India-Israel Alliance Part II: A Steady Forging of Ties

[Android]

blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-india-israel-alliance-part-ii-a-steady-forging-of-ties-from-1992-to-2000/

I previously wrote about the gradual transition of India’s Israel policy, from one
of hostility to the collaborative stance adopted in 1992 – and the rationale for
this shift.
Here, I will further analyze the causes for India’s diplomatic shift and provide a
timeline of key events in the changing relationship.
[A] A DEEPER INSIGHT INTO THE CAUSES
(1) BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER
“What have the Arabs given us, if I may ask? Did they vote for us in the
Kashmir issue? Were they supportive of us when we had the East Pakistan crisis
(1971)?” blasted J.N. Dixit, the foreign secretary of India – and Indian National
Congress (INC) Party member – in a January 1992 interview, shortly after
normalization with Israel.
The eventual rapprochement was primarily because of the Arab world’s constant
betrayal of India by its robust support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue – in
spite of New Delhi’s hardline backing of Arab causes (especially that of
Palestine) in the international arena.
The Palestinians themselves overwhelmingly favoured Pakistan over India. This
was predicted by many, when starting 1951, the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem, Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, became a staunch defender of Pakistani
claims to Kashmir after visiting Pakistan that year.
Israel ALWAYS stood by India’s side on the Kashmir issue, even with New
Delhi’s outright hostility.
Dixit’s anger was reflective of the left-wing INC party’s frustration with the Arab
world. No longer were grievances over a failed West Asia policy unique to the
opposition.
(2) THE IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT
India, in the aftermath of Saddam Hussain’s forceful annexation of Kuwait in
1990, supported him until it could airlift the 150,000 or so Indians living in
Kuwait. Soon after, India became critical of Iraq, even allowing American
warplanes to refuel in Mumbai.
Israel proved its worthiness as an ally, when, in spite of India’s diplomatic
belligerence, she offered to transfer to Israel the thousands of Indians languishing
in Jordan (after escaping Iraq) and fly them to India for free. The absence of ties
caused various bureaucratic hurdles, and the help wasn’t accepted – exposing
those stranded to hunger, rape, and theft, leading to a great deal of anger and
debate against the INC’s policies.
After supporting Saddam, the PLO and Yasser Arafat lost prestige tremendously
in West Asia. Justifiably, Arafat was accused of treachery by the Kuwaitis. He
was also shunned by the Gulf States who feared that they could be “next”.
India was heavily dependent on the Gulf Emirates for energy and many economic
benefits. To alleviate any anger over its initial support for Saddam, New Delhi
distanced itself from the PLO, prioritizing the beneficial relationship with the Gulf
over the unrewarding ideological pro-Palestinian espousal.
(3) DECLINE OF THE SOVIET UNION
This event had multiple outcomes:
• Erosion of ideological foundations – From the very beginning, the mass-
murdering fascists of the Soviet Union were the self-appointed guardians of the
oppressed, torch bearers of the opposition to Western “Imperialism”. This clever
fabrication effectively enticed into the Soviet stable many third world countries,
themselves victims of colonialism (including India) – resulting in a drastic re-
alignment of their foreign policies.
The post-1967 Soviet and Eastern Bloc acrimony towards Israel and the US
reverberated across the post-colonial, non-aligned world, as this hostility
represented progressive antagonism towards what was perceived (inaccurately)
as Western-backed “Imperialism”.
The USSR’s collapse obliterated the ideological foundation of India’s anti-Israel
and anti-American stance. With its doctrinal mentor normalizing relations with
the Jewish State, India followed suit.
Furthermore, the loss of a diplomatic and military godfather necessitated
practicality. India could ill-afford being carried away by its hardline, utopia-
seeking sentiments.
• Economic liberalisation – Witnessing the failure of Socialist practices world-
over, India moved away from Soviet models of closed, rigid economic
administration and governance. Liberalization reforms in the economic sphere
prompted a globalized outlook, leading to drastic changes in New Delhi’s world
view.
This enabled the rise of a powerful, business-oriented middle class that yielded
tremendous influence on their respective states’ policies. It saw immense trading
potential in Israel, and established a strong commercial bond since the decades
of India-Israel disaffection. Easing state control allowed regional governments to
deal with Israel directly, without New Delhi’s interference. Because of these two
factors, states such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Punjab were
among the first to forge strong ties with Israel in a host of non-defence sectors.
A prominent Muslim journalist, Saeed Naqvi, an avid supporter of strong ties
with Israel, all through the 1990s, propounded the expansion of ties and the
benefits that come with them.
• The Arab world’s tacit acceptance of Israel – With the Arab world losing its
super-power backing, sustaining a warlike atmosphere of perpetual hostility to
the militarily superior Jewish state was impossible – prioritizing the use of
petro-dollar backed propaganda and the diplomatic arena to continue its
antipathy towards Jerusalem. The Madrid Middle-East Peace Conference of 1991
was a sign of the Arabs accepting, at the very least, the reality of Israel. India
relented on its dogmatic hangover, stemming from its self-enforced, hardline
Marxist ideals – ideals which were antithetical to the Hindu populace’s
sentiments on Israel. In the late 1980s, Chidambaram Subramaniam (former INC
cabinet member under PM Indira Gandhi) publicly asked: “Do we need to be
more Arab than Egypt?”
Besides, India’s eagerness to play a role in the peace process required
embracing both sides. Even the PLO leadership was aware that the India-Israel
bond was inevitable. During Prime Minister Narsimha Rao’s hosting of Yasser
Arafat – only a few days prior to normalization with Israel in January 1992 – the
latter gave his approval, albeit hesitantly.
• The rise of internal political opposition – The Arab world’s constant double-
crosses over Kashmir, coupled with the fact that the overwhelming majority of
India’s Hindu population loathed its pro-Arab stance, led to the rise of political
factions that preached a diametrically opposite West Asia policy. Many of the
INC’s coalition partners – the Praja Socialist Party (PSP), the Samyukta Socialist
Party (SSP), etc – identified from the outset with Israel’s socialist movement
(Mapai). Prioritizing domestic issues over foreign policy, they toed the party-line
on Israel, mutedly expressing support for Israel and criticizing the INC. Also, the
majority of the INC’s members were by now in favour of allying with Israel.
Abandonment wasn’t a worry during the Cold War because the opposition was
rigidly bound by Moscow’s anti-Israel foreign policy dictates. But post-1991,
India was free to steer in whichever direction it chose. Establishing ties with
Israel struck a popular, non-partisan chord and if the INC didn’t act, it risked a
massive candidate exodus to the rising Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) . Defection
was on the horizon.
• India’s quest for super-power backing – Since even before 1991, the wealthy
and influential Indian community in the US lobbied hard to bring India into the
US’s stable. After the Soviet breakup, it urged Capitol Hill’s policy-makers to
overlook India’s Cold War animus. The East-Indian and Jewish communities in
the US shared very cordial relations – the latter being a prominent role model for
the former – providing impetus for the forging of a powerful India-US (and
therefore, a powerful India-Israel) alliance. In collaboration with AIPAC, the AJC,
and the ADL, Indo-Americans worked towards bringing India, the US, and Israel
closer together. An important figure in these efforts is Madhav Das Nalapat.
With the above-mentioned changes in the domestic political climate and a
radical reshuffling of the global power structure, reconciliation was inevitable.
(4) PAKISTAN
Enter the one agent that has disproportionately clouded India’s overall foreign
policy calculations since 1947.
Barely a week after PV Narsimha Rao became the Prime Minister in 1991,
Pakistan-backed Kashmiri militants kidnapped a group of Israeli tourists, killing
one. This compelled co-ordination with Israeli diplomats. Rao waived all
restrictions on the Mumbai-based Israeli Consul, offering full co-operation in
resolving the crisis. This event marked the beginning of many efforts on his part
to bring the process to its logical conclusion, namely, the establishment of
formal ties with the Jewish state in January 1992.
Instrumental in that outcome was India’s Ambassador to the US, a Muslim
gentleman named Abid Hussein, a staunch defender of Israel and the Jewish
people, who actively sought to convince Rao that Israel would give the country a
superior edge over Pakistan, and that an alliance with the Jewish state was
indispensable to India’s long-term interests.
As the Iron Curtain had fallen, the world’s attention was now focused on other,
smaller conflicts. All eyes were on Kashmir.
Fearing international repercussions, Pakistan could not resort to conventional
warfare, nor could it give up dream of acquiring Kashmir. The White House’s
approach to Pakistan didn’t deviate from that of the Cold War. It continued to
expend huge amounts of financial aid, weaponry, and training to Pakistan, which
passed on these generous gifts to radical Jihadist groups to launch in Kashmir
the campaign its army could not. The paper trail to Islamabad’s involvement in
terror was difficult to establish, and being religious zealots, these Mujahideen
groups had little to no financial interests, rendering terrorism the perfect weapon.
These Pakistan-backed militants, driven by messianic zeal, viciously terrorized
the people of Kashmir (especially the Hindu population), and launched major
attacks in India’s metropolitan cities, crippling the nation.
( Example – The 1993 multiple bomb blasts in Mumbai, that led to the massacre
of 257 people and the grave injury of over 1400, masterminded by the Pakistani
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in collaboration with Mumbai-based Muslim
mafia figures Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, Ibrahim “Tiger” Memon, and many others,
all of whom now live under Pakistani protection.)
Furthermore, Islamabad had full diplomatic immunity thanks to the unquestioning
support from the OIC, and American imperviousness to its activities.
Because of this, India’s heavy dependence on Moscow for military and
diplomatic support transcended the Cold War. Furthermore, India was far from
