Kerkorian takes old path in bid for rival

International Herald Tribune, France
New York Times
June 7 2004

Kerkorian takes old path in bid for rival

Andrew Ross Sorkin NYT June 07, 2004

Kirk Kerkorian just can’t stay away from the tables.

Kerkorian, the 86-year-old financier who owns the MGM Mirage hotel
and casino empire, took another gamble late Friday night by making
an unsolicited $4.5 billion bid to buy a rival farther down the Las
Vegas Strip, the Mandalay Resort Group.

But Kerkorian’s seemingly surprise pubic bid was not exactly a surprise
to insiders: the two companies had been knee-deep in private merger
talks last week, executives involved in the discussions said Sunday.

Those talks were sent into chaos, they said, when Mandalay’s share
price jumped $5.65, or more than 10 percent, to $60.27, adding hundreds
of millions of dollars to Mandalay’s value, after the company reported
that its first-quarter earnings had nearly doubled.

So late Friday, Kerkorian made what may be an especially clever
negotiating play: he immediately made his offer of $68 a share for
Mandalay public in an effort to keep its shares from going even higher.

The maneuver comes straight out of Kerkorian’s playbook: he did the
same thing in 2000 when he acquired Mirage Resorts from Steve Wynn
in a prolonged battle that began much the same way.

The purchase would give MGM Mirage ownership stakes in several
well-known casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, including the Luxor, the
Excalibur and the Monte Carlo, as well as properties in Mississippi,
Michigan and Illinois. The company, which already owns the Bellagio,
the MGM Grand and the Mirage, among others, would assume about $2.8
billion in Mandalay debt.

Based on Mandalay’s closing price Friday, the offer represents about
a 13 percent premium; it would have been a 23 percent premium if the
offer had been made Thursday.

The New York Times

Backyards To Be Sold By Auction

BACKYARDS TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION

A1 Plus | 14:40:06 | 07-06-2004 | Politics |

Apartment blocks’ backyards in Yerevan are likely to be sold by
auction, Samvel Danelyan, the head of urban planning and architecture
department of the Armenian capital’s municipality said Monday.

Danelyan supposes underground garages will be constructed at the sold
areas and zones of rest will be created on the ground.

The municipality intends to tighten control over all construction
works in the capital, which will be carried out only in accordance
with its plans.

‘Armenian criteria’ from France

“‘Armenian criteria’ from France”

Cyprus Press & Information Office – Turkish Cypriot press review
June 4 2004

Under the above title Turkish daily MILLIYET newspaper (04.06.04)
reports that François Hollande, chairman of the French Socialist Party,
has said that the European Union should give Turkey a date for the
beginning of its accession negotiations, only in case it officially
recognizes the Armenian genocide.

Mr Hollande met yesterday at his party headquarters with the chairman
of the Armenian Tasnak Party, Murat Papazyan. The two leaders noted
that Turkey in addition to the Copenhagen Criteria must apply the 18
June 1987 decision of the European Parliament before getting a date.
They reminded that the above-mentioned decision provided for Turkey
to officially recognize the Armenian genocide, withdraw its occupation
troops from Cyprus and respect the human rights of the minorities.

Separatist Karabakh ready for talks with Azerbaijan “in any format”,

Separatist Karabakh ready for talks with Azerbaijan “in any format”, leader says

Mediamax news agency
1 Jun 04

Yerevan, 1 June: Nagornyy Karabakh is ready for negotiations with
Azerbaijan in any format – “be it with Armenia or without it, with
the OSCE Minsk Group or without it”, the president of the Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic [NKR], Arkadiy Gukasyan, said in Stepanakert today.

Mediamax news agency correspondent reported from Stepanakert that
the head of the NKR said that Azerbaijan “will be obliged to sit at
the negotiating table since there is no other way”.

Arkadiy Gukasyan believes that the sides have not yet managed to reach
an agreement because there is no tradition or culture of communication,
which he thinks requires time. At the same time, he noted that the
“Karabakh side intends to work constructively”.

BAKU: Pressure group may resort to radical steps

Pressure group may resort to radical steps

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
May 27 2004

Chairman of the Garabagh Liberation Organization (GLO) Akif Naghi
was quoted as saying on Monday that the participation of Armenian
military personnel in the upcoming NATO training is unacceptable.

