Month: May 2008

RUSSIA READY TO ASSIST NAGORNO-KARABAKH TALKS – GRYZLOV

Interfax News Agency
May 14 2008
Russia

Russia is ready to assist the Nagorno- Karabakh settlement talks,
State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said.

"We can guarantee reached agreements. There should be no imposition
from outside: the parties should agree with each other," Gryzlov told
a briefing in Baku.

Russia could provide a ground for Azeri-Armenian talks, in particular
for a St. Petersburg meeting between Azeri President Ilkham Aliyev
and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, the speaker said.

"We, as co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group [for the Nagorno- Karabakh
settlement], will guarantee the decisions that the parties will reach,"
Gryzlov said.

CROWLEY HONORS 93RD ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

States News Service
May 14, 2008 Wednesday

The following information was released by the office of New York
Rep. Joseph Crowley:

Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Congressman Joseph
Crowley (D-Queens,Bronx), submitted the following remarks for the
record in honor of the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide:

Madame Speaker – I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 93rd
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Since being elected to the U.S. Congress, I have come to the floor of
the House every year to solemnly remember the atrocities that began on
April 24, 1915 – when the Ottoman government ordered the deportation
of 2.5 million Armenians and oversaw the murder 1.5 million Armenian
men, women, and children.

Today, as I stand for the 10th time in recognition of the Armenian
genocide, I do so with one major distinction from years past. This
year is different because the House Foreign Affairs Committee has
formally recognized the Armenian Genocide. Last October, under the
leadership of the late Chairman Tom Lantos, the Committee passed
House Resolution 106.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was proud to have
been a part of this vote. And, as a strong supporter of the Armenian
community, I will be proud when the full House of Representatives
considers H.Res.106.

In 2003, during my first visit to Armenia, I planted a tree at
the Genocide memorial and paid homage to those who perished and
suffered. It was a somber day, just like today’s anniversary of the
Armenian genocide. We not only participate in these events to remember
the past, but also so we never forget.

We must never forget the horrific events that took place 93 years
ago. We must never forget those who were wrongly imprisoned, those
who suffered and died, or those who lost their families and loved
ones. And, most importantly, we must never forget that we must never
let such atrocities occur again.

Madame Speaker, today, as we commemorate the 93rd Anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide, I urge the House to prevent history from repeating
itself by finally recognizing the past.

AZERI, ARMENIAN LEADERS TO MEET IN ST PETERSBURG ON 7 JUNE

Mediamax News Agency
May 15 2008
Armenia

Yerevan, 14 May: The first meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents, Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev, will take place on 7
June in St Petersburg within the framework of the informal summit of
CIS leaders.

The parliamentary correspondent of Mediamax reports that Armenian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Edvard Nalbandyan said this in the National
Assembly today.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERI SOLDIERS CHARGED WITH HIGH TREASON GET LONG PRISON TERMS

Azeri Press Agency
May 15 2008
Azerbaijan

Baku, 15 May: The Military Court for Serious Crimes has issued its
verdict on five soldiers from a Fuzuli [district partly-occupied by
Armenia]-based military unit of the Defence Ministry who have been
charged with cooperating with the Armenian secret services.

Mubariz Sixaliyev and Seyran Ismiyev were sentenced to 14 years, Nofal
Babayev, Samaddin Quliyev and Famil Agayev were sentenced to 13 years
in prison respectively under the ruling issued by judge Islam Nematov
who presided over the trial. The defendants were charged under Articles
274 (high treason) and 338.1 (violation of military service rules)
[of the Criminal Code].

HISTORY DISPROVES MYTH THAT FOUNDING ZIONISTS WERE NAIVE
By Judea Pearl

The Jewish Journal of greater L.A
id=19364
May 15 2008
CA

We are often told, mostly by anti-Israel propagandists, that the early
Zionists’ attitude toward the indigenous Arab population in Palestine
was laden with ignorance, naivete, denial, contempt, abuse and outright
oppression. Afif Safieh, the PLO representative to the United States,
tells audiences on campus after campus: "[Palestinians] have suffered
three successive denials — a denial of their mere physical existence,
a denial of their national rights and, the most morally disturbing,
a denied recognition of their pain and suffering."

The slogans "Land without a people to a people without land" and
"Palestinians? Who?" continue to be quoted today by enemies of
coexistence as a proof of those alleged denials and of Zionism’s
ingrained and irredeemable disrespect for Arabs, both as people and
as a nation.

This is sheer nonsense.

On Israel’s 60th birthday, it is time we set the record straight:
The Zionist movement may have erred in many ways, but contempt,
naivete and denial were not among its errors.

I’m looking at my "History of Zionism" bookshelf, and I find it loaded
with books and pamphlets, apparently unavailable in English, which
record a history of understanding, respect and persistent attempts
at reaching mutual recognition with the Arabs of Palestine since the
beginning of the 20th century.

Here are a few shiny gems from this dusty bookshelf:

Ben-Gurion and Our Arab Brethren

During World War I, David Ben-Gurion, who would become the first
prime minister of Israel, spent three years in New York, from 1915
to 1918, having been exiled from Palestine "for conspiring against
Ottoman rule."

