^ I suspect you vastly underestimate the hatred that most muslims feel for Israel. The comman muslim you meet the world over will blame Israel, rightly or wrongly, for every ill that has befallen the muslim world since the end of colonialism. In fact many will tell you that the end of the world is near and that Israel will be central to all of this. Thus everything associated with Israel (including it's only friend the US) has been targeted by militants as we all know. By associating with Israel, India (formerly viewed by non-desi muslims as a neutral non-aligned nation) will join the duo that is singeled out for all that is wrong in the mulism world. For Pakistan a great acomplishment, no?
As for comparing Pakistan and Palestine, I see no comparison whatsoever. If there was one it would be largely beneficial to Pakistan since Palestinians are generally viewed as victims to a cruel agressor. Arafat on the other hand is viewed, even today, by many Arabs as a heroic freedom fighter refusing to surrender in his old age to his lifelong enemy. (although I personally would not agree)
Elahi - so if Pakistan is going to benefit from this alliance so hugely why did it bother to protest?
Also, could you clarify something - you say the whole world will now condemn India and link it with murderous Israel. Who is this 'whole world'? The US is actively behind this friendship. The European nations, if asked, would hardly condemn India. SA perhaps? Yeah sure, Brazil is preparing massive rallies in protest. Muslim countries like Malaysia are not bothered. Japan? Australia?
Leaves only Pakistan and Palestine. India is still a friend to the Palestine cause, but the worst enemy of Palestinians are themselves who will not gain anything until they stop this eye for an eye attitude. Kashmiri pandits could have taken to arms too, but would that have made the situation for them any better? Tibetans have gained world wide support because they eschewed violence.
As for Indian muslims protesting, only those who will be swayed by the rhetoric of Shahi Imam sorts, used for political mileage.
As for India minding middle east opinion - how much has the middle east supported India - if you read this line from the report "Somehow Arab countries have fostered a belief that even if India looks at the Middle East through secular eyes, they will see India only through the prism of their fraternal relations with Pakistan." you will see it's about time we started thinking through the prism of our benefit and not yours.
If there is one thing though, that I feel apprehensive of, it's that Israel will influence the hardliners into becoming worse. That we can do without. As long as it's restricted to Phalcons and trade, fine, but no more.
Apparently, some of the posters here haven't heard about the subtle hints coming from official Pakistani establishments regarding acceptance of Israel. PTV, now-how official can you get?!?, recently aired a "feasability" study of Pakistan-Israel relationship by showing the opinions of Israelis, including the ex-prime minister.
Give it another few years and there will be an official visit by Isaeli minister, if not The Prime Minister, to Pakistan. We'll have this "kuffar united" discussion again.
If musharaf is around for two years you can be almost certain that pakistan would have recognized Israel or something very close to that (you can trust pakistan to come up with some terminology such "agree to acknowledge that there may be a possibility that there is a place called Israel with whom our trade relations are multiplying @ 200% hourly)
The only problem is that most Pakistanis are, unfortunately, convinced that Pakistan = Islam. Noone else bothers with a country making friends with another, and put the onus soley on the religion, i.e. India is anti-Muslim and hence friendly with Israel (not even the other directly affected middle east countries).
Re' Palestine : Arab states in general, and the Palestinian Authority in particular, there should be little cause for concern. On the contrary, a militarily and economically strong India that enjoys the trust of both Arabs and Israelis could possibly be a genuine broker in the Middle East peace process.
What Sharon does in his country is his problem - None of India's concerns. As long as he and the Israelis are friendly with India Israel shall and will remain our friend.
When Vajpayee ji offered his hand for friendship with Pakistan everyone started screaming from the top of their roof-tops that we need to develop better relations with Pakistan when they and the whole word knows that these same pakistan is providing so-called 'moral, diplomatic, political' (Read funds, weapons, and above all the UMBRELLA of NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL) to kill INDIANs.
Has Israel ever harmed Indian interests or funded any terrorist groups to kill Indians? That's the first question everyone should ask before whining & moaning about Sharon. Why should we be concerned about what the pakistanis or other people of the world think when it is our interests, India and Indians should come first?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dhir: *
What Sharon does in his country is his problem - None of India's concerns. As long as he and the Israelis are friendly with India Israel shall and will remain our friend
[/QUOTE]
Very Ignorant in fact brutal I must say.
It’s just like saying I don’t care if my neighbor bring a kidnapped child to his house every day and slaughtered the kid but because he do this in his own house and he does not kidnaps my kid so I don’t care about this act of his and we will remain friends.
Naturally, why wouldnt India be friends with Sharon, both Vajpayee and Sharon have very similar tastes in genocides ;)
Abdullah Al Madani: Indo-Israeli ties: Arabs have none but themselves to blame
14-09-2003
Print friendly format | Email to Friend
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97496
With Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s first official visit to India, Arabs are crying over spilt Indian milk, but without the courage to admit their responsibility for such an unprecedented development.
