Israel-derberg Factions

Peres turned 90, and no it doesn't stand for the gematria of צ. NWO anyone?

[liberatarian paternalism anyone?]

All of his friends are here from yesterday's politics, and I believe they may have even cloned Hertzl and Ben Gurion to join up with old school Mikhail Gorbachev and everyone's favorite Chicagoan Operative Rahm-bo.

Iran's election is on Friday and in Israel they are partying like it is 1999 - literally.

This is very similar to a bad superhero flick, only its real, and its catered for Peres? Really?

JPost.com:

It is going to be the biggest show in town. President Shimon Peres' 90th birthday celebrations are scheduled to get underway on Tuesday. The festivities will be broadcast not only on Israeli television, radio and websites, but also globally.

The celebrations are meant to mark not only the birthday of Peres, but the fact that he is the oldest leader in the world. Taking place at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem, it is expected to be a giant production with more than 3,000 invitees arriving from Israel and around the world.

Peres’ birthday bash also serves as the opening event for the fifth annual Presidential Conference, which will run for three days and this year will take place at Hebrew University.

So who is expected to stop by to honor the president? World leaders and politicians slated to attend include former US President Bill Clinton, former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Albert of Monaco, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Hollywood stars including Barbra Streisand, Robert DeNiro and Sharon Stone will also attend. The list also includes Nobel Prize winners Daniel Kahneman and Dan Shechtman, technology moguls, business entrepreneurs, and of course Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ministers and MKs, mayors, the chief-of-staff, and the heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet.

Others scheduled to attend: Rona Ramon (widow of astronaut Ilan Ramon), Keren Goldwasser (widow of kidnapped soldier Ehud Goldwasser), students, soldiers, families of fallen soldiers and others.

The program includes Barbra Streisand's rendition of “Avinu Malkeinu” in Hebrew, at Peres’ request. Peres told Streisand that every time he hears her sing the song, he tears up. The reason? In his youth, Peres would hide under the prayer shawl of his grandfather, a rabbi, when he sang the hymn in the synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur. It is likely that Streisand will also sing the national anthem in Hebrew.

Other planned entertainment includes singers Shlomo Artzi and Eyal Golan, the Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Zubin Mehta, the Mayumana dance troupe, and a children’s chorus. Peres’ granddaughters, Eden (6) and Maya (8) will go onstage to wish their grandfather “mazal tov.” This will be followed by a stand-up show from one of Israel's most popular comedians.

Blair, Clinton, Netanyahu and Streisand will all speak as well, and others who could not attend will send video greetings: US President Barack Obama, Russian President Valdimir Putin, respresentatives of France and Germany, and a closing by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

U2’s Bono, Michael Douglas and Jason Alexander, as well as notable leaders from the global Jewish community will also be delivering recorded birthday greetings.

The Presidential Conference is expected to cost around NIS 11 million, and organizers emphasize that the birthday celebration, which constitutes the opening event, is not being financed by public funds or the state budget, but rather by private donations from Jewish organizations and private financers. All the entertainers and speakers will appear as volunteers and will receive no payment, but the conference will cover the speakers' travel expenses.

Peres has asked that those invited not bring him gifts. “It is not something celebratory that I grew by a year, but it is a good opportunity to show the world Israel's accomplishments, and for this I am happy.”

Read more »

Korach Had No Clue, While Amalek Still Argues The Point

                                                                Parashas Korach

                                                       From Gifts alongside Gerim

                                                                Rabbi David Katz

Parahas Korach follows the Ger in Torah template to perfection, for the Parsha doesn’t only echo, but practically cries out its roots well into the Oral Torah. Where one person may see the story of Korach’s rebellion and baseless argumentation [machlokes – not in the sake of heaven; influence seen as Amalek in behavior, the evil Nation that is promised to be wiped out in the End of Days], the true beauty of the Parsha is the wealth of Oral Torah tradition in the peripheral of the Parsha, such that it is largely triggered by Torah of the Ger – at root level. 

Amidst the rebellion we are calmly confronted with new concepts such as, Priestly Gifts, possessions, inheritance, Land by Tribes, etc. such that from a few verses in the Parsha, triggers practically all of the Oral component called “Bava” [Tractate “damages”], and when seen from the Ger perspective [which is also rooted deep in the valleys of “Bava”; see Tosfos 111b and the Ger Tzedek], a whole new dimension to Oral Torah learning is illuminated before the eyes of the beholder. Just one tweak of recognizing the Ger in Parashas Korach, and Bava Metzia [and all of Bava; - Kama, Metzia, Basra (first, middle, and last gates)] all of a sudden becomes Parashas Korach in Technicolor, due to the precept – “the Torah is written in the language of the Ger.” [Zohar]

Upon first glance through the Parsha, one may be hard pressed to spot the Ger in the text, and the obvious option to resort to would be to make a Priestly connection, predicated on the dictum, “a Ger who learns Torah is compared to a High Priest.” Although this is correct, and will yield significant bounty, an undertone that registers throughout the Parsha is a topic/character that we will become quite familiar with over the next few weeks, one who is Messianic in nature and highly symbolic of Gerim in Torah [history]; this is none other than Pinchas the Priest, son of Aaron. It should send off bells and whistles just mentioning Aaron in context with Parashas Korach, pegged alongside the entire Priestly debate, and the table is set for a plunge into the deeper side of the Parsha.

Pinchas, who is a grandson of Aaron [who kicks the door in to become a Priest, as he was not grandfathered in as for having been born as a grandson at the time of Sinai, i.e. not a son of Aaron], highlights nearly all of the Bava [Talmudic] discussions in the Parsha, such as inheritance, possession, priestly gifts, Priests and “their Land” [which is traditionally not given to the tribe of Levi, as the Parsha specifically points out] etc., yet what separates Pinchas from the traditional Priestly lot, is not the possessions themselves, but how he came to possess in the first place!

If we think back to last week’s Parsha [which a theme of Bamidbar is the wonderful flow amongst its Parshiot in these matters; a true story immerges, reminiscent of Bereishit] and recall Joshua and Caleb, who had a different spirit than the rest of the spies, it is seen that they were successful in the Land largely, if not entirely, because they each embraced the Ger. Caleb was seen connecting to the Ger Tzedek in the Avot, while Joshua was mysteriously buried in Jericho which would become synonymous with him in his Torah legacy. It was there that the spies Pinchas and Caleb [ring a bell?] met up with a family of Righteous Gerim [and these two spies were sent by none other than Joshua], headed by the inn-keeper Rachav, who would later become Joshua’s wife, to which most never offer a second glance with the ramifications of such a union. This raises issue as to who was Rachav, what was her exact relationship with Joshua, and where/how/why/where/when does Pinchas fit into this [apparent and odd] love triangle.