He spent most of this time organizing (with Y. Ben Zvi) the He-Halutz
youth movement, but, as he was also an ardent scholar and historian,
he also found time to conduct research at the public library and
published an interesting treatise "on the origin of the Falahin,"
in the summer of 1917, a few months before the Balfour Declaration.

In this treatise, Ben-Gurion advances an elaborate cultural-demographic
theory that the Falahin (the Arab peasants in Eretz Israel), are none
others than our lost brethren — descendants of Jews who remained in
Eretz Israel after the Roman expulsion and were forcibly converted
to Islam after the Muslim conquest (638 AD). In Ben-Gurion’s words:

The greater majority and main structures of the Muslim Falahin in
Western Erez Israel present to us one racial strand and a whole
ethnic unit, and there is no doubt that much Jewish blood flows in
their veins — the blood of those Jewish farmers, "lay persons,"
who chose in the travesty of times to abandon their faith in order
to remain on their land.

To the best of my knowledge, Ben-Gurion’s theory was proven wrong. DNA
analysis shows indigenous Palestinians to be the likely descendants
of Arab tribesmen that migrated north from the Arabian (now Saudi)
Peninsula in the wake of the conquering Muslim armies. Ben-Gurion’s
theory, nevertheless, shows a genuine attempt to hypothesize an
ancestral kinship with the Arab population in order to bridge cultural
and religious gaps, and thus prepare an atmosphere of trust.

If this is not respect, what is?

If this is not an outreach, nothing is.

Ben-Gurion and Palestinian Rights

In 1918, Israel Zangwill, author of the influential novel "Children
of the Ghetto" (1892) and an on-off Zionist, wrote an article
suggesting that the Arabs should be persuaded to "trek" (i.e., to be
"transferred") from Palestine. Ben-Gurion was quick to react and
distance the Zionist movement from any such notion. In an article
published that year in the Yiddish newspaper Yiddishe Kemper (titled
"The Rights of the Jews and Others in Eretz Israel") Ben-Gurion
ridicules Zangwill and makes his position unequivocal:

Eretz Israel is not an empty country … west of Jordan alone houses
three quarter of a million people. On no account must we injure the
rights of the inhabitants. Only "Ghetto Dreamers" like Zangwill can
imagine that Eretz Israel will be given to the Jews with the added
right of dispossessing the current inhabitants of the country. This
is not the mission of Zionism. Had Zionism to aspire to inherit the
place of these inhabitants — it would be nothing but a dangerous
utopia and an empty, damaging and reactionary dream….

"Not to take from others — but to build the ruins. No rights on our
past — but on our future. Not the preservation of historic inheritance
— but the creation of new national assets — this is the core claim
and right of the Hebrew nation in its country.

(Reprinted in "Anachnu U’Shcheneinu," 1931, p. 31.)

Our next gem belongs to Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), the first president
of Israel and the man who played a key role in influencing the British
government to issue the Balfour Declaration on Nov. 2, 1917. In 1918,
Weizmann was sent to Palestine by the British government to advise
on the future development of the country. There, he met Arab and
Armenian representatives and delivered the following speech in the
house of the High Commissioner in Jerusalem:

With heartfelt admiration and great interest, we are viewing today
the current war of liberation conducted by the ancient Arabic nation.

We see how the scattered Arab forces are being united under the
good will of Western governments and other peace-loving nations,
and how, from the mist of war there emerge new and immense political
possibilities. We see again the formation of a strong and united
Arab political body, freshly renovated and aiming to renovate the
great tradition of Arab science and literature that are so close to
our heart.

This kinship found its glorious expression particularly in the Spanish
period of the Hebrew-Arabic development, when our greatest authors
wrote and thought in the Arabic language, as well as in Hebrew.

(Translated from Weizmann’s book "Dvarim," vol. 1 Tel Aviv, 1936,
p. 99.)

And, as if contemplating postmodern complaints that Zionism, while
promising Palestinians human and civil rights, denied them national
rights, Weizmann wastes no time dispelling this allegation and writes:

If indeed there is among the Arabs a national movement, we must relate
to it with the utmost seriousness…. The Arabs are concerned about
two issues:

1. The Jews will soon come in their millions and conquer the country
and chase out the Arabs… Responsible Zionists never said and never
wished such things.

2. There is no place in Eretz Israel for a large number of
inhabitants. This is total ignorance. It is enough to notice what is
happening now in Tunis, Tangier and California to realize that there
is a vast space here for a great work of many Jews, without touching
even one Arab.

(Haaretz, Dec. 15, 1919, Reprinted in Dvarim, vol 1 1936, p. 129.)

Ben-Gurion and Palestinian Self-Determination

In November, 1930, about a year after the Arab riots that led to the
Hebron massacre, Ben-Gurion delivered a keynote lecture entitled "The
Foreign Policy of the Hebrew Nation" at the First Congress of Hebrew
Workers. In this lecture, later published in Ben-Gurion’s first book,
"We and Our Neighbors" ("Anachnu U’Shcheneinu, Tel Aviv, 1931. p. 257),
he makes statements that would have toppled Rabin’s government ten
times over.

There is in the world a principle called "the right for
self-determination." We have always and everywhere been its worshipers
and champions. We have defended that right for every nation, every
part of a nation, and every collective of people.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Arab people in Eretz Israel
have this right. And this right is not limited by or conditional upon
the result of its influence on us and our interests. We ought not to
diminish the Arabs’ freedom for self-determination for fear that it
would present difficulties to our own mission.

