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.

Onlypunjab.com (press release), India
Nov. 1, 2004
Indian men score over Armenia, women draw with Poland
Source : Spain-Chess-India
The fifth seeded Indians beat fourth seeded Armenia 2.5-1.5 with the
top three boards drawn.

Surya Sekhar Ganguly (2559), the reigning Indian national champion,
dealt the final blow by beating Gabriel Sargissian (2611), who is rated
more than 50 elo points above him.
In the women’s section, the sixth seed Indian women drew with seventh
seeds Poland 1.5-1.5 as all three games ended in draws.
Koneru Humy (2503) drew with Iweta Radzewicz, while S Vijayalakshmi
(2411) drew with Joanna Dworakowska (2393) and D Harika (2391) drew
with Marta Zielinska (2395).
The Indian men lie sixth with 14 points, while the women are fifth with
10.5 points.
In the sixth round, the Indian men will meet the Netherlands, who also
have 14 points like India, while the Indian women will meet a fancied
Hungarian side which has 10 points.
In other fifth round matches, second seed Ukraine was held to a 2-2 tie
by third seed Israel as the two teams played draws on all four boards.
Bulgaria routed Scotland 3.5-0.5 to occupy the fourth place on 14.5
along with top seed and defending champions Russia.

Transitions on Line, Czechia
Nov. 1, 2004
Time for a Change

by TOL
1 November 2004
George Bush talks of the `transformational power of liberty.’ The
post-communist world needs a U.S. leader who would help liberty more.
Everywhere you go in our region there is an unprecedented interest in
the U.S. elections. Some commentators find the interest out of
proportion, arguing that the two presidential candidates’ foreign
policies do not differ vastly.
Their surprise is bizarre and their interpretation of the candidates’
foreign-policy differences probably too narrow. What would be more
amazing is if the world were not so interested. After all, the key
themes of the Bush presidency has been a global `war on terror’ and an
invasion underpinned by a belief in the `transformational power of
liberty’ – and if anyone over the past 15 years has been testing the
`transformational power of liberty’ it is the post-communist world.
Inevitable, then, that these elections are being viewed as crucial. And
for many, the candidates’ utterly different personalities and
approaches make not just for compelling viewing, but ultimately also
for different policies.
Since, in our own way, we monitor the strength and weakness of liberty
in 28 countries, we feel it worth taking this opportunity to consider
the approach and the man best suited to meet our hopes. Those hopes are
for the promotion of democracy, better governance, and accountability,
and for greater security.
Our region, of course, barely featured in the campaign. But in most
other respects, we are making a judgment in the same way as the
American people, based on the candidates’ personalities, approaches,
styles, credibility, and records. And while Bush, as president, has a
bigger record, the senator too has an interesting and important record.
BUSH’S RECORD
John Kerry would of course come to the presidency without a history of
executive power. But that isn’t much of a handicap. Because George
Bush’s list of achievements or policy initiatives in our region is not
very long, and some of it is distinctly disturbing.
The shortness is partly understandable. There is the war in Iraq to
attend to. In Clinton’s time, it was the war in the Balkans that
consumed attention. The United States no longer bears the main
diplomatic burden in the Balkans. Instead, it is the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the European Union that
are forcing the region to deal with the past. It is Europe that can
offer a vision of the future (EU membership), and, militarily,
increasingly it is Europe that is taking responsibility.
In the `wider Europe’ – Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova – the Bush
administration has held the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus
accountable and promoted cooperation with NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski, an
adviser to ex-President Jimmy Carter, recently wrote that Bush’s
National Security Council has `studiously ignored’ Ukraine `while
naïvely courting’ Russia’s President Putin. That may be true, but the
vision deficit in this area is primarily Europe’s fault. (If Turkey
deserves special status in the EU’s eyes, so does Ukraine.) There are
question marks, too, over the State Department’s approach to Moldova,
but, overall, in Eastern Europe there has been nothing especially
notable about American activity these past four years.
It is in Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia that Bush has left his
mark and, occasionally, earned some points. In Georgia, Washington was
right to put President Eduard Shevardnadze under intense pressure
before and after fraudulent elections that eventually led to the rose
revolution. But it did dismally in Azerbaijan after rigged elections
and feebly in Armenia after deeply flawed votes.