The Talmud Megilah states that Joshua married Rachav, and it is clear that their relationship on some level began as a product of Joshua’s conquering Israel through Jericho as a “buchor” [a young Torah scholar, to which the Torah testifies to this distinction, as a student of Moses], through his efforts of dropping the bow and arrow bit, and fighting through Love and Peace as a Ger enthusiast, realizing that the World truly was desperate to hear about the Truth of God. This is a hint of what we learn from the Torah, in that vessels of war will become extinct in the End of Days [a time when most people would think that we need them the most!], and that there is an alternative method of perspective of the ancient Jewish warrior; from being a “quasi neo ninja” to a true Man of War [as King David], which the Kabbalah learns as being effective in the Oral Torah and prayer.

These concepts are easily seen as [in relation to the] Ger in every way, and as they are acute Ger attributes/components, one can easily see why David said, “I am a Ger.” An original template can be seen through Joshua, who was the elected one to carry the essence of Torah into Israel, as the buchor who most understood Moses’ final message [and essential philosophy and naturally Kabbalistic message of Torah] as the departing King of Jushuron [Israel]. [Joshua and Caleb were both said to have reached the spiritual and righteous level called “Kruvim” (Angelic); similar to the Kruvim who are stationed to guard the way of the Tree of Life by their fiery swords. Thus they were operating on a Tree of Life distinction as opposed to the Korach driven Tree of Knowledge.]

Joshua and Rachav wed at some point, and their offspring was said to have produced the finest Priests and Prophets in Israel’s History. Yet one function of their fertility was the lone ability to produce females, for males would be rendered spiritually impossible due to the circumstance of Joshua’s unique level he attained that hinted of angelic quality and caliber in soul root. As this is true in practical spiritual terms, it is also a product to the nature of their marriage in Torah Law, for Joshua differed from Caleb, in that Caleb pursued the path of the concubine to enhance the tradition of the Ger, whereas Joshua actually made his wedding canopy entirely from the seed of the Ger Tzedek, i.e. The Family of Rachav.

Joshua carries a special weight in his lineage that was put on the line through his union with Rachav, for Joshua is the end of the line of the First Born continuum that extended from Abraham, manifesting through Joshua by way of Joseph and Ephraim culminating with the marriage with Rachav. By way of Joshua and Rachav and more importantly their offspring [females to the negation of the males as was stated], with special precedence being given to perpetuate Priests and Prophets in potential, the stage was never more set for Pinchas to come on board, perpetuate the seed of Joshua [and their common ancestor Joseph, of which Pinchas also is related to on his mother’s side, as a Daughter of Putiel, wife of Elazar, father of Pinchas]. The two [Pinchas & Joshua] represent the secret closeness of Joseph [Ephraim] and Levi as hinted at in the additional “yud” given to [Ye]Hoshea bin Nun by Moses in the spies, as is explained by the Arizal as an impregnation with the Tribal head Levi as a double [firstborn] portion. [*every spy had its Tribal Head infused in each member’s mission]

Pinchas thus married a daughter of Joshua and Rachav [which raised issue after Pinchas’ Priesthood over a similar (impure manner) between Zimri and Cozbi, of the Tribe of Shimon and Midianite women], continued Joseph’s spiritual legacy [as hinted at in Pinchas’ (messianic understood) name] and ultimately inherited a good portion of Land from Joshua, due to the inherent void in his lineage from a lack of male offspring; the male in laws would inherit Joshua, i.e. through Priests and Prophets – among them was Jeremiah. This Land would be known as Givat Pinchas [the Hill of Pinchas] located in the Hills of Ephraim, and buried there to this day is the father of Pinchas, Elazar the Priest, son of Aaron the Priest. This is the same Aaron who in the Parsha was granted victory in Korach’s rebellion, was distinguished as the quintessential Priest, and by as such, it was decreed that the Priest would not have ownership of Tribal Land in the normative sense. The question then must be addressed as to the nature of Pinchas’ Land.

The commentators are all in basic agreement that Pinchas was given the Land by the inhabitants of Ephraim in close proximity to Joshua, as an official and eternal transaction through inheriting his wife [Pinchas lived forever as the eventual manifestation of Elijah literally, and thus was destined to outlive any prospective wife, thus an inheritance. Parashas Pinchas is ironically the source of such Torah Law in conjunction to our Parsha which deals with Priestly Land.] By this acquisition, Pinchas would never lose the Land to Jubilee, and he merited having his righteous father buried on his private lot.  This now brings a special light onto our Parsha that deals with Priestly Land.

The Parsha is clear that no Priest is to own Land, and Pinchas is the joyous exception to the rule [as he is for many ground breaking areas in law and Kabbalistic philosophy such as Messianic truths], one that stems directly from Gerim. Joshua set the stage with his unique view of Torah Law and thought when he coupled with Rachav, a Ger Tzedek, produced by a pre-requisite family (after 40+ years) of Ger Tzedek lineage (akin to Ruth; listed among the three daughters of Shem/Iyov), preparing the footstool for Pinchas and his soulful story [encoded in his name according to the Zohar]. Pinchas seized the moment, as no one would prove to better at standing as a role model to “Pinchas Torah Concepts” than the man Pinchas himself!  What is exceptional to the Pinchas saga is that it is rooted and revealed through the prism of the Ger in our Parsha, and as a set precedence to continue in Torah Scripture. The Land that belongs to Pinchas will forever tell the tale of the sacrifice to Torah Truth that was dually achieved by Pinchas and Joshua, a symbol of their close union, as essential students to Moses and his Kingdom that entered the Land on their behalf.

We are embarking on Pinchas Torah in these next couple of Parshiot, and Korach served as a template of the final stage before redemption as the rebellion against the Torah that could be dubbed as the quintessential Gog [of Magog]. Pinchas according to the Arizal and others is the soul that will contain the messianic mission of the future, restoring the Torah as he did numerous times with sacrificing action, and bringing an end to all opposition to God’s truth. What is often hard to hear is that the Truth is best seen from the objective vantage point of the Ger, and perhaps we see this the most clearly in Parashas Korach. From a simple adjustment of perspective, a wealth of Torah can be understood through Pinchas, to an extent of absolute revelation to the blueprint and DNA of the Oral Torah, which came/comes from Gerim, as often is the case.

