Rattling The Cage: An Interview With Screamers Director Carla Garape

RATTLING THE CAGE: AN INTERVIEW WITH SCREAMERS DIRECTOR CARLA GARAPEDIAN

PopMatters, IL
March 30 2007

With a new documentary and the aid of System of a Down, Garapedian
tries to get the world talking about genocide.by Chris Catania

Through her work as a journalist, former BBC World News anchor, and
especially her films, the Emmy award-winning director Carla Garapedian
knows how to shine a white hot light on issues that might otherwise go
unnoticed by the world. Utilizing the music of Grammy award-winning
rock quartet System of a Down and exploring the main thesis from
Harvard professor Samantha Power’s Pulitzer prize winning book "A
Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide, Garapedian’s
latest documentary Screamers is a film that explores the reasons why
genocide continues to happen and why the US government continues to
remain neutral.

It’s nearly impossible to remain the same after watching Screamers.

The movie is challenging on several levels but most of all it
compels-making the controversial topic accessible via the excellent
use of SOAD’s music-and appropriately puts the focus on the individual
to act, giving you the same feeling and aftereffect of watching the
film Hotel Rwanda.

Screamers (BBC/Maya Releasing; US theatrical: 8 Dec 2006) Trailer
Official SiteGarapedian was the movie’s first convert. During our talk
via phone from Los Angeles where the film debuted, Carla explained that
her perception of the younger generation-the film’s main audience-was
changed from cynical to hopeful, with even tough government critics
responding well to her film. Most of all, as an Armenian herself,
she wants to join the legacy of past "screamers" (people who are
so compelled about issues like genocide that they can only "scream"
for action to be taken) and give the world an opportunity to become
aware of genocide and take action against it.

You’ve made several films about controversial issues. What have
you learned the most about your previous films that helped you make
this one?

Most of my films have been about one event but this one was about
several events. But my films are always centered around exposing
a lie by using pictures and with Screamers I wanted to do the same
thing but this time I was combining more music with the pictures to
get people to take action against genocide.

What got you into doing the type of work you do?

It is about being Armenian I guess. Not that all Armenians do the
kind of work that I do but I’ve experience great injustice through my
family history that hasn’t been rectified. And, in an indirect way,
through my work, I’ve been able to rectify the terrible injustices
that were done to my family. I also wanted to give the sufferers of
the Armenian genocide a voice because they didn’t have one.

In Samantha Power’s book she tells the story of other screamers who
fought to end genocide and it seams as though you are carrying on
the legacy.

I carry that book around like it’s my bible for telling my story.

There’s so much in there that I find something new each time I read
it. She points out each person who has become a screamer has failed
because no genocide has been stopped that we know in our modern
history. So you ask yourself, "What’s the point?" But on another
level they do succeed because they kept the fight going.

I think what George Clooney and people like him are doing are great,
but it’s frustrating on a certain level. Because I wonder why does
it take a George Clooney to do something about genocide. It’s because
we pay attention to celebrity in the US and unfortunately that’s the
way it is. He might be called a failure because it hasn’t stopped but
at least he’s bearing witness and doing something with his celebrity
status.

How has the film been received?

Even though it’s about a tough subject, it’s still been well
received. It’s been very gratifying that people who have seen the film
have connected with those pictures and get what it is we’re trying to
say. I believe the only way to stop this is to touch people at some
very basic level. We can’t wait for politicians to do something because
they’re not going to do something unless there is some sort of movement
at ground level and that’s where System of a Down comes in. They’re
not just a political band, but they just want to raise awareness
and they let people do what they want, but they definitely want to
educate their fans and then let their fans make their own decisions.

System of a Down

How did you meet System of a Down?

I met them in 2004 at the annual concert for the Armenian genocide
that occurred in 1915. A bunch of other bands and other human rights
organizations were there set up outside the concert area and handing
out leaflets to their fans about Darfur, the Holocaust. So I was
there representing The Armenian Film Foundation. I wasn’t really that
familiar with their music beyond knowing that they were a very popular
band. Fans were coming up to the table and the most interesting thing
for me was that the fans knew about the Armenian genocide and they
were very educated about Darfur. I was amazed that SOAD was doing
more to raise awareness about the Armenian genocide than the Armenian
community in the US for the last 50 years.

So the fans you met were learning about the Armenian genocide primarily
from SOAD’s music?

Yes, but at first I wasn’t sure if they were attracting kids who were
just generally more politically aware or if the kids were becoming
aware via the band’s music. I think it was more the latter case.

Meeting SOAD didn’t all come together at the concert and they were
approached by many artists and there are a lot of people who wanted
to work with them. Michael Moore did a music video with them. SOAD
had to first look at my films and my background. So we met in 2004.