The entire moral core encapsulated in the Zionist idea is the notion
that a nation — every nation — is its own purpose and not a tool for
the purposes of other nations. And in the same way that we want the
Jewish people to be master of its own affairs, capable of determining
its historical destiny without being dependent on the will — even
good will — of other nations, so too we must seek for the Arabs.

Naivete? Denial? Disrespect? Hardly.

I don’t believe Ben-Gurion would be prepared to make such bold
statements today, given what we know about Hamas’ charter and
rocket terror. I am sure, however, that the Middle East would look
substantially different today had one Arab leader, any time in the
past 75 years, had the courage to reciprocate Ben-Gurion’s offer with
as generous a recognition of Jewish self-determination.

Jabotinsky and the Sobering Days Before the Holocaust

The next pearl belongs to Zev Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion’s main rival,
and by far the most militant Zionist leader of that time.

Jabotinsky garnered a reputation as an advocate of a tough, "iron-wall"
approach toward the Arabs. Yet even he expressed respect for Arab
nationalism, and explained, even identified with, Arabs’ fears of
reciprocating Ben-Gurion’s offer.

I chose to translate several excerpts from this article because they
dispel not only the myth of Zionist denial and naivete, but also the
myth of Arabs’ fear of dispossession by Jewish immigrants. Here is
what Jabotinsky says in his book "A Hebrew State" ("Medina Ivrit,"
Tel Aviv, 1937, pps. 71-79), published a few months after the break-out
of the Arab Riots of 1936-1939 (which one UCLA historian glorifies as
"The Great Arab Revolt").

There is no point talking about the possibility that the Arabs
in Eretz Israel would consent to the Zionist plan while we are a
minority here. I express it with such confidence not because I enjoy
disappointing decent people but, simply, to save them disappointments:
All these decent people, except those blind from birth, have understood
already that this is something that is utterly illogical — to obtain
the Arabs’ consent and goodwill to turn Eretz Israel from an Arabic
country to a country with Jewish minority.

Every indigenous people, regardless of whether it is primitive or
advanced, views its country as a national home and aspires to be and
remain its sole and eternal landlord; it does not voluntarily agree
to accommodate, not only new landlords, but even new partners or
new participants. And our most misleading argument would be to rely
on the fact that our agricultural settlements bring them economical
advantages. Though this is an undisputed truth, there is no nation
in the world that sold its national aspirations for bread and butter

(pps. 73-74) .

So much for Zionists’ naivete, denial and disrespect. Now to the core
of the Arab objection to the Zionist plan.

Many of us still think in full honesty that a terrible misunderstanding
has occurred, that the Arabs did not understand us, and that this is
the reason why they oppose us; but if only we could explain to them
how benevolent our intentions, they would stretch their hands back
to us. This is a mistake that has been proven so again and again. I
will bring one such incident.

Several years ago, when the late N. Sokolov visited Eretz Israel,
and he was one of the most moderate and diplomatic Zionists at that
time, he delivered an elaborate speech on this misunderstanding. He
explained clearly how mistaken Arabs are in thinking that we wish to
steal their property or dispossess them or oppress them.

"We do not even want to have a Jewish government, we want merely a
government representing the League of Nations." Sokolov’s speech
received an immediate response in the main editorial of the Arab
newspaper, Carmel, the content of which I convey here from memory:

"The Zionists" — so wrote the Arab editor — "are tormenting their
nerves unnecessarily."

There is no misunderstanding here whatsoever.

The Arabs never doubted that the potential absorption capacity of
Eretz Israel is enormous and, therefore, that it is possible to
settle here enough Jews without dispossessing or constraining even a
single Arab. It is obvious that "this is all" the Zionists want. But
it is also obvious that this is precisely what the Arabs do not want;
for, then, the Jews will turn into a majority and, from the nature of
things, a Jewish government will be established, and the fate of the
Arab minority will depend on Jewish good will; Jews know perfectly
well what minority existence is like.

There is no misunderstanding here whatsoever.

The Arab’s argument is rather compelling, but Jabotinsky confronts
them with an equally compelling moral dilemma:

Whoever thinks that our arguments [for Jewish immigration] are immoral,
I would beg him to address the following question: If this [Jewish
immigration] is immoral, what should the Jewish people do?…. Our
planet is no longer blessed with uninhabited islands. Take any oasis
in any desert, it is already taken by the native who inhabits that
place from time immemorial and rejects the coming of new settlers
that will become a majority, or just come in great numbers.

In short — if there is a homeless nation in the world, its very
yearning for a homeland is immoral.

The homeless must forever remain homeless; all the land in the universe
has already been divided–that’s it. These are the conclusions of
‘morality’…. This sort of morality has a place among cannibals,
not in the civilized world. The land belongs not to those who have too
much land, but to those who have none. If we appropriate one parcel of
land from the owners of mega-estates and give it to an exiled nation —
it is a just deed.

In this historical week of Israel’s 60th birthday, it is most fitting
that we remind ourselves of the principles of reciprocity and mutual
respect on which the state of Israel was founded.

May those principles light our path today, and may Israel’s adversaries
be blessed with a faint semblance of these principles.

Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl
Foundation () named after his son. He and his wife,
Ruth, are editors of "I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by
the Last Words of Daniel Pearl" (Jewish Light, 2004), winner of the
National Jewish Book Award.

