Any Indian supporter of Palestine?

[MOHSENAM]

If they are not used as pawn...then Arab world which is has lot of impact and influence on other countries could have openly revolted against Israel for its killings that is happening....And Hamas should not use human shield as an weapon against the Isreal attacks...

Arab regimes are puppets, they are chosed by western governments.

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

Look harder. I'm certain that you will find them

A person can't become pakistani by simply putting pakistani flag in its profile.

 

[Malghani]

.And Hamas should not use human shield

Oh YES! I can see who uses human shields here. Shame Shame Shame

 

[jaunty]

Now you are just being insecure. The title of the thread is "any Indian supporter of Palestine". So why would those that support the massacre of Palestinians be here?

You are proving my point that there are many Indians (Hindu) who are not fan of Israel, which exactly negates your original point. As it seems many Hindus do care about Muslims being killed.

Glad you cleared that up. All he wants to do is kill people, not children in general.

So what was the need to post a fake picture? How about posting some earthquake victims as well?

 

[MOHSENAM]

Look at these Zionists that have occupied Palestine from 70 years ago and caused thousands killed Muslims up to now

They only live by blood and killing.

 

[wolfschanzze]

Israel man, They are defending their nation against hamas rocket attacks on civilian population, just as we defend ours in kashmir from terrorists across the border, so my support for Israel.
If People are worried for humanity they should look just beyond the borders in Iraq Where ISIS is murdering people manily shias by lakhs that deserves no outrage as its a Muslim killing another muslim( or not muslim as shia are not considered by sunni).
Why this selective outrage and worry for humanity over palestine?The palestine propaganda at full work, photoshopping, posting syria and iraq pictures of massacre as palestine victimes.

 

[KingMamba]

7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict
Posted: 07/28/2014 2:07 pm EDT Updated: 07/30/2014 3:59 pm EDT
Print Article

Are you "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine"? It isn't even noon yet as I write this, and I've already been accused of being both.

These terms intrigue me because they directly speak to the doggedly tribal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You don't hear of too many other countries being universally spoken of this way. Why these two? Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, with diverse histories and cultures, and two incredibly similar (if divisive) religions. To come down completely on the side of one or the other doesn't seem rational to me.

It is telling that most Muslims around the world support Palestinians, and most Jews support Israel. This, of course, is natural -- but it's also problematic. It means that this is not about who's right or wrong as much as which tribe or nation you are loyal to. It means that Palestinian supporters would be just as ardently pro-Israel if they were born in Israeli or Jewish families, and vice versa. It means that the principles that guide most people's view of this conflict are largely accidents of birth -- that however we intellectualize and analyze the components of the Middle East mess, it remains, at its core, a tribal conflict.

By definition, tribal conflicts thrive and survive when people take sides. Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

So before picking a side in this latest Israeli-Palestine conflict, consider these 7 questions:

***

1. Why is everything so much worse when there are Jews involved?

Over 700 people have died in Gaza as of this writing. Muslims have woken up around the world. But is it really because of the numbers?

Bashar al-Assad has killed over 180,000 Syrians, mostly Muslim, in two years -- more than the number killed in Palestine in two decades. Thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Syria have been killed by ISIS in the last two months. Tens of thousands have been killed by the Taliban. Half a million black Muslims were killed by Arab Muslims in Sudan. The list goes on.

But Gaza makes Muslims around the world, both Sunni and Shia, speak up in a way they never do otherwise. Up-to-date death counts and horrific pictures of the mangled corpses of Gazan children flood their social media timelines every day. If it was just about the numbers, wouldn't the other conflicts take precedence? What is it about then?

If I were Assad or ISIS right now, I'd be thanking God I'm not Jewish.

Amazingly, many of the graphic images of dead children attributed to Israeli bombardment that are circulating online are from Syria, based on a BBC report. Many of the pictures you're seeing are of children killed by Assad, who is supported by Iran, which also funds Hezbollah and Hamas. What could be more exploitative of dead children than attributing the pictures of innocents killed by your own supporters to your enemy simply because you weren't paying enough attention when your own were killing your own?

This doesn't, by any means, excuse the recklessness, negligence, and sometimesoutright cruelty of Israeli forces. But it clearly points to the likelihood that the Muslim world's opposition to Israel isn't just about the number of dead.

Here is a question for those who grew up in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries like I did: if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories tomorrow, all in one go -- and went back to the 1967 borders -- and gave the Palestinians East Jerusalem -- do you honestly think Hamas wouldn't find something else to pick a fight about? Do you honestly think that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are Jews? Do you recall what you watched and heard on public TV growing up in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?

Yes, there's an unfair and illegal occupation there, and yes, it's a human rights disaster. But it is also true that much of the other side is deeply driven by anti-Semitism. Anyone who has lived in the Arab/Muslim world for more than a few years knows that. It isn't always a clean, one-or-the-other blame split in these situations like your Chomskys and Greenwalds would have you believe. It's both.

***

2. Why does everyone keep saying this is not a religious conflict?

There are three pervasive myths that are widely circulated about the "roots" of the Middle East conflict:

Myth 1: Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
Myth 2: Islam has nothing to do with Jihadism or anti-Semitism.
Myth 3: This conflict has nothing to do with religion.

To the "I oppose Zionism, not Judaism!" crowd, is it mere coincidence that this passage from the Old Testament (emphasis added) describes so accurately what's happening today?

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods." - Exodus 23:31-32



Or this one?

"See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers -- to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and to their descendants after them." - Deuteronomy 1:8



There's more: Genesis 15:18-21, and Numbers 34 for more detail on the borders. Zionism is not the "politicization" or "distortion" of Judaism. It is the revival of it.

And to the "This is not about Islam, it's about politics!" crowd, is this verse from the Quran (emphasis added) meaningless?

"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you--then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." - Quran, 5:51



What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?

Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Denying religion's role seems to be a way to be able to criticize the politics while remaining apologetically "respectful" of people's beliefs for fear of "offending" them. But is this apologism and "respect" for inhuman ideas worth the deaths of human beings?

People have all kinds of beliefs -- from insisting the Earth is flat to denying the Holocaust. You may respect their right to hold these beliefs, but you're not obligated to respect the beliefs themselves. It's 2014, and religions don't need to be "respected" any more than any other political ideology or philosophical thought system. Human beings have rights. Ideas don't. The oft-cited politics/religion dichotomy in Abrahamic religions is false and misleading. All of the Abrahamic religions are inherently political.

***

3. Why would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

This is the single most important issue that gets everyone riled up, and rightfully so.

Again, there is no justification for innocent Gazans dying. And there's no excuse for Israel's negligence in incidents like the killing of four children on a Gazan beach. But let's back up and think about this for a minute.

Why on Earth would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

When civilians die, Israel looks like a monster. It draws the ire of even its closest allies. Horrific images of injured and dead innocents flood the media. Ever-growing anti-Israel protests are held everywhere from Norway to New York. And the relatively low number of Israeli casualties (we'll get to that in a bit) repeatedly draws allegations of a "disproportionate" response. Most importantly, civilian deaths help Hamas immensely.

How can any of this possibly ever be in Israel's interest?

If Israel wanted to kill civilians, it is terrible at it. ISIS killed more civilians in two days (700 plus) than Israel has in two weeks. Imagine if ISIS or Hamas had Israel's weapons, army, air force, US support, and nuclear arsenal. Their enemies would've been annihilated long ago. If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air. Why carry out a more painful, expensive ground incursion that risks the lives of its soldiers?

***

4. Does Hamas really use its own civilians as human shields?

Ask Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas how he feels about Hamas' tactics.

"What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?" he asks. "I don't like trading in Palestinian blood."

It isn't just speculation anymore that Hamas puts its civilians in the line of fire.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri plainly admitted on Gazan national TV that thehuman shield strategy has proven "very effective."

The UN relief organization UNRWA issued a furious condemnation of Hamas after discovering hidden rockets in not one,but two children's schools in Gaza last week.

Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel, rarely killing any civilians or causing any serious damage. It launches them from densely populated areas, including hospitals and schools.

Why launch rockets without causing any real damage to the other side, inviting great damage to your own people, then putting your own civilians in the line of fire when the response comes? Even when the IDF warns civilians to evacuate their homes before a strike, why does Hamas tell them to stay put?

Because Hamas knows its cause is helped when Gazans die. If there is one thing that helps Hamas most -- one thing that gives it any legitimacy -- it is dead civilians. Rockets in schools. Hamas exploits the deaths of its children to gain the world's sympathy. It uses them as a weapon.

You don't have to like what Israel is doing to abhor Hamas. Arguably, Israel and Fatah are morally equivalent. Both have a lot of right on their side. Hamas, on the other hand, doesn't have a shred of it.

***

5. Why are people asking for Israel to end the "occupation" in Gaza?

Because they have short memories.

In 2005, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza. It pulled out every last Israeli soldier. It dismantled every last settlement. Many Israeli settlers who refused to leave wereforcefully evicted from their homes, kicking and screaming.

This was a unilateral move by Israel, part of a disengagement plan intended to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It wasn't perfect -- Israel was still to control Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace -- but considering the history of the region, it was a pretty significant first step.

After the evacuation, Israel opened up border crossings to facilitate commerce. The Palestinians were also given 3,000 greenhouses which had already been producing fruit and flowers for export for many years.

But Hamas chose not to invest in schools, trade, or infrastructure. Instead, it built anextensive network of tunnels to house thousands upon thousands of rockets and weapons, including newer, sophisticated ones from Iran and Syria. All the greenhouses were destroyed.

Hamas did not build any bomb shelters for its people. It did, however, build a few for its leaders to hide out in during airstrikes. Civilians are not given access to these shelters for precisely the same reason Hamas tells them to stay home when the bombs come.

Gaza was given a great opportunity in 2005 that Hamas squandered by transforming it into an anti-Israel weapons store instead of a thriving Palestinian state that, with time, may have served as a model for the future of the West Bank as well. If Fatah needed yet another reason to abhor Hamas, here it was.

***

6. Why are there so many more casualties in Gaza than in Israel?

The reason fewer Israeli civilians die is not because there are fewer rockets raining down on them. It's because they are better protected by their government.

When Hamas' missiles head towards Israel, sirens go off, the Iron Dome goes into effect, and civilians are rushed into bomb shelters. When Israeli missiles head towards Gaza, Hamas tells civilians to stay in their homes and face them.

While Israel's government urges its civilians to get away from rockets targeted at them, Gaza's government urges its civilians to get in front of missiles not targeted at them.

The popular explanation for this is that Hamas is poor and lacks the resources to protect its people like Israel does. The real reason, however, seems to have more to do with disordered priorities than deficient resources (see #5). This is about will, not ability. All those rockets, missiles, and tunnels aren't cheap to build or acquire. But they are priorities. And it's not like Palestinians don't have a handful of oil-rich neighbors to help them the way Israel has the US.

The problem is, if civilian casualties in Gaza drop, Hamas loses the only weapon it has in its incredibly effective PR war. It is in Israel's national interest to protect its civilians and minimize the deaths of those in Gaza. It is in Hamas' interest to do exactly the opposite on both fronts.

***

7. If Hamas is so bad, why isn't everyone pro-Israel in this conflict?

Because Israel's flaws, while smaller in number, are massive in impact.

Many Israelis seem to have the same tribal mentality that their Palestinian counterparts do. They celebrate the bombing of Gaza the same way many Arabs celebrated 9/11. A UN report recently found that Israeli forces tortured Palestinian children and used them as human shields. They beat up teenagers. They are oftenreckless with their airstrikes. They have academics who explain how rape may be the only truly effective weapon against their enemy. And many of them callously and publicly revel in the deaths of innocent Palestinian children.

To be fair, these kinds of things do happen on both sides. They are an inevitable consequence of multiple generations raised to hate the other over the course of 65 plus years. To hold Israel up to a higher standard would mean approaching the Palestinians with the racism of lowered expectations.

However, if Israel holds itself to a higher standard like it claims -- it needs to do much more to show it isn't the same as the worst of its neighbors.

Israel is leading itself towards increasing international isolation and national suicide because of two things: 1. The occupation; and 2. Settlement expansion.