Special is the Land of Israel in the eyes of God, coupled with His love of Gerim; for Pinchas was given Land by means of the Ger, Caleb delivered his portion [and his lack of sons as well] to his seed, and we all look forward to the future, when the Temple will be built from the Hands of Heaven, in a time that the Ger Toshav can come home to his land, enjoying the milk and honey that comes served best, while sitting with the best point of view of all those in the Torah. If the Jew represents the Voice of the Turtledove that is heard in the Land, then perhaps someone was there first watching it happen, enjoying the finest parts of the Land.

Look around, and perhaps you may stumble upon the position of the Ger - a wondrous Torah indeed, one seen through the eyes of God. Would the Land stand without a scribe to document His Torah, or would the Torah speak the tongue of a Foreign Land; perhaps one should stand with those in good standing with The Lord Himself, for does he not speak of His Love of the Ger?

Motzie Shabbos 11 P.M. - Tzfat Time - Parasha Shavua

                  Wed 11 P.M.  - Torah of the Ger

Enter Class Here: https://www.ivocalize.net/#room/YeshivatShemV'Ever

Read more »

The Last Cup of Coffee

The Great Pacification of the Armilos Kibbutz called the Zionist dream [of exploitation of its template based on a true Moshiach ben Yosef;Kol Hator], a watered down Israel, that still holds sacred the Coca Cola t-shirts branded with Hebrew script, is coming into high gear.

Naftali Bennet-ism is coming soon, a neo-Shariah Law composed in a Prime Minister's office, to convince us all that we are brothers, partners even, in High - Tech start up groups, as we binge the dividends of over-priced [American goods] pampers.

Erev Rav are making their final move:  a Judaism we can all buy into, equality, with quiet elitism shrouded beneath elitism whispering in between the coffee stands that used to be Haredi institutions of learning; now reduced to a political juggernaut, regime de la Shas.

Sadly, this is the fight Haredim should be fighting, but they are more concerned with fighting the Land of God rather than God's enemy: false religion, and instituting false religion on those w/o religion, i..e potential Garei Toshavim.

Is it still even time to say Ad Matei? If anyone forgot that it is 5773, and the Zohar imagery that comes with it, well, there is on question - which part ISN'T true and becoming more and more revealed? It's just uncanny how Hashem attacks with Mazal [revelation] that fiends on people's own baseless bias' - for to step out into an objective Universe happens upon God's domain, and today [with internet] it's right next door.

Jpost.com:

Religious Services Minister Naftali Bennett, alongside Deputy Minister Eli Ben- Dahan, unveiled a series of reforms on Sunday, calling the proposals “revolutionary.”

The objective was to improve the professionalism of religious services and make them more accessible to the general public, Bennett said, speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem.

“This is an opportunity to sanctify God’s name and to draw people closer [to Judaism],” said Bennett, emphasizing that religious services were required by the entire population “and not just one community.”

The Bayit Yehudi chairman attributed the main push for reform to Ben-Dahan, who runs the ministry.

Although various groups expressed support for some of the planned reforms, there was also widespread criticism from both secular and religious quarters, including political parties on the Right and Left.

Notable among Bennett’s comments was his assertion that “there is no competition in Judaism, although there can be and should be [competition] for serving the Israeli public.”

Non-Orthodox movements have in recent years been increasingly lobbying for state recognition and funding, and Finance Minister Yair Lapid has said on at least three occasions that he intends to bring all Jewish streams onto an equal footing in terms of funding and state recognition, while also vowing to institute civil marriage.

Ben-Dahan has said Bayit Yehudi will veto any legislation in this regard.

Meretz MK Michal Roisin told The Jerusalem Post the reforms being advanced by Bayit Yehudi amounted to “service with a smile” but with no substantial change in addressing the needs of the public.

She pointed in particular to the demands for civil marriage and divorce registration as basic requirements “of any normative state.”

“What we have here is the exchange of a black yarmulke for a knitted yarmulke, and service with a smile,” Roisin said. “But the coercive nature of the service within an Orthodox framework remains, and this is what is divisive and what distances people from religion.”

At the same time, haredi MK Meir Porush of United Torah Judaism criticized the proposals, saying they endangered traditional Judaism.

“In matters relating to the foundations of the Jewish people, we must not make changes under the guise of simplifying bureaucracy,” said Porush.

“Today we’re talking about technical issues, tomorrow, God forbid, there will be a break with Jewish tradition.”

During the press conference, Bennett and Ben-Dahan announced three main reforms that they will seek to advance in the field of religious services, relating to local religious councils.

These bodies are a primary provider for services such as marriage registration, burial arrangements and many other life-cycle events, and have frequently been criticized as unprofessional, unapproachable and inattentive to the needs and sensitivities of the general public.

The first of the planned reforms is to abolish separate marriage registration districts, so as to allow anyone from any locale to register anywhere in the country, thereby creating competition between councils for the NIS 600 registration fee, in the hope that this will lead to improved services.

Many religious groups, such as the Tzohar rabbinical association, have voiced concerns in recent years that an unwelcoming and bureaucratic atmosphere prevails in many marriage registration offices at local religious councils, which causes many couples to chose to marry abroad in civil ceremonies.

The worry for such groups is that the downturn in ceremonial Jewish marriage will create an irrevocable split in the Jewish population in Israel, since the principal tool used to prove Jewish identity is providing the Jewish marriage certificate of a person’s parents.

Tzohar welcomed the proposal on marriage registration, pointing out that it has campaigned for several years to open up the registration jurisdictions to competition.

In a particularly bitter fight with the Religious Services Ministry back in 2011, Tzohar shut down its free marriage service in protest of what it called discriminatory restrictions placed upon it by the ministry.

This incident led to legislative efforts to abolish separate marriage registration districts, including a bill submitted by Yisrael Beytenu’s MK Faina Kirschenbaum, which passed a preliminary reading in the Knesset and was stalled following the dissolution of the Knesset ahead of January’s election.

Bennett and Ben-Dahan vowed to “disconnect politics from the provision of religious services,” by creating a professional appointments process for the position of chairman for local religious councils.

Currently, council chairmen are selected by representatives of the religious services minister, the local municipal authority and the rabbinate.

By creating a professional appointments process for the position, said Bennett, “the opportunity for cronyism and the distribution of jobs will be uprooted” from local religious councils.

This proposal came in for severe criticism from the national-religious Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah lobbying group, which argued that the proposed appointment process would be anti-democratic and would deny local municipalities the ability to determine an appropriate executive for the region’s religious council.

Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah said the idea was “an unacceptable form of centralization [which] strengthens the monopoly of religious services in Israel,” adding that it contravened proposals made by at least two public committees on the issue.

The organization argued that public tenders for professional positions, such as those that would be made for the chairmanship of religious councils, are frequently skewed to favor candidates with particular qualifications – and that such tenders would ultimately put the religious services minister in control of the process.