ISRAEL: A WORK IN PROGRESS
By Glenn Yago

The Jewish Journal of greater L.A
id=19395
May 15 2008
CA

>From the birth of the Zionist movement more than a century ago through
its 60 years as a Jewish state, Israel has come of age amid a vastly
changing world: two world wars, the technological revolution and
economic globalization with all its attendant challenges.

The creation of Israel is a paradigm for the way people without
sovereignty embrace and transform their history through freedom. That
ongoing struggle of humans trying to find their place in the universe
unfolds over time, but it requires a place.

Israel also represents a unique laboratory — and not just for
defining itself for its residents but also for addressing global
crises. Every problem on this planet is refracted and amplified
here: Having resettled and grown in the land, how can we conserve
its environment? Can we halt our addiction to oil and achieve energy
independence? If we level the field in information and technology,
can we overcome the limitations of size and space and become a player
on the global stage? If Israel can answer questions like these,
it will achieve a secure position among nations and obtain its peace.

As President Shimon Peres said, the objective of this 60th anniversary
year should be to bring Israel to the world and the world to
Israel. Our experiment, through shifting events and the failures and
challenges they bring, is one that results in the covenant renewed. And
looking back through the decades from our founding, we can find four
lessons that resonate globally. They also inform 21st century hopes
for our survival, based on the merging of ancient truths with the
ever-present task of national renewal. These are lessons that will
sustain all global communities from the chaos of our times:

Lesson 1: Diasporas need homelands.

Today, the United Nations reports that more than 300 million people
in this world live in Diaspora communities that struggle to maintain
homeland ties. The Rwandans, the Armenians, the Guatemalans and, yes,
the Palestinians long for their place among the nations. For many
nations, Diaspora remittances are sometimes far greater than foreign
direct investment, portfolio flows and foreign aid combined. The
contributions of Israel’s Diaspora and its transformation through
the creation of the State of Israel have been a lesson well studied
by others.

Lesson 2: Nations need security.

Imminent threats, beginning before the Holocaust, informed not only
the Zionist movement but also the Jewish concept of state defense. No
nation can survive while its people live in exile.

The captive Hebrews in Babylon lamented, "How can we sing the Lord’s
song in a strange land?" In revolting against its history, Israel
rejected centuries of subjugation and developed a national defense
based on the doctrine that homeland building can tolerate many risks
for peace — but never the catastrophic risks that unite senseless
hatred with regional imperialism.

This is what links the Eichman trial to Entebbe to Osirak to last
fall’s strike against the Syrian reactor facility. Yet the world
has seen genocide spread to Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. The lesson of
homeland security is ignored at great peril.

Lesson 3: Language and cultural revival are key.

Jewish cultural identity — expressed through art, music and, most
important, through the revival of Hebrew from its strict liturgical
usage to an official state language — has been key to our national
renewal and rebirth. Where else in the world has a language no one
spoke, but which was common to all, emerged as a national language?

Like archaeological discovery and conservation of cultural capital, the
protection of language is essential for national cultures throughout
the world. While not promoting linguistic exclusivity (Israel,
after all, has three official languages), the protection of communal
language promotes a multilingual access and a cultural infrastructure,
encourages the safekeeping of minority languages and culture and
their ultimate restoration as part of our international heritage.

Lesson 4: Unity exists in diversity.

>From the microcosm of Israel’s rebirth as a modern nation, this
is perhaps the most profound lesson for a global future. Israel’s
Jewish-majority population can boast more than 120 nations of origin,
along with significant local minorities of Palestinian, Druze and
Bedouin Arabs. As a result, Israel is one of the most diverse countries
in the world.

Integrating this pastiche into a democratic republic that protects and
celebrates diversity through unity remains a remarkable achievement. It
is also becoming a common challenge for nations around the world.

Absorption is the means to achieving true national self-interest. It
puts the emphasis on integration, rather than on full assimilation
and the triumphalism of a majority. In Israel, frankly, there is
no majority — not Ashkenazim, not Sephardim, not political, not
religious. It is our challenge to grow from the particular to the
universal without comprising the richness and uniqueness of diversity.

Ultimately, these lessons underscore the celebration of Israel’s
rebirth. Let us reaffirm our particular attributes as a nation by
reaffirming our universal values. That was the lesson of the prophets.

These lessons and inspiration place Israel, a small country, on
the global stage in a unique way. They offer enormous advantages
in global trade and provide the basis for both military power and
peace incentives. They provide the basic formula for an open society,
global ties and national security. They enable Israel to renew and
repair both itself and an endangered world in troubled times.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TOLERANCE MUSEUM DIRECTOR DOESN’T TOLERATE STATUS QUO
By Elyse Glickman

The Jewish Journal of greater L.A
id=19389
May 15 2008
CA

Liebe Geft tours Museum of Tolerance with Lord Carey of Clifton,
Archbishop of Canterbury emeritus, and other religious leaders after
conference at the museum this month. Photo: Bart Batholomew. Courtesy
Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The Museum of Tolerance is rarely the same experience twice, even
with its permanent exhibits. New visuals, soundtracks and materials
are added to keep the displays current and relevant. And while many
people think of the museum as a "Jewish" institution, it is the "human"
experience that touches upon issues that affect visitors of all ages
and ethnic backgrounds.

While incorporating technology and an interactive environment
into the museum experience was the vision of Simon Wiesenthal
Center founder and dean Rabbi Marvin Hier, the constant editing and
improving of collections and programs reflect the mind of Liebe Geft,
a former broadcast journalist. Ten years after she assumed the role of
executive director at the Pico-Robertson-adjacent Museum of Tolerance,
she exhibits the same passion for and commitment to presenting current
events as she did when she was on the air.

Geft has not only maintained this well-oiled machine, but kept its
chief products — an impact-making, interactive museum and broad-based
community programs — in consistent supply, navigating the flow of
societal and economic changes.

"Right now, you can say that everything is new at the museum,"
she said.

Since it opened in 1993, the Museum of Tolerance’s efforts to "confront
the dynamic of intolerance that is still embedded in society today"
has attracted more than 300,000 people each year; one-third of the
visitors are school-age children.

Permanent exhibitions include the Tolerancenter, which encourages
visitors to consider intolerance in daily life; the Holocaust exhibit,
a tour that recounts the events leading up, during and after the
Shoah; and Finding Our Families, Finding Ourselves, a collection of
personal histories from notable Americans, including Maya Angelou,
Billy Crystal and Carlos Santana.

For the Tolerancenter’s exhibit called the Point of View Diner, Geft
is currently working on a way to deal with the national epidemic of
bullying, an important issue that affects many children. She’s also
revising a script on terrorism for the museum’s Millennium Machine,
the second post-Sept. 11 revision, which will look at dangers we face
from nontraditional forms of potential terrorist attacks.

"Everything that goes into this museum is meant to be a trigger for
discussion and debate … a stimulus to raise awareness about the
issues that are difficult but need to be confronted collectively and
individually. Although many of the exhibits are permanent, we now have
a commitment and an obligation to make sure all exhibits are relevant
and current. If they aren’t, they are not going to be meaningful,"
she said.

Even the well-received and established Holocaust exhibit is constantly
updated so visitors can personalize history and make it relevant to
their lives today. It’s also being altered to make way for a new a
new Youth Action Lab.

New sections were recently opened in the Tolerancenter, with the
largest project, the History Walk, offering a different perspective
on the history of the United States, from the 1600s to the present,
reflecting on issues of diversity, intolerance and moving toward a
just society.

What all the exhibits have in common, according to Geft, is that they
are designed to actively engage people and amplify their own voices,
down to polling stations and exploration displays.

"I feel like my coming here was quite fortuitous, and I credit Rabbi
Meyer May, who extended the opportunity to me," said Geft, recalling
the museum’s former executive director. "The biggest attraction
about the position, however, was the potential and enormity of the
challenge. It represented an opportunity to create a program that was
highly innovative in many respects and had the promise of really making
a difference, especially as we are promoting human dignity and mutual
respect for one another in our society. It is a very noble mission,
and something I could not resist."

Geft grew up in Zimbabwe, in a Jewish family rich in humanistic values,
where tolerance and respect for other humans was a day-to-day reality
rather than a series of do’s and don’ts, and speaking up on issues
that mattered was encouraged constantly. Exposing herself to different
cultures and viewpoints strengthened the values that tie in with her
upbringing and her late father’s credo, "If man is pleased with man,
God is pleased with man."

Her natural curiosity about the world took her to England and Israel
for university study and work, and from there into careers in broadcast
journalism and education.

What Geft embraced most about her earlier work was her ongoing
ability to take what she learned on the job and pass it on to her
audiences. Her time at the Financial News Network (which later
became CNBC) stands as a pivotal career experience, especially with
the innovative ways news was researched, reported and relayed to
viewers worldwide.

In 1996, she brought her skills and experience to the Museum of
Tolerance as director of the Tools for Tolerance for Professionals
program, developing curricular materials like the "Teacher’s Guide
for the Museum of Tolerance" and workshops for hundreds of thousands
of teachers, law enforcement officials, and municipal employees.

By 1998 she had assumed the responsibilities as the museum’s
director. From the beginning, she dedicated up to 80 hours a week
building the museum’s outreach and educational programs, adding new
interactive exhibitions and landmark exhibitions that kept it current
and relevant.

"It is very gratifying to go to work every day when the focus of your
job is to make the world a better place, through the hearts and minds
of everyone we interact with," she said.

Geft is proud of the fact that she is leading people of all ages
and walks of life down a path of enlightenment, from schoolchildren
to professional adults. But her path to and around Los Angeles in
itself has been a journey of discovery. While her dream — and that
of her husband — is to live in Israel, Los Angeles and the Museum
of Tolerance have proven themselves to be part of a rich detour that
has reinforced the values Geft has known since childhood. Or as she
puts it, "Life has a strange way of thwarting best-laid plans."

"Los Angeles has an amazing Jewish community, of which we are very
proud to be a part," Geft said, noting she has raised five sons here.

According to Geft, the city is an ideal locale for the Museum of
Tolerance since it represents a "veritable microcosm of a macrocosmic
global world," where residents trace their roots to 140 different
nationalities and the city is home to the largest Armenian, Korean,
Filipino, Salvadoran and Guatemalan populations outside their
respective capital cities.

"This city is a true social laboratory, and it’s a perfect fit for
an institution designed to be on the cutting edge of social change,"
she said. "I recall when there was a scare of poisonous strawberries
in the Los Angeles Unified School District, letters were sent home to
parents in more than 100 different languages. There is no better place
to be when you’re looking to build bridges of mutual understanding
and cooperation between different groups."

Los Angeles is also a great home for the museum, not surprisingly,
because of its proximity to major players in the entertainment industry
at both the celebrity and corporate levels. Although Geft is adamant
in pointing out that every visitor to the museum and participant in
its social programs are VIPs, she observes her institution gets a
major boost through the support of public figures.

"There are many important [Hollywood] players closely associated with
Simon Wiesenthal Center, especially because our work is congruent with
their causes and the charities that they embrace," she said. "They
have the power to influence, and we are fortunate to have many of
them coming to the museum."

Prior to a Museum of Tolerance preview of the 2007 film, "A Mighty
Heart," an adaptation of Mariane Pearl’s memoir on the search for
her husband, kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl,
star Angelina Jolie toured the museum and watched a short documentary
titled, "In Our Time," which covered terrorism and Pearl’s death.

"After that, she recalled that her first visit to the museum in middle
school made a profound impression on her," Geft said of Jolie.

In the Hilary Swank film, "Freedom Writers," teacher Erin Gruwell
takes her students to the museum to get them thinking about tolerance.

"When celebrities make these kinds of statements, direct or otherwise,
it really piques the interest of people," she said.

According to Geft, the principles the museum was built on will continue
to be reflected in upcoming visiting exhibitions, which will cover such
diverse topics as the Jews of modern China, Mexican diplomat Gilberto
Bosques’ efforts to rescue Jews from Vichy France during World War
II and the struggle toward desegregation and equity in schools —
from Brown v. The Board of Education to the present.

Not surprisingly, bringing these exhibits to light will involve many
hours and a lot of patience. Thankfully, Geft notes the support of her
family enables her to do good and do well. And she says her patience
and support pays off with every person impacted by the thought put
into the permanent and temporary exhibits and the messages they convey.

"My professional life is not, ‘I used to do this, but now I do that,’"
she said. "It is a continuation of everything I have done my whole
life, exploring new frontiers and finding new challenges to take on."

For more information on upcoming exhibitions and the museum, visit

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING RIGHT OF RETURN BY REFUGEES, INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS TO ABKHAZIA, GEORGIA

United Nations General Assembly
15 May 2008

Sixty-second General Assembly
Plenary
97th Meeting (AM)

In a recorded vote of 14 Member States in favour to 11 against and
105 abstaining, the sixty-second session of the General Assembly today
recognized the right of all refugees and internally displaced persons
and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity, to return to Abkhazia,
Georgia. (See annex for voting details.)

Deeply concerned by the demographic changes resulting from the
conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia, and regretting any attempt to alter the
pre-conflict demographic composition there, the Assembly underlined
the urgent need for the rapid development of a timetable to ensure
the prompt voluntary return of all refugees and internally displace
persons to their homes.

Also by the text, the Assembly emphasized the importance of preserving
the property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons,
including victims of reported ‘ethnic cleansing’, and called upon all
Member States to deter persons under their jurisdiction from obtaining
property within the territory of Abkhazia, Georgia, in violation of
the rights of returnees.

Introducing the draft resolution (document A/62/L.45), the
representative of Georgia said that more than 500,000 people of
various ethnic origins were suffering a humanitarian disaster as a
consequence of the conflict. There had been ‘complete ethnic cleansing’
of the Georgian population from Abkhazia, Georgia, and for more than
14 years, the people who had fled their homes were forced to live
with a growing sense of hopelessness. By challenging the status quo,
Georgia was striving to create new ways to bring about a lasting
resolution to the conflict.

In explanation of his country’s negative vote, the representative
of the Russian Federation said that the draft, while addressing a
humanitarian problem, took a political approach to the conflict. If
adopted, the text would destabilize United Nations conflict-resolution
activities, because the problem of return, while important, was not
the only one. The draft had separated the issue of return from related
tasks for achieving peace in the region and made the resolution of
the problem more difficult. The adoption of a selective resolution
would lead to a worsening of Georgian-Abkhaz relations.

Calling on Member States to support the resolution, the representative
of Ukraine said conflicts in the region remained major impediments
to the democratic and economic development of Azerbaijan, Moldova
and Georgia. They must be settled through unconditional recognition
of the principles of territorial integrity and human rights. It was
dangerous to assume, as had been insinuated, that the recent tensions
around Abkhazia were a result of developments in Kosovo. Instead, they
were a result of the criminal policies of the former Soviet Union,
which had established an environment of mistrust.

In explaining their abstentions, other representatives said they
supported the return of the internally displaced persons and
refugees, and recognized Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity. However, the matter had already been addressed by the
Security Council in its resolution 1808 (2008) and all parties should
refrain from any actions that could lead to an increase in tensions
in the region while pursuing a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

At the outset of the meeting, Hjálmar W. Hanneson ( Iceland), Assembly
Vice-President, extended condolences to the Governments and people
of Myanmar and China for the tragic loss of life and material damage
resulting from the recent cyclone and earthquake that, respectively,
had struck the two countries. It was to be hoped that the international
community would show its solidarity.

