Oldest Leather Shoe A `Dream’ Find For Armenian Scientist

Oldest Leather Shoe A `Dream’ Find For Armenian Scientist

Friday, June 11th, 2010
by Asbarez

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)-For a young Armenian archaeologist who stumbled on
what scientists think is the world’s oldest leather shoe, it was a
dream come true which she still finds hard to believe.

`It was my dream,’ Diana Zardarian said Friday of her historic find on
September 16, 2008 in a cave in Armenia’s southeastern Vayots Dzor
region, which has made headlines around the world. The 27-year-old
post-graduate student conducted excavations there in a team of fellow
employees of Armenia’s Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography and
visiting archaeologists from Ireland and the United States.

`I knew that organic artifacts are very rarely found during
excavations, especially from the Copper Age layers that are 6,000
years old,’ she told RFE/RL in an interview on Friday. `At first I
couldn’t believe it’s that old.

`I stood still for a couple of minutes in the excavation site.
Everyone asked, `Diana, what happened?’ I said, `People, my dream has
come true, I’ve found a shoe.’ Nobody believed me.’

With Armenia lacking modern radiocarbon test facilities, four samples
of the shoe’s cow-hide leather were sent to specialized laboratories
in California and Oxford, England for examination. Scientists there
took more than 18 months to confirm that the item dates back to around
3,500 BC, an era known as the Chalcolithic period, or Copper Age.

`We were cleaning up the clay floor dating back to 3600-3300 B.C., and
all of sudden a large cluster of dry reeds came up,’ recalled
Zardarian. `I asked laborers to go out so I could take a closer look
at them. As I removed more soil from the reeds, I got deeper and
deeper into them and then exposed a very beautiful and special pit. It
was plastered with very high-quality yellow clay.’

At the bottom of the pit Zardarian found a pair of sheep’s horns lying
on a clay bowl turned upside down. `When I raised it a little I felt
that there is something underneath,’ she said. `Because the pit was
deep, about 50 centimeters, and dark, I couldn’t see what lay on its
floor. In fact, I was digging it with my right hand without seeing
anything.

`When my hand reached the floor I felt some organic stuff, which I at
first thought is a cow ear. I took it out and got absolutely
transfixed. It was a shoe turned upside down.’

`Everyone was stunned by how well preserved that 6,000-year-old shoe
was,’ she added with a smile. `Even the shoe-laces were preserved.’

Armenian and foreign scientists attribute that to the stable, cool and
dry conditions that have existed in the cave for several millennia.
They say preservation was also helped by the fact that its floor was
covered by a thick layer of sheep dung which acted as a solid seal
over the objects.

It is not yet known whether the shoe, matching a modern-day European
size 37 or U.S. size 7, belonged to a man or woman. Zardarian said her
state-run research institute plans to commission DNA tests for that
purpose. She confirmed that the artifact will eventually be put on
permanent display at the National History Museum in Yerevan.

Previously the oldest leather shoe discovered in Europe or Asia was on
the famous Otzi, the `Iceman’ found frozen in the Alps a few years ago
and now preserved in Italy. Otzi has been dated to 5,375 and 5,128
years ago, a few hundred years more recent than the Armenian shoe.

The oldest known footwear in the world are sandals thought to be
around 2,500 years older than the Armenian leather shoe. They were
found in a cave in Missouri in the United States.

The Vayots Dzor cave located near wine-growing Areni village was
apparently the site of an ancient human settlement. Other finds there
included large ceramic containers, many of which held wheat, barley,
apricots and other edible plants. The scientists exploring it since
2007 have also reported evidence of an ancient winemaking operation,
and caches of what may be the oldest known intentionally dried fruits.

From: A. Papazian

Where are the youth of the Republican Party of Armenia?

Aravot, Armenia
June 4 2010

Where are the youth of the Republican Party of Armenia?

The chairman of the New Times Party believes that the loop around
Armenia is getting tighter

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev will arrive in Istanbul on 7 June to attend a summit of the
Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia
[CICA] and will also discuss issues pertaining to energy security of
the two countries. Apart from bilateral ties, the Russian prime
minister will discuss regional issues, in particular issues linked to
Iran’s nuclear programme with the Turkish leadership. Meanwhile, US
Secretary of Defence Robert Gates will visit Azerbaijan as part of his
Asian tour to settle issues linked to routes of cargo supplies to
Afghanistan.

To what extent may Armenia’s problems be discussed during these
top-level visits against the background of tense Turkish-Israeli
relations? Answering this question by Aravot paper, the chairman of
the [minor opposition] New Times [NT] party, Aram Karapetyan, says
that a few months ago he discussed these prominent geopolitical issues
in Aravot paper and urged the Armenian authorities to be reasonable
and serious. In all these he ascribes not the least importance to
Turkey’s own game – neo-Ottomanism, i.e. the establishment of a new
Ottoman empire. In this context he says the failure of the
Armenian-Turkish protocols [on the normalization of relations] was
Armenia’s chance to escape a disaster “by withdrawing little by little
in order not to become a party involved in neo-Ottomanism”.

Karapetyan predicts that after the redeployment of 150,000 [US] troops
from Iraq to Afghanistan, which will be the result of Gates’s Asian
tour, Iraq will be divided into three parts, and the Kurdish part will
be quite independent, even if a Kurdish state has not been established
in the northern part of Iraq. He also advises that the role of the
Jewish lobby in geopolitical processes cannot be overestimated either.
In this situation Karapetyan urges our authorities not to “get on
their high horse”. “We do not have to take sides with anyone; we do
not have to pass any geopolitical path together with the Turks as our
problems have not been resolved yet. Israel is a friendly country, but
no more than that, we cannot put our 700,000-strong diaspora at risk.
We should not yield to provocations,” the NT leader said.

According to Karapetyan, the role of Azerbaijan is increasing and the
role of Armenia is decreasing in the region. He is also concerned
that: “If a decision is made to impose sanctions against Iran, do the
Armenian authorities realize that our country will have to support
this decision as Armenia is a UN member?”

Incidentally, US ambassador to Armenia Marie Yovanovitch talked about
this recently: “Those will be UN sanctions, and Armenia is a UN
member.” Karapetyan described this turn of events as “dangerous” and
said that he did not imagine what would happen to our border since
Georgia was in an unstable situation: “We can find ourselves blocked
from the four sides and we will have to only – the whole world will
tell us – open borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey. The loop around us
is getting tighter with time, and the role of the country is
decreasing. We are carrying out such an unintelligent policy that
Russia does not understand anything either. We are rolling here and
there like a ball.”

From: A. Papazian

Armenian opposition activist arrested on hooliganism charges

Haykakan Zhamanak, Armenia
June 4 2010

Armenian opposition activist arrested on hooliganism charges

An Armenian opposition activist was arrested for two months on charges
of “group hooliganism” in Yerevan on 3 June, the pro-opposition daily
Haykakan Zhamanak reported on 4 June. Davit Kiramijyan was detained
during a protest staged by the opposition Armenian National Congress
in the centre of Yerevan on 31 May, when policemen and men in civilian
clothes attacked the protesters, the paper said. A court of law in
Yerevan’s Kentron and Nork-Marash districts upheld a request of the
Special Investigation Service, which is carrying out an investigation
into the activist’s case, and ruled on 3 June that Kiramijyan be
arrested for two months.

Kiramijyan’s lawyer, Lusine Sahakyan, has told the paper that the
prosecution has been unable to present any evidence to prove
Kiramijyan’s guilt or the necessity of choosing arrest as a preventive
measure. Sahakyan said her defendant was subjected to violence when
brought to a police department on 31 May, the paper reported. The
lawyer told the paper that Kiramijyan was “yet another hostage” of the
authorities, who “take hostages in order to break the will of people
rebelling for the sake of freedom and protection of their own rights”.

