Civil Georgia, Georgia
Oct 30, 2004

Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern on October 30
regarding, as Moscow put it, Georgia’s `delay’ to grant entry visas to
the Russian servicemen, who are expected to be deployed in the Russian
military base in southern Georgian town of Akhalkalaki.

`We think that the delay in granting of visas to Russian servicemen and
their families is unjustified and politically motivated. We hope that
official Tbilisi will take a constructive position in this regard,’ the
Russian Foreign Ministry information note issued on October 30, reads.

`Granting of visas needs particular time,’ the Georgian Foreign
Ministry official told Civil Georgia. Official said that the Ministry
will make a statement regarding the issue on November 1.

Reportedly, over 400 servicemen, currently deployed on the Russian
military base in the Armenian city of Gyumri, are waiting for the
Georgian entry visas.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s information note, Georgia
explains delay in issuing visas with the fact that the number of
Russian servicemen, which will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, exceeds the
number of those soldiers, which will be replaced.

Deputy Commander of the Headquarters of Group of Russian Troops in
Trans Caucasus, Col. Vladimir Kuparadze told Russian daily Nezavisimaya
Gazeta that in previous years there were less soldiers at the
Akhalkalaki military base than it is considered with the agreement
between Russia and Georgia.

`Now more soldiers will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, but their numbers
will not exceed those envisaged by the agreement,’ Col. Kuparadze said.

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 30, 2004

Symbolism in Rome and the Vatican’s Anger

We met a Catalan family on the downtown train from Leonardo da Vinci
airport who were on the way to visit their children who study
architecture in Italy. They have scholarships from the Erasmus student
exchange program, which was launched to help build a European identity
and has benefited over three million students. The Catalan father was
aware that the visit coincided with the signature ceremony of the
European Constitution on a historic day for the European Union (EU).
However, he has not yet decided about his vote in the referendum on the
agreement, signed by 25 member and four candidate countries.

The Constitution guarantees the territorial integrity of the members in
answer to one of the most important concerns of those who have
reservations over the EU in Turkey. In essence, the signed document
reflects the balance between those who wish to see the EU as a super
power like the US and those who want to preserve their national
sovereignties. Foreign politics remain unaltered by leaving defense and
taxation to the member states, but it provides many symbolic openings
such as Council President, Foreign Minister and legal entities by
reducing the power of veto.

The pleasant weather in Rome seemed to join in with the crowning of the
success of EU, ending the 50-year separation of Europe by accepting 10
new members in May 2004 and having transformed the seemingly eternal
Franco-German rivalry into friendship after World War II. However,
religious messages disturbing those who wanted to interpret this as a
divine celebration were coming from St. Peter’s, a few hundred meters
from the historic Campidoglio where the summit was being held. To
underline this, the crisis caused by Italian Commissioner Rocco
Buttiglione, who is very close to the Pope, between the Commission and
European Parliament in Brussels is still fresh.

The Vatican Foreign Minister Giovanni Lajolo criticized the historic
step’s endorsement of a secular Europe calling it a “Europe born with
no spirit”. Meanwhile, at the Sala and Orazi Curiazi Hall where the six
founder countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands,
and Luxembourg) had signed the Rome Convention forming the core of
today’s EU, the leaders were very pleased. There are still the outcomes
of referenda in at least nine of 25 countries to affirm the
Constitution. It is feared that referenda will turn into debates on
Turkey and affect the start-date of the negotiations, especially in
France. As a matter of fact, no referral to Christianity in the
Constitution leaves the door ajar for Muslim Turkey. For this reason,
in the statements issued by the Vatican, instead of rejecting Turkey a
call is made for taking Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Croatia and even
Armenia as the descendants of a great antique heritage. The Pope
emphasizes that Turkey has never treated Christians properly in the
past, but that we should look to Turkey’s actions in the future.

Ordinary people had their own daily concerns. A taxi driver in Rome
reflected this by saying, “I’m not interested in the Constitution but
in money and food.” It is worth noting that even the serious newspapers
in Rome, on the day before the historic summit, didn’t put even a
sentence about it on their front pages.

