What's new

IDF vs Hamas naval commando

Actually, the common goal was not hatred of Jews, but hatred of Britain.

Since Britain was supporting migration and creation of a Jewish state, the Palestinians looked favorably upon Britain's enemy, which happened to be Germany.



I am not confusing anything. I am simply quoting the Israeli Embassy's poll which talks about Muslims (including, I suspect, Indian Muslims).
We know quite well how many Indians are brainwashed about the Islamic part of your history.

You are confusing it big time - you are directly equating our hate for the terrorists and proxies that pakistan festers and supports to hate of muslims (cannot help when these terrorists happen to be muslim). "The hindu" is a commie newspaper and the commies have no love lost for the jews or israel.
 
.
Actually, the common goal was not hatred of Jews, but hatred of Britain.

Since Britain was supporting migration and creation of a Jewish state, the Palestinians looked favorably upon Britain's enemy, which happened to be Germany.



I am not confusing anything. I am simply quoting the Israeli Embassy's poll which talks about Muslims (including, I suspect, Indian Muslims).
We know quite well how many Indians are brainwashed about the Islamic part of your history.
Whatever the reason they were involved in killing jews... now jews are paying back in kind..
 
.
Naturally. A friendship deepened by hatred of Muslims.
I don't deny that some Indian like Israel for its technology, but there's no denying that others view it as a model for dealing with Muslims.
Because the particular separatists in question (Kashmir) happen to be Muslims.
India has a large population and each Indian will have their own reasons for supporting, or not, Israel.

Like I had mentioned earlier, wear green glasses, the world looks green. Cannot be helped.
 
.
The brutal subjugation I am talking about is the eviction and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians over the last century-plus to make room for a Jewish state.
The only eviction happened in 1948, when as result of the war started by Arabs 700 K Arabs fled to Arab states and 850 K Jews from Arab states fled to Israel. Basically that was exchange of populations.

Very similar thing but at much larger scale happened between India and Pakistan in 1947 and Greece and Turkey in 1922.

What it has to do with "subjugation"?
 
.
Nicely defended. :)

During Indira era India was very much pro-palestine but things changed after that.
 
.
The only eviction happened in 1948, when as result of the war started by Arabs 700 K Arabs fled to Arab states and 850 K Jews from Arab states fled to Israel. Basically that was exchange of populations.

Very similar thing but at much larger scale happened between India and Pakistan in 1947 and Greece and Turkey in 1922.

What it has to do with "subjugation"?

You are entitled to believe your version of history, but real history is not obliged to adhere to your version.

Like I had mentioned earlier, wear green glasses, the world looks green. Cannot be helped.

Actually it is your saffron glasses which are deciding your vision.
 
.
You are entitled to believe your version of history, but real history is not obliged to adhere to your version.



Actually it is your saffron glasses which are deciding your vision.

I am not the person who is bringing religion into the discussion. You are. I am not saying Hindu/Muslim. You are.

I support any country which forwards our national strategic interests.
 
.
Do you believe colonialism is right?
I believe it is the ultimate terrorism and colonialists are terrorists. Israel is the colonial outpost of the dominant West -- created by force of guns masquerading under UN legitimacy.

@Developereo : I will admit that I am torn regarding this part. Yes, the jewish population from across the world came in and displaced muslims to form present day Israel. And no, I don't think that was right. But note the following:

1) Did they have any choice at the time? You know what was happening to them across Europe. If those persecuted people were given a chance to form a state of their own in the lands their forefathers were thrown out of, wouldn't they grab the offer with both hands?

2) Weren't Jewish people thrown out of the very same region millenia ago? Now I know that what happened so long ago shou;d not generally matter; however, it does in this case, given the unique history of the jewish people. Let me clarify. There have been plenty of migrations (forced or otherwise) in human history, in Europe and the Indian subcontinent and everywhere else. But all those migrants assimilated into the new lands. But the Jewish people were always outcasts, living on the peripheries of cities, in ghettoes, never allowed to become one with the mainstream. So for these two millenia or more, they always retained their identity, which was tied to their expulsion from Israel. From their POV, they were simply going back to where they were thrown out of.

3) However, there were non Jewish people living in that region in the 20th century, and that is where I am torn. Yes, the muslims in those regions should not have been displaced. But help me out here - from the POV of the Jews fleeing persecution in the 1940s, what was the alternative?

4) Now the existence of Israel is a reality. Is there any point in continuing to think of them as colonialists? Do you think that they would simply disband their state and scatter across the globe again? Since that's not going to happen, isn't the next best option for the jews and muslims to live in peace, either as one or as two states, with equal rights for all? Do you think everybody in the USA would go back to where they came from and give the land back to the native Americans? That was colonialism as well, and an entire continent was displaced or wiped out to form USA and Canada. Why are you not so passionate in advocating the cause of the natives in that case? Could it be because they are not muslims?