Settlement expansion is simply incomprehensible. No one really understands the point of it. Virtually every US administration -- from Nixon to Bush to Obama -- hasunequivocally opposed it. There is no justification for it except a Biblical one (see #2), which makes it slightly more difficult to see Israel's motives as purely secular.

The occupation is more complicated. The late Christopher Hitchens was right when he said this about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories:

"In order for Israel to become part of the alliance against whatever we want to call it, religious barbarism, theocratic, possibly thermonuclear theocratic or nuclear theocratic aggression, it can't, it'll have to dispense with the occupation. It's as simple as that.

It can be, you can think of it as a kind of European style, Western style country if you want, but it can't govern other people against their will. It can't continue to steal their land in the way that it does every day.And it's unbelievably irresponsible of Israelis, knowing the position of the United States and its allies are in around the world, to continue to behave in this unconscionable way. And I'm afraid I know too much about the history of the conflict to think of Israel as just a tiny, little island surrounded by a sea of ravening wolves and so on. I mean, I know quite a lot about how that state was founded, and the amount of violence and dispossession that involved. And I'm a prisoner of that knowledge. I can't un-know it."



As seen with Gaza in 2005, unilateral disengagement is probably easier to talk about than actually carry out. But if it Israel doesn't work harder towards a two-state (maybe three-state, thanks to Hamas) solution, it will eventually have to make that ugly choice between being a Jewish-majority state or a democracy.

It's still too early to call Israel an apartheid state, but when John Kerry said Israelcould end up as one in the future, he wasn't completely off the mark. It's simple math. There are only a limited number of ways a bi-national Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority population can retain its Jewish identity. And none of them are pretty.

***

Let's face it, the land belongs to both of them now. Israel was carved out of Palestine for Jews with help from the British in the late 1940s just like my own birthplace of Pakistan was carved out of India for Muslims around the same time. The process was painful, and displaced millions in both instances. But it's been almost 70 years. There are now at least two or three generations of Israelis who were born and raised in this land, to whom it really is a home, and who are often held accountable and made to pay for for historical atrocities that are no fault of their own. They are programmed to oppose "the other" just as Palestinian children are. At its very core, this is a tribal religious conflict that will never be resolved unless people stop choosing sides.

So you really don't have to choose between being "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine." If you support secularism, democracy, and a two-state solution -- and you oppose Hamas, settlement expansion, and the occupation -- you can be both.

If they keep asking you to pick a side after all of that, tell them you're going with hummus.

7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict | Ali A. Rizvi

Top reply to the article in question-

I respectfully disagree with the author's views. He has successfully minced what is largely a human rights and social justice issue. Firstly, he presents to us a false dichotomy: either you're pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. When people around the world rallied against the apartheid South African state, it wasn't a "pro-ANC/pro-Black" vs "white South Africa" debate. It was about rights: anti-racism, the right to self-determination. On this note, the author claims that Israel may not yet be an apartheid state, but experts on the issue such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu would beg to disagree.
Even if we were to accept the author's false dichotomy, he then manages to batter the pro-Palestinian stance with the misdeeds of Hamas - a logical pitfall because he equates pro-Palestine with pro-Hamas.
Even in his vilification of Hamas, he fails to be balanced by ignoring that there are various reporters in Gaza who have reiterated that they have not seen evidence of Hamas forcing civilians to stay in bombed areas: Debunking Israel's 11 Main Myths About Gaza, Hamas and War Crimes | Mehdi Hasan And let's presume that it was true, but the civilians decide to flee in any case, where are they to go?! 44% of Gaza, already a highly densely populated area, has been declared a military no-go zone by the IDF, and furthermore, there are accounts of Gazans who have fled and have still been caught in the indiscriminate bombing. He mentions two UN schools (which were abandoned at the time) where rockets where stored, but he fails to mention the UN schools (which were sheltering hundreds of civilians) which were bombed by the IDF.
The author presents three religious quotes which would appear to justify the violence from both sides. Another logical pitfall by setting a false premise for the Palestinian struggle. The struggle of a people against oppression and for the freedom to live in their homes peacefully and to have the right of self-determination does not need a religious edict - it is a human right which any group of people would struggle for. And let us assume his premise was true, how can one ignore the large number of religious teachings in both Judaism and Islam which actually denounce violence and the killing of innocent people?
Lastly, just because other atrocities around the world do not receive as much criticism, it still doesn't justify this one.
Oh, and I was pondering on point number three by the author, why would Israel deliberately kill innocent people. Why indeed? I shuddered when I re-read the author's prime argument as to why Israel wouldn't deliberately kill innocent people: because it would make Israel look bad. Not because it's a horrible thing to do? And he goes on to say that if indeed they would want to do it they could do it much better, by citing the example of ISIS, and that if Israel wanted to destroy Gaza they could do it one day. What type of argument is this?! Are we to assume then that because it hasn't destroyed Gaza in one day it is actually doing a fine humanitarian service by the mass bombing carried out on a civilian population resulting in over 1,100 deaths, most of them women and children, with massive destruction of civilian infrastructure? And if you can get past that, his comparison of numbers is logically flawed because the population of Iraq and Syria is multifold of that of Gaza (~Syria 22mil, Iraq 32mil, Gaza 1.8m) and that the duration of the conflicts varies greatly. In short, I see this article as an attempt to delegitimize the outcry on Gaza.- Maysam Khalfan

If any Indian support Palestine please post statement here.

Half the Indians on this thread claiming to support Palestine are on other threads supporting Israel, the responses here are laughable at best.

Some Pakistanis exist that support Israel. Anyway I think 60% of Indian people support Palestine, even more.. if we go to India ask from Indian people.

You will be heartbroken to learn the reality.

 

[KingMamba]

@MOHSENAM Pakistan doesn't accept Israel as a country. My Green Passport is valid for all the countries of the World, except Israel, because we never accepted them as a country. These are facts you can check on internet. May be somebody with false falgs would be doing that.

The Pakistani passport is an oxymoron because while Pakistan claims not to recognize Israel by putting its name on its passport it technically acknowledges that it does in fact exist as a country that one can possibly travel too.

India as well has as its official policy the recognition of a sovereign Palestine. State policy doesn't necessary mean that all the people of that state think along the lines of the state policy. You will find Indians here expressing utmost support for Palestinians whilst a few tend to sell the Israeli cause (Zioindians is what one member here calls them). Likewise you will also find Pakistanis who seem to abhor Hamas and tacitly support Israel. In fact, one member of Pakistani origin openly supports Israel. Enuff said

They are not Pakistanis.

There are also a couple of Pakistanis who support Israel. What's your point ?

No such thing.

 

[scrumpy]

The occupation must end.

 

[MOHSENAM]

