AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Oct 15 2004
VARDAN OSKANYAN DISTORTS NAGORNY KARABAKH – RELATED FACTS
[October 14, 2004, 20:23:54]
Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan
released a statement on October 14 to comment on the interview
concerning Nagorno-Karabakh settlement given by Armenian Foreign
Minister Vardan Oskanyan in his usual manner to the county’s Public
Television.
The statement in particular says it was the Armenian Minister’s one
more attempt to mystify the Key West talks by citing to a certain
” the only way” allegedly agreed by both sides, and implying that
Karabakh will not be a part of Azerbaijan.
“The Azerbaijani side stated more than once, and today we once again
suggest Mt. Oskayan to find better application of his persistence and
stop playing Key West games; we hereby reaffirm that no agreements
were reached on the issues discussed in Key West, the statement says.
It is Armenia that demonstrates its “unique abilities” to violate
scot-free the agreements reached, the statement says, recalling the
dismissal of former Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan who had then
accepted the OSCE Co-chairs’ plan of step-by-step settlement of
the conflict, which implied in the first stage a withdrawal of the
Armenian armed forces form the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
“The Azerbaijani side also remember other phase of the peace process
when President Kocharyan okayed in principle the transfer of a part
of Armenia’s territory to Azerbaijan that resulted in fusillade in
the Armenian parliament,” the statement says.
It also stresses that the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot a
subject of compromise, it is an integral part of the Azerbaijan
Republic, and that compromises are possible only in relation to the
status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan does not put forward any innovations; there is a rich
and useful European experience of self-government. A different
approach provokes dangerous tendencies, and the multinational South
Caucasus region is not the only one that can face their unpredictable
consequences, the statement concludes.

CounterPunch , CA
Oct 15 2004
Turning Myths into Truth
Fodder for the Mindless
By WILLIAM A. COOK
The lies used by the Bush administration to rally support for
its illegal actions in Iraq and Palestine have moved with glacial
slowness before the public. The reason, we have learned, exists in
the main stream media that controls news fed to the public. Alison
Weir, Executive Director of “If Americans Knew,” established, for
example, that 150% of Israeli children’s deaths (more than one story
on some) were the subject of front page articles and photos in the San
Francisco Chronicle while only 5% of Palestinian children’s deaths
made it to the front page. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted
that NPR reported on 89% of Israeli children’s deaths and only 20%
of Palestinian children’s deaths. These studies mirror the reality
for most American, corporate controlled media.
Recently, an Ariel Sharon advisor, Dov Weisglass, revealed to Ha’aretz
that the “ulterior motive behind Sharon’s unilateral decision to
withdraw from the Gaza strip” was not to further the peace process
but to “freeze it” in order to prevent “the establishment of a
Palestinian state.” Where did you read about this in America’s
main stream media? In another news article last month, Ha’aretz
editorialized that Israel is responsible for the terror that exists
in Palestine! That confession also went unnoticed in the US. The sin
of intentional omission more often than not creates the perceptions
we hold on issues of great significance. The elite powers that control
the message control what we think is true. Let me offer three examples
of intentional deception that fabricates a myth that becomes truth.
Ha’aretz, the Israeli newspaper not controlled by the right-wing
Zionists of
Sharon’s racist administration, editorialized a couple of weeks ago
on a matter of paramount concern to America, the cause of terrorism
in Israel and the mid-east, a matter not mentioned at either of our
national conventions, and unreported in the main stream press: “The
underlying basis of (this) terrorism lies in the territories. Nowhere
else. The main motivation for the war against us is the aspiration
to shake off the cruel yoke of the occupation. The checkpoints, the
humiliations, the suppression and the mass imprisonment are the true
infrastructure of terrorism.” This editorial exposes the truth about
terrorism in Israel and elsewhere in the mid-east and gives lie to the
myth that it is the Palestinians that have caused the terrorism that
afflicts that state. It denudes the fiction that Sharon perpetrates
and uses as a collar around Bush’s neck in order to lead him to accept
the state terrorism that he imposes on the Palestinians.
This editorial decries the blatant and unfounded accusations made by
the Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and the military that blames Syria
for the terrorism in Israel. “The attempt to cast responsibility on
Damascus is intended to avoid having to cope with the true causes of
terrorism,” Ha’aretz argues. “Colonial regimes have always accused
external sources of intervening in the liberation struggles waged
against them, in order to undermine the justice of the struggles,”
a point that America has to face in Iraq as it imposes its will on
a people that has no desire to be suppressed. The Ha’aretz editorial
blows open the whole charade that Israel and its American apologizers
use to defend its occupation and oppression, friends like AIPAC,
the now exposed conduit for American classified information to Sharon.
