If we’ve to choose between Israel and Iran, choose the former

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Galaxy, Feb 15, 2012.

?

If India had to choose between Iran and Israel, what should India do?

Poll closed Feb 26, 2012.
  1. Iran

    3.8%
  2. Israel

    42.3%
  3. Abstain

    11.5%
  4. Both

    42.3%
  1. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,259
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    You need to be selective about giving them all that considering all of them are Arabs and won't wait a minute to turn their backs on you.

    How many Jews live in Arab countries today barring Morocco? None. So why walk this extra mile?

    Throw the so-called palestinians out and let their "brothers" handle them. After all, this is what they did with your people didn't they?
     
  2. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,429
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    I think even the people who voted for options both & abstain, the majority would like to side with Israel if the push comes to shove. I havent voted, but would vote for both, but if it has to be just one of them, it ought to be Israel.

    Can we forget how Israel helped us in the Kargil war, certainly not, and if the strikes on Iran seem inevitable, most will side with Israel, also it remains in our interest that Iran doesnt possess nuclear weapons.

    The bigger debate is, in all this how to deal with the US, so that we extract maximum leverage, keeping national interests paramount.

    There have been some very interesting suggestions that have come up right from creating independent Baluchistan to wresting PoK. In the end, the debate is really about securing the national interests and make the most.
     
  3. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    How would you have communal violence, baffoon? It would require atleast two communities, wouldn't it? You jews would rather die than let any other community flourish in your 'Aaretz Israel', the piece of shit that it is. Communal violence is institutionalized in your state, the world calls it the problem between Israelis and Arabs. Two monoliths that you are.
    Israel being more democratic than India? of come on! cut the crap. Then how come it is so homogeneous with jews. How come there is no prominent non-jew politician, statesman from your pack? Look at America, they are becoming a melting pot of everything, that's what you call a democracy. Don't even think about comparing India with Israel. As I've pointed out in my post, there are stark differences between the two. Instead of throwing words at me, why don't you do something useful and counter them logically?
    The truth is, in Europe, the Nazis put you in ghettos and then liquidated you. The situation has turned on its head in the present world. You yourself have put yourself in the ghetto called Israel and now your hostility towards everyone will make your Arab neighbours come and liquidate you again. What a repeat of history that would be!
     
  4. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Its not just him, Iran as a theocratic form of govt. and that entire system needs to change. And currently the only Muslim country in the world that has a cleric as its head of state. This is an aberration and a very modern construct as there is no other example in a 1000+ year history where a religious cleric has been appointed as head of state. The 6 year rule of Taliban in Afghanistan is the other exception.

    Sooner or later that system needs to change so that a truly democratic govt. can be formed and the theocratic nature of the political system is changed.

    But for that to happen, threatening Iran will backtrack the process. It allows the current govt. to claim that Iran is under attack and marginalize progressive forces. If you want to make Iranians strong to overthrow this political system. The war mongering on Iran will have to end and support to progressives inside Iran increased. We saw how Egypt, Tunisia e.t.c. were able to overthrow their govt.s it can happen in Iran as well although its more difficult but threatening to attack Iran is certainly not the way to do it.
     
  5. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    Are you for real? You should get yourself something called 'An Education' and then come discussing on forums such as these.
    Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Indus Valley Civilization, the mother of modern India dates back to as early as 3300 BCE. The last time I checked, 3300-2000=1300. So I guess that means that Indus Valley Civilization was already more than a thousand years old when anything resembling Israel was born.
     
    The Messiah likes this.
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,030
    Likes Received:
    10,579
    Location:
    BANGalore

    You missed the math. 3000BC-2000 CE is 5000 years. :D
     
  7. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    No buddy, you've missed it. I was replying to Pack's 2000BC of Isreal's foundation against 3300BC of IVC's foundation. If you go on the number line, that would make 3300 BC-2000 BC=1300 years. But yes, 3000BC-2000AD=5000 years.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
  8. shuvo@y2k10

    shuvo@y2k10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    kolkata
    i don't know why some of our politicians often speak of historic ties between india and iran and accuse israel of killing muslim palestinians?iranian and central asian barbarians have over the past centuries before british rule have looted and vandalised indian temples,palaces,killed thousands of innocent hindus.we must never forget that.of course when matter of strategic partnership comes we need both iran and israel.we need iran for oil and getawy to central asia.we need israel for military and strategic partnership.so both relations are valuable to us.matters between israel and iran are between those two sovereign countries to sort out.why would we need to get involved.
     
  9. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    A debate on politically incorrect on Israel vs Iran on NDTV with Mani Shankar and Swapan Dasgupta. The voting at the end of the show gave Mani at 75-25 lead who gave the favorable view on Iran.

    Iran vs Israel: Who should India ally with?

    Maybe part of the dismal performance was that Swapan is a jounalist while Mani has a diplomatic background.
     