Top reply to the article in question-

I respectfully disagree with the author's views. He has successfully minced what is largely a human rights and social justice issue. Firstly, he presents to us a false dichotomy: either you're pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. When people around the world rallied against the apartheid South African state, it wasn't a "pro-ANC/pro-Black" vs "white South Africa" debate. It was about rights: anti-racism, the right to self-determination. On this note, the author claims that Israel may not yet be an apartheid state, but experts on the issue such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu would beg to disagree.
Even if we were to accept the author's false dichotomy, he then manages to batter the pro-Palestinian stance with the misdeeds of Hamas - a logical pitfall because he equates pro-Palestine with pro-Hamas.
Even in his vilification of Hamas, he fails to be balanced by ignoring that there are various reporters in Gaza who have reiterated that they have not seen evidence of Hamas forcing civilians to stay in bombed areas: Debunking Israel's 11 Main Myths About Gaza, Hamas and War Crimes | Mehdi Hasan And let's presume that it was true, but the civilians decide to flee in any case, where are they to go?! 44% of Gaza, already a highly densely populated area, has been declared a military no-go zone by the IDF, and furthermore, there are accounts of Gazans who have fled and have still been caught in the indiscriminate bombing. He mentions two UN schools (which were abandoned at the time) where rockets where stored, but he fails to mention the UN schools (which were sheltering hundreds of civilians) which were bombed by the IDF.
The author presents three religious quotes which would appear to justify the violence from both sides. Another logical pitfall by setting a false premise for the Palestinian struggle. The struggle of a people against oppression and for the freedom to live in their homes peacefully and to have the right of self-determination does not need a religious edict - it is a human right which any group of people would struggle for. And let us assume his premise was true, how can one ignore the large number of religious teachings in both Judaism and Islam which actually denounce violence and the killing of innocent people?
Lastly, just because other atrocities around the world do not receive as much criticism, it still doesn't justify this one.
Oh, and I was pondering on point number three by the author, why would Israel deliberately kill innocent people. Why indeed? I shuddered when I re-read the author's prime argument as to why Israel wouldn't deliberately kill innocent people: because it would make Israel look bad. Not because it's a horrible thing to do? And he goes on to say that if indeed they would want to do it they could do it much better, by citing the example of ISIS, and that if Israel wanted to destroy Gaza they could do it one day. What type of argument is this?! Are we to assume then that because it hasn't destroyed Gaza in one day it is actually doing a fine humanitarian service by the mass bombing carried out on a civilian population resulting in over 1,100 deaths, most of them women and children, with massive destruction of civilian infrastructure? And if you can get past that, his comparison of numbers is logically flawed because the population of Iraq and Syria is multifold of that of Gaza (~Syria 22mil, Iraq 32mil, Gaza 1.8m) and that the duration of the conflicts varies greatly. In short, I see this article as an attempt to delegitimize the outcry on Gaza.- Maysam Khalfan



Half the Indians on this thread claiming to support Palestine are on other threads supporting Israel, the responses here are laughable at best.



You will be heartbroken to learn the reality.

Most of Indian are wise and condemn Israel in their minds and hearts. But we should consider Israel has helped them in some parts like military, and Israeli propaganda exist in their country 24/7.

Another matter is that, they are natural about Palestine and Israel issue but they hate Hamas. They think Hamas is something like ISIS which is 100% wrong.

Anyway I think if we go to India ask native Indians, 70% hate Israel and support Palestine.

Another thing is that, conflicts with Pakistan has affected on their opinions about Palestine.
Sorry for my weak english.

 

[KingMamba]

Most of Indian are wise and condemn Israel in their minds and hearts. But we should consider Israel have helped them in some parts like military. and Israeli propaganda exist in their country 24/7.

Another matter is that, they are natural about Palestine and Israel issue but they hate Hamas. They think Hamas is something like ISIS which is 100% wrong.

Anyway I think if we go to India ask native Indians, 70% hate Israel and support Palestine.

Another thing is that, conflicts with Pakistan has affected on their opinions about Palestine.
Sorry for my weak english.

This is wishful thinking it is more like the reverse.

 

[MOHSENAM]

This is wishful thinking it is more like the reverse.

Ok.

 

[gubbi]

Most of Indian are wise and condemn Israel in their minds and hearts. But we should consider Israel has helped them in some parts like military, and Israeli propaganda exist in their country 24/7.

Another matter is that, they are natural about Palestine and Israel issue but they hate Hamas. They think Hamas is something like ISIS which is 100% wrong.

Indians dont equate HAMAS with ISIS. Wrong assumption. Indians consider PLO/PA as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians, not HAMAS. HAMAS a terrorist organization and a real prick in the peace process.

Anyway I think if we go to India ask native Indians, 70% hate Israel and support Palestine.

100% wrong. Indians have nothing against both the Israelis and the Palestinians. India was a friend of the Palestinians long before India became friends with Israel. Long before even the massacre of Palestinians by Pak Gen Zia-ul-Haq in Jordan!!

Another thing is that, conflicts with Pakistan has affected on their opinions about Palestine.
Sorry for my weak english.

Our conflict with Pakistan is a territorial one, which Pakistani establishment has tarnished by bringing in religious fundamentalists. Now it has taken a different hue altogether. But never has conflict with Pakistan clouded India's support for Palestine or Israel. Period.
Your assumptions, sir, are wrong.

 

[Malghani]

exist as a country that one can possibly travel too.

It doesn't exists in the list of countries we can travel to. Look closer

 

[Malghani]

Indian interests.

Selfish