“Palestinian terrorism was not engendered in any external command
post. It had its birth among the rubble in the territories, in the
hearts of the children who saw their parents humiliated and their
lives trampled underfoot. Anyone who truly wants to put an end to
terrorism must fight the occupation. Any other war is pointless,” a
point that makes a mockery of AIPAC’s and Wolfowitz’ and Sharon’s push
to “change regimes” in Iran and Syria even as it bares the insidious
intent of their efforts. Deception destroys discernment of truth and
omission of any reference to this argument, made by a major newspaper
in Israel, can be nothing more than intentional deception.
Consider now a second myth that has prominence in America, one
defended by Israel’s most renowned apologist, Alan Dershowitz, in his
most recent book The Case for Israel. According to Dershowitz, “Jews
were a substantial majority in those areas of Palestine partitioned
by the United Nations for a Jewish state.” The official UN estimate
of the population of mandatory Palestine allocated to the Jewish
state, according to Dershowitz, although he provides no source
for his numbers, only the claim that they are authoritative, are
538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. Interestingly, he does not question
the accuracy of the population numbers provided by this writer in
a CP article that appeared 4/6/03 (figures Dershowitz questions),
he simply changes the base of the argument and thus allows himself
to offer numbers that fit his argument.
What he does not provide, what he omits to record, are numbers based
on historical and archeological data collected in a huge tome that
identifies the populations of every village within the pre-1967
borders of Israel, titled appropriately, All That Remains, a work
edited by Walid Khalidi a distinguished historian and one time Senior
Fellow at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In this work,
Khalidi accounts for 418 towns and villages that were systematically
raised by the Jewish military, citing exact population statistics
for each location, statistics that appear as they did in the Mandate
Government’s 1945 Village Statistics. Each of these 418 towns and
villages had been in recorded existence since the 16th century
inhabited by an overwhelming Arab population.
The statistics tell the story. In excess of 390,000 inhabitants of
these towns and villages were forced to move in 1948, in addition
to an estimated 254,000 inhabitants of cities in the same areas
and 70,000 to 100,000 Beduins, a mobile population driven out by
the Jewish forces. Another 13,000 were killed in the battles that
took place in these areas. The total amounted to an estimated 54%
of the population in the areas that constituted the UN proposed land
to be given to the Jewish state. Khalidi’s accounted for population
of approximately 727,000 Arabs gives the lie to Dershowitz’ figures
even if one accepts his argument that the population of the proposed
Jewish state only should be the basis of determining that the creation
of it was justified.
But statistics do not tell the human side of this catastrophic
movement of people. These major urban areas–Acre, Beersheba, Baysan,
Lydda, Majdal, Nazareth, al-Rama–were emptied of their Palestinian
residents. “Their immovable assets–commercial centers, residential
quarters, schools, banks, hospitals, clinics, mosques, churches, and
other public buildings, parks and utilities, all passed en bloc into
the possession of the nascent State of Israel. Also appropriated intact
by Israelis were the personal moveable assets: furniture, silver,
pictures, carpets, libraries, and heirlooms–all the accoutrements
of middle-class life of the erstwhile Palestinian residents.”
In All That Remains, Khalidi provides two maps, divided by areas that
constitute the proposed Jewish state, with graphics that demonstrate
the population comparison between Palestinian and Jew. There are
8 areas that make up the proposed state: Safad, Tiberiae, Baysan,
Haifa, a large section of Tulkarm, Jaffa, a sizeable section of Al
Ramla, and Beersheba; a separate area designation is provided for
Jerusalem. Only in Jaffa did the Jewish population outnumber the Arab,
including Jerusalem which had an Arab population of 62% versus 38%
Jewish. One might note that Dershowitz mentions only that western
Jerusalem had a majority of Jews; how deceptive. He also notes that
Hebron, not designated as part of the proposed state, had a Jewish
population for thousands of years, a fact somewhat at odds with the
population statistics in 1946 when there were less than 1% Jews in
the area.
