Saroyan was a pop-culture icon in heyday

New Zealand Press Association
May 17, 2008 Saturday

SAROYAN WAS A POP-CULTURE ICON IN HEYDAY

Fresno, California MCT – After his acclaimed first book of short
stories was published in 1934, William Saroyan sent a letter to Random
House asking: “Do you think it would help any if I was photographed
swinging on a trapeze?”

Saroyan knew how fame worked. At the peak of his renown, from 1939
through the early years of World War 2, he cosied up to America as a
celebrity who was equal parts literary giant and pop-culture icon.

This self-proclaimed “world’s best author,” who came to prominence
with his short story The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze, was a
big deal in a way authors in our contemporary image-oriented society –
a culture tilted toward movies and television – can pretty much only
dream about.

Saroyan’s literary fame has not endured in the way his partisans might
have hoped. He is admired but not widely taught, and most of his
titles are hard to find in chain bookstores, even in his hometown of
Fresno in California. And his pop-culture fame, while perhaps more
lasting than the vapid notoriety bestowed by gossip outlets like TMZ
and People magazine, lacked staying power.

Keep in mind just how well-known this former unruly school kid was at
his peak. His publisher at the time, Bennett Cerf, dubbed him “the
wonder boy from Fresno”.

Even when he eloquently (and very publicly) showed disdain for the
trappings of fame – refusing to accept the Pulitzer Prize and the
$US1000 ($NZ1325) that went with it for his play The Time of Your Life
in 1940, for example – Saroyan gained more notoriety than if he’d
simply taken the money.

Saroyan liked to be recognised for his literary merits as the author
of such acclaimed works as The Human Comedy and My Name Is Aram. But
he also realised, living at a time when the names of serious writers
floated in conversations alongside those of movie stars and
socialites, that people gravitated to the whole William Saroyan
package. All of it added up: the dark and exotic good looks, the
fierce temperament, the loud voice, the stormy marriages and divorces,
the expensive tastes, the precarious finances. And especially the
muscular ego.

“Modesty,” he wrote, “almost invariably accompanies mediocrity and
is usually an inside-out variety of immodesty.”

When publishers wanted to tinker with his precious words, his first
inclination was to change publishers.

Saroyan wasn’t content just to have three plays open on Broadway in a
period of 13 months, as he did in 1939. He wanted to run the theatre,
too. He named it after himself, naturally. The Saroyan Theatre might
not have been the financial success that he’d hoped. But for a time,
he was known as the playwright who had wrested control from the
“money guys” and taken charge of his own destiny.

Saroyan’s desire for control extended to Hollywood, and there,
perhaps, he met his match. When he sold the script for A Human Comedy
to MGM for $US60,000 ($NZ79,595), he assumed he’d direct the movie as
well. The studio chief, Louis B Mayer, who had an even greater
reputation for obstinateness, didn’t agree.

Yet for all the ways that Saroyan burned bridges by alienating
publishers, theatre investors and movie moguls, his celebrated cocky
attitude helped define an image that endeared him to the public.

A 1940 article in Life magazine – one of the great arbiters of popular
culture at the time – painted a glowing portrait of a headstrong,
confident writer taking Broadway by storm.

The article repeated the oft-told anecdote about the publisher
Cerf. In 1934, while a guest at San Francisco’s Palace Hotel, Cerf was
informed that “a young man who says he is the world’s greatest author
is in the lobby.” Replied Cerf: “Tell Mr Saroyan to come right up.”

At the peak of his success, with My Name Is Aram a best-selling Book
of the Month Club selection and The Time of Your Life running
successfully on Broadway, Saroyan moved into a suite in the
prestigious Hampshire House Hotel overlooking Central Park, and for a
time, writes Saroyan scholar Brian Darwent, lived “the life of a
millionaire.”

Yet for much of his life, he struggled with debt and a nasty gambling
habit – which only added to his larger-than-life personality.

Key to Saroyan’s image is his humble beginnings in Fresno. He was the
first son in his family of Armenian immigrants born on American
soil. A writer with an outsized personal voice, he produced many works
drawing on his own experiences growing up in the Armenian section of
Fresno. It is in these glimpses of his hometown – of the old Armenian
Presbyterian Church, the Postal Telegraph office, the family house –
that readers came to feel that they knew not only the characters in
his stories but Saroyan himself.

Nothing captures that autobiographical flavour better than Saroyan’s
Homer Macauley, the schoolboy hero of The Human Comedy who made $US15
a week working 4 pm-midnight delivering telegrams. In Follow, you see
a slightly surlier – and more ethnic – interpretation of this
archetypal character in Aram Diranian, the unfulfilled telegraph
clerk.

Homer is youth itself, a ubiquitous folk character and something of a
priest flitting from one American town to the next, “a modern
American Mercury,” writes Saroyan scholar Alfred Kazin, “riding his
bike as Mercury ran on the winds, with a blue cap for an astral helmet
and a telegraph blank waving the great tidings in his hand.”

Yet this wind-riding boy grew up, slowed down, grew old.

Saroyan lived far beyond his relatively few years of intense favour in
the public spotlight. Critical tastes are hard to explain and even
harder to predict: Who can say why Saroyan doesn’t have the name
recognition today of, say, his contemporary John Steinbeck? There is
no arbitration board of literary reputation, no rules of fairness as
to why some authors go out of print and others have entire shelves at
Borders.

But Saroyan himself seemed to recognise the vagaries of fame.

The 1940 Life magazine article – which was not a cover story, showing
that even then there were limits on his celebrity – noted that since
becoming successful, Saroyan returned to Fresno on occasion.

There, the article went on to say, “he is amused by the fact that the
Armenian boys and girls he went to school with have no idea of his
fame. When they ask him what he’s doing there, Saroyan replies that he
is out of a job and `looking for work’.”

What he did with words was work, of course, and he knew it. The most
glorious kind of work: one in which you leave a mark. Although the
headlines and the space on bookstore shelves might diminish, the words
will always remain.

MCT cw

ANKARA: Turkish president dismisses concerns over EU membership

Anatolia News Agency, Turkey
May 17 2008

Turkish president dismisses concerns over EU membership

Vienna, 17 May: Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on Saturday [17
May] that concerns that the EU cake would be lessened after Turkey’s
membership were baseless, "on the contrary, the cake will get bigger,"
he added.

Gul had an interview with daily Kronen published in Vienna.

Referring to decision made in 2005 to launch negotiations between
Turkey and the EU, Gul said Austria also approved this
decision. "There is no need for the Austrians to feel concern over
Turkey’s EU membership as a referendum would be held in the end," he
added.

"We are aware that there are some concerns about Turkey in EU
countries. Turkey has to carry out works convince European public
opinion. We have lots to do. We will not come before finishing our
homework," Gul noted.

Gul said views that reform process slowed down were "partially right",
indicating that, "Turkey had two elections last year. The government
was engaged with the elections. However a new period started in
2008. As the president, I am closely following the reform process."

When Kronen newspaper journalist Kurt Seinitz said Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described assimilation a crime against
humanity and this led to discussions in Austria, Gul said, "such kind
of expressions can be interpreted differently in different
languages. The communities should integrate in the best way with the
societies they have been living in and should share, strengthen and
defend their common values."

Responding to another question, Gul said Armenian claims were not a
"taboo" in Turkey, adding that, "we are sorry over what had occurred
in the past. However, this is not a genocide which the Jews had to
experience in Europe. The incidents erupted after revolt of Armenians
with the affect of some foreign forces. But one thing is important,
all the churches were open even during the incidents and the
Armenians, who were in important posts in the Ottoman administration,
continued to work."

