a blessing. Never having been part of the foreign policy establishment, he is unfettered by its conventional thinking. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that whatever cerebral abilities he does or does not have, he is capable of creative thinking out of the box.

It has become clear to him that Pakistan, ostensibly an ally in the war on terror, is more of a liability than an asset. The recent disclosures of Pakistan’s nuclear misbehavior is the first step in dealing with this. They occurred while CIA chief Tenet was in Islamabad. At the same time Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom was in Delhi, signing a whole range of arms deals with India, including the sale of Phalcon airborne radar, the sale of which was approved by the US. This is the same radar that is used by the Arrow ABM, enabling India to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear threat. The message, though discreetly sent, is very clear. “The game is up, we know who you are and what you did. Play ball or face the consequences”.

The price was also named. Stop pussyfooting around, and take out Al Qaida, which continues to exist and is gradually rebuilding itself in the rugged North-Western Frontier area. The US sees an opportunity to decisively eliminate Al Qaida, which is clearly relatively weak, unable to mount an offensive against the US itself. The US takes the possibility that Al Qaida has acquired some atomic devices seriously, and wants to take the movement out before it can rebuild sufficient logistical and operative capabilities to try an attack the US with one of them.

Musharraf is in a quandary. He knows that if Pakistan doesn’t clean up its act, there is a real danger of a coordinated Indian-American offensive against it. However he knows that convincing his countrymen of this danger is not going to be easy, least of all in the all important North-Western frontier area. This is heavily populated with Pushtuns, many of who do not like what the US did to the Taliban, which was dominated by Pushtuns.

Either way, as soon as the spring thaw begins, things will begin to happen. Either the Pakistani military will apprehend Al Qaida terrorists, or the US military will. It may not be the cakewalk Iraq was, given the much more rugged terrain, but it is doable. If this happens, India will make sure that the Pakistan military doesn’t get in the way. Any attempt by al Qaida, which has transferred many of its fighters to Iraq, to start a second front in the Middle East would require Syrian cooperation, unlikely in view of the threat from Israel. The US may be poised to go for the kill, trusting India and Israel to protect its flanks.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The writer is Editor-in-Chief of Maariv International

[Guest]

Pakistan warns on Israeli arms sale to India <!--emo&tupid--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/pakee.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pakee.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<span style='color:red'>Final Statement - US-India-Israel Conference on Counter-Terrorism, February 17, 2004</span>

<b>Conference Statement</b>

The U.S. and Indian delegations, meeting together with their Israeli counterparts in Herzliya, Israel, expressed their thanks and appreciation to the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, and the Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy of Tel Aviv University, for the excellent program and facilities for the Second US-India-Israel Conference on Counter Terrorism.

The U.S., Indian, and Israeli delegations reiterated their basic conviction that Terrorism, whether government sponsored or carried out by non-state actors, is a menace to all three countries and indeed to the entire international community.

The three delegations are convinced that broad programs of cooperation among their countries are essential in order to combat effectively their common menace. They pledge themselves to work in and through their countries, and in cooperation with each other, to further the following Action Program:

1) To conduct public programs such as conferences, media events, and the preparation of reports and articles to inform their several publics of the importance of cooperation in combating terrorism.
2) To foster cooperation between Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in their three countries to exchange experience and share relevant technologies.
3) To encourage increased cooperation related to counter terrorism among military and security related agencies in the three countries. In this connection, the delegations take note of the heightened security measures being taken against ground-based and airborne terrorism, and commend in particular the increased attention being paid to seaborne menace.
4) To encourage increased cooperation in counter-terrorism research and the development of enhanced counter-terrorism techniques.
5) To promote more educational and cultural exchanges among the three countries.
6) To encourage the appropriate authorities to monitor possible infiltration into scientific organizations relating to weapons of mass destruction by jihadist elements.
The delegations agreed to meet again to review progress in approximately one year’s time and to explore the possibility of adding other countries to the core group. In the meantime, the three delegations will remain in steady contact.

February 17, 2004

[Guest]

http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20040419/...acy.shtml&SET=T

INDIA TODAY, APRIL 19, 2004

<b>diplomacy INDIA - ISRAEL LOBBY</b>



Canny Friends

Indian and Jewish lobbies at Capitol Hill are discovering the benefits of working together

Outsourcing, nuclear proliferation by Pakistan and terrorism, India's acquisition of the Arrow missile system, or even a greater Indian representation in the American legislative system-the political debut of Indians in the US has been eased by convergence of interests with the powerful Jewish lobby, and the cavernous corridors of Capitol Hill are now a collective stamping ground.