Two other young people who were detained on 31 May, Haykakan Zhamanak
reporter Ani Gevorgyan and her brother, were released on 3 June after
submitting written undertakings not to leave the city, Haykakan
Zhamanak said.

From: A. Papazian

Medvedev will bring it to Armenia in August

Haykakan Zhamanak , Armenia
June 5 2010

Medvedev will bring it to Armenia in August

Diplomatic circles are saying that Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev
will bring a final agreement on the Karabakh settlement to Armenia in
August.

Our diplomatic sources say that there has also been an agreement on
the deployment of peacekeeping forces in territories adjacent to
Karabakh. According to it, Kalbacar, Fuzuli and Agdam districts will
be ceded [Armenia will return the territories to Azerbaijan] at the
first stage. Russian troops will be deployed in Kalbacar, and US
troops in Fuzuli, and Azerbaijan will immediately start rehabilitation
work in Agdam. Thus, in fact, NATO troops will be stationed in Fuzuli,
which borders Iran, and probably Iran’s growing interest in a Nagornyy
Karabakh settlement is linked to this circumstance. There are also
reports that [former Armenian President] Robert Kocharyan visited
Moscow in the week commencing on 24 April [- 30 May] and complained
saying: “What are you doing? We will have problems in the country
[Armenia].” However, they [the Russian authorities] explained that
[Armenian President] Serzh Sargsyan has consented to the proposed
option and said that he had said “yes” to everything. We have
requested Kocharyan’s office to officially clarify the report on his
Moscow visit. The head of Kocharyan’s office, Viktor Soghomonyan, did
not answer our phone calls.

They are changing the Supreme Body

Against this background, the meeting of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation – Dashnaktsutyun, which started on 4 June, is quite
noteworthy. Naturally, the meeting is held beyond closed doors and is
held in Aghavnadzor [a resort area in Armenia’s Kotayk Region]
although Dashnaks keep even the venue secret for unknown reasons. This
political force, which is one of Kocharyan’s pillars, will discuss
political, PR, organizational issues, will approve resolutions for the
next two years of activities, and will also change the composition of
Dashnaktsutyun’s supreme body.

Armen Rustamyan, the head of the parliamentary committee on foreign
relations, is the representative of Dashnaktsutyun’s supreme body. It
is known that Dashnaktsutyun is split into two parts: part of it leans
towards Kocharyan, but there is another part that is working quite
well with Sargsyan. We asked a member of Dashnaktsutyun’s Supreme
Body, Artyush Shahbazyan, what were new possible accents in case of
expected changes in the political line. “This will become clear at the
end of the meeting,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

ANKARA: Turkish Historical Society launches project on Armenian issu

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
June 10 2010

Turkish Historical Society launches project on Armenian issue

Sakarya, 10 June 2010: Turkish Historical Society is working on a
project on Armenian problem in which nearly 300 academicians from
different countries will participate.

The project on “Turkey-Armenia relations in history and Armenian
problem” will cluster more than 500 research papers and articles.

The project is expected to be made up of 20 volumes. The project team
aims to create the most comprehensive resource on Armenian problem.

Professor Enis Sahin from Armenian Studies of Turkish Historical
Society, head of the project team, said Thursday that the project had
been announced in 2009. He said scholars from several countries such
as Azerbaijan, Italy, France, United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Georgia and Armenia would be involved in the project.

“When we first started this project, we thought it would be comprised
of 5,000-6,000 pages,” Sahin said.

“Now it seems to be a set of books of nearly 20 volumes each with 600
or 700 pages. It will become an encyclopedia,” he added.

The set will include extensive information starting from early ages of
Armenian history, and it will also feature several other periods of
Armenian history, such as the Byzantine, Seljuk and Ottoman periods,
as well as Armenian migration, Armenian diaspora and lobbying.

Enis Sahin said the encyclopedia would be published in 2011 in
response to Armenian preparation for 2015, the 100th anniversary of
the incidents of 1915.

From: A. Papazian

What Truth Does Israel Hide? As told by Naeim Giladi; an Iraqi Jew

Mideast Youth
June 10, 2010 Thursday 10:02 PM EST

What Truth Does Israel Hide? As told by Naeim Giladi; an Iraqi Jew.

by Ahmad H. Aggour (Egypt)

Jun. 10, 2010 (Mideast Youth delivered by Newstex) —

I saw the responses to my earlier article, and even though some of
them only tended to focus on the part where I mentioned the occupation
of Palestine by Israel, with the exception of a few who actually
discussed the main theme of the article. I thought maybe in response,
I should use words written by a man who knows more than what most
people ` especially here ` know, has seen more than what many saw, has
heard more than what many heard, and has experienced more than what
many had experienced when it comes to the history of Zionism and
foundation of Israel.

One of your own people.

The Giladis ` now U.S. Citizens ` live in New York, they no longer
hold Israeli citizenship. Naeim Gilani refers to himself as an Iraqi,
with Iraqi Arabic culture, Jewish religion and American citizenship.

This is an excerpt from his book: Ben Gurions Scandals: How the
Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews.

And yes! You will read all this, because I actually spent the time
typing ?this down!

Chapter I: The Jews of Iraq

I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the
American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic
lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to
leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more
Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace
initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first
prime minister of Israel called ?cruel Zionism. I write about it
because I was part of it.

My Story

Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic,
and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions. It
was 1947 and I wasnt quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for
smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and
then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.

I was an Iraqi Jew in the Zionist underground. My Iraqi jailers did
everything they could to extract the names of my co-conspirators.
Fifty years later, pain still throbs in my right toe-a reminder of the
day my captors used pliers to remove my toenails. On another occasion,
they hauled me to the flat roof of the prison, stripped me bare on a
frigid January day, then threw a bucket of cold water over me. I was
left there, chained to the railing, for hours. But I never once
considered giving them the information they wanted. I was a true
believer.

My preoccupation during what I refer to as my Å`two years in hell was
with survival and escape. I had no interest then in the broad sweep of
Jewish history in Iraq even though my family had been part of it right
from the beginning. We were originally Haroons, a large and important
family of the Å`Babylonian Diaspora. My ancestors had settled in Iraq
more than 2,600 years ago-600 years before Christianity, and 1,200
years before Islam. I am descended from Jews who built the tomb of
Yehezkel, a Jewish prophet of pre-biblical times. My town, where I was
born in 1929, is Hillah, not far from the ancient site of Babylon.

The original Jews found Babylon, with its nourishing Tigris and
Euphrates rivers, to be truly a land of milk, honey, abundance-and
opportunity. Although Jews, like other minorities in what became Iraq,
experienced periods of oppression and discrimination depending on the
rulers of the period, their general trajectory over two and one-half
millennia was upward. Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish
social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities
flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in
government and business.

As I sat there in my cell, unaware that a death sentence soon would be
handed down against me, I could not have recounted any personal
grievances that my family members would have lodged against the
government or the Muslim majority. Our family had been treated well
and had prospered, first as farmers with some 50,000 acres devoted to
rice, dates and Arab horses. Then, with the Ottomans, we bought and
purified gold that was shipped to Istanbul and turned into coinage.
The Turks were responsible in fact for changing our name to reflect
our occupation-we became Khalaschi, meaning Å`Makers of Pure.

