Please clarify my doubt!

by **sunny** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:22 pm

Hey guys, I have a doubt. How can the Israelis exile Yasar Arafat? Can we exile Pervez Musharraf, too? Where does the road map to peace lead to?

by **Faheem** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

When they can have 400 nukes while no one in middle east has any, when they can defy 100s of UN resolutions while the world keeps its mouth shut, then yes, it can exile Yasser Arafat. Sunny, I can relate to your curiousity, but the truth is that Israel has illegally occupied Palestenian lands and Israel, as a strategy, humilates and kills palestanians. BTW, I am pleased to see that you, along with others, have started to look at things differently than before. There was and still is enormous ignorance about this conflict.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:52 am

The question is Faheem, should we, INDIANS, care? We have enough problems on our hands. Our brethren in Kashmir - Hindus and Muslims - are being killed by terrorrists and Israel is helping us combat those terrorrists. Should we side with Israel who can arm us, supply high tech gadgets, denied by US and EU, and help us maintain an upper hand wrt Pakistan or should we support Palestine who in turn supports Pakistani terrorrists?

by **sunny** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:50 pm

When Sharon visited India, there were demonstrations which said that he was the mass-murderer of the Palestinians. Okay, let\'s say he is. But, what about Palestine? Arafat publicly declared that he would use terrorism to defend himself & his country. I guess it is evident from the daily news that he is keeping his word. Isn\'t he a mass-murderer? So, what is the conjecture from this? That both are murders. Like Morpheus said, do we Indians have to bother about them? Just because they (Palestines) are Muslims, does it mean that Muslims in India have to support them? No one is good so why give a s**t? Just because the US supports Israel, & the Muslims hate the Americans, do we have to hate Israel? I\'m not complimenting Israel here. Like I said both are hopeless. You didn\'t get my query/ I wanted to know the procedure as to how Arafat can be exiled by someone from another country.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:53 pm

Neither can the Israelis exile Arafat, nor can we Indians exile Musharraf. The United States recently \'exiled\' Saddam Hussain and is paying dearly for it. If such elements like \'exile\' are included in the roadmap, it is sure to lead to chaos and mutual desctruction.
 
 
What should we Indians do? We obviously need merchandise which Israel has, for anti-terror surveillance and other special purposes. We are welcome to shop for them and pay for them in cash. But should Israel require us to pay for them in kind (foreign policy compromises, support in the UN for its deplorable actions etc.), then we need to evaluate as a buyer, if what we are buying is worth the price we are being asked to pay. There maybe other vendors who may have equivalent merchandize which come with no such strings attached, or there could be alternate ways of dealing with the terror menace which don\'t rely on high-tech gadgetry (luckily, there are many ways of solving any given issue). We made the mistake of appeasing Russia during its occupation of Afghanistan, following which we have lost all credibility on the world platform. We need to clearly understand the implications while entering into new partnerships. Blanket \'reciprocity\' requirements will not wash.

by **an indian** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 6:40 pm

Hey, Sunny! Protecting one\'s own country from mass suiciders is, in turn, getting the name \'murderous\'. This is just fine for the survival of a country. Every other day, Palestinians walk into Israel and kill theemselves in the most populated place. What will you do if it is also happening in our country? Attack them or do you wait for political correctness. And where are the fanatics NOT going in for such suicide bombings? All over the world, in masses! Wherever there is better security, they try sucide bombings, if not, simple shootings. Being in our place we should be able to understand how horrible it is to be not able to survive a day! Answering your question about Arafat, yes, he can be exiled by another country to a country which offers to give him protection (God help that country!), which is otherwise called asylum.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:32 pm

Hi Indian! I have a question for you. Suppose tomorrow China becomes extremely powerful and enters the Indian territory with full force driving us all out, and we are left with, say, just Kerala where we all have to squeeze a billion plus population and are expected to live peacefully. In such a sitation, would you not go wrapped around with explosives, shout \"Jai Hind\" and blast the hell out of the Beijings and Shanghais? Would you even care for the innocent women and children that might get killed? The Palestinian suicide bombers are doing just that. Thier land has been forcibly taken by Jews and a new country Israel was created out of nowhere with the blessings of all major powers of the world. Israel still receives support and aid from United States to the tune of $(3 - 4) billions per annum to crush rebellion. Palestinians are forced to take recourse to hitting soft targets.
 
