Vartan Oskanian Presented To Council Of Europe Commission For Human

VARTAN OSKANIAN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS THE PICTURE OF POST-ELECTION EVENTS IN ARMENIA

Mediamax
March 12, 2008

Yerevan /Mediamax/. Armenian Foreign Minister Serzh Sarkisian held a
meeting in Yerevan today with the Council of Europe Commissioner for
Human Rights Thomas Hammerberg and presented the picture of Yerevan
events of March 1 and the following days, as well as the situation
on human rights protection in conditions of the state of emergency,
announced in Yerevan.

As Mediamax was told in the press service of the Foreign Ministry,
the sides stated the importance of taking the necessary steps for
soon normalization of the situation in Armenia.

Vartan Oskanian informed the Council of Europe Commissioner that
in the course of the nearest days the limitations for activities of
media will be lifted.

Thomas Hammerberg noted that he plans to meet with representatives
of all branches of power, leaders of opposition, visit hospitals
and investigation cells, which will help to form real idea on the
processes taking place in the country.

Armenia’s Trade Ministry Makes Public Strategy Program 2008-2010

ARMENIA’S TRADE MINISTRY MAKES PUBLIC STRATEGY PROGRAM 2008-2010

ARKA
March 11, 2008

YEREVAN, March 11. /ARKA/. The RA Ministry of Trade and Economic
Development has made public its Strategy Program 2008-2010.

The document focuses on eight basic issues: implementation of a
popular economic policy, high-quality services provision, reduction
of interregional polarization, promotion of local trade and business
in the global market, formation of an information-oriented society,
enhancing competitiveness of local industry, promotion of expensive
services and development of a science intensive economy.

The Strategy aims at establishing a transparent and competitive economy
for the country’s sustainable economic and industrial development,
according to the Trade Ministry.

The Strategy Program also focuses on Armenia’s integration into the
global economy and development of diversified economy.

The Strategy has a common ground with the RA Government’s National
Security Strategy.

Kazimirov: No Constructive Proposals On Karabakh Conflict

KAZIMIROV: NO CONSTRUCTIVE PROPOSALS ON KARABAKH CONFLICT

PanARMENIAN.Net
10.03.2008 13:40 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "Domestic tensions in Armenia and severe
Armenian-Azeri clashes in Terter have originated two mutually
exclusive versions of the March 4 incident. I doubt whether there
is a need to remind how the incident was explained in Baku, Yerevan
and Stepanakert. But border incidents are frequent and sanguinary in
Karabakh and this fact should be explained," OSCE Minsk MG former
Co-chair, deputy chair of the Russian Diplomats’ Association,
Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov said in his "Comments on Karabakh
incidents" sent to PanARMENIAN.Net.

"Agreement on ceasefire without deploying international peacekeepers
or observers and without mounting of forces is a peculiarity of the
Karabakh conflict," he said.

"The above mentioned measures are essential for maintenance
of ceasefire. The ordinary symmetrical variant of demounting was
rejected by then-Minister of Defense Mamedrafi Mammadov. The minimal
distance between the positions increased the danger of incidents,"
the diplomat stressed.

"If either of the parties is not satisfied with the agreement, it
might be amended or replaced by a new one. Reports on violations come
every day. There are victims among servicemen and civilians. However,
there have been no constructive proposals so far. It’s not enough to
regret over incidents and losses of life.

Measures should be taken to improve the situation.

Otherwise, the strength of state structures violating the commitments
will be questioned," he said.

On March 5, the Russian Foreign Ministry proposed to enable all
provisions of the ceasefire agreement. All OSCE MG Co-chairs supported
the idea," Amb. Kazimirov resumed.

The Colour Is Not Important

THE COLOUR IS NOT IMPORTANT
Fedor Lukyanov

Gazeta
March 6 2008
Russia

At his nighttime press conference after being elected president of
Russia, Dmitriy Medvedev only touched on onesubject related to foreign
policy. He confirmed that Moscow’s priority is the CIS, and promised
that his firstvisit would be to one of the Commonwealth countries. That
could be considered nothing more than a formality, were it notfor the
interesting processes that are unfolding in the neighbouring states
and which are yet again changing the overalldisposition.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict over gas deliveries flares up so
regularly that it has almost become routine. But thistime the clash
was different. Because the confronting sides were not Moscow and Kiev,
but the two top Ukrainian leaders – President Yushchenko and Prime
Minister Tymoshenko.

The head of government got carried away and torpedoed the accords
reached previously by the head of state with hisRussian counterpart.

The fact of the keen competition between the branches of power
is nothing new in itself, such things happen quiteoften even in
countries where democracy is well established. It is something else
that is surprising. The instrument of foreign policy rivalry is an
external force – the Russian gas monopoly, the same one that had
hitherto only beencastigated for interference in the affairs of our
sovereign neighbours.

Three and a half years ago it was events in Ukraine that were the
turning point for the whole of Russia’s policyin the post-Soviet
area. The activeness that was displayed proved so counterproductive
that it was decided to review thecourse. Moscow abandoned attempts
to participate in political games inside the neighbouring states,
choosing themercantilist approach: Pay up, and do what you like. If you
can, because we will create the most unfavourable externalconditions
possible for you.

Since that time the Kremlin has striven to distance itself from the
seething passions in first one, then anotherformer Soviet republic.

Which has not protected Russia from all kinds of accusations (the
hand of Moscow is customarily discovered everywhere), but it has
enabled it to spare its resources and its nerves.

But now we see the unexpected fruits of this policy.

Viktor Yushchenko, the leader of the "Orange Revolution," is apparently
becoming Gazprom’s chief ally on the question of deliveries and
transit of raw materials, while on the other side of the barricade
is YuliyaTymoshenko, symbol of that very same revolution.

It is noteworthy that the politician for whose sake the Russian
president risked his own reputation in 2004 – Viktor Yanukovych –
and his party are scarcely to be heard in this clash.

We could, of course, engage in schadenfreude: Look what the Ukrainian
revolutionaries have come to, when in order to settle their arguments
with one another they have to appeal to the sworn enemies of Ukrainian
democracy and risk thenation’s energy security. But something else is
more interesting. The situation that has developed indicates thatthe
post-Soviet countries really are entering a new stage of development,
in which the ideologized and geopoliticizedapproach that is typical
of the period of formation gives way to pragmatic calculation.

In other words, the role of the external factor is undergoing a
reinterpretation, and is changing from a bugaboo (in the case of
Russia) or a beautiful dream (in the case of Europe) into a normal
component of the politicalenvironment.

Another example of the same kind is the political crisis in Yerevan.

Turbulent demonstrations following elections – that situation is
widespread in the post-Soviet space. Wherever theelections are
contested to even the slightest degree, the opposition raises the
question of mass abuses and vote-riggingduring the poll. But until now
an unwritten rule has operated – the OSCE’s international observers
have been thearbiters in the dispute. If they expressed doubt as to
the honesty and fairness of the elections, that was the signalfor
the start of a large-scale political campaign (which often led to
regime change). But if the observers certified theevent as democratic,
subsequent attempts to dispute the result quickly faded.

In Armenia, that rule was broken.

The observers deemed that the elections complied with European
standards. However, the opposition, under theleadership of ex-President
Levon Ter-Petrosyan, ignored the verdict, continuing firmly to demand
the return of the"stolen victory."

The imposition of a state of emergency froze the situation, but
apparently this is not the end, only a pause, and thesubsequent
scenario is hard to predict.

People have become accustomed to seeing election cataclysms in the
CIS countries from the standpoint of thegeopolitical rivalry between
Russia and the West.

There have practically always been forces towards which Moscow was
sympathetic, and those who were seen as adherents of the Western path
of development.

In Armenia no geopolitical gambles were made, and that is easy to
explain. The country is in a very difficultposition, squeezed not
so much between two unfriendly states – Azerbaijan and Turkey –
as between two insoluble problems- the Karabakh problem and the
genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Unless these are
resolved a breakthroughin development is impossible, but compromise
is unacceptable to the national consciousness. In this situation
rivalrybetween the great powers carries the risk of particularly grave
consequences, and the absence of progress in resolvingthe main issues
creates heightened political tension, which has indeed flared up in
connection with these elections.

Be that as it may, what is happening in Armenia has internal causes
and motive forces, which came as a surprise both to Moscow and to the
Western capitals. The reincarnation of the country’s first president
was not seriously part ofanyone’s plans. And what is to be done about
it now is not quite clear.

The attitude of the Yerevan demonstrators to the OSCE’s opinion is
quite revealing. After the presidentialelection in Georgia, where the
observers’ mission initially quickly recognized the voting as fair,
then began tohave doubts, but later confirmed its initial opinion,
the institution’s reputation suffered. Incidentally, thefinal verdict,
published a couple of days ago and couched in a more critical tone
than the comments made hot on theheels of the event, strengthens
suspicions of the existence of opportunist motives for the evaluation.

So the role of the external factor in the post-Soviet space is
changing, or rather, the previous black-and-whitepicture is being
replaced by one that is much more multicoloured. This opens up new
opportunities and sets tasks for theleadership of Russia. Especially
since one of the key problems that Dmitriy Medvedev will have to
tackle is to look for allies.

And to that end it will be necessary to change the detached position
that Moscow has held in relations with itsneighbours in the past
three years. True, it is even more important not to forget the lessons
learned after the failure in the maydan [square: allusion to Orange
Revolution].

When All The Rpoposals Are Turned Down

WHEN ALL THE RPOPOSALS ARE TURNED DOWN

Hayots Ashkhar
Friday 7 March 2008

According to VIGEN SARGSYAN, `When the newly elected President
announced that he was ready for a political dialogue even before
forming a coalition with the factions not admitting the election
results and organizing protest rallies, it sounded strange to me. The
thing is that Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan didn’t need that, but the
proposal was aimed at maintaining the internal stability and
establishing an atmosphere of civil tolerance.
They turned down both the Prime Minister’s proposal of good will and
the Great Patriarch’s services as a goodwill mediator and a number of
other proposals. The hearings in the Constitutional Court will be over,
the decision will be published and I don’t think it will be subject to
negotiations thereafter.
If a political figure wants to change ferocity and provocation into
a political capital, it doesn’t mean that the state has to negotiate
with him.’

`Color revolution’ attempt in Armenia was doomed to failure

PanARMENIAN.Net

`Color revolution’ attempt in Armenia was doomed to failure
07.03.2008 15:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ `There was an attempt to carry out a
`color revolution’ in Armenia but it was doomed to
failure,’ Armenia’s Prime Minister and President-elect
Serzh Sargsyan told Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

`Initiators of recent disorders did not take into
account Armenia’s distinction from those countries
where `color revolutions’ were a success. First, the
authorities enjoy respect of the population. Second,
most of Armenian citizens stand for evolution
development observed during last 7 years. The forces,
which plunged Armenia into darkness in 1990-ies, tried
to take revenge,’ PM Sargsyan said.

FM – `some of the problems cited in the 3rd interim report…’

Armenian Foreign Ministry: `some of the problems cited in the 3rd
interim report have already been at the center of attention by law
enforcement bodies’

March 8, 2008

Yerevan /Mediamax/. Armenian Foreign Ministry issued a statement today
regarding the release of the third interim report on Armenia’s
Presidential elections by OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission.

The statement reads:

`The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs that OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission has released its third interim report on Armenia’s
Presidential elections. The report reaffirms the ODIHR Election
Observation Mission’s assessment that the February 19 Presidential
election `was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of
Europe commitments and standards.’

The government of Armenia notes that some of the problems cited in this
post-election interim report have already been at the center of
attention by certain law enforcement bodies, and that appropriate steps
are taken to respond, including to criminally charge some of those
responsible for certain electoral irregularities.

At the same time, Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that in
spite of the government’s repeated inquiries, the government has not
been provided with the identifying numbers of 13 of the 17 precincts
where, according to the report, the counting process was `bad’ or `very
bad’, and therefore, without such information, the government is unable
to conduct the appropriate investigation.

The interim report also includes interpretative statements based on
unverified data. Thus, the report expresses doubt about the high
turnout in precincts 37/18, 37/29, 37/38 and 37/39. Prior to the
issuance of the report, the authorities had explained that there are
military posts in those precincts which naturally raises the numbers of
those voting, and thus the percentage of voter turnout in those
precincts can be not just near 100, but also in excess of 100 percent.

The Armenian government will closely examine each problem, as well as
inconsistency and error cited in the report, and will provide
comprehensive information about each both to the Armenian public and to
OSCE/ODIHR in order to assure that the final report is even more
objective and complete’.

Turkey, Azerbaijan planning joint military operation in Karabakh?

PanARMENIAN.Net

Turkey, Azerbaijan planning joint military operation in Karabakh?
07.03.2008 12:35 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey is bracing for a joint military operation
with Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh, Makfax Macedonian agency reports
with a reference to Azerbaijan’s daily Yeni Musavat.

The preparations are under way for a comprehensive military operation
in Nagorno Karabakh against members of the Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK) who were forced out from northern Iraq by the Turkish Army.

Yeni Musavat’s article, which was cited in several Turkish media, says
that "even US approved such a move."

Garoyan Takes Over As House President

GAROYAN TAKES OVER AS HOUSE PRESIDENT
By Elias Hazou

Cyprus Weekly
7 March 2008

DISY abstains as deputies

DIKO leader Marios Garoyan yesterday became the youngest ever President
of the House of Representatives.

By a show of hands, his nomination was endorsed by 36 deputies.

Garoyan, 47, landed the high-profile post after securing the backing
of all parties except opposition DISY, who chose to abstain.

He needed 50% plus one vote from the 56-seat parliament.

The Armenian Cypriot takes over from Demetris Christofias, who was
elected President last month. The post is said to have been offered to
Garoyan as part of a DIKO-AKEL deal ahead of the crucial runoff vote.

Linguist

Garoyan earned a degree in political science from the University of
Peruggia. He speaks English, Italian and Spanish.

On October 22, 2006 he was elected chairman of DIKO, succeeding
Tassos Papadopoulos.

He is married with two children.

Yesterday’s session of the plenum, the first since the body adjourned
last December, was chaired by DISY leader Nicos Anastassiades as
senior deputy in the absence of Christos Pourgourides.

"Since I’m sitting here, I might as well stay put," joked Anastassiades
to laughter from the room.

The first order of business yesterday was the confirmation of the
four new deputies, all from the ruling AKEL party.

No other names

Stella Demetriou-Mishiaoulli, Skevi Koukouma-Koutra, Claudius
Mavrohannas and Yiannakis Gavriel were sworn in by Anastassiades.

Speaking on behalf of DIKO, deputy Andreas Angelides next proposed his
party boss for House President. No other nominations were put forward.

Socialist EDEK leader Yiannakis Omirou had been toying with the idea,
but decided not to run and went with the flow, supporting Garoyan.

DISY had also considered fielding its own candidate, but opted out,
probably realising they stood no chance against the DIKO nominee.

However, they also did not wish to be seen as ‘rewarding’ the
re-emergence of the AKEL-DIKO alliance in government.

Opposition force

"We wish to preserve our character as an opposition force…but at
the same time we shall take a constructive approach," DISY’s Number 2,
Averof Neophytou explained to parliament yesterday.

AKEL heavyweight Nicos Katsourides referred to the new House Speaker as
"friend Garoyan.’

He said AKEL agreed to back a candidate from another party, in
line with their proclaimed "desire for unity," a running theme in
Christofias’ discourse.

His election ratified, Garoyan stepped up to the Speaker’s chair
to applause from the plenum. Anastassiades greeted him with a warm
handshake.

