Month: August 2008

ROUNDUP: CHINESE LIFTERS TAKE TWO MORE GOLDS IN NEVER-WIN CATEGORIES
By Sportswriter Wu Chen

Xinhua

2008-08-16 00:32:34
China

BEIJING, Aug. 15 (Xinhua) — Weightlifting powerhouse China finished
its fantastic show on Friday, harvesting two more golds in the
categories which the country had never won at Olympics.

Cao Lei claimed the women’s 75kg title on Friday afternoon.

Cao, 24, totaled 282kg, 16kg more than the lift of silver medalist
Alla Vazhenina of Kazakhstan who was ranked first by entry total.

Cao tried to break the total world record of 286kg in her third jerk
attempt, by ordering 159kg, but failed. She later explained that she
could not focus on the last attempt because she thought of her mother,
who passed away not long ago.

Cao, two-time world champion, dominated the field as she snatched
128kg, and jerked 154kg, breaking three Olympic records.

"I dedicate the gold to my mom," said the "weightlifting beauty"
after the game.

The bronze went to Russian strongwoman Nadezda Evstyukhina, who
cleared 264kg.

Later in the evening, Lu Yong was crowned in the men’s 85kg category,
winning China’s eighth weightlifting gold in the Games and broke
the jinx that China had never won gold in the heavyweight categories
at Olympics.

After a breath-taking moment, the 22-year-old lifted a total of 394kg,
beating two-time world champion and Athens silver medalist Andrei
Rybakou of Belarus with bodyweight advantage.

Rybakou broke his own world record of total, bettering it by one kilo.

Lu’s second jerk attempt of 214kg, which would make him claim the
title, was ruled out by the jury members as "bad". But Lu stood the
tests and made a successful attempt in his last chance.

Armenian Tigran Varban Martirosyan got the bronze also because of
bodyweight advantage over Kazakhstan’s Vladimir Sedov.

Martirosyan snatched 177kg, and jerked 203, totaling 380kg.

China sent 10 lifters to compete in nine categories in the Beijing
Olympics and pocketed eight golds, three more than that at the
Athens Games.

All the Chinese women lifters competing at the Games got golds.

Chen Xiexia’s win in the women’s 48kg category was the first gold
for the weightlifting team, and also for the whole Chinese delegation
at Beijing Olympics. Chen Yanqing won the women’s 56kg, becoming the
first strongwoman to successfully defend her Olympic champion title.

Liu Chunhong broke three world records to claim the title in women’s
69kg class, becoming the first Chinese to break world record in
Beijing.

Chinese women’s weightlifting team coach Ma Wenhui said it’s not easy
for the strongwomen to achieve a sweep.

"They all have tried their best," Ma said, adding that hard work and
better strategy contributed to the success.

"We made tactics together with athletes by discussing with them every
weight we ordered," he said.

The men lifters also did a good job by winning four golds and one
silver.

The gold medalists were Long Qingquan in the 58kg category, Zhang
Xiangxiang in 62kg, Liao Hui in 69kg and Lu Yong in 85kg classes. Li
Hongli got a silver in 77kg category.

Chinese weightlifting team leader Ma Wenguang said he was satisfied
with the athletes’ performance.

"I’m happy to see that among the gold medalists, many are young
lifters," he said, adding it’s important for China’s weightlifting
to make a sustainable development.

However, he denied the title of "dream team".

"Many opponents didn’t make their best performance and there are
still problems in our lifters," he said.

There are still four golds on table in the upcoming events.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BOXING DAY 7 REVIEW: ANOTHER RUSSIAN CHAMPION CRASHES OUT

Beijing 2008
2008-08-16 00:07:31
China

(BEIJING, August 15) — For the most part, all the medal favorites
advanced to the next level as expected, with the notable exception
of bantamweight champion Sergey Vodopyanov, who lost to India’s
Akhil Kumar.

Bantamweight (54kg)

The bout between Russia’s Vodopyanov and Kumar turned out to be the
biggest surprise of the day. The score was tied 9-9 at the end of the
bout, but the judges ruled that the Indian had landed the most punches.

The 27-year-old Indian was trailing behind for most of the bout, but
from the third round, the Indian began to demonstrate his determination
and aggression, winning the last two rounds 3-2 and 2-1.

Vodopyanov burst into tears when the match referee raised Kumar’s
hand. After shocking the world champion, Kumar, the Indian medal hope
is only one fight away from an Olympic medal.

"No silver or bronze, but I will be fighting for the gold. It will
be my luck if I get a bronze or silver. But I will be fighting only
for the gold. I have been quite boastful, which I should not because
anything could happen. If you can win against a world champion, you
can also lose to a rookie. But my target is nothing but the gold,"
said a confident Kumar.

In his next match, Kumar will fight Veaceslav Gojan of Moldova,
who defeated China’s Gu Yu 13-6 in his last bout.

Mongolia’s Badar-Uugan Enkhbat posted an easy 9-2 win over Ireland’s
John Joseph Nevin, who eliminated Algeria’s Abdelhalim. Nevin is
usually recognized for his defensive skills, but he couldn’t evade
Enkhbat’s punches.