Hidden within the myth that Jews were the larger population in the
proposed Jewish state thus making legitimate their right to the land,
is another myth, more insidious than the first: Palestinians left
that area of their own accord or upon the demands of the Palestinian
authorities. This myth opens the door for innocent Israelis to claim
the deserted land for themselves. But according to Henry Siegman,
in a rebuttal letter in the New York Review of Books to Benny
Morris the Israeli historian who had questioned a Siegman article,
“The issue I addressed in my article is whether the mass exodus of
700,000 Palestinian Arabs from the areas in Palestine assigned to
the Jews was the consequence of the chaos of war or whether it was
‘planned’-the result of a deliberate decision by Jewish leaders to
expel Palestinian Arabs from these areasI noted in my article that in
the revised edition of Morris’s book, he writes that he had conclusive
evidence that there was indeed a deliberate decision by Ben Gurion
to expel–the term ‘cleanse’ is used extensively–700,000 Palestinian
Arabs. Their flight was therefore not the unintended collateral damage
of a war started by the Arabs but the result of decisions and actions
taken by the Yishuv’s top political and military planners.”
Siegman goes on to point out that Morris does not object to
the decision to “expel” Palestinians from their land because he
understands that a Jewish state could not exist in an area where
the Arab population outnumbered the Jews: “Without the uprooting of
the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.” The
title of Siegman’s article suggests the consequences of the lies
that give feigned legitimacy to illegal actions: “Israel: the Threat
from Within.”
My third myth, presented as truth universally, may best be presented
by Elsa Walsh from her article for the New Yorker (3/24/03), titled
“The Prince.” The article is something of a brief biography of
Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia and his political manipulations in our
nation’s Capitol. Walsh writes “But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar
the President’s (Clinton) talking papers Bandar recognized that in
its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It
gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of
about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories;
all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with
Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a
thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.” Arafat, as Walsh notes,
agreed to accept the proposals as offered by Clinton, but only as
the basis for new talks. The world heard that Arafat had refused the
proposals and offered no explanation or alternatives.
Did Clinton’s papers offer Arafat “everything he wanted” as Bandar
claims? In 1993, Arafat sent a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin,
September 9, stating most pertinently these points: The PLO recognizes
the right of the state of Israel to exist in peace and security;
the PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338, the 1948 and 1967 borders and right of return; the PLO commits
itself to the peace processall outstanding issueswill be resolved
through negotiations.
Did Clinton offer Arafat all of the land captured by the Israelis in
1948? Did he offer a return to the borders as delineated by the UN
in 1967? Or did he offer Arafat 97% of the West Bank and Gaza? Did
Clinton provide a set process for the refugees, a right to return to
their homes whether in the remaining Palestinian land or in Israel?
Did Clinton’s plan provide for recognition of the right to exist of
a Palestinian state, a state recognized by Israel?
It’s clear that Clinton did not offer Arafat everything he wanted.
Arafat had no option but to refuse Clinton’s proposal or accept
it only as a basis for new negotiations, and that he did. It’s
instructive to note that the one-sidedness of Clinton’s offer was so
blatant that Yossi Beilin, an Israeli architect of the Oslo Accords,
and former Palestinian minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, worked for two
and a half years to create the Geneva Accords to right the wrongs of
the original proposals. The GA, while not official, stipulates the
immediate recognition of a Palestinian state by the state of Israel.
It addresses forthrightly the issue of refugee right of return and
compensation for their suffering and loss of homes in accordance with
UN Resolutions 194 of 1948 and the principles of International Law.
And it notes that the relations between Israel and Palestine shall
be based upon the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Furthermore, it makes the borders that compose the state of Palestine
those of June 1967 in accordance with Resolutions 242 and 338. Most
of the settlements are to be disbanded and territorial integrity to
be respected by both parties. Palestine will be a non-militarized
state protected in part by the creation of a multinational force
established and deployed in Palestine. Finally, a joint committee
will monitor the crossing borders, an item originally in the Oslo
agreement but later cancelled by Israel. This document addresses
the issues Arafat had to contend with, without which he could not
commit his people. Curiously enough, the GA offers a resolution to
the dilemma addressed by Ha’aretz in its editorial, a just resolution
to the conflict that rages in Palestine.
There you have it, three myths presented as truth to a world benumbed,
especially in the US. All three exist because our press and our
talking heads, especially those that snarl on FOX or obsequiously
fawn disbelief on CNN or MSNBC, intentionally omit the requisite
investigation of the truth or coddle to the power of corporate America
and to the belief, in itself a myth, that we must not question our
one true friend in the Middle East, the “Democratic” (sic) state of
Israel. But, then, myths are the staple of those who want to know
without engaging the mind or the senses. Besides, a little blather
about issues of no consequence coddles the public mind and doesn’t
really disturb their contentment.