"It is with profound emotions that I accept the honour you have
bestowed on me," Garoyan said in his acceptance speech.

Despite the cordial display, inwardly Anastassiades and DISY might be
holding a grudge against Garoyan, who is understood to have steered
his party away from supporting Kasoulides in the runoff to backing
Christofias.

According to speculation, DIKO’s U-turn had a lot to do with Garoyan’s
personal ambition to become House Speaker.

Dramatic change

In the event of Christofias’ election to the Presidency, the chair
would have been vacated immediately. But if Kasoulides won, Christofias
would have served out his term, which had three more years to go.

The other theory has it that it was Tassos Papadopoulos, working
behind the scenes, who was responsible for DIKO’s dramatic change
within less than 24 hours.

But it has been suggested that the story of Papadopoulos’ meddling
may have been deliberately leaked by circles close to Garoyan as
a smokescreen.

At any rate, DIKO’s decision to back Christofias had an impact on
the horse-trading for the ministries in the new government.

Reportedly, DISY had promised DIKO up to five ministries in exchange
for their backing. As it turned out, Christofias gave the centrist
party just three portfolios.

It has also been said that Garoyan proposed peripheral DIKO members
as ministers, undercutting high-ranking personalities such as Vassilis
Palmas and Kyriacos Kenevezos.

Over the past couple of weeks, the innards of DIKO have been simmering
with discontent at these moves, mixed with disillusionment over
Papadopoulos’ election defeat.

Andreas Angelides has gone public with criticism that the party
leadership committed fatal errors in the last stretch of the election
campaign.

And Palmas said that he was being groomed for a ministry, only to be
"cut" at the last moment.

Around the same time, there appeared press reports saying that certain
circles were worried that an Armenian should take over the House.

The rumours angered Vartkes Mahdesian, leader of the Armenian community
of Cyprus. Mahdesian issued a statement slammed these insinuations
as bigoted.

Can We Talk?

CAN WE TALK?
By Tom Tugend

Jerusalem Post
March 6 2008

When Abraham David Cooper was arrested by Washington police during
a 1970 sit-in across from the Soviet embassy and put behind bars in
a jammed holding cell, the then 20-year-old Yeshiva College student
drew two conclusions.

First, he didn’t enjoy being in jail.

Second, the established Jewish organizations had been less than active
in what Cooper considered the defining Jewish struggle of the time.

In the intervening 37 years, though present in many of the world’s
hot spots, he has managed to stay out of prison.

During roughly the same time span, he has also played a key role in
creating one of the most activist Jewish institutions in the world,
outside the boundaries of the traditional organized community
structure.

Ordained as an Orthodox rabbi, Cooper’s formal title today is
associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The curious academic
rank is a holdover from his initial work with the SWC-affiliated
Yeshiva University of Los Angeles, but it hardly defines his role and
influence in an institution whose mission is to promote understanding
among people.

He is, in most respects, the alter ego of Rabbi Marvin Hier, the
founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center, and the 33-year relationship
between the two has been described as "a marriage without sex." As in
many successful, long-time marriages, their interaction and division
of labor are defined by a kind of shorthand telepathy, requiring no
organizational chart or chain of command.

But if today the SWC is a worldwide presence, with seven offices at
home and abroad, a landmark Museum of Tolerance, a reported 400,000
member families, high-profile donors and entree to presidents and
kings, a considerable share of the credit goes to Cooper.

While Hier is the ultimate decision maker and both men respond
interchangeably, and instantly, to the endless real or perceived
crises facing Israel and the Jewish people, Cooper has certain areas
of responsibility and expertise.

One is for interfaith relations, another for the burgeoning area of
cyberspace. Cooper testified before Congress as long as six years
ago that the increasing sophistication of Internet propaganda by
hate groups, white supremacists and Islamic extremists was exerting
growing influence among younger people.

>From his Pacific-oriented vantage point in Los Angeles, Cooper is
the point man for relations with Japan, China and other Far Eastern
nations, introducing Holocaust exhibits, exposing anti-Semitic
literature and establishing ties with political and religious leaders.