The Assembly was also informed that Benin had made the necessary
payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article
19 of the United Nations Charter.

Other speakers today were the representative of Azerbaijan, China,
Armenia, Germany, Italy, Turkey, France, United Kingdom, Japan,
Panama and Viet Nam.

Background

The General Assembly convened this morning to consider protracted
conflicts in the GUAM ( Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova)
area and their implications for international peace, security and
development. It was also expected to take action on a related draft
resolution.

Statements

IRAKLI ALASANIA (Georgia), introducing a draft resolution on the
‘status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia,
Georgia’ (document A/62/L.45), drew attention to the fact that
more than 500,000 people of various ethnic origins were suffering
a humanitarian disaster today as a consequence of the conflict in
Abkhazia, Georgia. Those forced into exile had been denied access
to their homes and those who had stayed were exposed to constant
fear of insecurity and poverty. The draft resolution was designed to
reinforce an ongoing settlement process and address concerns of both
sides in the conflict. Protection of the rights of all residents who
continued to live in Abkhazia, Georgia, was of paramount value, and
the right to return of all refugees and internally displaced persons
must be reaffirmed.

Describing the ‘complete ethnic cleansing’ of the Georgian
population from Abkhazia, Georgia, he said the draft recalled the
‘ethnic cleansing’ reported by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Although ethnic cleansing had been
ruthlessly conducted against Georgians, other nationalities had also
been forced to flee the region. For more than 14 years, those who
had fled their homes were still forced to live with a growing sense
of hopelessness. As some people had illegally acquired private and
public properties in the territory, those illegal actions should be
condemned and treated accordingly.

Stressing that a house divided against itself could not stand, he
said unification had become the guiding principle of the Georgian
Government, in full cooperation with the United Nations. By challenging
the status quo, Georgia was striving to create new ways to bring about
a lasting resolution to the conflict. Recent Georgian peace initiatives
included proposals for the constitutional protections of Abkhaz rights.

He said the conflict in Abkhazia had illustrated how Georgia had
become the outstanding historical example of how externally generated
and meaningless conflicts in the Caucasus had been maintained in a
frozen state to subdue and control the people of Georgia. The only
lesson learned was that war and oppression bred only a radical and
violent reaction to fight back. Only direct and sincere talks among
the aggrieved parties — in which feelings would be conveyed without
rancour, hostility or bitterness — could guide the opposing sides
towards peaceful coexistence.

AGSHIN MEHDIYEV ( Azerbaijan) said that both cases of displacement in
the GUAM area had many similarities and indicated the seriousness of
the situation about which his country had warned the international
community for the past 15 years. Such situations were a threat not
only to stability in the region, but to the entire world. They had both
started because of aggressive separatism with the aim of using force to
change fundamentally the affected territories’ demographic composition.

The only way to reach a just and comprehensive settlement of
both situations, he said, was an approach based on full respect
for the letter and spirit of international law; respecting the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova; returning
displaced persons to their homes; restoring the pre-war demographic
composition of the affected areas; and providing normal, secure and
equal conditions of life for all communities involved. Any other
approach would be tantamount to accepting the consequences of ethnic
cleansing and other serious violations of the rule of law and human
rights. Azerbaijan supported fully the draft resolution submitted
by Georgia.

YURIY SERGEYEV ( Ukraine) said the conflicts under discussion
remained major impediments to the democratic and economic development
of Azerbaijan, Moldova and Georgia, and must be settled through
unconditional recognition of the principles of territorial integrity
and human rights. It was dangerous to assume, as had been insinuated,
that the recent tensions around Abkhazia, Georgia, were a result
of developments in Kosovo. Instead, they were a result of the
criminal policies of the former Soviet Union, which had established
an environment of mistrust. The Russian Federation continued that
notorious tradition by inserting separatism into the GUAM region, and
the recent Russian decisions to upgrade relations with Abkhazia and
South Ossetia were a cause of particular concern, as they undermined
peace processes and contradicted the Russian Federation’s mediation
role.

There was, therefore, an urgent need to change the climate of the peace
negotiations in those conflicts, he said. The GUAM States were ready
to cooperate actively and constructively with the United Nations,
OSCE, the European Union and the mediator States. The international
community should call on the Russian Federation to review its policy in
the area and build bilateral relations on the basis of international
law and its role as mediator. Ukraine called upon Member States to
support the draft resolution submitted by Georgia.

ZHENMIN LIU ( China) said his country respected Georgia’s territorial
integrity and understood its concerns about the internally displaced
persons and refugees affected by the conflict situation. All parties
concerned should, therefore, comply with Security Council resolution
1808 (2008) and make all efforts to settle the conflict peacefully.

Action on Draft Resolution

The representative of Armenia, speaking in explanation of position
before the vote, reminded the Assembly that his country had opposed
inclusion of the item on the agenda because it was irrelevant. Armenia
would not support the draft. Refugees and internally displaced persons
were the most tragic outcome of any conflict and the internally
displaced Abkhazians were of particular concern to Armenia, as tens
of thousands of Armenians had previously lived in that area. In
the mid-1990s, attempts had been made to settle the returnees, but
those efforts had fallen short of expectations because the matter
had been taken up before the core issues were addressed. Neglecting
to resolve the fundamental problems in a comprehensive manner was
counterproductive and could endanger the conflict-resolution process.