“Just like a mayor, the chairman of a local religious council needs to be elected by the public and not appointed by a minister, and this proposal strengthens the religious services minister in making these appointments instead of strengthening communities and the wider public,” Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah said.

Hiddush, a religious freedom lobbying group, also weighed in, welcoming recognition of the problems in the provision of religious services but arguing that the reforms dealt with marginal issues and would “perpetuate Orthodox control over religious life.”

Hiddush director Reform Rabbi Uri Regev said the only solution for the provision of religious services in a democratic state was “freedom of choice in marriage and the abolition of a coercive state-run rabbinate.”

The third reform announced by Bennett and Ben-Dahan would see the number of local religious councils reduced from 132 to 80 in order to reduce unnecessary expenditure and increase efficiency.

Ben-Dahan said that the money saved on employing clerks and supporting the bureaucracy of the extraneous councils would be used for the improvement of services.

Both the Reform and Conservative movements in Israel criticized the proposed reforms, arguing that preserving the provision of religious services within an Orthodox framework was divisive and restricted choice.

“The only revolution that can heal the crisis of religious services in Israel is the abolition of the Orthodox monopoly and allowing real choice for different Jewish communities and denominations,” director of the Israel Reform Movement Rabbi Gilad Kariv said.

“A cosmetic facelift will not solve the plight of hundreds of thousands of people ineligible for marriage, will not provide for a sane conversion process or give expression to the fact that a millions of Jews belong to non-Orthodox denominations,” Kariv said. 

The New Israeli Dollar

Read more »

Follow The Chinese Brick Road

Galus China -
[The Galus that won't be, as China eternally prepares for a galus that they ironically eternally will have imposed on themselves, while anticipating their immediate control of civilization - once the final pieces are in store - i.e. Jews! (what else would Galus be?)]

Is getting further under way, as a divine match is being made before our very eyes - between China and Erev Rav. Gashmius + Tumah + etc. etc = Galus China...Moshiach is closer than ever apparently.

JPost.com:

Netanyahu tours Shanghai, where 18,000 Jews sought refuge during WWII: "70 years ago we could only plead, only beg to be saved. Today we have a state of our own, an army of our own....we can defend ourselves." Netanyahu meets Shanghai mayor Just days after allegations that Israel attacked Syria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Tuesday morning in China that unlike 70 years ago, today Israel "can defend ourselves."

Netanyahu's comments came during a tour of the historic Jewish quarters in Shanghai where some 18,000 Jews sought refuge during World War II.

Related: China offers to broker Abbas-Netanyahu meeting Chinese taxpayers footing bill for Netanyahu's hotel The fate of the Jews has changed a great deal since the time the Jewish refugees found shelter in this city, Netanyahu said. "70 years ago we could only plead, only beg to be saved," he said. "Today we have a state of our own, an army of our own. We need not beg to be saved, we can defend ourselves."

From the Jewish quarter, Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with the mayor of Shanghai.

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday issued a four-point proposal for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Chinese news agency Xinhau reported that the proposal was made during a meeting between Jinping and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently visiting Beijing.

The four-point proposal, according to the agency, calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and peaceful coexistence with Israel.

But on Monday, rather than dealing with questions regarding the Syrians or the Palestinians, Netanyahu immersed himself in trying to push forward Israeli-Sino economic cooperation.

At a reception Monday evening in Shanghai with Chinese and Israeli businesspeople, Netanyahu said the “spectacular” city of Shanghai represented “the future of China and the entire world, and I believe that Israel can be part of this future.”

According to Netanyahu, “The future belongs to countries that are capable of manufacturing intellectual property” and to those that “lead in innovation and technology.”

“Israel is not as big as China,” he said. “We have 8 million residents, approximately one-third the population of Shanghai. But we manufacture more intellectual property than any other country in the world in relation to its size. If we create a partnership between Israel’s inventive capability and China’s manufacturing capability, we will have a winning combination.”

Earlier in the evening he met with Israeli businesspeople representing companies operating in Shanghai, who told him of the importance of Israeli government backing when breaking into the centralized and government-controlled Chinese market. Netanyahu said he intended to give them that backing. 

...But just how viable is this road?

Read more »

The New Manna: A Zimbabwe Dollar - In God We Trust

Evil and Amalek don't play the game of life with logic and of course not with Torah wisdom; it's a game of odds and basic math patterns, based on sub-par algorithms. The article presented says doomsdayers [i.e. blogs about moshiach, etc.] are fear mongers who exploit the facts as he presents in his case. The hand that he tips actually says that the nature of evil is a gambler and a risk taker as long as the odds are good enough; lets call it socio-blackjack, with a cheesy Vegas dealer name Bazza at your service.

Their view is that Zimbabwe was simply under-managed, and with American brass it can be steered, righted, and brought back to prosperity; throw in a few wars for the cause [not WWIII standard as a doomsdayer would suggest] and soon we'll be back to decadence, which is a right that every American has [as per their indoctrination] while the nations abroad are sold [or told?] to endorse, worship, and push the agenda of America enjoying its eternal birthright [Esau anyone?].

There are two possible key issues here: either they lose, and welcome Moshiach, or they try to win, and, well, yes, Geulah will be extended - but the fiasco and charade that they put on display for public will be quite pathetic, as probably every prophecy in Tanach will now have an easy platform to inform the people of God's intentions. What do we say to this - have fun? Buckle up? oy vey.

By the way, I'm going on record as agreeing with him, as I think God wants this elongated as possible to allow for teshuvah, save lives, etc. as outlined by the Vilna Gaon - who says its like being decreed a big rock to crush you; only God has mercy and agrees to throw the rock on you, but only as sand pebbles - many of them - like American dollars will be.

The Geulah process has already begun in certain sectors, and this will allow people to get on board and gain merit, again, thanks to an elongated process. And at the end of the day, I think Hashem just wants in his heart that one day he should pay an Avreich in Kollel a  Billion dollar monthly check, just in principle the World must see that day, for fate must contain a sense of irony.

Forbes.com:

From all the doom and gloom about U.S. and European economics you would have thought the end of the financial world was nigh. In fact a lot of people are saying that right now. Want some good news? It is not going to happen. That is not to say I haven’t written a lot of gloomy economic stuff myself. Yet, to be honest, I’m over that now. The economic accident happened in 2007/2008. The developed world’s economy didn’t die. It is now recovering. It is only a start but we have entered a new era nonetheless.

The idea is, U.S. and Europe are on a binge of deficit spending and this has created a titanic overhead of sovereign debt that can’t be supported or repaid.

This is correct. But do not panic.