As Italians usually have warm thoughts of Turkey, it was surprising to
meet those to whom the difference of religion was an issue. It was
shocking that an Italian we met while we were looking for a hotel said
that if we wanted to get into the EU, we’d have to convert. For this
reason, the purpose of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, who attended this historic excitement by
only signing the final bill, affected public opinion in Rome about
Turkey. Erdogan took a stand against discrimination in interviews with
Italian media inviting the EU to keep its promises. The three leaders
of Italy, Spain and Great Britain were the most supportive of Turkey’s
bid. Erdogan gave the message, “let the first inter-governmental
conference start in March or April 2005” to avoid the confusion about
the start date at the three-party summit in Berlin.

10.30.2004
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
Rome

Persian Journal, Iran
Oct 30, 2004

Iran, Russia discuss regional issues

Iran’s representative for Caspian Sea affairs Mehdi Safari conferred
here Thursday with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Savolsky on
issues of mutual interests.

The two officials voiced opposition to foreign intervention in the
Caspian sea affairs and underlined expansion of mutual and regional
cooperation in Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian sea.

Other topics to discuss in the meeting were security issues, expansion
of economic and political cooperation as well as north-south corridor
for transit of goods and commodities.

The two sides underlined the need for continued talks between Azeri and
Armenian officials to resolve their conflict.

Savolsky emphasized the need for expansion of mutual cooperation on
implementation of joint economic projects in Central Asia.

The two sides called the Caspian sea the sea of peace and stability and
underlined that they are against presence of foreign countries in that
region.

Kurdistan Observer, MI
Oct 30, 2004

Turkey and European Union

By: Amed Demirhan

Oct 30, 2004

In recent months there have been an on going serious debate about
Turkey’s membership application to European Union. In principle, I
always have been supporter of Turkeys membership to European Union (EU)
and North Atlantics treaty (NATO) because I believe this two
organizations are gate ways to Western civilization and it’s in Kurdish
national interest as well. However, in current condition, instead of
Turkey adapting to the EU, it seems EU is willing to grants Turkey
specially statues and accommodating to its racist, anti-Semitics, and
xenophobic regime with out any change. This is very dangerous for every
one. Turkish history is the best witness for this; therefore European
should not repeat Arab-Muslim mistakes.

History records that Arab and Muslim greatly contributed to the global
civilization from 7th century to the 13th century in many areas like:
Mathematics, physic, astronomy, medicine, poetry, literature,
architecture, philosophy by translating classical Greeks, and Roman’s
literatures. After Turkish Memluks (States Slaves: Children of the
state with Turkish origins) and Ottomans tribes took over Muslim
countries, the Muslim civilization rapidly declined and become symbols
of dictatorship and brutality in three continents. One cannot find a
trace of civilization from Muslim world from 14th century to today
because of Turkish dominance, therefore one wouldn’t want EU and
Western civilizations become another victims of the Turkish regimes and
state culture (Not Turkish people).

When one looks to Turkish media, which strongly controlled by the
state, still insist on one language, one religion, and one race idea of
the state. It strongly oppose to the EU classification of the Kurds and
Alavis (a radically different sect of Islam, by some it considered
unorthodox) as minority. Interestingly both Alavis and Kurds rejects
they are minorities. Kurds are majority in Kurdistan areas of the
country that consist of one third of the country’s’ geography and they
are about 20-30 % of population. The Alevis are about 20-30 % of the
population and consist among different ethnics groups but majority are
Kurdish, and they like to be treated as equal with the Sunni majority
however, not as minority.