Serj Tankian wanted to do a film about all genocides and not only
focus on the Armenians. He wanted to raise awareness about that. If
I was going to do that then he was willing to cooperate.

Was it difficult to approach the scope and purpose of the film being
a journalist and having such a close personal connection to genocide?

I’ve made other films and covered stories in other countries about
human rights and I had originally shied away from doing a film about
the Armenian Genocide because there were already a few made that were
well done. I didn’t see what value I could add, and the subject is very
personal to me because I’m a grandchild of the genocide survivor. And
like the band, the issue is part of my DNA. I’ve grown up with it
and it’s been a very familiar presence in my life. And when I saw
SOAD and learned how they were bringing the issue into the current
political debate I saw how the film could be different than previous
film on the topic.

This story was unique in that I chose to tell it partly through Serj’s
grandfather who is still living. His grandfather actually came from a
village where my family was from, so it was pretty eerie and haunting
to go back there and film. That’s the place where they were forced
out and sent on the death marches. There were a lot of parallels to
my family. And everybody has these very unique stories.

And with Serj’s grandfather I had access to six hours of previous
interviews. His telling reminded of the similar method, how the stories
of people in domestic violence situations where the person tells of
the events in a very monotone way until they get to a family member
dying-then they will cry or show emotion. The only way to recall those
moments is to detach yourself. In those interviews Serj’s grandfather
was able to recall the worst things but when he got to the death of
his two brothers and grandmother it really got to him.

With the message of your film being woven in and through the music
of SOAD there seems to be a possibility that fans, namely the young
ones shown screaming in the front rows at the concerts, might miss the
point. What concerns you about the message getting lost in the music?

Most of the fans are not there for political reasons-that much I
understand-but my take on it is that SOAD has told me that their music
is not just about politics. And I know that’s true. Their lyrics are
about many things and sometimes they hard to understand.

The way I see it is that I’m hoping to tie in the message with the
rage and anger side of the band and start from there because I know
that many of their fans first become interested in the emotion of
the music and then take interest in the lyrics. That’s how I became
interested in their music. Rage and anger and passion are needed to
tell this story because if we don’t feel outrage about genocide then
who are we as people? I didn’t understand the music at first because
I’m in my 40s and I wasn’t in to that type of music. I was more into
Beatles and Elton John. So I had real trouble at first but I heard
the music and then went back to the lyrics and it made me want to
learn more about what they were talking about.

There’s a sequence where you use the song "Chop Suey" in a very
interesting way?

My editor and I really struggled with portraying that moment in the
film since the film’s subject was so dark and we were showing the
kids rocking out and having fun. But we decided that the band is not
just about being serious. Their music is about celebrating life just
as much as being political. I wanted to show a complete and balance
portrayal of who SOAD is.

There are scenes where you show Serj taking care of his grandfather
and Serj confronting Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. You really
see a different side of him that you normally don’t get if you only
listen to the music.

Absolutely. Serj is such a soft-spoken person and that grandfather
and Hastert scene is a great representation of how the band preaches
tolerance and understanding and they don’t want to incite violence in
any way, even though on stage you see them jumping around. The film’s
contrast is something I wanted to show. As I spent time with them I
found it interesting to see them more than just what you see on stage.

How hard was it to trust that your message wouldn’t be dismissed as
just an angry rant, seeing as a band like SOAD can get misunderstood
at first listen or seeing them on stage for the first time.

It was hard but I did have a lot of trust. But I also looked at the
flip side. I’m lucky their music was heavy metal. Because if it had
been something like Coldplay or Barry Manilow [laughs] the message
wouldn’t have the same impact. And I’m grateful that I had that
going for me. It’s really important to have the force of a SOAD song
behind what genocide really means, because genocide has been going
on for so long and somewhere along the way we lost the connection to
what genocide really means. For some reason at some point it became
optional for us to intervene and I don’t think it’s the fault of the
ordinary person-it’s the fault of our foreign policy. Our foreign
policy has been very consistent that we remain neutral in the face
of genocide. We explore one of Samantha Power’s points that it’s
not a valid excuse for the US government to say we didn’t know what
was going on in 1915 or during the Holocaust. But she explains that
there were several people reporting what was going on. But the US and
British governments opted not to pursue the evidence. They didn’t say,
"Oh, let the Jews die"-they were just indifferent to the evidence. So
that means that we probably could have saved a couple hundred thousand
by bombing a railway line. But because of other reasons and some
anti-Semitism going on in the US and Europe they just didn’t want to
look deep into what was going on.

How crucial is it that the US government deals with the guilt of
being indifferent to the Armenian genocide and other genocides? The
US government could admit and then resolve what happened to the
Armenians. If that were to happen it seems it would being closure
to the emotions suffered by people like you who come from those that
suffered, but also create other problem with our country’s past?

Interesting question. SOAD drummer John Dolmayan poses the question
well by saying, "The US response to what happened to the 25 million
Native Americans and is, ‘Oh, that’s too bad.’" I had to look that
static up because I thought it was large but when I looked it up that
number was in the median average. So congressman are worried that if
we admit to genocide here in the 21st century than it might open up
our past-that it might bring Native Americans living today to also
to begin demanding reparation.

For me, the big issue is that US foreign policy has been based on
its alliance with Turkey and the genocide was very well documented in
newspapers and public records. So it’s not that they didn’t know it
was happening. It was that US government didn’t want to anger Turkey
because Turkey was a crucial ally. So the issue of guilt is dictated
by public opinion and this is where young people get involved.

Things change based on the perception of what the public wants. Look
at the Tsunami in Indonesia. People saw how terrible it was and
dug deep into their pocketbooks. So I believe if Americans see what
really happened, and really felt and saw the pictures of genocide,
things would change.

Another example is Hotel Rwanda. That film brought a massive amount
of awareness, but it was too late and if people saw what is going
on in Darfur everyday-the slaughter of women and children-they would
pressure the US government.

But the problem with genocide is that it’s hard to document when it’s
happening because the perpetrators do their best to keep foreigners
out. And our news media is left in the dark in covering these issues
long term, financing it over a period of time so you’re not going to
get coverage of it. Even with the BBC, who I worked for, it’s hard
for them to get in there and get coverage of Darfur. So how do you
get the awareness without the pictures, because politicians want to
stay out of it. The Bush administration has called it genocide but
they don’t want to go the distance and do something about it.

What do you think will put the issue over the top and move the ordinary
person to act?

When I saw An Inconvenient Truth, where people were buying an
energy-saving light bulb that was much more expensive than a
traditional one, I saw people changing their behavior because they’re
scared … With the genocide, it starts at the university level and
people asking, "Where is our money going?" and it is a very grass
roots campaign.

Do you think the older generation and our government take the audience
(the younger generation) of the film seriously when it comes to taking
action on social causes like genocide?

There’s been some surprising twists. I’ve met some older people who
said they didn’t like the music at first but then they realized the
energy is amazing. Then they feel not a direct connection to the
music but more importantly a connection with the younger generation
who is connecting with the music of SOAD. Even for me, I struggled
with being cynical towards this younger generation and thought they
were only focused on getting jobs and being much more materialistic
than my generation. But I discovered that’s not true. I realized that
they do care about many issues. Serj said to me one time that we start
off thinking the right way-it’s just that we get more cynical as we
get older and that’s why he’s working with young people. For him,
it’s the way forward.

We had congressmen come to a screening at the Library of Congress
with their staffers and think tankers. I cranked the volume because
I really wanted them to hear it. And afterwards one of their spokes
person came up and said, "Do you know how unusual it is for them to
actually sit through it?" They may feel uneasy about the music and the
physical aspect of the music and message, and it may scare them to see
the kids like that because they don’t fully understand or control it.

Do you think they feel threatened by the youth?

I don’t know. But I do know that after going to several concerts I
now get SOAD. I now totally understand what their music is all about.

It’s about being part of the experience. It’s very tribal with everyone
getting into the music. And that communal concert experience brings
our conversation full circle. That same universal feeling you have
at a concert or about a band is what I want to create to get people
involved to stop genocide. [It is] part of the universal connection
I’m trying to get people to feel to that country, those people far
away who people we think we don’t care anything about. And at a
concert it doesn’t matter who you are; you feel connected to that
person you’re headbanging with. I felt and I was only supposed to
feel filming it. Just think what we can do if we can tap into that
connection and apply it to the issue of genocide.

How does taking action fit with the film’s audience’s current
behaviors, interests and trends?

Let’s face it. The Internet is where it’s happening and it’s there
that people feel free to talk and discuss. I may not be able to stop
what’s going but if I can get people talking then I’ve done my job.

But beyond just asking questions there also has to be a demand for
answers and that’s how we can change things.

You haven’t used music as such a central aspect in your previous
films. Did you look at other bands-past or present-to get an idea of
how you wanted to use music as a part of the movie?

I’m dating myself but when I was growing up it was Bob Dylan,
Woodstock, and the anti-war movement and how music became involved in
it. Music is a good place to start when trying to access the emotions,
but it shouldn’t be done in a sentimental way. Most people have a very
deep connection to music and the artist and you feel the humanity
of the situation. Music is really the only medium that can have
that effect. I associate the ’60s with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin,
Rolling Stones, and Joni Mitchell and I also associate the idea of
"I want to change the world" with their music.

As a musical culture what do you think we learned the most about
when it comes to using music during the anti-war movement of the
’60s and how does that facture into your film?

I’m more familiar with the world music than the heavy metal scene
but I’ll use SOAD as an example. Their music is a commentary on our
times,but they also bring with them their history and their music
sounds like their Armenian roots and here they are trying to make
their ancestors and their culture survive through their music. And
even though the Turks tried to wipe out a whole race of people,
they failed and the evidence of that is in the music. It’s about the
culture surviving as much as the individual, and that give me hope.

All it takes is for four guys in a band to be extremely popular and
every time I hear their music I say, "This is our culture surviving."

At the end of the Harvard screening a gentleman who was from Darfur
said that the film made him feel paralyzed by the whole situation,
but he ended by saying that the film is doing something very important
in taking the first step of making people aware. It’s so important
to at least give people a chance to know. Without that the situation
is hopeless. You have to educate people first and know the facts,
then take political action.

What is the next step to take in fighting genocide?

STAND (Student Taking Action Now on Darfur) is helping out with
getting people involved. The DVD will also prolong the life of the
film. Schools are also getting involved and teachers are looking at
including the film in curriculum. Our government won’t do anything
unless we rattle the cage. Right now it starts with taking action
on Darfur. Since box office numbers are still important, going to
see Screamers is important to furthering the cause. At the very
basic level, I want to at least get antennae up so you don’t look at
the news the same way or you at least start to ask some of your own
questions. I also know that most people are not quite the same after
they see the film.

le/32258/rattling-the-cage-an-interview-with-screa mers-director-carla/

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/features/artic

Turkey Restores Ancient Armenian Church As Museum, Armenia Calls On

TURKEY RESTORES ANCIENT ARMENIAN CHURCH AS MUSEUM, ARMENIA CALLS ON TURKEY TO REOPEN BORDER
Linda Young – All Headline News Staff Writer

All Headline News
March 30 2007

Ankara, Turkey (AHN) – At a ceremony marking the restoration of the
historic Akdamar Church the spiritual leader of Turkey’s Armenian
Orthodox community on Thursday issued a call for Turkey to open the
ancient Armenian church to worship. Patriarch Mesrob II said that
authorizing at least one worship service annually in the ancient church
would help heal the rift caused by the mass slayings of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I.

Turkey and Armenia do not have diplomatic ties, but 70,000 Armenians
still live in Turkey and the Turkish government invited a delegation
from Armenia to the ceremony.

The head of the Armenian Apostolic Church declined an invitation
to speak because the structure will not be used for worship, BBC
news reported.

The Akdamar church was originally built between 915 and 921. The
Turkish government restored it, at a cost of $1.5 million, to use as
a museum and cultural center.

"Our request from our government is for a religious and cultural
service to be held at the church every year and for a festival to be
organized," Mesrob said, the International Herald-Tribune reported
on Thursday.

"If our government approves, it will contribute to peace between
two communities who have not been able to come together for years,"
he added.

The Armenian government has said although it appreciates the
restoration of the church that it would prefer to have the border
between the countries opened. That border was closed in 1993 because of
a war and the economy of landlocked Armenia has suffered as a result,
the International Herald-Tribune reported.

The sandstone church is perched on a rocky island in eastern Turkey.

Over the past century the condition deteriorated, it was looted and
riddled with bullet holes.

Church Reopening In Turkey Does Little To Reassure Armenians

CHURCH REOPENING IN TURKEY DOES LITTLE TO REASSURE ARMENIANS

EurasiaNet, NY
March 30 2007

Turkey’s designation of a newly restored Armenian church as a museum
has prompted debate in Armenia, with many observers characterizing
the 10th century church’s reopening as an empty PR gesture.

The Surb Khach (Holy Cross) Church on Akhtamar Island in eastern
Turkey’s Lake Van is the first Armenian church on Turkish territory
that the Turkish government has restored. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. Many Armenians welcomed the two-year $1.9
million project, which preserved one of the most outstanding examples
of medieval Armenian architecture. Others, however, have qualified
Turkey’s decision not to place a cross atop the church, and to maintain
the church as a museum, as an insult to Armenia’s Christian heritage.

"It’s a slap in the face for us to have our church hung with Turkish
flags, and, even more, with [first Turkish President Mustafa Kemal]
Ataturk’s portrait," Hayk Demoyan, director of the National Academy
of Sciences’ Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, said about the March
29 reopening ceremony. "The restoration of the church is purely a
political calculation by Turkey. It is obvious Turkey clearly aims
at changing international public opinion in its favor." [For details,
see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A governmental delegation from Armenia took part in the reopening
ceremony, but ecclesiastical leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church
declined an invitation, protesting the decision to turn the church
into a museum. "The reconstruction is a positive fact, but turning the
church into a museum is an act targeted against the pious Christian
feelings of the Armenian nation by Turkey’s authorities, and can’t be
perceived as a positive step toward the rapprochement of the Armenian
and Turkish people," said Father Vahram, spokesperson for the Mother
See of Holy Etchmiadzin.

Turkish Minister of Culture and Tourism Atilla Koc has stated that the
absence of a cross from the church may be only temporary. "If it is
proven that there was a cross atop of its dome, then the reconstructed
[church] will also have a cross," the Turkish Daily News website
reported Koc as saying. Reconstruction project coordinator Cahid
Zeydanlini has said that a cross was not put on top of the church
for fear of attracting a lightning strike, according to the website.

Koc earlier said that the Turkish government intends to restore
eight mosques and eight Armenian churches in the vicinity of Kars,
which was once the center of an ancient Armenian kingdom.

But the statements so far have done little to reassure Armenians.

Officials in Yerevan have backed away from publicly presenting the
church’s reconstruction as a positive step in Armenian-Turkish
relations. Foreign Affairs Minister Vartan Oskanian said that a
positive move would be the reopening of the border between the two
states, closed since 1993 in response to Armenia’s support for the
separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh, territory claimed by Turkish
ally Azerbaijan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"The opening of the monument remains a separate fact and can’t
facilitate the improvement of the situation in the larger sense,
contrary to their [Turkey’s] attempts to represent it in that light,"
the foreign minister said at a recent press conference in Yerevan.

The fact that Armenia’s government delegation had to travel 16 hours
via Georgia to reach Van illustrates the "absurdity" of Turkish policy,
he added. With an open border, the delegation could have made the
trip in four hours from Yerevan.

Meanwhile, on the day of the church’s reopening, a large-scale photo
exhibition on Armenian churches that have been destroyed or turned into
mosques in Turkey and Azerbaijan opened in Yerevan’s State University.

Despite officials’ harsh assessments, Samvel Karapetian, head of
the non-governmental organization Research on Armenian Architecture
said he was happy to see the church saved from decay. According to
Karapetian, the church’s reconstruction was done with a high degree
of professionalism and in accordance with European standards. The
church’s popularity with tourists, a key income source for Turkey,
was probably a motivating factor in the Turkish government’s decision
to undertake the restoration project, he added.

Manuel, a bishop and one of the most talented Armenian architects of
his time, built the church in 915-921 A.D. at the order of Armenian
King Gagik Artsruni. The exterior church is decorated with bas-reliefs
made up of six friezes that depict stories from the Old and New
Testaments, and also include pictures from secular life and rich
floral and animal ornamentation.

Other Armenian churches on Turkish territory are in need of similar
restoration, Karapetian said. "Unfortunately, preservation is not a
usual practice in Turkey," said Karapetian. "Nothing has been left of
[the monastery] Narekavank that was some five kilometers from Surb
Khach, while some of the churches on the neighboring islands have
been blown up."

A 1913 report by the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople stated
that there were nearly 2,500 churches on the territory of the Ottoman
Empire. Today, 2,000 are believed to have survived, many often
half-ruined, or turned into mosques, storehouses and cattle sheds.

Editor’s Note: Gayane Abrahamyan is a reporter for the English-language
weekly Armenia Now in Yerevan.

ANKARA: US Senate Panel Condemns Dink Murder

US SENATE PANEL CONDEMNS DINK MURDER

The New Anatolian, Turkey
March 30 2007

A U.S. Senate panel condemned on Wednesday the murder earlier this
year of a prominent Turkish-Armenian editor, Hrant Dink, who had been
charged with "insulting Turkishness," a crime under controversial
penal code Article 301.

The resolution approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
reopened the question of whether Congress should weigh in on the
debate over Armenian genocide claims — a sensitive issue in Turkey.

Turkey strongly opposes the claims that its predecessor state, the
Ottoman government, caused the Armenian deaths in a planned genocide.

The Turkish government has said the toll is wildly inflated and that
Armenians were killed or displaced in civil unrest during the empire’s
collapse and conditions of World War I. Ankara’s proposal to Yerevan to
set up a joint commission of historians to study the disputed events
is still awaiting a positive response from the Armenian side. After
French lawmakers voted last October to make it a crime to deny that the
claims were genocide, Turkey said it would suspend military relations
with France.

The Senate resolution that passed the committee with a voice vote does
not explicitly refer to the killings as genocide, but says that Dink,
before his death, was subjected to legal action in Turkey for doing so.

It condemns Dink’s murder and urges the people of Turkey to "honor
his legacy of tolerance." Dink was murdered by a Turkish nationalist
gunman outside his Istanbul office in January. His funeral drew
100,000 mourners.

Turkish diplomats do not look favorably on the Senate proposal,
which can now go to the floor for a vote. "We don’t see the benefit
of such a resolution," said a Turkish diplomatic source.

The author of the Senate resolution, Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said he was not deterred
by Turkish sensitivities.

Turkish officials, as well as members of the Bush administration, have
expressed more concern about other resolutions pending in Congress,
but it is unclear how quickly they may advance.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan warned last month that Congress
would harm bilateral ties if it backs a House resolution recognizing
the 1915 mass killings of Armenians by Turks as genocide.

The Bush administration supported the view that the term "Armenian
genocide" must be removed from the House text.

That resolution was introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff, a California
Democrat, and in the Senate by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin,
an Illinois Democrat. Schiff told Reuters that with Democrats now in
charge of Congress, he believed his resolution had its "best chance
in a decade" of being passed.

Israel’s Land-Grab Campaign In Old City’s Muslim Quarter

ISRAEL’S LAND-GRAB CAMPAIGN IN OLD CITY’S MUSLIM QUARTER

AJP and Agencies
Al-Jazeera Network, Qatar
March 30 2007

The Israeli project in the Muslim quarter is the first since Israel
seized the Old City

The Israeli government is supporting a land-grab campaign that involves
the construction of a Jewish settlement in the Muslim quarter of
Jerusalem’s Old City.

The construction of new homes for Jewish settlers in the Muslim quarter
is the first since Israel took control over the Old City nearly four
decades ago.

The project, called the Flowers Gate development plan, would involve
the construction of more than 20 apartments to expand an adjacent
enclave that only houses two Jewish families. The Israelis also plan to
build a domed synagogue that would alter the skyline of the Old City.

The plan is part of a growing land-grab campaign by Jewish settler
organizations to change the ethnic and physical character of the Old
City’s oldest Arab neighborhoods.

The Israeli government finances the projects that meet the settlers’
goals, which they say would ensure that Israel gets the Old City and
a nearby valley known as the Holy Basin in any final peace agreement
with the Palestinians.

Surrounded by crenelated walls, the Old City is divided into four
quarters — Armenian, Christian, Jewish and Muslim — that contain
some of the holiest sites in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

The settler organization Ateret Cohanim already began showing
prospective settlers the piece of land designated for the synagogue
and apartments.

Israel’s move to expand the Jewish presence in the Old City and Holy
Basin, a cause of serious concern over the past century, had been
largely dormant since a 1992 state commission found that government
agencies were illegally channeling public money to private settler
organizations.

Palestinian landlord Nasser Karain, whose home is at the center of
the Israelis’ "land-grab" campaign, said that his Jewish neighbors,
whose children are escorted to school by armed guards, have offered
several times to buy his property for millions of dollars. He refused
the most recent bid just months ago.

"I wouldn’t want anyone in this place except family," said Karain,
born 63 years ago in the house he inherited from his father. "I’d be
afraid they’d sell to settlers."

Israel seized the Old City, the Holy Basin valley and the rest of
East Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East War.

It later annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognized
internationally.

The Jewish population of the Old City, all lives in the Jewish quarter,
makes up about 9 percent of the city’s 35,400 residents.

About 250,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem.

Israel considers all of Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible
capital".

But the Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of an
independent future state they hope to establish in the occupied West
Bank and in the Gaza Strip.

Blockade Of Armenian Border By Turkey Is Baseless And Causeless

BLOCKADE OF ARMENIAN BORDER BY TURKEY IS BASELESS AND CAUSELESS

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.03.2007 13:47 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian delegation’s participation in the
inauguration of Armenian medieval Holy Cross Church on Akhtamar
island was necessary, RA Acting Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
stated in Yerevan. He said, if a cross was placed atop the church,
participation of the Armenian delegation in the opening would be more
representative and representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church
would also be present in the inauguration of the temple.

"But Turkey refused, and that’s why our delegation was rather
modest. However it is an Armenian monument, it belongs to us
and Armenian should be present there in order to show it to the
world. Existence of the Armenian monument on the strategically
important island is evidence for the fact that we’ve lived on these
territories for centuries," the RA FM underlined.

He also noted "though the Armenian delegation was not given a right to
speak at the inauguration but with silence and just presence Armenia
managed to bring her message to the world".

"It would be better if Turkey took more active moves for normalizing
his relations with Armenia and opened the border; this is a normal
process and only in this case realization of such programs would
be effective.

There are no causes and basis for closing the Armenian-Turkish border
and Turkey should open the border with Armenia, it will create
a normal situation between the countries. Only after opening the
Armenian-Turkish border it will be possible to start a constructive
dialog," Vartan Oskanian said, "Novosti-Armenia" reports.

RPA To Offer Candidature For New Prime Minister April 2

RPA TO OFFER CANDIDATURE FOR NEW PRIME MINISTER APRIL 2

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.03.2007 13:54 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On April 2 the Republican Party of Armenia will
offer its candidature for RA Prime Minister. RPA Press Secretary
Eduard Sharmazanov told the PanARMENIAN.Net journalist that on April
2 the party will hold Council’s meeting, during which the candidature
for the post of prime minister will be offered. "Most likely it will
be RPA Acting Chairman, head of party’s Political Council, RA Defense
Minister Serzh Sargsyan," Sharmazanov said. Serzh Sargsyan also heads
RPA’s list in the coming May 12 parliamentarian elections of Armenia.

Turkey "Condemned" U.S. Senate For Adopting Res. 65 That Condemns Hr

TURKEY "CONDEMNED" U.S. SENATE FOR ADOPTING RES. 65 THAT CONDEMNS HRANT DINK’S MURDER

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.03.2007 15:06 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey "condemned" the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee for adopting the resolution that condemns the murder of Agos
weekly editor-in-chief Hrant Dink. "It is quite clear the inclusion of
this resolution into the Senate agenda pursued the goal to speculate
this mean crime for political purposes touching upon the events of
1915," the statement of Turkish MFA says. The Foreign Affairs Ministry
of Turkey also reminds that the Turkish government sharply condemned
Dink’s assassination, RFE/RL reports.

Yesterday U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted human rights
legislation, condemning the murder of journalist and human rights
activist Hrant Dink and calling on the Turkish government to repeal
the law, Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. The document noted
Dink’s persecution because of his speech on the Armenian Genocide. It
specifically notes that Dink was "subjected to legal action under
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code for referring to the 1915
massacre of Armenians as genocide.

ANKARA: Refutation Of The Armenian Resolution, Article By Article-4

REFUTATION OF THE ARMENIAN RESOLUTION, ARTICLE BY ARTICLE-4
By Prof. Dr. Kemal CÝcek*

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 30 2007

(Article 13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part,
"the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established
the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which
the Armenian people have suffered."

Unfortunately, then as now, US politicians relied strictly on deceptive
Armenian propaganda and close their eyes to the other side of the
story in order not to alienate Armenian voters.

As a matter of fact there was a civil war in Anatolia and both sides
were involved in massacres, but historical documentation proves that
Armenians killed 500,000 Turks and Muslims in Anatolia between 1914
and 1920. During his term in Turkey as high commissioner, Admiral
Mark L. Bristol wrote on March 12, 1926, about the Armenian massacres
in the East, saying that "the extent of the excesses committed will
never be known."

He also noted this: "I have received reports from Americans who were
there at the time to the effect that the Christians cleared out the
Moslem population completely so that ‘there was not a living thing,
even a dog, a cat or a chicken left in the country.’

"Russians also reported that the Armenians had killed most of the
Muslims in the districts of Erzurum." (NARA 767.90g15).

Unfortunately, little scholarly attention has been paid to the
atrocities committed by the Armenians.

(Article 14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920 report to the
Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James
Harbord, that stated "[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have
left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys,
and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of
this most colossal crime of all the ages."

Although Gen. Harbord was a pro-Armenian person, he listened to
Muslim villagers about the massacres perpetuated by the Armenian
bandit Andranik and changed the tone of his report. As a matter of
fact, in spite of all Armenian propaganda, Harbord argued that the
US must not overtake the mandate of Armenia without the whole of
Anatolia — Rumelia, Istanbul and Caucasia included — since Armenia
alone could not survive without a large amount of money and military
presence. This report seems to have played an important role in
changing the attitude of the congressmen to the creation of Armenia
under the American mandate.

(Article 15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to
attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by
saying "[who], after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the
Armenians?" and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

To refer Adolf Hitler in the resolution (Article 15) is very
deceptive. Armenian historian Dr. Robert John, American historian
Heath Lowry and Turkish historian Turkkaya Ataov have proved that this
quote is false. That quote was not found in any speech delivered by
Hitler or filed in the documents of Nuremberg. The court had filed
two versions of Hitler’s speech to army commanders in August 22,
1939, from the German military records. These have the numbers of
US-29/786 PS and US-30/1014 PS and none of these files have this quote.