The conclusion of the doomsters is that consequently the economic world will implode and the globe will spin off its axis into outer darkness. Well, the bit about spinning out of the orbit of the sun is an exaggeration, but not by much.

The doomsters see a collapse of so called fiat money, i.e. money as we know it and an economic and social breakdown will follow. Gold and bullets are to be the only currency.

According to this line of prediction, we should all be rearing chickens in anticipation and ready to grow bean shoots in our closets for food. While you are at it, get some plans to create a stealth smokehouse. Forget zombies; the marauders of the future financial collapse are going to be real people.

Woe on us, prepare!

This prepper-view is nonsense. The view that fiat money is going to disappear is mad and silly. Fiat money is going nowhere, except down in value.

Special Offer: After a big drop, Apple’s valuation and dividend yield look tempting. Time to buy? Click here for a free-trial and immediate access to Forbes Dividend Investor advisory service.

Whatever the political and economic rights and wrongs of the matter, what happens next is as close to the doomsters fall of the Roman Empire part 2, as a roller coaster ride is to a plane crash.

Why?

It is infuriatingly simple. Let us say the U.S. government got to a state that it owed 120% of GDP in debt. The U.S. is not there yet but it will likely get there soon enough.

What happens next? The U.S. simply engineers a 7% rate of inflation, all other things being equal and in two Presidential cycles U.S. debt to GDP is roughly halved to the old sweet spot of 60% to GDP. Of course modelling that with all the possible variables is way more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

Halving the value of money does the trick of sorting out this whole sorry mess. Now that might sound horrendous but it is not.

So okay you are a doomster and you think the end is nigh and that gold is money. Well, gold has gone up roughly 10% a year compounded since the end of Bretton Woods in 1971. This implies an average compound rate of inflation of 10%; if you believe that gold is real, inviolate, hard money, which as a doomster you most definitely do.

The world didn’t end over those 40 years as money was devalued forty fold. The fiat system didn’t implode, in fact everyone got a lot richer, even though in the meantime 2.5 cents of gold became worth a dollar or put in gold standard terms, 2.5 cents in 1971 has been inflated to $1 today.

If the dollar got devalued in real terms at 10% a year, as we have enjoyed in gold terms on average for 42 straight years, a 120% debt to GDP would hit 60% in around 6 years. This is why it is not a good idea to panic and get doomy.

The key is to be positioned for the denouement of current economic rescue attempts. The solution is the dilution of debt, through the devaluation of money. The governments of the west will not run out of money. That’s impossible. What will happen to rebalance the debts of the U.S. and Europe is what we need to focus on.

In a nutshell, bonds are going to get monetised. Sovereign debt will be turned into cash. Operation twist has put a large proportion of that mountain of debt at the short end of maturities. The economy of the U.S. is going to get very liquid indeed. That is the one thought to hold.

If you believe the developed world is going to get into a tail spin, it won’t be that fiat money will disappear. Instead there will be much more of it about.

The question therefore is how to play the outcome of cash flooding everything.

You can do worse than look back to the seventies to see what happened and use that period as a model of what to do. The answer isn’t to prepare for Armageddon. It is to invest in inflation linked assets producing index linked yield.

So perhaps buying bits of mountain desert to rent out to terrified ‘preppers’ is the way to go, because not only will the property value and rent rise with real inflation, you’ll also be paid in gold.

Forsight in Klippah?

Read more »

And Avraham Sent His Children East

Galus China coming under way [the concept of a galus being eternally prepared, such that it never actually happens, thus they galus themselves by their preparation] with the Erev Rav securing the depths of Tumah. Are the Erev Rav who are fueled by the Amalekite Erev Katan ready to erect their false Zion?


Middle East Forum:

Since their establishment in January 1992, Israeli-Indian relations have improved dramatically. Israel has emerged as a major Indian trading partner in the Middle East with bilateral trade rising from a meager US$100 million to over $6.6 billion.[1] Cooperation in the military-security arena has similarly grown,[2] and there are widespread popular exchanges between the people of the two countries. The Israeli ambassador is the most sought after diplomat in New Delhi after his U.S. counterpart, and Indo-Israeli ties seem extraordinarily robust. Yet failure to acknowledge the limitations of this relationship would be costly.

Delinking the Peace Process

On January 21, 2008, India launched a closely-guarded Israeli-built radar spy satellite to begin gathering valuable intelligence data. According to Israeli reports, the satellite would "dramatically increase Israel's intelligence-gathering capabilities regarding ... [Iran's] nuclear program, since the satellite can transmit images in all weather conditions, a capability that Israel's existing satellites lacked." India's Israel policy falls into three broad phases. Beginning in the early 1920s, the nationalist leadership adopted a pro-Arab position, which largely continued until January 1992. Its recognition of the Jewish state in September 1950 did not materially alter this stand. The adoption of a pro-Arab stand was seen as critical for its interests in the Middle East and was pursued through a pro-Palestinian foreign policy. While it did not identify with the Arab extremism of that period, recognition without relations was the hallmark of Indian policy until January 1992.

The end of the Cold War and the transformation of the global order brought an end to this zero-sum approach as New Delhi concluded that, in order to make a difference in this new era, it was both possible and necessary to maintain normal relations with the Israelis and the Palestinians, who seemed to be moving toward a historic reconciliation. Shortly after the decision to normalize relations with Israel was announced on January 29, 1992, the two countries opened diplomatic missions and paved the way for increased political, economic, cultural, and security cooperation.

After the Congress party returned to power in 2004, bilateral relations moved to a third and more complex phase. In a radical departure from its pre-1992 position, New Delhi began to delink bilateral relations from the vagaries of the peace process. While disagreements with Israel over the peace process had earlier prevented full normalization of relations, New Delhi quietly began to pursue the peace process as if there were no bilateral relations with Israel and to pursue bilateral relations as if there were no differences with Israel over the peace process. This move was not only inevitable but has also been critical for the consolidation of the bilateral relations.

However, New Delhi continues to maintain some of its core pre-1992 positions vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Most importantly, it continues to support the pursuit of Palestinian political rights that will result in the formation of a sovereign and independent state coexisting with Israel. Ever since its decision to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the "sole and legitimate" representative of the Palestinians, political ties and interactions have improved and strengthened between the two parties with the PLO mission in New Delhi granted embassy status in early 1980. At that time, the Israeli representation was still confined to a consulate in Mumbai, which was often described as India's diplomatic Siberia. In November 1988, India was among the first countries to recognize the "state of Palestine," proclaimed by the PLO in Algiers, and began receiving PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, as heads of state. In the wake of the Oslo agreement, in 1993, India opened a separate mission in the Gaza Strip. As has been the practice in the West, the Gaza mission reported directly to the Foreign Office in New Delhi and not to the Indian embassy in Tel Aviv. When the situation in Gaza became more difficult, the mission was moved to Ramallah in the West Bank in 2004.