"Abe is the Wiesenthal Center’s ambassador to most of the world,"
says Hier.

THIS "AMBASSADOR" also shows up in some unexpected places and
situations. Last year, for instance, Cooper was drafted as the
guarantor of a peace treaty signed by the so-called O.G.s (original
gangsters), the founding elders of the Bloods and the Crips, two of
the most fearful rival gangs in south central Los Angeles.

He was recruited for the assignment by Katy Haber, a London-born film
producer, who has been working for many years with at-risk youth and
the homeless in the African-American community. Haber had met Cooper
while working as a docent at the Museum of Tolerance and had no doubt
that he was the right man to win the confidence of the gang members.

"Who would be more appropriate than a man who works on conflict
resolution with world leaders?" Haber asked. "Besides, he is a man
of deep intellect, extraordinary sensitivity, and one of the major
humanitarians in our community."

Cooper said he has no particular formula or technique for bringing
opposing sides to the table or bridging differences. "Part of it
is my background as a New Yorker, an American and a Jew, which has
given me a certain quiet self-assurance," he said. "Another part is
the example set early on by my father."

By way of contrast, Cooper was on the other side of the world
last summer, on the Indonesian island of Bali. He was there as the
organizer of the "Tolerance between Religions" conference, which
brought together such unlikely participants as leading Muslim, Hindu
and Jewish religious leaders, victims of the three faiths targeted
by suicide bombers and a Holocaust survivor.

In one speech, carried by Arab networks and worldwide, former president
Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation,
upbraided Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of
the Holocaust.

Cooper’s organizing partner was C. Holland Taylor, CEO of the
Libforall Foundation, which works with Muslim religious, educational,
business and entertainment leaders to stem the spread of Islamic
extremism. After the Bali conference, the two led a high-profile
peace delegation from Indonesia, which has no diplomatic relations
with Israel, on a week-long mission to the Jewish state.

The experience impressed Taylor, who in a phone call from Indonesia
described Cooper as "a brilliant strategist, who grasps immediately
what can be done and who can juggle a dozen issues simultaneously."

IN THE relationship between the Wiesenthal Center’s two top men,
Cooper’s loyalty and admiration for Hier is unquestioned, but there is
one easily noticed distinction between the two. As the center’s clout
has increased over the years, so has criticism of the institution
within the general, and Orthodox, communities.

Complaints, mostly sotto voce, are aimed at the center’s alleged
intrusions on the turfs of older community organizations, its political
influence, the high salaries paid its top executives, violations of
standards for non-profit organizations, alarmist tactics, fights with
neighboring homeowners and, in Israel, plans to build a $200 million
Center for Human Dignity/Museum of Tolerance in the heart of Jerusalem.

In practically all these criticisms, the target is Hier, who is
sometimes described, in awe, fear or derision, as a "New York street
fighter." By contrast, Cooper gets off unscathed.

Part of the unequal distribution of criticism lies in Hier’s assumption
of responsibility for some of the center’s most controversial and
daring decisions, such as the Jerusalem project.

Neither is Cooper involved with the sometimes contentious affairs of
the center-affiliated Yeshiva of Los Angeles, nor with such community
frictions as complaints by some in the Armenian community that the
Museum of Tolerance has neglected to properly commemorate the genocide
of their people.

But beyond these factors lie differences in personality. Cooper can
be blunt and tough, but there is a saving aura of good fellowship
and humor about him that seems to take the edge off any confrontation.

Physically, too, the two men differ, with the lean, sharp-featured
Hier a contrast to his round-faced, stocky colleague.

Cooper himself will not brook any criticism of Hier. "Moish [Marvin]
is an unbelievably visionary and courageous man," said Cooper, who
repeatedly recalled some of Hier’s pointed comments and unorthodox
style during a two-hour interview.

For instance, there was the time in 1991 when Duke Snider and Don
Newcombe came to Hier’s office. The two baseball greats said they
had tried to persuade the Tournament of Roses committee to accept a
float honoring Jackie Robinson, a Pasadena hometown hero and the man
who broke the major league color barrier, but had been turned down.