 
Another clarification - Arafat fights Israel politically and militarily. It\'s the Hamas and other groups which use the terror tactics such as suicide bombings. Sidelining Arafat by exiling him or assasinating him would only open a Pandora\'s box - not only for the Middle East but for the whole world as well.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:55 pm

The only alternate to High tech gadgetry is sending ten men if one man dies. Are we ready to pay the price in terms of human life? The only reason India buys Israel\'s equipment is because no other country makes them, and those who make don\'t sell them to dark skinned people.

by **upmapesarattu** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:43 am

Now, I am confused.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:11 pm

Mayavi, I\'m not a Chanakya of warfare - but there are time tested, low tech methods which have been followed with much success (e.g. an efficient spy/informer network). If high technology is available at an affordable price (affordable in economic as well as political terms), let\'s use it by all means, but, if not, we need to look for substitutes. That\'s how we\'ve functioned and have been quite successful with our space and other research programmes. For example, may be we don\'t have technology to pin-point intruders with an accuracy of 10m radius, and probably we have indigenous technology that would do 100m - slightly inconvenient to use, but good enough considering the price we have to pay in terms of compromising on the values this country has stood for, to get the 10m one.
 
 
Technology is good, but an excessive reliance could be disastrous too. All the technology of the US could not do much to help its campaign in Iraq. The high-tech missiles were bringing down its own planes (friendly fire, if you wish).

by **jammer** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 6:50 pm

When I see this board, my only concern is that the poor and the innocent people of our country are being exploited and will soon be ripped off (by these technically advance and expert nations). The only thing they are good at is to create a mess (make people fight and sell their weapons). I don\'t know how many of you are aware that Israel trained Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan forces in Israel at the same time - sometimes in nearby bases and both the parties were thinking that they are getting the latest training. So my point is that Indians (as we are) are much smarter than Israelis and USA, and we should take a holistic approach to this problem. The only way you can solve this problem is by justice and justice alone. I don\'t know how much of what I am saying is making sense. Cheers!!!

by **Learner** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:31 pm

Jammer makes lot of sense - thanks.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:18 am

Justice, yes it\'s being done. Israel is killing Palestines for supporting Hamas (abettor of crimes) and Hamas are killing Israelis for occupying their land. Both are right in their own sense

.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:25 am

You are saying that you are willing to sacrifice few men, who are expendable in your view, to save few bucks. The 10 metres accuracy, compared to the 100 metres one, is what\'s going to make the difference. Now it\'s a different matter that we have to be self suffcient, but the situation demands those high tech gadgetary now and only few countries make them. I will give you a simple example of high tech weapons to simple tactics in Somalia in 1993. US forces were ambushed by Somalian militia. Remember Black Hawk Down? 18 US soldiers were killed and when they sent a backup team of around 50 of them they managed to kill 1000 somalians, (unofficial figure is 10,000). That\'s what tech does. If you look at the stats, 70% of the foiled infiltration bids were due to the use of sensors on LOC. Show me one instance where tech failed to serve the purpose.

by **Thought** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:21 pm

Not really. Most of us don\'t know what living under occupation is. Freedom is a cherished goal for all humans.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:02 pm

Mayavi, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said men are expendable so as to save a few bucks.
 
 
What I said was, it is better to pursue a low-tech option, even at the risk of losing a few lives, if that would enable us to safeguard our values. We became excessively dependent on the USSR for gadgetry, and appeased their presence in Afghanistan - a foreign policy blunder. We are going to make the same blunder yet again, by supporting or appeasing Israel\'s actions. At the end of the day, the gadgetry wouldn\'t matter, but the principles we sacrificed to obtain them.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:19 pm

No dear, I didn\'t put words in your mouth. They are your own words, \"at a risk of few lives\". See that\'s what means expendable. Agreed you didn\'t say that in your first post, but that\'s what you implied, atleast that\'s what I understood. You still didn\'t explain the alternatives for technology. Anyway, what\'s wrong in \"appeasing\" [I didn\'t understand your choice of word. Afghanistan and India were seperated by Pakistan. Where\'s the question of appeasing USSR] USSR\'s occupation of Afghanistan? We didn\'t suport it nor did we condemn it. You want to know the reason? It\'s because SU was a super power and member of the security council which had \'Veto\' in UN. It was the same USSR that vetoed several resolutions in the UN during the 1971 war against Eastern Paksitan. If not for SU, China would have interfered in the war. And also it was the SU which warded off an American threat during 71 war [they sent their 7th fleet, USS enterprise].
 