being in the US’s or Israel’s good books and couldn’t risk jeopardizing existing
relations while transitioning to new ones. She did not adopt an “either/or”
strategy with regards to Israel and the Arab world; but rather, played a careful
balancing act.
Although Islamabad didn’t hope to annex Kashmir using terror-by-proxy, it
hoped to create the right circumstances to facilitate an easy acquisition. Chief
among the long list of its objectives are the following:
• The ethnic cleansing of Hindus – This would help Pakistan should the fate of
Kashmir be decided via plebiscite.
• Weakening the Indian armed forces’ grip on the state – Mass deaths of
civilians and military/law enforcement personnel would lead to lawlessness and
a weakened/decreased/demoralized military presence – ensuring an easy grab
for the Pakistanis via the steady infiltration of its troops.
• Radicalizing the state’s Muslim population via mosques – Pakistan used the
heavy funding from its Arab and American benefactors to radicalize the state’s
Muslim population by preaching religious fundamentalism and anti-Indian
sentiment.
• Disrupting India’s, specifically, Kashmir’s economy – Self-explanatory.
PERIOD OF RAPID TRANSITION (1991-2000)
Normalization saw no radical departure in New Delhi’s support for a two-state
solution. However, its sentimental, ideological pledge to the Palestinian cause
began to erode. Voting patterns at the UN and other international forums against
the US and Israel didn’t diverge much, but India learned to bifurcate the
establishment of strong bilateral ties from the complexities of the peace process.
“Support” for the Palestinians slowly but surely began to shift wholly into the
realm of verbal posturing.
The fledgling relationship faced an incessant barrage of roadblocks, many critics
voiced their opposition. One outcome of that was India’s refusal to sign a Civil
Aviation Agreement with Israel in 1993. However, a slow but sure forging of ties
was apparent.
Opposition by radical left-wing and Islamist factions remained. However, in
mainstream parties like the INC, opponents of normalization and expanding ties
with Israel were from the dying (and increasingly irrelevant) breed of old-school,
Soviet-Union worshipping, anti-Western, radical socialist ideologues who refused
to take off their philosophical blinders. Decades of brainwashing with anti-
Western, pro-Soviet propaganda rendered it difficult for them to adjust to new
realities.
Shortly after normalization, the deportation of Hamas militants in 1992 evoked
nothing more than an acknowledgement from the INC government, as did the
Hebron massacre by Kahanist Baruch Goldstein.
Diplomatic visits started soon. In May 1993, Shimon Peres, then Foreign Minister,
visited India to discuss terrorism and India’s territorial integrity. He
wholeheartedly supported India’s stand on Kashmir, stating: “We support fully
and completely the territorial integrity of India and agree with the Shimla
Agreement.”
Prime Minister hopeful Arjun Singh of the INC, then Minister of Human
Resources Development, himself a vociferous opponent of normalization, broke
taboo and visited Israel in 1994. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the BJP Chief
Minister of Rajasthan, also visited Israel in 1994.
In 1995, Prime Ministerial candidates, HD Deve Gowda, Janata Dal Party Chief
Minister of Karnataka, and LK Advani, leader of the BJP, visited Israel. Gowda,
who was elected in 1996, hosted President Weizmann, who came with a 24-
member business delegation, in December. Weizmann laid the foundation of the
Israeli-Indian Research and Development Farm at the Indian Agricultural
Research Institute (IARI) in Pusa near New Delhi. Soon after, Gowda met PM
Benjamin Netanyahu at the Davos World Economic Forum summit. After these
two meetings, trade expanded into a host of sectors – especially agriculture,
water management and purification, scientific R&D, hi-tech, and foreign
investment.
Future President, prominent scientist, and Muslim member of the INC, Dr. APJ
Abdul Kalam – one of the most pro-Israel voices in the country – visited the
Jewish state in 1996, when he was the scientific advisor to the Defence Minister.
After 1991, Russian manufacturers were simply unable to keep up with India’s
growing military needs the way the USSR had. The US wasn’t eager to forgive
India’s Cold War affinity for Moscow. India had to look to Israel for its military
supplies.
Israel’s expertise in Russian military equipment made it India’s primary partner
in modernizing and upgrading its armed forces. While high- profile visits
continued, the rapidly growing defence ties were, and continue to be, kept
STRICTLY secret, with the occasional disclosure.
The 1998 ascent to power of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
coalition, with Atal Behari Vajpayee as PM, saw a further surge in ties.
In response to India’s Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998, as expected, with the
exception of Saddam’s Iraq, the Arab world and the OIC strongly condemned
India’s actions, while being virtually silent on Pakistan’s nuclear tests only a few
weeks later.
There was speculation that Dr. Kalam, who played a pivotal organizational,
technical, and political role in the tests, had visited Israel for technical assistance
again in the months prior. This view, that India collaborated with Israel for the
nuclear tests, was further cemented when, in the aftermath of these tests, the
whole world came down on India like a ton of bricks, but Israel – although