Referring to Turkey’s call to all related parties to open their
archives, Gul said, "Turkey assumed a pioneering role here and
accepted to open its secret military archives."

BAKU: Foreign Ministry Of Azerbaijan Vs. Foreign Ministry Of Armenia

FOREIGN MINISTRY OF AZERBAIJAN VS. FOREIGN MINISTRY OF ARMENIA

Today.Az
s/45032.html
May 16 2008
Azerbaijan

Day.Az has asked famous Azerbaijani political reviewer, residing in
Hungary, Vugar Seidov, to comment on the recent exchange of statements
between deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov and new
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan regarding principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

* * * * *

It is difficult to add something to all said by deputy foreign minister
of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov. Azerbaijan’s position on the main principles
of the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has been stated
clearly and the hasty reaction of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandyan, which appeared in press immediately after the first speech
of Araz Azimov in Day.Az has been sent down to the court.

Nevertheless, I would like to evolve the position, voiced by the
Azerbaijani side. First of all, the Armenian diplomacy is always
referring to some "document", currently being on the negotiation
table. Frankly speaking, this phrase has bored to death. Though the
matter is not this-we will try to bear it, anyway. The important is
another matter. No one, except for Armenians, has ever referred to the
so-called "document, which is on the negotiation table". What is this
document and does it really exist? A document usually implies a legal
agreement, signed by parties. No one has agreed on or signed anything
so far. There are only proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,
presented to the parties and currently being negotiated.

Perhaps, Armenian diplomats, constantly referring to the "document,
which is on the negotiation table", should gradually explain, what
they imply by the mythical source.

Second, in his debut speech on his new post, Edward Nalbandyan,
reacting on Araz Azimov’s statement, said that the key issue of talks
on the peaceful resolution of the conflict is a status of Nagorno
Karabakh. We do not need the prompts of the Armenian Minister, as we
are well aware of it. The status of Nagorno Karabakh has been the
key issue since the first day of the conflict and remains it until
its resolution.

Edward Nalbandyan also added that plebiscite, which will be used
for definition of the future status of the region "will enable the
population of Nagorno Karabakh to express its will about the future
status of the republic freely". Well, the Minister has gone too far,
when he used the word "republic", while there has been nothing new
about the rest part. And the main thing is that his words do not
contradict to the principles of the conflict resolution, voiced by
Araz Azimov. Do you want the self-determination of the population? Here
it is. Do you want a plebiscite? Please, hold it.

However, the Armenian Minister did not specify, whom he implies saying
"the population of Nagorno Karabakh" and which format of the plebiscite
he means.

If Yerevan considers that the population of Nagorno Karabakh are
those who have been residing in the region since ethnic cleansing,
we will disappoint them. Though Armenians intend to consider the
forced driving of Azerbaijanis out to be an accomplished fact,
the population of the region still consists of two communities,
a greater part of which (Azerbaijani community) has been driven out.

And this is a position of not only Azerbaijan but also the world
society. If Yerevan thinks differently and considers the driving
of Azerbaijani community out to be an irreversible process, let it
call at least a single state, an international organization or at
least a bit influential politician in the world, who would say that
demographic situation in Nagorno Karabakh should not be restored on the
moment when the conflict started in February of 1988 and the return
of internally displaced persons and their offsprings to their native
lands is ruled out. Anyway, as Araz Azimov said, the former Foreign
Minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan had admitted inevitability of
the return of Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh.

Moreover, I would like to ask Mr. Nalbandyan what implies the
"document, which is on the negotiation table", regarding this issue.

The self-determination and participation of only one community
in the plebiscite is impossible as Nagorno Karabakh consists
of two communities. Azerbaijanis from Shusha, Khojaly and other
numerous villages of Nagorno Karabakh are also the residents of
the region, whose opinion is not less important than the opinion of
Armenians. Therefore, the final self-determination of the population
of Nagorno Karabakh requires equal participation of all residents
of the oblast, including those, who are far from their houses,
that is Azerbaijanis. Without their participation the legitimacy
of self-determination will not differ from legitimacy of ethnic
cleansing, which occurred there, and the outcomes will not be
recognized by anyone.

The participation of the Azerbaijani community in the definition of
the future status of their native oblast leads us to the problem
of creating conditions for their inevitable return. Naturally,
in conditions of continuing occupation of the Azerbaijani lands
by the Armenian armed forces, including Nagorno Karabakh, the
return of Azerbaijanis is impossible not only politically but also
technically. Return of the internally displaced persons to their
houses and psychologically complicated process of rehabilitation and
reintegration is only possible if equal security is ensured for all
civilians, both Armenians and returning Azerbaijanis.

Thus, the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the seven
surrounding regions and demilitarization of Nagorno Karabakh is a main
condition for return of internally displaced persons to their houses,
restoration of ruined infrastructure, communications, mine clearing,
establishment of trustful relations between the two communities and
future of their joint participation in the definition of the status
of the region. The free expression of the will of Nagorno Karabakh
population, regarding its future status, will only be possible in
this format. The plebiscite with participation of only one community
or under the continuing occupation of the said area and seven other
regions of Azerbaijan by its country, will not differ from the fancy
ball with "the referendum" of the early 1990s, which was not recognized
by anyone.

There is a stereotype among the Armenian population regarding the
liberation of the occupied lands that after Armenian armed forces
are withdrawn from the seven regions around Nagorno Karabakh Armenia
will lose the military and strategic advantage, ensuring favorable
defense capacities, which will be used by Azerbaijan in surrounding
its Nagorno Karabakh province and extending the front line to many
kilometers and following the withdrawal of the Armenian side from
Nagorno Karabakh Azerbaijani troops would enter these regions and
pose a threat for the Armenian community.

Well, first of all by entering the 21st century, Armenia should
gradually stop to use the concepts of gained territories and forced
change of borders. The times of Peter the Great have passed and
international law and UN charter are operating in the world. It is
time to wake up and get used to new realities. Besides, it is senseless
for Azerbaijan to settle the problem peacefully, planning the renewal
of war in its mind. Azerbaijan does not hold peaceful negotiations
today to start war upon their completion again. Azerbaijan is able to
liberate its lands by forced way without any peaceful negotiations. But
the essence of the peaceful process is the preference, given to the
resolution of interstate conflicts on the very basis of international
law. Therefore, Yerevan will anyway have to withdraw its occupational
forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan both in case of the peaceful
talks and in case of retreat under attack of the Azerbaijani army.

Second, Yerevan’s concerns regarding security of the Armenian
community of Nagorno Karabakh following withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces are also groundless. Azerbaijan has no need or even intention
to deploy its troops in the region immediately. Baku is interested
in the demilitarization of the region and restoration of trust
between the two communities-citizens of Azerbaijan, who are equal
in rights. Moreover, the public order in the region can be restored
by the mixed police forces, composed of the residents of the oblast,
as it is not the army which ensures order in Baku, Yerevan and other
cities of the two countries.

Therefore, Yerevan should consider withdrawal of its armed forces
from seven regions of Azerbaijan as an inevitable substance. As
for its concerns regarding the security of the Armenian community
of Nagorno Karabakh following the withdrawal of Armenian troops,
it is time for Yerevan to recover from this paranoia, otherwise,
the case will not end in a plebiscite, spoken of by Nalbandyan.

We do hope that speaking about the future status of Nagorno Karabakh
the officials of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan
imply the same under the term of Nagorno Karabakh. Both the Armenian
press and the announcements of Armenian officials often mention
the altered contours of this oblast, differing from the previous
borders of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic. First,
they have spoken about some "Shaomyan region of Nagorno Karabakh"
(of course, "occupied" by Azerbaijan), then included some "Getashen
subregion". They have recently spoken of the Lachin and Kelbajar
regions of Azerbaijan as about the integral parts of Nagorno Karabakh
and even made up Armenian names for these settlements.

In this connection, it should be noted that former Shaomyan (rural)
region of Azerbaijan has never been a part of the Nagorno Karabakh
Autonomous Republic and the debates on ancient history, in which
Armenians try to draw Azerbaijanis, are not included into the peaceful
talks under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. Chaykend has never
been a part of Nagorno Karabakh, like there has never been such an
administrative unit as "subregion". The said invention, like inclusion
of Lachin and Kelbajar into Nagorno Karabakh, belong to Armenian press,
but in the process of peaceful negotiations Azerbaijani and Armenian
diplomacies should understand clearly that the term "Nagorno Karabakh"
implies an area of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Republic
of the Azerbaijan SSR. If Nalbandyan’s structure really intends to
build a constructive dialogue with its Azerbaijani counterparts,
we want to hope that there will not be any unexpected surprise from
the side of Yerevan in this issue.

Finally, I would like to say something about the issue of plebiscite as
a mechanism of joint definition of the future status of demilitarized,
mine-cleared and restored Nagorno Karabakh by two reconciled
communities of this region within Azerbaijan. It is difficult to add
anything else to all Araz Azimov has said. Following the completion
of the peaceful resolution and the final stage of this process
(definition of the status of Nagorno Karabakh), Baku will fully back
the self-determination of the oblast on the basis of the Final Helsinki
Act of 1975, envisioning the territorial integrity of countries,
inviolability of borders, as well as equality and right of peoples
to define their fate independently. The latter, however, does not
imply the right for the unauthorized separation and, on the contrary,
encourages internal self-determination and democratic self-government
of the national minorities (Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh).

This is the position of the Azerbaijani side and if Armenian diplomatic
still refer to some document, which is on the negotiation table and
which is based on the principle of the self-determination by way of
plebiscite, the official position of Baku, voiced by deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov by no way contradicts to the principle, but,
on the contrary, comply with it and fully bases on the norms of
international law.

We hope that Armenian side will stop manipulating different
sociological terms for attainment, substantiation and legal fixing
of territorial integrity in the style of the times of the first
world war and instead will finally join the civilian processes of
the 21st century for the regional stability, cooperation, progressive
development and integration. The intention to implement their fix idea
of expansion of lands at the cost of neighbors instead of doing so will
lead Armenian people to nowhere. Prosperity is only possible in case
Armenians get rid of the complex of a pinched, humiliated, suffering
people and territorial inefficiency, which pursues them from their
childhood. Armenia should realize that happiness does not require a
large territory, even so more, occupied from a neighbor. Both small
Luxembourg and Monaco are able to live happily. Existence of good
neighbors around a small state is more important that expansion of
territory and having enemies along 80% of its state border.

Only friendly relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran and Georgia may
guarantee security and prosperity of the Armenian state. No Treaty of
Collective Security will take their place and guarantee safety. Not
a single state in the world will be able to cause damage or pose a
threat of Armenia, if the latter maintains good relations with its
four neighbors, while being in the state of frozen war with one of
the neighbors and having hidden territorial claims to two others and
having good relations only with south neighbor, which has doubtful
reputation in the world, it will not be possible to ensure prosperity
of its people. At the same time, it will not be possible to improve
relations with neighbors without rejecting plans to expand territories
at their expense.

Therefore, the new leadership of Armenia will have to choose between
the priorities if far North does not deprive it from the right of
independent choice. However, it is up to Armenians to decide.

http://www.today.az/news/politic

A sensitive critique of nationalism

The Statesman (India)
May 18, 2008 Sunday

A SENSITIVE CRITIQUE OF NATIONALISM

The Bastard of Istanbul By ELIF SHAFAK Viking (Penguin) Price: GBP
11.99 Turkish writer Elif Shafak’s The Bastard of Istanbul has already
generated its share of controversies. The author became a victim of
right-wing Turkish nationalism soon after the book was published; she
was dragged to court on charges of insulting Turkish national
identity, and the notorious Article 301, which has been previously
used against writers like Orhan Pamuk and Perihan Magdan, was invoked
to try and silence Shafak. While Shafak was later acquitted, the
response to her book highlights Turkish nationalist anxieties even as
the country seeks to enter the EU and negotiate its Asian legacy with
its European loyalties.

The ‘provocation’ in the immediate context lay in Shafak highlighting
the massacre of Armenians by Turks in 1915 and the comfortable amnesia
of the Turkish state on the issue. As Armanoush, the Armenian-American
girl who comes visiting to Istanbul, puts it, the Turkish state lives
in continual denial of the genocide unleashed under the Ottoman
Empire. It is difficult not to think of Gabriel Garcia Marquez when
one reads The Bastard of Istanbul. The motifs of incest and solitude,
the suppression of an authentic history by the hegemonic claims of an
official history, the merging of family history with national history
and Shafak’s occasional use of what could be termed ‘magic realism’
will remind readers of One Hundred Years of Solitude. The book
straddles and juxtaposes various temporal registers, beginning, in
fact, with a flashback to the time the nineteen-year-old Zeliha went
to a clinic to try and have an abortion. Asya, whom Zeliha conceives
after being raped by her brother, Mustafa, is the ‘bastard of
Istanbul.’ Mustafa later goes off to the USA and settles there and
does not come back even for a visit for all of twenty years. It is
when his Armenian-American stepdaughter, Armanoush, comes to Istanbul
to find her roots that she meets Asya; their relationship acts as a
catalyst for exploring the ‘Armenian question’. Mustafa’s refusal to
confront his guilt mirrors the Turkish denial of the crimes of 1915,
when first Armenian intellectuals and then ordinary Armenians were
deported, executed and persecuted. The Bastard of Istanbul teems with
an eccentric cast of remarkable characters and is a sensitive critique
of the homogenizing and hegemonizing claims of nationalism.
Unfortunately, the immediate response elicited by the book only
underscores just how relevant the critique continues to be in today’s
world. – Sayantan Dasgupta (The reviewer is Lecturer in Comparative
Literature at Jadavpur University)

BAKU: PACE co-rapporteurs Herkel, Eugenia Zhivkova to arrive in Baku

PACE co-rapporteurs Andres Herkel and Eugenia Zhivkova to arrive in
Baku

17 May 2008 [13:01] – Today.Az

Co-rapporteurs of PACE Monitoring Committee on Azerbaijan Andres Herkel
and Eugenia Zhivkova will arrive in Baku tonight.

The due announcement was made by adviser for press of the head of CE
Baku office Ilgar Ibrahimov, according to Novosti-Azerbaijan.

It should be noted that the official meetings will start on May 18. The
visit will last until May 20.

"The visit aims at studying situation with execution of commitments
before the Council of Europe, undertaken by Azerbaijan", said Ibrahimli.

He noted that Herkel and Zhivkova are to meet with President of
Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, head of Presidential Administration Ramiz
Mehtiyev, Minister of National Security Eldar Mahmudov, prosecutor
general Zakir Qaralov, members of the Azerbaijani delegation in PACE,
chairman of the Central Election Commission Mazahir Panakhov, ombudsman
Elmira Sultanova, chairman of National Television and Radio
Broadcasting Council Nushirevan Meherremli.

Moreover, in the framework of the visit, the co-rapporteurs will meet
with NGO representatives and leaders of a number of political parties.

The statement, posted at the official website of the Council of Europe,
notes that Herkel and Zhivkova will arrive in Baku to assist to
authorities in preparations of presidential elections, scheduled for
October 15.

In the framework of the visit the co-rapporteurs will familiarize with
the situation around mass media, and meet with imprisoned journalists.
Moreover, parliamentarians intend to complete their report on the
activity of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan, says the statement.

Head of Azerbaijani delegation to PACE Samed Seidov told reporters
previously that the rapporteurs would prepare a report by results of
the visit to Baku.

"This report will be introduced for discussions at the session of the
permanent commission of the Parliamentary assembly to be held in
Stockholm (Sweden) on May 30", he noted.

Azerbaijan’s execution of commitments undertaken before the Council of
Europe will be discussed at the summer session of the CE Parliamentary
Assembly in Strasbourg on June 23-27.

TORONTO: Genocide Book Pulled From High School Reading List

GENOCIDE BOOK PULLED FROM HIGH SCHOOL READING LIST
Unnati Gandhi

The Globe and Mail
LAC.20080516.BOOK16/TPStory/National
May 16 2008
Canada

A book about genocide has been pulled from the recommended reading
list of a new Toronto public school course because of objections from
the Turkish-Canadian community, the author says.

Barbara Coloroso’s Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide was
originally part of a resource list for the Grade 11 history course,
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, set to launch across the Toronto
District School Board this fall.

The book examines the Holocaust, which exterminated six million Jews
in the Second World War; the Rwandan slaughter of nearly one million
Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994, and the massacres of more than a
million Armenians in 1895, 1909 and 1915.

But a committee struck to review the course decided in late April
to remove the book because "a concern was raised regarding [its]
appropriateness. … The Committee determined this was far from a
scrupulous text and should not be on a History course although it
might be included in a course on the social psychology of genocide
because of her posited thesis that genocide is merely the extreme
extension of bullying," according to board documents.

Director of education Gerry Connelly did not return calls seeking
comment yesterday.

Ms. Coloroso, a best-selling author of parenting books, said she wasn’t
surprised her work was removed, given that "ever since the book came
out, the Turks have mounted a worldwide campaign objecting to it,
which is not surprising because of the denial of the genocide."

She said what upset her was not so much that her book had been pulled,
but that it was replaced by works by Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy,
whom she refers to as deniers of the Armenian genocide.

"I knew when I wrote Extraordinary Evil that I would anger some
genocide deniers," she wrote to Ms. Connelly. "I am disappointed that
a small group of people can bully an entire committee. …"

The Council of Turkish Canadians is opposed to the course for
classifying the Armenian killings as genocide and inciting anti-Turkish
sentiment. It has gathered nearly 11,000 signatures on an online
petition calling for changes to the course. Turkey has denied the
killings were genocide, saying they were First World War casualties.

Kevser Taymaz, president of the council’s board, said yesterday the
book’s removal was "one positive move" by the school board, but added
the Armenian massacres should not even be considered as part of course
that is entitled "Genocide."

"The course is one-sided. If they want to introduce the events of
1915, it should be giving the historical truth from both sides and
let the students decide."

Aris Babikian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee
of Canada, said Armenian-Canadians feel the course as it stands is
headed "in the right direction."

"But we have some concerns about … the inclusion of Bernard Lewis
and Guenter Lewy as reputable scholars. It will be unjust to the
hundreds of scholars who have researched the Armenian genocide."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/

BAKU: Azerbaijan Votes For, But Armenia Against The UN General Assem

AZERBAIJAN VOTES FOR, BUT ARMENIA AGAINST THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON ABKHAZIA

Azeri Press Agency
May 16 2008
Azerbaijan

Baku. Lachin Sultanova -APA. UN General Assembly has passed resolution
on the "Status of refugees and internally displaced persons in
Abkhazia (Georgia)". 14 countries, including Azerbaijan voted for,
but 11 against, including Armenia. 105 countries, including members
of European Union abstained during the voting.

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, USA, Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden voted
for and Russia, Armenia, Belarus, North Korea, India, Iran, Myanmar,
Serbia, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela voted against the resolution. The
resolution urged to schedule voluntary and immediate returning
of Abkhazian refugees and internally displaced persons to their
homelands. The document noted that it was inadmissible to change
the demographic situation existed before the Abkhazian conflict
and condemned all efforts toward this. The resolution requested
the UN Secretary General to submit a comprehensive report on the
implementation of this resolution. The resolution is non-binding
and its implementation is not constrained in distinction from the
resolution of UN Security Council.

Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili welcomed the
resolution. "This resolution recognizes facts of ethnic cleansing and
violation of international law in Abkhazia. The document guarantees
returning of refugees and internally displaced persons to their
homelands and their property rights and declares any economic
activities and other illegal actions as illegitimate. The General
Assembly requested UN Secretary General to make report on the
implementation of the resolution in September".

Remembering The NAKBA On Democracy Now

REMEMBERING THE NAKBA ON DEMOCRACY NOW
Diary Entry by Mac McKinney

OpEdNews
e/diarypage.php?did=7408
May 16 2008
PA

Today, May 15, is the official date of the Nakba, the catastrophe
that befell the Palestinian people when the extreme Zionist movement
launched its plan to dispossess hundreds of thousands of them, Moslem
and Christian, from their lands. For 60 years now the Middle East
has been reeling from the consequences of that action.

Meanwhile, sophistic, Right-Wing Israeli idealogues spend most of their
days denying or obfuscating that this ever happened. Ironic that they,
who readily condemn Holocaust deniers, eagerly deny the Nakba.

As Palestinians Mark 60th Anniversary of Their Dispossession, a
Conversation with Palestinian Writer and Doctor Ghada Karmi Today
is the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel,
what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe, that resulted in
the expulsion and dispossession of over 750,000 Palestinians from
their cities and villages. Ghada Karmi is a well-known Palestinian
writer and medical doctor from Jerusalem who lives in Britain. She
has written several books about Palestinian history and her own
experience as a refugee, including In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian
Story and, most recently, Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma
in Palestine. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Ghada Karmi, Palestinian writer and doctor, one of the hundreds of
thousands forced to flee in 1948. She is currently a research fellow
at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of
Exeter. She has written several books about Palestinian history and her
own experience, including In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story and,
most recently, Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine.

Rush TranscriptThis transcript is available free of charge. However,
donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of
hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

Donate – $25, $50, $100, More…

AMY GOODMAN: Today is the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the
state of Israel, what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe,
that resulted in the expulsion and dispossession of over 750,000
Palestinians from cities and villages.

Tomorrow, a discussion with Israeli historian Benny Morris. Today,
I talk to Palestinian writer and doctor Ghada Karmi, one of the
hundreds of thousands forced to flee in 1948. Ghada Karmi is a well
known Palestinian writer and medical doctor from Jerusalem who lives
in Britain now. She is currently a research fellow at the Institute
of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter. She has
written several books about Palestinian history and her own experience,
including In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story and, most recently,
Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine.

I began by asking Ghada Karmi what happened to her family in 1948.

GHADA KARMI: I was in a house in West Jerusalem. I had been born in
that part of Jerusalem. And I was a child. I was eight, and I didn’t
understand actually what was happening. Nobody talked to us really or
told us what was really happening. But what I do remember is that
everybody was very scared. And I wrote about this in my memoir,
In Search of Fatima.

It was a very bad period in my life, because as a child, the things
that mattered to me were what was familiar: my home, my dog. I had a
lovely–well, a dog, which I loved dearly. We all loved him. He was
called Rexy. And the thing that is very vivid in my mind is a scene
of the morning that we left the house. It was in April 1948. And I
knew that we had to leave the dog behind. And for me, that was the
most painful thing I could imagine. I knew I couldn’t talk to him. I
couldn’t make him understand that we wouldn’t be away for long,
because my mother said, "We’re not going to be away for long. Don’t
worry. It’s only because it’s very, very bad now, and we’re going to
be back, not to worry." And they believed that, of course.

But the situation around us was so dangerous. You could hardly go
out of the front door, because there were Jewish militias, armed men
who roamed the streets, who were in empty buildings, who took shots
at people. And it was absolutely terrifying. So my parents thought,
"Right, we’ll evacuate. We have a young family. We can’t leave them
in this danger. It’ll be a couple of weeks, the whole thing will
settle down."

But for me, as a child, two weeks is an eternity. And as I embraced
the dog, I hugged him, and I said to him, "Don’t worry. It’s OK. We
will be back. We will. It won’t be long." But I had a feeling somehow,
a terrible feeling, that there was something wrong, and we–maybe we
wouldn’t be back. And so it turned out to be.

We left in a taxi, very hurriedly, because the neighborhood was so
dangerous. No taxi would come near it, but somehow we got a taxi. It
was pretty old. It was very decrepit. And we got into it, and it drove
us as fast as possible down to the old city, where there was a big
bus depot where you could take transport out of Palestine. So we had
a car from there, and we drove over to Damascus to my grandparents’
house, with the feeling–my mother constantly saying, "Look, don’t
worry. We’re going to be back in a couple of weeks." And that’s
what we thought. But my memories were–some kind of dread. I don’t
know what it was, some kind of child’s intuition–who knows?–that
it was–we wouldn’t be–there was something wrong that was very,
very serious. And we went to my grand–

AMY GOODMAN: And who is "we"?

GHADA KARMI: There was my mother, my father; there were three
children. I was the youngest.

But the worst part, of course, was that Fatima–was a woman who used
to come and clean the house. She was a village woman. She used to
look after my–she looked after me. She looked after our house. She
used to help my mother cook. And I loved her dearly. She really was
my mother, actually. I loved her. And leaving that morning, I left
the dog, I left Fatima, in that order, and it was the most terrible
thing. I can’t even think about it, it was so painful. And then we
went, and we never returned. Israel never allowed us to go back.

Many years later, in the 1970s, just for the heck of it, I wrote a
letter to the Israeli embassy in London, where of course we were
living. I said I lived in Jerusalem, my house was there, I would
like to go back to live there. And he wrote back–they wrote back,
and they said, "No, that is not possible for you. You can come in as
a–on a tourist visa as a visitor." And that was it.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you ever?

GHADA KARMI: Yeah, I did. I wanted to find the house. I looked for
it desperately in the early 1990s, couldn’t find it, because I didn’t
remember. My brother and my sister, who did remember, weren’t with me.

But then I tried again, and I did find it. And we went in. There was a
Canadian Jewish family living in it, Orthodox, and they didn’t speak
Hebrew. I didn’t speak Hebrew either, but I had an Israeli friend
in case I couldn’t make myself understood. So, however, we needn’t
have bothered, because they spoke English. And they went–they were
very uncomfortable. They didn’t want me to look around. I said, "Can
I look around? This was my home." And they said, "It’s nothing to do
with us. It’s nothing to do with us." In fact, they were tenants. And
I went around, but they hurried me out. I didn’t have much time to look
around, to relive the memories, to get the feelings, the feelings back,
because as a child, you know, it’s the feeling that comes back. You
don’t really remember where that chair was, where that wall was,
where that–you know. I had to leave, and it was terribly–as you
can imagine, it was extremely upsetting.

But then a very strange thing happened. I returned to Palestine in
2005, where I worked in Ramallah for the Palestinian Authority. I
wanted to live in Palestine for a while, and I had a visa, and I went
in there to do work. I was working for the United Nations. And one
day, I got a message from a man called Steven Erlanger, whom I had
never met. I didn’t really know who he was, but of course I realized
he was the bureau chief for the New York Times, saying "I have read
your marvelous memoir, and, do you know, I think I’m living above your
old house." And it was amazing. He said, "From the description in your
book, it must be the same place." Anyway, we arranged to meet. I went
over to Jerusalem, and I met him. And indeed, it was my house.

And what had happened was somebody at some point had built a story
above the old house, which was of course a one-story place, a villa,
typical of that kind of architecture. But somebody had built a floor
above it, and that belonged to the New York Times. And the incumbent
at the time was Steven Erlanger, who had been moved by the memoir and
said, "This is your house?" And I said, "Yes, it is." And he took me–I
remember he took me–he had made friends with the people downstairs,
who were not the Canadian Jewish family. They were somebody else. They
were really quite nice people, Jewish, and–Israelis, in fact. And
they–he told them, "Look, this lady used to live here." And they
said, "Please, come in." And I had all the time in the world. I went
around. I felt terribly sad. He took loads of photographs of me.

And actually, we talked, he and I. I said, "Look. Look at what’s
happened. You’ve seen this–you’ve seen me. You know what happened
here. How do you feel about Israel now?" And I couldn’t get him to
say that what happened in 1948 was an iniquity and an injustice. He
didn’t say anything like that. He remained diplomatic, I suppose
you would say, noncommittal, very pleasant to me, but it was a very
strange episode.

AMY GOODMAN: The narrative in this country of that period when you
left was that the Arab governments called on the Palestinians to
leave, not that you were forced out by the Israeli government or,
before that it wasn’t Israel, by Jewish settlers.

GHADA KARMI: I can’t believe that anybody still believes this
narrative. Is that so? I grew up with this nonsense, and I always used
to wonder how sane human beings could actually believe that people
would get up, leave their belongings, leave their home, their land,
their livelihood and just walk away because somebody told them to. Now,
of course, later–first of all, this was completely untrue. There
was no such instruction. It was not–on the contrary, the leaders
told the Palestinians to stay put, not to leave, but then they said,
look, get the women and children out, evacuate them temporarily,
but the men were not allowed to leave.

And, in fact, when we left in that April of 1948, they stopped our
taxi. They stopped it. These were militia, Arab militias. And they
said, "Where are you going?" And he said, "Look, this is my wife. These
are children. I am returning," which was perfectly true. He said,
"I’m returning the next–tomorrow morning. I just have to take them
to my in-laws’ house just for safety, and I will be back." And they
took his name and so on.

So, of course, this was all nonsense. But the thing, you know, that
used to get me is that you’d say to friends of Israel and devoted
friends of Israel–you’d say to them, "OK, supposing–alright,
supposing we, the Palestinians, left either because we were told
to or because we just felt like it, why were we never allowed
back? Why? People go on holiday. They do. They leave their houses,
and they go away for a bit. They go and visit somebody. So, does
it mean they can’t be allowed back to their homes?" And, of course,
they never had an answer for this.

AMY GOODMAN: Palestinian author and physician Ghada Karmi. She
has written the book Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in
Palestine. We’ll come back to this conversation in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return now to my conversation with the Palestinian
author and physician Ghada Karmi. I asked her how long her family
stayed in Damascus, Syria, after they were forced to leave their home
in Jerusalem in 1948.

GHADA KARMI: We stayed for just over a year. My father was looking for
work desperately, because, of course, by then he was not, of course,
allowed to return. He couldn’t come back the next day. That had all
gone out of the window. And he was looking for work, because we had no
money. He did find work, but he found it in London in the BBC Arabic
service, which at that time was developing that service and wanted
native Arabic speakers, and–who knows, I always like to think that
the British had a kind of attack of conscience about the Palestinians,
whom they had sold down the river, and that maybe–

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?

GHADA KARMI: Well, you know, it was but for the British authorities
in Palestine, there never would have been an Israel. It’s as simple
as that. They gave–they allowed the Zionists to come into our
country. They allowed them to establish themselves. Without Britain,
there would be no Israel, quite simply. And so, I used to think maybe
they had had an attack of conscience, and they wanted to help.

No matter what the reason, my father ended up in London, and he
preceded us, and then he made plans for us to join him. So in 1949,
we left again, and for me, a new wrench from my grandparents, and then
we ended up in London. And what an irony. Not just any old London,
but in the most Jewish part of London. It was an area called Golders
Green. My father didn’t know anything about London. He didn’t know
it was Jewish. He just asked for a house for a family, and they told
him, "Look, try this area," which he did. And we turned up. And,
lo and behold, we’re surrounded by German Jewish refugees from the
Second World War. And my mother used to say, in her more humorous
moments, "Well, we might as well never have bothered to move out of
Jerusalem." It’s the same people. Anyway, I mean, one laughs, but of
course it was all pretty devastating, all this stuff.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was your relationship with your neighbors, with
these German Jewish refugees who had not actually gone to Palestine,
but had gone to Britain?

GHADA KARMI: Well, it was very good. Partly, my parents–really, it
was quite interesting–never brought us up with the idea that we hated
Jews. It was not about Jews. They always said it was the people over
there. They meant in Palestine, and they meant the Zionists. They
meant the Jews who came over to Palestine determined to take the
Palestinians’ place. Therefore, we had no problem with these Jews,
whom they considered as just neighbors.

So, not only did the next-door neighbor, who was a German Jewish
doctor, became our–he became our doctor, and we were used to that,
because in Palestine, actually, the best doctors were German, and
they were usually Jewish, but, of course, in my school, many of the
girls were Jewish, and I made lots and lots of Jewish friends. And I
went into their homes, and I became particularly close to one family,
and they had a daughter called Patricia, who has remained my friend
’til today, and she lives in New York, and I’m staying with her now,
and she’s been looking after me. It was a very long friendship.

Now, but more seriously, although we got on and we were friendly–and I
have described all this in the memoir–there was an important side to
this, which I only realized later. I really began to understand about
the Jewish imperative to create a Jewish state in my country. Now,
I don’t want anybody to misunderstand me. I understood it. It did
not justify it. It did not excuse it. But I understood the kind of
emotions, the psychology, which was behind the devotion to Israel
that I found as I was growing up in London. And that, of course,
was amongst the very community–these are European Jews–the very
same type of Jew that had started the Zionist movement that had gone
to Palestine and had created this settler colonialist state in my
country. At least I really–and from the inside, I began to understand
the mentality of the Eastern European persecution, the pogroms, the
Schtetl, all this stuff, which as a Palestinian, I never ever would
have understood. But living there, I did.

AMY GOODMAN: But in addition to that, I mean, these German refugees,
these Jewish refugees were refugees from the Holocaust, were the
survivors–

GHADA KARMI: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: –in–right after World War II–

GHADA KARMI: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: –so often used as the justification for the establishment
of Israel, that Jews would have a safe place to go, although the
movement started well beyond that, but that was the final impetus,
the moral sort of justification.

GHADA KARMI: Yes, that’s true, although it may surprise your
audience to know that, paradoxically, the Holocaust was not such an
issue shortly after it had happened as it is today. It’s amazing. I
don’t know–well, we have no time to explain or to analyze why that
should be–

AMY GOODMAN: Well, actually, Norman Finkelstein has written
extensively about that, how it grew in importance as opposed to faded
in importance, in his book The Holocaust Industry.

GHADA KARMI: That’s absolutely right. And that, believe me, is my own
personal experience, that it didn’t feature as much in those postwar
years, because I remember all my Jewish friends didn’t talk that
much about the Holocaust. But there was–there was–but, of course,
underlying it, I knew there was this feeling that Israel was a refuge,
a place of refuge from persecution, wherever that might be.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about your memoir, In Search of Fatima. Why did
you call it that?

GHADA KARMI: You know, Fatima had been, as a real person–Fatima was a
real person and also a metaphor. The real Fatima was the village woman
who looked after us when we were small, and particularly me, and she
helped my mother. She came and cooked and cleaned and such. She didn’t
live with us, but she looked after me, and I was very, very attached
to her. So for me, leaving Palestine in 1948, I left Fatima, really,
who came to represent my childhood, Palestine, whatever that place was,
that place of imagination after awhile. Because one’s memories were
not very good as a child, it became a place, a country of the mind,
and it became Fatima.

And so, in writing the book, I was trying to explain or ask the reader
to share with me an experience of seeking for belonging, the search
for my identity, who I was, having been wrenched from my roots so
brutally in childhood and living in a–as it happened, moving to a
society totally different from the one I was born into and, I should
tell you, antipathetic to me. British society was pro-Israel. It
believed in the Jewish state. It believed in the right of the Jews to
establish a state in Palestine. So, for me, this was a double shock,
and it led into a whole internal search, and a painful one, for where
I belonged. Did I really belong with these English people I had lived
amongst for so long? Did I belong in the West? Or did I belong to that
place, that place which had become a place of the mind, the Arab world,
the Fatima, and so on? So that’s why the book was called that.

AMY GOODMAN: You left Fatima there. And what happened to her?

GHADA KARMI: Well, this is the saddest thing of all for me. We don’t
know. Now, we don’t know, because when we left, that was one of
the terrible, terrible effects of the Nakba, that it not only took
people away from their land and their belongings, it took them away
from other people, and you never caught up with the other people. It
was a complete rupture. Now, of course, that’s not true in every
case. People did eventually find each other. Fatima disappeared into
a black hole. We tried to find out what had happened to her. She was
a peasant woman. There was no way of getting our letters to her.

AMY GOODMAN: Where did she live?

GHADA KARMI: She lived in a village called al-Maliha, which is
just outside Jerusalem. And do you know, when I went back to
Palestine-Israel in the early 1990s, I asked to see al-Maliha,
and there it was, entirely Israeli, entirely Jewish Israeli. This
wonderful little Palestinian village, which had had white houses,
fields, a water well, all the charm of a Palestinian village, had
now become totally Israeli. But they hadn’t managed to demolish the
mosque, because I could see the minaret, which remained a kind of a
solitary reminder that this was not a Jewish place. So there we are.

However, Fatima disappeared for years and years and years, and I knew
nothing about her. And then in 2005, when I went to Palestine to
work, I was determined to find her. I looked, and I looked. I went
to the refugee camps, because of course she had gone–we knew she
had gone into a camp. In August of 1948, the Israelis destroyed her
village. And I knew–we knew she would have gone into a camp. That’s
what happened to people. And I tried to find her.

Eventually, I found her grandson. I did. And I found him living in
Bethlehem. And he retraced for me her footsteps from when we left
her, how she stayed in our house waiting for us to come back, but
of course we never could come back, and she was eventually thrown
out. And then she and her family had to move, and they kept going on
the move, being moved from one place to the other, eventually ending
up in caves outside Bethlehem. They lived in a cave. And then they
finally got out, and she lived in a house.

And until the 1980s, she kept telling her relatives, "Please look
for the Karmis. Please. I want to see them again." And my father, by
then, was a well-known broadcaster on the BBC, so she used to hear
his voice, and she used to say, "Surely, we can find him. Surely,
we can." And it was–believe me, it broke my heart when her grandson
told me the story. But I never saw her again. And the thought that
maddened me was there she was. In the 1980s, for God’s sake, I was
an adult, I could have found her, if only I had known, if only she
could have got them to look for us. What did they know? You know,
how could they look us up on Google? And so, that–there we are. So
I did know that she died, roughly when she died.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Palestinian writer, author, Ghada
Karmi. Her book after In Search of Fatima is called Married to Another
Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine. Why "Married to Another Man"?

GHADA KARMI: Well, you may well ask, and I know this has mystified
a lot of people, the title, and it’s been misunderstood. People have
thought it was about matrimonial infidelity. It’s not, of course. It’s
a quite–it’s a very serious book. The reason it’s called that is that
I’ve taken that out of an anecdote, that at the end of the nineteenth
century, when the Zionists in Europe, Jews, group of Jews who formed
the Zionist movement, held a very big congress, a conference in Basel
in Switzerland, at which they decided that the only way to solve the
Jewish question in Europe, the question of persecution, was for the
Jews to have a state of their own. So they said, we have to create
a Jewish state that can be a refuge for us, where we can be normal
people, where we don’t have to be hounded, persecuted, etc. And they
decided that that state was to be in Palestine.

Now, they didn’t know what Palestine was like. They were sitting in
Europe. They didn’t know about it, so they sent a couple of rabbis to
this place called Palestine, and they said, "Let us know if this is
a suitable place." The rabbis went, they had a look, and they sent
back this message to Vienna: they said, "The bride is beautiful,
but she is married to another man." Now, of course, it’s clear what
they were saying is, yes, the land is very suitable, it’s wonderful,
but it’s full of other people, it’s already taken. And, of course,
it was taken by my ancestors. I mean, that’s who it was. That’s who
the other man was.

And if you think about it, that has been the basis of the conflict
ever since, that the Zionists wanted a territory free of non-Jews in a
territory full of non-Jews, and therefore, they had to get rid of the
non-Jews in order to make it a territory for Jews. Now, those non-Jews,
i.e. the Palestinians, of course didn’t want to be dispossessed,
they resisted being dispossessed, and hence, you have a conflict.

So, in summary, Married to Another Man, had the Zionists said,
"This is indeed married to another man. We can’t go here, because the
land is already married. We can’t be bigamists. We’re going to move
on. We’re going to look for somewhere else"–they didn’t. They were
determined to do it, and they did it at the most enormous cost to us
as Palestinians, because we were dispossessed and displaced in order
to make room for the Jewish state, and of course it had a tremendous
effect on the whole Arab region.

AMY GOODMAN: You advocate a one-state solution. Can you talk about
that and why?

GHADA KARMI: Yes. Look, I wrote the book Married to Another Man,
because I felt very strongly that, yes, as Palestinians, we will
always mourn what happened to us–we mourn what is happening to us
now–but we really have to try and see how this can be solved. And
that has to come from us, because we are the people the most effected
by this conflict. We are the people with the greatest stake in a
solution which lasts. And I want to emphasize this. It is entirely
possible to think up solutions for this conflict that are temporary,
that might work for a short while. There’s no point in that. We want
a solution that will be permanent and that will be durable.

And it seemed to me–and in the book, I tried to do it by taking
the reader along with me to explain the conflict, to see how so many
attempts had failed in the past, to explain why they had failed and
to show, therefore, that there is in fact only one way forward, and
that is, not to partition the land of Palestine, not to fight over
percentages, not to have Israel say, "I’m going to keep my colonies
on the West Bank, the hell with the rest of you, and I’m going to
keep Jerusalem, and you people can’t come back to your homes." No,
don’t partition the land. We have already got a Jewish–Israeli Jewish
community living in the land. We have already Palestinians who live
in the same land. But most of their relatives don’t live in their
homeland, because Israel doesn’t allow it. And those people have
the right to return. Therefore, how are you going to do it? There’s
only one way you can do it. That is, if it is one state for all its
citizens, not a Jewish state, not an Islamic state, not a Christian
state–a secular democratic state. That’s the answer.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue with our conversation with Dr. Ghada Karmi
after the break. Tomorrow on our broadcast, a discussion on 1948
with Israeli historian Benny Morris. We’ll also be joined by Tikva
Honig-Parnass. She fought for Israel in the 1948 war. But first,
to break with the Palestinian hip-hop group DAM.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We go to the conclusion of my interview with the
Palestinian author and physician Ghada Karmi. I asked her if she thinks
proposing a one-state solution hurts the chances of Palestinians,
because it’s less attainable than a two-state solution.

GHADA KARMI: The one-state solution is the only just solution for
the Palestinians, so if we want to look at solving this problem
from a point of view of justice, we have no alternative except the
one state. Justice means that the dispossessed shall no longer be
dispossessed. That’s justice.

If what you’re saying to me is, will it will hurt the chances of
the Palestinians getting something out of the present situation,
that’s a different question. I would have said to you that I can
understand that position, if there were any evidence that they are
going to get something.

Now, I’m looking around me, and I’m imagining that our intelligent
audience is also looking at things like maps and is looking at what
Israel does and how Israel behaves and can only come to the conclusion
that the creation of a Palestinian state is totally out of reach. And
I’m sorry to be blunt, but I think we have to be quite open about
this. We mustn’t go on playing this game of the emperor’s new clothes,
you know, everybody pretending they’re seeing something which isn’t
there. There is no territorial basis on which a Palestinian state
can now be set up.

Although I fully understand that there is an international consensus
that the two-state solution is the way forward, I fully understand
that a lot of work has gone into this, and in proposing the one-state
solution I’m not being flippant, and I am not saying that all the
work and all the good will and all the effort that’s gone into the
two-state solution are trivial and idiotic and we have to forget
about them, the problem is we’ve given the two-state solution quite a
long time to see if it will work. It hasn’t happened. In decades of
talking about the two-state solution, it has not come about. On the
contrary, it’s less attainable now than it was in 1967, because Israel
has taken so much Palestinian land, so much Palestinian resources,
there’s no possibility of it happening logistically. So why would I,
as an intelligent human being, continue to back a solution which has
been shown not to be working?

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, a one-state solution would mean that Palestinians
would outnumber Israeli Jews, which is why the Israeli government
would fight it.

GHADA KARMI: Indeed. Of course, that might–it might mean that. But,
you see, the whole point of this solution is we don’t have a Jewish
state and we don’t have an Islamic state, we have a democracy. If
you were to look at the Western liberal democracies today, they have
various communities that live together. They don’t go around saying,
"Wait a minute, this has to be a white state," or "this has to be
a black state," or "this has to be a Belgian state." They’re saying,
"We are here, we are citizens." The moment you get rid of the idea that
there has to be an exclusive something for somebody, then you can see
your way to having a proper democracy. That’s the essence of democracy.

So what I’m preaching and calling for–and by the way, many others
along with me–is not at all bizarre, it’s not outlandish, it is
in line with the Western democratic tradition, which has tried to
free itself from fascist states, from states which insist on racial
exclusivity, to ideas of tolerance, of rights, of democracy, and so
on. What is wrong with that? And it’s amazing to me that whenever I
propose the solution, people do object immediately by saying, well,
that means it’s the end of the Jewish state, or the Israelis won’t
have it, or it’s a declaration of war on Israel. This is a peaceable
solution. It’s actually about ending the conflict, because if you no
longer are–if you don’t have parties fighting over bits of territory,
then you end the fight. But if you continue to say, "I have a right,
a God-given right," or whatever it is, "to take this, this, this
amount of territory, and you will not have this, this and this,"
here’s a recipe for conflict, and that’s what we’ve had all along.