 
And what happened to Paksitan? American al-lie? They were embargoed! I am no supporter of commies, but India had no alternative to USSR. The americans vary of India\'s rise always supported the Pakistanis. It was Nehru'\s socialist policies that ruined India and stunted growth. Our foreign policy was bad, based on morals and what did we gain? A \'Third world nation\' tag left with two increasingly powerful neighbours and poverty. If India is making an alliance with Israel and US now, then it\'s a step in the right direction. I suggest you read up the numerous articles on this issue and the benefits of associating with Israel. Remeber foreign policy is not made on morals, it are based on what\'s right for India. There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.

by **an interested person** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:59 am

A very smart thought process that is yours, MM, would like to know more on your views in terms of foreign policy/US/Isreal.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:58 am

Indians dont know what foreign rule is? OMG, aren\'t they teaching History (400 years of British Raj and 500 years of Muslim rule) in schools anymore?

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:39 pm

Dear, when you talk of war, obviously it is at the risk of losing lives. Whoever thinks wars can be won without losing lives, must be kidding themselves. People who think lives are not expendable (a noble thought, indeed) should not be fighting wars or committing aggression.
 
 
So, the question is at what cost do we minimize loss of lives, by going for high tech warfare. If it is just $$$, we should spend every buck that is at our disposal to do it. But if it is at the cost of the values this country has stood for (sovereignty, democracy, freedom, etc.), then we need to set our priorities right.
 
 
As a victim of occupation for 500 or more years (quoting your post elsewhere), it is important that we stand by these principles which define the spirit of what this country is all about. It includes condemning actions by the neo-colonial powers that you mention (USSR, US, Israel etc.).

by **shaikh** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:18 pm

Hi Sunny and MM, it’s great to see the curiosity and excitement on these issues. I appreciate fullhyd.com for allowing this freedom of expression and information that we are able to share on these boards.
 
 
Having lived both in America and the Middle East, I have seen things very closely. I strongly believe that our nation should be a super power on it\'s on merits and self-reliant capabilities; we can lead the world with our own desi idealogy of peace, love dharam-karam and our own secular values.
 
 
When you compare this aspect of our nation with Israel, Israel is nothing (they have no dharma-karam values). The only things they do is get billions of dollars in aid and terrorize a weaker neighbor (Palestine) so there is nothing to learn from them.
 
 
So, instead of thinking of exiling musharraf we should think of creating a no-war zone that will include India-Pak-Bangla-Sri Lanka-Nepal and all the other close-by nations and open free economy and borders just like EU. We must move towards economic development and co-operation rather than self destruction or wars.
 
 
By the way Sunny, YES Muslims are advised to co-operate and defend or support all Muslims in the world. They are spiritually connected to one another (so the feeling is natural) and our nation guarantees freedom of belief or expression. I hope you agree.
 
 
Finally, I would like to say that I feel sorry for the people who are thinking that Sharon is a friend. Guys, he is only looking at (want) the billions we have saved in Forex reserves. I would love to choose a Paki or Bangla bhikari (begger) as a friend compared to Bush or Sharon.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:20 am

Shaik, I like your idea of free trade. We are already doing that with Sri Lanka, Nepal and China (at least in NE states) and are negotiating for trade with Asean. The Indo-Nepal border is a porous border, you don\'t even need a visa and if you want to go to Sri Lanka you just have to go to the border and get stamped. But we don\'t have free trade with Pakistan and Bangladesh. I don\'t think I have to explain the reason. We gave pakistan MFN status, but Paksitan is not willing to give MFN status to India. BD is protecting its markets from India, the problem is not on our side.
 
 
And make Indian borders a no-war zone? You are kidding, right? Do you think it\'s possible? Is India the one itching to go to war and occupy other nations?
 
 
Reagarding spiritual connection between muslims world over, it\'s good and if the religion is teaching that then it\'s even better, but in my view a country should be above any religion. Every citizen is Indian first then Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Beyond this I don\'t want to talk about any religion. It may hurt sentiments, but one thing I want to tell is that every one may not think like you even if they belong to the same religion as yours. You (Indian muslims, in general) are secular, but others are not. They treat followers of other religions as Kafirs who need to be eliminated and that hurts me.
 