The representative of the Russian Federation expressed regret that
Georgia had put the draft resolution forward, although it did not
affect Russian-Georgian relations. While addressing a humanitarian
problem, the text took a political approach to the conflict, giving a
distorted impression and failing to address the background. Georgia
had not followed up on recommendations made by the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

He said the draft resolution was meant to put pressure on the
Abkhaz side to settle political problems. If adopted, it would
destabilize United Nations activities in settling the conflict,
because the problem of return, while important, was not the only
one. The text separated the issue of return from related tasks of
achieving peace in the region and made the search for a solution more
difficult. The draft also failed to take into account the rights of
other nationalities who had lost property and been displaced. The
adoption of a selective resolution would lead to a worsening in
Georgian-Abkhaz relations. Georgia had not held consultations and had
issued the text only yesterday, giving little time to study it. The
draft resolution was counterproductive and would lead to increased
tensions in the region. There was not alternative but to put the
draft to a vote and to vote against it.

In a recorded vote of 14 in favour to 11 against, with 105 abstentions,
the General Assembly then adopted the text. (See Annex)

The representative of Germany, speaking in explanation of position,
said he absolutely supported the swift return of internally displaced
persons and refugees, but had abstained because the text ignored many
other aspects of the situation. As head of the Group of Friends of
Georgia, Germany would continue to support a peaceful resolution of
the issue, based on the territorial integrity of Georgia, dialogue,
mutual trust and agreement.

The representative of Italy, reiterating his country’s commitment
to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, called
on all parties to refrain from any actions that could lead to an
escalation of violence, and to pursue a peaceful resolution of the
conflict. Italy supported confidence-building measures for the region,
but had abstained from the vote because the subject matter was under
consideration by the Security Council, which took up the matter on
a consistent basis in light of its resolutions.

The representative of Turkey also reiterated his country’s commitment
to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and to efforts
towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Turkey was seriously
concerned about recent events that had raised tensions and called on
all parties to shun escalation and pursue a peaceful resolution. Turkey
stood ready to assist in that effort.

The representative of France reiterated his country’s support for
Georgia’s territorial integrity and its commitment to the return of
displaced persons and their property rights. The Security Council was
seized of the question of their return and a commitment by the parties
to work together on the matter would help resolve the conflict. France
had abstained from the vote because it did not believe the initiative
would achieve crucial humanitarian and political objectives.

The representative of the United Kingdom said she had abstained
from the vote although her country was greatly concerned about the
return of internally displaced persons and refugees. The United
Kingdom reiterated its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity
and a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue between
the parties.

The representative of Japan said he had abstained from the vote
because of the various implications it could pose. Japan remained
strongly interested in the plight of the internally displaced persons
and had steadfastly supported Georgia’s territorial integrity and a
peaceful resolution of the conflict, along with the efforts of the
Group of Friends.

The representative of Panama, affirming all rights of refugees and
internally displaced persons, said he was concerned that the draft
focused on one party, something that could worsen the tension in the
region. Article 12 of the United Nations Charter stipulated that,
while the Security Council was considering a situation, the Assembly
would not make recommendations. Although that provision had recently
been interpreted flexibly, given the gravity of the security situation,
Panama preferred interpretation according to the letter of the text.

The representative of Viet Nam said he supported efforts to settle
the conflict and, in that spirit, called upon the parties to
exercise restraint and refrain from any actions that could increase
tensions. Japan had abstained from the vote because the text contained
elements that could increase tensions.

ANNEX

Vote on Abkhazia, Georgia

The draft resolution on the status of internally displaced persons and
refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia (document A/62/L.45), was adopted by
a recorded vote of 14 in favour to 11 against, with 105 abstentions,
as follows:

In favour: Albania, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine,
United States.

Against: Armenia, Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
India, Iran, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sudan, Syria,
Venezuela.

Abstain: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile,
China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta,
Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar,
Republic of Korea, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore,
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Switzerland,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize,
Benin, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands,
Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niger, Oman,
Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and
Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname,
Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan,
Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

–Boundary_(ID_7vl8Ft18irz+bxyhNcrAuw)- –

VREZH KASUNI’S "LOVE OR …" SHORT FILM T BE PRESENTED AT CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

armradio.am
15.05.2008 15:35

The Armenian National Cinema Center will present director Vrezh
Kasuni’s "Love or …" short film at the Cannes International Film
Festival.

Director of the National Film Center Gevorg Gevorgyan informed
Armenpress that the project of the "Zhanna and the Voices" directed
by Armine Abrahamyan will also be screened in the framework of
the Festival. "It will be screened, and in case it is approved,
the Festival will render financial assistance to the film," Gevorg
Gevorgyan said.

According to him, the National Film Center will present Vigen
Chaldranyan’s "Priestess" film and Naira Martirosyan’s "From the life
of Little Troll" cartoon at the "Listopad" Film Festival in Belarus.

This year it is expected to present director Armen Ronov’s "Anna
Karenina" film at the Venice Film Festival. The films to be presented
at other international film festivals will be chosen later.

FIRST MEETING OF ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS DUE ON JUNE 7

armradio.am
15.05.2008 16:12

The first meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev will take place on June 7 on the
sidelines of the non-official summit of the Heads of State of
the member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States,
the Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian declared at the
National Assembly today.