I did not volunteer the information to my father that I had joined the
Zionist underground. He found out several months before I was arrested
when he saw me writing Hebrew and using words and expressions
unfamiliar to him. He was even more surprised to learn that, yes, I
had decided I would soon move to Israel myself. He was scornful.
Å`Youll come back with your tail between your legs, he predicted.

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into
1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what
I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my mother and father were
among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel. Although physically I never
did return to Iraq ` that bridge had been burned in any event ` my
heart has made the journey there many, many times. My father had it
right.

I was imprisoned at the military camp of Abu-Greib, about 7 miles from
Baghdad. When the military court handed down my sentence of death by
hanging, I had nothing to lose by attempting the escape I had been
planning for many months.

It was a strange recipe for an escape: a dab of butter, an orange
peel, and some army clothing that I had asked a friend to buy for me
at a flea market. I deliberately ate as much bread as I could to put
on fat in anticipation of the day I became 18, when they could
formally charge me with a crime and attach the 50-pound ball and chain
that was standard prisoner issue.

Later, after my leg had been shackled, I went on a starvation diet
that often left me weak-kneed. The pat of butter was to lubricate my
leg in preparation for extricating it from the metal band. The orange
peel I surreptitiously stuck into the lock on the night of my planned
escape, having studied how it could be placed in such a way as to keep
the lock from closing.

As the jailers turned to go after locking up, I put on the old army
issue that was indistinguishable from what they were wearing-a long,
green coat and a stocking cap that I pulled down over much of my face
(it was winter). Then I just quietly opened the door and joined the
departing group of soldiers as they strode down the hall and outside,
and I offered a Å`good night to the shift guard as I left. A friend
with a car was waiting to speed me away.

Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May, 1950.
My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the English couldnt
capture the Å`kh sound, so it was rendered simply as Klaski. At the
border, the immigration people applied the English version, which had
an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one way, this Å`mistake
was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system
worked.

They asked me where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do. I was the
son of a farmer; I knew all the problems of the farm, so I volunteered
to go to Dafnah, a farming kibbutz in the high Galilee. I only lasted
a few weeks. The new immigrants were given the worst of everything.
The food was the same, but that was the only thing that everyone had
in common. For the immigrants, bad cigarettes, even bad toothpaste.
Everything. I left.

Then, through the Jewish Agency, I was advised to go to al-Majdal
(later renamed Ashkelon), an Arab town about 9 miles from Gaza, very
close to the Mediterranean. The Israeli government planned to turn it
into a farmers city, so my farm background would be an asset there.

When I reported to the Labor Office in al-Majdal, they saw that I
could read and write Arabic and Hebrew and they said that I could find
a good-paying job with the Military Governors office. The Arabs were
under the authority of these Israeli Military Governors. A clerk
handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew. Now it dawned on me.
Before Israel could establish its farmers city, it had to rid
al-Majdal of its indigenous Palestinians. The forms were petitions to
the United Nations Inspectors asking for transfer out of Israel to
Gaza, which was under Egyptian control.

I read over the petition. In signing, the Palestinian would be saying
that he was of sound mind and body and was making the request for
transfer free of pressure or duress. Of course, there was no way that
they would leave without being pressured to do so. These families had
been there hundreds of years, as farmers, primitive artisans, weavers.
The Military Governor prohibited them from pursuing their livelihoods,
just penned them up until they lost hope of resuming their normal
lives. Thats when they signed to leave.

I was there and heard their grief. Å`Our hearts are in pain when we
look at the orange trees that we planted with our own hands. Please
let us go, let us give water to those trees. God will not be pleased
with us if we leave His trees untended. I asked the Military Governor
to give them relief, but he said, Å`No, we want them to leave.

I could no longer be part of this oppression and I left. Those
Palestinians who didnt sign up for transfers were taken by force-just
put in trucks and dumped in Gaza. About four thousand people were
driven from al-Majdal in one way or another. The few who remained were
collaborators with the Israeli authorities.

Subsequently, I wrote letters trying to get a government job elsewhere
and I got many immediate responses asking me to come for an interview.
Then they would discover that my face didnt match my Polish/Ashkenazi
name. They would ask if I spoke Yiddish or Polish, and when I said I
didnt, they would ask where I came by a Polish name. Desperate for a
good job, I would usually say that I thought my great-grandfather was
from Poland. I was advised time and again that Å`well give you a call.

Eventually, three to four years after coming to Israel, I changed my
name to Giladi, which is close to the code name, Gilad, that I had in
the Zionist underground. Klaski wasnt doing me any good anyway, and my
Eastern friends were always chiding me about the name they knew didnt
go with my origins as an Iraqi Jew.

I was disillusioned at what I found in the Promised Land,
disillusioned personally, disillusioned at the institutionalized
racism, disillusioned at what I was beginning to learn about Zionisms
cruelties. The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic
countries was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm work
that was beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews. Ben Gurion
needed the Å`Oriental Jews to farm the thousands of acres of land left
by Palestinians who were driven out by Israeli forces in 1948.

And I began to find out about the barbaric methods used to rid the
fledgling state of as many Palestinians as possible. The world recoils
today at the thought of bacteriological warfare, but Israel was
probably the first to actually use it in the Middle East. In the 1948
war, Jewish forces would empty Arab villages of their populations,
often by threats, sometimes by just gunning down a half-dozen unarmed
Arabs as examples to the rest. To make sure the Arabs couldnt return
to make a fresh life for themselves in these villages, the Israelis
put typhus and dysentery bacteria into the water wells.

Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Force,
has written and spoken about the use of bacteriological agents.
According to Mileshtin, Moshe Dayan, a division commander at the time,
gave orders in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze
their homes, and render water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery
bacteria.

Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one
big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the
town. The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a
kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to Acre,
the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre. This worked
so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as Arabs into Gaza,
where there were Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians caught them
putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and dysentery, into the water
supply in wanton disregard of the civilian population. Å`In war, there
is no sentiment, one of the captured Haganah men was quoted as saying.

My activism in Israel began shortly after I received a letter from the
Socialist/Zionist Party asking me to help with their Arabic newspaper.
When I showed up at their offices at Central House in Tel Aviv, I
asked around to see just where I should report. I showed the letter to
a couple of people there and, without even looking at it, they would
motion me away with the words, Å`Room No. 8. When I saw that they
werent even reading the letter, I inquired of several others. But the
response was the same, Å`Room No. 8, with not a glance at the paper I
put in front of them.

So I went to Room 8 and saw that it was the Department of Jews from
Islamic Countries. I was disgusted and angry. Either I am a member of
the party or Im not. Do I have a different ideology or different
politics because I am an Arab Jew? Its segregation, I thought, just
like a Negroes Department. I turned around and walked out. That was
the start of my open protests. That same year I organized a
demonstration in Ashkelon against Ben Gurions racist policies and
10,000 people turned out.

There wasnt much opportunity for those of us who were second class
citizens to do much about it when Israel was on a war footing with
outside enemies. After the 1967 war, I was in the Army myself and
served in the Sinai when there was continued fighting along the Suez
(NYSE:SZEZY) Canal. But the cease-fire with Egypt in 1970 gave us our
opening. We took to the streets and organized politically to demand
equal rights. If its our country, if we were expected to risk our
lives in a border war, then we expected equal treatment.

We mounted the struggle so tenaciously and received so much publicity
that the Israeli government tried to discredit our movement by calling
us Å`Israels Black Panthers. They were thinking in racist terms,
really, in assuming the Israeli public would reject an organization
whose ideology was being compared to that of radical blacks in the
United States. But we saw that what we were doing was no different
than what blacks in the United States were fighting
against-segregation, discrimination, unequal treatment. Rather than
reject the label, we adopted it proudly. I had posters of Martin
Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and other civil rights
activists plastered all over my office.