On the other hand the Kemalist and Fundamentalist Turks argue that
Turkey only recognized the non-Muslims as minorities: Jewish, Armenian,
and Greeks in accordance of July 24, 1923 Lausanne Treaty. However, no
one is or willing to say in Turkish press why these three groups were
considered minorities and not Muslims? The answer is simple because
these three groups during the Ottoman- Ittihat Teraki regime were
subject to genocides and so called Muslim in theory and in accordance
with Muslim laws considered equal citizens. This was Turkish
representatives defense about Muslims in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1924.
However, one should remember the Turkish government still hasn’t
implemented Lausanne treaty. Contrary to the treaty it has prohibited
Kurdish Language and has many restrictions on Greeks and Armenian
cultures, properties, and still refuse it committed genocide against
Greek, Armenians, and Kurds.

One of the basic requirements for EU membership is the acceptance of
the so-called Copenhagen criteria of 1993,
) and Turkey is
far away from implementing this treaty. The most important thing is
that Turkey should become an European country, but Europe shouldn’t
become a `Turkey’. All public surveys show people in both EU and
Turkey are favoring that Turkey should become European by adopting the
EU standard not other way around.

Amed Demirhan

Silver Chips Online, MD
Oct 31, 2004

A little history lesson…and the case for Bush

by Armin Rosen, Page Editor
10/31/2004

The use of historical precedent often times ignores the nuances of the
event that is being used as an example. Take for instance the popular
comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. The two are alike in that they are wars
in which the United States fought; yet the nature of the conflicts
could not be less similar.

But, the presidential election of 1896 and the election of 2004 have a
number of major parallels.

In 1896, the United States was struggling to define its place in the
world. The slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the soldiers of the
Ottoman Empire sparked debate over America’s humanitarian
responsibilities. And whereas expansionism had been an unquestioned
aspect of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century, the
prospect of expansion in Cuba through intervention in the Cuban civil
war (which was estimated to have killed almost a quarter of the
island’s population) became a passionate campaign issue, as
expansionists and anti-expansionists argued over the morality of an
imperialistic foreign policy. And in 1896, America was occupying a
foreign country rich in resources. That country was Hawaii.

In 1896, the economy was coming off a crippling recession. The markets
were down, unemployment soared, and the economic debate was, as it is
today, dominated by taxation. The previous year, the Supreme Court had
ruled the progressive tax an unconstitutional assault on property
rights; the incumbent party (the Democrats in this case) was
subsequently criticized for its failure to tax high earners and
regulate big business.

And in 1896, a single controversial issue irreconcilably divided the
country: the mineral standard for American currency after the
contraction in the gold supply. William Jennings Bryant, the Democratic
nominee, supported a silver standard for the dollar; to the Republican
supporters of William McKinley, this was tantamount to theft, as the
inflation of the dollar (silver was in vast supply in those days) would
threaten the intricate system of borrowing and lending that supported
the economy of the late nineteenth century.

It is worth noting that this issue faded from the public conscience
soon after Bryan’s defeat. Historians now believe that the currency
issue was simply a flashpoint for the polarity of the times; indeed,
things became so bad that newspapers wrote of a “new sectionalism,”
creating a parallel between the political bitterness of the 1890s and
that of the old “sectionalism” that eventually led to civil war.

Yet the national crisis of conscience seemed more and more absurd with
every successive year of the McKinley administration. What did America
do right? We resisted the urge to elect a populist to the highest
office in the world.

Some more history

Today, similar to 108 years ago, the United States has been forced to
choose between a man of dubious vision and a man of ignominious
populism. In 1896, and again in 1890, William Jennings Bryan, with his
opposition to imperialism, flat income taxation and central banking,
fell into the latter category. Now, in 2004, Kerry has campaigned on
similar topics of broad appeal to the working class, casting his
opponent as an unabashed panderer to the interests of oil companies,
drug companies, defense contractors and big business in general.

During his first term (his second was cut short by an assassins bullet
in 1901), McKinley used American troops to end humanitarian disasters
in Spanish-controlled Spain and British-controlled China and
successfully established independent China as a free trade zone. These
actions stabilized the world, helped the U.S. economy, expanded the
United State’s influence in world affairs and severely limited the
influence of Europe’s two greatest imperial powers.