Thailand’s Worapo Petchkoom, the silver medalist at Athens 2004, easily
moved ahead with a 12-1 victory over Italy’s Jahyn Vittorio Parrinello.

Featherweight (57kg)

Ukraine’s Vasyl Lomachenko defeated the reigning world and European
champion, Russia’s Albert Selimov in the first round. He demonstrated
again that he is a strong medal contender by smashing Uzbekistan’s
Bahodirjon Sultonov 13-1 in his second bout.

Cuba’s Idel Torriente, the Pan American Champion, edged out Mongolia’s
Enkhzorig Zorigtbaatar, the reigning Asian champion 10-9.

Lightweight (60kg)

Medal favorite in this weight class, Alexey Tishchenko of
Russia, secured a comfortable 11-3 win over Australia’s Anthony
Little. Tishchenko crushed Tunisia’s Saifeddine Nejmaoui 10-2 in his
first bout.

Cuba’s Yordenis Ugas destroyed a supposedly tough opponent, Italy’s
Domenico Valentino, with a 10-2 victory.

France’s Daouda Sow shocked Kim Song-guk of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea in his first bout, winning 13-3. Sow won his second
bout against Puerto Rico’s Jose Pedraza Gonzalez 13-9.

The other medal favorites in this weight class also advanced to
the quarterfinals as expected. Armenia’s Hrachik Javakhyan crushed
Nigeria’s Rasheed Olawale Lawal 13-0 and Colombia’s Darleys Perez
beat Kyrgyzstan’s Asylbek Talasbaev 15-4.

CREATING CAUCASIAN PACT OF STABILITY UNREAL

Trend News Agency
15.08.08 21:06
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, Baku, 15 August /corr. Trend News S.Ilhamgizi,
V.Zhavoronkova / Because of different positions of the Caucasus
countries regarding conflicts, creating platform "Caucasian pact of
stability", proposed by Turkey, is impossible within the next years.

"I do not think that this proposal will yield results in short period
because the countries of Caucasus demonstrate different positions
on conflicts," Head of the Center for International Relations and
Strategic Researches ‘Turksam’, Sinan Ogan, told TrendNews.

In order to resolve the conflict in Georgia peacefully and ensure peace
in the region, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Rajab Tayyip Erdogan,
proposes creating platform "Pact of stability" (Caucasian Union) with
the participation of the Caucasus countries. "I shared this idea with
my Russian and Georgian counterparts and obtained positive response
from them in this regard," Erdogan said to a joint press conference
with the President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili on 14 August.

Head of Turksam noted that the proposal of Turkey to create "Caucasian
pact of stability" is not new. Earlier this initiative was made by
the 9th President of Turkey Suleyman Demirel and former President
of Azerbaijan, late Heydar Aliyev. However, other countries did not
express positive opinion in this regard. According to Ogana, if this
proposal would be realized at that time, now there would not be the
current centers of conflicts in Caucasus.

"The idea of realizing Caucasian Union appears already very difficult
precisely now because the equilibrium, which ruled in Caucasus over
decades, was broken in favor of Russia after the conflict in Georgia,"
said politician.

In his opinion, the role of Russia in Caucasus further strengthened. If
the Caucasian Union, proposed by Turkey, will be created, then the
role and position of Turkey in the region will strengthen: "But Russia
will never wish strengthening the position of Turkey in this region,"
said Ogan.

According to the Turkish politician, Russia can appear as supporter of
discussions regarding the Union, but later will not make it possible
to realize this because the positions of Turkey and Russia concerning
Georgia are different. Erdogan said that the territorial integrity of
Georgia is very important for Turkey. The Foreign Minister of Russia
Lavrov noted that there is not any more the question of territorial
integrity of Georgia.

"Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey support the territorial integrity
of the countries. But Armenia and Russia act against these
principles. This is very serious differences in the positions,"
said the politician scientist.

Currently the basic goal Russia is to replace power in Georgia and
bring the leader to power, who will carry out his policy in favor
of Russia.

"Because of the contradiction of position and interests, unification
of the Caucasus countries in the pact is not possible," the politician
said.

The chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia, Heydar Jamal,
considers that the realization of Turkey’s proposal is impossible.

"Creating this Union is till impossible from the practical point of
view. Because Georgian, Armenian factors will not make it possible
to reach consensus here," Heydar Jamal told TrendNews.

According to the Russian politician, creating this structure, on the
level of ensuring stability in Caucasus, is aimed at extruding the
USA from the region.

Jamal considers that North Caucasus also should join the initiative
of Caucasian union. However, the realization of this idea must pass
specific way.

"At present, Armenia and Georgia is not completely ready to accept
the proposal by Erdogan. Therefore, this proposal still takes a
sign character, and its realization does not appear real," Russian
politician said.