After 9/11, we had expected a major inflow of cash and attention to
Central Asia (thanks to its proximity to Afghanistan) and to the
Caucasus (as a near neighbor of Iraq’s). But, outside the military
sphere, neither the international community nor the United States has
dedicated much in the way of cash or manpower. That is not entirely
their fault (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do not even yet allow the
World Bank to help gather statistics), but they have failed
intellectually to grapple with Central Asia’s problems, to push hard
enough for more economic development, and to uphold moral standards. To
be fair, the State Department has made a few good noises in public,
warning that crackdowns on dissent are counterproductive. It has also
said it will withhold a token amount in aid to Uzbekistan ($18
million). But that barely compares with inviting Uzbek President Islam
Karimov to Washington, the centrality of military concerns, and the
lawless example set by Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in a region where
the term `war on terror’ has been ritually abused and overused. All of
that, and the United States’ new military interests in the region,
leave us skeptical that the United States is working hard enough behind
the scenes to promote a more open society.
Perhaps we should we give Bush more benefit of the doubt. But in the
alacrity of its recognition of Azerbaijan’s `elections,’ Washington
showed how readily national interests – in that case, oil and gas – can
supersede national values. It has also been slow to see and worry about
anti-democratic tendencies, most importantly in Russia. When Bush
looked into Putin’s eyes he famously found love. Over these four years,
when we have looked at his actions, we have found an
authoritarian-in-waiting. Our judgement looks more accurate by the
month. That also strengthens our view on the greatest successes of the
Bush-Putin relationship: Putin’s relatively easy acceptance of NATO
expansion to the Baltics and the war in Afghanistan. Where some saw
great successes for Western diplomacy, we saw a man making a virtue out
of necessity. Putin deserved respect and appreciation for being
realistic but not love and accolades.
In short, in these four years the United States has maintained a
relatively low-key diplomatic approach, quietly completed the landmark
effort to expand NATO to the Baltics, made questionable progress with
Russia, and set a disturbing moral example. More should be expected
from the world’s leader.
Americans should also expect more. Looked at more broadly, Bush’s
presidency has fueled anti-American sentiment, increased cynicism, and
offered people with bad governments and an ugly past – chiefly in the
Balkans–an unhelpful type of comfort: if, in Iraq, the leader of the
greatest power in history can behave cynically and unaccountably (as
they see it), we do not have too much to feel ashamed about after all.
America needs to produce an antidote to such sentiments.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S AGENDA
Inevitably, our region has been of secondary importance to Bush. That
will remain the case. But an agenda filled with important issues is
beginning to form for the next president. The European Commission’s
recommendation to invite Turkey to become a member adds weight to the
cross-party U.S. desire to promote the Black Sea as an area of greater
stability. If the United States is serious about that (and, with an oil
pipeline due to run from the Caspian to the Black Sea, it should be),
it will need a more stable Caucasus. With a determined president in
Georgia, it will need to pay more attention to Georgia’s frozen
conflicts, which could in turn focus attention on Nagorno-Karabakh and
Transdniester (Bruce Jackson, chairman of the U.S. NATO Committee, said
on 21 October, that Transdniester is likely to be higher up the next
administration’s agenda). To deal with these issues, the United States
(and Europe) will have to challenge Russia over its role in these
areas.
And if it is serious about security in Central Asia, having beheaded
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan during the war in Afghanistan, the
United States will have to look deeper at the social and political
problems that fuel unrest and at the drug trade that finances
criminals.
If any of that is to happen, more engagement, a willingness to address
some long-standing problems, a willingness to challenge some difficult
leaders, and a more sophisticated understanding of the `war on terror’
are all required. And since the EU is critically important
diplomatically and economically in the Balkans, the `wider Europe,’ and
Russia, a good relationship with the EU would help.
In other words, a broader understanding is critical, style is a major
tool–not just some embellishment–and a good partnership with Europe
serves U.S. interests.
THE SENATOR’S RECORD
Both style and approach are a problem for Bush. In the days before the
U.S. elections, Bush received a `ringing endorsement’ that he could
have done without–from Putin. The Russian president’s principal