Today, India holds many of the same economic opportunities that China
had 108 years ago; according to Congressional Quarterly Researcher,
India will export $50 billion in technology by 2008 and currently has a
middle class roughly equal in population to that of the entire United
States. Kerry’s protectionist policy on outsourcing certainly satisfies
the minority of workers in the tech service sector that could
potentially have their jobs outsourced but will, in the long run,
threaten our ties to a country that is on the way to becoming an
invaluable economic partner of the United States.

Indeed the outsourcing debate is a microcosm of almost all populist
economics. Populists claim that anything that helps big business harms
the worker, but the health of big businesses benefits the working-class
employees of those businesses through wages, benefits and pensions,
which are often stock options in the company they work for.

Expansion into Puerto Rico and Hawaii were issues every bit as
polarizing as our present military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan;
however the voters realized that that the assertion of American power
and the strength and resolve in areas of international affairs were two
of the greatest assets a president could bring to the job.

Kerry, like Bryan 108 years ago, brings neither. Indeed, in his book A
Call to Service, Kerry writes, “In contrast to the dangerous mix of
isolationism and unilateralist that characterizes the Republicans, [I
support] speaking from a position of strength on international
issues-the multilateral cooperative tradition of democratic
internationalism forged in the course of two world wars and the cold
war.” Kerry views foreign policy in the context of multilateralism and
internationalism; the populists of the 1890s viewed it through
isolationism.

By 1900, isolationism seemed an absurdity after America’s successful
military and diplomatic campaigns in Cuba, China, Nicaragua (McKinley
used the threat of military action to protect American interests
there), Hawaii, Guam (another target of expansionism) and to a certain
extent the Philippines (which were ceded to the United States by Spain
after the war in Cuba) tipped the balance of power in the early
twentieth century. “Democratic internationalism” is by no means absurd.
But to base an entire foreign policy on “democratic internationalism”
when so many recent successes in American foreign policy, including
economic sanctions against Cuba, the unilateral demand for negotiations
to end the Bosnian civil war in 1995, the invasion of Panama in 1989
and our ongoing support for the State of Israel, have been
fundamentally unilateralist, would be simply myopic. And it is simply
erroneous to assume that America can “speak from a position of
strength” while ceding at least some of its diplomatic power to other
countries.

Indeed, Kerry believes in internationalism so adamantly that The
Washington Post quoted him as saying in 1994, in respect to the
possibility of deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia that, “If you mean
(American soldiers) dying in the course of the United Nations effort,
yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally
going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome,
the answer is unequivocally no.”

There is a word for scaring the working class with stories of abusive
big business (which, ironically, pays the salaries of most members of
the working class) and for pursuing a foreign policy downplaying
America’s ability to assert its self: populism. Bush, like McKinley 108
years ago, promises us a visionary plan for the revival of our economy
and peace overseas. Recently the columnist David Ignatius compared the
Bush administration’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein to the revolutionary
sparks that led nineteenth century Europe towards democratic and social
reform. Today, there are four times more democracies in the Middle East
than there were four years ago, as Bahrain, Israel, Afghanistan and
Iraq provide hope that democratic ideals can thrive in the Middle East.
Change in the Middle East is well under way, thanks to the
administration of George W. Bush.

Bush is also in the process of moving our country further towards an
“ownership society” where low taxation and personal savings can
eventually replace government handouts. Kerry has criticized Bush for
recommending a plan for privatizing Social Security that would cost
taxpayers over $2 trillion during the transition of Social Security
from government to private control. But at least Bush has presented a
plan that will provide for the permanent solvency of Social Security by
eliminating the program’s dependency on taxpayer dollars. This is the
kind of thinking that does not permeate with the majority of America,
which thinks that government control is the only guarantee of the
survival of Social Security. But populism will not prevent the run on
Social Security that may doom the system during the next several
decades. Again, in the realm of reality, populism fails.

In conclusion…

Previously, I referred to Bush’s vision for the world as “dubious.”
Bush’s vision is limited by his shortcomings as an individual and as a
leader, and his hesitance to admit and rectify past mistakes should
worry Democrats and Republicans alike.

But consider this: Lewis L. Gould, a history professor at the
University of Texas, wrote that “McKinley was a President who acted
decisively in going to war with Spain, asserted great presidential
authority over his cabinet and generals and understood the link between
foreign markets and national prosperity.” If history teaches us
anything, it is that strong, resolute leadership and a worldview that
might reject certain popular opinions in lieu of strategic long-term
goals trumps any defects in personality. That is why it is imperative
that America elect George W. Bush on November 2nd: because we, as a
nation that is now mired in a crisis of conscience, cannot afford to
embrace the popular route while disregarding the necessary one.

Persian Journal, Iran
Oct 31, 2004

Royal Road, Connecting Imperial Capitals of Persia

Persian Empire

According to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (5th
century BCE), the road connected the capital of Lydia, Sardes, and the
capitals of the Achaemenid empire, Susa and Persepolis. From cuneiform
texts, other royal roads are known.

Herodotus describes the road between Sardes and Susa in the following
words [History of Herodotus 5.52-53].

As regards this road the truth is as follows. Everywhere there are
royal stations with excellent resting places, and the whole road runs
through country which is inhabited and safe.

1. Through Lydia and Phrygia there extend twenty stages, amounting to
520 kilometers.
2. After Phrygia succeeds the river Halys, at which there is a gate
which one must needs pass through in order to cross the river, and a
strong guard-post is established there.
3. Then after crossing over into Cappadocia it is by this way
twenty-eight stages, being 572 kilometers, to the borders of Cilicia.
4. On the borders of the Cilicians you will pass through two sets of
gates and guard-posts: then after passing through these it is three
stages, amounting to 85 kilometers, to journey through Cilicia.
5. The boundary of Cilicia and Armenia is a navigable river called
Euphrates. In Armenia the number of stages with resting-places is
fifteen, and 310 kilometers, and there is a guard-post on the way.
6. Then from Armenia, when one enters the land of Matiene, there are
thirty-four stages, amounting to 753 kilometers. Through this land flow
four navigable rivers, which can not be crossed but by ferries, first
the Tigris, then a second and third called both by the same name,
Zabatus, though they are not the same river and do not flow from the
same region (for the first-mentioned of them flows from the Armenian
land and the other from that of the Matienians), and the fourth of the
rivers is called Gyndes […].
7. Passing thence into the Cissian land, there are eleven stages, 234
kilometers, to the river Choaspes, which is also a navigable stream;
and upon this is built the city of Susa. The number of these stages
amounts in all to one hundred and eleven.

This is the number of stages with resting-places, as one goes up from
Sardes to Susa. If the royal road has been rightly measured […] the
number of kilometers from Sardes to the palace of [king Artaxerxes I]
Mnemon is 2500. So if one travels 30 kilometers each day, some ninety
days are spent on the journey.

This road must be very old. If the Persians had built this road and had
taken the shortest route, they would have chosen another track: from
Susa to Babylon, along the Euphrates to the capital of Cilicia, Tarsus,
and from there to Lydia. This was not only shorter, but had the
additional advantage of passing along the sea, where it was possible to
trade goods. The route along the Tigris, however, lead through the
heartland of the ancient Assyrian kingdom. It is likely, therefore,
that the road was planned and organized by the Assyrian kings to
connect their capital Nineveh with Susa. Important towns like Arbela
and Opis were situated on the road.

It is certain that the Assyrians traded with Kanesh in modern Turkey in
the first half of the second millennium BCE. The names of several
trading centers and stations are known and suggest that the route from
Assyria to the west was already well-organized. This road was still in
existence in the Persian age.

A traveler who went from Nineveh (which was destroyed by the Medes and
Babylonians in 612) to the west, crossed the Tigris near a town that
was known as Amida in the Roman age (and today as Diyarbekir). This was
the capital of a country called Sophene. Further to the west, he
crossed the Euphrates near Melitene, the capital of a small state with
the same name, which may have been part of the Persian satrapy Cilicia.
It is probable that the ruins of the guardhouse mentioned by Herodotus
are to be found near Eski Malatya.