THREE WRONGS MAKE A BIG MESS
By Ali Moossavi

Arab American News
Friday, 08.15.2008, 12:10pm
MI

Trivia time: This Middle Eastern country has long denied a genocide
happened in the past. It has worked, in public and behind the scenes,
to convince others this genocide didn’t happen and undo any efforts
to recognize the event as such.

Now, what country am I talking about? If your answer is Iran, that’s
understandable, given the media fallout last year over President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that the Nazi Holocaust didn’t
happen and sponsored a revisionist conference, attracting the likes
of David Duke.

However, that answer is wrong and you lose 1.5 million points. The
correct answer is Israel.

Yes, the light unto nations whose existence is premised on
preventing another Holocaust and rallying around the battle cry
"Never Again!" officially denies that 1.5 million Armenians were
systematically murdered by the Ottoman empire in 1915.

And guess which Middle Eastern country does officially recognize the
genocide? Why, Iran of course, but don’t feel bad for not knowing –
it’s not something the media tried to report, especially during the
Holocaust denial conference that earned Ahmadinejad the title of New
Hitler. ()

Israel isn’t the only one guilty of such holocaust denial; the Bush
administration went out of its way to persuade Congress last year to
drop its planned resolution declaring the mass murder genocide so as
not to offend Turkey. As the largest army in NATO and a longtime ally
during the Cold War, Turkey has used its strategic clout to silence any
criticism, whether it’s the genocide, or their more recent treatment
of the Kurds, etc.

Much of that clout is due to the power of the Israel lobby, which
has gone out of its way to prevent any official recognition of
genocide on the grounds of preserving Israel’s strategic relations
with Ankara. Leading the charge was the Anti-Defamation League, whose
head, Abraham Foxman, fired the Boston branch leader for daring to
agree with the growing consensus within the Jewish community that,
indeed, a genocide did occur in 1915.

The ensuing outcry forced Foxman to backtrack a little and issue
an ambiguous statement that acknowledged that genocide took place,
but not really:

"We have never negated but have always described the painful events
of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians
as massacres and atrocities," he wrote.

Then Foxman proceeded to negate the genocide by writing:

"We continue to firmly believe that a congressional resolution on such
matters is a counterproductive diversion" that "may put at risk the
Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship
between Turkey, Israel and the United States."

Adding further insult to injury, Foxman told the Jerusalem Post
that last year’s fallout was "behind us." In his recent meetings with
Turkish leaders, he said, "that they need to deal with live Armenians,"
and strengthen relations, so that "it will place the historical issue
in the background and be much easier to deal with."

In other words, "never again" takes a backseat to "business as
usual." Again. And by "business as usual," I mean defending Israel
by any means necessary.

Ironically, the ADL engages in defamation through their tired
and unfounded accusation of anti-Semitism, particularly the "new"
anti-Semitism as described in numerous op-eds and a book by Foxman
called "Never Again?" It’s long been used as part of their ideological
counteroffensive against awareness and outrage over Israeli abuses
and expansionism over the years, especially during the Intifada.

Another tactic that has emerged in recent years is to raise the
banner of justice for Jewish refugees who fled from Arab countries
between 1948 and 1953. One of the biggest proponents of this campaign
is former Canadian minister of justice and current MP Irwin Cotler,
who spoke at a meeting in New York last November before the peace
conference in Annapolis, MD.

"This was not just a forced exodus, it was a forgotten exodus,"
he told the New York Times, using the Biblical reference for the
desired effect. Cotler and his ilk, on their own exodus to find the
promised land of historical – and moral – parity between the suffering
of Palestinians and Arab Jews, both blamed on the Arab rejection of
the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947.

During an appearance in an "overflow gathering" of the British House
of Lords on June 25th, Cotler, who unveiled a nine-point plan for
"refugee rights," said:

"Had the U.N. Partition Resolution been accepted sixty years ago,
there would have been no Arab-Israeli war — no refugees, Jewish
or Arab – and none of the pain and suffering of these last sixty
years." One point called for Arab states and the Arab League to
"acknowledge their role and responsibility in their double aggression
of launching an aggressive war against Israel and the perpetration
of human rights violations against their respective Jewish nationals."

In an op-ed called "The Double Nakba" that appeared in the Jerusalem
Post five days later, Cotler reiterated that point and labeled
"revisionist Mideast narrative" anything that held "that Israel was
responsible for the Palestinian Nakba of 1948." With groups bearing
benign monikers like Justice for Jews From Arab Countries, it’s a
movement that tries to look benign on the surface.

In reality, it’s Nakba denial without the overt rejection of the
actual events of 1948. It’s a slick repackaging of the Zionist
narrative, which at one time denied that Palestinians even existed
as a people. Now, the party line is, we admit they exist and were
ethnically cleansed, but it’s your fault that we killed your relatives
and expelled you from your homes, now our homes.

Never mind the fact that the expulsion of Arab Jews was a policy of
reaction against the expulsion of Palestinians, which occurred first;
or the fact that the Nakba was the culmination of Zionist planning
since Theodore Herzl.

"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by
procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying it
any employment in our own country," Herzl wrote in his diary. It’s a
policy documented by Israeli and non-Israeli scholars and eyewitnesses;
the historical record stands undisputed.

So what do these two people and their issues have in common? Jewish
interests narrowly defined by the national interests of the
Jewish state. From this weltanschauung of apartheid, settlerism and
territorial expansion sprang a culture of denial where philosophical
gymnastics and moral degradation are a way of life. It’s a culture
where the Holocaust is held up not as a lesson with universal import,
but a unique event that justifies Zionist chauvinism and Israeli
aggression.

Which isn’t to say that Ahmadinejad should escape criticism,
either. Holding a conference questioning the Holocaust not only did
nothing for the Palestinian cause – not to mention embarrass Iranians
like myself – he gave neofascism a helping hand.

Questioning the foundations of the Jewish state is fine, but the
moral high ground would be better served by unraveling Nakba denial
as the basis on which Israel exists. The Holocaust may have served as
a pretext, but the real cause of the Palestinian exodus – Zionism –
was around decades before.

NEW YORK LAW TO RUSSIAN CLAW
by Kit R. Roane

Conde Nast Portfolio
Aug 15 2008
NY

The idealism and ambitions of Georgia’s embattled leader were shaped
in Manhattan.

More than a decade before he became Georgia’s president, Mikheil
Saakashvili was just another struggling law student with big plans
tooling around Manhattan on his bicycle.

"He was ambitious, idealistic, and I think he had something of the
American messianic sense that you could use law to change the world,"
recalls professor Lori Damrosch, who taught Saakashvili in a Columbia
law seminar entitled International Institutions in Transition.

"This was at a time of turmoil in the ex-Soviet republics, and he
had a lot to say on those topics," she adds, noting that students
at the law school were "imbued with this idealistic spirit" and that
Saakashvili "absorbed these values."

With his country now bloodied after a clash with Russia and his
leadership questioned, the overarching idealism of his New York
student days would seem to have been finally shaken.

Critics have certainly come out of the woodwork, saying that the loss
of Georgia’s breakaway regions, particularly that of South Ossetia,
would foment protest to Saakashvili’s rule. Italy’s foreign minister,
Franco Frattini, has said that the war brought on by Saakashvili’s
futile and perhaps rash attempt to secure the areas "pushed Georgia
further away not just from Europe, but also complicates the NATO
council in December." And Michael Evans, defense editor for the Times
of London, noted that Saakashvili’s "military adventure had all the
hallmarks of rushed planning and a finger-crossed strategy," adding
that the Georgian president gave Vladimir Putin "the opportunity he
was waiting for to stamp his authority over Georgia and at the same
time to cock a snoot at the West."

So far, Saakashvili has not wavered. He continues to hammer out a
drumbeat of statements aimed at presenting himself as the biblical
David, Russia as the corrupt Goliath intent upon creating a new iron
curtain, and Georgia as the thin edge of the wedge.

"Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in
Europe," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

He has failed to persuade the West to send in reinforcements. With
Russia still marching into new cities, the best news that Georgia could
muster so far this week was word that its Olympic beach volleyball
team had trounced the Russians in two out of three rounds.

Saakashvili would have likely modeled for a more robust response
from the West. Well studied in the intricate dance among nations,
he wrote a seminar paper on humanitarian intervention, which focused
on ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet satellite states.

Unlike many other 1994 graduates of Columbia Law School, Saakashvili
put his training to the test on the world stage.

By 1996, Saakashvili, who idolizes John F. Kennedy and leans
politically toward John McCain, had already jettisoned a doctoral
thesis at George Washington University Law School, quit the high-power
law firm of Patterson Belknap and won a parliamentary seat in the
Republic of Georgia (population 4.4 million).

This was the first of many leaps that would, in a short and
bloodless coup, move Saakashvili into the presidency, an ascendancy
that Saakashvili has said was helped along by the knowledge that he
acquired while a law student in the United States

"He clearly knew what he wanted when he was at Columbia, and he chose
his courses very carefully and in a conscious way that didn’t follow
the usual diet, which is corporate and securities law," says professor
George Bermann, who taught Saakashvili courses in European Union law,
and transnational litigation and arbitration.

Despite Georgia’s setbacks, no one should count Saakashvili out just
yet. He has spent the last decade and a half proving that idealism
in the most adept hands can be a strong bulwark against even the
strongest and most depressing reality.

The man known as Misha abandoned a life of Knicks games and opera
nights to turn around the poor, corrupt, and complicated country
from which he sprang. He also became a leading light among the wave
of twentysomething rat-packers who had washed onto our shores hungry
for American-style democracy, then eagerly trekked back home to plant
this new-found seed in the dark soil left vacant following the Soviet
Union’s collapse.

"He is a western person, and a very dedicated person, very dedicated
to human rights," notes professor Dinah Shelton, of George Washington
University’s Law School, adding that when Saakashvili failed to finish
his dissertation, his professors joked that his tackling Georgia’s
weighty issues as its president was no excuse.

Little seemed to stop Saakashvili once back in Georgia. When his
mentor, then-president Eduard Shevardnadze, balked at Saakashvili’s
attempts to tackle official corruption, Saakashvili quit the government
and went to work forming an opposition party.

After winning election to the head of the Tbilisi city council, he
then used his populist appeal to claw his way back into power during
the Rose Revolution of 2003. Again, he was unyielding, breaking with
other opposition leaders who proposed talks with Sheverdnadze and
sought a more measured approach. Instead Saakashvili and his supporters
stormed the parliament chamber where Shevardnadze was holed up, then
reportedly chased him from the building under the threat of flowers
instead of guns.

Answering critics, Saakashvili told reporters at the time that his
style was the type that "mobilizes people here," noting later that
"Georgia needs a new way" and that every moment Shevardnadze remained
in power meant "losing time."

Despite criticism of some of Saakashvili’s methods–and despite
evidence that a frustrated Saakashvili turned to a more thuggish
approach himself during crackdowns on demonstrators last fall–his
many successes spring from the same tight-rope approach.

He has overhauled the police, brought about important economic reforms,
increased average salaries, and improved the country’s power supply,
notes Alexandra Stiglmayer, a senior Brussels-based policy analyst
with the independent think tank European Stability Initiative.

"Saakashvili may be a complex personality and he has certainly
made mistakes. But he has given the civil society breathing space,"
she says. "Compared with its neighbors in the region, such as the
Northern Caucasus region in Russia, but also Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and eastern Turkey, Georgia is more liberal, more open, and more
committed to the rule of law."

The question now is whether he can stay in power. His old professors
certainly hope their favored son will weather this latest storm.

Professor Damrosch recalls happening upon Saakashvili riding his
bicycle when she was visiting Washington at the same time he was
pursuing his doctoral studies there. She waved and Saakashvili sailed
through several lanes of traffic just to chat.

"The image of Misha on a bicycle–whether in Washington, New York,
or the more mountainous terrain of Georgia –conveys something of
his energetic spirit," says Damrosch. "I can’t think of anything that
would slow him down."

U.S. FAILS TO LEAD ON CONFLICT IN GEORGIA
Ruslan Aliyev

Chicago Daily Herald
8/15/2008 8:56 AM
IL

The reaction of the U.S. Congress and administration, as well as the
leading international government organizations to the South Ossetia
conflict between Georgia and Russia-backed separatists is disturbingly
slow and disastrously lacking.

Despite U.N. and the international community being tasked with conflict
resolution and prevention since the cease-fire in South Ossetia (1992)
and Abkhazia (1993), the two breakaway regions of Georgia, no lasting
peace based on Georgia’s territorial integrity has been implemented.

Today, when the war reignited there, hundreds, possibly thousands
of people have died, scores wounded, hundreds of millions of dollars
in infrastructure damage and tens of thousands of displaced, we are
seeing the results of this indifference and "not a priority" approach.

The international community and the U.S. have been weak on the
"frozen conflicts" of the former USSR, adopting watered down toothless
resolutions that are barely worth the paper they are printed on and
being ignorant of the Kosovo precedent, which has emboldened the
separatists who interpreted the message in the only logical way –
that territorial integrity of a state is in the eyes of US and EU less
important than "self-determination" – even if the latter is achieved
only by violent, sometimes terrorist, means.

Frankly, the double standards and weak leadership even within the US
is striking. On Aug. 8, Sen. Obama made a weak statement that ignored
basic facts: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint
and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial
integrity must be respected."

Despite a very feeble statement, at least it pays lip service to
territorial integrity of Georgia, a strategic U.S. ally.

In his Jan. 19 reference to another strategic U.S. ally, Azerbaijan
and its Armenia-occupied region of NK, Sen. Obama stated that as
president, he will be "working for a lasting and durable settlement of
the Nagorno Karabagh conflict based upon America’s founding commitment
to the principles of democracy and self determination."

And after this, we want U.S. to have more friends and allies, more
respect and to have more peace and fewer wars in the world?

JERUSALEM WATCH: CRACKDOWN IN PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

theTrumpet.com
August 15, 2008
OK

Olmert’s latest attempt to create a Palestinian state; the greatest
threat facing Jerusalem; plus, look who’s violating human rights in
the West Bank and Gaza. By Stephen Flurry

JERUSALEM–The other day, I bumped into an American contractor while
crossing into Jordan’s southernmost city of Aqaba. As we were leaving
Israel, the man seemed relieved.

"I can’t believe the unbearable conditions Palestinians are forced
to live under in the West Bank," he intoned. He told us there were
640 Israeli checkpoints throughout the West Bank. We had just passed
through three checkpoints on our three-hour drive through the West
Bank, from Jerusalem to Eilat.

When we asked him about his source for the 640 figure, he said he got
it from the United Nations. That prompted this response from one of my
co-workers: "Do you believe everything the United Nations tells you?"

That ended the conversation.