William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne
in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century,
was just published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Religion in Armenia
Moscow Times
Oct 15 2004
News in Brief
YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) — Authorities in Armenia registered the
Jehovah’s Witnesses on Wednesday, allowing the religious group to
operate in the Caucasus nation after years of debate and denial.
Legalizing the Jehovah’s Witnesses was one of the main conditions
set out by the Council of Europe when it granted Armenia membership
two years ago.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Hellenic News of America
Oct 15 2004
Greek-American Voters United on Major Issues of Concern
Results of HCS Voter Survey
Over 85% of Respondents Did Not Know Positions of 2004 Presidential
Candidates
Below are the texts of the survey questions and the responses of the
participants:
Question 1: As a registered voter, are all or any of these
issues–Cyprus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Halki School of Theology,
Albania, and FYROM–important to you?
Responses: 91% responded that these issues were important; 9 %
indicated that they were not.
Question 2: Would the positions of candidates on any of these issues
influence your vote in the upcoming November presidential election?
Responses: 78% registered a “yes;” 22% said “no.”
Question 3: Do you know the positions of President George Bush,
Senator John Kerry, and Mr. Ralph Nader on the four key issues
(Cyprus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Albania, and FYROM)?
Responses: 88% said that they did not know the position of the
candidates, with 12% responding that they were informed of their
positions.
Question 4: If you do not know the positions of the three major
presidential candidates on these four key issues (Cyprus, Ecumenical
Patriarchate/Halki, Albania, and FYROM), would you like to learn what
their positions are?
Responses: 90% responded “yes,” while 10% indicated that they had no
interest in learning their positions.
Question 5: Keeping in mind that media commentators and experts
identify several issues as critical to U.S. voters, namely, the state
of the economy, education, the environment, health care, and
security, among others, would you consider voting for a presidential
candidate based on his views on the issues important to
Greek-Americans (Cyprus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Halki, Albania,
and FYROM)?
Responses: 75% said “yes” to this question; 25% responded “no.”
Question 6: To which political party do you belong?
Responses: Democrats, 32%; Independents, 44%; Republican, 27%
Question 7: Are you aware that over a million Greeks, together with
1.5 million Armenians and 700,000 Assyrians were victims of the
genocide which took place in Anatolia starting in 1908 when the
Neo-Turks took over?
Responses: 93% responded that they were aware; 7% said that they were
not aware.
Question 8: In which state are you legally registered to vote?
Responses: [The editors have decided to group the individual states
listed in answers into regions.] North, 55%; South, 14%; East, 19%;
West, 12%.
Question 9: Would you consider writing a letter to one of the major
presidential candidates?
Responses: 70% of the respondents said “yes,” while 30% indicated
“no.”
Question 10: Are you aware of the existence of the Congressional
Caucus on Hellenic Issues?
Responses: 65% said “yes,” with the remaining 35% responding “no.”
Question 11: Is your Representative a member of the Congressional
Hellenic Caucus? See 108th Congress Hellenic Caucus list co-chaired
by Carolyn B. Maloney and Michael Bilirakis at
Responses: Split evenly—50% “yes,” 50% “no.”
Question 12: If not [answering “no” to question 11], do you consider
the Hellenic issues important for you to encourage your U.S.
Representative to join the Congressional Hellenic Caucus and will you
do so?
Responses: An overwhelming 91% responded “yes,” with only 9% of the
survey takers indicating “no.”
Conclusions
Although many different conclusions might be drawn from the survey
responses, the HCS Survey Team examined the results in an objective
fashion and concluded the following:
§ The overwhelming majority of survey participants (90%) indicated
that these issues were important to them, with over 75% specifying
further that their November votes could be influenced by the
positions of the candidates on these issues.
§ The respondents were committed enough to the specified issues to
express a willingness (65%) to write a letter to one of the major
presidential candidates.
§ Over 50% of the respondents indicated an awareness of the existence
of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues and a willingness to
encourage their Congressional Representative to join the caucus.
§ Over 90% indicated they were aware of the genocide(s) which took
place in Anatolia starting in 19908 when the Neo-Turks took over.