As Cooper tells it, Hier picked up the phone, called the committee,
but was told that no more entries were being accepted. Five minutes
later, John Van de Kamp, the outgoing state attorney-general and
a member of the committee, phoned Hier. Well aware that Hier could
unleash a blizzard of protest letters and unfavorable media stories,
he begged him to hold off any action for the night.

Next morning, a committee functionary called to inform Hier that the
Jackie Robinson float had been approved, but because it was entered
past the deadline, it would be the last float in the parade. Hier,
realizing that the last floats were frequently shut out of national
television coverage, asked, "So you want us to go to the back of the
bus?" On New Year’s Day, the float took its place in the middle of
the parade.

For all their mutual admiration, the working relationship between
Hier and Cooper is not always placid. "We have disagreements every
day of the week," said Cooper. "We are talmudic that way, but we’re
open with each other."

Apparently the only irreconcilable differences between the two men is
that Lower East Sider Hier is an ardent Yankee fan, while Flatbusher
Cooper has transferred his loyalty, and frustrations, from the Dodgers
to the Mets.

Even in the frequently contentious Jewish community of Los Angeles,
it takes hard digging to find somebody who will speak ill of Cooper
or who dislikes the man.

One prospect was Salam Al-Marayati, director of the Muslim Public
Affairs Council of Los Angeles, who has had some sharp exchanges
with Jewish leaders over the years. Marayati hasn’t met with Cooper
for some time, but worked with him when Muslim, Jewish and other
religious leaders drew up a code of ethics aiming at respectful
interaction. His discussions with Cooper, he said, "were cordial and
there were no confrontations."

The one hint that Cooper may have some human failings came from
Mohammed Khan, a Pakistani-American and Muslim activist for interfaith
relations, who was Cooper’s traveling companion on a trip to Sudan and
Israel. After describing "the rabbi" as "dedicated, a tireless worker
and a great teacher," Khan allowed that Cooper, like most everyone
else, "tends to picture other communities in broad brush strokes. The
rabbi is very visionary and sophisticated, but he, like all of us,
could sometimes go deeper in analyzing another community."

The Jerusalem Post then asked Cooper and Avra Shapiro, the Wiesenthal
Center’s communications director, to put their heads together and come
up with somebody who could give us the lowdown on the real Cooper. The
best they could do, reported Shapiro, was to refer the reporter to
Cooper’s mother.

Finally, we asked Cooper himself to justify his mellow reputation.

For one, he answered, he is in step with Hier’s guiding rule never
to attack another Jew or Jewish organization in public.

"I realized early on that when your work is in the public domain,
not everyone is going to pat you on the back," he said. "It’s not
that I don’t care if someone criticizes my views, but I don’t take
it in a personal way."

Cooper recalls that when he was traveling in the Soviet Union, some
in his group got quite upset with the KGB agents who were their
constant shadows. "Relax," he counseled at the time, "they’re just
doing their jobs."

Cooper was asked about the differences in negotiating with high
dignitaries abroad on one hand, and local gang members on the other.

"I feel much more intense when I’m dealing with people in my own
community, because the consequences of what you do are much more
immediate," he answered.

THE GRANDSON of Polish immigrants on both sides, when he calls
up his childhood memories, he paints a picture of a different
universe. His paternal grandfather, whose last name was changed by
a helpful Ellis Island functionary from Krupinsky to Cooper, worked
in a slaughterhouse.

The maternal grandparents ran a kosher restaurant in the early 1900s,
and when his grandfather died, Cooper requested two mementos. One
was a set of kiddush cups, which Abe and Roz Cooper use every Shabbat.

The other was a curious set of instruments, consisting of a beaker
and two thermometers.

"I discovered that my grandfather regularly made some bathtub wine and
schnapps, just enough to make a little extra money to tide the family
over," said Cooper. "I keep the set as a reminder of just how poor our
immigrant ancestors were and that they went through very tough times,
which are not that far away."