Even if the figure is grossly inflated, no one, of course, can argue
that checkpoints and security barriers make it inconvenient for
honest, hard-working Palestinians (or tourists, for that matter). But
from Israel’s perspective, it’s hard to argue with the impact these
restrictions have had on preventing terror attacks. Since constructing
its "wall of defense" in response to the second intifada, suicide
bombings have virtually ground to a halt. Last year, for example,
Palestinian terrorists killed 13 Israelis, compared to 426 in 2002.

At the same time, Israel’s Gaza pullout in 2005 and its latest offer
of 93 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority indicates
Israel is determined to give away territory if it thinks it will
result in peace.

In the Palestinian territories, meanwhile, the situation on the
ground is fast becoming unbearable, but not because of long lines
and interrogations at Israeli checkpoints. In a Wall Street Journal
opinion piece last week, former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky
and Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid summarized the
internecine violence in the Palestinian territories since the start
of the second intifada eight years ago: "122 killed in the streets
(suspected collaborators), 41 by capital punishment, 34 honor killings,
48 stabbed to death, seven beaten to death, 258 killed under mysterious
circumstances and 818 cases of gunfire. So far no one has been charged
let alone tried for any of these unlawful killings" (emphasis mine).

As Robert Fulford recently wrote in Canada’s National Post, "The
appalling fact, only fitfully reported in North America, is that the
two major Palestinian factions are committed to an often murderous
conflict."

In recent weeks, the violence has only worsened. According to an
Associated Press report on Tuesday, there has been a "widening
crackdown" against dissent in the Palestinian territories led by
Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. The ap wrote,

The crackdown began after a July 25 beachside bomb killed five Hamas
militants in Gaza. Hamas blamed Western-backed Fatah and rounded up
scores of Fatah activists in Gaza. Fatah-allied security forces in
the West Bank responded by seizing dozens of Hamas supporters.

The U.S. and Europe have said little about violations in the West Bank,
even as they’re spending millions of dollars on police training to
help lay the foundations of a democratic Palestine.

Hamas and Fatah claim that these are just routine "security" measures,
the article says. But according to at least two human rights reports,
security forces in both territories have been systematically torturing
their detainees. "Analysts say a desire to prevent the West Bank from
falling to Islamists appears to override other Western concerns,"
ap wrote.

In the case of Western media outlets, anti-Israeli bias appears to
be overriding concerns about Palestinian human rights violations. As
Sharansky and Eid pointed out in their piece,

When one of us [Bassem Eid] worked for Israel’s Betselem cataloging
Israel’s human-rights violations, the international community embraced
every report. But when intellectual honesty demanded that he monitor
Palestinian human-rights violations according to the same standards,
no one was interested. Those reports were dismissed as undermining
the Palestinian leaders–first Arafat and now Mr. Abbas–who would
make peace with Israel.

Beside that, there have been reported cases where Palestinians forcibly
prevent journalists from observing the facts. ap notes,

Last week, Hamas imposed a closed military zone in the Gaza City
neighborhood where Hamas forces had raided a Fatah-allied stronghold
after hours of heavy fighting. The ban prevented photographers
and camera crews from documenting often violent house-to-house
searches. Several residents alleged that money, gold and computers
were stolen by Hamas troops.

These human rights violations make Israeli checkpoints seem like a
day at the amusement park.

Palestinians Reject Olmert’s Offer

On Tuesday, Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas 93 percent of
the West Bank for a future Palestinian state. In return for the 7
percent Israel would keep (where its largest settlements are located),
the Palestinians would receive a strip of land in the Negev adjacent
to the Gaza Strip. The proposed border would pretty much follow the
route of the security barrier Israel has already erected. The plan
would require around 70,000 settlers living east of the fence to
be removed from their homes–about nine times the number that were
removed from the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians would also be given a checkpoint-free passageway
connecting the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

The Israeli proposal, however, would not take effect until Abbas’s
Fatah forces regained control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas. It also
failed to settle the final status of Jerusalem.

As an excellent gauge of how far apart the two sides are from ever
establishing side-by-side states through negotiation, one only need
examine the Palestinians’ quick and emphatic response to Olmert’s
offer. The reported details of the agreement were "baseless,"
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told Agence France Presse. Abbas’s
spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said Olmert’s proposal was "not
acceptable," called it "a waste of time" and said it demonstrated a
"lack of seriousness" on Israel’s part.

Erakat outlined Palestinian demands in his interview: "We want a
complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967,
including Jerusalem, and agreement on all the final status questions."

With Olmert desperate to get a deal in place before he leaves
office–which doesn’t exactly allow him to operate from a position
of strength–expect the Palestinians to hold out for their demands
without budging an inch.

In 2000, remember, Yasser Arafat held his ground with Ehud
Barak until the Palestinians had most of the West Bank and East
Jerusalem–including more than half of the Old City–within their
grasp. Even then, Arafat rejected U.S.-Israeli proposals, saying,
"I will not agree to any Israeli sovereign presence in Jerusalem,
neither in the Armenian quarter, nor in the al-Aqsa Mosque, neither
in Via Dolorosa, nor in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. They can
occupy us by force, because we are weaker now, but in two years, ten
years, or one hundred years, there will be someone who will liberate
Jerusalem" (memri, Aug. 28, 2000).

