Indians most sympathetic towards Israel--says study

[Tshering22]

Do UAE's ties to Pakistan hurt India in any way? UAE has far more business with India and they don't really have the capacity to make a difference in "security concerns" considering they don't have an arms industry. They are neutral on India-Pakistan which is all that should really concern South Asia.

Let's see; not having any support for us in UN for the Kashmir issue only until our economy grew; check. Supporting Pakistan and ignoring our side of the story which is genuine and we have survivors to prove this just because Pakistan is a Muslim state and we aren't. check. Recognition and support of Taliban fundamentalist state that supported and hid terrorists wanted by us. Check.

Anything else?

India was one of the last nations to recognise Israel until 1992. Then Islamic terrorism became an issue and suddenly to become buddies? Not like every major Western nation doesn't have to deal with it.

You still don't get it do you? You people woke up to jihad only now after 9/11. We have faced the worst onslaught of such terrorism since ancient times that Europe hasn't even seen quarter the violence of in your history of clashes with Ottomans. It is still continuing in the form of Pakistan a bonhomie of Arabs strategically.

Now come to modern times; how many times we told US and "West" to check Pakistan again and again and again? How many times we told Europe and US presidents and leaders to check. But no.. you thought we are "Soviet campers" and "dirty commies" (though we never were) and couldn't be free from drawing our provinces on world maps with other countries to show us like a cake waiting to be distributed to hungry kids.

Only 9/11 blew you back to mother earth. Before which NONE of your leaders in West recognized this.

You want to know what's that extra that is there between India and Israel? Both are IN the region that has the SAME problems compared to a safely tucked away Europe or a miles-away USA. Hence we both understand each other's problems a little more clearly.

Genocide of 1,500 killed, 5,000 wounded, destruction of schools, power plants and water facilties all for the abduction of 1 private and a few homemade rockets.

That's the right way to respond to terrorists. Who the F asks these terrorists to bring and use their women and kids as human kids to gain sympathy? DO Israelis target women and kids specifically? Can you prove this? Or you going to show me PLO sponsored YouTube videos? You know what? Kashmiri terrorists also do the same shit against our troops. So what are we now? Mass murderers too?

Just because these louts have a video camera propagandist with them while our forces are busy fighting their main terrorists back, doesn't mean that they are innocent.

If Israel starts being a self-deluded Liberal wannabe Europe, it will be erased off the map by its neighbours. Simple as that. They cannot afford neo-liberalism which has now raised the spectre of demographic concerns in Europe as well. Check again.

How many Jews were kicked out of Muslim countries? How many slaughtered? I think you mean Palestinians being kicked off their land and forced into refugee camps. Even Iran has synagogues. It was the Zionists who decided to leave for Israel, not Muslims kicking them out. Bedouins in SKA live better lives than Israeli Arabs so don't know where that came from. Most of them don't ride camels anymore you know? Who made the issue religious? It was the Zionists who wanted a Jewish state for JEWS. Not Palestinians wanting a Palestinian state for Muslims. Try Aliyah to Israel without being of the Jewish faith, not going to happen unless you lie.

Do you know the history of 'Palestine'? The etymology of the term comes from the Greek word Philistines when they invaded and took the place, driving Jews out. Before that, Jews were existing on that piece of land long before Islam was born and Arabs adopted it, as the Kingdom of Judah and a host of other names. Do you know that 'Palestinians' are ethnic Syrians and Jordanians? Nope... who would believe the dirty Jews. My friend, no story is complete without the other side.

I don't recall any fatwas, the royal family or the National Council condemning India for its actions against Muslims coming out of UAE. If they condemn Israel, it is well deserved.

That's because you don't know most of internal news in India. It is understandable that you won't know it since most domestic matters of this nature are not shown clearly to the world by our often yellow media (Even if it is reporting against us forget the Jews).

You make Israelis sound like a bunch of victims. It wasn't so long ago that the founding parties of modern Israel were listed as terrorist organisations. Israel is constantly threatened because they are constantly colonising more land. The local inhabitants didn't ask for all these colonists much less losing their homes. Half the population of Palestine was driven out in the name of a religious birth-rite.