It seems to me that the issue of Zionism, the issue of the insistence
on the part of a group to say, "We have a right to a place where only
we shall live, and we will exclude others," seems to me this notion
has to be challenged head-on. We must stop accepting the idea of an
exclusive state in the Arab region or indeed anywhere else. And I
imagine, you know, the Western world would be the first to be up in
arms if Hamas managed to establish an Islamic state from which Jews
were thrown out. They’d be the first to object. They’d go mad. Well,
why on earth are we tolerating a situation which we have now, in which
Jews are saying, "We, as Jews, have a right to this territory." The
more so when you remember it’s not their territory. It’s somebody
else’s.

AMY GOODMAN: Ghada Karmi, explain what the word "Nakba" means.

GHADA KARMI: The "nakba," in Arabic, is–it means literally
"catastrophe." Over time, it has acquired what you might call a capital
N, which of course we don’t have capital letters in Arabic. But it’s
acquired a capital N in a sense that it had become, as you might
say, the grand catastrophe or the great catastrophe. That’s what it
actually means, because, of course, for the Palestinians, nothing more
catastrophic could have been imagined than to be expelled from their
home, their homeland, lose everything and never be allowed back. And
all that has happened from that time to this has been due to that
initial event in 1948.

Today, the Palestinians are divided. They are fragmented. They live in
different places. I live in London. Many Palestinians live in other
different countries. We have Palestinian refugees in camps. We have
people living under occupation in what remains of Palestine. We have
people who are citizens of Israel. All these were once upon a time a
homogeneous, cohesive society living in a land called Palestine. Now,
when I call for a one-state solution, what I’m saying is I want
that situation back again, where in that Palestine, where we were
one cohesive society, we had Jews, we had Druzes, we had Armenians,
we had Circassians, we were Christians, we were Muslims, and we
lived together. And what I’m saying is, we want that again. And it
can happen again if enough people with enough good will and enough
sense of morality and justice help us.

AMY GOODMAN: And your feeling about the big sixtieth anniversary
celebration in Israel, everyone from President Bush to Google cofounder
Sergey Brin?

GHADA KARMI: Well, I have to tell you, if I were Israel, I would be
celebrating. It’s not bad in sixty years to arrive at a point where you
have not only taken somebody else’s country, you’ve thrown them out,
you’ve kept them out, and you’ve succeeded in it, but you’ve succeeded
in becoming rich, heavily armed, powerfully armed, you have nuclear
weapons, you enjoy the unstinting support of the world’s single super
state of the United States. You enjoy that support in terms of funding,
in terms of arms, in political and diplomatic support. There’s not
a UN resolution can be passed without the big brother in the United
States vetoing it. Fantastic! If I were Israel, I’d be celebrating.

What is shameful, I think, is that the rest of the world that
knows what has happened, knows what Israel has done and is doing
and is doing to the people of Gaza–is that really something to
celebrate? Dispossessing people, tormenting them, humiliating them,
occupying them, starving them, as they are in Gaza–is that really
something to celebrate? I would say not.

AMY GOODMAN: Palestinian author and doctor Ghada Karmi. Her latest book
is Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine. Tomorrow on
Democracy Now!, we’ll be joined by the well-known Israeli historian
Benny Morris for a discussion about 1948, the founding of the Israeli
state. We’ll also be joined by Tikva Honig-Parnass. She fought for
Israel in 1948.

Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities
in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind,
not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrit

BAKU: Araz Azimov: Mr. Nalbandyan Is In A Difficult State As He Atte

ARAZ AZIMOV: "MR. NALBANDYAN IS IN A DIFFICULT STATE AS HE ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND FALSE FACTS"

Today.Az
itics/45022.html
May 16 2008
Azerbaijan

In an answer to Day.Az correspondent’s request to express attitude
towards the comments of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan,
regarding Azerbaijan’s principal position on the resolution of
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan
Araz Azimov said:

"I consider such disputes senseless, as it is evident that the newly
appointed Foreign Minister of Armenia needs additional time to get
acquainted with all issues of the resolution process. The immediate
reaction of the Armenian side and the very comment of the Minister
says that Mr. Nalbandyan is in a difficult state when he attempts to
defend false facts.

Speaking about plebiscite, as about a coordinated mechanism of
definition of the status of Nagorno Karabakh, Mr. Nalbandyan says a
lie. I hope he does not do it by his own will. Any unilateral proposal,
which has not been coordinated, can not be considered a coordinated
element of resolution.

I do hope that the Minister of Armenia, speaking about the population
of Nagorno Karabakh, implies both communities of this region, including
Armenian and Azerbaijani. Otherwise, his statement can be regarded
as a support to ethnic cleansing, committed against the Azerbaijanis
of Nagorno Karabakh. By the way, his forerunner Mr. Vardan Oskanyan,
repeatedly confirmed Armenia’s agreement for return of Azerbaijanis
to Nagorno Karabakh on the official level.

It should be added that for free expression of its opinion, the
Minister speaks about, the population of the region, including both
Armenians and Azerbaijanis primarily need peace, stability, security
and possible creative labor and cooperation in legal conditions. It
is hard to imagine normalization of the situation in the region
in conditions of continuing occupation and preservation of the
consequences of ethnic cleansing.

I would like to hope that Armenian side will be courageous enough
and have political will to admit it. Anyway, if Mr. Nalbandyan
implies conduction of the next manipulation, called a referendum or a
plebiscite, like the one, which Armenian side has already conducted in
conditions of military state after driving the Azerbaijani population
away, he is obviously contradicting the norms of international
humanitarian law.

In order to define compliance of the principal position of Azerbaijani
side, I have expressed in my interview to Day.Az with the document,
which is on the negotiation table, I would recommend him, with the due
respect for his status, to address to the principal postulates of the
Helsinki Final Act, which is among the main documents of the resolution
process, taken into consideration by the Minsk Group co-chairs in
their draft main principles of resolution. After that, it would be
easier for the Armenian side to realize the fact that as Azerbaijan
does not agree to anything else, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
should be settled in the framework of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Armenian side also should not have any misunderstandings
regarding the application of principle of right for self-determination.

And gradually, it is a pity that before initiating the subject talks,
Mr. Nalbandyan had already demonstrated detachment from generally
accepted norms and concepts, which has become Armenian’s habit.

The obvious intention of the Armenian side to prevent return of
Azerbaijanis to Nagorno Karabakh and accelerate the further isolation
of the region from the remaining part of Azerbaijan, would not be
accepted not only by Azerbaijan but the whole world society. Armenia’s
position, based on territorial expansion and ethnic animosity, does
not comply with either the generally accepted principles, or modern
tendencies and trends of regional integration and development",
said Araz Azimov.

http://www.today.az/news/pol

The First Meeting Between The Armenian And Azerbaijan’s Presidents,S

THE FIRST MEETING BETWEEN THE ARMENIAN AND AZERBAIJAN’S PRESIDENTS,SERZH SARGSYAN AND ILHAM ALIYEV

Interfax News Agency
May 15 2008
Russia

Petersburg on June 7, Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandian said.

The parties will be discussing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the
minister said.

"The Armenian and Azeri presidents will meet on the sidelines of
the informal summit of the CIS heads of state in St. Petersburg,"
Nalbandian told journalists.