The border between Cilicia and Cappadocia was in the Antitaurus
mountain range. The last town in Cilicia, and probably the place of the
‘two sets of gates and guard-posts’ mentioned by Herodotus, was at
Comana, a holy place that was dedicated to Ma-Enyo, a warrior goddess
that the Greeks identified with Artemis.

The route continued across the central plains of modern Turkey, a
country that was called Cappadocia. The exact course of the road is not
known, but it is likely that it passed along the capital of the former
Hethite empire, Hattuas.

The Halys was crossed near modern Ankara -which may well have been a
guard-post- and the next stop was Gordium, the capital of another
kingdom that had disappeared in the Persian age, Phrygia. Passing
though Pessinus, a famous sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Cybele,
and Docimium, famous for its pavonazetto marble, the Royal road reached
Sardes.

At Persepolis, many tablets were found that refer to the system of
horse changing on the Royal road; it was called pirradazi. From these
tablets, we know a lot about the continuation of the road from Susa to
Persepolis -23 stages and a distance of 552 kilometers- and about other
main roads in the Achaemenid empire. No less important was, for
example, the road that connected Babylon and Egbatana, which crossed
the Royal road near Opis, and continued to the holy city of
Zoroastrianism, Rhagae. This road continued to the far east and was
later known as Silk road.
Herodotus describes the pirradazi -for which he uses another name- in
very laudatory words: There is nothing mortal which accomplishes a
journey with more speed than these messengers, so skillfully has this
been invented by the Persians. For they say that according to the
number of days of which the entire journey consists, so many horses and
men are set at intervals, each man and horse appointed for a day’s
journey. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness of night prevents
them from accomplishing the task proposed to them with the very utmost
speed. The first one rides and delivers the message with which he is
charged to the second, and the second to the third; and after that it
goes through them handed from one to the other, as in the torch race
among the Greeks, which they perform for Hephaestus. This kind of
running of their horses the Persians call angareion.
[History of Herodotus 8.98]

To the Greeks, this was most impressive. There is a story by Diodorus
of Sicily that between Susa and Persepolis, even greater communication
speeds were reached:
Although some of the Persians were distant a thirty days’ journey, they
all received the order on that very day, thanks to the skilful
arrangement of the posts of the guard, a matter that it is not well to
pass over in silence. Persia is cut by many narrow valleys and has many
lookout posts that are high and close together, on which those of the
inhabitants who had the loudest voices had been stationed. Since these
posts were separated from each other by the distance at which a man’s
voice can be heard, those who received the order passed it on in the
same way to the next, and then these in turn to others until the
message had been delivered at the border of the satrapy.
[World history 19.17.5-6]

We can not establish whether this is true. If it is, it is the ultimate
tribute to the Persian talent to organize this; if it is a mere
fantasy, it is a beautiful compliment.

The road, although without the pirradazi? system, was still in use in
Roman times. The bridge at Amida (modern Diyarbakir in Turkey) is an
illustration.

Chicago Maroon, IL
Nov 1, 2004

Shades of gray in the Jewish world
By Adam Weissmann

In her op-ed piece (`Jewish-conspiracy theorist surfaces at Duke,’
10/22/04), Phoebe Maltz boldly and cleverly outlined the major flaws
and absurdities of Philip Kurian’s article `The Jews’ in a recent
edition of Duke University’s Chronicle. Yet Kurian’s article, as well
as Maltz’s critique, highlights serious problems of identity and
perception within the Jewish community, both in the world and on our
own campus. Just as I was glad to see Maltz take a stand in exposing
such vile (and frankly inane) accusations about the status of Jews in
American society, I was dismayed by the concessions she allowed in
order to make her argument seem more amenable to a general audience. I
refer specifically to her unwillingness to explore further the American
myth that Jews are `white,’ a label conferred by leading segments of
the mainstream American society only within the last seventy years.