Getting fired with rockets daily, getting threatened to be wiped out daily, surrounded by bloodthirsty fundamentalist dictatorships.. you expect them to sing lullabies?

By that sham, your high moral Europe shouldn't recognize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh either since they were formed on the grounds of religion (Islam) too. They are ancestrally a part of India and proven in scores of papers. Where the heck is your morality then? Where the heck is your morality that till date, you continue to draw our maps donating our territories to our neighbours? Gone for grazing?

Israel's religious reason can simply be proven by the fact that Jews existed on that strip of land historically before either Arabs or their adopted religion existed. Simple as that. Otherwise, if they wanted to simply colonize don't you think they would go for a more resource-rich, prosperous piece of land for gradual colonizing like Britain and France of colonial era, rather than a strip of desert that barely has any resources and the only incentive is their culture and faith? Think.

As far as Israel being historically theirs... Israelis are Canaanites. They are the SAME people so their really isn't much to fight about accept religion. The Jews coming back after mixing with Europeans for hundreds of years are anything but what they used to be. The Portuguese came to India and set up a colony, India kicked them out. Why is that any different than what the Arabs are trying to do

?

You are repeating the same thing. Read my comment above for details. Jews existed on that piece of land long before Muslims/Arabs did and all you have to do is take a look at their date of inception of each of these faiths. Arabs have 25 countries for themselves. Why are they not accomodating the 'Palestinians'? How about the thousands of Jews butchered, kicked out and thrown out of Arab countries? Does that not count?

So India is an island among hostiles now? You didn't colonise India, you were already there and you kicked out the occupiers. Seems to me you would have more in common with Palestinians.

Dude! Palestine is a greek term that was coined when Greek empire was powerful and occupied that area. Read my post above again. Jews originated there; their pinnacle civilization was there. They belong there. You think if Dhamma people (Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs) are one day kicked out of India that they won't resort to any means to retake their holy lands? You must be dreaming then because they will.

There are 25 Arab states that can easily accomodate these ethnic Syrians and Jordanians. But why can't they and expect the Israelis to do all the honors of being decent first? We have nothing common with 'Palestinians'. FYI, I was a staunch Palestine supporter once too until I met a bunch Mizrahi Jew (a local middle eastern Jew) who told me about this stuff. It is not just Ashkenazi once. The bottomline is they are Jewish and it is their land. Race is not their identity; religion is.

UAE employs the largest number of expatriate Indians in the world. They are not high educated either.

I don't deny that; but they do it because no one is as skilled and still cost effective as Indian labour in the region. They tried with Pakis earlier, but failed. We work for them and they pay us. Simple business but on a friendly term. We are not saying that we don't like UAE. They are our friends and their ties to us is mutually exclusive to ties with Israel.

They are on a different level because UAE are Muslims just like Pakistanis. You have the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world yet you still have problems with the religion. That isn't right.

Look this is why it is best not to talk when you don't know ANYTHING about this part of the world especially its internal matters.

What other country in the ME was going to provide you high-tech weapons? Arabs can't even make a car engine without license production. I don't know what you expect from them or for them, but Arabs have their own problems to deal with to care about India-Pakistan troubles. If you put Kashmir on a list of 100 Arab top concerns, it will rank 101.

You don't know how OIC functions dude.. seriously. On UN level it does affect us big time. I would like to see how would France behave when in our place. Being a permanent member and tucked in a safe Europe is easy to talk.

Hell man, we all face jihadi terrorism. Even Pakistan faces it more than any other because they create it. That is a lame excuse to form strategic partnerships. Don't know how Israel can help fight its financial backing when they don't use Israeli banks.

1- Not to the Level we do. Not even close.

2- This is what I call ignorance is bliss.

3- I think it is a lot better excuse than the one NATO uses to either lure countries around or bomb them to stone age for flimsy excuses.