He said Armenian authorities are trying to cooperate with Azerbaijan
in order to divert attention from Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijan’s
territories. Naghi said such collaboration is possible only after
Armenia withdraws from the occupied land.

He said his organization would resort to radical measures, including
protest actions, to prevent the participation of the Armenian
military in NATO training sessions in Baku. Naghi added that the
responsibility for this will rest with the government of Azerbaijan
and NATO administration.

Eastern Christians Torn Asunder

Eastern Christians Torn Asunder

Challenges – New and Old

National Review Online
September 18, 2003

By Bat Yeor

The dhimmi mentality cannot be easily defined and described. An
endless variety of reactions has been provoked by the evolving
historical situations in the civilization of dhimmitude, which
spans three continents and close to fourteen centuries. Generally
speaking, /dhimmi/ populations can be described as oscillating between
alienation and submission and, at the other extreme, a self-perception
of spiritual freedom.

The basic aspects of the /dhimmi/ mentality are related to
characteristics of its status and environment, because /dhimmitude/
operates exclusively within the sphere of jihad. Contrary to common
belief, jihad is not limited to holy war conducted militarily;
it encompasses all strategies, including peaceful means, aimed at
the unification of all religions within Islamic dogma. Further,
as a juridical-theological construction, jihad determines all
aspects of relations between the /Umma/ — the Islamic community —
and non-Muslims. According to the classical interpretation, these
are classified in one of three categories: enemies, temporarily
reconciled, or subjected. Because neither jihad nor /dhimmitude/
have been critically analyzed, we can say today that the Islamist
mentality — currently predominant in many Muslim countries —
establishes relations with non-Muslims in the traditional jihad
categories of war, truce, and submission//dhimmitude/.

In our times /dhimmis/ are found among the residues of indigenous
populations of countries that were Islamized during a millenium of
Muslim conquests: Christians, Hindus, and a scattering of Jews and
Zoroastrians. Christians would seem to be the most familiar group,
closer to Westerners by proximity, culture, religion, and subject to
the same status under Islam as the Jews, the other /ahl al-Khitab/,
“people of the Book” — the Bible. But this impression is often
deceiving as the reassuring appearance of similarity is misleading.

The behavior of Christian /dhimmis/ varies according to the country,
the social category, and their association with the ruling classes
as, for example, their participation in the Iraqi or Syrian Baath
parties or the PLO, a militarist organization engaged in the Arab
jihad against Israel. Christian /dhimmis/ appointed to important
positions by Muslim rulers have often served as agents between the
Arab world and strategic centers in the West: churches, governments,
industries, universities, media, etc.

Because Christian /dhimmi/ populations are on the whole highly skilled
and better educated than the surrounding population, they often suffer
from malicious jealousy coupled with the traditional anti-Christian
prejudices of the /Umma/. The persistence of Christianity in Muslim
environments testifies to qualities of endurance and adaptability. Yet
survival in dhimmitude had its price: the /dhimmi/ pathology.

Briefly summarized, Christian attitudes can be classified in three
categories: active resistance, passive resistance, and collaboration.
These three attitudes are manifest within one and the same population,
but certain geographical or historical situations favor one or another.

ACTIVE RESISTANCE

Recent examples of active resistance are noteworthy. The repression
of the Christian rebellion against the establishment of sharia in the
Sudan in 1983 caused more than two million dead and over four million
displaced. Lebanese Christians fought against the Islamization of
their country during the civil war that began in 1975. At the dawn
of the 20th century, Armenian and Assyrian Christians were punished
by genocide for their attempts at independence. In the present day,
active Christian resistance against Islamization in Indonesia,
Nigeria, and other African countries is manifest in the massacre
of Christian civilians, the burning of villages, the flight of
populations. Westerners, and especially Europeans, turn a deaf ear
to the sufferings of Christians who actively resist Islamization,
frequently blaming them for their own misfortunes.

PASSIVE RESISTANCE

Examples of passive resistance can be found in Egypt, Pakistan,
and Iran. Egyptian Christians denounce the violence of which they
are victims and strive to protect their dignity, reduce legal
and professional discrimination, and secure basic rights such
as permission to build or renovate churches. Here again, the West
prefers to ignore their dire situation or underplay it with episodic
attention. Christians engaged in active or passive resistance exhaust
their meager resources in vain efforts to alert their fellow Christians
and enlist their help.