Instead of giving his people their own state, Arafat ordered a violent
uprising that triggered the second intifada, killing more than 1,000
Jews over the next five years.

Jerusalem’s Greatest Threat

Last Sunday was Tisha B’Av in Israel, when Jews fast to commemorate
the destruction of both the first and second temples. The book of
Jeremiah says that Babylon burned Solomon’s temple and the houses
of Jerusalem on the 10th of Av (Jeremiah 52:12-14), but according to
the Jewish tradition, the destruction began on the 9th and the city
was finally consumed by fire the next day.

The same is true for the second temple, destroyed by the Romans on
the 9th and 10th of Av, in a.d. 70, according to the Talmud.

In synagogues on Tisha B’Av, Jews read from the Old Testament book of
Lamentations. "It was written by the Prophet Jeremiah," Arutz Sheva
writes, "who warned Jews to repent to prevent the fall of Jerusalem,
which he [prophesied]. His advice not only was ignored, but he also
was imprisoned for stating views that threatened the king’s power."

Even though a third temple has not been built in Jerusalem,
Ynetnews.com says "there are people who are already concerned with the
next destruction." According to a survey conducted by the website,
42 percent of Israeli respondents believe the possible division of
Jerusalem is the greatest threat to the city’s existence.

As our regular readers know, Bible prophecy says the city will be cut
in half and that it will ultimately lead to the city’s destruction
(Zechariah 14:1-2). What happened in Jerusalem during the sixth
century b.c., and then again in a.d. 70, was only a type of what God
says will happen again in this end time.

Final Thought

After spending the summer in Jerusalem, I will be returning to America
this weekend. TheTrumpet.com, however, still has two contributors
staffing our Jerusalem office. With their help, we hope to continue
with these weekly dispatches so that you might continue watching
Jerusalem.

SYSTEM OF A DOWN FOR ARMENIA IN 2009?

esctoday.com
Aug 15, 2008
Netherlands

One of the the biggest metal bands in the world!

System of a Down, one of the biggest global bands in the field of
heavy metal have gone on record to announce that they are interested
in representing Armenia at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest in
Moscow. The band, which recently split up, would reunite to represent
their ancestral home country if an offer comes.

The American band with Armenian roots has a reputation for political
themes in their music, and have written music to deal with issues such
as war, corruption, human rights violations, drug use and religion.

The band, comprising Serj Tankian, Daron Malakian, Shavo Odadjian,
and John Dolmayan, are known simly as system or SOAD by their army of
fans. They have a huge following on the other side of the Atlantic and
could be powerful enough to draw an American network into following
the competition if they were to compete. They have three Grammy Award
nominations and won their first Grammy Award before taking a sabatical
in 2006.

The four band members are working on several projects, but have been
alerted to the possibility or representing Armenia in Moscow.

This would be a huge boost to the Eurovision Song Contest reputation
in the States following Timbaland’s involvement and victory as a
composer in 2008. SOAD would also be able to bring an army of metal
fans to the competition in much the same way that Lordi did on the
road to winning the competition in 2006.

IS UKRAINE NEXT? GEORGIAN WAR EXACERBATES RUSSIA-UKRAINE RELATIONS
Richard Weitz

World Politics Review
15 Aug 2008

World Politics Review Exclusive

The War in Georgia has seriously exacerbated relations between Russia
and Ukraine’s pro-Western government. On Aug. 12, Ukrainian President
Victor Yushchenko joined the leaders of four other former Soviet states
in Tbilisi to show solidarity with Georgia and its embattled president,
Mikheil Saakashvili. Yushchenko told the crowd that had assembled in
Tbilisi’s central square: "You will never be left alone! . . . We
have come to reaffirm your sovereignty, your independence, your
territorial integrity. These are our values. Independent Georgia is
and independent Georgia will always be!"

The following day, President Yushchenko boldly imposed severe
restrictions on the movement of Russian military units in
Ukraine. Specifically, he directed that Russian warships, warplanes,
or other military units give 72 hours’ notice before moving within
Ukrainian territory. The order also applies to ships of the Russian
Black Sea Fleet seeking to reenter their home base at Sevastopol. The
Russian Foreign Ministry attacked the measures as a "serious, new
anti-Russian step."

Ukrainian officials claimed that the restrictions were not a direct
result of the Russian military intervention in Georgia. Instead, they
maintain that they had long sought to regulate more effectively Russian
operations at the Sevastopol base, but that Moscow had repeatedly
delayed commencing talks on the issue by arguing that it had no plan
to employ the Black Sea Fleet in foreign military operations.

Nevertheless, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry had stated at the onset
of the war that they would not necessarily allow Russian warships to
return to Sevastopol if they supported military operations against
Georgia. "We have information confirmed by our specialists that
several vessels of the Black Sea Fleet left Sevastopol and either made
their way or were making their way toward the territory of Georgia,"
Ukraine Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko explained while in Georgia
on Aug. 10. "Obviously, if this is confirmed we will have to reconsider
the conditions under which these vessels would be able to be stationed
on the territory of Ukraine."