Young Abe attended Yeshiva Flatbush in the 1950s, where his father also
taught, and the combination of the two helped shape Cooper’s lifelong
outlook. "My father was the greatest educator I have ever known. He
treated his youngest students with respect, was an ardent Zionist –
as was the yeshiva – and was completely non-judgmental about other
Jews," said Cooper, "He loved them all."

In 1968, Cooper spent 18 months at a more rigidly Orthodox yeshiva
in Jerusalem, then earned a bachelor’s degree in history at Yeshiva
College, the undergraduate division of New York’s Yeshiva University,
in 1972.

His older brother had become a doctor, so it followed, according to
American Jewish family rules, that the next in line would become a
lawyer. He applied and was accepted by the New York University law
school. But before he started, Cooper wanted to visit the Soviet Union.

"I couldn’t stand any more Soviet Jewry demonstrations," he recalled.

"I had to go over and see for myself." The one-month trip to six
Soviet cities, his encounters with refuseniks and the KGB, changed
Cooper’s life and priorities. "I learned what it really meant to be
an activist, it was more than signing petitions or attending protest
rallies," said Cooper. "Here were people who put their lives on the
line to live as Jews. This was serious business."

In 1974, the recently married Coopers (they now have three daughters
and four grandchildren) experienced a different aspect of the Jewish
struggle. They volunteered to work in Kiryat Shmona, the site of a
recent terrorist attack.

A couple of years earlier, Cooper had accepted an offer to run a
summer youth camp in Vancouver, Canada, and there met Hier, then the
young spiritual leader of an Orthodox congregation. "The first time
I saw Rabbi Hier I thought, ‘That man is really something else,’"
said Cooper. "He was also the first pulpit rabbi I knew who seemed
to be enjoying himself." Hier subsequently asked Cooper to serve as
principal of the synagogue day school and then take over his pulpit
during a six-month sabbatical.

The Cooper family had just settled down, when Hier announced in 1976
that he was moving to Los Angeles to establish a yeshiva and asked
Cooper to come along as teacher and director of admissions. Shortly
afterward, Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal acceded to Hier’s request that
he lend his name to a new activist center in Los Angeles. In 1977,
the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies was in business
with no furniture and one phone, with a very long extension cord.

NOW, THREE decades later, Cooper’s reminiscences and anecdotes of
battles, mostly won, meetings with world leaders, campaigns organized
and new causes advocated could fill a hefty book. He likes to quote
Rabbi Norman Lamm that "90 percent of leadership is showing up" and
Cooper, following the dictum, accumulates well over 160,000 kilometers
a year, on American Airlines alone, during business trips.

He could probably have saved some flying time if the Wiesenthal
Center had joined all other major national Jewish organizations
in establishing headquarters on the East Coast, but Cooper has no
regrets. On the contrary, he said, in New York or Washington you have
the "Jewish one foul tip law – one mistake and you’re out." On the
West Coast, by contrast, "it’s not a sin to fail now and then. We’re
more open minded out here and we could never have achieved what we
did if we were on the East Coast."

Cooper is sometimes asked what the Wiesenthal Center will do after the
last Nazi war criminal has died. "While we will never waver in our
responsibility to the memory of the six million, we have never been
just about the past," he responds. "We Jews have had a lousy record
in anticipating future attacks and threats, but they will come. The
earlier we recognize and oppose them, the better."

One crisis Cooper sees on the horizon is the UN World Conference
Against Racism, which debuted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, and
turned into a hate fest against Israel and the United States. Cooper
was part of the Jewish defense team in Durban and fears a repetition
in 2009, when the conference reconvenes at a yet undetermined location.

He and Dr. Shimon Samuels, the center’s European director, traveled
to Jerusalem last month and met with leaders of Jewish organizations
from other countries to map out a joint approach. "Some of the nations
most hostile to Israel and the United States will play leading roles
at the 2009 conference," Cooper warned. "It may turn out to be even
more invidious than the Durban meeting, so we had better prepare for
it now."