Here's what I mean in one line:

Our relationship with Israel is not a zero sum game, as you can see in our foreign policy. We have good ties with Arabs too but some elements in them are sympathetic to our adversaries which is why this balance we maintain is perfect. The way Israel handles terrorism is an inspiration for our forces that we can learn from and save more Indian lives. They and we may not face EXACT same situation but there are enough similarities to draw common concerns that I don't expect an out-of-region and out-of-game country to understand since it is natural.

 

[civfanatic]

I agree with Armand, tarunraju, and others here who have spoken with facts rather than emotion. Israel is basically a Western-backed parasite in the Middle East. It is the single most destabilizing factor in the whole region (regardless of what western media claim), and its acts of genocide and raw aggression are to be condemned universally (they are, by the UN, but no one takes the UN seriously anyway).

India should have nothing to do with Israel more than cooperation in hi-end defense industries. We should not try to emulate a single thing that Israel does. India, for all its faults, is a peaceful, open, country that respects human rights and human dignity. It is my wish to maintain that standard, as our forefathers dating back to Ashoka would wish, and avoid comparing ourselves with such destructive nations as Israel.

 

[Tshering22]

We should not try to emulate a single thing that Israel does. India, for all its faults, is a peaceful, open, country that respects human rights and human dignity.

Sorry dude, but laws of survival that have brought up many empires and later empires and countries that countered the existing empires, don't speak so. Chanakya said this 2,300 years ago that we Indians still don't realize. The reason we are in this mess is because we literally buy West's words on "transparency" and all that crap while they smartly do and get away with what they feel is right for their interests and prosperity.

This is the hard core fact of human life. Face it.

As for inspiration from Israel, I agree on most terms, but I think we could emulate their counter-terrorism tactics which is the best in Urban environment.

On the contrary to being emotional, it is you Ernesto and Armand who are being emotional and all gung ho about "ethics, rights and blah blah" just because the Jews didn't have the video cameras at that time to prove their existence on that piece of land while 'Palestinians' today do and use it liberally.

 

[civfanatic]

Do you know the history of 'Palestine'? The etymology of the term comes from the Greek word Philistines when they invaded and took the place, driving Jews out. Before that, Jews were existing on that piece of land long before Islam was born and Arabs adopted it, as the Kingdom of Judah and a host of other names. Do you know that 'Palestinians' are ethnic Syrians and Jordanians? Nope... who would believe the dirty Jews. My friend, no story is complete without the other side.

Do you know the history of 'Palestine'? The Jews were never native to that land. The Jews, just like the Arabs, are a Semitic people who have their origins in the Arabian peninsula. When the Jews arrived in Palestine it was inhabited by numerous other peoples, including the Phoenicians, Ammorites, Phillistines (from whom 'Palestine' comes from), Edomites, Aramaens, Arubians, and Nabataens. Many of these were other Semitic peoples, but there were also people of Aegean origin there, such as the Sea Peoples. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were just one of the many nations that existed in Palestine.

The Torah contains a full account of how the Jews eventually conquered most of these other nations, the most famous being of course the siege of Jericho. The Jews of antiquity were really no different than some of the radical Islamic conquerors of the Middle Ages. They believed that Canaan (ancient term for Palestine) was given to them by God himself, and they used religion to justify the massacre of the native people and the conquest of the whole region. Aurangzeb used the same excuse to slaughter Hindus and sack countless Hindu temples.

If you know the history, you would know that Canaan was then conquered by numerous other empires over the course of history, including the Persians, Romans, and Ottomans, among others. The Greeks, however, never conquered the place (unless you mean Alexander), and certainly never drove the Jews out. In fact, the Jews of the region were persecuted in only two major instances after the Achaemenid Persian conquest and prior to the Zionist Movement: once by the Romans, in the Judean Revolt, and then during the Crusades, when the Christians killed Jews and Muslims alike indiscriminately. It should be noted that during the Crusades, many Jews fought alongside Muslims, in such a way that is unimaginable by today's standards.

Furthermore, Palestinians are not "ethnic Syrians or Jordanians" as you call them. Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians all call themselves "Arabs" by virtue of their language (anyone who speaks Arabic is considered an Arab) and culture, but their ethnic origins lie in the pre-Islamic Aramaic and Levantine cultures. They are far more indigenous to the region than most Israelis could ever hope to be, considering most Israelis do not have ancestors who lived in Palestine, but moved to the country after it was formed in 1947.

