Indo-Israel a mutually beneficial relationship

'We will not be romanticising Hitler'​

My family is afraid I'll do the role so well that I'll turn into the Great Dictator himself," laughs Anupam Kher who is gearing up to play Adolf Hitler in Dear Friend Hitler. "There's no reason to worry though, the last time I took a role home was during Saaransh and that was because so much depended on the movie's success."
Dear Friend Hitler should take off by the end of July. The title comes from the two letters Mahatma Gandhi wrote that began with Dear Friend Hitler. Last Sunday, Kher had a sitting with the film's debutant director, Rakesh Ranjan, to decide on the 'look' before he flew out to UK to join the cast of Mausam.
"I need to grow a full moustache for Pankaj's (Kapur) film. Once I return, I'll clip it short to resemble Hitler's distinctive moustache. I'm also getting a wig specially designed for the role, along with Hitler's uniform, boots and all the stars. I'll also need to shed a few kilos, work on the gait and accent. It will be easy for me to acquire these Hitlerian traits because I'm a trained actor," asserts Kher.
Just for reference
He, however, points out that more than the physical aspects, it's the psychological challenge of portraying The Fuehrer as a man trapped in a bunker in his last days, that has him all excited. "It's not a role you're offered everyday, particularly one that portrays Hitler in his last days, showcasing his fears, pressures and insecurities, without any of the paraphernalia we associate with him."
Kher has plenty of reference movies, including the Oscar-winning Schindler's List, 10 Days of Hitler, Bruno Ganz's Der Untergang/ Downfall and even Charlie Chaplin's Great Dictator. In fact, in David Dhawan's Shola Aur Shabnam, he had played a Hitler like character that was a tribute to Chaplin.
The director has admitted that his film, though an original work, will have some similarities with the Downfall/ Der Untergang that came in for some sharp criticism for being sympathetic to the man responsible for the Holocaust. Dear Friend Hitler has already generated some bad press from newspapers like Dawn and The Guardian.
Kher insists that they will not be romanticising Hitler. "He was a demon and will remain one. It wasn't one mad streak but a massacre of millions that went on for years. People shouldn't draw conclusions without reading the script. We Indians are capable of making a realistic film and as head of an acting academy, I'd like my students to be impressed," he argues.
Neha Dhupia is playing Hitler's mistress, Eva Braun. Quiz him about intimate moments with the sexy actress and he points out that the German general didn't come across as a man capable of love.
"Sure, Eva stuck with him right till the bitter end, but I don't think she had much of a choice. They may have loved each other but in such difficult times, I don't think anyone would think of romance or singing duets." Touché!
A book on Hitler too!
Chetan Waman Dalvi, a 23-year-old chemical engineer, has written a book on Hitler. too Titled Mein Kampf — An Evil or a Needed Hero, it will be released by Smriti Publishers in the first week of July.
The author admits that he's always been curious about historical characters and fascinated by Hitler. "The novel is a factitious account written from his perspective and talks about the change he was trying to bring and the reason behind them.
He's prepared for criticism despite a two-year research. "Five hundred copies have been booked in advance. I'm sure that the book will generate more interest once it enters the stores," Dalvi says confidently.
"It'll help people decide for themselves if he was all evil or some good came out of his terror reign."
—Jayeeta Mazumder

Why Bollywood's film about Hitler is profoundly misguided​

Indian directors have as much right to make movies about Hitler as anyone else, but a forthcoming film about the Nazi dictator's 'love' for the country displays a shocking ignorance of history

A first-time Indian director, Rakesh Ranjan Kumar, has announced that he will make a movie about Adolf Hitler. Dear Friend Hitler stars Indian actors Anupam Kher and Neha Dhupia as Hitler and Eva Braun, and will focus on what the director claims was "Hitler's love for India and how he indirectly contributed to Indian independence".

Western productions have occasionally attempted to make fun of Hitler, ranging from successes like The Producers to fiascos like Heil Honey, I'm Home. But Dear Friend Hitler is not a traditional Bollywood musical, and makes no claim to comedy. "It aims to capture the personality of Adolf Hitler and his insecurities, his charisma and his paranoia during the last few days of his life," Kumar says. In other words, this is Downfall – but with a positive spin.