A Select Sampling of Respondents’ Comments
§ “We need to form more effective district lobbies in most
congressional districts. We also need more AHIPAC seminars on the
issues in every Greek community [in order] to mobilize and educate
the Greek-Americans about the issues.” [Independent from California
who offered to help]
§ “I am of Turkish descent. The flip side of the coin is that we feel
these issues, however valid they may be towards Greeks or Armenians,
encourage racism towards us as Turkish-Americans and discrimination
towards Turkish people in general. There are better ways to deal with
these matters than through Congress. Since I did take time to answer
your questions, you should not throw them out of your survey. We are
all after all ‘Americans.'” [Democrat from Pennsylvania]
§ “I am and have been very sympathetic to Greek issues, however, I am
a citizen of the USA and my vote strictly is based on the safety and
well being of this nation’s citizens.”
§ “I suggest that you [HCS] send out email that we can forward to
other friends [and] Hellenes who would like to go to this site and
vote on these issues. This is very good!! Congratulations for doing
this. Thank you so much. [Republican from New Hampshire]
§ “a) My Representative (Henry Waxman) is a member of the Hellenic
Caucus. However, I believe he is also a member of the Turkish Caucus.
What is AHI doing in such cases?
b) What is AHI doing to promote policy changes in the US State
Department? Are we (as a Hellenic community) providing scholarships
to students with the intent for them to enter foreign service and,
hence, influence US foreign policy?
c) In everything we do (as a Hellenic community), it seems that we
are reacting rather than acting.
d) It is vitally important that big-money Greeks collude their
efforts. There are so many organizations and people whose actions are
not coordinated. Do we really need so many groups? It does not how
cohesion and power.” [Independent from California]
§ “I would like to see support from HEC for H.R. 594/S. 349 to repeal
the WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) that cheats workers out of
the Social Security benefits they have paid into. Congress can pass
legislation to repeal the WEP. For example, Representatives McKeon
(R-CA) and Berman (D-CA) and Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Collins
(R-ME) have introduced bills (H.R. 594/S. 349) to repeal the WEP. See
the URL concerning this issue at
among other sites. Thank
you, Vasilis Kirikos (Bill Herald)” [Democrat from Maryland]
§ “We need to focus on making Greece amore powerful country. We all
hope that they keep the momentum from the Euro world cup victory and
the super success of the Olympics. Greece and Greek diaspora around
the world (primarily Greek-Americans) should work hard to improve the
economy of Greece. Even though the Olympics was a success, it was
done under massive pressure and time constraints. Imagine if Greece
worked at the highest levels of efficiency without massive pressure?
The trait of a Greek being independent is both a blessing and a
curse. Let’s us have some workshops/seminars on how we can keep our
“independence” but learn how we can work together.
There is not doubt that the world fears Greece and its people, as to
what great things they can accomplish if they worked together.
The military must be made stronger and yes, Greece push for aid but
also do what it must do what it can on its own to build its own
military.” [Independent from California]
§ “Greek-Americans should support included Turkey in the EU. A
Europeanized Turkey is the best hope for a full Turkish troop
withdrawal from Cyprus, the reopening of the seminary in
Constantinople, and would allow Greeks to move back to the former
capital of the Byzantine Empire (and perhaps persuade the European
Commission to push for Agia Sophia to reopen as a cathedral).”
[Independent from Washington, D.C.]
The HCS Survey Team would like to thank the American Hellenic
Institute of Washington, DC for offering survey questions and
background information for discussion. Thanks are due the
Pan-Macedonian Association, Inc. for their active participation in
publicizing the survey and in offering background information and
survey questions. Most importantly, however, HCS would like to
express their appreciation to all of the people who took the time to
take the survey and pen their comments.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Oct 15 2004
WOMEN PARLIAMENTARIANS TO ATTEND CONFERENCE IN ITALY
[October 14, 2004, 19:10:19]
World conference of women parliamentarians on protection of children
and youth is due on 17 October in Rome, Italy.
Vice-speaker of Milli Majlis of the Azerbaijan Republic Govhar
Bakhshaliyeva and chair of the Azerbaijan-Italy inter-parliamentary
friendship group, MP Amalya Panahova will take part at the workshop,
press service of Parliament said.
In the 2-day action, discussed will be issues of the rights of
children and youth, their health, education, family status and other
topics. Also will focused trade in children, adolescent labor, as
well as problems of the children in the armed conflicts.
Ms. Govhar Bakhshaliyeva will report on the topic “Children are
victims in the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh conflict”. The
report is dedicated to intolerable conditions of the children who
became refugees as a result of Armenia’s aggressive policy.
After the Conference, on 19 October, the delegation of Azerbaijan will
meet head of the Italy-Azerbaijan inter-parliamentary friendship group,
senator Danielli. The sides will discuss exchange of experience in the
field of lawmaking, cooperation of the friendship group, significance
of mutual visits and other questions.