Note that in all these points, I am not trying to justify the fact that Palestinians have been made homeless. It should not have happened. My point is that it is a reality now, and that instead of continuing to view Israelis as colonialists (by which token, Americans, Canadians, Australians would all be colonialists who do not deserve to be there), you ought to think of how to live peacefully in future. As of now, Hamas and several muslim countries do not accept Israel's right to exist. With that attitude, there is not going to be peace in that region - because whether they want to accept it or not, Israel exists. I don't really know what the best solution is, and I am fully aware of the injusties suffered by the Palestinians due to the creation of Israel. But what I do know is that both will have to learn to live with each other, and as of today, only one side is denying the other's right to exist.
 
.
As for your comment about the PLO, if you can show me a poll showing that many Indians view the PLO as the model for dealing with Jews, then we can discuss it.
See, that there, is the misunderstanding about India's support for the PLO.
India never viewed PLO as an entity against the Jews. PLO, for India, stood for Palestinian statehood, not a Muslim fight against the Jewish people. Indians, by and large, have never been/will never be, anti-semitic!! Once, Islamic fundamentalism took over the fight from PLO, India, as a secular nation, lost interest, although we still support the Palestinian statehood. India initially opposed creation of Israel based on religious grounds for the sole reason that India had to go through the dark period of partition and we knew the consequences of that! Remember, India was at the forefront of the NAM then.
No matter how many conspiracy theories you want to spin around, the facts remain as simple as they come.
 
.
Terrorists killings terrorists. Both are evil sides in my eyes.
 
.
How does Indian Muslims (approximately 175 million) feel about Indian Hindus supporting on Israel?
 
.
How does Indian Muslims (approximately 175 million) feel about Indian Hindus supporting on Israel?
They can feel whatever they want. India is not a theological State that demands everyone think alike.

And its Hindus and Sikhs and Budhists and Jains. Lets not forget them shall we.
 
. .
Indians, by and large, have never been/will never be, anti-semitic!!

But many Indians are entirely anti-Islamic.

Once again, the historical facts are not hostage to the political correctness that hampers your understanding of the situation.

The Palestinian Arabs did not invade Jewish lands, evict the Jews for their religion, and demand an Arabic State.

The Zionist Jews did invade Palestine, evict Arabs for their religion, and demanded a Jewish State.

The religious angle is entirely the result of the Zionist Jews exhibiting racial and religious bigotry, regardless of your reluctance to criticize a criminal just because he happens to be Jewish.

No matter how many conspiracy theories you want to spin around, the facts remain as simple as they come.

I quoted the result of a poll of Indians conducted by the Israeli Embassy. You can continue to live in denial and dismiss anything you don't like as a "conspiracy theory", but it won't change reality.
 
Last edited:
.
1) Did they have any choice at the time? You know what was happening to them across Europe. If those persecuted people were given a chance to form a state of their own in the lands their forefathers were thrown out of, wouldn't they grab the offer with both hands?

Thanks for the balanced post. I will be brief, because I don't have much time right now.

The reality is that the original Zionists were not keen on Palestine. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had a preference for Ecuador and Uganda. Presumably, there were vast swathes of unpopulated land there, I don't know.

Zionism as an ideology was a noble cause when it started but, over the years, it got hijacked by Jewish racial supremacists who felt that their ends justified all means, including elimination of other races.

2) Weren't Jewish people thrown out of the very same region millenia ago?

The original Hebrews were one of many tribes in that region. Over the centuries, there were many conquests back and forth and ancient Israel was merely one of many kingdoms that existed there. There is absolutely no justification to accord special status to that one period of history when Jews dominated the area, and claim that this gives them the right to reconquer the region now.

from the POV of the Jews fleeing persecution in the 1940s, what was the alternative?

As mentioned before, Herzl preferred Ecuador or Uganda. Now, I don't wish the misery that Jews brought into Palestine to be thrust upon the Ecuadorians or Ugandans.

The fact is that many Westerners feel guilty about Jewish persecution, but it's not fair for them to demand that Palestinians pay the price to assuage Western guilt. It's easy to feel generous and magnanimous when someone else is paying the price.

How would you feel if during the British Raj, the colonial Brits allowed hundreds of thousands of Jews to come to India, decide which piece of land they wanted to claim, and ethnically cleanse the area of local Indians? To top it off, throw in raw racial and religious hatred on the part of the colonizing Jews towards the locals, and you have a situation comparable to what happened in Palestine.

4) Now the existence of Israel is a reality. Is there any point in continuing to think of them as colonialists?

British colonial rule lasted 300 years but Indians never accepted it. Should the Palestinians give up just because the colonialists are strong?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom