JAD_333

Israel and the PA have already signed agreements on water sharing and in fact cooperate bilaterally on water management. The PA has no control over its airspace because it is not recognized as a state.

In any case, the core issues in the current off and on again talks are not water and over-flights, but refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.

If you follow the Israeli press, you would know that a majority of Israelis are strongly in favor of finding a peaceful solution. A minority of Israelis oppose negotiating core issues like Jerusalem. The political faction to watch is the one in power.

You can cry about the past, about how Israelis created a state in Palestine and what they have done since to ensure their survival. History is full of similar stories. The current reality, however, is what matters. So spare me the analogy of the blacks and Indians.

The reality is that no solution is going to give the Palestinians a whole loaf at one time. It's even possible that no comprehensive agreement will ever be signed, and that a de facto peace will evolve slowly like a Chinese water torture--one drip at a time. In either case, full normalization will come only after a period of peaceful coexistence, cooperative relations and mutual respect.



Because we have mutual defense pact with Israel.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

beka

Well of course refugee status is also an issue too..... The point I'm making though is that as long as we give Israel weapons, the Israeli's are going to have a major advantage in negotiations, and it won't be a fair solution because currently it's not a fair fight. And I think an Indian analogy is a pretty good one.

But even if we are allies with Israel, it doesn't mean that we have to get involved in everyone of Israel's fights. We don't get invovled in everyone of Great Britain's fight's. And the thing is our bias towards Israel also causes anger in the Middle East towards us because we aren't considered fair players.

I want make this clear to I don't blame Jewish Americans for our biased policies towards Israel. I blame the Evangelical Christians and people who feel that supporting Israel one hundred percent "will bless America" so let Israel do what it wants. It's these people who are driving the policy. I know many Jewish Americans who are much more "negotiate a peace" than the Evangelicals.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the idea that attacking other nations will stop terrorism anyways. What makes terrorism "work" is the fact that it can be done by small groups of people, not nation states. Now, sure we haven't had a terrorism attack yet on our country, but who knows how long that will last. And quite frankly, Osama and company wanted us to attack Iraq/Afghanstan. It makes killing Americans much easier, it enflames the Middle East, and they would love to see us bankrupt ourselves/or eventually get tired of the Middle East alltogether. I don't buy at all that long term, this will stop terrorism.

Deltacamelately

Look, the matter isn't what Nixon believed. Its more about what actually conspired. Nixon somehow came to the conclusion based on his own reasoning that India was heading towards dismembering West Pakistan once East Pakistan fell. Now this wasn't the Indian military strategy atall. We were fighting a war in our east with a two pronged agenda. 1. To stop the genoside that the Pakistani Army had unleashed on the Bengali populace and thereby stop the massive refugee crisis that we faced with our limited resources. 2. Though officially not accepted, to eliminate the Third Front. We had 3 volatile fronts, 2 with Pakistan and 1 with China. An independent Bangladesh did greatly reduce the pressure from our forces.
However, the question of West Pakistan going down the drains was a moot point, because it was simply not there in our goalsheet. It was Nixon's own whims and fancies and thus when India saw the worlds most powerful democrasy "Tilt" towards a nation that was overtly tearing all international laws, converting them to smithereens in face of large scale genoside, rape and political assasinations through the nations military, it felt the need and urgency to "Tilt" to a counter balance. USSR. And mind you our bonhomie with the Soviets actually cought colour after 1971 and from there onwards there were no stoppings.

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

Equilibrium

To the contrary, when statesman make decisions, they can only do so on the basis of the information available at the moment along with historical preccedent and the stateman's values.

For example, at the height of the war, Nixon had received CIA intelligence from a member of the Indian executive cabinet that Indian forces were probably going to follow its East Pakistan offensive with an invasion of West Pakistan. Below is a link to a book related to the history of US intelligence activity in India:

U.S. espionage in India

Excerpt from the link:

From the Nixon Administration's analysis, a member of the Indian government close to PM Ghandi confirmed that she was indeed considering undertaking a threat openly stated by Defense Minister Ram. At the time, the potential that India would seek to dismember West Pakistan as well was existent.

My attempt here is not to vindicate the Nixon Administration's policies in the eyes of India. It is to put US policy surrounding the war in the context of the era in which it occurred. Decisions made in the course of a crisis are undertaken only with the information available coupled with past experience.

Deltacamelately

Provided the information is credible enough. Our intent was weighted towards reducing one liquid front for once and all. Dismembering West Pakistan would be more trouble than gains, so the move didn't happen,because I believe that if the intent was strong enough, it couldn't be bluffed by the enterprise, India would still have gone ahead and ripped West Pakistan apart as you just said that capabilities existed.

Officer of Engineers

Major,

Look at it from the American perspective. The InA just finished with East Pakistan. Fought several major battles with West Pakistan and was massing forces along the border. What would you think?

__________________
Chimo

kuku

Anticipating tougher times ahead with the adversary, and taking the precautionary measures required.

Officer of Engineers

That's your read. What is Pakistan's read and therefore, China's read, and therefore, the American read.

kuku

Pakistan's read: This complicates matters, how will we gain enough land to negotiate for east Pakistan in post war negotiations. Hope the "right stuff" saves the day.

China's read: look at these silly chaps, lets wait and keep on looking, summer is

Americas read:
There is no such thing as Bangladesh X 5
Must have trust in the exceptional intelligence services X 5
and most importantly
Our SoB is getting pounded X 5

US had its chance, they blew it, for a good time Indian diplomats were going on and on about this thing in front of the international media, however, well whats the point.

kuku

"USA Congress at Critical Crossroads with India"

What would be the foreign policy issues that the would play a part in Indo-US relations in the future?
I think the issue of Iran would be one.

Blademaster

When did Israel ever come to the aid of United States?

Officer of Engineers

Kuku,

I'm not sure if you understand the military mindset but if my counter-attack has just been stopped (meaning that my reserves have been committed) and the enemy is massing after they stopped my counter-attack. My 1st thought is that they're coming at me again.

Equilibrium

I would also think that the Pakistani issue must be addressed eventually. India would probably seek some guarantees from the US on arms sales to Pakistan and maybe even some assurances on the Pakistani domestic political situation. Not to mention insistence or guarantees on contingency plans for the Pakistani nuclear arsenal should radicals ever be in danger of entering into posession of them.

India could also seek to legitimize its ambition to be the dominant power of South Asia and the Indian Ocean by seeking assurances from the US to limit Pakistani military power while Pakistan increases its danger of domestic implosion.

Russia's new-found assertiveness may provide an opportunity for India to act as intermediary in Asia as it seeks to balance US and Russian interests for its benefit vis a vis arms sales and Russian recalcitrance on its existing arms commitments to India.

The nuclear issue would also weigh heavily as India could try to use the recent warming relations with the US to further legitimize its program.

I would think that while all these considerations are contemplated, the issue of China hovers in the background, with India seeking to avoid any hint of joining an effort to counterbalance Chinese influence in Asia.

kuku

i do not.

Defense is the name, attack is the game, eh.

Yes i agree with the above, very interesting points, will USA be making an effort to try and work with China at some levels, instead of the cold war that some wish for.

On issues like Iran, i feel that the next US administration might wish to negotiate, that is another opportunity for India to play a role, if we have not already damaged the Iranian relations enough.

On Pakistan, there is a general agreement amongst the successive governments that peace and border conflict resolution is possible, the primary problem is that with in the accepted behavior, seeking the help of a third nation and giving up land claims can be seen as political suicide.

The engagement that USA has with both the nations (which is more than the not so recent border stand off), the diplomatic staff can work very rapidly to resolve any tension, which gives room for the peace process to grow.

Currently left is rather slow about the nature of US military aids to Pakistan, as several issues like the real big ticket weapon deals, logistics sharing agreements come about this issue is going to do a lot of harm, that can be avoided.

Adux

Sir,

Indian Prime Minister did a wonderful Media campign through out the war as well as before it. She checkmated Nixon by even having his own people talk against Zia(read American Amb to Dacca), which was quite easy to achieve since genocide was indeed happening in Bangladesh.

Her Interview with the BBC YouTube - indira

Equillibrium,

I am moving my house, therefore I haven't got much time to reply to your truely inciteful and educative post. I will ASAP.

Adu