The visit is to end on 20 October.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Granddaughter will Speak About Diana Apcar’s ‘Stories of Armenia’
Fresno State News, CA
Oct 15 2004
Lucille Apcar will speak on her grandmother Diana Agabeg Apcar’s new
book, “From the Book of One Thousand Tales: Stories of Armenia and
Its People 1892-1922,” at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 26, as part of the
fall 2004 Armenian Studies Program Lecture Series at California State
University, Fresno.
The lecture will be held in the Alice Peters Auditorium of the
University Business Center, 5245 N. Backer Ave. It is free and open
to the public.
In the early 20th century, Diana Apcar wrote a collection of stories
that revealed atrocities committed against Armenians and her book
reflects these stories of a people and their courage and determination.
Diana Apcar was born in Rangoon, and lived her later years in Yokohama,
Japan, where she died in 1937. A keen businesswoman, she assisted
her husband in a prosperous trade in Japan. She corresponded with
many noted personalities in the academic, political and business
world. She served as consul to the Republic of Armenia, making her the
first woman to serve in a diplomatic capacity. This position enabled
her to provide assistance to hundreds of refugees fleeing Turkish and
Russian oppression, providing the stories for “One Thousand Tales.” The
manuscript for this book was discovered among family papers by her
granddaughter, Lucille Apcar, who realized the importance of sharing
these stories with the world.
“One Thousand Tales” will be available for purchase at the lecture.
Parking restrictions will be relaxed in Lots A and J, near the
University Business Center.
For more information, call the Armenian Studies Program, at (559)
278-2669.

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
Oct 15 2004
RV Investment Commences Exploitation Of Gold Deposits Of Azerbaijan
15/10/2004 10:12
RV Investment Services Group LLC from the United States is to commence
the exploitation of promising gold deposits in Azerbaijan, according
to Turan news agency.
In early September it concluded a contract on the drilling work with
VEIN Ltd. from the UK. The drilling will be done in the Kedabek and
Gosha deposits in Tovuz and the Piyazbashi, Agyurd, Shekerdere and
Keleki deposits in Ordubad, Nakhchivan. The experts of VEIN Ltd. are
to start their visit to Azerbaijan on 20 October, according to Fizuli
Samedov, Chief of the RV Investment Azerbaijan Office.
He said the first stage of the work would last until June 2006 and
$50 million will be invested in the deposits. The investment will
help to buy machines and devices required to process the minerals.
Over 4,000 people expected to be employed.
The production-sharing agreement on the gold deposits was signed
between Azergizil Concern from Azerbaijan and RV Investment Services
Group LLC on 20 August 1997 and confirmed by the Parliament of
Azerbaijan in March 1998.
The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources represents Azerbaijan
in the contract. It will get 51% of the profit.
The contract envisages the extraction of minerals from 9 gold deposits
of Azerbaijan in Kedabek, Tovuz, Ordubad, Kelbadjar and Zangelan. The
lst two districts of Azerbaijan are under controll of Armenia.
The deposits envisaged by the contract contain 400 tons of gold,
2,500 tons of silver and 1.5 million tons of copper. The investment
in the project can most likely total $500 million. The term of the
contract is 25 years. Azerbaijan is to receive 80% of the incomes
that would derive from the exploitation of the deposits.

A spit in the face
By AVIAD HACOHEN
Jerusalem Post, Israel
Oct 15 2004
Why has the assault on an Armenian clergyman in the Old City met with
rabbinical silence?
One fool spits and 10 wise men cannot dry it up. The Jerusalem yeshiva
boy who, a few days ago, spat at the Armenian archbishop of Jerusalem,
Nourhan Manougian, and at the crucifix he was carrying in an Old City
procession, was probably expressing the secret wish of more than a
few extreme fundamentalists who dwell among us.
There’s never been a shortage of lunatics in Jerusalem. Some of them
– ram’s horn-carrying messiahs or saviors bedecked with crowns of
thorns – suffer from Jerusalem Syndrome, which has provided fodder
for mental health researchers and psychiatrists throughout the world.
We need not be overly troubled by sufferers of Jerusalem Syndrome.
The ones we should worry about are the silent majority of Orthodox
Jews, led by the rabbis and yeshiva heads, who said nothing about
this disgrace against the Armenian archbishop.