With the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Israeli-condoned Sabra
and Shatilla massacres, I had had enough of Israel. I became a United
States citizen and made certain to revoke my Israeli citizenship. I
could never have written and published my book in Israel, not with the
censorship they would impose.

Even in America, I had great difficulty finding a publisher because
many are subject to pressures of one kind or another from Israel and
its friends. I ended up paying $60,000 from my own pocket to publish
Ben Gurions Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews,
virtually the entire proceeds from having sold my house in Israel.

I still was afraid that the printer would back out or that legal
proceedings would be initiated to stop its publication, like the
Israeli government did in an attempt to prevent former Mossad case
officer Victor Ostrovsky from publishing his first book. Ben Gurions
Scandals had to be translated into English from two languages. I wrote
in Hebrew when I was in Israel and hoped to publish the book there,
and I wrote in Arabic when I was completing the book after coming to
the U.S. But I was so worried that something would stop publication
that I told the printer not to wait for the translations to be
thoroughly checked and proofread. Now I realize that the publicity of
a lawsuit would just have created a controversial interest in the
book.

I am using bank vault storage for the valuable documents that back up
what I have written. These documents, including some that I illegally
copied from the archives at Yad Vashem, confirm what I saw myself,
what I was told by other witnesses, and what reputable historians and
others have written concerning the Zionist bombings in Iraq, Arab
peace overtures that were rebuffed, and incidents of violence and
death inflicted by Jews on Jews in the cause of creating Israel.

The Riots of 1941

If, as I have said, my family in Iraq was not persecuted personally
and I knew no deprivation as a member of the Jewish minority, what led
me to the steps of the gallows as a member of the Zionist underground?
To answer that question, it is necessary to establish the context of
the massacre that occurred in Baghdad on June 1, 1941, when several
hundred Iraqi Jews were killed in riots involving junior officers of
the Iraqi army. I was 12 years of age and many of those killed were my
friends. I was angry, and very confused.

What I didnt know at the time was that the riots most likely were
stirred up by the British, in collusion with a pro-British Iraqi
leadership.

With the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following WW I, Iraq came under
British Å`tutelage. Amir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein who had led the
Arab Revolt against the Ottoman sultan, was brought in from Mecca by
the British to become King of Iraq in 1921. Many Jews were appointed
to key administrative posts, including that of economics minister.
Britain retained final authority over domestic and external affairs.
Britains pro-Zionist attitude in Palestine, however, triggered a
growing anti-Zionist backlash in Iraq, as it did in all Arab
countries. Writing at the end of 1934, Sir Francis Humphreys, Britains
Ambassador in Baghdad, noted that, while before WW I Iraqi Jews had
enjoyed a more favorable position than any other minority in the
country, since then Å`Zionism has sown dissension between Jews and
Arabs, and a bitterness has grown up between the two peoples which did
not previously exist.

King Faisal died in 1933. He was succeeded by his son Ghazi, who died
in a motor car accident in 1939. The crown then passed to Ghazis
4-year-old son, Faisal II, whose uncle, Abd al-Ilah, was named regent.
Abd al-Ilah selected Nouri el-Said as prime minister. El-Said
supported the British and, as hatred of the British grew, he was
forced from office in March 1940 by four senior army officers who
advocated Iraqs independence from Britain. Calling themselves the
Golden Square, the officers compelled the regent to name as prime
minister Rashid Ali al-Kilani, leader of the National Brotherhood
party.

The time was 1940 and Britain was reeling from a strong German
offensive. Al-Kilani and the Golden Square saw this as their
opportunity to rid themselves of the British once and for all.
Cautiously they began to negotiate for German support, which led the
pro-British regent Abd al-Ilah to dismiss al-Kilani in January 1941.
By April, however, the Golden Square officers had reinstated the prime
minister.

This provoked the British to send a military force into Basra on April
12, 1941. Basra, Iraqs second largest city, had a Jewish population of
30,000. Most of these Jews made their livings from import/export,
money changing, retailing, as workers in the airports, railways, and
ports, or as senior government employees.

On the same day, April 12, supporters of the pro-British regent
notified the Jewish leaders that the regent wanted to meet with them.
As was their custom, the leaders brought flowers for the regent.
Contrary to custom, however, the cars that drove them to the meeting
place dropped them off at the site where the British soldiers were
concentrated.

Photographs of the Jews appeared in the following days newspapers with
the banner Å`Basra Jews Receive British Troops with Flowers. That same
day, April 13, groups of angry Arab youths set about to take revenge
against the Jews. Several Muslim notables in Basra heard of the plan
and calmed things down. Later, it was learned that the regent was not
in Basra at all and that the matter was a provocation by his
pro-British supporters to bring about an ethnic war in order to give
the British army a pretext to intervene.

The British continued to land more forces in and around Basra. On May
7, 1941, their Gurkha unit, composed of Indian soldiers from that
ethnic group, occupied Basras el-Oshar quarter, a neighborhood with a
large Jewish population. The soldiers, led by British officers, began
looting. Many shops in the commercial district were plundered. Private
homes were broken into. Cases of attempted rape were reported. Local
residents, Jews and Muslims, responded with pistols and old rifles,
but their bullets were no match for the soldiers Tommy Guns.

Afterwards, it was learned that the soldiers acted with the
acquiescence, if not the blessing, of their British commanders. (It
should be remembered that the Indian soldiers, especially those of the
Gurkha unit, were known for their discipline, and it is highly
unlikely they would have acted so riotously without orders.) The
British goal clearly was to create chaos and to blacken the image of
the pro-nationalist regime in Baghdad, thereby giving the British
forces reason to proceed to the capital and to overthrow the al-Kilani
government.

Baghdad fell on May 30. Al-Kilani fled to Iran, along with the Golden
Square officers. Radio stations run by the British reported that
Regent Abd al-Ilah would be returning to the city and that thousands
of Jews and others were planning to welcome him. What inflamed young
Iraqis against the Jews most, however, was the radio announcer Yunas
Bahri on the German station Å`Berlin, who reported in Arabic that Jews
from Palestine were fighting alongside the British against Iraqi
soldiers near the city of Faluja. The report was false.

On Sunday, June 1, unarmed fighting broke out in Baghdad between Jews
who were still celebrating their Shabuoth holiday and young Iraqis who
thought the Jews were celebrating the return of the pro-British
regent. That evening, a group of Iraqis stopped a bus, removed the
Jewish passengers, murdered one and fatally wounded a second.

About 8:30 the following morning, some 30 individuals in military and
police uniforms opened fire along el-Amin street, a small downtown
street whose jewelry, tailor and grocery shops were Jewish-owned. By
11 a.m., mobs of Iraqis with knives, switchblades and clubs were
attacking Jewish homes in the area.

The riots continued throughout Monday, June 2. During this time, many
Muslims rose to defend their Jewish neighbors, while some Jews
successfully defended themselves. There were 124 killed and 400
injured, according to a report written by a Jewish Agency messenger
who was in Iraq at the time. Other estimates, possibly less reliable,
put the death toll higher, as many as 500, with from 650 to 2,000
injured. From 500 to 1,300 stores and more than 1,000 homes and
apartments were looted.

Who was behind the rioting in the Jewish quarter?

Yosef Meir, one of the most prominent activists in the Zionist
underground movement in Iraq, known then as Yehoshafat, claims it was
the British. Meir, who now works for the Israeli Defense Ministry,
argues that, in order to make it appear that the regent was returning
as the savior who would reestablish law and order, the British stirred
up the riots against the most vulnerable and visible segment in the
city, the Jews. And, not surprisingly, the riots ended as soon as the
regents loyal soldiers entered the capital.
My own investigations as a journalist lead me to believe Meir is
correct. Furthermore, I think his claims should be seen as based on
documents in the archives of the Israeli Defense Ministry, the agency
that published his book. Yet, even before his book came out, I had
independent confirmation from a man I met in Iran in the late Forties.

