Conference taveng::bagels

    My Existentialism teacher was right?

    
    I've just spoken with a Dr. Roger Nichols who is the director
    of the Museum of Science [Isn't DIGITAL a contributor to this
    museum?] and he, not knowing the display or the accuracy
    of it, has assured me that there is nothing he can do about
    this if it indeed is a valid point [Who the hell am I right?].

    He HAS mentioned that there is a Mr. Date [Dah-Tay] who
    is a representative of the Indian Government who is
    usually walking around the exhibit.  He was described to
    me by Dr. Nichols as a Grey haired gentlemen who speaks
    very fluent and correct English [that rules out most
    of America].

    I'm intending on going to see this display as i've heard
    it's quite impressive regardless, and I will indeed
    look for the display you mentioned.

    617-723-2500    Museum of Science
    617-589-0221    Dr. Roger Nichols Secretary

    An interesting chart, especially considering what day today is.
    From your drawing, it looks like they consider Hebrews to end at the
    time of the destruction of the first temple???

    RE: .3
    
    ! An interesting chart, especially considering what day today is.
    
    What day was today (4 August)?
    
       Alan
    

    If I were the Indian PR guy and had to defend that graph I'd
    say something like this:
    
    A "people" is an ethnic group in a particular area.  Thus "Hebrew"
    ceases to have a meaning at the time of the Diaspora.  The Hebrew-
    (or Aramaic-) speaking people from then until the creation of Israel
    are not "Hebrews," as they do not live in one place.  They are "Jews".
    The creation of Israel is also the creation of a new people, "Israelis."

    All you have to do is define the terms in your way and you win!
    
    				-John Bishop

    Yesterday (4 Aug 87) was Tisha B'Av (9th of the month of Av in the
    Hebrew calendar), the date of the destruction of the first temple.
    It is taken to be the date of all major disaters (destruction of
    the second temple, expulsion from Spain, start of WW I), and very
    religious people take it as a fast day, especially in Israel (I
    don't fast that day, but we do go to schul).  It is tradtional to
    read the book of Lamentations, which which written in exile right
    after the destruction of the first temple.

    RE: .7
    
    Thanks for the information. While I know there is such a day
    in the Jewish calendar, since I do not observe Tisha B'Av, I
    didn't realize that yesterday was the day.
    
    I knew that it was observed to mark the destruction of the first
    temple. However, I did not realize that it was taken to be the date
    of all major disasters. Does this apply to disasters having an effect
    on us Jews, or can it be applied to disasters where no Jewish people
    can reasonably be expected to be found (e.g., an earthquake in a
    small village in Central America)?
    
    Also, in your examples of disasters, you did not mention the
    Holocaust. Is this because, in many schuls nowadays, the 
    congregation as a group says kaddish for the victims?
    
       Alan
    

    	Shalom,
    		I am an Indian (as in Festival of INDIA - :^}); but
    am not a PR guy! Sometimes I wonder why I venture into places where
    I could get cut-up, but anyway, here goes....
    
    		That bar graph display was indeed an interesting one.
    I am not a historian and hence cannot attest to those figures; but
    the fact that no mention is made of HEBREWS should not be construed
    as an intentional slight.
    		In my history classes (I am a Hindu but I spent the
    better part of my life in Christian institutions) back home, we
    were always taught that there existed/exist/will exist Jews and
    that the language of the Jews was Hebrew. It did not strike us that
    if people who speak French are French and those who speak Tamil
    (me - :^}) are Tamil then those who speak Hebrew are Hebrew; we
    just thought that those who spoke/speak Hebrew are Jews. WE may
    be mistaken but rest assured that if this assumption is incorrect
    then it was more due to ignorance than anything else.
    	As for the fact that Hebrews were not mentioned, again I have
    to say that if at least the Jews were not mentioned (it is about
    a month since I went to the Museum), then it is most probably due
    to the ignorance of the person who drew up the chart. Please consider
    the fact that we have very little relationship with Isreal and 
    people really are ignorant  of such things.
    	Ofcourse, one cannot discount the possibility that there may
    have been a wimp of an bureaucrat who, out of fear of offending
    'friendly' Arabs, decided to 'be ignorant'. But let me hasten to
    add not all Indians share that view (I do not).
    	If you feel that the display is factually incorrect I strongly
    suggest that you provide the appropriate details to the Indian 
     PR man in charge and demand a change. Indian bureaucracy being
    what it is, the demand may be 'analysed' to eternity but at least
    some people will be enlightened.
    
    Thanks for letting me ramble in here.
    Shehekayanuh
    -parthi

       re .9:
       
       Thanks for the reminder that the statements of a government often
       don't reflect the sense of the peoples that the government
       purports to represent. 
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    	
    Oooopss.....
    		Sorry for spelling out Israel as IsrEAl; mea culpa....
    
    -parthi
    

    BTW, I went there and saw the chart in question...
    
    The line refers to "Phoenicians and Hebrews" as one entity.  So
    they're half right, the Phoenicians as such probably faded out a
    few thousand years ago.  Of course there are still various Lebanese
    factions...

.9>    	Ofcourse, one cannot discount the possibility that there may
.9>    have been a wimp of an bureaucrat who, out of fear of offending
.9>    'friendly' Arabs, decided to 'be ignorant'. But let me hasten to
.9>    add not all Indians share that view (I do not).

I'm sure that the average Indian is not anti-Israeli, but unfortunately,
official Indian government policy is and was, even before the first rise
in oil prices.  There are diplomatic relations between the two countries,
but only at the lowest possible level.  The reasons (or excuses) that I
have heard for this are that

    1)	there is a large Moslem minority in India, and the government is
	worried about antagonizing them; and/or

    2)	if India were to be friendlier with Israel, the Arab states might
	give increased support to Pakistan.

Earlier this year, the two countries were paired up in Davis Cup tennis
competition.  The match was delayed while the Indian government thought
about whether playing against Israel or forfeiting a Davis Cup match would
get them into more trouble.  The Davis Cup people penalize such forfeits
rather severely, so the Indians chose to play, though they invited Yasir
Arafat for a visit shortly before the match, just to show that it did not
reflect a change in government policy.

India won the match easily, by the way, and the tennis players, unlike the
governments, had no trouble getting along with each other.

    			{ Where Indians fear to tread.....}
    Friends {I hope ye all are :^) }
    	Apropos the previous reply (.13), let me first state that am
    happy that India and Israel did play! As for the excuses(!!)/reasons(!!!!),
    here are my (& mine alone) views. And ah do promise that this shall
    be my last intrusion herein.
    
    1. We all know how politicians are. In India, like it or not, the
       moslems form a solid vote block. The Congress party (the major,
       ruling party) has never been able to fashion a solid Hindu
       majority behind it and hence depends on this moslem swing vote
       to provide it a very large buffer. 
    	In order to appease this Moslem vote we (Indians) are forced
       by the politicians to give up a degree of rationale and balance
       and dance to somebody else's tune.
    
    2. As for diplomatic relations, it is indeed sad that India which
       has recognised both the Afhan and Kampuchean govts, will not
       establish full scale relations with Israel. But - no flames
       please - the Arabs provide over 80% of our oil and hence the
       govt feels that it is choosing the lesser of two unknowns.
       (just a figure of speech :^})
    
    3. I HOPE NOBODY GETS OFFENDED BY THIS. India has always found it
       very difficult to establish a balanced relationship; just look
       at our effort to maintain equipotential relationships with
       the US and USSR. In that sense, while we all abhor and condemn
       violence (as an Indian I know from direct experience how random
       violence is!), we do feel that there should be some solution
       to the Palestinian refugee problem. Does that mean we should
       flirt around with the PLO? What did we do when the Jordanians
       held the West Bank; did we do anything about the Palestianians
       then? These are embarassing questions and I have no answer.
    
    I shall just quote two incidents (true or false - I know not) that
    had wide circulation in India:
    
    a. India and Israel had consular level relations; these got disrupted
       when the Israeli consul - somewhat true to the fact, I am afraid-
       said that 'the Indian politician sucks up to the Arabs'!!!
    b. We have an almost paranoid fear of the Pakisthanis; and their
       getting a nuclear weapon is our worst nightmare. It was once
       rumored that Moshe Dayan had flown in secretly to India and that
       the Israelis had offered to 'do to Kahuta(Pak)' what was done
       to Iraq, provided India would offer the Jam Nagar air base facilities
       near the Pak border. You can judge the diffidance of the Indian
       govt on matters pertaining to Indo-Israeli relations from the
       fact that the govt had to strenuously deny that it would ever
       have anything to do with the IDF or Israel.
    
    Once again I appreciate your letting me share some thoughts.
    Hope this puts us in a somewhat better light.
    
    Regards
    -parthi _who_is_not_a_PR_man
               

    	If countries like India would be friendly to Israel then the
    few Arab countries would look around and say, "Hey, Who do we sell
    our products to?"
    	 Did you know that the Arabs buy Israeli
    washing machines, refrigerators etc. The Israelis make special products
    that do not have any mention of made in Israel. The Arabs that buy
    the products know they are made in Israel and buy it because these
    products are the best that can be purchased in that area. It's funny,
    Jews buy Volkswagons even though they know that Volkswagen used
    Jewish slaves in the 30's and 40's. People will buy from anyone if
    the product is good.
    	This shows that capitalism unites the human race.

Once again, the Govt of India, in its infinite wisdom, has prevented the 
Indian Davis Cup team from playing against the Israeli team in Tel Aviv.
India wanted the venue shifted from TelAviv to a "neutral" venue outside
Israel. The Intl Assn refused and India now has been banned from the
Davis Cup tourney next year.
	Setting aside the fact that there are Arab diplomats (Egyptian)
hobnobbing in TelAviv, I just fail to see what this is going to accomplish.
If India had refused to play ANYWHERE it would have made more sense; if it
refused to play in Jerusalem, I can understand. But TelAviv? One
more madness in this mad, mad world!

-parthi

As noted in .13, the Indian government's decision went the other way in
last year's tournament.