Except for a strong condemnation by MK Rabbi Michael Melchior,
the leader of Meimad, religious leaders remained silent in the
face of this act of folly. Not the yeshiva heads nor the rabbis
nor the representatives of the religious denominations rushed to the
microphones and the cameras to express revulsion over this desecration
of the holy name.
Instead of crying out against the act of the young Jerusalemite, they
kept mum. Thereby, they became unwitting partners in the act. The
foolish act, whether done out of mischief or malice, madness or
mindlessness, will from now on serve as further justification (as
if there weren’t enough already) for talk about the need for the
internationalization of Jerusalem, for incitement against Israel
charging that we are desecrating the holy symbols of Islam and
Christianity, and for the murky wave of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews
and on Jewish religious institutions throughout the world.
RELATIONS BETWEEN Jews and Christians have experienced many
vicissitudes – the Christian Bible’s description of the Crucifixion,
the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the silence of the Holy See during
the Holocaust.
More recently, it seemed as if Christian-Jewish relations were
improving. The belated recognition by the Catholic Church, and the
establishment of diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the State
of Israel, marked a new era in the history of the relations between
the faiths. The widely covered and moving visit by Pope John Paul to
Israel unfolded seamlessly, despite fears. As hundreds of millions
of amazed Christians watched in a live broadcast around the world,
the pope kissed the stones of the Western Wall with the Israeli flag
waving over it, shed a tear at Yad Vashem, and breathed new hope into
the world.
But it turns out that in Jerusalem, that is not enough.
The fragile fabric of religious communities in Jerusalem has for
hundreds of years been comprised of a colorful mosaic: Jews –
Ashkenazim and Sephardim, haredim, hassidim, and Lithuanians;
Christians – Copts and Maronites, Greek Orthodox, and Ethiopians;
and Muslims.
As a result, the slightest move – of a key in an Old City church,
for instance – can set off violence.
The world watches what happens on the Temple Mount, and even the
progress by which the government handles the appointment of Greek
Orthodox Church Patriarch Irineos.
The Armenian archbishop who was attacked, Nourhan Manougian, is well
aware of these sensitivities. During Easter 2002 tension was high
within the walls of the Old City in the wake of charges that the Greek
Orthodox patriarch had been pushed in the Holy Sepulcher compound
on his way out to pass on the holy fire. The Armenian patriarch
Turkoum Manougian, it was claimed at the time, took advantage of the
opportunity to take the fire on his own to his followers who were
waiting outside.
This led to a fist fight between thousands of worshipers who were
in the compound. Only thanks to the resourcefulness of hundreds of
Israeli policemen deployed at the site were the rivals separated,
the riot quelled, and the dispute put to rest.
Various Christian traditions have lived with this sort of tension for
hundreds of years. In 1808 a fire broke out in the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher, and the different denominations blamed each other for it.
On the “Sabbath of Light” in 1834, Ibrahim Peha, the son of Muhammad
Ali the ruler of Egypt, visited the compound and during his visit
100 pilgrims were killed inside the building.
Just two years ago, a Greek priest discovered that a carpet laid by the
Copts in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher exceeded the area designated
for the Copts by three centimeters, which led to an escalation of
the conflict between them.
Last year a dispute erupted between the Copts and the Ethiopians
following an argument over whether one was allowed to place a chair
at the entrance to the roof.
THE RECENT attack is another unfortunate result of long-standing
hostility. The barbarian demon of spitting to express revulsion and
loathing suddenly made a visit from some God-forsaken Jewish village
in Eastern Europe.
Needless to say, that custom never entered the mainstream of halachic
literature. Even if they did not accept the doctrine of Rabbi Menahem
Hameiri – one of the greatest Jewish scholars of Provence in the 14th
century – that today’s Christians who show courtesy are not idolators,
halachic scholars knew to distinguish ancient idol worshipers from
the Christians among whom they lived.
In spite of the great suffering Jews endured, the rabbis knew that
spitting at any person created in the image of God was equal to
spitting in the face of God Himself.
Therefore, the silence of the leaders of the Jewish religion in
light of the latest incident is all the more unfortunate. Instead of
mobilizing religion to ease the tensions and create an atmosphere
of conciliation, they mobilize religion and its values to increase
animosity and hostility between the different denominations.
The latest spitting incident is a mark of shame on Israeli society in
the 21st century. A mark of moral and, no less, religious shame. That
Jerusalem hooligan really did spit in someone’s face. But not in
the face of the archbishop alone. Rather, he spit in the face of the
Jewish people of Israel.