His name was Michael Timosian, an Iraqi Armenian. When I met him he
was working as a male nurse at the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Abadan
in the south of Iran. On June 2, 1941, however, he was working at the
Baghdad hospital where many of the riot victims were brought. Most of
these victims were Jews.

Timosian said he was particularly interested in two patients whose
conduct did not follow local custom. One had been hit by a bullet in
his shoulder, the other by a bullet in his right knee. After the
doctor removed the bullets, the staff tried to change their
blood-soaked cloths. But the two men fought off their efforts,
pretending to be speechless, although tests showed they could hear. To
pacify them, the doctor injected them with anesthetics and, as they
were sleeping, Timosian changed their cloths. He discovered that one
of them had around his neck an identification tag of the type used by
British troops, while the other had tattoos with Indian script on his
right arm along with the familiar sword of the Gurkha.

The next day when Timosian showed up for work, he was told that a
British officer, his sergeant and two Indian Gurkha soldiers had come
to the hospital early that morning. Staff members overheard the Gurkha
soldiers talking with the wounded patients, who were not as dumb as
they had pretended. The patients saluted the visitors, covered
themselves with sheets and, without signing the required release
forms, left the hospital with their visitors.

Today there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-Jewish riots of 1941
were orchestrated by the British for geopolitical ends. David Kimche
is certainly a man who was in a position to know the truth, and he has
spoken publicly about British culpability. Kimche had been with
British Intelligence during WW II and with the Mossad after the war.
Later he became Director General of Israels Foreign Ministry, the
position he held in 1982 when he addressed a forum at the British
Institute for International Affairs in London.

In responding to hostile questions about Israels invasion of Lebanon
and the refugee camp massacres in Beirut, Kimche went on the attack,
reminding the audience that there was scant concern in the British
Foreign Office when British Gurkha units participated in the murder of
500 Jews in the streets of Baghdad in 1941.

The Bombings of 1950-1951

The anti-Jewish riots of 1941 did more than create a pretext for the
British to enter Baghdad to reinstate the pro-British regent and his
pro-British prime minister, Nouri el-Said. They also gave the Zionists
in Palestine a pretext to set up a Zionist underground in Iraq, first
in Baghdad, then in other cities such as Basra, Amara, Hillah,
Diwaneia, Abril and Karkouk.

Following WW II, a succession of governments held brief power in Iraq.
Zionist conquests in Palestine, particularly the massacre of
Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin, emboldened the
anti-British movement in Iraq. When the Iraqi government signed a new
treaty of friendship with London in January 1948, riots broke out all
over the country. The treaty was quickly abandoned and Baghdad
demanded removal of the British military mission that had run Iraqs
army for 27 years.

Later in 1948, Baghdad sent an army detachment to Palestine to fight
the Zionists, and when Israel declared independence in May, Iraq
closed the pipeline that fed its oil to Haifas refinery. Abd al-Ilah,
however, was still regent and the British quisling, Nouri el-Said, was
back as prime minister. I was in the Abu-Greib prison in 1948, where I
would remain until my escape to Iran in September 1949.

Six months later-the exact date was March 19, 1950-a bomb went off at
the American Cultural Center and Library in Baghdad, causing property
damage and injuring a number of people. The center was a favorite
meeting place for young Jews.

The first bomb thrown directly at Jews occurred on April 8, 1950, at
9:15 p.m. A car with three young passengers hurled the grenade at
Baghdads El-Dar El-Bida Café, where Jews were celebrating Passover.
Four people were seriously injured. That night leaflets were
distributed calling on Jews to leave Iraq immediately.

The next day, many Jews, most of them poor with nothing to lose,
jammed emigration offices to renounce their citizenship and to apply
for permission to leave for Israel. So many applied, in fact, that the
police had to open registration offices in Jewish schools and
synagogues.

On May 10, at 3 a.m., a grenade was tossed in the direction of the
display window of the Jewish-owned Beit-Lawi Automobile Company,
destroying part of the building. No casualties were reported.

On June 3, 1950, another grenade was tossed from a speeding car in the
El-Batawin area of Baghdad where most rich Jews and middle class
Iraqis lived. No one was hurt, but following the explosion Zionist
activists sent telegrams to Israel requesting that the quota for
immigration from Iraq be increased.

On June 5, at 2:30 a.m., a bomb exploded next to the Jewish-owned
Stanley Shashua building on El-Rashid street, resulting in property
damage but no casualties.

On January 14, 1951, at 7 p.m., a grenade was thrown at a group of
Jews outside the Masouda Shem-Tov Synagogue. The explosive struck a
high-voltage cable, electrocuting three Jews, one a young boy, Itzhak
Elmacher, and wounding over 30 others. Following the attack, the
exodus of Jews jumped to between 600-700 per day.

Zionist propagandists still maintain that the bombs in Iraq were set
off by anti-Jewish Iraqis who wanted Jews out of their country. The
terrible truth is that the grenades that killed and maimed Iraqi Jews
and damaged their property were thrown by Zionist Jews.

Among the most important documents in my book, I believe, are copies
of two leaflets published by the Zionist underground calling on Jews
to leave Iraq. One is dated March 16, 1950, the other April 8, 1950.

The difference between these two is critical. Both indicate the date
of publication, but only the April 8th leaflet notes the time of day:
4 p.m. Why the time of day? Such a specification was unprecedented.
Even the investigating judge, Salaman El-Beit, found it suspicious.
Did the 4 p.m. writers want an alibi for a bombing they knew would
occur five hours later? If so, how did they know about the bombing?
The judge concluded they knew because a connection existed between the
Zionist underground and the bomb throwers.

This, too, was the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior
officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whom I had the
opportunity to meet in New York in 1988. In his book, Ropes of Sand,
whose publication the CIA opposed, Eveland writes:

In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize
the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service
library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews
to flee to Israel¦ Although the Iraqi police later provided our
embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and library bombings,
as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaigns, had
been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the
world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of
the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had Å`rescued really just in order to
increase Israels Jewish population.

Eveland doesnt detail the evidence linking the Zionists to the
attacks, but in my book I do. In 1955, for example, I organized in
Israel a panel of Jewish attorneys of Iraqi origin to handle claims of
Iraqi Jews who still had property in Iraq. One well known attorney,
who asked that I not give his name, confided in me that the laboratory
tests in Iraq had confirmed that the anti-American leaflets found at
the American Cultural Center bombing were typed on the same typewriter
and duplicated on the same stenciling machine as the leaflets
distributed by the Zionist movement just before the April 8th bombing.

Tests also showed that the type of explosive used in the Beit-Lawi
attack matched traces of explosives found in the suitcase of an Iraqi
Jew by the name of Yosef Basri. Basri, a lawyer, together with Shalom
Salih, a shoemaker, would be put on trial for the attacks in December
1951 and executed the following month. Both men were members of
Hashura, the military arm of the Zionist underground. Salih ultimately
confessed that he, Basri and a third man, Yosef Habaza, carried out
the attacks.