 

[civfanatic]

Sorry dude, but laws of survival that have brought up many empires and later empires and countries that countered the existing empires, don't speak so. Chanakya said this 2,300 years ago that we Indians still don't realize. The reason we are in this mess is because we literally buy West's words on "transparency" and all that crap while they smartly do and get away with what they feel is right for their interests and prosperity.

It is quite interesting to study the ideas of ancient India. On the one hand, you have people like Chanakya and Chandragupta arguing for the intelligent use of force to achieve one's aims, and to be ruthless in the pursuit of one's aims. On the other hand, you had people like Siddhartha Gautama and Ashoka arguing for the application of dharma to lead one's life, and resorting to force only when absolutely necessary.

India has always been a land of polar opposites, even in antiquity. Which school of thought should the India of today follow? Are these schools of thought mutually exclusive? Is one required to use force in order to achieve his aims, or can he use other, more subtle means? Is transparency a sign of weakness, or of strength? Can one follow dharma while still pursuing one's interests? Can dharma further, rather than limit, the pursuit of one's interests?

Although Chanakya and Ashoka are widely considered to have conflicting ideas, I think in the context of modern India, they would develop more or less similar courses of action were they alive today.

 

[JBH22]

Well, I had a detailed answer citing plenty of examples but my response timed out and lost. Let me see to condense my answer.

A) Jews are Asheknazi living in Europe for the last 1000 years, they are intermingled so much they look and live like Europeans they come from. That is why they have no birth-rite to Palestine.

So an Arab that goes in Europe and makes kids living off social benefits is entitled to stay there by same Liberal parties
but the Jew cannot stay in Palestine.Ok fine but then you forgot Israel is there and for the last 60years Arabs have been humiliated time and again by trying military adventures.

B) UAE blames Iran and India for Taliban, US blames UAE for Taliban. They must be talking about private donations because none of the governments support them, especially Iran. They hate the Taliban more than anybody. UAE stopped supporting Taliban immediately after 9/11 and demanded OBL handed over. Kandahar incident was Pakistani Mujihadeen over some BS with Kashmir.

Huh!! ok so its private donation the govt has no role? But do you know its a crime to fund terrorist organisation. UAE "stopped" Taliban support because it does not have balls to go against USA. The fact remains that it was during taliban rule that an Indian plane was hijacked and landed in a place that got political and financial support of UAE.

C) Zaid Hamid is CIA/Mossad conspiracy guy... I don't roll that way. The things Israel is doing is against human rights:

1) Intercepting aid ship in international waters (killing 7)
2) Invading Gaza and Lebanon over a few casualties and they inflict thousands, destroy power, water, highways and schools. Use white phosphorus and cluster artillery shells in densely populated areas
3) West Bank is a vritual police state
4) Gaza is under blockade

End result is clear Israel doesn't care about human rights or conditions for the Palestinians

1- Did you saw those "peaceful" militant on the Aid Flotilla welcoming Israeli with Knife and Bats
2- So the fact that Hezbollah stage an attack on their territory on the IDF troops patrolling the border is right?But when IDF retaliates its the usual great satan
3-West Bank is a police state because of what inter palestinian massacre or because they use Qassam rockets to target civilian
4-Gaza is under blockade yes leave it to Hamas so they can smuggle in more weapons to cause more bloodshed.

D) Zionism, Zionist is the proper term when referring to colonial aspirations of Jews to Palestine.

Its a fact that the Palestinian must accept sooner or better they are not an exception in this lowly world.
India lost 1/3 of its territory to a leader who used his influence in Muslim community to create his state that time India underwent several tragedies same if not more than Palestinian.
India was not able to resist that partition but it happened so time to move on, but the funniest part is that those who went to create their state still have an unlimited want of more Indian territory.

E) I am certainly not anti-Israeli as I am lock step with the liberal parties. It is right coalition that screws things up.

Like them or hate them they are there.

