Talk:India–Israel relations

Materials
Sources for this article: —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.thecom.co.il/article.php?id=16683 (Hebrew)

Neutral Point of View
This article does not seem to have a neutral point of view and projects as if India has always been a supporter of Israel and anti-Palestine. It can be verified from a number of sources that this is not the case. The biggest evidence is that India recognized the state of Palestine before as soon as it was created in 1988 but established diplomatic relations with Israel only in 1992. In fact India recognized Palestine even before Pakistan did! Also I also not know on what basis it is being said that hindus are generally pro-israel. That view is held by the sangh parivar but they do not represent the majority. Anyway sources should be added. In the coming days I will do so. Shahab 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but presently the entire center right coalition is pro-Israel, not just the Sangh Parivar, so that's a substantial section. I have refs that indicate that the urban middle classes are increasingly pro-Irael, thank G-d.Plus, let's not forget the fact that even the left wing cooperated with Israel during the SI wars etc.Hkelkar 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the only sources where attacks are made on Jews and Israel in India are Muslim news sources like milligazette and imc.Hkelkar 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that India has ever taken an anti Palestine view? If there is any such source then it should be added. My view is that India is pro Israel but does not support its stand on Palestine. Otherwise why would India wait for so long to recognize Israel. The argument that India wanted to appease indian muslims does not seem right. If that was the case then India would never condemn Pakistan. Anyway all I want, is that reliable sources should be added. Cheers.Shahab 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We have been. I have sources that attest that recent Palestinian intransigence has been condemned in India.The suicidal Congress party did take a pro-Palestine position but that, thankfully, is slowly changing once they have realized that they are rooting for the wrong side.Hkelkar 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are such sources. If you have any then add them. It is not my intention to make this article show that India is antipathetic to Israel (as you seem to think). All I want is that the article should cite its sources and be unbiased.

You say that Palestine intransigence has been condemned in India. I do not doubt it. But this sentence does not occur anywhere in the article and so this remains just a view. One further point. During the 1960's and 1970's muslim votes and that kind of polarisation was just not there. The congress was the only major party anyway. There was no BJP. It was only in the late 1970's that a non congress was formed and that had absolutely nothing to do with religion. So the statement that "The stubborn opposition to establish diplomatic relations with Israel during the 1960s and 1970s arose due to the left-wing Congress Party's greed for Muslim votes." should be removed. If you have reliable sources then put them. Besides this the last line in this section should actually be the second or third line going by the timeline.
 * 1) The fact that India and Israel were on the opposite side in the cold war has been mentioned. Yet the sections on pre-1992 period gives the indication that the Indian govt was pro-Israel. This seems rather strange. If the "greedy" (this word indicates opinion and anyway should be removed) Congress party supported Palestine for muslims votes(no source) then it can be said that BJP supported Israel for Hindutva votes. Any way the Jan Sangh supported Israel less out of love for the country than antipathy for the Arabs.. Meanwhile the same source states the on Israel
 * The Non-Aligned Movement is quiescent.
 * The BJP regime is all admiration for Israel, as a role model for repression.
 * 1) The post 1992 section has the following unsourced statements:
 * India retaliated to the anti-India stance taken by the OIC by reducing its support for the Arab cause. (How India diluted its stand also needs to be mentioned.)
 * Muslims in India too felt betrayed by the stance taken by the OIC countries and support for Arabs among all sections of the Indian populace began declining.