For many westerners, Hitler remains history's ultimate evil. In India, awareness of the Holocaust is limited. Characters in Bollywood films jokingly refer to bossy family members as "Hitler" – provoking a sharp intake of breath from many western viewers, who associate Hitler with crimes significantly worse than telling you to do your chores. In 2006, a Nazi-themed cafe opened in Mumbai with the name Hitler's Cross. Bollywood actor Murli Sharma attended the launch party. Asked whether he found the name troublesome, he said: "I am not really agitated as I have not read much about the man. However, from what I know about Hitler, I find this name rather amusing."

Dear Friend Hitler has not yet been made, and it is too early to say whether it will be any good or not. What can be said is that the reported comments of Kumar and one of his producers display a shocking ignorance of historical fact. Kumar's assertion that Hitler had a "love for India", and his producer's statement that "if we should thank anybody for Indian freedom, it should be Hitler", are not merely misguided – they are completely wrong.

The idea that Hitler should be thanked for Indian independence proceeds from the view that, by weakening Britain, Germany forced it to abandon its empire. If so, it would be more logical to thank America, on which Britain was forced to depend for loans after the war, and whose government put pressure on the British to grant Indian independence. Hitler never supported Indian self-rule. He advised British politicians to shoot Gandhi and hundreds of other leaders of the freedom struggle. Repeatedly, he expressed support for British imperialism. He only regretted that it was not harsh enough. "If we took India," he once threatened, the Indian people would soon long for "the good old days of English rule".

Hitler's support of the Indian National Army, a fascist-allied fighting force led by Subhas Chandra Bose in the 1940s, has apparently persuaded the makers of Dear Friend Hitler that the dictator loved India. In fact, the Nazi regime's disgust when Bose became romantically involved with a German woman revealed its true feelings. Hitler was happy to let Bose's recruits die fighting the British. But he never stopped believing that Indian people were racially inferior to white Europeans, and that any attempt at Indian independence would inevitably lead to reconquest by a "superior" race.

Indian directors have as much right to make movies about Hitler as anyone else. There is certainly no shortage of Hollywood movies that display an abject disregard for historical accuracy. But it would be worthwhile for the makers of Dear Friend Hitler to research what Hitler really thought of India, and what he did in Europe. Then, like the many Indian independence leaders who strongly rejected fascism, they might come to a better informed conclusion.

"Hitler and Japan must go to hell," said independence leader Jawaharlal Nehru, later India's first prime minister. "I shall fight them to the end." If Kumar and his producers believe they are honouring the cause of Indian freedom by associating it with Hitler, they are profoundly mistaken.

its a article from pakistan observer but good to see two things

Read the highlighted part -remaining your interest

The cooperation between Israel and India, with US blessing, is really destroying the peace and starting a new arms race in south Asia, due to such intensive Israel Cooperation with India, Pakistan and India came at the brink of war 3 times since 1998. These arms sales were part of a declared NDA policy to forge an alliance among India, the United States, and Israel. India is one of the 39 countries with whom Israel has signed "secret co-operative agreements" to prevent information leaks from joint security projects. India and Israel are two democratic countries who killed more than I million people on the name of insurgency from 1947 to 2008.

