velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) (11/26/85)
<EAT THIS> >From J. Abeles: (abeles@mhuxm.UUCP) > >I don't want to be presumptuous. However, presuming that >you are East Indian, are you aware of the policies pursued by >the Indian government which prevent Israeli Jewish scientists >from attending scientific meetings in India? Check out the >letters section of the most recent issue of PHYSICS TODAY >for a personal account of Natan Andrei, an internationally >known scientist (whom I am acquainted with) and who was denied >a visa when it was revealed that he travels under an Israeli >passport. Would you defend such policies, I wonder? India does not have diplomatic relations (or didn't until very recently - there was some talk of opening of consulates, etc... a few months to a year ago) with Israel. This is because Indian jews WERE NOT ALLOWED to EMIGRATE to ISRAEL. (by the Israeli government (I guess if it was by the Israeli government, then the term should be Immigrate, but I am not sure) ). There was some doubt as to the "purity" of the Indian jews, and this was just one of the reasons why diplomatic relations where not formed. India was against the formation (as much as it could have been, since the formation of Israel, and the independence of India occurred very close together) of Israel because it did not see a viable leadership for Palestine. Since the Palestinians (sp?) had no viable leadership, India knew that the formation of Israel, and the splitting of that land would plunge the region into chaos. It did. Also, India has grave problems with the way the S. Africans have treated non-Afrikaaners (sp?), or non Whites. Regardless of the PERSECUTION of the Blacks in S. Africa, Israel continues to be one of S. Africa's 5 largest trading partners, and vice-versa. The military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel is also well known - why should India have diplomatic relations with a country whose peers in the fellowship of nations happen to be such biggots (as in S. Africa)? Note please, that the Indian National Academy of Sciences will insure safe passage for any Israeli/Jewish scientist into and outof India. As well as treat him/her with the same respect and courtesy as a scientist from any other country. This can be seen by looking at the number of scientists whose visa's were denied for attending the IEEE Cybernetics conference two years ago, and the IAU (International Astronomical Union) conference taking place presently. (None) I do not have access to Physics Today at this moment, but I will go and read the account of the Scientist whom you mention. From the IAU propaganda which I received, and from the IEEE propaganda from 2 years past, I am sure that the INAS had convinced the Foreign Affairs Ministry that their policy of excluding scientists who travelled on an Israeli passport would definitely hurt the conference. I agree, as a scientist, that the bounds which are put on the free flow of scientific personnel/data by POLITICIANS should be stopped, and the scientific community in India seems to support this argument, as do I. It is very unfortunate that the governments of India and Israel cannot work out an agreement to this end.
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/28/85)
[velu@eneevax] >India does not have diplomatic relations (or didn't until very recently - >there was some talk of opening of consulates, etc... a few months to a year >ago) with Israel. This is because Indian jews WERE NOT ALLOWED to EMIGRATE >to ISRAEL. (by the Israeli government (I guess if it was by the Israeli >government, then the term should be Immigrate, but I am not sure) ). I have not heard of that problem - but there *are* Indian Jews in Israel. I always thought absence of relations with Israel was because of Indian huge Moslem minority. You probably know better - but are you sure the official reason above is the real one ?
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/28/85)
In article <425@eneevax.UUCP> velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) writes: ><EAT THIS> > >>From J. Abeles: (abeles@mhuxm.UUCP) >> >>I don't want to be presumptuous. However, presuming that >>you are East Indian, are you aware of the policies pursued by >>the Indian government which prevent Israeli Jewish scientists >>from attending scientific meetings in India? Check out the >>letters section of the most recent issue of PHYSICS TODAY >>for a personal account of Natan Andrei, an internationally >>known scientist (whom I am acquainted with) and who was denied >>a visa when it was revealed that he travels under an Israeli >>passport. Would you defend such policies, I wonder? > > >India does not have diplomatic relations (or didn't until very recently - >there was some talk of opening of consulates, etc... a few months to a year >ago) with Israel. This is because Indian jews WERE NOT ALLOWED to EMIGRATE >to ISRAEL. (by the Israeli government (I guess if it was by the Israeli >government, then the term should be Immigrate, but I am not sure) ). There >was some doubt as to the "purity" of the Indian jews, and this was just one >of the reasons why diplomatic relations where not formed. India was against >the formation (as much as it could have been, since the formation of Israel, >and the independence of India occurred very close together) of Israel because >it did not see a viable leadership for Palestine. Since the Palestinians >(sp?) had no viable leadership, India knew that the formation of Israel, and >the splitting of that land would plunge the region into chaos. It did. Actually, almost all Indian Jews emigrated to Israel in the 1950's. There was some question about mamzerut of one group of Indian Jews but that has nothing to do with Jewishness or eligibility for citizenship. In any case even for non-Jews gaining Israeli citizenship is quite easy. I think I could easily have been against the formation of India on the grounds of potential anarchy in the subcontinent. Certainly more people have been killed in Muslim/non-Muslim violence in India than in the Middle East. >Also, India has grave problems with the way the S. Africans have treated >non-Afrikaaners (sp?), or non Whites. Regardless of the PERSECUTION of the >Blacks in S. Africa, Israel continues to be one of S. Africa's 5 largest >trading partners, and vice-versa. India has much more trade with S. Africa than Israel does. Also a much larger number of Indians than Jews live in S. Africa and they seem to do well. >The military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel is also well known - >why should India have diplomatic relations with a country whose peers in the >fellowship of nations happen to be such biggots (as in S. Africa)? There is no military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel. Actually traditional Indian culture seems quite similar to Apartheid. I know Gandhi was quite upset that as a British citizen he was not treated equal to the whites. As far as I know he never condemned the subjugation of the blacks. Given the amount of lies and hypocrisy in Sinha's article, I would, if I were an Israeli and if Sinha's attitudes were typical of Indians, be quite glad that Israel and India had little in the way of relations. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (12/02/85)
In article <425@eneevax.UUCP>, velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) writes: > Also, India has grave problems with the way the S. Africans have treated > non-Afrikaaners (sp?), or non Whites. Regardless of the PERSECUTION of the > Blacks in S. Africa, Israel continues to be one of S. Africa's 5 largest > trading partners, and vice-versa. > > The military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel is also well known - > why should India have diplomatic relations with a country whose peers in the > fellowship of nations happen to be such biggots (as in S. Africa)? Who are SA's other four leading trading partners? Does India have relations with them? Are the other countries that sell arms to SA also its "peers in the fellowship of nations?"
jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/02/85)
> > [velu@eneevax] > >India does not have diplomatic relations (or didn't until very recently - > >there was some talk of opening of consulates, etc... a few months to a year > >ago) with Israel. This is because Indian jews WERE NOT ALLOWED to EMIGRATE > >to ISRAEL. (by the Israeli government (I guess if it was by the Israeli > >government, then the term should be Immigrate, but I am not sure) ). > > I have not heard of that problem - but there *are* Indian Jews in Israel. > > I always thought absence of relations with Israel was because of Indian > huge Moslem minority. You probably know better - but are you sure the > official reason above is the real one ? The reasons the Indian government does not have e diplomatic relationship with Israel are very simple. They are purely political and economical. Look at the size and population of Israel versus the Arab world. If Israel was a wealthy country which could offer financial benefits to India, I am sure the diplomatic situation would have been different. If countries would base their diplomatic relationship on morality then the Soviet Union would not have any diplomatic relationship with any country. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihlpa!jho
velu@eneevax.UUCP (Velu Sinha) (12/03/85)
In article <907@ihlpa.UUCP> jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > >If countries would base their diplomatic relationship on morality >then the Soviet Union would not have any diplomatic relationship >with any country. Why would any country have relations with the United States then? Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, Phillipines, Grenada are all examples of the US stepping out of bounds. Expecting other countries to obey World Court judgements, and then ignoring those which the US sees as being incorrect seems pretty immoral. Not practicing what is preached about the sale of weapons for the DEFENSE of Israel also seems quite uncouth. The USSR has its own set of problems, and yes, I am not unthankful to be living in the United States. However, to say that thge morals of one country (or religion, as in the recent flamage about how hedonistic Moslems are) are any worse than the morals of another is a comparison which cannot be made so easily.
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (12/05/85)
In article <174@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >There is no military cooperation between S. Africa and Israel. Actually >traditional Indian culture seems quite similar to Apartheid. I know >Gandhi was quite upset that as a British citizen he was not treated equal >to the whites. As far as I know he never condemned the subjugation of the >blacks. > Oh, so now we are an expert on Gandhi, are we, Martillo? AND India. AND Indians. My, my, my. Not bad for a little piker who started life humbly, badmouthing Muslims. You sure made a believer of me, Yakim. I really thought you didn't have it in you. Well, Just goes to show, doesn't it, if you have ambition and desire, there are no heights to which you can't aspire. So Gandhi was a British citizen, huh? Sure, Yakim. Tell me, you actually heard Gandhi NOT condemn the Whites' treatment of Blacks, didn't you. Awww, say it's so, Yakim. I know nothing's impossible for you. >Given the amount of lies and hypocrisy in Sinha's article, I would, if I >were an Israeli and if Sinha's attitudes were typical of Indians, be quite >glad that Israel and India had little in the way of relations. > Well, as for me, really DON'T CARE whether or not the following sweet things about Martillo are typical of Israelis and Jews in general: 1. Total ignorance about India and things Indian, combined with a pathetic eagerness to mouth off about things he knows nothing about. 2. Strident advocacy of oppression of minorities by public policy. 3. Inflicting his beastly society on people who don't care for it. 4. Slandering of persons patently greater than oneself. I do hope, however, that his displeasure with the attitude of us Indians would be sufficient encouragement for him to boycott net.nlang.india in future. >Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami --Kotcherlakota Venkata Ramakrishna Lakshminarasimha Bapa Rao.
cher@ihlpm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (12/05/85)
> >If countries would base their diplomatic relationship on morality > >then the Soviet Union would not have any diplomatic relationship > >with any country. > > Why would any country have relations with the United States then? Chile, > Iran, Nicaragua, Phillipines, Grenada are all examples of the US stepping > out of bounds. Expecting other countries to obey World Court judgements, and > then ignoring those which the US sees as being incorrect seems pretty I find the reasoning moronic to the extreme. There are big differences between open society like US where "stepping out of bounds" is pretty much openly discussed and influenced by public opinion and USSR. The biggest implication of these huge differences is that if the previous poster spoke of Soviets' "stepping out of bounds" while being in USSR he'd find himself in a mental institution or a jail cell. I see Granada, etc, as inadequate attempts by USA to save it's ass in geopolitic game where Soviets and their little helpers (Vietnam, Cuba) have their hands untied. Apart from that, his response implies that USSR is a more moral society then Israel (that's why India has relations with USSR). I doubt that he really believes that hogwash. Then again, maybe he does... Mike Cherepov (mutter,mutter...) -- Mike Cherepov
rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (12/12/85)
hector!martillo writes: > > I think I could easily have been against the formation of India on the > grounds of potential anarchy in the subcontinent. Certainly more people > have been killed in Muslim/non-Muslim violence in India than in the > Middle East. It wasn't the "formation" of India but the partition of India that result in the violence and bloodshed in 1947. If you are saying that you would have opposed the partition of India, that is a perfectly reasonable statement and has nothing whatsoever to do with what Sinha was saying. > > Given the amount of lies and hypocrisy in Sinha's article, I would, if I > were an Israeli and if Sinha's attitudes were typical of Indians, be quite > glad that Israel and India had little in the way of relations. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami Sinha's posting never reached this site, so I guess I shall never know what abominable "lies and hypocrisy" he propounded that Martillo had to respond with such a fulsome tirade. In any case, Sinha is just an individual expressing an opinion. What about Israel, where such luminaries as Sharon and Kahane , if they do not set public policy, are certainly highly influential? I don't need to go into the lies and hypocrisies these worthies have espoused. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, Martillo, would that mean NOBODY should have diplomatic relations with Israel? People in glass houses.... Martillo, you would do us all a great favor if you'd try to be a little more circumspect when you shoot your mouth off. S. Rajeev (whose opinions have nothing to do with his employer).