F) Iranians are insulted when you lump them with Arab views

Politically they might have their differences but on the Kashmir issue it was clearly stated that Indian forces are killing innocent Muslims hence they are concerned.

G) OIC did it, so did UN

UN removes Kashmir from disputes list

H) Indian Muslims have stronger feelings than Arabs on Kashmir. No consensus in India yet have a problem with UAE unspoken position?

It doesn't matter who has what feeling.The fact is that India is not allowed to make any more concession under the rule that if some community lives in majority on some land it must secede.

I) Kargil, France maintained all supply contracts during the war with India while we canceled those with Pakistan. Told Pak minister to get his ass back behind the LoC too. If you wanted to buy more weapons you should have asked. Go to Israel first to add to French made planes when we would sell better, just wrong. Israel contribution saved the day... they didn't contribute jack. India paid for what it got.

Care to elaborate?
Israel supplied 5.56mm ammo,Laser guided bomb kits, Satellite Imagery so kindly give more on France contribution.

 

[Rahul92]

well we both need each other

 

[neo29]

Common enemies of Terrorism do become friends. Infact US relations with India blossomed more so with 9/11. Israel has been wanting to be friends with India since a long time.

It was the Congress that was cautious in its approach towards Israel so that its Muslims vote bank is not hampered. 1992 was the official beginning of diplomatic relations but the BJP actually started trade, defence and intelligence sharing with Israel. In a short period of time Israel became India's best friend.

To be blunt, people from both nations think that Islamic terrorism is threatening to destroy them. This very thought keeps people from both nations close.

 

[Tshering22]

Do you know the history of 'Palestine'? The Jews were never native to that land. The Jews, just like the Arabs, are a Semitic people who have their origins in the Arabian peninsula. When the Jews arrived in Palestine it was inhabited by numerous other peoples, including the Phoenicians, Ammorites, Phillistines (from whom 'Palestine' comes from), Edomites, Aramaens, Arubians, and Nabataens. Many of these were other Semitic peoples, but there were also people of Aegean origin there, such as the Sea Peoples. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were just one of the many nations that existed in Palestine.

By your logic, what different are Arabs? Do you think they even extend beyond the Gulf region? Destroying ancient Egyptian, Persian and Iraqi civilizations.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, heck even southeast and Indonesia should be ours because we were there long before these people came. Do you see us shouting for discrimination and bull against Arabs who used their religion to spread their imperialism? No you don't. Why? Because that's how empires form.

Judaism originated in Jerusalem. The number of people you say that inhabited Philistines accounts for the same part of history where Iranians and Greeks were mingled with our culture once. But does that mean that this land belongs to them?

The Torah contains a full account of how the Jews eventually conquered most of these other nations, the most famous being of course the siege of Jericho. The Jews of antiquity were really no different than some of the radical Islamic conquerors of the Middle Ages. They believed that Canaan (ancient term for Palestine) was given to them by God himself, and they used religion to justify the massacre of the native people and the conquest of the whole region. Aurangzeb used the same excuse to slaughter Hindus and sack countless Hindu temples.

Yet do you see mainstream Hindus demanding the expulsion of Muslims? No because this is called co-existence. Have you seen the number of accords that have been committed to by both the Jews and the Arabs? The Arabs want to eliminate Jews from that region totally rather than prefer a two state option. Oman was the country that had favoured 2 state option like UAE initially but under pressure from Saudi and other more hardline nations, they severed ties and totally demanded the elimination of Jews.

Is the Arabs indeed have that much legitimacy for their "land, language and hence culture", they should also have the conscience to retract their psychological expansionism from Asia that their predecessors did too. But that is a tall order for them now. Can they? So it is better for them to shut up and introspect what they have themselves done.

[

B]If you know the history, you would know that Canaan was then conquered by numerous other empires over the course of history, including the Persians, Romans, and Ottomans, among others[/B]. The Greeks, however, never conquered the place (unless you mean Alexander), and certainly never drove the Jews out. In fact, the Jews of the region were persecuted in only two major instances after the Achaemenid Persian conquest and prior to the Zionist Movement: once by the Romans, in the Judean Revolt, and then during the Crusades, when the Christians killed Jews and Muslims alike indiscriminately. It should be noted that during the Crusades, many Jews fought alongside Muslims, in such a way that is unimaginable by today's standards.

I know that a lot of empires existed there. But tell me one thing; did Judaism originate there or not? In Jerusalem and land around them. It did.Can you refute that? No. I never said that Jews were driven out by Greeks. I know that holy Roman empire was responsible for this as Jews themselves say. I am not saying that Jews are angels and they are blameless. Enemies change with time. There were no enemies of India in general in West Asia centuries back. Today there are. This is geo-politics for you. Today there are nations, earlier religions were identities instead with empires being dominated by them.

Furthermore, Palestinians are not "ethnic Syrians or Jordanians" as you call them. Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians all call themselves "Arabs" by virtue of their language (anyone who speaks Arabic is considered an Arab) and culture, but their ethnic origins lie in the pre-Islamic Aramaic and Levantine cultures. They are far more indigenous to the region than most Israelis could ever hope to be, considering most Israelis do not have ancestors who lived in Palestine, but moved to the country after it was formed in 1947.

I don't call them; Mizrahi a.k.a middle eastern Jews who lived in that region throughout call them so. Don't put words in my mouth please. Listen, Jews are not one race or a tribe. That is not their identity. They are racially multiple and hence are not an identity. Their religion is an identity to them and hence the land of Israel. Promised to them by God, is what their excuse is. But when seeing vis-a-vis what Arabs themselves have done, they are pretty much legitimate in what they are doing as well.

Listen; I am not saying that Jews were innocent angels. But neither are their rivals in today's context.

 

[Tshering22]

It is quite interesting to study the ideas of ancient India. On the one hand, you have people like Chanakya and Chandragupta arguing for the intelligent use of force to achieve one's aims, and to be ruthless in the pursuit of one's aims. On the other hand, you had people like Siddhartha Gautama and Ashoka arguing for the application of dharma to lead one's life, and resorting to force only when absolutely necessary.

This is where you don't understand the context behind why each of them said so. Let me sum it up for you. The Buddha or the Enlightened One, came in an era where there was insane bloodthirst according to scriptures. Killing for every inch of land in that time was out of control. This was so rampant (somewhat like today but in a more aggressive context). This led to many undesirable situations then, hence The Buddha renounced the material world to preach people to bring a balance to their lives. the Middle Path. I am sure that Middle Path doesn't mean Gandhian weakness. It means to bring a balance between peace and war, to form an understanding where to use what and in what context to use either form. To understand what is extreme.

The same damn thing that mainstream Hinduism taught, only in a different and simpler interpretation. Balance.

Dharma in essential means Duty. It doesn't mean spinelessness. Same goes for the concept of Ahimsa. The Ahimsa that Gandhi preached is not Ahimsa but lunacy and downright spinelessness. Ahimsa in Sanskrit means non violence in general life; it certainly does not tell you not to defend yourself by using force if you have to. The reason why most history is distorted is because most of modern India's historians are self-deluded socialists and are not ready accept ancient scriptures as history and declare them as "myths" for their political backers. This is why most of that what has been essential advice to our people since ancient times is nowadays carelessly neglected by most ignorant people as "opinions" thinking that modern flawed Western political systems are a source of salvation.

India has always been a land of polar opposites, even in antiquity. Which school of thought should the India of today follow? Are these schools of thought mutually exclusive? Is one required to use force in order to achieve his aims, or can he use other, more subtle means? Is transparency a sign of weakness, or of strength? Can one follow dharma while still pursuing one's interests? Can dharma further, rather than limit, the pursuit of one's interests?

Again, read what I said about context. India needs to follow from each of those sides what is best. Look at our surrounding and talk whose philosophy is more applicable here using logic and common sense in today's scenario: Chanakya or Ashoka. Think keeping our neighbourhood, our ideological enemies who secretly support our regional threats, our geo-political interests, etc.