 
About Israel, you are right. Sharon is not a friend of India, but then Arab countries are also not the best of friends. They fund terrorrism in India, yet we maintain excellent relations with Arab countries. Why not with Israel? They don\'t sponsor any terrorrist events in India, they don\'t fund infiltration. Why should we hate them? Agreed that Israel occupied Palestine and is comitting crimes there, but who cares? It doesn\'t hurt me. Kashmir hurts me, Khalistan hurts me, I am more concerned with people who are funding terrorrists in my back yard rather than some distant Palestine. So what if Ariel Sharon is only interested in dollars? India is interested in Phalcons and UAVs and Tavors which they have. When you go to a supermarket to buy groceries do you check that the store owner is not beating his wife and has not built the store in his neighbour\'s plot?

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:50 am

Shaik, here is something I found in sulekha.com The author succinctly put in few words what I was trying to say here.
 
 
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305877
 
 
The fortnight saw the controversial visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a high-level team to India. There were major demonstrations in many places by Left parties and Muslim organizations against the visit. It was alleged that India is abandoning its traditional support to the Palestinians. Particular target was the terrible human rights record of Sharon.
 
 
Should India play host only to leaders who have a clean human rights record? If so, we will have to boycott George W Bush, who authorized use of cluster bombs against the civilian population of Iraq, President Putin for his KGB record and strong action against Chechen rebels and all leaders of China. In turn, since Amnesty International and other organizations have repeatedly accused India of human rights violations, our own leaders can be shunned by foreign countries.
 
 
Each nation has to decide its foreign policy based on its own national needs, nothing else. India has a lot to gain from Israel\'s expertise in high tech agriculture, drip irrigation, anti-terrorism operations, etc.
 
 
This can be done without endorsing Israel\'s methods in dealing with the Palestinians. In fact, this is what Atalji did when he made a forthright statement in Ankara criticizing Israel\'s move to get Arafat out of Palestine, even eliminating him physically.

by **Apotheosis** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:08 pm

Normally, I only read through all the messages posted on fullhyd.com boards. But, MM\'s post spurred me into action.
 

 
There is actually, in principle, nothing wrong with communism. Its doctrine promises you a Utopian world. Do you know how Communism came about? It happened sometime during the industrial revolution when the capitalists were working the workers to death - in fact the workers would work till they passed out. That is when Karl Marx came on the scene and said, \"Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but the bondage of your slavery.\"
 

 
That is how it began. But, do you know where communism is most prevalant? Surprise, surprise. The US of A, that claims to be the most capitalist country in the world. The trade unions there are so powerful that the rich industrialists cannot so much as suspend a worker. The only place where this is not applicable is in the industries of defence, because they are concerned with national security. The workers here can form no trade unions. And that is why US is forever at war so that the defence industries can sell their weaponry. This is the only way the millionaires are appeased by the US congress.
 

 
Anyway, that was an insight into the doctrine and where it is most widely used. What communism promises you is a secure job, something that the Japanese did up until a few years ago till they came under the US influence and now their economy is in a bad shape. It does not mean that the state has to necessarily influence all market decisions. It only gives the proletariat certain basic rights to earn their livelihood, at the same time protecting them from the exploitation of the rich and the powerful.
 

 
I would recommend a book, \"Quite Flows the Don\", by Michael Sholokov. It is pretty difficult to get hold of the book, but I know that the British Library has a copy. It is an account of life in Russia from a few years before the Czar was overthrown to a few years after. Read it, and you would understand the reason why Russia became communist.
 

 
However, what is wrong with it is the way the doctrine is applied, especially in China. There it has become synonymous with no freedom and no human rights. If today we, Indians, have PF, gratuity, etc., it is because of what Nehru and Indira Gandhi worked out for us. Thanks to those policies, we can look forward to a peaceful life after retirement.
 

 
Every thing has its pros and cons. What is important, however, is to see the pros from the cons.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:07 pm

MM, has it been proved that Arab countries are officially promoting terrorism in India, like say, the ISI of Pakistan.
 
 
My understanding is that there are fringe elements of disgruntled Indians/Pakistanis who may be indulging in anti-Indian activities from their bases in the Middle East. These forces might have also managed to convince some wealthy and fundamentalist Arabs to donate (in their private capacity) for their cause. But to the best of my knowledge, official involvement has neither been found nor suspected.
 
 
We did have issues getting a few of our criminals deported from Dubai, but apparently the situation is improving. To be fair, we had similar problems with Portugal as well, from where we are yet achieve the deportation of Chota Shakeel and his girl friend.
 
 
Just trying to present a balanced view.

Who is online