In the 2001-2006 India had purchased arms worth nearly $15 billion from Israel and has been its largest client for military hardware.2006 to 2009 $9 billion arms purchased by India from Israel. According to figures released in 2008 by the Israeli Defense Ministry India accounted for 50% of Israel's military exports .The report of 1992 to 2001 is available. Brajesh Mishra, outlined a proposal in a speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington in May 2003 that India, Israel, and the United States should unite to combat the common threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Israel is most probably behind the Kargill war, Indian parliament attack in 2002 and now in Mumbai terrors attacks in 2008 to Accelerating the arms sale to India and safe his arms industry and destabilized the integrity of Pakistan who is consider great threat to Israel security and stability? Israel does not have direct conflict with Pakistan. All three serving chiefs of India have now visited Israel in the last 2 years. From anti-missile systems to hi-tech radars, from sky drones to night-vision equipment, Indo-Israeli defense cooperation has known no bounds in recent times. Israel Mossad may infiltrated in Jihad Organization structure through Indian influence in Afghanistan and helping and training them to safe his defense industry to die down and start a Proxy war against Pakistan in Balouchistan and in FATA and plunge India and Pakistan to brink of war . There is already an on-going relationship between Israeli Intelligence agencies and their Indian counterparts. It is well known that Mossad routinely infiltrates even "friendly" intelligence agencies and uses them to plant information which helps Israel .Mossad working on project called A Clean Break. Reason behind defense ties between India and Israel. Pakistan's missile and nuclear weapon technologies are main concern to Israel. Pakistani a supplier of intermediate-range missiles and may be transfer of technology to boost it's arm industry really great threat to Israel such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, UAE,and Syria.

India helped Israel during the 1967, Middle Eastern conflict, by covertly sending military equipment to Israel. Before that in 1963, General Shalfid, Israel Chief of Army staff, visited India for discussions with his Indian counterpart In the military field in India's critical hour of need of the 1971 war with Pakistan, India sought Israel's help to supply it with the devastating artillery weapon, 160 mm mortars and ammunition, exclusively manufactured in Israel.

India embarked on its nuclear tests with the support of the international community, namely the United States and Israel, because the US desired a nuclear force to balance China as a nuclear power in Asia and central Asia. Israel benefited from this cooperation—according to some sources—by being permitted to conduct two nuclear tests on Indian territory, the components transferred on board an Israeli C130 military aircraft that landed in India two weeks prior to the tests. India also makes use of its nuclear cooperation with Israel in maintaining qualitative superiority over its enemy, Pakistan. During India's 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan, Israel rushed military support to India, cementing the nascent defense relationship. Israel sent its laser guided missiles to India during the Indo-Pak Kargil war of 1999, making it possible for the Indian Mirages to destroy Pakistani bunkers in the mountains. Jane's Defense Weekly, which gave details on the supplies. Israel, the scoundrel nation & illegal child of America supplied missiles, portable radars & other weapons during Kargil War in 1999 as confirmed by Shri Rahul Bedi on BBC and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - 8 in 1999 for surveillance purposes (Army) – 20 in 2000 during the Kargil war UAVs for high altitude surveillance, laser – guided systems and many other items were supplied within 24 hours. After September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, and attack on Indian Parliament Israel has been selling defense supplies to India, just from 2002 to 2008 India buy more than $25 billion dollars worth weapon and transfer of technology from Israel.

In June 2002 as part of "Operation Parakram," after the attack on Indian Parliament, Israel supplied hardware through special planes after a visit by the Director-General of Israeli Defense ministry. Israel helping the Indian forces in Kashmir and in Maoist area against right of self determination, Indian version Counter Insurgency. Israeli deputy chief of general staff, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, visited J&K, including the 16 Corps headquarters in Nagrota for it would seem helping India with "counter- insurgency" India has signed a $30 million contract with Israel Military Industries (IMI) for 3,400 Tavor assault rifles and 200 Galil sniper rifles, as well as night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment .Tavor assault rifles, Galil sniper rifles, and night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment to kill the innocent Kashmiri on the name of insurgency 90000 Kashmiri is killed by Indian force from 1988 to 2008 by these weapon from Israel . India buys the counter-infiltration devices Israel uses on Golan Heights and in the Negev Desert. 4 battalion (3000) was send to Israel for special training against insurgency in Kashmir Ghatak force.

Despite this, however, it is remarkable that India and Israel managed to come together on a range of issues, especially the close collaboration between the Indian intelligence agency, RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) and Israel's Mossad. While India got tacit help and support from Israel during its 1962 war with China and 1965 war with Pakistan. India and Israeli defence officials have initiated work on an unmanned helicopter. Being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) unmanned air vehicle division malat. According to latest report, Pakistan army has captured Israel made weapon in balouch insurgency and in ongoing operation in Fata and in Swat. Uzi diplomacy to press hard to Pakistan for diplomatic relation through supporting insurgency and DR A.Q Khan (NPT) matter in Pakistan by Israel (Jews) lobby to investigate him by FBI. According to JINSA, India has had to significantly boost its defense budget in order to finance all its new Israeli arms purchases: By 2010 New Delhi's annual military budget is expected to reach $100 billion.

Israeli arms experts are also seeking to sell the Arrow II anti-tactical ballistic missile system to India, which would require U.S. approval due to shared technology in the ATBM system. —The CG News

nitesh said:

I say both are victims of mindless terrorism

Click to expand...

I happen to disagree with you. In India's case yes it's true that India is victim of terrorism but you cannot equate India with Israel. India is not occupying someone's else land, India has not blockaded and created a wall on 1.3mill people. India is not uprooting other people's home and building own hoses there. Do you remember when the British occupied us how our freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad fought against Britain ( the occupying force). Same is true for Gaza and West Bank.

Even Mahatma Gandhi was against the concept of Zionism. And equated forcefully land grabbing as crime.

Gandhi's major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question came forth in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938, a time when intense struggle between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrant Jews had been on the anvil in Palestine. His views came in the context of severe pressure on him, especially from the Zionist quarters, to issue a statement on the problem. Therefore, he started his piece by saying that his sympathies are all with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time.

"But", Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"


He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract." The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews," tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

Click to expand...

We have more in common with Gaza/ West Bank (Palestinian territories) through our history rather than Israel.

"But", Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

Gone are the days of Gandhi and the tenacity of human freedom. While millions of Jews were massacred in WWII, Gandhi was harping about a piece of land, if this at all is true. Sad indeed.

Ek Bhartiye said:

I happen to disagree with you. In India's case yes it's true that India is victim of terrorism but you cannot equate India with Israel. India is not occupying someone's else land, India has not blockaded and created a wall on 1.3mill people. India is not uprooting other people's home and building own hoses there. Do you remember when the British occupied us how our freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad fought against Britain ( the occupying force). Same is true for Gaza and West Bank.

Click to expand...

Hamas is a terrorist organization, they are not freedom fighters. If they wanted to live in peace they would not have rained rockets in Israel and killed innocents. Israel does the right thing killing those terrorists.

Ek Bhartiye said:

Even Mahatma Gandhi was against the concept of Zionism. And equated forcefully land grabbing as crime.

Click to expand...

Mahatma Gandhi is not in the picture now. The situation now is measured by the length of one's stick.

Ek Bhartiye said:

We have more in common with Gaza/ West Bank (Palestinian territories) through our history rather than Israel.

Click to expand...

I disagree humbly. We, Indians have nothing in common with terrorists.

Oracle said:

Gone are the days of Gandhi and the tenacity of human freedom. While millions of Jews were massacred in WWII, Gandhi was harping about a piece of land, if this at all is true. Sad indeed.

Click to expand...

WWII had nothing to do with Palestine nor did anyone from Palestine had any role in it. Thus bringing u WWII is mute and unnecessary. India stands for equality and freedom and Mahatma Gandhi is rightly termed as Father of Nation.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, they are not freedom fighters.

Click to expand...

Even Britishers termed Bhagat Singh as terrorists while they are celebrated as freedom fighters. It's "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". And no Hamas are not terrorist organisation as per Indian law. They are only associated terrorist category by The European Union, Israel, Japan, Canada and the United States not by anyone else. Under Geneva Conventions Hamas comes under the category of Resistance Fighters.

If they wanted to live in peace they would not have rained rockets in Israel and killed innocents.

Click to expand...

I can say the very same about Israel. If Israel wanted peace they would not bulldoze and grab land from Palestine and build "illegal settlements".
Hamas is a political party with an armed wing. It is democratically elected by Gaza and is the resistance force against occupation. It is a resistance movement same like we have seen other resistance movements in history.

Examples of (Armed) resistance movements: History

Pre-20th century
* Carbonari
* Sons of Liberty
* The Underground Railroad

Pre-World War II
* Irish Republican Army
* The Rising of East Karelians (1921-1922)
* Lwów Eaglets
* Non-Cooperation Movement (1919-1939)
* Filipino guerilla units after official end of Philippine-American War (1902-1913)
* Pancho Villa led a resistance movement/rebellion in Mexico in the early 20th century, as did the Zapata brothers.

World War II
* Albanian resistance movement
* Austrian resistance movement
* Belgian resistance movement
* Bulgarian resistance movement
* Burmese resistance movement
* Czech Resistance movement
* Chinese resistance movements
* Danish resistance movement
* Dutch resistance movement
* Forest Brothers
* French resistance movement
* German resistance movements
* Greek resistance movement
* Italian resistance movement
* Jewish resistance movement, including Jewish partisans and Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee
* Korean resistance movement
* Latvian resistance movement
* Lithuanian resistance during World War II
* Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian resistance movements
* Norwegian resistance movement
* Philippine resistance movement
* Polish Underground State and Polish resistance organizations
* Slovak resistance movement
* Soviet resistance movement
* Thai resistance movement
* Ukrainian Insurgent Army
* Yugoslav resistance movements
* Viet Minh
Source

Also many people think Hamas favors Al-Qaeda and Sharia Law, which is not true at all. On the contrary they oppose both. In 2008 when Al-Qaeda tried to involve Hamas with them, Hamas openly rejected their offer.

Hamas and al Qaeda-linked group clash in Gaza

Hamas versus Al-Qaeda

Hamas fights al-Qaeda in Gaza

Yes they have been found guilty of committing war crimes in GoldStone report and they should accept responsibility for it and not behave in such manner which hampers their movement credibility.

If the leaders of Hamas were only concerned with killing Israelis, with training suicide-bombers and sending them out to destroy shopping centers, then they'd dedicate the majority of their funding to that purpose. Instead, they build and operate hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, car pools, cell services, and all the other goods, public and private, that organizations without an explicit military arm would provide for the Palestinians if any building was allowed to stay standing long enough to house them. All those doctors and teachers and cooks and bureaucrats who are part of Hamas must be pretty poor members, failing to murder Israelis everyday as they do; one wonders how some of them ever managed to rise to positions of authority without ever having killed an Israeli at all in an organization only dedicated to military objectives.

Extreme? Yes. Intransigent? Yes. Far too violent and stubborn for their own good, or their people's good? Yes. But willing to watch the Palestinian people destroyed utterly to achieve the destruction of Israel? Indifferent to Palestinian suffering? Hardly. If that were the case, why negotiate cease-fire agreements? Why capture Israeli soldiers explicitly to extract concessions and revenues that they cannot extract from the Israelis at the negotiating table? That organization exists precisely because of Palestinian suffering; it fights specifically to alleviate that suffering, as wrong-headed as that is, but desperation and rage are not known for instilling logic.

And as for the "right to live" line, one could just as easily say that Israel could have peace tomorrow if they recognized a Palestinian right to return. That position is not more politically viable than it would be for Hamas, as the duly elected government of the Palestinian authority, to lay down the gun without a settlement freeze or the territorial concessions needed to make a Palestinian state viable.

This claim that Israel's enemies are irrational, blood-thirsty, slavering man-beasts, unable to contain their lust for spilling Jewish blood in the name of Allah is, quite simply, not supported by their behavior.

How do you know what form of Resistance do Paestinian people support? I would like to direct your attention to this article

Whenever there is injustice, there are people fighting it with every possible means. We have seen it so many times before: the oppressed rise up, the oppressor dehumanizes them calling them such names as "terrorists", "saboteurs", "death loving" extremists"¦ It is only normal that the oppressor will always lie to justify his actions and its crimes.

What is different in the case of Palestine, is that the Israeli regime has built an effective media and communications networks and campaigns to distort the image of the Palestinian resistance, and that a large portion of the world has believed the Israeli line and hence adopted it.

It is our duty to remember and remind the world that the Palestinian freedom fighter is a man, a woman, like any other. He loves his family. She loves her country. They seek a better future. They are willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of justice and freedom. They waited for the world to lift the blatant injustice that has befallen them since 1948. They expected the world to understand when they took up arms to lift this injustice themselves.

Now, they don't care what anyone else calls them. They do not seek anyone's permission, just like any resistance movement. They believe that their cause will be triumphant because it is a cause for justice and humanity. They are merely fulfilling their duty to make the day of justice in Palestine come sooner. So should we.

Click to expand...

Source:

Mahatma Gandhi is not in the picture now. The situation now is measured by the length of one's stick.

Click to expand...

Whose stick? Israel's stick? Israel has broken and not agreed to any UN resolutions.

I disagree humbly. We, Indians have nothing in common with terrorists.

Click to expand...

Neither have we anything common with oppressors or people who commit apartheid and genocide.

Ekbhartiyaji,
Sure we've more common with Israel than palestine.reason being....
1.Both are occupier and oppressor democratic regime...israel in palestine ..india in kashmir.
2. taking leaf out of you own words,"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"..India is opressing freedom fighters called L-e-T ,HUM etc in kashmir and israel opressing freedom fighters like hamas etc in palestine.
3.India and israel are both hegemonic powers in their respective regions..israel in middle-east and india in south asia.
4.both israel and india attacked their neighbours and devide them.like india did with pakistan and irael did with its middle-east neighbours.

Added later:Gandhi ji always opposed bhagat singh and azad's path of achieving so if we go by you word for gandhi ji they were terrorists not freedom fighters that means gandhiji was hand in glove with british to martyr revolutionaries like bhagat singh as u seems to imply.

ajtr said:

Ekbhartiyaji,
Sure we've more common with Israel than palestine.reason being....
1.Both are occupier and oppressor democratic regime...israel in palestine ..india in kashmir.

Click to expand...

Wrong India is not occupying Kashmir like Israel is. Even before independence Kashmir was part of India and has been since partition. After independence J&K themselves chose to be part of India. Indians in J&K did not grab anyone's land or demolished any houses. Neither did we created a wall all around J&K. Yes there are problems in J&K and govt. sould take steps to rectify them but equating India with Israel has no common grounds. Neither did India invaded and occupied J&K based on some 2000 old religious text.

2. taking leaf out of you own words,"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"..India is opressing freedom fighters called L-e-T ,HUM etc in kashmir and israel opressing freedom fighters like hamas etc in palestine.

Click to expand...

LET. HUM etc are not raised in Jammu and Kashmir but in Pakistan with the sole cause of diving India against J&K's people wishes. They don't have political wing in J&K.

3.India and israel are both hegemonic powers in their respective regions..israel in middle-east and india in south asia.

Click to expand...

I disagree, please backup your statements in regards to India.

4.both israel and india attacked their neighbours and devide them.like india did with pakistan and irael did with its middle-east neighbours.

Click to expand...

Please tell me which wars did India start?

/\/\/\ Coming in line now. Welcome to the club!!!

The whole issue is of perception.

True that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Bhagat Singh's actions were towards gaining independence through violent means. His action was for his own land and the British were not natives of India.

Jews, as per history, were from the areas of Palestine and what is now Israel. Therefore, they have 'returned' to their ancestral home! The mode of such a return is debatable, more so, since the Europeans wanted the Jews out of Europe or so it is said playing to the Jew's religious sentiments and nostalgia.

Therefore, both the Arabs and the Jews should co-exist. This is easier said than done. Jews are scared (if I may use this word) of the Arabs since they cannot predict how the Arabs will turn. Therefore, the Jews do not wish to allow the repatriation of the Arabs to their homes in Israel and in turn the Arabs changing the demography in their favour. Morally that can be termed as wrong, but for existence, they seem to have thrown morality to the winds. It is their call I presume.

The only solution is the two State solution and sooner is comes, the better for the world!

/\/\/\ Could not have said it better Ray Sir. The Jews are not only scared of their existence but are also scarred(WWII) forever. And when you are the only Jewish nation in the entire middle east and in the entire world, you are bound to be scared, especially when you have Iran threatening to wipe them off the world map. This threat to Israel can be seen in the way Israel acts & retaliates whenever they think their sovereignty is being challenged. So, Never corner Jews.

This existential threat that Israel has can be traced back to WWII. Millions of Jews were massacred by the Nazis because there was no resistance from European Jews. The Samson Option is an example of how deep Israel will go, should their existence come under any form of threat, conventional or nuclear.

Ek Bharatiya said:

Wrong India is not occupying Kashmir like Israel is. Even before independence Kashmir was part of India and has been since partition. After independence J&K themselves chose to be part of India. Indians in J&K did not grab anyone's land or demolished any houses. Neither did we created a wall all around J&K. Yes there are problems in J&K and govt. sould take steps to rectify them but equating India with Israel has no common grounds. Neither did India invaded and occupied J&K based on some 2000 old religious text.

Click to expand...

Are you sure there was any india before 1947.if it was then pakistan bangladesh are part of india too aren't they?If not then kashmir is not part of india and hence its occupying force result of which u daily see on indian tv in valley with all those azadi slogans.Idia has already created the armed forces invisible wall since 1947 when first indian occupying force landed in srinagar.

LET. HUM etc are not raised in Jammu and Kashmir but in Pakistan with the sole cause of diving India against J&K's people wishes. They don't have political wing in J&K.

Click to expand...

They were raised from POK youth .Now unless you consider POK as part of pakistan then no problem...on the other hand JKLF and APHC are political arm of UJC(united jehad council of which L-et and HUM are also part .

I disagree, please backup your statements in regards to India.

Click to expand...

that we daily see in reports coming out of all india's neighbours decrying of indian hegemony in south asia.You may not know it unless you come out of your cocoon.

Please tell me which wars did India start?

Click to expand...

forgot srilanka????too early????

Oracle said:

/\/\/\ Could not have said it better Ray Sir. The Jews are not only scared of their existence but are also scarred(WWII) forever. And when you are the only Jewish nation in the entire middle east and in the entire world, you are bound to be scared, especially when you have Iran threatening to wipe them off the world map. This threat to Israel can be seen in the way Israel acts & retaliates whenever they think their sovereignty is being challenged. So, Never corner Jews.

This existential threat that Israel has can be traced back to WWII. Millions of Jews were massacred by the Nazis because there was no resistance from European Jews. The Samson Option is an example of how deep Israel will go, should their existence come under any form of threat, conventional or nuclear.

Click to expand...

Oracle Israel will go to any length to survive.Its a small nation with small population among the arab vultures.Survival is the keyword for israel after WW-2

i wonder why do you post articles from pakistani authors in indian defence forum? those pakistanis killed millions of east pakistanis now they acuse us of killing kashmiris.let me remind them that indian humiliated them in all four wars since 1947 and it was they who do not have the balls to face the indian army and 90000 of them surrendered in 1971 and that is why they have been fighting proxy wars since 1989. these pakistani now cannot even face the taliban insurgents(created by them) and has to turn to the US for their drone technoplogy to do so

Ray said:

The whole issue is of perception.

True that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Bhagat Singh's actions were towards gaining independence through violent means. His action was for his own land and the British were not natives of India.

Jews, as per history, were from the areas of Palestine and what is now Israel. Therefore, they have 'returned' to their ancestral home! The mode of such a return is debatable, more so, since the Europeans wanted the Jews out of Europe or so it is said playing to the Jew's religious sentiments and nostalgia.

Therefore, both the Arabs and the Jews should co-exist. This is easier said than done. Jews are scared (if I may use this word) of the Arabs since they cannot predict how the Arabs will turn. Therefore, the Jews do not wish to allow the repatriation of the Arabs to their homes in Israel and in turn the Arabs changing the demography in their favour. Morally that can be termed as wrong, but for existence, they seem to have thrown morality to the winds. It is their call I presume.

The only solution is the two State solution and sooner is comes, the better for the world!

Click to expand...

I agree with you to some extent. Jews and Arabs were living peacefully until people started arriving after WWII and forcefully took land (see Irgun and Stern gangs). The problem I have is this that without taking in consideration of people's wishes living in now Israel/ Palestine, Britishers forcefully created a state there on the basis of some religious text. Religion text does not grant basis for geographical tract. Britishers had no right to do such a thing. If they wanted to compensate they could have given land in USA/ UK. Nevertheless, now that Israel is created nothing can be done about that.