In fact looking at the big picture with historically based facts and not simply by picking and choosing opinions out of context (most of the sources are opinions or comments) there is still little factual evidence that India is interested in Israel for buying anything other then military stuff at all. No Indian head of state or Prime Minister has ever visited Israel and no such event is in the pipeline. India has never involved itself in finding a solution to the midlle east dispute. I think politically and socially speaking this relationship has still a long way to go. That may or may not true but anyway either the sources in this article should be added or it should be tagged.Shahab 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read this article by Dr. Subhash Kapila, a well-known strategic analyst. --Incman|वार्ता 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shahab is wrong on several counts. One obvious flaw is his claim that no Indian politician visited Israel. There was an entire Indian delegation to Israel in the late 90's. Jaswant Sinha visited Tel Aviv and went to the Temple Mount.Other flaws will be revealed shortly. Plus, Arik Sharon's visit to India was widely reported (and,of course, condemned by muslims).Hkelkar 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar you say that I claim no Indian politician visited Israel. You are imagining things if you think that I claimed so. I claimed that No Indian head of state or Prime Minister has ever visited Israel and no such event is in the pipeline. Please supply the source against this. As for your other things please note that
 * I am not entirely opposed to your views. I think for example I agree that  Palestine intransigence has been condemned in India. and that India and Israel have a strategic relationship. What I really object to is your use of unqualified adjectives such as 'suicidal' congress and lack of RELIABLE sources for the sentences mentioned above which is clearly against wikipedia's policy .. This article projects that due to progressing Indo-Israel relations, India has become against Palestine which is not verified by any source.
 * The article talks the talk, (lots of opinion) but in reality there is no evidence of some big economic relationship or social relationship or political relationship. (India's main trade partners are the United States, the United Arab Emirates and China.).

Hkelkar please understand that my intention is that this article should contain reliable sources for what it states. You keep saying that you have the sources but either you don'e supply them and if you do then they are usually opionated articles written in some magazine. In this way even similarly opinionated articles written in indian muslim magazines would become sources (Also please remember these muslims are as much indian as much is the sangh parivar.) What we should have are reliable sources (newspaper reports in a reputed newspaper for example.)Shahab 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What? What manner of obscurantist rubbish is this anyway? We have been citing D.S.T. reports, well-sourced articles from rediff etc, and any refs that may be op/eds are solidly backed up by facts. Read the SAAG paper and the JINSA articles. All their assertions are backed up by their sources only. An India head of state may not have visited Israel, but an ISRAELI head of state DID visit India, and Indian politicians have visite Israel.That, together with an obvious benefit of cooperating militarily towards the goal of reigning the whack-jobs in (also, a well-sourced assertion) and the RAW_MOSSAD alliance clearly indicates that India attackes a special importance to building relations with the Jewish State, more so than with other countries I should say (and about bloody time too).Hkelkar 07:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar 07:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are choosing to pick sources that suit you. Show me the source where it states specifically that India has now become anti palestine. Show me the source where it states that during the 60's congress supported palestine to appease indian muslims. If you can do that then I will be satisfied. That is my whole point anyway from the start. I am not looking for a debate, rather for sources.

As for your other assertions that India attaches a special importance to Israel etc, I have never said that this is wrong and do not question it. Shahab 13:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the article say that India is "anti-Palestine" (what a laughable claim ,as there is no such thing as "Palestine" anyway, thank G-d)? The SAAG paper is good enough to address your other concerns. Besides, this sort of disgusting vote bank politics is in perfect keeping with Congress's cowardly and suicidal tactics, and, with the grace of G-d, India will be rid of them soon, and be better off for it.Hkelkar 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi did not support israel
it says here that Gandhi supported the creation of israel. this is false he said that palestine was for the palestinians and that zionist settlement was wrong. read up his essay on the jewish question and it says there plainly. also, israeli participation in Suez invasion alienated Nehru from supporting israel, regarding it as colonialist puppet. Sohrab Irani 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Gandhi did not support Israel's creation. However, several Hindu politicians, such as Vinayak Savarkar, Gowalkar and others supported Israel's creation. That needs to be added.Hkelkar 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically pertaining to this ref:

http://www.nhsf.org.uk/images/stories/HinduDharma/Interfaith/hinduzion.pdf

Hkelkar 03:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, even I thought that Gandhi didn't support the creation of Israel. However, fact remains that Gandhi actually supported the idea of creating a Zionist state but was not very happy with the partition of the Palestinian mandate. In his view, European powers should have sought an internal solution to the problem rather than splitting Palestine into two halves: one for Jews and one for Muslims even though the population of the former Palestine mandate was overwhelmingly Muslim. He saw it being unfair to Muslims. But that doesn't mean he was against creation of a Zionist state. Another point, by publicly taking a pro-Jew stance, Gandhi didn't want to create a controversy within the newly-independent but fragile India. --Incman|वार्ता 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gandhi was widely criticized for his views against Israel. I think there was a critique by a Rabbi that was particularly important. I will look for it. In the meantime, one must note that quite a few Hindus supported the creation of Israel, such as Savarkar and Gowalkar, both of whom praised the efforts to create Medinat Israel.Hkelkar 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Deepak Gupta, I'd suggest you pay attention to this key phrase from his own article on the subject: "The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?" Sure it may sound idealistic, but it would be false to consider it purely political and not personal. After all, the creation of the Jewish state did not begin with the Holocaust (as some will have you believe) but rather with the Balfour Declaration at the end of WW I, as well as other smaller settling ventures before that in the early 20th century. His point about the Jews trying to get compensation in the lands of their birth could be read as naive but I think it may be read as strangely prophetic of an opportunity the Allied powers could have taken after the war in terms of trying to extract heavier compensations for displaced Jews as part of Axis war reparations. This doesn't simply explain everything but it shows that Gandhi did not support the idea of a Jewish homeland or Zionism. He concedes that if Jews wish to settle in Palestine, they must do so by local goodwill rather than under the support of Britain. Afghan Historian (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is accurate to say that Gandhi did not support the state of Israel as it was created. He preferred a largely, if not exclusively,    nonviolent approach and didn't accept the religious justification. However, Gandhi did say to Sydney Silverman, as reported by Louis Fischer, that the Jewish people had a good case and prior claim to Palestine/Israel.BigBaldur (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Expansion
The article does not do justice to the topic as yet and I was wondering if we could work together to add more information to it. I have some refs cited in J.F.R. Jacob that may pertain to the subject (since Raphaelji is a strong supporter of India-Israel relations). Further, I have some op/eds from internationalopinion.com that I put in "External Links" on India-Israel relations on which I would like to expand. I have mainly been focussing on Indian/Indian-American news sources and was wondering if you could focus on Israeli/American news sources (Haaretz/Jerusalem Post etc.) regarding this topic so that they are both equally represented.Specifically, I would like to expand on:


 * 1) RAW-MOSSAD alliance
 * 2) Purchase of military hardware and technologies like newer RADAR technologies, Arrow Missiles etc.
 * 3) Academic/scientific cooperation
 * 4) Increased support for Zionism from the Hindu political parties
 * 5) Support for Israel from sections of the Urban Classes in India
 * 6) Mutual problems with Jihadis
 * 7) The Bnei Menashe issue
 * 8) Visit of Arik Sharon to India
 * 9) Visit of Jaswant Singh to Israel

Hkelkar 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

More refs

 * 1) http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/news.php?news=108
 * 2) http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf01withington (before the US sanctions against India were lifted)
 * 3) http://www.fas.org/news/india/2000/000703-israel1.htm

Hkelkar 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism / Islamic Militancy
Since Hkelkar won't stop reverting my edits, why does this page insist on going by the loaded terms of the past and writing "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic militancy"? Any educated person should know that Islam is a religion, and the militants fighting in these two countries are both fighting for nationalist causes. Think of Kashmir in 1900: There were Hindus and Muslims living with one another. There were no wars being fought. Then, after the partion, which created nations, there suddenly was a militancy problem. Same exact scenario in Israel. Thus, these insurgencies or resistances or whatever you want to call them can not be claimed to be Islamic, when these two regions clearly had Islamic culture and Muslims from hundreds of years prior without terrorists.Mustaqbal 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read about Lashkar-e-Toiba. They clearly plan to establish Sharia law in India (their stated goal). Same with Hamas and Israel. You're right that JKLF in kashmir and PLO in palestine were originally nationalistic and not Islamic, but they have dissolved. PLO broke up and Hamas/Fatah were formed (both Islamist) and JKLF broke up and LeT, Hizbul Mujahiddeen were formed (again, Islamist). The threat is Islamism, not nationalist terrorism. It is the common threat that India and Israel face. Too bad Israel is doing a better job of crushing them than India, but, by the grace of g-d, that will change.
 * Also, read WP:Verifiability. I have provied sources (in the bulk of the article) that notable personalities in India and Israel have stated that the problem is "ISLAMIC terrorism", not just "terrorism".Mye edits are within the norms of wikipedia policy. Your's are not since your contention is not verifiable and thus is original research on your part.Now, please read WP:NOR Hkelkar 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here. Read this. These people are not "nationalists" but Osamaist Islamofascist whack-jobs who want to drag India back into the 7th century. This is ISLAMIC terrorism (or Islamist terrorism, if you like). Hkelkar 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lashkar-e-Toiba's main objective is to establish "Islamic" rule all over South Asia. --Incman|वार्ता 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You people don't know whether Islam is spelled with a seen or a saad and yet you want to pass judgement on it. This is why no one will ever take wikipedia seriously. "Osamaist Islamofascist whack-jobs"... ?!?! Go back to Fox News.. اور مر جا Mustaqbal 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's often Islamists taking advantage of nationalism, it's a two-way street, not just nationalists taking advantage of Isalmism.--Urthogie 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and citations
This article is not neutral. One single example:

''India, realizing that its boycott of Israel was tactically wrong, accepted the help offer. For India and Israel, the common potential enemy was Pakistan, a Muslim nation committed to helping the Arab countries of the Middle East.[6][7]''

is just POV, as references 6 and 7 refer to www.saag.org, a partisan website. There are other examples in the article. Reference 4 is not serious, and comes from a propagandist forum. Many references point to westerdefence.com or others which are extremely partisan.

The article is missourced and displays non-referenced personnal opinions (one of the main contributors of this article has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia).

Example:

''A top foreign policy priority of the BJP-led Indian government was to establish close and strategic ties with Israel. This was due to the fact that both nations suffered from Islamic terrorism and shared several common interests''.

As a matter of fact, the move operated by the BJP does not come from the mentionned reason but from other, political and ideological reasons, and also due to pressions foreign to India.

Reference www.rupee.us is a blog. This is not allowed according do wikipedia WP:NPOV.

The references and citations of this article reflect quite an extremist and bizarre point of view. Exemple: in the "external links" section, there is a link to a note by F. Gauthier, a notorious extremist propagandist and french journalist who embraces, for unknown reasons, extremist views about India. In Gauthier's text, we can read this:

That the Israelis turned their back on their avatar and crucified him, may account for their sufferings for two thousand years [...]

Is that intented to be serious ? Has the subject been less dramatical, I would have exploded in laughs (in particular, notice the purported confusion between Israelis, in the modern sense, and Jews in the anciant meaning referred to by the historical context).

There is also a global pertinence problem with the citations. Example:

The various Jewish communities in India expressed satisfaction at Sharon's visit, though some regretted that Sharon could not visit them in person[38].

Well, reference 38 talks about a group of 10 people or so. What is the value of that, from a "représentative" point of view ?

Another point: Hindus are not supporting zionism in their majority, as opposed to what is said here. Just a part of them do. So, clean up ?

This article raises a major question: is it representative or does it merely reflect the thoughts of its forever-banned primary author ?

TwoHorned 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most, but not all, of the above editors concerns are valid and must be addressed. I'm currently un-idle so I can't do much now. But I'll just add that twohorned is only half correct on the first line: Pak did indeed help the arab nations in '67 war, a fact that was rued even by a pak author himself since it served no political purpose, or something on those lines. Thus, the footnote linking to [5] explaining this fact is indeed correct. Barring this fact, all the other statements mentioned by TwoHorned need to be NPOV using reliable sources. Idleguy 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:TwoHorned: As a matter of fact, the move operated by the BJP does not come from the mentionned reason but from other, political and ideological reasons, and also due to pressions foreign to India. What reasons? If you want to make changes to the article, BE BOLD. And it also a well published fact that India and Israel came closer because of common issues like Pakistan and terrorism. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As opposed to what Triedsolve wrote on your talk page, I don't intent at all to display Indians as Jew haters, I'm just questionning the global validity of this article and its partisan references. At least some of my remarks were true since 2 references have been deleted since. I have many other contestations. Also, another question: according to you, for what reason user Triedsolve does not seem to be able to answer directly ? TwoHorned 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that some of the references in the article are biased and not credible. It would be more helpful if you can find credible sources and increase the quality of the article rather than putting NPOV tags. Regarding User:Triedsolve, he seems more like a sockpuppet. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is entirely built upon biased perspective, and its references are utterly problematic. I question the validity of the article. I will comment on it in the following. First example:

India is regarded as one of the strongest allies of Israel in Asia. Both countries work closely against Islamic militancy and terrorist activities in the Middle East and Southern Asia.