Ashoka became what he had to when he had conquered EVERYTHING in the region and had not opposition. His personal guilt caused him to falter and take the other extreme that Gautama Buddha Himself had advised not to. He forgot balance and did not follow Dharma the way it had to be followed. First extreme violence needlessly, and then total monkhood and renunciation.

 

[Tshering22]

Common enemies of Terrorism do become friends. Infact US relations with India blossomed more so with 9/11. Israel has been wanting to be friends with India since a long time.

It was the Congress that was cautious in its approach towards Israel so that its Muslims vote bank is not hampered. 1992 was the official beginning of diplomatic relations but the BJP actually started trade, defence and intelligence sharing with Israel. In a short period of time Israel became India's best friend.

To be blunt, people from both nations think that Islamic terrorism is threatening to destroy them. This very thought keeps people from both nations close.

Appreciate your blunt and frank talk, mate. When it comes to our interests, we should not mince words. This is the truth. This was the truth and this is the only way that the 2 countries have chalked out to face common enemies together. It is difficult for people who are tucked away safely miles away to understand this regional context

 

[Yusuf]

India has had covert relations with israel since IG. We nearly bombed pak nuke facilities in the 80s a la Orsirak with israeli help. Mossad has been actively been cooperating with raw long before any diplomatic ties were established.

 

[Armand2REP]

On the contrary to being emotional, it is you Ernesto and Armand who are being emotional and all gung ho about "ethics, rights and blah blah" just because the Jews didn't have the video cameras at that time to prove their existence on that piece of land while 'Palestinians' today do and use it liberally.

Why would anyone today support thousands year old claims from the mixed ancestors of people that haven't been there in a thousand years? Why would anyone not be upset by treating people less than human beings should? I suggest you review the land rights of occupied Palestine, they do not use it "liberally" when the Israelis grab their water supplies, demolish their homes to resettle it or to make a new military reservation. They can't even travel from one point of West Bank to the other without going through a dozen checkpoints. There is even one well kept highway for Israelis while the Palestinians have to use decrepit roads.

 

[ejazr]

Unfortunately, the problem that I feel Indians have with the UAE is where the UAE would put their support in a confrontation (not a war, but some sort of confrontation) with Pakistan, due to the group mentality shared by most (if not all!) Muslim nations.

A misconception that is repeated again and again.

Go back to the most recent confrontations that we have with Pakistan. Kargil War, 2002 Parliament attack, 26/11 in all cases all GCC countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE supported India and asked Pakistan to withdraw its forces in the Kargil War and punish the terrorists involved in 26/11

This misconception takes place due to thinking with ideological blinkers on that geo-politics is all about religion/"group mentality". That's what Pakistanis think and one of the reason they have had a messed up Foreign Policy. Thankfully GoI has not made the same mistake.

Apart from Pakistan, India has pretty much excellent to good relations with most Arab or Muslim countries. And following Chanakya's philosophy of Dividing your enemies and multiplying your friends GoI seems to be at present moving in the right direction. Having adverse relations with all Muslim countries just because we have problems with Pakistan is a foolish way of going about in geo-streategy.

Some other points:

Wikileaks also had a cable that said that UAE, India and Afghanistan were funding the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, so wikileaks is not a reliable indicator of UAE national policy. It just shows opinions of people from who the question was asked.

India has a direct impact from only Pakistani based militant groups or those supported by them. Some of the early ones were nationalist like JKLF and those in the NE. Then you had movements with a more religious fervour first the sikh sepratists and the Kashmir based Islamist militants. Or Punjabi militants to commit terrorist acts on Indian soil. In short, no Arab involvement or even calls of "Jihad" against India. Pakistani based militants have tried their best to bring the Islamist militants from the Arab world to see India as a legitmate target and has failed.

The funding of madrassa theory is an interesting one. There is no solid proof of terrorism incubation in Indian madrassa. Advani when in power indicated that he would bring a white paper on this issue but was unable to find and direct evidence in this regard. Similarly Wikileaks showed that the local US ambassador after extensive survey of the Indian Muslim community concluded that extremism or basically the idea of terrorism like Al Qaeda does not exist among Indian Muslims including the local Madrassas. Yes they may be puritan, backward or zealous, but they don't preach or promote terrorism or killing of innocent people. And the vast vast majority is funded by local money and donations because they usually provided free education, food and loding to mainly poor students. To say UAE is diliberately funding madrassas to create terrorists that will attack India is fanciful.