The writer is a lecturer on Jewish Law and Constitutional Law at
Shaarey Mishpat law college and Hebrew University Law School and is
head of Mosaica- Research center for Religion, State & Society.

French Parliament Divided on Turkey’s EU Accession
Zaman Online, Turkey
Oct 15 2004
The French parliament convened yesterday to discuss Turkey’s
accession to the European Union (EU), but reactions were split.
Although Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin gave his support to
Turkish accession, differences of opinions within the parties were as
numerous as those among and between them.
Along with Raffarin, Foreign Minister Michael Barnier and the Green
Party supported Turkey, but some deputies of the Union for a Popular
Movement Party (UMP), the French Democracy Union (UDF), and some
Socialist Party deputies stood against Turkey’s membership.
Raffarin tried to calm down the parties opposed to Turkey with a
speech in which he said Turkey is connected to Europe with historical
and geographical ties and its desire to take place among EU members
is “legitimate”. When the time comes, this will come to life, added
Raffarin. A modern, democratic and stable Turkey will add new
horizons to Europe and France is ready to take Turkey’s side during
the reform process, underlined the French Prime Minister.
“Turkey shouldn’t be left in the arms of those who want a clash of
civilizations and an Islam-West clash,” said the French Prime
Minister as he stressed that Turkey is undergoing big change and
should be given time to fulfill the membership conditions. He also
said that if Turkey fails to meet the requisites, its membership will
not take place. In that case, he said, the process may end with a
“privileged membership”. “History will decide on Turkey’s EU
membership,” he said.
Meanwhile, Barnier said EU should start membership negotiations for
Turkey and that a country that has met the Copenhagen Criteria needs
to be given the opportunity to prove itself. The Union will have the
control and, if needed, negotiations can be suspended.
When asked whether or not recognition of the alleged Armenian
genocide could be a pre-condition, Barnier said that the subject is
not among the Copenhagen Criteria.
Speaking on behalf of the Green Party, Noel Mamere said that the
Greens support Turkey’s accession to the Union. While enumerating the
reasons for their support, Mamere said, “For the EU’s multicultural
development, to show it is not a Christian club, and to prevent a
clash of civilizations, we support the start of membership
negotiations for Turkey.”
10.15.2004
Ali Ihsan Aydin
Paris
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Library given 700 Armenian-language books
By Alex Dobuzinskis, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Oct 15 2004
BURBANK — About 700 Armenian-language books from the estate of
a local teacher have been donated to the Burbank Public Library,
nearly doubling its collection of works related to that culture. The
books were donated by the family of Khatchik Araradian of Hollywood,
who died last year at age 90. They should appear on library shelves
within three months.
“There’s a lot of older people in Burbank, older Armenians, who don’t
necessarily have the money to buy these books brand-new, so they
could go in and check it out and read it,” said Bedig Araradian, 45,
of Burbank, a nephew of the teacher.
The volumes include a translation of P.L. Travers’ “Mary Poppins”
and a translation of plays by William Saroyan. There are also books
by famous Armenian authors, such as Avetik Isahakyan, Silva Kaputikyan
and Hakob Oshakan.
There are also textbooks and other nonfiction in the donation.
Librarian Isabelle Kotikian said she expects nearly all the books to
be added to the library’s collection.
The Burbank library has about 400,000 books — about 8,663 of them
in non-English languages including Spanish, French and Japanese.
Araradian taught children about plays and theater at local Armenian
schools, including Holy Martyrs Armenian Elementary in Encino. His
interest in theater shows up in the donated collection, which has
many plays and books about the dramatic arts.
“He loved reading. Every time he went out, he saw a book that he liked
(and) bought it,” said Alec Araradian, 40, of Burbank, another nephew.
Khatchik Araradian bought the books in local Armenian bookstores
after he settled in the United States in 1977 from Lebanon.
The books are among 1,000 donated books in Armenian or about Armenia
or Armenians that the library has received this year. The library
system had about 500 Armenian books before the donations.
In March the library received about 150 books about the Armenian
Genocide and Armenian history and put those books into circulation.
An additional 100 books for children in Armenian were donated over
the summer and put into circulation.
A group called Books for Burbank organized the donations with
involvement by the local chapter of the Armenian National Committee.
“The reason we reached out to the community was we realized we weren’t
meeting the needs of the Armenian community, and our book budget didn’t
really give us a lot of money to go out and purchase what we needed,”
said Sharon Cohen, director of library services.