reasoning is that, if Bush is not re-elected, international terrorists
`will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror
coalition.’ That endorsement, of course, does not mean the two fully
agree on how to fight the `war on terror’: they disagreed on Iraq and
on Putin’s twisted logic that the Beslan tragedy somehow meant there
must be no local elections in Russia. What it more probably means is
that a man who turned Grozny into Stalingrad and allows his soldiers to
do anything in Chechnya feels happier with Bush’s record, personality,
and attitudes toward him, terrorism, and Chechnya. Not a desirable
commendation.
Kerry offers a better approach and a more promising record. In his 1997
book The New War, Kerry emphasized non-state actors as a source of
instability. As a district attorney, he is credited with major
successes against the local mafia. As a senator, he played a key role
in uncovering the Iran-Contra affair and in efforts to clamp down on
money-laundering and drug-trafficking. All that makes it possible that
he will understand some of the atypical security threats in Central
Asia, Transdniester, and the region as a whole. And with a record of
interest in these issues, there is more chance that he will be
interested in this region. All this also happens to make it likelier
that he will hold some leaders more accountable.
Leaders around the region might, then, not like him much. Russia, for
example, might not take easily to Kerry’s commitment, in a presidential
debate, that he would press Russia to secure its nuclear weapons. But
he also said he would ditch a new nuclear program that Bush is
developing. He has other things to offer as well: a greater willingness
to cooperate, to sign up to international agreements, and – critically – to
work closely with Europe. He would, too, suffer from less of a
credibility gap than Bush. When recently asked in the United States
whether he would send troops to Iraq knowing what he knows now,
Poland’s President Aleksander Kwasniewski, so often cited by Bush in
this campaign, simply replied, `Next question.’ Not a ringing
endorsement from a president whose endorsement is coveted.
A more multilateral approach would, intrinsically, make the United
States more accountable. Whether Kerry would sign up to the
International Criminal Court is another matter. But even if he is
unwilling to hold U.S. troops accountable internationally, he would be
more likely than Bush to bring them to book domestically. As a senator
he criticized the U.S. military’s actions in Vietnam and government
agencies’ relationships with drug-traffickers and gun-runners. Compare
that with a president who brought us Guantanamo Bay and never punished
the man ultimately responsible for the disgrace at Abu Ghraib, Donald
Rumsfeld.
THE VISION THING
Of course, the region will be competing for attention with more
pressing concerns in the Middle East. We do not expect too much (partly
because both houses of Congress may be controlled by the Republicans).
But that is also why we place an emphasis on an appreciation of the
importance of a more multilateral approach, a more nuanced view of
security, and a record of interest in these issues. Moreover, look
again at the agenda we see for the next president and it is clear we
see a problem that needs to be recognized (and that is not too distant
from the problems the United States faces in Iraq): the transition away
from authoritarianism is in trouble and needs help.
Despite a father who was a Cold War head of the CIA, Bush has failed to
recognize that problem – or, at least, to do much to help. Whether Kerry
has or will notice it is open to question. But, as the internationalist
son of a Cold War diplomat who spent a childhood in Europe and a
senator with an interesting record, there is at least a fair chance he
will.
In any case, over the past four years, in this region Bush has given us
little reason to commend him and much to worry about. Kerry offers a
promising alternative and less reason to worry. If Americans opt for a
change, we will be glad.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
Nov. 1, 2004
ARF HOLDS GENERAL MEETING 170 KM WAY FROM CAPITAL
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian Revolutionary
Federation/Dashnaktsutyun said in a press release today that the
party’s general meeting elected Armen Rustamian, Mikael Manukian, Levon
Mkrtchian, Hrach Tadevosian, Spartak Seyranian, Hamlet Gasparian,
Bagrat Sarkisian, Ashot Papazian and Vlad Kochunts as members of the
Supreme Body of ARF in Armenia.
The press release said the general meeting was held on November
29-31 in a resort town of Jermuk, around 170m km off the capital
Yerevan. Party officials would not disclose the venue of the meeting
and no reporters were allowed to attend it. Usually ARF held its
meetings in another resort town of Tsakhkadzor, some 40 km away from
Yerevan.
The press release also said that Armen Rustamian was elected
representative of the ARF Armenian Supreme Body. It said party leaders
will convene a news conference soon to provide more information on the
meeting.