Maltz writes: `While much of Europe has long been divided between Jew
and Christian, America has been divided…between black and white, with
(most) Jews falling into the second category.’ The most fundamental
problem with this line of reasoning is that it presupposes an
oppositional relationship between Jews and Christians. Christians are a
religious group, transcending national borders and peoples. The Jews, a
vestige of a more ancient time when each people subscribed to its own
national religious cult, are one people who have retained their
indigenous religion against the pressures to adopt one of the dominant
multinational religions of Christianity and Islam. This continuing act
of resistance against foreign religious dominance alone has done much
to spurn the hatred that Jews have endured throughout the history of
their diaspora. While other nations, such as the Armenians (they were
the first), the Greeks, and the French acceded to the adoption of the
transnational Christianity, Jews remained stubborn. To say that `much
of Europe has been divided between Christian and Jew’ is incorrect, and
it would be more appropriate to state that much of Europe has been
divided between Jews and a host of other nations.

Yet this statement still does not satisfy: Why focus attention on
Europe? For most of the last eighteen centuries, the country with the
largest Jewish diaspora population has been none other than Iraq. The
sojourn of vast numbers of Jews in Eastern Europe – the locale called to
mind for most Americans as the land of the wandering Jew – did not begin
until the early Renaissance. Throughout the history of the Jewish
exile, large communities could be found in Egypt, Iraq, North Africa,
Ethiopia, and Spain as well. At what point, then, did Jews become
`white?’

In American society, there is a construction of race and ethnicity very
different than that of the Old World. Just as much as Americans have,
throughout their early history, sought to create a new order under a
new republic with a renewed religious enlightenment, so too have
Americans invented a new standard for dividing people into arbitrary
groups. Much of this social construction, it may be deduced, is a
result of the need for fair-skinned European settlers in the New World
to reconcile their horrific enslavement of black Africans by grouping
them as `the Other.’ Before one’s race was French or Russian or
Chinese; now it had become `black’ or `white.’

But who could be `white?’ Until the period of the Second World War,
Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were not. Neither were Jews. Only
after that bitter conflict had seen both the deep commitment of each
group to the national effort and the increased entry of the Irish,
Italian, and Jewish second and third-generation immigrants into the
American middle-class were mainstream Americans willing to grant them
`whiteness.’ Also, the growing tensions between white America and the
still-disenfranchised black America were growing, eventually coming to
a head in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and `60s. After the
war, `white’ Americans were quite eager to expand their ranks
(excluding country-club memberships and college admissions, of course).
We are witnessing a similar extension of this `whiteness’ today, as
many colleges and universities have begun grouping Asian Americans into
the `white’ category for the purposes of affirmative action and other
admissions considerations.

This `white’ identity, which in the last few decades has grown among
most American Jews, is very dangerous to the survival of the Jewish
people in this country. Foremost, it threatens Jewish national
unity – many Jews are not as fair-skinned as those in America, whose
ancestors came largely from the destroyed communities of Northern and
Eastern Europe, where Jews sojourned for several generations – by
fostering new, artificial divisions within the Jewish civilization.
Like many nations, but unlike some in the West, the Jews’ national
identity rests not on the tint of its members’ skin but in a shared
cultural, religious, and historical experience.

Second, it helps to fuel dangerous misconceptions about the
reestablishment of Jewish independence in Israel. It is far easier for
those who fear the Jews’ exercise of political sovereignty to smear the
Jewish national liberation movement as one of `colonization,
occupation, and imperialism’ if the Jews are just another group of
`white’ infiltrators. In a sense, if one were to compare the
relationship between ethnic tensions and racial labels in the Middle
East to those in America, it would be the Jews, Kurds, Assyrians, and
other historically oppressed minorities who must be termed `black.’