  10. pack leader

    pack leader Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    503
    Location:
    the holy land
    this is left wing horse crap
    only 1200 Palestinians died in operation cast lead 750 confirmed terrorists and 450 human shields
    if this is Indian position you will never be free from the choke hold off Islamism and militancy
    in 2009 Jewish birth rate passed the Arab birth rate
    we will not disappear we have all the land all the money a 700,000 army and nuclear weapons
    25,000 Arabs emigrate out of Israel controlled Territory very year
    we are wining the war of attrition and soon no one will have the cash to support the doomed Palestinian cause
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2012
  11. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,815
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Did you notice the vote? Zero Indians voted for Iran against Israel, that itself should tell you a lot on whose side we are, rest are all details.
     
  12. pack leader

    pack leader Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    503
    Location:
    the holy land
    Gk i know you are into realpolitik so am i (mostly)
    but such propaganda in Indian TV is a disappointment
    you must forsaken naive Gandhian approach to politics
    its a dangerous world out there and you are in need for some good loyal friends
    we value India Israeli relationship as second only to the us Israeli relationship
     
  13. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,693
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Never mind Mani Shankar Aiyar, the circus clown.

    According to him if Pakistan slaps India (through a terrorist act), India should show the other cheek for Pakistan to slap again. That will prove the pwoer of non-violence and rectify the Pakistanis ..so goes his logic. :shocked:

    The reason why India continues to maintain relations with Iran is :

    1)Oil - our economy is booming and we need oil like never before. Also because of the international sanctions, Iran is willling to sell oil at concessional prices and its too good an offer to reject

    2) Access to CAR and Afghanistan - as you know we have invested hugely in Afghanistan and our only access to that land locked country is through Iran. Moreover once NATO moves over we would need Iran on our side to support any further Northern Alliance offensives against Taliban.

    3) Domestic political constituency - 160 million Indian muslims and the notion of the political parties, especially Congress and some regional parties that choosing Israel over Iran, publicly, would seriously damage the Muslim vote bank. That is the reason why you have BJP - a right centrist party expressing solidarity with Israel. They dont have the paranoia of Muslim vote bank or its erosion.

    4) Stuck up in the NAM era - Anything to do with US/Israel would be capitulating to 'imperialist' policies..or so the fossilised thinking goes.

    I accept the first and second point as valid. We have our needs to take care of. But I disagree with the 3rd and 4th points. Unfortunately the ruling GoI doesnt think that way.Idjits. But you can be sure of one thing - most of the common Indians would like India to maintain excellent relations with 'ally' Israel and cordial relationships with Iran. Though if push comes to shove and we are in a position to choose just one it will always be Israel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2012
    pack leader likes this.
  14. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,815
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    The problem here is geopolitics, since we are enclosed by China and Pakistan our only route to Central Asia is through Iran and also Oil prices in India is a huge political card. If oil price goes up any further the congress party will be blamed.

    USA, Israel, Europe etc., have no geopolitical gains with Iran so they can afford to do that. Just as EU cant mess with Russia because of gas pipelines and strategic gate way for us Iran is our Russia in terms of resources and gate ways to CAR.

    So we are in a huge fix, we definitely support Israel over that Mulla mad man regime any day. So does the hierarchy regardless of BJP or Congress but we need help in finding better sources of oil which are not prone to US pressure like Saudi, if israel can help us get a source like that we will move off.
     
  15. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    Or lets take control of POK and screw Iran and its nuke weapons programme:basanti::basanti:
     
  16. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
  17. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Israeli military officials are also signalling that a war with Iran is not worth it. So I don't see why India with much larger stakes in Iran would be supportive of a war on Iran with the Israeli military is divided on this.


    Israel's military leaders warn against Iran attack

    Former Israeli defence chief says that a strike on Iran would plunge the Middle East into war

    Kim Sengupta, Donald Macintyre
    Thursday, 2 February 2012

    Almost the entire senior hierarchy of Israel's military and security establishment is worried about a premature attack on Iran and apprehensive about the possible repercussions, a former chief of the country's defence forces told The Independent yesterday.

    Lt-Gen Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who is close to Defence Minister Ehud Barak, said there had been little analysis of what happens the "day after" when the Tehran regime and its paramilitary allies retaliate. He warned that an assault may lead to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad benefiting from popular anger against foreign aggression.

    General Lipkin-Shahak stressed that Iran with a nuclear arsenal would be a hugely destabilising factor in the region. But, he said: "It is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] leadership do not support military action at this point."

    The risks of military action underlined by the highly decorated former commander show the apparent divisions within the establishment over the best way to combat Iran's nuclear programme. The Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mr Barak are reported to be veering towards military action while fellow ministers as well as the defence and intelligence communities have reservations about this path.

    The General's comments follow the public intervention in the Iran debate by a former head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. Meir Dagan said that following such a course of action would plunge the region into war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

    General Lipkin-Shahak stressed he had no idea what decision the security cabinet would reach. He said the current Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lt-Gen Benny Gantz, and Mr Dagan's successor at Mossad, Tamir Pardo, would offer advice. "We have to remember that the CGS and the head of Mossad are there to serve the State of Israel, they are not party political. They will no doubt offer judgement and advice on what is best for Israel," he said. "In the past the advice of the head of the IDF and the head of Mossad had led to military action being stopped."