By the time of the executions in January 1952, all but 6,000 of an
estimated 125,000 Iraqi Jews had fled to Israel. Moreover, the
pro-British, pro-Zionist puppet el-Said saw to it that all of their
possessions were frozen, including their cash assets. (There were ways
of getting Iraqi dinars out, but when the immigrants went to exchange
them in Israel they found that the Israeli government kept 50 percent
of the value.) Even those Iraqi Jews who had not registered to
emigrate, but who happened to be abroad, faced loss of their
nationality if they didnt return within a specified time. An ancient,
cultured, prosperous community had been uprooted and its people
transplanted to a land dominated by East European Jews, whose culture
was not only foreign but entirely hateful to them.

The Ultimate Criminals

Zionist Leaders.

>From the start they knew that in order to establish a Jewish state
they had to expel the indigenous Palestinian population to the
neighboring Islamic states and import Jews from these same states.

– Theodor Herzl, the architect of Zionism, thought it could be done by
social engineering. In his diary entry for 12 June 1885, he wrote that
Zionist settlers would have to Å`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.

– Vladimir Jabotinsky, Prime Minister Netanyahus ideological
progenitor, frankly admitted that such a transfer of populations could
only be brought about by force.

– David Ben Gurion, Israels first prime minister, told a Zionist
Conference in 1937 that any proposed Jewish state would have to
Å`transfer Arab populations out of the area, if possible of their own
free will, if not by coercion. After 750,000 Palestinians were
uprooted and their lands confiscated in 1948-49, Ben Gurion had to
look to the Islamic countries for Jews who could fill the resultant
cheap labor market. Å`Emissaries were smuggled into these countries to
Å`convince Jews to leave either by trickery or fear.

In the case of Iraq, both methods were used: uneducated Jews were told
of a Messianic Israel in which the blind see, the lame walk, and
onions grow as big as melons; educated Jews had bombs thrown at them.

A few years after the bombings, in the early 1950s, a book was
published in Iraq, in Arabic, titled Venom of the Zionist Viper. The
author was one of the Iraqi investigators of the 1950-51 bombings and,
in his book, he implicates the Israelis, specifically one of the
emissaries sent by Israel, Mordechai Ben-Porat. As soon as the book
came out, all copies just disappeared, even from libraries. The word
was that agents of the Israeli Mossad, working through the U.S.
Embassy, bought up all the books and destroyed them. I tried on three
different occasions to have one sent to me in Israel, but each time
Israeli censors in the post office intercepted it.

British Leaders.

Britain always acted in its best colonial interests. For that reason
Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour sent his famous 1917 letter to Lord
Rothschild in exchange for Zionist support in WW I. During WW II the
British were primarily concerned with keeping their client states in
the Western camp, while Zionists were most concerned with the
immigration of European Jews to Palestine, even if this meant
cooperating with the Nazis. (In my book I document numerous instances
of such dealings by Ben Gurion and the Zionist leadership.)

After WW II the international chessboard pitted communists against
capitalists. In many countries, including the United States and Iraq,
Jews represented a large part of the Communist party. In Iraq,
hundreds of Jews of the working intelligentsia occupied key positions
in the hierarchy of the Communist and Socialist parties. To keep their
client countries in the capitalist camp, Britain had to make sure
these governments had pro-British leaders. And if, as in Iraq, these
leaders were overthrown, then an anti-Jewish riot or two could prove a
useful pretext to invade the capital and reinstate the Å`right leaders.

Moreover, if the possibility existed of removing the communist
influence from Iraq by transferring the whole Jewish community to
Israel, well then, why not? Particularly if the leaders of Israel and
Iraq conspired in the deed.

Iraqi Leaders.

Both the regent Abd al-Ilah and his prime minister Nouri el-Said took
directions from London. Toward the end of 1948, el-Said, who had
already met with Israels Prime Minister Ben Gurion in Vienna, began
discussing with his Iraqi and British associates the need for an
exchange of populations. Iraq would send the Jews in military trucks
to Israel via Jordan, and Iraq would take in some of the Palestinians
Israel had been evicting. His proposal included mutual confiscation of
property. London nixed the idea as too radical.

El-Said then went to his back-up plan and began to create the
conditions that would make the lives of Iraqi Jews so miserable they
would leave for Israel. Jewish government employees were fired from
their jobs; Jewish merchants were denied import/export licenses;
police began to arrest Jews for trivial reasons. Still the Jews did
not leave in any great numbers.

In September 1949, Israel sent the spy Mordechai Ben-Porat, the one
mentioned in Venom of the Zionist Viper, to Iraq. One of the first
things Ben-Porat did was to approach el-Said and promise him financial
incentives to have a law enacted that would lift the citizenship of
Iraqi Jews.

Soon after, Zionist and Iraqi representatives began formulating a
rough draft of the bill, according to the model dictated by Israel
through its agents in Baghdad. The bill was passed by the Iraqi
parliament in March 1950. It empowered the government to issue
one-time exit visas to Jews wishing to leave the country. In March,
the bombings began.

Sixteen years later, the Israeli magazine Haolam Hazeh, published by
Uri Avnery, then a Knesset member, accused Ben-Porat of the Baghdad
bombings. Ben-Porat, who would become a Knesset member himself, denied
the charge, but never sued the magazine for libel. And Iraqi Jews in
Israel still call him Morad Abu al-Knabel, Mordechai of the Bombs.

As I said, all this went well beyond the comprehension of a teenager.
I knew Jews were being killed and an organization existed that could
lead us to the Promised Land. So I helped in the exodus to Israel.
Later, on occasions, I would bump into some of these Iraqi Jews in
Israel. Not infrequently theyd express the sentiment that they could
kill me for what I had done.

Opportunities for Peace

After the Israeli attack on the Jordanian village of Qibya in October,
1953, Ben Gurion went into voluntary exile at the Sedeh Boker kibbutz
in the Negev. The Labor party then used to organize many buses for
people to go visit him there, where they would see the former prime
minister working with sheep. But that was only for show. Really he was
writing his diary and continuing to be active behind the scenes. I
went on such a tour.

We were told not to try to speak to Ben Gurion, but when I saw him, I
asked why, since Israel is a democracy with a parliament, does it not
have a constitution? Ben Gurion said, Å`Look, boy-I was 24 at the
time-if we have a constitution, we have to write in it the border of
our country. And this is not our border, my dear. I asked, Å`Then where
is the border? He said, Å`Wherever the Sahal will come, this is the
border. Sahal is the Israeli army.

Ben Gurion told the world that Israel accepted the partition and the
Arabs rejected it. Then Israel took half of the land that was promised
to the Arab state. And still he was saying it was not enough. Israel
needed more land. How can a country make peace with its neighbors if
it wants to take their land? How can a country demand to be secure if
it wont say what borders it will be satisfied with? For such a
country, peace would be an inconvenience.

I know now that from the beginning many Arab leaders wanted to make
peace with Israel, but Israel always refused. Ben Gurion covered this
up with propaganda. He said that the Arabs wanted to drive Israel into
the sea and he called Gamal Abdel Nasser the Hitler of the Middle East
whose foremost intent was to destroy Israel. He wanted America and
Great Britain to treat Nasser like a pariah.

In 1954, it seemed that America was getting less critical of Nasser.
Then during a three-week period in July, several terrorist bombs were
set off: at the United States Information Agency offices in Cairo and
Alexandria, a British-owned theater, and the central post office in
Cairo. An attempt to firebomb a cinema in Alexandria failed when the
bomb went off in the pocket of one of the perpetrators. That led to
the discovery that the terrorists were not anti-Western Egyptians, but
were instead Israeli spies bent on souring the warming relationship
between Egypt and the United States in what came to be known as the
Lavon Affair.

Ben Gurion was still living on his kibbutz. Moshe Sharett as prime
minister was in contact with Abdel Nasser through the offices of Lord
Maurice Orbach of Great Britain. Sharett asked Nasser to be lenient
with the captured spies, and Nasser did all that was in his power to
prevent a deterioration of the situation between the two countries.