They ask themselves how could a country that once refused to allow Israel’s president to touch Indian soil, receive that country’s premier so warmly? How can a regime based upon tolerance, peace, non-violence and other Gandhian principles, play host to a man whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent people? And how could politicians who have often opposed the idea of establishing political entities on a purely religious basis accept co-operation with a state that is unarguably and exclusively based upon religion?
The simple answer to these questions lies in interests that do not know a permanent friend or permanent enemy, and that dictate the change of foreign policies, alliances, and positions. This is what Arabs need be aware of when pursuing their foreign relations, instead of yielding to ideological pressure. In other words, the Arabs should realise that international relations are no longer governed by ideology and idealism. They are solely governed by mutual interests.
In 1966, Israeli President Shazar’s airplane, which was passing through India en route to Nepal, unexpectedly landed at Calcutta airport for refuelling. The Israeli president wanted to rest overnight in India, but the Indians refused his request and sent no official to greet him at the airport.
In 2003, Sharon arrived in New Delhi on a state visit and was given a red carpet welcome at the airport. The vast difference between the above two scenes reflects the tremendous change in India’s concerns and priorities in line with domestic, regional, and international developments.
No need to bond
When the first scene took place, there was no urgent Indian need to bond with Israel. The latter was a political castaway with no considerable economic, industrial or technological weight. Moreover, Israel was hostile to the USSR, India’s strategic ally.
The issue of domestic security, too, was not then Indian policy-makers’ dominant concern, as their country’s stability was not threatened by non-state religion-based terrorist actors.
India’s relations with Israel, therefore, were limited to an isolated Israeli consulate in Bombay with no counterpart in Tel Aviv. The consulate was permitted to function in 1953, one year after India’s recognition of Israel on a status quo basis.
Meanwhile, India strove to promote its relations with the Arabs. Despite its dissatisfaction with their inconclusive policies regarding Indo-Pakistan and Sino-Indian disputes, New Delhi has not hesitated once in showing its solid support to all Arab causes, ignoring calls from right-wing opposition parties to upgrade ties with Israel in response to the Arabs’ preference of siding with Pakistan.
And when the PLO emerged as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, India was the first non-Arab state to recognise it, give it diplomatic status in New Delhi, and provide it with political and even financial backing.
Despite India’s cold shoulder treatment, Israel’s efforts to woo India did not stop for a moment. When the first non-Congress government was formed in New Delhi in 1977 by the Janata Party, hopes in Tel Aviv were raised of a better relationship with India, as the Israelis had held the successive Congress governments responsible for India’s anti-Israel policy.
Moshe Dayan, then Israeli Foreign Minister, paid a secret visit to India in August 1977, hoping for a diplomatic triumph against the Arabs. The new Indian government, however, reiterated New Delhi’s traditional stand on Palestine and the Middle East crisis.
Present Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was then foreign minister, told Dayan that there could be no co-operation and full diplomatic relations with Israel unless the Palestinians’ rights were restored and occupied Arab territories returned.
Throughout the 1980s, India has repeatedly reassured Arabs of its support, despite deep dissatisfaction with the way Arabs dealt with the Afghan issue. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s was of the view that confronting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by launching a Muslim-backed holy war from Pakistan would ultimately undermine the stability of the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East.
With her deep insight and long political experience, she knew that such a war would result in the emergence of fundamentalist armed movements that would not be satisfied merely with a victory in Afghanistan, which proved true. The Arabs, however, viewed her position as an Indo-Soviet conspiracy to prolong the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and threaten Pakistan.
Backed with the US, they wholeheartedly supported Islamabad and the Afghan Mujahideen, taking for granted that India would always be in their grip, due to its need for Arab oil and remittances from Indians working in the Gulf.
Even when it was proven in the 1990s that Pakistan took advantage of the Jihad momentum arising from the Afghan war to undermine India’s stability, the Arabs did not take notice of the long-term risk of such a policy to their ties with India.
Motivated by ideological and emotional pressure, they firmly stood by Pakistan, using the Organisation of Islamic Conference to build support for Islamabad and the Jihadi groups in Kashmir, as though the Kashmir issue was their key national cause or would serve their supreme interests.
The recent expansion of Indo-Israeli co-operation, however, cannot be solely attributed to the failure of the Arabs’ ideology-based foreign policy. Unlike Arab countries, India and Israel have emerged as industrialised and technologically advanced countries, making their co-operation inevitable, meaningful, and mutually beneficial.
India can benefit from Israeli technology to beef up its border security, to upgrade its Soviet weapons, to improve its telecommunications sector and to have better space surveillance capability. Israel, on the other hand, can benefit from India’s remarkable achievements in the field of IT.
Trade exchanges
Indo-Israeli trade exchanges are expected to reach $2 billion in 2004, while it was almost non-existent a decade ago. Israeli investments in India, particularly in the fields of telecom and the internet, are expected to exceed $7 billion. More importantly, India can use its ties with Israel to facilitate its dealings with the US and counter whatever influence Pakistan has in the US Congress.
Here also the Arabs have no one but themselves to blame. Given their failure in achieving any technological or industrial progress, they have no right to dictate to successful countries how to manage their foreign relations or to wonder why these countries shift to their historical arch enemy.
The writer is a Bahrain-based researcher and writer on Asian affairs. He can be contacted at [email protected]
India-Israel-Arab ties
This is an excellent article why India is improving ties with Israel. Any comments on India’s foreign policy wrt to Israel?
India has been trying to become part of OIC for too long and has been repeatedly rejected by Pakistan.
Abdullah Al Madani: Indo-Israeli ties: Arabs have none but themselves to blame
14-09-2003
Print friendly format | Email to Friend
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97496
With Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s first official visit to India, Arabs are crying over spilt Indian milk, but without the courage to admit their responsibility for such an unprecedented development.
They ask themselves how could a country that once refused to allow Israel’s president to touch Indian soil, receive that country’s premier so warmly? How can a regime based upon tolerance, peace, non-violence and other Gandhian principles, play host to a man whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent people? And how could politicians who have often opposed the idea of establishing political entities on a purely religious basis accept co-operation with a state that is unarguably and exclusively based upon religion?
The simple answer to these questions lies in interests that do not know a permanent friend or permanent enemy, and that dictate the change of foreign policies, alliances, and positions. This is what Arabs need be aware of when pursuing their foreign relations, instead of yielding to ideological pressure. In other words, the Arabs should realise that international relations are no longer governed by ideology and idealism. They are solely governed by mutual interests.
In 1966, Israeli President Shazar’s airplane, which was passing through India en route to Nepal, unexpectedly landed at Calcutta airport for refuelling. The Israeli president wanted to rest overnight in India, but the Indians refused his request and sent no official to greet him at the airport.
In 2003, Sharon arrived in New Delhi on a state visit and was given a red carpet welcome at the airport. The vast difference between the above two scenes reflects the tremendous change in India’s concerns and priorities in line with domestic, regional, and international developments.
No need to bond
When the first scene took place, there was no urgent Indian need to bond with Israel. The latter was a political castaway with no considerable economic, industrial or technological weight. Moreover, Israel was hostile to the USSR, India’s strategic ally.
The issue of domestic security, too, was not then Indian policy-makers’ dominant concern, as their country’s stability was not threatened by non-state religion-based terrorist actors.
India’s relations with Israel, therefore, were limited to an isolated Israeli consulate in Bombay with no counterpart in Tel Aviv. The consulate was permitted to function in 1953, one year after India’s recognition of Israel on a status quo basis.
Meanwhile, India strove to promote its relations with the Arabs. Despite its dissatisfaction with their inconclusive policies regarding Indo-Pakistan and Sino-Indian disputes, New Delhi has not hesitated once in showing its solid support to all Arab causes, ignoring calls from right-wing opposition parties to upgrade ties with Israel in response to the Arabs’ preference of siding with Pakistan.
And when the PLO emerged as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, India was the first non-Arab state to recognise it, give it diplomatic status in New Delhi, and provide it with political and even financial backing.
Despite India’s cold shoulder treatment, Israel’s efforts to woo India did not stop for a moment. When the first non-Congress government was formed in New Delhi in 1977 by the Janata Party, hopes in Tel Aviv were raised of a better relationship with India, as the Israelis had held the successive Congress governments responsible for India’s anti-Israel policy.
Moshe Dayan, then Israeli Foreign Minister, paid a secret visit to India in August 1977, hoping for a diplomatic triumph against the Arabs. The new Indian government, however, reiterated New Delhi’s traditional stand on Palestine and the Middle East crisis.
Present Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was then foreign minister, told Dayan that there could be no co-operation and full diplomatic relations with Israel unless the Palestinians’ rights were restored and occupied Arab territories returned.
Throughout the 1980s, India has repeatedly reassured Arabs of its support, despite deep dissatisfaction with the way Arabs dealt with the Afghan issue. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s was of the view that confronting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by launching a Muslim-backed holy war from Pakistan would ultimately undermine the stability of the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East.
With her deep insight and long political experience, she knew that such a war would result in the emergence of fundamentalist armed movements that would not be satisfied merely with a victory in Afghanistan, which proved true. The Arabs, however, viewed her position as an Indo-Soviet conspiracy to prolong the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and threaten Pakistan.