The problem now is Israel should accept UN resolution and return the land it took after 1967 war and stop building "illegal settlements" in West Bank and lift the blockade of Gaza both of which Israel refuses to do. United Nations is a governing body and every country should accept it's resolutions. Israel fails to do both the things and is constantly occupying more and more land in West Bank. So how can two states be made when there will be no land left?

Even the likud party (Israel Government) charter states that:

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. (2)"

Also "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria [i.e the West Bank] and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values... Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting. (2)"

Click to expand...

Source: Likud Platform (Official Website)

I presume posting Pakistani viewpoint allows one to know their thinking and so one can anticipate as also comprehend their actions.

Without such viewpoints, one would be operating in a void or so one can surmise.

Ek Bharatiya said:

I agree with you to some extent. Jews and Arabs were living peacefully until people started arriving after WWII and forcefully took land (see Irgun and Stern gangs). The problem I have is this that without taking in consideration of people's wishes living in now Israel/ Palestine, Britishers forcefully created a state there on the basis of some religious text.

Click to expand...

British did not create Israel. Israel took it, snatched it, won it. Take your pick.

@Ek Bharatiya,

Did you see Netanyahu's interview in Larry King Live on CNN today or was it yesterday?

Google if you are interested.

Oracle said:

/\/\/\ Could not have said it better Ray Sir. The Jews are not only scared of their existence but are also scarred(WWII) forever. And when you are the only Jewish nation in the entire middle east and in the entire world, you are bound to be scared,

Click to expand...

Israel is often portrayed as weak and besieged, a Jewish David surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath. This image has been carefully nurtured by Israeli leaders and sympathetic writers, but the opposite image is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better"equipped, and better"led forces during the 1947"49 War of Independence and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967—before large"scale U.S. aid began flowing to Israel. These victories offer eloquent evidence of Israeli patriotism, organizational ability, and military prowess, but they also reveal that Israel was far from helpless even in its earliest years.

Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so as well. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been decimated by three disastrous wars, and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have effective police, let alone a military that could threaten Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University's prestigious Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, "the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors." If backing the underdog were a compelling rationale, the world would be supporting Israel's opponents.

especially when you have Iran threatening to wipe them off the world map.

Click to expand...

Not this HOAX again. This myth derives from a remark made by Ahmadinejad:"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be wiped off/eliminated from the pages of history/our times."

Again WWII and the holocaust has nothing to do with the Crimes that Israel commits today. Guess what not only Jews but millions of other religions, minority groups were targeted so should we start building nations for every minority group targeted in WWII? What about the gypsies, homosexuals, handicaps, Blacks etc. There were 20 million Russians who died in WWII, so should we create another Russia say in Germany?

This moral justification the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially the tragic episode of the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and can only be safe in a Jewish homeland, many believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States.
the creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.
The history of these events is well"understood. When political Zionism began in earnest in the late 19th century, there were only about 15,000 Jews in Palestine. In 1893, for example, the Arabs comprised roughly 95 percent of the population, and though under Ottoman control, they had been in continuous possession of this territory for 1300 years. Even when Israel was founded, Jews were only about 35 percent of Palestine's population and owned 7 percent of the land.

The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi"national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben"Gurion put it in the late 1930s, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben"Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that "it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion." Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, "the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century."

This opportunity came in 1947"48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee. After the war, Israel barred the return of the Palestinian exiles.

The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel's leaders. As Ben"Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti"Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians' national ambitions. Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that "there was no such thing as a Palestinian," and even Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the 1993 Oslo Accords, nonetheless opposed creating a full"fledged Palestinian state. Pressure from extremist violence and the growing Palestinian population has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from some of the occupied territories and to explore territorial compromise, but no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of "Bantustans" under de facto Israeli control.

Oracle said:

British did not create Israel. Israel took it, snatched it, won it. Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Please go thru this British Mandate for Palestine