New Delhi's staunch support for the Palestinian political position was vividly illustrated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who spoke to the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) on September 24, 2011, a day after Abbas applied for Palestinian U.N. membership. Singh described the continuing non-resolution of the Palestinian question as "a source of great instability and violence" in the Middle East, reiterating New Delhi's "steadfast" support for "the Palestinian people's struggle for a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secured and recognizable borders side by side and at peace with Israel."[3] A year later, on November 29, 2012, India was among the countries that sponsored the UNGA resolution granting nonmember observer state status to the Palestinians.

On all the major issues concerning the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, such as settlements, borders, refugees, or the security fence, normalization has not resulted in a dilution or shift in New Delhi's positions, sometimes stated explicitly but more often conveyed through its voting pattern in the U.N. Indeed, with only two exceptions—the 1991 U.N. vote repealing the 1975 "Zionism equals racism" resolution and the Durban conference of 2001—there has been no marked difference in India's voting pattern on the peace process since 1992.

The Jerusalem Question

The most striking aspect of New Delhi's recent position toward the Middle East has been the unprecedented focus on Jerusalem. Its support for an independent Palestinian state in the past had been expressed without any explicit reference to Jerusalem. In January 2005, upon his election as Palestinian Authority president, Abbas sent a letter to India's junior foreign minister Ahamed that made explicit reference to East Jerusalem. Conveying his gratitude for New Delhi's congratulatory message, Abbas expressed hope that "with the help of India and other friends," the people of Palestine would be able to "practice and restore their inalienable national rights and establish their independent state with holy East Jerusalem of 4/6/1967 borders as its capital."[4] This did not influence New Delhi's position. For example, in a statement following Hamas's electoral victory in January 2006 and welcoming "the holding of free and fair elections," the Ministry of External Affairs observed that the elections "have strengthened the democratic process in Palestine." It hoped that the new government "representing the will of the Palestinian people" would continue to pursue the peace negotiations, "leading to the establishment of a viable, united, and sovereign State of Palestine living in peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel."[5] There was no reference to Jerusalem.

According to WikiLeaks cables, the issue cropped up in August 2008 when Rajiv Sikri, secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs and the third senior-most diplomat in the ministry, visited Israel as part of the routine bilateral exchanges between the two foreign offices. According to one Israeli diplomat serving in New Delhi at that time, Sikri appeared "more often to be the representative of the Palestinians, rather than India." The cable further added:

The Israelis went all out for this visit, supplementing the formal Foreign Office talks (led by Deputy Director-General for Asia and Pacific Amos Nadai) with a call on Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom. [Israeli deputy chief of mission Yoed] Magen reported that Indian ambassador to Tel Aviv, Arun K. Singh, seemed shocked by Sikri's unreformed positions on issues like disengagement, adding that the Indian delegation appeared completely unmoved by changes sparked by Arafat's death, the Gaza withdrawal, and strengthened India-Israel ties. "It was like nothing had changed," the Israeli DCM concluded.

According to the Israeli diplomat, "Because Sikri insisted that the draft joint statement should be datelined Tel Aviv (vice Jerusalem), the Israelis refused to issue any document."[6]

The insistence on a Tel Aviv dateline was a reversal of the Indian position since 1992. This issue first cropped up during the visit of Arjun Singh, a senior minister in P.V. Narasimha Rao's government, to Israel in June 1994. The occasion was the signing of the first bilateral agreement that envisioned periodic consultations. While the Israeli government wanted the capitals to be identified as the alternate venues, India was not prepared to explicitly recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. At the same time, identifying Tel Aviv was equally problematic and would have caused tension and unpleasantness. An innovative compromise was reached by agreeing that meetings would be held alternatively in India and Israel.

But the issue of East Jerusalem has remained problematic since the first public reference to the city in July 2009 by Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee. He reiterated the position during a visit to India by Mahmoud Abbas, referring to a "state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital."[7] Since then, references to East Jerusalem have become a regular feature in many of New Delhi's statements and declarations on the Middle East.

Convergence but No Agreement on Iran

On the face of it, both countries are in sharp disagreement over the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Since normalization in 1992, Iran has figured prominently in Israel's interactions with India. In March 1993, Indian foreign secretary (permanent under-secretary) J.N. Dixit visited Israel for the preparatory work relating to the forthcoming visit of Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli media was eager to learn more about New Delhi's possible nuclear cooperation with Tehran.[8] Nearly two decades later, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna faced similar questions on Iran and its nuclear program.[9] During the visit of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003, the Israelis added another concern—technology leaks. Fearing that sensitive military technology supplied to India could be re-exported or leaked to Tehran,[10] the Israelis sought and obtained guarantees against such possibilities. In the words of one Israeli official accompanying Sharon, "We got answers to the questions raised, and we are satisfied with the answers."[11]

In recent years, Tehran and its nonconventional weapons ambitions have emerged as the principle security concern for Israel and have dominated its foreign and security policies. New Delhi, by contrast, appears indifferent toward these developments. Interestingly, if its Defense Ministry rarely discusses Tehran's nonconventional program, the general tendency of the Indian intelligentsia is to view this program as a corollary of the perceived threat posed by Israel to the Islamic Republic. That New Delhi's sensitive strategic assets on its western coast are within striking distance of Iranian missiles is rarely discussed in public.

Even on a direct bilateral level, New Delhi has maintained a studied silence over many anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic remarks by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In October 2005, responding to one of his statements that Israel should be "wiped off the map," an official Indian spokesperson merely reminded reporters that India had recognized Israel "decades ago" and had diplomatic relations with it.[12] While Israelis see Iran as the epicenter of international terrorism, Indians view the Islamic Republic as a partner in fighting terrorism, especially in Afghanistan. India and Israel, thus, are not on the same page over Iran. But there remains a series of subtexts that reflect a more complicated picture.

First and foremost, Tehran has not made Israel an issue in its bilateral relations with New Delhi. Meaningful improvements in Indo-Iranian ties happened around the same time as normalization and consolidation of Indo-Israeli relations. Except for an initial protest at the time of the 1992 decision, Tehran has remained indifferent to New Delhi's burgeoning relations with the Jewish state. While Pakistan and, at times, Egypt have made noises over the military dimension of Indo-Israel relations, Iran has remained seemingly indifferent and passive, apparently content with the growth and intensity of its own relations with India.