Backed with the US, they wholeheartedly supported Islamabad and the Afghan Mujahideen, taking for granted that India would always be in their grip, due to its need for Arab oil and remittances from Indians working in the Gulf.
Even when it was proven in the 1990s that Pakistan took advantage of the Jihad momentum arising from the Afghan war to undermine India’s stability, the Arabs did not take notice of the long-term risk of such a policy to their ties with India.
Motivated by ideological and emotional pressure, they firmly stood by Pakistan, using the Organisation of Islamic Conference to build support for Islamabad and the Jihadi groups in Kashmir, as though the Kashmir issue was their key national cause or would serve their supreme interests.
The recent expansion of Indo-Israeli co-operation, however, cannot be solely attributed to the failure of the Arabs’ ideology-based foreign policy. Unlike Arab countries, India and Israel have emerged as industrialised and technologically advanced countries, making their co-operation inevitable, meaningful, and mutually beneficial.
India can benefit from Israeli technology to beef up its border security, to upgrade its Soviet weapons, to improve its telecommunications sector and to have better space surveillance capability. Israel, on the other hand, can benefit from India’s remarkable achievements in the field of IT.
Trade exchanges
Indo-Israeli trade exchanges are expected to reach $2 billion in 2004, while it was almost non-existent a decade ago. Israeli investments in India, particularly in the fields of telecom and the internet, are expected to exceed $7 billion. More importantly, India can use its ties with Israel to facilitate its dealings with the US and counter whatever influence Pakistan has in the US Congress.
Here also the Arabs have no one but themselves to blame. Given their failure in achieving any technological or industrial progress, they have no right to dictate to successful countries how to manage their foreign relations or to wonder why these countries shift to their historical arch enemy.
The writer is a Bahrain-based researcher and writer on Asian affairs. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Yeah this idiot forgot Gujrat, Kashmir and other acts following "gandhian principles". He is one smart writer. If ideology backed foriegn policy is so wrong, then why support the Palestinian people?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by durango: *
Meanwhile, India strove to promote its relations with the Arabs. Despite its dissatisfaction with their inconclusive policies regarding Indo-Pakistan and Sino-Indian disputes, New Delhi has not hesitated once in showing its solid support to all Arab causes, ignoring calls from right-wing opposition parties to upgrade ties with Israel in response to the Arabs' preference of siding with Pakistan.
And when the PLO emerged as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, India was the first non-Arab state to recognise it, give it diplomatic status in New Delhi, and provide it with political and even financial backing.
Motivated by ideological and emotional pressure, they firmly stood by Pakistan, using the Organisation of Islamic Conference to build support for Islamabad and the Jihadi groups in Kashmir, as though the Kashmir issue was their key national cause or would serve their supreme interests.
[/QUOTE]
That's why we don't hear much rumble in the Arab world. They know it that they themselves (for religious reasons or otherwise) never supported India (Although they never opposed it too), while following Pakistan's line blindly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Decent 6Chora: *
Very Ignorant in fact brutal I must say.
It’s just like saying I don’t care if my neighbor bring a kidnapped child to his house every day and slaughtered the kid but because he do this in his own house and he does not kidnaps my kid so I don’t care about this act of his and we will remain friends.
[/QUOTE]
There are other things in the world to worry about too, apart from blame-games, e.g. their water conservation and ecological awareness is world class. Their technology (esp. defence related can beat down anybdoy).
Did INDIA commit a foreign policy mistake by improving ties with Israel states. Will all Arab states cut ties with INDIA. Historically INDIA has excellent relations with all Arab states.
India has strongly objected Israel's move to expulse Yasser Arafat. India was staunchly opposed to the decision of the United Nations to divide Palestine in 1947 and to hand over 56 per cent of the land for the creation of a separate homeland for “Jews” called Israel. However, the Indian government later reconciled to the UN decision and recognised the state of Israel on September 17, 1950. At the same time, the government and the people of India had always remained steadfast in extending their unflinching support to the just cause of the Palestinian people, more than half of whom had become refugees after they were driven out from their native land by the Zionists following the forcible establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
Indo-Israeli ties: Arabs have none but themselves to blame
good article about indo-israeli ties from arab perspective
Indo-Israeli trade exchanges are expected to reach $2 billion in 2004, while it was almost non-existent a decade ago. Israeli investments in India, particularly in the fields of telecom and the internet, are expected to exceed $7 billion. More importantly, India can use its ties with Israel to facilitate its dealings with the US and counter whatever influence Pakistan has in the US Congress.
Here also the Arabs have no one but themselves to blame. Given their failure in achieving any technological or industrial progress, they have no right to dictate to successful countries how to manage their foreign relations or to wonder why these countries shift to their historical arch enemy
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97496