Reference westerndefence is an extremist pro-israel website. And nowhere in this reference is it written that India is regarded as one of the strongest allies of Israel in Asia, that article just talks about weapon selling authirization from the Bush administration. Consequently, the article makes use of dubious and unrelated references to write something which appears more or less as a POV. TwoHorned 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream sources I hope will end this debate:


 * Times of India:

NEW DELHI: Defence minister A K Antony is still shy of visiting Israel due to domestic political sensitivities, which even forced his predecessor Pranab Mukherjee to call off his scheduled visit to the Jewish state in June 2006. But the largely covert strategic cooperation between India and Israel is going full steam ahead.

Following in the footsteps of IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi, defence secretary Shekhar Dutt and DRDO chief M Natarajan, among others, Army chief General J J Singh is now in Israel in yet another indicator of the wide-ranging defence ties between the two nations.


 * Arabic News :

"Israel and India have maintained close military and security relations over the past years and Israel decided not to join a world condemnation of Indian nuclear tests. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Wednesday that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has rejected a request by the US to issue a condemnation against India and to join the sanctions that US President Bill Clinton has called for against India."


 * The Financial Times :

India has long championed Palestinian rights, at the United Nations and in other forums, but in the face of growing Islamist terrorism in the divided state of Kashmir and elsewhere, New Delhi has quietly strengthened relations with Israel.

India recently overtook Turkey as the largest single destination for Israeli defence exports - and Israel has become India's biggest arms supplier.

In addition, ''the two often exchange intelligence information on Islamist terrorist groups. "There's a perception that both countries face similar threats and share similar experiences," said an Israeli official.''


 * The BBC:

While Indian editorial writers are divided about the correctness of New Delhi hosting what many see as an Israeli politician with a highly controversial record, papers from opposite ends of the Israeli political spectrum stress the importance of improving ties with India.

But there is agreement among commentators in both India and Israel that the similarities in the two countries' strategic and security concerns - particularly the threat from Islamist militancy - is driving them ever closer.

I hope this helps show that India and Israel have very strong ties, largely becaause of shared interests in fighting Islamic terrorism. --Urthogie 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. These are newspapers entries, however. I will soon post more scholar studies about India-Israel relations. But I agree your references are valid, much more than the ones given in the article. TwoHorned 09:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits I reverted because they removed any mention of the amalgamating effect fighting Islamic terrorism has between the two countries. If you could somehow rework your edits on the lead to include this I wouldn't revert them.--Urthogie 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I included fundamentalism and terrorism in the intro, with two references (one is yours, above). I will develop on that subject in the article, with a detailed explanation of the BJP's attitude, which is not quite the same as the one that was depicted in the intro, that 's why I didn't put it in the intro in the first place. TwoHorned 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Bilateral relations
It is commonly used throughout WP. Please leave it alone, or point us to relevant policies and guidelines. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian Public Opinion
The entry states 'However, the majority Hindu populace in India was generally pro-Israeli.' This has no citation and, as far as i can subjectively observe as a native Goan, has no basis in reality. Most Hindu Goans i know can't stand the rude and bigoted Israeli's tourists.
 * I entirely agree with you. I pointed it elsewhere but no reaction followed. I don't believe at all that India is in its majority pro-israel, but this seemed difficult to make understand to the original designer of this strange article, now forever-banned for his extremist behaviour. TwoHorned 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a source here that indicates that Indians sympathize more with Israelis in the dispute between them and the Palestinians. Check it out, http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256, 2007 topline, page 14. I dont know if this means Indians are pro-Israeli though, check out this article, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=412551&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The pewglobal survey does not give much details in their poll methods, and, for India, the difference is not that much (30 vs 20). The second article discuses of things a little bit different.  TwoHorned 18:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think that general Indian public doesn't really care about the Jews or Israelis,it hardly matters to them,They are too busy with pakistan,bangladesh,china and the US.Yourdeadin (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

intelligence section repeated twice?
Intelligence section is repeated twice in the article why?

Some Israeli tourists are not viewed positively in India
I really do not think that "not viewed positively" is israeli specific. It is general Yourdeadin 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)yourdeadin

the thankless ness of the jews
"They're primitive and dirty, but they serve us exceptionally well just like the Arabs in the territories before they decided to raise their heads."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3412213,00.html http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=412551&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Just because Indians keep quite and treat guests like gods does not mean that they should be take for granted.

This needs to be mentioned in the artical.What should we call it "the thankless ness of the jews"? Don't get me wrong here but i have personally seen it in places like haridwar and rishikesh. Yourdeadin 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)yourdeadin

The global pertinence
of this "article" is a real issue: no serious refs, with most of them non scholar and ideologically biaised. This article was put by a strange banned user having the habit of taking pipe dreams for reality. TwoHorned 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me !!!Yourdeadin (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

Article name
Please note that all Wikipedia bilateral relations articles involving India, with the exception of few, are named Indo-XXX relations. --AI009 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge: India and israel relation
The article India and israel relation was recently created; it seems that the content should be merged into this article if appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - the new page is obviously talking the same stuff, and on first glance, seems to be copyvio.... can use some of it in this page.  Sniperz 11 @CS 09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The copyright violation you refer to seems to involve htt p://s ajaddo main.sul ekha.com/blog/post/2008/11/impact-of-india-s-partnership-with-israel-major-implications.htm, written by K.M. Sajad Ibrahim. (This URL is blacklisted by Wikipedia, so I can't post a direct link.) The editor who submitted the text of the India and israel relation article, User:Sajad67, claims to be K.M. Sajad Ibrahim; see User talk:Sajad67. I see no reason to doubt this claim, so I think it's okay. —Bkell (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge --Shuki (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect If there's evidence that this is a copyvio, it should be treated as such. Just because an editor has registered using the name of the site's owner doesn't mean that they're actually the same person. Moving text into Wikipedia allows it to be used for pretty much any purpose in the future, so copyright issues aren't a small deal. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What you say is true, but I'm assuming good faith and trying to avoid copyright paranoia here. Do you have a reason that we should not think that this user is the same person who originally wrote the article? He claims he is, and I see no reason to doubt that. There has to be some level of trust here. For example, I claim to be the person who took this photo of a ruby and this photo of a courthouse. How do you know those claims are true? You don't, really. I haven't given any hard proof of my authorship besides my word. You just have to trust me, unless there is some good reason not to believe my claims. —Bkell (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bene Israel
Why is there no mention of the Bene Israel in India - Israel relationship. Did the relationship not start 2000 years ago when the Bene Israel immigrated to India fleeing persecution. Does relationship only mean trade? Is not Israel home to a large Marathi speaking minority which has tried to preserve its linguistic roots? This article is incomplete without it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed "change in tone" subsection under History.
i have removed "change in tone" subsection under History for the following reasons. .  Arjun  codename024 20:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 A not-so important statement by Israel which was rescinded the following day has little place in history.
 * 2 India did not condemn the Gaza flotilla raid . see

Regarding the edit war
IP 117 and two-horned. Its obvious you two disagree. Why not discuss it here?. Arjun has posted for opinion in the India noticeboard and more people will be able to pitch in. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From what it seems the entire dispute is over the addition of Ariel Sharons visit in 2003. WHile it deserves to be included, it is too bulky and needs to be sumarised in a couple of paragraphs; not disected in such detail. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be there but should be summarized.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. This article ain't summarized well. But, no editor must go and remove the entire sections if (s)he is not willing to replace it with a brief content.(eg: ) Another thing i would like to bring up in this page is about the inclusion of a very-brief piece of history which describes Indo-Jewish relations before the establishment of "Repub of India". An editor insists that this shall be removed ; my opinion is that a brief one like the one presently existing is worthy to be in the article because Indians having a record of never shown Antisemtism well affects the relationship. Me and this editor had some fruitless dialogue at my talk page as well. thoughts?  Arjun  codename024 13:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That section removed was too long. Yes Israel is a Jewish state, but one or two lines are enough to assert there has been no specific animosity toward jews in India. no need to go into opinion piece language like "unlike in many parts of the world". --Sodabottle (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Summarizing these points and making them concise is an excellent idea, but TwoHorned engaged in mass blanking.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sodabottle (talk), Deepak D'Souza plus the whole article needs neutralization: it contains too many tiny and irrelevants facts raised to the glory of a blatant pro-israeli pov. What we need here is what academic references say about hte relationship. Jaffrelot can be a good start. Note: the two IPs are meatpuppets. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good now that all of us are here, lets hash out the content here. I see the following as areas of dispute and i have added what i see as an appropriate summary for them. Please edit and add to them--Sodabottle (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

''In 2003, Ariel Sharon became the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit India. While his visit was welcomed by the BJP led NDA coalition government, Hindu nationalist organisations and Indian jewish community, it was condemned by left parties like CPI and CPM and some Muslims. Media reaction too was mixed to the visit.''
 * 1)Indian relationship with Jews prior to 1949.


 * 2)Ariel Sharon's visit


 * 3)2008 Gaza conflict
 * Note: "Academic sources" in India don't always reflect the sum total of all the views of the Indian public, especially with regards to Israel. This is also true of European academics (given the high prevalence of antisemitism in Europe). See this, where Indian Bengali Communists (typically the Indian "academia" consists of these folks) have made denigrating remarks about Jews and Brahmins together. In order to get a balanced view of India-Israel relations, we have to include a diversity of sources, not just the Euro-Indian left-academic view.117.194.195.41 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would find your statment that Indian aceademia consists "typicaly" of Bengali communists as insulting, if not amusing. Communists have been in powere continuously only in one state with intermittent success in only one other state and alsmost zero success elsewhere. So, one Commie's statement can hardly be reflective of the entire Indian academia. Besides Bengal is a state with a significant Muslim poulation and even the supposedly atheist Communists would not be averse to playing to the gallery. However in general, people including intellectuals are rather pro-Israel. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

History section
I am cutting the following from the history section, as it seems to me about the History of the Jews in India rather than about Indo-Israeli relations: The Hindu king that ruled the Malabar coast gave them permission to live freely, build synagogues, and own property without conditions attached as long as the world and moon exist.

Persian speaking Jews from Afghanistan and Iran came to India along with the invading armies of Ghaznavids, Ghori and Mughals between the 11th and 16th centuries. Some of them were traders and courtiers of the Mughals. Akbar's Jewish advisors significantly influenced his religious policies. A Jew was the tutor to the Mughal crown Prince, Dara Shikoh; both of whom where assassinated by Aurangzeb when he usurped the throne. Jews traded freely in Kashmir, the Punjab, and throughout the Mughal Empire. Later Arabic-speaking Baghdadi Jews came to India as traders in the wake of European colonizations. They, eventually established manufacturing and commercial houses of fabulous wealth. The Portuguese were intolerant towards Jews; especially during their Goa Inquisition, where they forcibly converted and persecuted Jews along with Hindus and newly converted Christians who still observed Hindu customs.

Anti-Semitism in India only began when the Portuguese arrived in 1498. [...] Jews have historically lived in Muslim neighborhoods in India due to their dietary habits (between Jewish Kosher and Islamic Halal) as well as linguistic affiliations to the early Persian and Arabic speaking Jews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Reads like an advertisement for Israel
For starters, can we start to deal with the weight of the sub-sections of the article ? Then, how about adding data about public perceptions (BBC poll data) for India and Israel ? 91.182.193.128 (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Cultural ties and cross-country perceptions
Hello, this is regarding the reversion of an edit I made on this page by Fanardal. Under the Cultural ties and cross-country perceptions section, I discussed certain protests originating in a Central University in the capital. Apart from this, another significant thing to note, which is also reflected in the reversion edit summary [Not clear why this isolated event is relevant or reflects a trend in a mostly pro-Israel country (with a significant Muslim minority)], is that the institution is also a Muslim-majority central university. It certainly seems important to discuss the perceptions of world's second largest muslim populace. The protests mentioned had national coverage. Considering all this, I think it is necessary to include this, as the article seems to be in a need for some updation. --Indianite (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel supported Pakistan
everyone knows that Israel sent its best weapons to Pakistan and the claim that Israel supported India was just Indian govt propaganda India recognised Israel in 1992 in return for an alliance with the west 2A00:23EE:2878:41C2:FFD9:5369:B979:3A85 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Popular support for Israel
The article mentions multiple times how Indias populace is the most pro-Israel in the world, without ever explaining why. There are doubtless reliable sources on it, and its definitely noteworthy enough to include here (even if its just Hindu nationalists and Zionists having a shared disdain for Muslims, which is basically all there is to explain). — jonas (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The reason should be mentioned. Possible temporal changes, and their associated factors should also be looked into. Indianite (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)