 

[joe81]

Indians are sympathetic to all countries (including Israel) except their own country. Probably a survey needs to be done to find the reason for this strange behaviour.

 

[ejazr]

Armand and Johnee raised some questions about the sample size. HEre are the details from the methodology section. The sample size was 1023 with margin of error 3.2%
CVoter was the company.
In India, a face-to-face survey was conducted in urban and rural areas in 14 of the largest Indian states; these states comprise 77 percent of India's population. The sample is 60 percent urban, India's population is approximately 30 percent urban.


Personally, I would have preferred that majority Indians should have taken the neither side as a majority. That is the "correct" choice as a fair and netural public should want their govt. to do so.

The other thing is that many Indians simply don't have the full knowledge ofthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main argument seems to be Israel and Palestine is like India and Kashmir. This is nothing but a fallacy as has been explained in this article Kashmir is not Palestine, India is not Israel.

Apart from that, its best to educate yourself on the two state solution and that majorities support it among the American Jewish community, Israeli community as well as Palestinians. However, those opposed to it on all sides have had sucess till now unfortunately.

 

[JBH22]

Why would anyone today support thousands year old claims from the mixed ancestors of people that haven't been there in a thousand years? Why would anyone not be upset by treating people less than human beings should? I suggest you review the land rights of occupied Palestine, they do not use it "liberally" when the Israelis grab their water supplies, demolish their homes to resettle it or to make a new military reservation. They can't even travel from one point of West Bank to the other without going through a dozen checkpoints. There is even one well kept highway for Israelis while the Palestinians have to use decrepit roads.

Both of them play dirty games to each other while given the size of Israel vis a vis Palestine we can be easily mislead that all the problems for them are caused by the jewish state. However one should not overlook the role of Palestinian leaders all the financial aid that got siphoned off,inner fighting for control its a bit like India if foreigners were able to takeover first and foremost it was because of Indian foolishness.

 

[Tshering22]

Why would anyone today support thousands year old claims from the mixed ancestors of people that haven't been there in a thousand years? Why would anyone not be upset by treating people less than human beings should? I suggest you review the land rights of occupied Palestine, they do not use it "liberally" when the Israelis grab their water supplies, demolish their homes to resettle it or to make a new military reservation. They can't even travel from one point of West Bank to the other without going through a dozen checkpoints. There is even one well kept highway for Israelis while the Palestinians have to use decrepit roads.

See, I am not speaking for Jews alone here since I don't know about them in general, but in East, faith/culture forms a more core aspect of ones' identity than race and language alone in West. Now when colonials were in India, they devised their own theories to keep us divided on supposed "Aryan" invasion bullshit on race. Anyone with common sense would realize that race was never different in our cases. The semi-mongoloids like us are also genetically the same as north,west and south Indians.

This seems to be the case with Israel. Race it seems is NOT their identity. Religion and culture is..

 

[Tshering22]

This is nothing but a fallacy as has been explained in this article Kashmir is not Palestine, India is not Israel.

But the tactics employed in both region by terrorists are the same. First use religion, then use region and then use women and kids as human shields to gain the sympathies of self-ashamed liberalist intellectuals and rights bigots. Hence the common ground.

 

[The Messiah]

But the tactics employed in both region by terrorists are the same. First use religion, then use region and then use women and kids as human shields to gain the sympathies of self-ashamed liberalist intellectuals and rights bigots. Hence the common ground.

Tactics used by LTTE was also the same. Infact they were the pioneers of suicide bombers.

People adopting extremist measures doesn't mean that there causes are exactly the same.

The semi-mongoloids like us are also genetically the same as north,west and south Indians.

Are not the same otherwise you would have same appearance as north,west and south Indians and not have semi-mongoloids features. India is diverse country.