What, then, does this teach us? Though I may have been a bit unfair to
Maltz in my treatment of her critique, I feel it is my duty to
underscore a reality that is absent in her prose. If Jews living in
America wish to dissolve into the fabric of the American quilt then
reinforcement of these artificial and self-defeating social divisions
will only prove helpful in hastening the death of this country’s Jewish
community. I and many other Jews like me, both in the general
population and on our campus, choose not to `revel in the luxury of my
`yarmulke’-free existence,’ as does Maltz. Rather I actively embrace my
national identity. It is with pride that I elect to don a `kippah’ (a
more appropriate word for that traditional head-covering), and in so
doing I express my undying faith in the ability of all peoples in the
world to find the elusive harmony that has been so absent since the
beginning of human civilization – one in which the Jews, too, may be
accepted and respected as an equal in the family of peace-loving
nations.

Star, Turkey
Nov. 1, 2004

CHP DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: `THE GOVT FAILED TO READ CAREFULLY THE EU
COMMISSION REPORT ON TURKEY’

Onur Oymen, deputy chairman of the main opposition Republican People’s
Party (CHP) as well as Turkey’s ambassador to NATO, over the weekend
charged that the government had signed the EU Commission’s recent
report on Turkey without reading it carefully enough. `Joining the EU
without the report being corrected would be a mistake,’ he said.
`Open-ended negotiations cannot be accepted. Moreover, the report
recommends permanently restricting Turkish workers’ right to free
movement. The commission’s recommendation is full of traps. The right
to free movement is one of the Union’s basic principles, so this
condition is unacceptable. Besides, the EU Commission also recommended
that Turkey re-open trade with Armenia. In signing the report, the
government neglected these important points.’ /Star/

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Nov. 1, 2004

DELEGATION OF ESTONIA MET WITH CHAIRMAN OF STATE COMMITTEE ON AFFAIRS
OF AZERBAIJANIS LIVING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
[November 01, 2004, 19:49:30]

On 1 November, the Parliamentary delegation of Estonia now visiting
Azerbaijan met with Chairman of the State Committee on Affairs of
Azerbaijanis Living in Foreign Countries Nazim Ibrahimov.

The latter noted that over 50 mln Azerbaijanis are living today in 70
countries, and the Committee founded by the Decree of national leader
of Azerbaijan late President Heydar Aliyev is commissioned to be a
coordinating body for uniting compatriots to solve a lot of existing
problems. One of the today’s most important issues the State Committee
is now engaged in is to create an Azerbaijani lobby in the countries of
their residence.

Touching upon the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,
Mr. Nazim Ibrahimov described it as most complicated and acute problem
of the country. Twenty percent of our lands are under Armenian
occupation and over one million people are refugees. As he stressed
strategic goal of Azerbaijan is integration into the European
structures, and Estonian experience is very important for us, he said.

Head of the Estonian delegation Marco Michelson noted for his part that
Estonia as a former Soviet country is well aware of the problems of the
newly independent states, and can share its experience concerning
integration into Europe.

We are successfully cooperating with delegations of the Azerbaijani
parliamentarians in the Council of Europe and other international
structures, he said.

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Nov. 1, 2004

Controversial human rights report released

The report prepared by the Prime Ministry Advisory Board was not
acknowledged by the government.

November 1 – The section of the Prime Ministry Advisory Board Human
Rights report dealing with minorities in Turkey had an eventful release
to the media Monday, with the event being disrupted by protestors,
including members of the board itself.

Professor Ibrahim Kaboglu, the Chairman of the Board, was interrupted
at the press conference called to release the report when he was
attacked by Fahrettin Yokus secretary of the KAMU-Sen, public servants
trade union, who then tore up the copy of the document before the
cameras of the media.
Although forced to halt the press conference due to Yokus’s
attack, Kaboglu said that the report on minorities and cultural rights
in Turkey had been properly voted on and had undergone changes.
Kaboglu made a press statement following the incident. He
highlighted the importance of the human rights and called on all
related parties to keep a close eye on any infringements.
`Freedom of thought is also a matter that should be dealt with
sensitively,’ he said.
In response to the government distancing itself from the report,
Kaboglu stressed that the board was an official body and that the
authorities had been informed of the contents of the report.
The report said that there should be a wider understanding of
minorities in Turkey, rather than just of the Jewish, Greek and
Armenian minorities covered by international treaty.