What's new

Israel India love affair - Is it mutual or just one-sided?

Do people in Israel like Indians too?


  • Total voters
    25
Indians and Israelis generally share good relations, a lot of Israeli tourists visit northern parts of India after their service and have quite chill time.

There are some small places where you will find less Indians and more Israeli tourists.

Some Indian men do look at foreign girls like objects, and give nasty vibes which a lot of tourists complain about, but in general the overall experience is mostly pleasant from my interactions in the past.

Having said the above, nothing beats the love @Devadwal seems to be showing since last week or so. His and Israel love story seems to be in league of Romeo-Juliet, Heer-Ranjha.
 
Indians are trying to defend and be more israelis than even the real israeli people. Such is the level.

They are so cringy!

They have no skin in this game. They are not Muslims; they are not Jews; they are not Arabs; they are not Persians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
India’s relationship with Israel has historically been cautious and largely limited to government-to-government interactions. For decades, India maintained a deliberate distance due to the sensitivities surrounding the Israel–Palestine conflict and the need to balance ties with several Muslim-majority nations in the region, many of whom share strategic, economic, or cultural links with India.

However, this dynamic began to shift in the late 1990s, particularly during the Kargil War, when Israel emerged as a crucial supplier of advanced military technology and defense equipment. Since then, the defense partnership has steadily deepened, with Israel becoming one of India’s key arms suppliers.

The relationship became more visible and politically open after the 2014 change in government, when a more nationalist and security-oriented leadership came to power. This government had fewer ideological reservations about engaging openly with Israel, allowing the ties to evolve beyond the traditional security framework into areas like agriculture, innovation, and cybersecurity.

That said, the trajectory of India–Israel relations remains sensitive to domestic political changes. A future government with a more pro-Islamic or non-aligned orientation such as the Congress party or its allies may choose to recalibrate ties with Israel, reverting to a more cautious or low-profile engagement to preserve regional diplomatic balance.
 
Jews think of themselves superior beings, so the thought of them being even respectful to others is empty. Zionism has taken this to a whole new level. In their mind, it's a privilege for Indians to be working as labour in their country- that's all.

The fact that Indians, especially Hindus are going out of their way desperately to show solidarity and stand with Israel is as one-sided a love affair as you can get.

Indians like to think that first thing that comes to mind when they're mentioned is economy and Israel will appreciate this first-hand. This facade is not enough to hide the third world unhygienic nature of the country i.e. open defecation, rape culture, cow urine shenanigans, animal worshipping etc which a common Israeli is more likely to have knowledge about.
 
What is Non-Muslim Indians? Retarded term considering how many religions we have.
Irrespective, dehumanising is part of psyche in agenda driven world, might as well continue.
 
Most humiliated people on the planet with the 2nd most humiliated people on the planet. Enjoy
Pakistanis are also extremely humiliated. Just because you joined and accepted the invaders cult does not absolve you people from the humiliation that your ancestors suffered.
 
Pakistanis are also extremely humiliated. Just because you joined and accepted the invaders cult does not absolve you people from the humiliation that your ancestors suffered.
I am not going into a Pakistan v India stuff, but just want to understand your post better. What humiliation are you talking about? The fact that people converted to Islam is humiliation according to you?
 
I am not going into a Pakistan v India stuff, but just want to understand your post better. What humiliation are you talking about? The fact that people converted to Islam is humiliation according to you?
Losing to Turks and getting Turkified with strong Persian influence.

What Hindu ancestors suffered is the same fate and humiliation that subcontinent Muslims ancestors suffered.
 
Losing to Turks and getting Turkified with strong Persian influence.

What Hindu ancestors suffered is the same fate and humiliation that subcontinent Muslims ancestors suffered.

Who really lost? Most Pakistanis still carry the subcontinent’s culture, the only real difference is religion.

Did you expect Muslims to keep bowing to idols?

And why do you all act like you never actually left India?
 