"Indian Americans and American Jews are natural friends and coalition partners on a range of issues," says Jason Isaacson of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), adding, "The Americans Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-which is the pre-eminent pro-Israel lobby-is also involved in encouraging Indo-Israeli and Indo-US relations." The Indian-Jewish alignment holds promise and fires the imagination. Says Sanjay Puri, executive director of USINPAC (US-India Political Action Committee): "On issues that both communities care about we will pool our resources."

Joint lobbying has had signal successes recently, including an amendment in the Pakistan aid package requiring the White House to certify Pakistan's cooperation on terrorism. In a few weeks, the Congress will vote on the $3 billion aid to Pakistan. Working behind the scenes to influence the vote will be the Jewish and Indian lobby groups. Indian lobbyists also managed to get the Congress to include India in the list of countries that can access US funds of $15 billion to tackle HIV/AIDS.

The Jewish lobby is the most professionally organised, and with 37 Congress members of Jewish descent, it is a potent force. In contrast, there are only five state legislators and no members of the Congress who trace their ancestry to India. But this political deficit may change as Indian Americans emerge from the shadows.

Politically, the Indian community gains from the experiences and the power perception that accompanies the Jewish lobby. They have also been taught the ropes of political activism by the AJC. On the other hand, the Jewish lobby finds common ground in opposing Islamic extremism. With revelations abounding of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, Israel fears such technology falling in the hands of enemy Arab countries. It is on top of the mind of the Indian lobby as well. The other issue occupying common mindspace is H1-B visas and outsourcing. Puri says USINPAC is working on Senate committees to dilute offending laws. Isaacson adds, "We will be lobbying to increase H1-B visas to Indians and Israelis."

Nevertheless, there are differences. The Indian perspective on Palestine is at odds with Israel. India's voting record in the UN is a matter of concern to Jews. But resonances are being felt in government circles as well. Indian Ambassador to the US Lalit Mansingh has hosted Hanukkah dinners, drawing surprised pleasure from Jewish movers and shakers. Israel's ambassador in Washington too has been wooing Indian Americans. In Delhi, the AJC and AIPAC find a warm welcome from sections of the Government and the US Embassy. Isaacson says the AJC is planning to open its next "interests" office in Delhi later this year. It is India Focus time in the US and the joint lobby is a diplomatic tool that is increasingly hard to ignore.


— By Indrani Bagchi

[Guest]

<b>Bush backs Sharon plan for West Bank</b>
By Alec Russell in Washington and Toby Harnden in Jerusalem
(Filed: 15/04/2004)

President George W Bush gave his blessing to Israel's demands for annexation of parts of the West Bank yesterday in a fundamental shift of policy that will outrage the Arab world.

In a major boost to Israel's beleaguered prime minister Ariel Sharon, Mr Bush described his plans to pull out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank as "historic and courageous actions".

Helping hand: Ariel Sharon accepts the support of President Bush
He also implied that Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Territories would have to forego the "right of return" to Israel.

Speaking at the White House alongside Mr Sharon, Mr Bush stopped short of formally backing Israel's plan to keep some settlements in the West Bank. He said that final decisions had to wait for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

But he left little doubt that a return to the armistice lines of 1949 was out of the question and that the Palestinians would ultimately have to accept the annexation of some of the West Bank.

Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, lashed out at Mr Bush. "Bush is the first US president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land," he said. "We reject this, we will not accept it."

[Guest]

Here comes another blunder
<b>India condemns Israel for Gaza killings</b>
NEW DELHI: In a sign of the changing times at South Block, the external affairs ministry on Thursday condemned Israel for the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians in the Gaza strip and the large-scale demolition of homes which preceded the use of force by the Israeli army against unarmed protestors.

Though the Vajpayee government has not yet demitted office, the ministry's mandarins decided to use the word 'condemn' - something they have not done in the Israeli context for some time now.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+May 20 2004, 04:39 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ May 20 2004, 04:39 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> NEW DELHI: In a sign of the changing times at South Block, the external affairs ministry on Thursday condemned Israel for the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians in the Gaza strip and the large-scale demolition of homes which preceded the use of force by the Israeli army against unarmed protestors.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did anyone on the gods green earth ask this guy for opinion? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

Relations with Israel may be affected
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First, the mutual security and military supply relationship would, most probably, be maintained, but in secret as it was before 1998.

Second, the priority given to counter-terrorism co-operation may be downgraded.

Third, high-level and high-profile exchanges of visits, particularly of personalities perceived by the Congress (I) as controversial, may be reduced, if not stopped.

And four, there would be much stronger vocal support to the Palestine cause and criticism of Israeli's policies and actions against the Palestinians
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>Jewish scholars split hairs over Indian wigs</b>

[Guest]

The third visit after the UPA took power :


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunday, July 11, 2004

<b>Next Navy chief goes to Israel to signal smooth bilateral sailing  </b>
 
SHISHIR GUPTA
 
NEW DELHI, JULY 10 The Left may express its reservations over New Delhi’s relations with Israel but the UPA government wants to continue India’s defence cooperation. So the government has quietly sent Navy Chief designate Vice Admiral Arun Prakash to Tel Aviv to allay Israeli apprehensions. Admiral Prakash follows Vice Chief of Army Staff Lt General Shantano Choudhary who visited the country in June.

‘‘We have developed defence cooperation with several countries and we are not making any distinction between country A and country B. We have defence cooperation with Israel like with many other countries and if any deals for import of high-tech have been finalised, those will carry on,’’ Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee told The Sunday Express. ‘‘I cannot say what we will require in future from them. But in general terms, I can say that (it’s) a country with which we have defence cooperation, that will continue.’’

But is he bothered about pressure from the ruling alliance’s biggest support group, the Left? ‘‘Let me clarify that nobody from the Left parties has spoken to me about this issue. In a multi-party system, there may be differences of opinion, but the business of governance goes on,’’ he said.

Admiral Prakash, who takes over as Navy Chief on August 1, is on a three-day official visit beginning Sunday. He will interact with his Israeli counterpart and visit naval establishments. The Indian Navy’s guided missile destroyers, INS Godavari and Mysore, docked at Haifa on May 23, a day after Manmohan Singh government was sworn in.

General Choudhary, who was in Israel from June 19-22, was shown the counter-infiltration devices at the Golan Heights and Negev desert. The Vice Chief also witnessed demonstration of Soltam 155 mm Howitzers while in Israel. Soltam, which is one of the three contenders for the Rs 5,000-crore deal for purchase and transfer-of-technology of 1,000 Howitzer guns, is coming to India in September to do a field trial at the Pokharan ranges. The Army evaluation trials of Soltam, Swedish SGS (formerly called Bofors) and South African Denel howitzers will begin in November.

When Gen Choudhary was in Israel, Defence Minister Mukherjee said that there would be no change in the existing defence ties with either US or Israel unless there was any adversity with the particular country. Mukherjee’s statement came after the Israelis expressed their concern over the pace of the bilateral relationship in the context of the UPA government’s emphasis on the Palestinian issue.

Even though the Left parties are for a course correction in the Indo-Israeli defence cooperation, the government knows the armed forces are largely dependent on the Israeli hardware for enhancing their precision capabilities. Tel Aviv had helped New Delhi with precision capability during Kargil as well as Operation Parakram. In fact, when New Delhi was preparing for a limited strike in June 2002 against Pakistan, Israeli Director General, Defence Ministry, Amos Yaron flew to India and subsequently ensured hardware supplies through special planes.

CPI(M)’s Nilotpal Basu told The Sunday Express that his party was not opposed to ‘‘state-to-state’’ relationship with Israel but wanted the government to place more emphasis on the Palestinian issue. ‘‘We do not want to elaborate on the defence ties... but we are not opposed to any business relationship with Tel Aviv... we are against Israelis persecuting the Palestinian people in the name of fighting international terrorism,’’ the Rajya Sabha member said.

But with the US still reluctant to pass on its sophisticated hardware to India and Russia lagging behind in producing state-of-the-art defence systems, New Delhi has no options but to look towards Tel Aviv.

WHY NEW DELHI NEEDS TEL AVIV

Almost all of India’s hi-tech defence systems come from Israel. Here’s what tops the list:

STRATEGIC SYSTEMS

Almost all of India’s hi-tech defence systems come from Israel. Here’s what tops the list:


• ARROW MISSILES

Tel Aviv passed on the Green Pine radar, core of the Arrow-2 missile system, in 2002. Now, it wants India to invest in the anti-ballistic system’s development

• PHALCON AWACS

India is buying three PHALCON systems to be mounted on Russian IL-76 aircraft.

ARMY

• Arjuna Main Battle Tank development

• Heron/ Searcher II Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

• Thermal Imaging Stand Alone system (T-72S tanks)

• Thermal Imager Fire Control system (T-72S tanks)

• Mi-35 attack helicopters upgrade

AIR FORCE

• Helmet mounted sights/ digital map generations for Jaguars, MiG-27

• Delilah II bombs

• Crystal maze bombs

• Harpy hard radar kill missile

• Pechora III surface-to-air missile

• Pop-Eye beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile

NAVY

• Self-protection jammers for Sea Harriers

• Seven Barak anti-missile systems

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

• Fast attack patrol crafts

With inputs from Ritu Sarin

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

URL

[Guest]

A report on the first visit after the UPA took office :

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May. 22, 2004 23:18

<b>Indian Navy calls on Haifa today</b>

By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

In a sign of the firm defense ties between Israel and India, two Indian Navy warships will be calling to Haifa Port on Sunday.

The two large ships include the destroyer INS Mysore and the missile frigate INS Godavari. They have a combined crew of over 800 sailors who will enjoy R&R in the port city.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Link.

[Guest]

In my humble opinion, I believe that India should remain as far away from Israel as possible. Israel is a nation that has no respect for international law whatsoever and continues to violate US resolution 242 and the fourth geneva convention by practicing illegal population transfers of Palestinians and illegally moving their own civillians into the occupied territories. Contrary to Israeli/US propoganda, these measures are not taken out of security concerns. Think about it, if Israel is keeping the ocupied territories as a bufferer zone to defend itself from Arab states as it claims, then why does it build residential settlements in a buffer zone? Why would it deliberately want to thrust its own citizens in harms way? Settlements are weapons and every aspect of a settlement is used by Israelis to make life so hard for the Palestinians that they have no choice but to leave. "Let the Palestinains live like dogs" said Moshe Dayan (Source: Proff Noam Chomsky, lecture in South Africa).

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->road 447, which shortens the trip to the Settlement of Ariel by a full five minutes, "necessitated" uprooting one thousand olive trees and confiscating 75 dunams from residents of the two Palestinian villages which Ariel targets. In addition, every road that connects two Jewish settlements doubles as a road that separates two Palestinian towns. Palestinians cannot use "Jewish" roads.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

(source: Settlements, a user guide,

By Gabriel Ash)
www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1354

Let's not forget that our nation too was occupied by the English not so long ago. Our forefathers were oppressed the same way the Palestinians are currently being oppressed.

India has nothing in common with Israel.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's not forget that our nation too was occupied by the English not so long ago. Our forefathers were oppressed the same way the Palestinians are currently being oppressed.

India has nothing in common with Israel<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
India and Israel have lot of similarities. Both were occupied by Muslims and then British. they burtually killed Hindus and Jews in numbers during their rule. Both countries have faced barbaric invasions.

For Israel and India both were attacked my Muslim neighbors without provocation. Israel and India’s land are occupied by attacker and blamed by attackers with lies and negative propaganda.
Muslim attackers have blamed both countries for not fulfilling their UN obligations, but attackers have short memory when it comes to fulfill their obligations.
Suicide bomber or Jihad joke have been used by Muslim attackers on innocent civilian of both countries.

I have great respect for people of Israel who are facing heinous assault on daily basis from jihadis. It is a question of survival. I wish good luck to people of Israel and I hope Hindus of India will learn some lessons.
Why not Arab nation give land which they have grabbed from Palestine? Jordan was Palestine. They should give whole country to Palestine.

I definitely don’t want Pakistani or Bangladesh moving freely in India. They have already made part of India as slum and spreading crime and fanatic medieval culture in India.
Israel also have right to protect its citizens and culture

<b>India should support Israel not verbally but in every forum.</b>

[Guest]

Oh great post. You fail to address any of my points but jump right into the "Blame it on Muslims" rhetoric. Palestine was occupied by the Ottomans while India was occupied by the Moghuls. ALthough both of thrm happen to share the same religion, they were completly different races and cultures. Islam is not a monolythic religion, please remember that. When the continent of Africa was colonised by European powers 200 hundred years ago, nobody said that Africa was under "Christian occupation." This is because Europe is an ethnically diverse continent, and although every Euro nation is Christian, they are distinctly different from one another. The same goes for the different Islamic empires througout history.

[Guest]

India was attacked by all strains of arabs, every invaders were worst and more barbaric.

First Arab/Muslim invader was from Iraq. After that every jack and Harry from Arab/Muslim countries invaded India with one mission kill Hindus, plunder and destroy temples.

After 1947, Pakistan, muslim nation had attacked India thrice and still non stop busy in jihad against Hindus.

Now, Bangladesh is on same path of Jihad against Hindus.

[Guest]

you missed the point, but what the hell

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you missed the point, but what the hell <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I didn't. If you are from India, do you support Bangladesh illegal invasion inside India. Tomorrow if India starts kicking them out of India, all these human right organization and all bogus convention will come in support of illegal occupier of India. They will pass hundred of resolution and Bangladesh will refuse to take their own people back. Same saga is with other neighbor of India, Pakistan. They claim Jammu and Kashmir. Numbers of resolution are passed. In every forum Pakis keep on lying and lying blaming India. Thousands of illegal Pakis are sitting in India and busy in terrorism and jihad in progress. Yes, India is a soft state not letting rest of Indians to settle in Jammu & Kashmir, they day it will happen 80% of Paki problem will be solved.

[Guest]

Yup, you missed the point alright. Did you understand what I meant when I said that Islam is NOT a monolythic religion? And yes, I'm aware that there are terrorists that only wish to harm India, but basing your opinion on Islam on the actions of small percentage of nuts is quite illogical and frankly, rather stupid. Nobody likes terrorists, but most normal and sane people do not generalise ALL Muslims into that category. Maybe you (and some of the other Anti Muslim bigots I've seen on this board) will understand that someday. But untill then, we stand.

[Guest]

I've said this in another thread but I'm starting my own thread because I cannot emphasise this enough.

In my humble opinion, I believe that India should remain as far away from Israel as possible. Israel is a nation that has no respect for international law whatsoever and continues to violate US resolution 242 and the fourth geneva convention by practicing illegal population transfers of Palestinians and illegally moving their own civillians into the occupied territories. Contrary to Israeli/US propoganda, these measures are not taken out of security concerns. Think about it, if Israel is keeping the ocupied territories as a bufferer zone to defend itself from Arab states as it claims, then why does it build residential settlements in a buffer zone? Why would it deliberately want to thrust its own citizens in harms way? Settlements are weapons and every aspect of a settlement is used by Israelis to make life so hard for the Palestinians that they have no choice but to leave. "Let the Palestinains live like dogs" said Moshe Dayan (Source: Proff Noam Chomsky, lecture in South Africa).


QUOTE
road 447, which shortens the trip to the Settlement of Ariel by a full five minutes, "necessitated" uprooting one thousand olive trees and confiscating 75 dunams from residents of the two Palestinian villages which Ariel targets. In addition, every road that connects two Jewish settlements doubles as a road that separates two Palestinian towns. Palestinians cannot use "Jewish" roads.[/QUOTE]


(source: Settlements, a user guide,

By Gabriel Ash)
www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1354

Let's not forget that our nation too was occupied by the English not so long ago. Our forefathers were oppressed the same way the Palestinians are currently being oppressed.

India has nothing in common with Israel.

Note: I've noticed some people on these boards believe that India and Israel share a common enemy: Islam. I want to inform you people that Muslims are not one community like the Jews are. Muslims from India have a totally different mentality than Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, where the former's perceptions are shaped by his Indian heritage. I know this sounds rather silly but I'll say it anyhow since some people here definately need to hear it:

1)Muslims don't want to take over the world
2)Muslims don't have one central authority where battle plans are drawn out. Muslim nations have their quarells and fights with one another too, eg Jordanians don't like the Palestinians.
3)Terrorists DO NOT represent the Islamic community, they are a small minority of nutcases.
4)Muslims DO NOT want to destroy India, the Pakis do maybe. Please remember that the Arab world shares warm and friendly political and economic ties with India.

Your comments and thoughts are most welcome.

[Guest]

I wouldnt care for those palestines
For me a Jawan killed in Kasmir is far more important than a Palestine kids blowing up himself with kilos of explosives.

To protect the Jawan i need some gear from israel.So i need Israel.