Second, in the wake of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to Tehran in April 2001, there were agreements and expectations over increased military cooperation between the two states. Over time and under pressure from Washington, New Delhi appears to have backtracked on some of its earlier initiatives. As one analysis put it: "Following the 2005 nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington, Israeli concerns over the relationship between India and Iran began to dissipate. U.S. pressure on India to end all military relations with Iran appeared to have been a condition for the nuclear deal."[13]

Also, under U.S. pressure, New Delhi has substantially reduced its export of oil products to Tehran. Despite its large hydrocarbon reserves, due to sanctions and atrophy of the domestic oil industry, Tehran relies heavily on imports to meet its growing demand for oil products. India has been one of its principal suppliers. Oil products have constituted a sizable portion of India's total exports to Iran, and between 2005 and 2009, they accounted for over a third of New Delhi's total exports to Tehran, reaching a peak in 2008-09 when India exported over a billion dollars worth of oil products to Iran; this dropped to just over $180 million during 2009-10 and has been declining since then.[14] On the more serious issue of Tehran's nuclear ambitions, New Delhi has sided with Washington. Despite some initial foot-dragging and uncertainties, since September 2005, it has firmly expressed disapproval of the Iranian pursuit of a nuclear program. In actions by both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. Security Council, New Delhi joined the majority in opposing Tehran's nuclear ambitions. India's September 2005 vote at the IAEA was severely criticized within the country, especially by the communist parties, as surrender to U.S. hegemony.[15] India's carefully constructed neutrality evidently does not extend to the Iranian nuclear question.

The delicate balance with which New Delhi has been handling its relations with Iran and Israel came into sharp focus in 2003. In January of that year, Iranian president Mohammed Khatami was the chief guest at India's Republic Day celebrations, the highest honor bestowed on a visiting head of state. During Khatami's visit, both countries signed the Delhi declaration, which set the tone for cooperation in various fields, including energy. A few months later, in September, New Delhi rolled out a red carpet welcome for Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Both countries issued a Delhi statement, whereby they pledged to cooperate toward achieving peace in their respective regions. On both occasions, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the host and this evenhandedness remains the public face of a complex Indian balancing act.

On the substantive level, there are more Indo-Israeli convergences on Iran than meet the eye. New Delhi's connections with Tehran are due to its energy security concerns, which must not be misconstrued as support for or endorsement of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Like Israel and many Arab countries, India is wary of a nuclear Iran. As Prime Minister Singh put it in an elliptical fashion, New Delhi's decisions at the IAEA over Tehran were influenced by "our security concerns arising from proliferation activities in our extended neighborhood."[16]

Delinking the Indian Foreign Office

There have been a number of high-level visits between India and Israel during the past two decades. Notable among these have been the visit of President Ezer Weizmann in December 1995-January 1996 and Prime Minister Sharon in September 2003, but no reciprocal visits from India have taken place. Nor have there been visits by the defense ministers of the two states, and reciprocal visits have primarily happened at the level of foreign ministers. Silvan Shalom was in India in February 2004, and Shimon Peres has been a frequent flyer, visiting India four times (May 1993, August 2000, January 2001 and January 2002). Two of these visits took place when he was minister for regional cooperation under Ehud Barak. From India, Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh visited Israel in July 2000 and S. M. Krishna in January 2012, as did Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister L. K. Advani in June 2000. There have also been visits by numerous other ministers, officials, and other functionaries.

The picture remains uneven. While there have been periodic foreign ministry level contacts, ministerial visits, especially from India, have been few and far between with principal functionaries refraining from visiting Israel. On several occasions, planned visits by defense ministers have not materialized because of the rapidly-changing political landscape in the Middle East. Even those Indian leaders who visited Israel in the past could not do so as ministers. Official contacts at the senior level have been kept to the barest minimum.

It was the Congress Party, under Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao that normalized relations; yet, the present Manmohan Singh-led Indian government has been rather coy toward Israel. Though a number of junior ministers have visited Israel, senior leaders have carefully skipped the country. They have, however, been willing to travel to Israel's Arab and Iranian neighbors.

Since 1992, for example, there were three state visits between India and Syria: Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pratibha Patil visited Damascus in 2003 and 2010 respectively while Bashar al-Assad visited New Delhi in June 2008. Similarly, since 1991, there have been six state visits between New Delhi and Tehran, including a brief stopover by President Ahmadinejad in April 2008.

This political pattern of limited direct contacts at the highest echelons with Israel was maintained by senior officials of the government. Since 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has had three national security advisers: J. N. Dixit, M. K. Narayanan and Shivshankar Menon. While Dixit announced the normalization of relations in January 1992, Menon served as India's ambassador to Israel in the mid-1990s. Yet none of them visited Israel. This partly explains the considerable media attention to Foreign Minister Krishna's arrival in January 2012, which was in fact promoted within India as a regional visit that included the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.

High level political contacts are important for their visibility, direction, and significance. Ironically, these appear neither important nor a precondition for Indo-Israeli relations. Two factors have contributed to this autopilot like mode of the bilateral relationship. To begin with, the decentralized nature of the Indian federal structure has immensely benefitted Israel. The introduction of economic liberalization in the 1990s gave the provincial states of the Indian Union greater autonomy to pursue their individual economic agendas. Enjoying new openness and opportunities provided by economic liberalization, state governments began engaging with foreign countries to promote their economic rather than political interests.

For both Congress and opposition-ruled states, Israel has become a favorite destination. Unlike the Union government in New Delhi, the states have been unconcerned with the vagaries of the Arab-Israeli peace process since, as specified in the Indian constitution, foreign policy is beyond the jurisdiction of the states. They pursue their economic agenda, especially agriculture, water management, power generation, and farming without any overt political motives, designs, or controversies. Their agendas are focused on their states' welfare and have thus largely remained noncontroversial. Without attracting undue attention or negative publicity, various state chief ministers and their officials have visited the Jewish state and sought economic cooperation and investments. Even the communist parties, which have been critical of India's policy toward Israel, have not hesitated to seek economic opportunities through cooperation with Israel for states under their rule.[17]

These interactions at the state level have brought three tangible benefits to the bilateral relationship:

They have significantly broadened its horizons and brought tangible benefits to millions of Indians who are not even remotely concerned with foreign policy. Not many countries, including prominent Western countries, have achieved the reach that Israel has managed in two decades. They provide a strong economic content to the bilateral relations, which is at the national level skewed in favor of the military-security component and make state ties stable, viable, and mutually beneficial. Interactions with state governments offer Israel a critical alternate channel, especially when the attitude of the Union government is dominated by the international political climate, and of late, coalition compulsions. In contrast, India's Foreign Ministry has to balance bilateral cooperation with concerns and conflicting pressures from other countries of the Middle East. Support for the Palestinians still enjoys a considerable constituency in the country. Hence, the ministry's ability to take initiatives is significantly hampered, bogged down as it often is over issues such as Jerusalem, settlements, statehood, or recurring cycles of violence. It is even possible to suggest that when it comes to Israel, the Ministry of External Affairs is not the principal player on the Indian side. The task of pursuing relations has been taken over by less political and more specialized ministries of the Indian government. Most prominent among them are the ministries of defense, agriculture and, of late, infrastructure. Professional and pragmatic in their approach, they are indifferent toward the vagaries of the peace process but are concerned with tangible benefits and are in the forefront of promoting bilateral relations with Israel. The absence of top-level ministerial visits, for example, has not prevented the chiefs of Indian and Israeli security establishments from periodically visiting and interacting with one another. The same holds true for the ministry of agriculture and its current head Sharad Pawar.[18] Thus, while the Foreign Office makes politically correct noises, other departments of the government have been adopting professional and nonpolitical approaches toward Israel.

The marginal role of the Foreign Office will not change until New Delhi becomes a stakeholder in the Middle East peace process. While supporting a two-state solution, negotiated by the concerned parties, India is not an active player. It was present at the Annapolis conference in November 2007 and has been providing aid and assistance to the Palestinian Authority. But it has yet to assume any meaningful role, especially one that reflects its growing economic power and influence, in promoting the peace process. For instance, economic investment in resource-starved Jordan would considerably reduce some of the ongoing tensions in the Hashemite kingdom and, in the process, reinforce the Jordanian-Israeli peace. Until such initiatives are undertaken, the Foreign Office will continue to have marginal influence in Indo-Israeli relations.

Are Muslims Moving beyond the Palestinian Question?

New Delhi's prolonged absence of relations with Israel has often been attributed to official concerns over possible backlash from its substantial Muslim minority population. Under the British, it had the largest Muslim population in the world and currently has the third largest Muslim community in the world (Indonesia and Pakistan being the other two). With over 120 million followers, no government in India could be indifferent to how Muslims view and perceive the Middle East, especially Israel. In the past, Indian leaders expressed their concerns to Israeli counterparts in private; but of late, there has been some open discussion of the views of the Muslim population and its perceived opposition to Israel.

India's pro-Palestinian position is due partly to the domestic Muslim factor. The junior foreign minister Ahamed, for example, has been more vocal in criticizing Israel than other members of the government. Ahamed represents the Indian Union Muslim League, a small regional party within the ruling UPA coalition in the state of Kerala. Partly because of the league's support base and partly due to his own convictions, his interactions have been confined to Arab and Islamic countries of the Middle East—in other words, every place except Israel. Since joining the government in 2004, he has visited the Palestinian territories three times but has consciously avoided meeting Israeli officials.[19] There is no information in the public domain to indicate that he has interacted with Israel in his official capacity as minister of state for external affairs. By not meeting Israeli officials and through his anti-Israeli statements, Ahamed has sought to pacify hardliners within his party.

At the same time, and contrary to conventional perception, one could note a perceptible shift in the attitude of the Indian Muslim community toward Israel. Middle East violence often generates strongly negative reactions from the Muslim community. Sometimes this leads to public protests organized by Muslim groups, as during Sharon's visit. But the community is not blindly and rabidly anti-Israeli. Younger Muslims are eager to understand and learn from Israel and to engage with their Israeli counterparts. One tangible shift is the steady increase in the number of Muslim students who wish to study in Israel and even apply for scholarships offered by the Israeli government.[20] Not that they have turned into Zionists, but unlike their parents and grandparents, younger Muslims appear willing to pursue a dialogue with the Jewish state despite the differences. This is a far cry from the Three Nos enunciated by the Arab League in Khartoum in September 1967: No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace with Israel.

Friendship, Not Alliance

Military cooperation has assumed greater salience in bilateral Indian-Israel relations. Most notable is that Israel has become India's second largest arms exporter after Russia. Considering that Israel does not export platforms such as tanks, aircraft, and ships, this is no mean achievement.[21] Growing military cooperation extends beyond arms sales to technology upgrades, joint research, and intelligence cooperation. Despite its possible implications for use against Iran, on January 21, 2008, India launched a 300-kilogram Israeli satellite into orbit. According to Israeli media reports, the satellite "will dramatically increase Israel's intelligence-gathering capabilities regarding the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, since the satellite can transmit images in all weather conditions, a capability that Israel's existing satellites lacked."[22] As manifested by the sale of the Phalcon advanced airborne early warning system (AWACS), this budding military cooperation between the two countries enjoys the understanding and support of Washington.[23]

At the same time, military ties are not without their share of problems, and unless attended to early, they could give way to a major crisis. Some of the defense deals are tainted with allegations of corruption and the payment of bribes. Though these are primarily Indian problems, Israel cannot be absolved of all responsibility—some of the prominent names among the Israeli defense industries are already blacklisted from competing for defense contracts in India. Though similar charges have been leveled against other countries, Israel is more vulnerable because of India's historic baggage and prolonged non-relations.

Second, excessive focus on military cooperation could lead to a "securitization" of the bilateral relations and bring along uncertainties due to political pressures or changes. Israel-Turkey relations, for instance, were heavily characterized by cooperation in the military arena. But the arrival of the Justice and Development Party and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan not only changed the political climate but has reduced the military component as well. New Delhi should be wary of similar developments. Third, Israel is also facing stiff competition from other countries, most notably France. Since it does not export platforms, it has to coordinate and synchronize its technological expertise with others emerging as major players in India's defense market.

More importantly, both countries have carefully avoided depicting their relations as an alliance, something Washington failed to do in its relations with India. Partly because of the difficulties with which relations were established in 1992, and partly due to their reading of the bilateral convergence and differences, both countries describe themselves as friends of one another. This mature handling of its ties with Israel is also manifested in the manner in which New Delhi has sought closer ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran since the early 1990s. Its problems with Tehran have more to do with India's burgeoning ties with the United States than its friendship with Israel.

Conclusion

The normalization of relations has not transformed India into an ally of Israel. Nor has it caused it to abandon its erstwhile positions vis-à-vis the Palestinians. But by gradually delinking the unending saga of the peace process from bilateral relations, New Delhi is moving toward a more mature understanding and closer friendship with Israel. Recognition by both countries of the limitations and potentials of the relations has enabled them to avoid pitfalls of grandiose visions. Israel is no longer India's suitor; nor is it an ally. But both are emerging as a mature, dependable, and accommodating couple.

Islam's Kiss of Death In The Making

Read more »