On Aug. 13, moreover, the Ukrainian Security Council issued a statement
declaring that the presence of foreign warships in its waters "poses a
potential threat to Ukraine’s national security, particularly if parts
of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet are used against third countries." The
Ukrainian government has long insisted it will not renew Russia’s
lease regarding Sevastopol when it expires on May 28, 2017.

For their part, Russian officials denounced the Ukrainian government
for siding with Saakashvili, who Moscow holds responsible for starting
the war and committing war crimes against Russian citizens in South
Ossetia. After the Georgian War began, Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s
minister for emergency situations, expressed indignation that,
"One week before these events, we send a column of humanitarian
aid to Ukraine to help flood victims and the next we find they’re
offering military aid, arms for the destruction of civilians." One
month prior to the invasion, Ukrainian troops participated in a large,
multinational military exercise in Georgia, "Immediate Response 2008"
which also involved Azeri, Armenian and American soldiers.

After the war ended in an overwhelming Russian military victory,
former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, who as the last Soviet
foreign minister helped dismantle the Soviet Union — a development
that Putin called the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the
20th century — warned that "Ukraine most likely’" would be the next
country to experience increased Russian military pressure to abandon
foreign and defense policies opposed by Moscow.

There are certainly many disturbing parallels in the situations Ukraine
and Georgia find themselves with respect to Moscow. Pro-Western
governments came to power following popular revolutions in both
countries — in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004. Along with
Georgia, the Ukrainian government is seeking to join NATO. At this
April’s NATO summit in Bucharest, the alliance’s communique said that
both countries "will become NATO members" eventually. The Georgian
and Ukrainian governments also have collaborated to pursue energy
transit routes linking the Caspian Sea to Europe that bypass Russia.

Unfortunately, Ukraine shares some of Georgia’s vulnerabilities as
well. The Ukrainian region of Crimea has a majority Russian-speaking
population. Some of its members would like to join Russia. The
peninsula also hosts an important naval base that Russia does not want
to relinquish. The Kremlin might be able to instigate a pro-Russian
uprising in the Crimea in which the insurgents, following the South
Ossetian precedent, would appeal for Russian military intervention
to protect them from Kiev.

Various Russian leaders have suggested that, if Ukraine actually joins
NATO or attempts to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol,
then Russia might annex the Crimea. After the Bucharest summit,
Putin told a news conference that, "The appearance on our borders of a
powerful military bloc . . . will be considered by Russia as a direct
threat to our country’s security." Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of
the Russian General Staff, said that the entry of Ukraine or Georgia
into NATO would lead Moscow to "undoubtedly take measures to ensure
its security near the state border. These will be both military and
other measures." Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov likewise said Moscow
"will do everything possible to prevent the accession of Ukraine and
Georgia to NATO." These statements appear aimed at stoking tensions
with Ukraine to exacerbate the country’s internal differences and
reinforce West European reluctance to allow Ukrainian entry into NATO.

Nevertheless, there are certain major differences between Georgia and
Ukraine. First, the Ukrainian armed forces are much stronger than those
of Georgia. Whereas Georgia’s prewar military had approximately 37,000
soldiers under arms, the Ukrainian military numbers over 200,000. The
Russian armed forces is still five times larger, but would find
a war with Ukraine, with a population — which, though divided
about NATO membership, would presumably rally to defend Ukraine’s
territorial integrity — some 10 times larger than that of Georgia,
a much greater challenge.

In addition, the United States and some other NATO countries have
belatedly sought to reinforce their political-military position
in the former Soviet bloc. The Bush administration appears to have
accepted Saakashvili’s warning that the weak U.S. response to the
Russian intervention was creating a situation in which "America is
losing the whole region" to Russia.

After days of supporting the Georgian position with nothing but
rhetoric, President Bush announced on Aug. 13 that the U.S. military
would conduct a relief operation in Georgia. Whatever humanitarian
assistance it might provide the Georgian people would pale in
significance to the deployment’s symbolic importance as reaffirming
Washington’s continuing role and interests in Russia’s neighborhood.

The announcement that NATO would hold a special meeting on the
conflict, as well as the long-awaited consummation of a Polish-American
deal on basing U.S. missile interceptors in Poland, also signaled
that Washington and some of its allies were now determined to shore
up their presence in the region to dissuade further Russian predations.

Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World
Politics Review contributing editor.

LEVON ARONIAN WINNER OF GRAND PRIX TOURNAMENT

ARMENPRESS
Aug 15, 2008

YEREVAN, AUGUST 15, ARMENPRESS; Armenian grand master Levon Aronian
became the winner of the Grand Prix tournament which ended in Sochi. In
the 13th round Aronian defeated Russian chess player Alexander
Grishchuk and gaining 8.5 points became the winner of the tournament.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress