Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi with Hezbollah Commander

[Godless-Kafir]

I always wondered why Owasis has 3 cell phones, look at that picture!!

One for each wife or something even more sinister?

 

[Mad Indian]

I dont know if it is OT But here is what i found in net....

Middle-East-Info.org - Arabs and Muslims in Israel

Interesting to know that most Arabs want to stay in Israel...... Any way Cheerios....:thumb::thumb:

 

[ejazr]

Ejaz,

Thanks for the reply, quite helpful in getting a hang of things there.

When I said, a statement in favour of Kashmir, I meant a statement which favored the Indian stand. Now it makes me recall that because Pakistanis back then were very agitated and were cursing Hezbollah for the statement made. Was it only limited to India or it included Kashmir as well, I don't quite recall.

I, at least, remain a very strong advocate of we maintaining strong relations where we have had traditional relations, during the cold war days, or much earlier and simultaneously develop friendlier ties in newer territories, and balance them out and not get caught in the politics of taking sides as some countries want us to, certainly not till the time when we have no other option but to take a pick.

Talking about our foreign policy, one thing stands out for UPA, much like NDA, they have done well on the front.

Why this picture came out, well, wont be surprised if it has to do with the recent blast in Delhi targeting the Israeli diplomat's wife, and the media campaign since.

I am not sure about Hezbullah making a statement in favor of India on Kashmir either. However, praising the Indian army on Indian soil by Hezbullah where even Pakistani delegates were invited would be a cause of heart burn. Here is an organization that is popular because it ostensibly was the only organization to defeat the Israeli army and it is praising the Indian army which is suppose to be oppressing and butchering people in Kashmir. I would completely understand Pakistanis getting agitated over that.
Other than Syria, Iraq under Saddam, Yasser Arafat of PLO and Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, I am not aware of any other Arab countries that openly supported India over Pakistan. While most US/EU countries and cold war allies like Turkey, Iran under the Shah e.t.c. took the Pakistani side of supporting a plebiscite at least till the end of the 1990s. Currently all countries, in particular in the Arab world have no position on Kashmir and support the bilateral resolution of the issue which is closer to the Indian position.

On maintaining close ties with Syria, I think in the current environment its getting difficult to do so. As you may know, we recently voted against Syria in the UNSC despite the double veto by China-Russia which came as a shocker for the Syrians. If we were honest, I would say that India has found new more helpful and valuable friends in Israel/Saudi (GCC) countries and is leaning towards them subtly while still maintaining its rhetoric of friendship with its cold war allies.

 

[ejazr]

Yeah its a political party with an armed militia that has been involved in numerous cases of terrorist acts, suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. By that logic you can say JuD is a charity group.

And it was stupid of the Indian Govt to send a representative to meet them even if one part of them is a legitimate political group.

How would you feel if some foreign country sent a representative to meet Syed Salahuddin and pledged solidarity with him ? I, for one, would be pissed off.

My friend, JuD is a banned group under UNSC resolutions. Hezbullah for better or for worse is not. And only a handful of Western and Arab countries(Egypt and Bahrain and I may add secretly the other GCC states) treat the entire organization as a terrorist organization.

And regarding suicide bombings, you might be confusing Hezbullah with other groups like HAMAS. Hezbullah luanched suicide attacks only when Israel occupied parts of southern Lebanon and has not launched a suicide bombing since Israel withdrew from Lebanese territories.

Here is a timeline of Hezbullah attacks
CAMERA: Timeline of Hezbollah Violence

Also Syed Slahudding like JuD has no political party that fights elections in the Pakistani parliament. The equivalent would probably the religious parties like Jamaat Islami or Maulana Fazlur Rahman of the JUI in Pakistan. Both these parties have seats in the Pakistani parliament. And if you follow these people, you will see that they are visited by diplomats and MP from western countries including the US. And GoI even invited them to India on track 2 dialogues and other events. Maulana Fazlur Rehman is the chairman of the Kashmir parliamentary committee.

Again, please try to understand that in diplomacy, having talks and access to all players is a necessity not a "nice to have". One of the reasons why MEA is being asked to try to talk to the Taliban as well. If you had followed Maulana Fazlur Rehman came to India and along with his Indian Deobandi counterparts told Indian and American diplomats that he is willing to open dialogue channels between the Taliban but that he was not comfortable with what the PA/ISI would do as they might sabotage his efforts. Hence, his preference in coming to India to talk about it.
JUI chief offered to mediate between US and Taliban: WikiLeaks | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

So here is an example of the Americans engaging a publicly anti-Indian (and anti-US figure I might add) in covert back channels on Indian soil. A person who is an MP in the Pakistani parliament and a chairman of the Kashmir parlimentary comittee.

But not just the US, even during the NDA regime, Indian MPs visited and discussed with JUI MPs among others when discussing the Kashmir issue. We need to engage all political voices.

Similarly we have Indian peace keeping forces on the Israeli-Lebanese border and we need to have good relations with all actors there. And thanks to our astute diplomacy, we do.

Personally, I would like Hezbullah to disarm its militant wing and merge itself into the Lebanese army, That is what the UN resolution calls for as well and that is what Israel including the Gulf Arab states would like to have. This way, Hezbullah the political party, would be seperated from the militant wing and by becoming part of the Lebanese army, the militant wing would become a recognized part of the Lebanese state.

Wikipedia has some good info on Hezbullah and the post 2006 Israel-Lebanon war UN resolution as well.
Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[devgupt]

Hezbollah is part of Lebanese government and for any Indian delegation to Lebanon to meet its leaders is expected. Moreover Hezbollah is not working against India. Not much should be read into the picture.
As long as we are dependent on oil, and Arab states have it, we have to do a diplomatic tightrope on Israel-Palestine issue.And so far we have been doing fine.

 

[ejazr]

I dont know if it is OT But here is what i found in net....

Middle-East-Info.org - Arabs and Muslims in Israel

Interesting to know that most Arabs want to stay in Israel...... Any way Cheerios....:thumb::thumb:

@Mad Indian

I think most people forget that when we talk about Arabs in this conflict, there are two categories.

In "proper Israel" or the pre-1967 Israel, Arabs there are regarded as Israeli citizens. They comprise about 20% of the Israeli population but do have the right to vote and elect members in the Israeli parliament. On top of that, they have their ancestral land in this region and none of these people despite any problems they face do not want to vacate and leave these lands.

In West Bank and Gaza, you have the non-Israeli or alternatively the Palestinian Arabs (both Christians and Muslims). These people do not have any voting rights and live under military rule where the Israeli army is responsible for most of the day to day functioning. Settlements blocs have also been created in these areas which are isolated clusters where only Jewish settlers are allowed to live and is an ongoing source of tensions.

Arabs form a majority in this region comprising 80-90% of the population. It is in this region, that a future state of Palestine would be established and would be in the best interest of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. After all, for how long can you keep millions of people under your control and either (1) not free them to establish a state of their own or (2) give them equal voting rights and make them equal citizens.

Option (2) would end the Jewish identity and so (1) is the best option for Israelis and the sooner the better for everyone involved.

 

[devgupt]

In 2000 during Camp David summit between Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton, Barak offered to partition Jerusalem between the two new nations, give complete control of Gaza Strip to Palestine and immediate control of 73% and ultimate control of 90-95% control of West bank to Palestine nation over a decade.He also offered custodianship of the Al Aqsa mosque to Palestine.

So what was the problem? Why did the Arafat refused the Israeli offer? The right to return was the sticking point .All the Palestinian refugees and their descendants during the Arab Israel war of 1948 should be allowed to return to Israel. He refused to budge from this demand even though Israel proposed a compensation plan for them monitored and facilitated by a UN body. But Arafat was adamant and the negotiations failed.

It was must be understood that the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel would destroy it. it would end the Jewish nature of Israeli state and Israel would never agree to that.
If the Palestinians don't have a state now, they have themselves to blame.By insisting on non-negotiable demands they are themselves prolonging their suffering

 

[devgupt]

The other thing that many progressive Israelis and Jewish diaspora realise is the demographics. In the historic Palestine region, there is only a 15-20 year time period before the Christian and Muslim Arab populations become a majority. Once that happens, it would be better for Palestinians to say that we don't want an independent state. We will remain within Israel but we want to be treated as equal citizens with equal voting rights. It would be similar to movement by Nelson Mandela in South Africa against apartheid and would be devastating for the Jewish identity of Israel when we have a single state solution with Jews and Palestinans with equal voting rights.

So even with Israeli interests and well wishers in mind and given the above two incentives, it would be in the best interests of Israel herself to establish a Palestinian state before the demographics make it impossible to do so.

And this is what is possibly the Palestinian game plan.

 

[Mad Indian]

@Mad Indian

I think most people forget that when we talk about Arabs in this conflict, there are two categories.

In "proper Israel" or the pre-1967 Israel, Arabs there are regarded as Israeli citizens. They comprise about 20% of the Israeli population but do have the right to vote and elect members in the Israeli parliament. On top of that, they have their ancestral land in this region and none of these people despite any problems they face do not want to vacate and leave these lands.

In West Bank and Gaza, you have the non-Israeli or alternatively the Palestinian Arabs (both Christians and Muslims). These people do not have any voting rights and live under military rule where the Israeli army is responsible for most of the day to day functioning. Settlements blocs have also been created in these areas which are isolated clusters where only Jewish settlers are allowed to live and is an ongoing source of tensions.

Arabs form a majority in this region comprising 80-90% of the population. It is in this region, that a future state of Palestine would be established and would be in the best interest of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. After all, for how long can you keep millions of people under your control and either (1) not free them to establish a state of their own or (2) give them equal voting rights and make them equal citizens.

Option (2) would end the Jewish identity and so (1) is the best option for Israelis and the sooner the better for everyone involved.

No what i meant was that people start to like you if there is fairness in governance and a good economy.... when some asked an Arab, where do you want to be whether in Israel or in Palestine(But honestly dont know if he was a citizen or a non citizen), he said of course Israel, "i may be an arab but i am not stupid".....

Of course what you say makes sense, you cant control any one for ever.... For long term peace and stability, they need to satisfy the populace there!!!!!