Then Ben Gurion returned as Defense Minister in February, 1955. Later
that month Israeli troops attacked Egyptian military camps and
Palestinian refugees in Gaza, killing 54 and injuring many more. The
very night of the attack, Lord Orbach was on his way to deliver a
message to Nasser, but was unable to get through because of the
military action. When Orbach telephoned, Nassers secretary told him
that the attack proved that Israel did not want peace and that he was
wasting his time as a mediator.

In November, Ben Gurion announced in the Knesset that he was willing
to meet with Abdel Nasser anywhere and at any time for the sake of
peace and understanding. The next morning the Israeli military
attacked an Egyptian military camp in the Sabaha region.

Although Nasser felt pessimistic about achieving peace with Israel, he
continued to send other mediators to try. One was through the American
Friends Service Committee; another via the Prime Minister of Malta,
Dom Minthoff; and still another through Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia.

One that looked particularly promising was through Dennis Hamilton,
editor of The London Times. Nasser told Hamilton that if only he could
sit and talk with Ben Gurion for two or three hours, they would be
able to settle the conflict and end the state of war between the two
countries. When word of this reached Ben Gurion, he arranged to meet
with Hamilton. They decided to pursue the matter with the Israeli
ambassador in London, Arthur Luria, as liaison. On Hamiltons third
trip to Egypt, Nasser met him with the text of a Ben Gurion speech
stating that Israel would not give up an inch of land and would not
take back a single refugee. Hamilton knew that Ben Gurion with his
mouth had undermined a peace mission and missed an opportunity to
settle the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Nasser even sent his friend Ibrahim Izat of the Ruz El Yusuf weekly
paper to meet with Israeli leaders in order to explore the political
atmosphere and find out why the attacks were taking place if Israel
really wanted peace. One of the men Izat met with was Yigal Yadin, a
former Chief of Staff of the army who wrote this letter to me on 14
January 1982:

Dear Mr. Giladi:

Your letter reminded me of an event which I nearly forgot and of which
I remember only a few details.

Ibrahim Izat came to me if I am not mistaken under the request of the
Foreign Ministry or one of its branches; he stayed in my house and we
spoke for many hours. I do not remember him saying that he came on a
mission from Nasser, but I have no doubt that he let it be understood
that this was with his knowledge or acquiescence¦

When Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal in spite of
opposition from the British and the French, Radio Cairo announced in
Hebrew:

If the Israeli government is not influenced by the British and the
French imperialists, it will eventually result in greater
understanding between the two states, and Egypt will reconsider
Israels request to have access to the Suez Canal.

Israel responded that it had no designs on Egypt, but at that very
moment Israeli representatives were in France planning the three-way
attack that was to take place in October, 1956.

All the while, Ben Gurion continued to talk about the Hitler of the
Middle East. This brainwashing went on until late September, 1970,
when Gamal Abdel Nasser passed away. Then, miracle of miracles, David
Ben Gurion told the press:

A week before he died I received an envoy from Abdel Nasser who asked
to meet with me urgently in order to solve the problems between Israel
and the Arab world.

The public was surprised because they didnt know that Abdel Nasser had
wanted this all along, but Israel sabotaged it.

Nasser was not the only Arab leader who wanted to make peace with
Israel. There were many others. Brigadier General Abdel Karim Qasem,
before he seized power in Iraq in July, 1958, headed an underground
organization that sent a delegation to Israel to make a secret
agreement. Ben Gurion refused even to see him. I learned about this
when I was a journalist in Israel. But whenever I tried to publish
even a small part of it, the censor would stamp it Å`Not Allowed.

Now, in Netanyahu, we are witnessing another attempt by an Israeli
prime minister to fake an interest in making peace. Netanyahu and the
Likud are setting Arafat up by demanding that he institute more and
more repressive measures in the interest of Israeli Å`security. Sooner
or later I suspect the Palestinians will have had enough of Arafats
strong-arm methods as Israels quisling-and hell be killed. Then the
Israeli government will say, Å`See, we were ready to give him
everything. You cant trust those Arabs-they kill each other. Now
theres no one to even talk to about peace.

Conclusion

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to
accept a simple lie than a complex truth. Certainly it has been easier
for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from
Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the
Arabs, were the pursuers of peace. The truth is far more discerning:
bigger players on the world stage were pulling the strings.

These players, I believe, should be held accountable for their crimes,
particularly when they willfully terrorized, dispossessed and killed
innocent people on the altar of some ideological imperative.

I believe, too, that the descendants of these leaders have a moral
responsibility to compensate the victims and their descendants, and to
do so not just with reparations, but by setting the historical record
straight.
That is why I established a panel of inquiry in Israel to seek
reparations for Iraqi Jews who had been forced to leave behind their
property and possessions in Iraq. That is why I joined the Black
Panthers in confronting the Israeli government with the grievances of
the Jews in Israel who came from Islamic lands. And that is why I have
written my book and this article: to set the historical record
straight.

We Jews from Islamic lands did not leave our ancestral homes because
of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims. And we Arabs ` I say
Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home `
we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the
Jews. And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, let me say that we
Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and
the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon
and the Golan Heights.

From: A. Papazian

Author of Armenian Genocide Bill Asks Colbert to Take Over Fight

Politics & Government Week
June 10, 2010

JOHN COLBERT FOR CONGRESS;
Original Author of Armenian Genocide Bill Asks Colbert to Take Over Fight

Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa) today endorsed Republican
candidate and former deputy sheriff John Colbert and asked him to take
over his role as the top Republican leading the fight to pass an
Armenian Genocide Resolution in the House of Representatives.

“I’ve met with John Colbert and am convinced he is the right person to
continue the fight on behalf of Armenians all over the world who are
demanding that our government recognize the existence of the Armenian
Genocide that took place in the last century,” said Rep. Radanovich,
who is retiring from Congress at the end of this year. “I know John
Colbert to be a man of principle and integrity who wants to see
justice done,” added Radanovich.

“It means a great deal to me to know that someone who has been so
respected and admired by our Armenian communities throughout
California and the country would entrust me to take over his fight on
their behalf,” said Colbert. “I am grateful for his trust in me and my
commitment to the Armenian community to see that this resolution is
brought back for a long-overdue vote,” he added.

Colbert will be the Republican challenger to Rep. Adam Schiff who has
been the lead Democrat to get the Armenian Genocide Resolution passed
by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

John has dedicated his life to serving his country and improving the
quality of life for Americans through his work, initiatives,
technology and expertise. He served honorably in the United States
Army. As a hard-charging investigator with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff Department, his top arrest record and awards promoted him to
work complex white-collar crimes and helped him establish one of the
world’s first computer forensic crime labs. As a high-tech
businessman, John led a Pasadena-based company that specialized in
putting the world’s worst criminals behind bars, including well-known
terrorists, child sexual criminals, corporate espionage and hacking
attacks.

From: A. Papazian

UN expert to examine situation of Human Rights defenders in Armenia

States News Service
June 10, 2010 Thursday

UN EXPERT TO EXAMINE THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN ARMENIA

GENEVA, Switzerland

The following information was released by the United Nations Office at
Geneva (UNOG):

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, will undertake her first fact-finding
mission to Armenia from 14 to 18 June 2010, in what will also be the
first visit to the country by a United Nations Human Rights envoy
since 2000.

“The recent review of Armenia’s human rights record in the Universal
Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council,” the independent expert
said, “provides a good opportunity to discuss the recommendations
pertinent to the human rights defenders mandate and to assess the
mechanisms the Government has already and intends to put in place in
the future in order to implement them.”