(Article 16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1944,
and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian
case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

When Rafael Lemkin defined the crime of genocide he might have used
this expression, but that does not prove anything. First of all,
Lemkin was not a historian and surely he read only the Armenian
version of the story. Since then, many valuable contributions have
been made about the details of the relocation of the Armenians, most
of which demonstrates that the relocation and settlements were not
in line with the definition of the term genocide.

(Article 17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United
Nations at Lemkin’s urging, the Dec. 11, 1946 United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the Untied Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian
Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent
and punish by codifying existing standards.

This is another false claim. The UN never recognized "the Armenian
Genocide." On the contrary, a sub-committee, which gathered in
1985, refused to receive the report of Mr. Whitaker in the light of
evidence against the genocide convention and that only "took note"
of the report.

(Article 18) In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission
invoked the Armenian Genocide "precisely . . . one of the types of
acts which the modern term ‘crimes against humanity’ is intended to
cover" as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

This article of the resolution is based on wrong conception. First
of all, it should be stated that the suspects in the Nuremberg courts
were punished for crimes against humanity. In fact, the adverse of it
is not possible because the genocide convention was accepted in 1951.

(Article 19) The Commission stated that "[t]he provisions of Article
230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover,
in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ….offenses that had been
committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship,
though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a
precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters,
and offers an example of one of the categories of ‘crimes against
humanity’ as understood by these enactments."

As explained in the previous article, Nuremberg courts were established
by the Allied states to punish the defeated governments for the crimes
committed in World War II. The lawsuits of those courts were not
"genocide lawsuits." Therefore, 6c and 5c articles of Tokyo agreement
can never be an example for the Armenian thesis.

(Article 20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975,
resolved: "[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as the ‘National
Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man,’ and the President of
the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a
day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those
of Armenian ancestry."

Unfortunately, as a result of that decision taken under the influence
of the Armenian propaganda, US presidents discriminate against
the victims of World War I by race and religion, and only speak
for Armenian losses on the Remembrance Day. It is not a civilized
attitude and I believe that one should not use the victims of the
wars for their political causes.

TO BE CONTINUED *Head of Black Sea Technical University, Faculty of
Arts & Sciences; Turkish Historical Association, Armenian Desk

–Boundary_(ID_2gaRp55bJgWQX3Tl0n1ysA)–

Turkish Culture Minister Did Not Use Word "Armenia" Even Once In Ope

TURKISH CULTURE MINISTER DID NOT USE WORD "ARMENIA" EVEN ONCE IN OPENING OF HOLY CROSS CHURCH

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.03.2007 15:45 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The restoration of the Holy Cross Church had
been sold to the world – and specifically to the US, whose House of
Representatives is about to consider a resolution labeling the Armenian
deaths genocide – as proof that Turkey wants to put things right with
the Armenians, British newspaper The Independent reports. The article
says, despite the protests of the restoration project’s Armenian
architect, a cross was ruled out – as is any immediate prospect
of this Christian church being consecrated so Armenians might,
occasionally at least, pray here again. "The church is reopening as
a museum and doesn’t need a cross. Around 22,000 Ottoman buildings
have had crescents taken off when attacked. Other countries don’t
give as much attention to that," Yusuf Halacoglu, the head of the
Turkish Historical Society, insisted.

"The Turkish crescent and a giant Ataturk hung from the front of the
church where, after a triumphal rendition of the Turkish national
anthem, the culture and tourism minister, Atilla Koc made his
address. "We protect the cultural diversity and assets of different
cultures," he proclaimed during a speech in which the word "Armenia"
was not used once," the newspaper writes. He also mentions that 29
delegates have arrived from Armenia in Van via Georgia since the
Armenian-Turkish border is closed from 1993.

Spiritual leader of Armenians of Istanbul Patriarch Mesrob Mutafyan
had a speech at the ceremony and said, "It is quite a positive move
in Turkish-Armenian relations and I offer my profound thanks." The
Independent reminds the Archbishop asked Turks to allow the
church to become the site of annual pilgrimage, concluding in a
Christian ceremony, once a year. Patriarch Mutafyan reminded Levon
Ter-Petrossian, Armenia’s first president, and his search for common
ground. Mr. Ter-Petrossian wanted a monument on the countries’
border with the inscription, in Armenian and Turkish, of the words
"I’m sorry". It was never built.