refusing to comment initially – stood strongly by India’s side. The US began
imposing sanctions on India, which would have entailed:
Terminating assistance to India except for humanitarian aid. At the time, U.S.
economic and humanitarian aid amounted to about $142 million a year.
Barring sales of certain defense and technology equipment.
Ending credit and credit guarantees to India.
Coercing international financial institutions to cease lending to India, which had
borrowed about $1.5 billion from the World Bank in 1997.
On Israel’s intervention, Washington didn’t completely follow-up on these harsh
sanctions. Thanks to Israel, India was spared the impending diplomatic and
economic backlash, reaffirming its potential as a valuable strategic partner.
India joined the UN peacekeeping operations in the Middle East and the UN
Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in November 1998.
National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra made regular trips to Israel starting
1998, laying the groundwork for expanded cooperation in the military and
intelligence spheres. Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee also visited Israel the same
year. Continuing its commitment to the Palestinians, India hosted Arafat in April
1999.
A major catalyst to the India-Israel alliance was the 1999 Kargil War. India’s
plea for assistance was heeded almost immediately only by Israel, which
supplied ordnance, laser-guided bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), etc.,
thus altering the course of the conflict in India’s favour and firmly forging
Israel’s credibility and reliability as an ally. The Arab world’s unquestioning
support for Pakistan was hardly surprising.
LK Advani, now the Home Minister, visited Israel again in 2000, as did Defence
Minister Jaswant Singh. Both men continued on the path of traditional support
for the Palestinian cause by meeting with Arafat on the same trip. Najma
Heptullah, a Muslim INC member of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of
Parliament) also visited Israel. A Knesset delegation led by Amnon Rubenstein
visited India.
The rapidly solidifying consensus on Israel became clear when Jyoti Basu,
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) Chief Minister of West Bengal, visited
Israel with a 25-member delegation. He met with PM Ehud Barak and Shimon
Peres. West Bengal CPI-M leader, Somnath Chatterjee, went along with a huge
business delegation to promote a host of research and investment opportunities.
In turn, Shimon Peres, then the Minister for Regional Cooperation, visited India
both in 2000 and 2001.
With the outbreak of the Second Intifada, government officials issued very
balanced public statements of criticism of both sides – supplying USD 50,000
worth of medical aid to the PLO. Ten years ago, any Israeli-Arab conflict would
have led to harsh condemnations of the Jewish state and vociferous support for
the Arabs. In addition, Arab insistence to re-establish Zionism as racism at the
shameful Durban World Conference against Racism in 2001 was simply brushed
aside by Indian leaders.
During the Intifada, the hard left’s bonhomie with Israel ended but ONLY on the
diplomatic front. Example - The hypocritical CPI-M reverted to its pre-1992
rhetorical harshness — grounded in conspiracy theories – but refused to break its
economic collaboration with Israel in West Bengal, the state it ruled.
[C] CONCLUSION
With the USSR gone, India faced very unfamiliar and uncertain circumstances. It
began weighing its West-Asia approach purely in terms of concrete national
interests. The non-beneficial, emotional attachment to the Palestinians, steeped
in idealism, began disintegrating. In short, principle began to yield some place to
pragmatism.
By 2000, the ideological commitment had drastically softened, reduced to a few
symbolic gestures, minuscule financial donations, minimal collaboration in a few
sectors with the PA, and strong lip service in the international arena. This
provided a facade of “support” for the Arab/Palestinian cause, while the juicy
deals took place behind the scenes. Under the INC, the Janata Dal and the BJP,
criticism of Israel became very muted and balanced.
Furthermore, India’s support for the Palestinian issue waned as it became
inexorably clear that, aside from Saddam’s Iraq, the Arab world would not cease
its steadfast support for Pakistan on Kashmir, despite India’s history of
championing Palestinian/Arab causes.
The expanding ties with Israel did not harm India’s standing in the Gulf, or with
Iran. In fact, the Arab world, realizing what India had to offer, strengthened
bilateral trade relations with New Delhi from 1992 onwards, even as it continued
to aid Pakistan on many fronts. Iran, seeking to end its regional isolation, looked
to New Delhi as a potential partner, saying nothing about India’s growing
fondness for Israel.
Although the hard left’s romance with Israel was short lived in diplomatic terms,
a broad consensus was reached in India, both on the left (even the hard left) and
on the right, that Israel was an indispensable ally to India.
The President of India (INC), KR Narayanan, in his 2000 speech in New Delhi to
Israeli Ambassador David Aphek, spoke proudly about the burgeoning alliance
with Israel, the tremendous potential of that relationship, and assured his full
cooperation in further expansion of ties.
The inevitability of a powerful India-Israel alliance was further cemented after
9/11, when the US initiated an anti-terrorism nexus with India and Israel, which I
intend to cover in my next article.

 

[PteX]

This was a very interesting article.

"What have the Arabs ever done for us?" "Nothing" - Sums the Arab-Indian relationship.

 

[danger007]

Kudos to India and Israel relationship.... Israel is always my next favorite country after India...

 

[SQ8]

This was a very interesting article.

"What have the Arabs ever done for us?" "Nothing" - Sums the Arab-Indian relationship.

Apart from participating in development.. offers millions of jobs(if rather slave-like).. Nothing.

 

[ARSENAL6]

Couldn't be further from the truth

 

[PteX]

Apart from participating in development.. offers millions of jobs(if rather slave-like).. Nothing.

We all should welcome such friendship, like Pakistan has then? The development of militant and extremist ideologies within the internal population, raping and beheading of house slaves, treating Pakistanis and Indians working in the gulf states like human trash.
Discrimination, abuse, militancy, radicalization and total cultural destruction.

Did i miss anything from the benefits of the such a relationship?

 

[Puchtoon]

Both face threat from the same type of hostile ideology and are fighting since ages for their survival and sovereignty .

Indian,Isreal & USA \m/

 

[Mirage2000]

We all should welcome such friendship, like Pakistan has then? The development of militant and extremist ideologies within the internal population, raping and beheading of house slaves, treating Pakistanis and Indians working in the gulf states like human trash.
Discrimination, abuse, militancy, radicalization and total cultural destruction.

Did i miss anything from the benefits of the such a relationship?

Some of benefits are remittances Pakistan's most essential source of foreign exchange and Middle Eastern Investment in Pakistan.

I do agree with some of your points but Pakistan cannot have the kind of friendship India has with Israel for several reasons first is India-Israel relationship itself which will not allow it.

Secondly both countries are at there religious extremes Israel is quietly paranoid about Pakistan's Nuclear program because of Pakistan being a Muslim country and that causes its Muslim nuke concerns and Pakistan government cannot establish relations with Israel due to domestic pressure and backlash from religious right wing parties.

Third is mutual distrust due to above two reasons.

 

[PteX]

Some of benefits are remittances Pakistan's most essential source of foreign exchange and Middle Eastern Investment in Pakistan.

I do agree with some of your points but Pakistan cannot have the kind of friendship India has with Israel for several reasons first is India-Israel relationship itself which will not allow it.

Secondly both countries are at there religious extremes Israel is quietly paranoid about Pakistan's Nuclear program because of Pakistan being a Muslim country and that causes its Muslim nuke concerns and Pakistan government cannot establish relations with Israel due to domestic pressure and backlash from religious right wing parties.

Third is mutual distrust due to above two reasons.