Who really lost? Most Pakistanis still carry the subcontinent’s culture, the only real difference is religion.

Did you expect Muslims to keep bowing to idols?

And why do you all act like you never actually left India?
The original response to the post is Hindus getting humiliated. My response was that everyone in subcontinent including the lands of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India got humiliated.

There were no Muslims in India until Turks showed up. The original Arab invasion did not last long. By 9th century, it diminished until Ghaznavi, Ghori etc started showing up in 11th century followed later in 15th century by Mughals.

What do you mean acting like I never left India. I post facts. Some of your country men think only the modern day Hindus got humiliated. Fact is, everyone’s ancestor in subcontinent got humiliated.
 
The original response to the post is Hindus getting humiliated. My response was that everyone in subcontinent including the lands of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India got humiliated.

There were no Muslims in India until Turks showed up. The original Arab invasion did not last long. By 9th century, it diminished until Ghaznavi, Ghori etc started showing up in 11th century followed later in 15th century by Mughals.

What do you mean acting like I never left India. I post facts. Some of your country men think only the modern day Hindus got humiliated. Fact is, everyone’s ancestor in subcontinent got humiliated.
Yeah, now you’re reaching.

The context was clear, Indians are being humiliated for supporting the very people committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
 
Yeah, now you’re reaching.

The context was clear, Indians are being humiliated for supporting the very people committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
How are Indians humiliated for supporting the people committing genocide?
 
How are Indians humiliated for supporting the people committing genocide?
Indians are being humiliated, and what’s worse, they don’t even seem to care that they’re being humiliated for supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing.
 
We have clearly seen here Indians support Genocidal child killer Israelis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
India and Israel have taken another step to strengthen their economic ties. On Monday, the two countries signed an agreement in New Delhi that aims to promote and protect reciprocal investment, reported Reuters.

According to Israel’s Finance Ministry, this is the first time an OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) country has entered into such a deal with India. Officials said the agreement would create a safer and more stable environment for businesses, encouraging new opportunities for trade and investment.

The Finance Ministry wrote on X, “The Government of India and Government of the State of Israel sign Bilateral Investment Agreement in New Delhi, today.”

The pact was inked by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and her Israeli counterpart Bezalel Smotrich.

Bilateral trade between India and Israel stood at $3.9 billion in 2024. Experts believe the new deal could help push those numbers higher by making cross-border investments more secure and attractive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: https://www.indiatoday.in/business/...-39-billion-trade-in-focus-2783951-2025-09-08

@Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila @uppercut @JaDed @Romali_rotti @Rajdeep
 
Good! Our interests should reign supreme.

Yes you have already facilitiated the deaths of Ukrainians and now you're strengthening your business ties with a genocidal state... India really is the shining light for extremism
 
Neither Jews nor Christians accept this Islamic view.
And yet Islam means submission to God, and a Muslim is someone who follows Islam and submits to God. It cannot be denied that Adam and Abraham both submitted to God and therefore were technically Muslim.

Islam is unique, it is not named after a human, or a place, like the rest such as Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism.
 
Yes you have already facilitiated the deaths of Ukrainians and now you're strengthening your business ties with a genocidal state... India really is the shining light for extremism
Cannot digest that how they also defend killings of innocents in Palestine either. Nothing less than Israelis. So to the topic, two-sided affair as both are genocide lovers.
 
It is not correct to connect Israel Palestine issue with a specific country. Like any conflict in middle east, it is related to religion. irrespective of which country he is from.

Most conservative Hindus and Christians support Israel. It is bcoz they have suffered at the hands of muslims for years and will support anyone who against muslims.

However, most liberal Hindus and Christians supports Palestine. Thats why 'All Eyes on Rafa' was trending whole day in India among liberal circle.

Muslims obviously supports Palestine. However, even among muslims, many from Sunni sects, though not directly supporting Israel but quietly enjoying the bashing Iran and its proxies getting.