ArmenPress
Nov. 1, 2004
VARDASHEN PRISON BROUGHT IN COMPLIANCE WITH EUROPEAN STANDARDS, JUSTICE
MINISTER SAYS
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: The Vardashen prison in a Yerevan
outskirts, called in official documents “criminal-executive
institution” has undergone an extensive overhaul and now complies with
European standards. The Vardashen prison is for former law enforcement
bodies, sentenced to various terms for different crimes.
Armenian justice minister Davit Harutunian visited the prison last
Friday and expressed his satisfaction with the completed work. He said
it was the first time ever such a massive work was conducted to meet
international standards as required by the Council of Europe.
The minister said different regimes will be established in the
prison-so-called open, semi-open, close and semi-closed. The semi-open
regime, for example, allows the convicts to have the opportunity to
freely move within the prison during the whole day.
Restrictions are harsher in close and semi-close regimes. The
convicts have the right to move only at certain hours. At present, the
criminal-executive institution of Artik is also undergoing a
reconstruction. Harutunian said conditions must be established in order
to keep the “mind and the hands of convicts busy” as the work therapy
is part of the rehabilitation.

ArmenPress
Nov. 1, 2004
SOUTH OSSETIAN POLICE FIND THE MUTILATED BODY OF ARMENIAN
ETCHMIADZIN, OCTOBER 15, ARMENPRESS: Police officers in Russian
North Ossetia found the mutilated body of Deacon Zorik Abeshian. Deacon
Abeshian served in the Saint Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Church in
Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia (Russian Federation). H disappeared October
10 en route to church. His body was found on the roadside near
Vladikavkaz on October 31.
The headquarters of the Armenian Church in Etchmiadzin condemned the
horrible crime in a statement. It said His Holiness Karekin II calls on
his flock to raise their prays in memory of Deacon Zorik Abeshian.

ArmenPress
Nov. 1, 2004
YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY PROMISES TO EASE COMMUTERS’ PROBLEMS
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: A senior official of the Yerevan
municipality reiterated today previous promises to bring some 130
passenger buses from Ukraine and Belarus by the end of the year to ease
commuters’ problems, who often have to wait for tens of minutes to
squeeze into one of mini-buses that can carry a dozen people only.
Tigran Nazarian, the head of the transport department of the
municipality said 3,000 mini-buses operate in the capital, but they are
not enough to transport passengers, especially in rush hours.
Last year the municipality brought some 30 buses, mainly from
France. Previous state-run bus companies were privatized in 1997 and
now there is only one such company in Yerevan. Nazarian said companies
refuse to bring buses on grounds that they do not bring profits as
their fares are 70 drams against 100 drams charged by mini-buses. He
said bus fares may be revised and set at 100 drams.
Nazarian said also buses will be brought up to 2007 and by that time
Yerevan municipality is expected to run 1000 buses. He said some 20
buses and trolley-buses are coming soon from French Lyon.