When i say this, i say this as an Israeli Zionist: Pakistani Nuclear capabilities are not a concern for us as long as you do not make it our concern. There is no paranoia about this here because your country is not an actual "enemy".

Iran and the Arabs are our prime concern, as they have been for a long time.
We have a "You mind your business and we will mind ours" kind of understanding between our two countries.

Everything the Wahabists touch becomes poison, even if you believe it to be out of the good will of an "Ummah" sister nation.
Their "generosity" came with a price felt by the thousands of dead Pakistanis.

 

[BDforever]

@PteX what do you know about Bangladesh ? i mean what do you think

 

[Mirage2000]

When i say this, i say this as an Israeli Zionist: Pakistani Nuclear capabilities are not a concern for us as long as you do not make it our concern. There is no paranoia about this here because your country is not an actual "enemy".

This might be the case now but the mistrust and concerns are there.There was an incident downplayed and less publicized in 80's when Israel tried to launch an air strike on Pakistan on the same Nuclear grounds.

That being said Pakistan never wanted nor it will in future want to be enemy of Israel or any other country our eastern neighbor is enough for us. Verbal criticism will remain as it was but that will be it.

Pakistan wont support Arabs more than verbally as they haven't supported Pakistan more than verbally in its Kashmir dispute.

Iran and the Arabs are our prime concern, as they have been for a long time.
We have a "You mind your business and we will mind ours" kind of understanding between our two countries.

Everything the Wahabists touch becomes poison, even if you believe it to be out of the good will of an "Ummah" sister nation.
Their "generosity" came with a price felt by the thousands of dead Pakistanis.

"You mind your business and we will mind ours" This is very much happening now though tacitly between Israel and Pakistan. Pakistan has toned down its Palestine Cause rhetoric.

And without showing prejudice for any particular sect religious extremists i.e terrorists are now recognized by people here as killers and savages many people think of TTP and taliban as cancer.

 

[AUz]

Both face threat from the same type of hostile ideology and are fighting since ages for their survival and sovereignty .

Indian,Isreal & USA \m/

indians have this tendency of licking a$$ of whites whenever possible..

Now can I ask, in what struggle you , "israel" and "United States" are engaged for "ages"? and that too, for their "survival"?



Go ahead, say "Islamic Fundamentalism"

 

[SQ8]

Both face threat from the same type of hostile ideology and are fighting since ages for their survival and sovereignty .

Indian,Isreal & USA \m/

Since how many ages??

Since India was made? Well India was the first to recognize the PLO outside of the urbie states... How much "brotherhood" that must have shown to Israel..
India had officers training Egyptian airmen in 73.. how very "brotherly"..

India was for long the lynchpin of Soviet policy in the Indian Ocean..
so much so that the Americans considered attacking India at one point.. not too many ages ago.

The Americans.. poured in Billions of dollars of aid.. along with their greatest ally after Isreal known as Saudi Arabia..into financing these "ideologies".

So , please... when you are going to make a message of all out support in an effort to rub it in for your enemy.. at least do with a bit more pizazz and research rather than just hot headedness.

 

[Hulk]

indians have this tendency of licking a$$ of whites whenever possible..

Now can I ask, in what struggle you , "israel" and "United States" are engaged for "ages"? and that too, for their "survival"?



Go ahead, say "Islamic Fundamentalism"

Like salala, Raymond Davis and drones, yeah we are licking.

 

[jbond197]

Since how many ages??

Since India was made? Well India was the first to recognize the PLO outside of the urbie states... How much "brotherhood" that must have shown to Israel..
India had officers training Egyptian airmen in 73.. how very "brotherly"..

India was for long the lynchpin of Soviet policy in the Indian Ocean..
so much so that the Americans considered attacking India at one point.. not too many ages ago.

The Americans.. poured in Billions of dollars of aid.. along with their greatest ally after Isreal known as Saudi Arabia..into financing these "ideologies".

So , please... when you are going to make a message of all out support in an effort to rub it in for your enemy.. at least do with a bit more pizazz and research rather than just hot headedness.

I think what he meant to say is - Both India and Israel have been fighting the same extremist ideology for ages and that does not mean they have been fighting it together. India and Israel didn't had best of the relations not a very long back. India also tried all it could to some how please the extremists by supporting them but then realized what gained nothing out of it? and then India and Israel started developing an understanding and we both relaize that for survival we have to fight together against an extremist and violent ideology. So with time we developed a mature relation which is in favor of both the countries. Nothing wring with it, I think..