So to generalize a country and say Indians support Israel is inaccurate. It is all about what is your religion or which political spectrum you fall into irrespective of county of origin.

#FACTS
#RajdeepSpeaks
It’s funny you sign off your post with the hashtag FACTS when part of your first paragraph is not fact at all. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not religious but based on land. The Zionists stole land that isn’t theirs. Palestinians are both Muslims and Christians.
 
Ironically Israel is similar to Pakistan in terms of creation lol
It’s not similar at all. Pakistan was created so that Muslims can have their own country. Israel was created so that ethnic Jews can have their own country.

Muslim is a religious identity whereas Jews are an ethnic group. Two very different reasons.

You need to understand that Jews can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindus or follow the religion of their forefathers - Judaism. Just like Arabs can become Hindus (if they so wish), are Christian, Muslim and Atheist, etc. Most Jews are Atheist and don’t follow Judaism. There are white Jews, brown Jews, black Jews, etc. When the Romans kicked them out, they went everywhere and settled and intermarried, hence the diversity amongst them.
 
Ironically Israel is similar to Pakistan in terms of creation lol

Do you think before you post? :inti

How are they similar?

Pakistanis were natives to the land and they wanted their own country. So, they got their country.

Modern day Israelis are not natives to the land. They are mostly Europeans (Ashkenazi Jews). Look up "Nakba". Israelis are occupying the lands of native Palestinians (who are Muslims, Christians, and even Jews).

It is hilarious and embarrassing when Indians post things about Palestine without knowing all facts.
 
Do you think before you post? :inti

How are they similar?

Pakistanis were natives to the land and they wanted their own country. So, they got their country.

Modern day Israelis are not natives to the land. They are mostly Europeans (Ashkenazi Jews). Look up "Nakba". Israelis are occupying the lands of native Palestinians (who are Muslims, Christians, and even Jews).

It is hilarious and embarrassing when Indians post things about Palestine without knowing all facts.
DNA studies do show that both Palestinians and Jews are native/indigenous to the land.

Both are Semitic and descendants of the Canaanites, who were the original inhabitants of the land. The Palestinians are actually converts from Judaism and Christianity themselves and Arabs have been in the region for 1,000s of years. Like the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Palestinians are actually Levantine Arabs.

With jews on the other hand, most (60%) are Middle Eastern Jews who are brown and have lived in surrounding Arab countries for centuries. 40% of Jews are European stock and their DNA is interesting. They are basically descendants of Middle Eastern male Jews who migrated and settled in Europe after the Romans kicked them out and married European non Jewish women. So their maternal line is not Jewish at all. But technically they do have a claim on the land.

However, 2,000 years of separation does not entitle you to any land. I have 8% Iranian DNA, doesn’t mean I can walk into Iran and claim land for myself. However, I do believe in the two state solution where both peoples have their own land.
 
It’s funny you sign off your post with the hashtag FACTS when part of your first paragraph is not fact at all. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not religious but based on land. The Zionists stole land that isn’t theirs. Palestinians are both Muslims and Christians.
Your history is unfortunately weak. The present-day land of Israel/Palestine had its first Jewish settlers thousands of years ago. The First Temple on the Temple Mount was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, and the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Islam, by contrast, came centuries later.

Over time, Jews were repeatedly conquered, displaced, and persecuted, eventually settling in different parts of the world, including Europe (Netanyahu’s family roots trace back to Poland). After WW2 and the Holocaust, the British oversaw the creation of a Jewish homeland in a portion of land that was originally theirs.

What happened next? On the very day of Israel’s declaration in 1948, the surrounding Arab Muslim nations attacked—yet Israel survived and has since become one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

This is not a land grab. If, instead of Jews, another Muslim community had settled there, would there have been the same outrage? Highly doubtful. That shows this conflict is fundamentally religious, not territorial.
 
However, 2,000 years of separation does not entitle you to any land. I have 8% Iranian DNA, doesn’t mean I can walk into Iran and claim land for myself.

Yup. Pretty much.

Founder of Zionism (Theodor Herzl) wasn't even a religious Jew. Zionism is pretty much an European colonization project.
 
It’s not similar at all. Pakistan was created so that Muslims can have their own country. Israel was created so that ethnic Jews can have their own country.

Muslim is a religious identity whereas Jews are an ethnic group. Two very different reasons.

You need to understand that Jews can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindus or follow the religion of their forefathers - Judaism. Just like Arabs can become Hindus (if they so wish), are Christian, Muslim and Atheist, etc. Most Jews are Atheist and don’t follow Judaism. There are white Jews, brown Jews, black Jews, etc. When the Romans kicked them out, they went everywhere and settled and intermarried, hence the diversity amongst them.
Just you interpretation, a rather convenient one that suits your purpose.
 
It’s not similar at all. Pakistan was created so that Muslims can have their own country. Israel was created so that ethnic Jews can have their own country.

Muslim is a religious identity whereas Jews are an ethnic group. Two very different reasons.

You need to understand that Jews can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindus or follow the religion of their forefathers - Judaism. Just like Arabs can become Hindus (if they so wish), are Christian, Muslim and Atheist, etc. Most Jews are Atheist and don’t follow Judaism. There are white Jews, brown Jews, black Jews, etc. When the Romans kicked them out, they went everywhere and settled and intermarried, hence the diversity amongst them.

I think Jaded has a point. Let me explain.

Pakistan was created 12 months prior to the creation of Isreal. It was the British that facilitated the creation of Pakistan, a country for Muslims. I suspect this was a test to see if a country can be created to cater for a majority religion or ethnicity. Pakistan was an experiment that lead to the creation of Israel 12months later and once again it was the Brits who did this.

Even if it wasn't a test, Pakistan was already created and so it became easier to justify the creation of Isreal.

Hope this makes sense ^
 
Your history is unfortunately weak. The present-day land of Israel/Palestine had its first Jewish settlers thousands of years ago. The First Temple on the Temple Mount was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, and the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Islam, by contrast, came centuries later.

Over time, Jews were repeatedly conquered, displaced, and persecuted, eventually settling in different parts of the world, including Europe (Netanyahu’s family roots trace back to Poland). After WW2 and the Holocaust, the British oversaw the creation of a Jewish homeland in a portion of land that was originally theirs.

What happened next? On the very day of Israel’s declaration in 1948, the surrounding Arab Muslim nations attacked—yet Israel survived and has since become one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

This is not a land grab. If, instead of Jews, another Muslim community had settled there, would there have been the same outrage? Highly doubtful. That shows this conflict is fundamentally religious, not territorial.
You say my history is weak lol.

Let me remind you that both Arabs and Jews are semites and are descendants of the original semites such as Abraham. The Jews comes from his one son Isaac and the Arabs come from his other son Ismael. Both have been around the same time, the only difference is that Jews formed a single identity much earlier because their religion is older. The Arab identity only form due to Islam. However, Arabs predate Islam by thousands of years and have been in the Levant for thousands of years before Islam. Have you heard of Philip the Arab? He was a Roman emperor in the 3rd century AD, who was a Levantine Arab born in Syria.

Both Jews and the Levantine Arabs are from the region, and Palestinians are also Levantine Arabs. Both are indigenous. DNA studies show that both peoples are descended from the Canaanites, who were semites and were the original inhabitants of the land. However, while the Palestinians have lived in the land since time immemorial, the Jews were kicked out by the Romans and moved to other lands including Europe. The European Jews, predominantly the Ashkanazis are predominantly descended from male Jews who migrated to Europe and married European women. DNA results show their maternal line to be white European.

However to the point of land, let me educate on what happened. The issue started in the 1850s when the Ottomans who ruled the Levant, introduced land reform laws where before people who lived in their ancestral lands with no record keeping (the Fellahin Arab farmers) had to officially register centrally. The Fellahin did not register their land because they were poor and had no money to support this along with other reasons. Instead prominent Ottoman families registered their own names and became official owners of the land and were remote landlords living in Beirut and Istanbul, etc.

These distant absentee landlords decided to sell the land and it was the Zionists who bought it. However, despite this, Zionists only owned 5% of the land but were offered 55% which is incredibly unfair. This is why the Arabs went to war. Their land was being given away.

Ancestral claim to land 2,000 years ago doesn’t mean it is automatically yours and the Palestinians also have ancestral claim and held most of the land. I am 8% Persian from my own DNA test , going back 1,000s of years. Doesn’t mean I can rock up to Iran and claim land! So your claim that the land automatically belongs to the Jews is ridiculous.

Finally, you talk about Arabs invading in 1948, do you know what was another main reason for the invasion? In 1947, the Zionist militia carried out ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian villages, a year before the Arabs invaded. This was news to the Arab world and outraged them. They had every right to invade.

And then following 1948, The Arabs controlled Gaza and the West Bank and yet in 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and Jordan and took control of Gaza and West Bank, which are occcupied territories. So yes, my history is correct, they stole land!
 
Your history is unfortunately weak. The present-day land of Israel/Palestine had its first Jewish settlers thousands of years ago. The First Temple on the Temple Mount was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, and the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Islam, by contrast, came centuries later.

Over time, Jews were repeatedly conquered, displaced, and persecuted, eventually settling in different parts of the world, including Europe (Netanyahu’s family roots trace back to Poland). After WW2 and the Holocaust, the British oversaw the creation of a Jewish homeland in a portion of land that was originally theirs.

What happened next? On the very day of Israel’s declaration in 1948, the surrounding Arab Muslim nations attacked—yet Israel survived and has since become one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

This is not a land grab. If, instead of Jews, another Muslim community had settled there, would there have been the same outrage? Highly doubtful. That shows this conflict is fundamentally religious, not territorial.
More nonsense^
 
Just you interpretation, a rather convenient one that suits your purpose.
Not interpretation at all! Do you not know the difference between religion and ethnicity? Ask most Jews and you will find they consider themselves an ethnic group not so much religious. Most don’t even follow Judaism.
 
I think Jaded has a point. Let me explain.

Pakistan was created 12 months prior to the creation of Isreal. It was the British that facilitated the creation of Pakistan, a country for Muslims. I suspect this was a test to see if a country can be created to cater for a majority religion or ethnicity. Pakistan was an experiment that lead to the creation of Israel 12months later and once again it was the Brits who did this.

Even if it wasn't a test, Pakistan was already created and so it became easier to justify the creation of Isreal.

Hope this makes sense ^
I get what you are saying but the motivations are very different. Jewishness is an ethnic identity and was created for this ethnic group. Pakistan was created for a religious identity and for Muslims. Two different reasons. If Pakistan has been created for Punjabis, then you could say that there are similarities. Religious identities and ethnic identities are two very different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB
India and Israel have taken another step to strengthen their economic ties. On Monday, the two countries signed an agreement in New Delhi that aims to promote and protect reciprocal investment, reported Reuters.

According to Israel’s Finance Ministry, this is the first time an OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) country has entered into such a deal with India. Officials said the agreement would create a safer and more stable environment for businesses, encouraging new opportunities for trade and investment.

The Finance Ministry wrote on X, “The Government of India and Government of the State of Israel sign Bilateral Investment Agreement in New Delhi, today.”

The pact was inked by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and her Israeli counterpart Bezalel Smotrich.

Bilateral trade between India and Israel stood at $3.9 billion in 2024. Experts believe the new deal could help push those numbers higher by making cross-border investments more secure and attractive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: https://www.indiatoday.in/business/...-39-billion-trade-in-focus-2783951-2025-09-08

@Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila @uppercut @JaDed @Romali_rotti @Rajdeep
I have a very tough time supporting this country in any scenario except science.
 
Do you think before you post? :inti

How are they similar?

Pakistanis were natives to the land and they wanted their own country. So, they got their country.

Modern day Israelis are not natives to the land. They are mostly Europeans (Ashkenazi Jews). Look up "Nakba". Israelis are occupying the lands of native Palestinians (who are Muslims, Christians, and even Jews).

It is hilarious and embarrassing when Indians post things about Palestine without knowing all facts.
You should be pretty embarrassed at your posting, facts are not your friend as highlighted already by the other poster.
 
It’s not similar at all. Pakistan was created so that Muslims can have their own country. Israel was created so that ethnic Jews can have their own country.

Muslim is a religious identity whereas Jews are an ethnic group. Two very different reasons.

You need to understand that Jews can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindus or follow the religion of their forefathers - Judaism. Just like Arabs can become Hindus (if they so wish), are Christian, Muslim and Atheist, etc. Most Jews are Atheist and don’t follow Judaism. There are white Jews, brown Jews, black Jews, etc. When the Romans kicked them out, they went everywhere and settled and intermarried, hence the diversity amongst them.
Ok so the only difference is one was created for ethnicity and other for religion? Is that your argument?
 
Ok so the only difference is one was created for ethnicity and other for religion? Is that your argument?
Yes and it isn’t a minor difference. It a huge difference. Most countries are not created for religious reasons but rather ethnic reasons.

I find religious/ideological identity a superior identity to ethnic. You can’t help but be part of an ethnicity and it is tribal, but to come together for an ideological reason, for shared beliefs is noble.
 
Yes and it isn’t a minor difference. It a huge difference. Most countries are not created for religious reasons but rather ethnic reasons.

I find religious/ideological identity a superior identity to ethnic. You can’t help but be part of an ethnicity and it is tribal, but to come together for an ideological reason, for shared beliefs is noble.
Thats a bias to your own preference, something that is noble in your eyes.

I said somewhere in a thread once the partition of India was along flawed lines and should had been on ethnic linguistic lines, but i see what India’s founding fathers had deal with.

Irrespective, division along any lines that should be acceptable, as long as there is a reason noble in the eye of the one residing even when majority might not agree.
 
Thats a bias to your own preference, something that is noble in your eyes.

I said somewhere in a thread once the partition of India was along flawed lines and should had been on ethnic linguistic lines, but i see what India’s founding fathers had deal with.

Irrespective, division along any lines that should be acceptable, as long as there is a reason noble in the eye of the one residing even when majority might not agree.
Yes it is my own bias but modern nation states are based on ideological reasons. The U.K./US is based on capitalism, free speech, western values, etc. and if you go against that, you might find yourself in trouble. It’s why socialists in the U.K. and US are shunned.

Modern states aren’t based on ethnicities and you are going to find very few countries that are purely of one race/ethnicity. It’s a shared values model. Hence why I think it is a better way to organise states where people of the shared beliefs come together, whether that is religion or a political party or some ideology. People get along better based on shared values than pure ethnicities. You can be more friendly with someone who might not have similar DNA as you but has the same belief system, whether that is Hinduism, Islam, Communism, Capitalism, Republicanism or MAGA.
 
LOL at Indians trying to teach Palestine's history.

Your knowledge comes from BJP WhatsApp University. You are only embarrassing yourself at this point. :inti
 
Yes it is my own bias but modern nation states are based on ideological reasons. The U.K./US is based on capitalism, free speech, western values, etc. and if you go against that, you might find yourself in trouble. It’s why socialists in the U.K. and US are shunned.

Modern states aren’t based on ethnicities and you are going to find very few countries that are purely of one race/ethnicity. It’s a shared values model. Hence why I think it is a better way to organise states where people of the shared beliefs come together, whether that is religion or a political party or some ideology. People get along better based on shared values than pure ethnicities. You can be more friendly with someone who might not have similar DNA as you but has the same belief system, whether that is Hinduism, Islam, Communism, Capitalism, Republicanism or MAGA.
You are conveniently choosing points you want to believe:
1.Using example of Modern nations as majority nation the concept of nation is mostly along ethnic linguistic lines.

2.Passing of religion as an ideology and creating a false analogy with modern nations states where religion while part of it , majority are along race lines.

You are allowed to believe in what you want but there are too many false equivalencies.

Also if people start creating countries based on MAGA Republican there will be a second civil war.
 
LOL at Indians trying to teach Palestine's history.

Your knowledge comes from BJP WhatsApp University. You are only embarrassing yourself at this point. :inti
Don’t be sour accept you didn’t know their ethnicity and move on.
 
You are conveniently choosing points you want to believe:
1.Using example of Modern nations as majority nation the concept of nation is mostly along ethnic linguistic lines.

2.Passing of religion as an ideology and creating a false analogy with modern nations states where religion while part of it , majority are along race lines.

You are allowed to believe in what you want but there are too many false equivalencies.

Also if people start creating countries based on MAGA Republican there will be a second civil war.
I think it’s a nuanced point. So yes I agree that modern nation states were mostly create on ethnic and language models, but if you look at a lot of these states now, they have evolved to be more than that and they identify now more with shared beliefs. For example you can be any ethnicity and still be accepted as American as long as you believe in western values such as democracy, rule of law, capitalism, free speech, etc. The ethnic model is an outdated and backwards modern and is racist.

But I agree that I might be biased here in my views. My thinking has been shaped from spending my whole life in Britain where I love the idea of people from all walks of life coming together regardless of ethnicity. I wish other countries would be more like that especially Muslim countries like Pakistan where it doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, or even religion for that matter.

Religion is an ideology at the end of the day and it is a belief system like other belief systems which aren’t really religions. I’m not saying to create countries based on ideologies but my point was that people get along better with other people of the same ideology/beliefs and that if a country that was created purely on ideology would be more aligned with its people.
 
I think it’s a nuanced point. So yes I agree that modern nation states were mostly create on ethnic and language models, but if you look at a lot of these states now, they have evolved to be more than that and they identify now more with shared beliefs. For example you can be any ethnicity and still be accepted as American as long as you believe in western values such as democracy, rule of law, capitalism, free speech, etc. The ethnic model is an outdated and backwards modern and is racist.

But I agree that I might be biased here in my views. My thinking has been shaped from spending my whole life in Britain where I love the idea of people from all walks of life coming together regardless of ethnicity. I wish other countries would be more like that especially Muslim countries like Pakistan where it doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, or even religion for that matter.

Religion is an ideology at the end of the day and it is a belief system like other belief systems which aren’t really religions. I’m not saying to create countries based on ideologies but my point was that people get along better with other people of the same ideology/beliefs and that if a country that was created purely on ideology would be more aligned with its people.
You have a better view of the world than I have, I think majority countries are defined by their natives.

I don’t think British Values has been passed on if anything it has evolved to let things be, similarly in Canada as well , there are no shared Canadian Values anymore due to high intake of immigrants that are still connected to their past cultures/religions.

I understand your pov where you might assume Religion is an ideology, I think more than that, I believe an example: Panjabis and Sindhi could had lived together irrespective of religion due to shared cultural values.

Being from one religion doesn’t give a shared value concept as visible across but from one culture/language it does , that’s why language has such a big effect on brain.
 
Maybe my world view is wrong and it is these interactions which help you to challenge your own positions.

Cheers.
 
Not interpretation at all! Do you not know the difference between religion and ethnicity? Ask most Jews and you will find they consider themselves an ethnic group not so much religious. Most don’t even follow Judaism.
Whatever floats your boat
 
Yes you have already facilitiated the deaths of Ukrainians and now you're strengthening your business ties with a genocidal state... India really is the shining light for extremism
Ukraine wwnt to war with Russia not indias fault their comedian president thoughtamerican money and equipment will win him a war against russianow he goes crying every where for help

Pakistanis hate Israel so its agenocidal state.

Pakistani calling others extremists is ajoke
 
Yes you have already facilitiated the deaths of Ukrainians and now you're strengthening your business ties with a genocidal state... India really is the shining light for extremism
Ukraine wwnt to war with Russia not indias fault their comedian president thoughtamerican money and equipment will win him a war against russianow he goes crying every where for help

Pakistanis hate Israel so its agenocidal state

Never understood why its Pakistan's problem if Israel or russiaare India's allies

Shahbaz Sharif was recently requesting putin for good relationship.
 
Ukraine wwnt to war with Russia not indias fault their comedian president thoughtamerican money and equipment will win him a war against russianow he goes crying every where for help

Pakistanis hate Israel so its agenocidal state

Never understood why its Pakistan's problem if Israel or russiaare India's allies

Shahbaz Sharif was recently requesting putin for good relationship.
It’s not a genocidal state because Pakistanis hate Israel. This has nothing to do with Pakistan.

It is a genocidal state because most genocide scholars across the globe (80%+) have said Israel is committing genocide. This is not my opinion since I’m no genocide expert but the view of scholars with expertise, including Israeli genocide scholars such as Amos Goldberg.
 
It’s not a genocidal state because Pakistanis hate Israel. This has nothing to do with Pakistan.

It is a genocidal state because most genocide scholars across the globe (80%+) have said Israel is committing genocide. This is not my opinion since I’m no genocide expert but the view of scholars with expertise, including Israeli genocide scholars such as Amos Goldberg.

Any country that kills 60,000+ civilians is comitting genocide. Period.

Someone doesn't need to be expert to know it is a genocide.

Anyway, convincing sanghis is a waste of time. So, I don't even bother with these clowns. Maybe one day Joshila will experience something similar (if China decide to invade India).:inti
 
It’s not a genocidal state because Pakistanis hate Israel. This has nothing to do with Pakistan.

It is a genocidal state because most genocide scholars across the globe (80%+) have said Israel is committing genocide. This is not my opinion since I’m no genocide expert but the view of scholars with expertise, including Israeli genocide scholars such as Amos Goldberg.
what schars?
 
Any country that kills 60,000+ civilians is comitting genocide. Period.

Someone doesn't need to be expert to know it is a genocide.

Anyway, convincing sanghis is a waste of time. So, I don't even bother with these clowns. Maybe one day Joshila will experience something similar (if China decide to invade India).:inti
Every country will retaliate to killing pf its citizens
 
How are country suppose to retaliate to occupation, kidnapping of kids, daily killing of its citizens?

The colonizer left but left you to defend them.
Israel hsd every right to exist. Existence of other doesn't depend on the approval of Muslims
 
Israel hsd every right to exist. Existence of other doesn't depend on the approval of Muslims
Palestine has every right to defend their freedom against the occupation, Existence of Palestine or others does not depend on the approval of Hindutva bigots.
 
Matter of fact, majority of the westerners understand who is committing the genocide but count on Hindutva to lecture the rest of the world. News flash, ain't no westerners are enjoying Garba in the middle of their street anymore.
 
Matter of fact, majority of the westerners understand who is committing the genocide but count on Hindutva to lecture the rest of the world. News flash, ain't no westerners are enjoying Garba in the middle of their street anymore.

Correct.

Anyway, who cares what these pesky sanghis think? They are irrelevant when it comes to Palestine issue. :inti
 
what schars?
International Association of Genocide Scholars.


86% of those who voted were in favour of the resolution that what is happening in Gaza is genocide.
 
Back
Top