“The aim of the mission is to evaluate in person, in an objective and
impartial manner, the situation of human rights defenders in the
country, and to initiate a process of constructive cooperation with
the authorities,” added Mrs. Sekaggya, who will visit Armenia at the
invitation of the Government.

In order to gather first-hand information, the Special Rapporteur will
meet with State officials, representatives of the legislative and
judicial branches, a broad segment of civil society and the press,
representatives of United Nations agencies and regional human rights
organizations, and the diplomatic corps.

A press conference will be held in Yerevan at the conclusion of the
Special Rapporteur’s visit on 18 June 2010 at 4:30 pm, in the United
Nations Conference Hall (United Nations Development Program Armenia,
Petros Adamyan St., h. 14, Yerevan, 0010, Armenia).

A final report on the visit will be presented to the Human Rights
Council in 2011.

Margaret Sekaggya, a lawyer from Uganda, was appointed Special
Rapporteur in March 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
She is independent from any Government and serves in her individual
capacity.

For more information about the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, log
on to:

From: A. Papazian

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/defenders/index.htm

Statement by Ambassador Kelly on Armenia’s Television, Radio Law

State Department Documents and Publications
June 10, 2010

Statement by Ambassador Kelly on Armenia’s Television, Radio Law;
U.S. urges Armenia to amend legislation in line with OSCE recommendations

United States Mission to the OSCE, Statement on Armenia’s, Television
and Radio Law

As delivered by Ambassador Ian Kelly, to the Permanent Council, Vienna

June 10, 2010

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All participating States have undertaken commitments to respect and
protect fundamental human rights such as freedom of the media and
expression. These rights should be enshrined in the legislation of any
participating State’s reforms to its relevant legal framework on
regulations affecting the operations of media in their societies.
While we acknowledge the government of Armenia’s ongoing efforts to
convert their TV broadcasting from analogue to a digital format, we
note and share with others concerns about the recent amendments to
Armenia’s Law on Television and Radio, and the likelihood that the
amendments will reduce TV media pluralism as well as the Armenian
public’s access to diverse information and opinions.

We welcomed the legal review conducted by the Office of the
Representative on Freedom of the Media (RFOM) and presented to the
Armenian government on May 25, and its recommendations on how to
modify the initial draft legislation. Because transparency and
good-faith consultations with affected stakeholders on media reforms
are crucial to their ultimate success, we fully supported the RFOM’s
key recommendation that Armenia’s National Assembly deputies convene a
working group composed of representatives of journalistic
non-governmental organizations, opposition parliamentarians, and
others to work on a fundamental revision of the draft law, fully
taking into account the remarks and suggestions of the working group
members, as well as the recommendations of international organizations
and their experts. The government’s willingness to hold public
consultations on the draft law is to be commended. However, the rushed
legislative process unfortunately did not allow for the thorough
public discussion that such important legislation merited.

While we welcome the fact that some changes were made to the
legislation in line with the RFOM’s recommendations, we note that a
number of concerns and recommendations remain unanswered. For example,
we note with concern that the amendments to the law will actually
reduce the number of TV media able to broadcast in Armenia for some
years, thereby restricting media pluralism.

In light of these concerns, we urge the Armenian government and
National Assembly to further amend the legislation, taking into
account the OSCE’s recommendations, in order to make the legislation
consonant with international standards and OSCE commitments and to do
so in an inclusive and transparent manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: )

From: A. Papazian

http://www.america.gov

Research Shines Light on Attitudes in a Contested Region of Georgia

Targeted News Service
June 10, 2010 Thursday 7:37 AM EST

Professor’s Research Shines Light on Attitudes in a Contested Region of Georgia

BLACKSBURG, Va.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University issued the
following news release:

It may not be a surprise but it is now an empirically documented fact.
National identity trumps everything else when it comes to predicting
the attitudes of people in the deeply contested region of Abkhazia.

When respondents in this region — once a part of Georgia, but a de
facto state with its own independent government since 1993 — were
asked a range of questions about social, political, and economic
issues, it was found that nationality, rather than gender or age
(Soviet versus post-Soviet generation), was the single most
significant predictor of attitudes.

This is the major finding in a public opinion survey among 1,000
Abkhaz conducted in March and April of this year by Gerard Toal,
professor and director of Virginia Tech’s Government and International
Affairs program in the National Capital Region; Professor John
O’Loughlin, Institute of Behavioral Science and Department of
Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder; and Professor Vladimir
Kolossov, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.

The survey also indicated that a majority are satisfied with the
political situation in the region and prefer independence from
Georgia.

Toal, O’Loughlin, and Kolossov, who have collaborated since 2001,
recently made a presentation of these and other survey findings and
data at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D.C.

The three researchers have authored an article which will appear in
the August 2010 issue of Post-Soviet Affairs.

The survey is part of a broader social science project funded by the
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), “The Dynamics of Secessionist
Regions: Eurasian Unrecognized Quasi-States after Kosovo’s
Independence,” which aims to measure the attitudes of inhabitants in
South Ossetia, Moldova, Transdniestria, Abkhazia, Kosovo, and Georgia.

During their presentation, Transdniestria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia
were described as de facto states, “secessionist regions that have
established internal territorial sovereignty but lack widespread
recognition and legitimacy as states in the international system.”
These states all arose after the breakup of the Soviet Union and share
similar state-building aspirations. However, they differ in their
histories of wartime violence, the relationship between titular groups
and other populations, and the nature of their client-patron
relationships with the Russian Federation.

Questions covering standard of living, state building, identity,
external security, and potential for reconciliation were included in
the survey. Responses show that Abkhaz, Russians, and Armenians tended
to cluster, with most Abkhazian Georgians (those who declared
themselves Georgians, Mingrelians, and Georgian-Mingrelians and live
almost exclusively in the Gal(i) District of Abkhazia) often
expressing contrasting views. Abkhaz and Armenians felt better off
than others. A majority of Abkhaz felt their state had a better
economic situation than Georgia, although most have not travelled to
“Georgia proper” in recent years.

Among Abkhazia’s four major nationalities, Abkhaz were most proud of
belonging to their ethnic group (though others expressed extremely
high rates of pride as well). More than 70 percent of Abkhaz indicated
they also had a Russian passport, with levels even greater among
Armenians and Russians. Approximately half of Georgian respondents
indicated they had an Abkhazian passport. High numbers of all
nationalities indicated they had never felt discriminated against
where they currently live but amongst Georgians there was a distinct
minority who did not feel the same.

Most Abkhazian residents felt that the problem of a renewed war with
Georgia was no longer a major worry. Toal explained that “after August
2008, which saw the introduction of large numbers of Russian troops
along the Inguri river separating Abkhazia and Georgian proper and the
recognition of Abkhazia as an independent state by the Russian
Federation, the non-Georgian majority within Abkhazia have crossed a
mental threshold and feel done with Georgia.” The legacy of the
1992-93 war remains, however, said Toal.

The largest divide in the whole survey between nationalities was in
response to the question: “Would you be willing to accept the full
return of Georgian refugees to Abkhazia in return for Abkhazia’s
recognition as a state by the West and the rest of the international
community?” More than 80 percent of Abkhaz and Armenians said “no” and
only a few indicated “yes,” whereas 34 percent of Georgians answered
affirmatively (almost as many Georgians chose ‘”hard to say”).

Ultimately, the survey found that Abkhazia is a divided society, with
the non-Georgian nationalities unwilling to consider themselves a part
of Georgia or to countenance the return of those displaced by war from
the region.

From: A. Papazian