    Sanctions on Iran imposed by the EU and the US, including an oil embargo, were stronger than many people had expected, said Lt-Gen Lipkin-Shahak. "They are already having some impact on the Iranians on the street, they are worried. They may feel that it is the actions of the [Iranian] government which has created this situation. So one would think it would be worth seeing what impact the sanctions have before taking the next step."

    General Lipkin-Shahak said that depending on intelligence does not always work. "Let's not forget that an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was held for five years just five, six kilometres from our border, and despite doing our best we had not been able to free him, despite the fact we were getting lots of intelligence reports." Israel was forced to obtain the soldier's release by freeing more than 1,000 Hamas detainees.

    "Even if there was 100 per cent intelligence, even if the Americans knew the exact locations of the sites, it could be very difficult to hit what is inside. The Iranians are not stupid, we should not underestimate their intelligence."

    The General's comments come as Mr Barak begins interviewing candidates for the post of commander of the Air Force, the man who would be in charge of any possible air strike on Iran.

    Unusually a difference has reportedly opened up between Mr Netanyahu and General Gantz, with the former promoting his own military adviser, Maj-Gen Yohanan Locker, and the latter favouring the head of the IDF's Planning Directorate, Maj-Gen Amir Eshel. Some observers suggest General Locker would be more inclined to launch a strike on Iran than General Eshel.
     
  18. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Because a Regime change in Iran is beneficial for us in the short and medium run. India neeed not be in support of war in Iran, just regime change. Iran should be able to give access to USA for afghanistan.
     
    pack leader likes this.
  19. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    But Aduz, Iran is not Afghanistan or Iraq and see what a mess both of these countries are despite the "regime change". The US does not even have a status of forces agreement with Iraq to base their troops. And Iraq which was anti-Iran and anti-Syria and anti-Hezbollah under Saddam is now pro all these countries.

    Its only natural when a country is threatened externally that all Iranians including those who oppose the regime will unite for nationalistic reasons. Starting a war with a country for regime change is the worst possible strategy. And thanks to the US strategy under GW Bush, we have practical examples to learn from.
     
    amitkriit likes this.
  20. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,840
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Long time Ritesh, hope you doing well,

    anyways here goes.

    Possibility of it being counter productive is a extremely good point. But if we are going for limited strikes and regime change, then there will be people on the ground with enough critical mass to ensure such an outcome

    Adux,
    I am extremely practical, Ritesh. I completely and totally understand current (stress) USA position. Like it or not, Pakistan have them by the balls. American companies even lost out to European companies in Iraq. That is not how they work. There is something far important to India than some paltry difference in oil prices, ensuring the denuking and splitting of Pakistan. That would add atleast 2-3% to our economy and China will not have it that easy.



    You are being emotional at past transgressions of the US. I am not, because I am sure India plans to transgress on US toes soon.
    If the eventuality of a regime change is true and imminent, then being a fence sitter doesnt work for us. But if the status quo is what is going to continue and the current regime doesnt change, there is absolutely no need to change our policy.



    I dont think I get your point, the current Iranian regime is anti-india to a large extend, has not really helped us in encircling Pakistan.

    To be honest, you are not being quite coherent and connected in your own thoughts here.

    Taliban will come to Afghanistan, if US withdraws. Is India ready to send in troops to Afghanistan to protect our interest. NO. We are too much of pussies for that. So the only way for us to ensure the protection of our interest and contracts to have American troops there, who will ensure taliban will not take over.
    Taliban is proxy pakistan, but the US has its logistics running through Pakistan, the only way US has freedom of movement and total will power in Afghanistan, is if its actions are not hindered and tampered by Pakistan, so the only option is Iran. You think without the US WoT, India would even got even one contract in Afghanistan?

    India's NEEDS

    US to be in Afghanistan, till Afghanistan can protect itself from Taliban and Pakistan
    US need to be out of the clutches of Pakistan, which hinders its action on terrorism and Taliban
    Make sure Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon
    Our route to Afghanistan remains open.

    Now, if we achieve the above

    US without the concern of its logistical chain running through Pakistan, it can take on the ISI
    Iran which currently doesnt but can now be made to refocus on Pakistan ( making the Pakistani Army divide its forces to Iran, Afghanistan and India)


    FACT

    Current Iranian regime gives us OiL in a bit of a discount, because nobody else can actually buy from them, only China and we can do it
    They are also not ready to coperate with us in regards to Pakistan.





    NO you are wrong on that. It had nothing to do with Iran or Russia. It did not even have anything to do with USA-India, it had everything to do with deteoriation of Pakistan- US and Pakistan- Afghanistan relationship



    Because I know better than the media.

    West may want everything from us, we dont have to give it anything.

    If this eventuality, is true that Iran will face a regime change, then there is no point India being a fence sitter or a Iranian supporter.


    Israel will cross it, so will the west. I dont think the west is going to sit there and just go down as hasbeen's especially against some camel jockeys

    Who is asking to India give anything, India has to be pragmatic. I am saddened that even after repeating how French behaved 6 months before the conflict to Libya, and to take that as an example. You all are simply not to getting and getting into the usual whinefest about how India has always been taken advantage , has done more than share etc etc etc.
     

Share This Page