COLLABORATIONIST CHRISTIANS

Collaborators are recruited among Christians who identify themselves
as Arabs. This type of collaboration, which caused endless fratricidal
battles over the centuries, has been denounced by /dhimmis/ struggling
for centuries against an Islamic domination that progressed with the
help of Christians.

Christian collaborationism has taken different forms in the course of
history, according to circumstances and political opportunity. It is
expressed today in a two-pronged political and theological project. The
political project is implemented in a trans-Mediterranean fusion, with
the construction of an economic, cultural, political, geographical
entity composed of the European Union and Arab and African countries.
This policy of association and integration, active in all international
forums, works to counterbalance American policy, under cover of a
notion of “international legitimacy,” albeit a legitimacy of sanguinary
totalitarian Arab dictators.

Collaborationist Christian /dhimmis/ function as the intellectual and
economic mechanism of this project because they belong to both worlds.
Their role is to invent the idyllic Islamic-Christian past that upholds
the political construction of a future Eurabia and to dissimulate
the anti-Christian foundations of Islamic doctrine and history.

/Dhimmi/ collaboration on the theological level is oriented in
two directions: toward Christianity and toward Islam. It finds its
most radical expression in the “Palestinian Liberation Theology,”
meaning nothing less than the liberation of Christianity from its
Jewish matrix. The spiritual center of this theology is the al-Liqa
institute in Jerusalem, created in 1983 for the study of the Muslim
and Christian heritage in the Holy Land. This strongly politicized
institute, sponsored by international Christian organizations,
specializes in disseminating anti-Israeli propaganda through its
international religious and media channels.

Uniting Marcionist and Gnostic theological currents, this Palestinian
theology strips away Jesus’s Jewishness and turns him into a
/sui generis/ Arab-Palestinian Jesus, a twin of the Muslim Jesus
(Isa). Christianity, thus liberated from its Jewish roots, can be
transplanted in Arab-Islamism. This would place Palestine, and not
Israel, at the origin of Christianity, making Israelis usurpers of
the Islamic-Christian Palestinian homeland. This theory denies the
historical continuity between modern Israel and its biblical ancestor,
the locus of nascent Christianity.

The theology of Palestinism, integrating all the anti-Jewish themes
of replacement theology, is reworked to fit the new Palestinian
fashion and addressed to Christians all over the world, inviting
them to gather together around an Arab-Palestinian Jesus, symbol
of a Palestine crucified by Israel. The theme goes back to the 19th
century. However, in those days when the idea of an Arab-Palestinian
entity differentiated from the Arab world did not even exist, the
unifying role of Palestine was assigned to Arab nationalism.

Palestinist theology shores up the Euro-Arab policy of
Christian-Muslim and European-Arab fusion: the modern state of
Israel — considered a temporary accident of history — is bypassed
and Europe’s Christian origins are anchored in an Islamic-Christian
Palestine. Having fulfilled its historical role of uniting the two
enemies — Christianity and Islam — opposed to its very existence,
Israel can now disappear, sealing the fusion between Europe and the
Arabs. The unifying role devolves on Islamic-Christian Palestine; the
reconciliation of Islam and Christianity can finally be consummated
on the ashes of Israel and its negation. This is why the European
Union — and especially France — designates Israeli “injustice” and
“occupation” as the unique sources of conflict between Europe and
the Arab/Muslim world, and the cause of international, anti-Western
Islamist terrorism.

The contribution of /dhimmi/ Christian collaborationism to Islam is
even more important. It satisfies three objectives: 1) its propaganda
shores up the mythology of past and present peaceful Islamic-Christian
coexistence and confirms the perfection of Islam, jihad, and sharia;
2) it promotes the demographic expansion and proselytism of Islamic
propaganda in the West; 3) in the theological sphere it eliminates the
Jewish Jesus and implants Christianity in the Muslim Jesus, in other
words it facilitates the theological Islamization of all Christendom.

According to Islamic dogma, Islam encompasses Judaism and Christianity,
both of which are falsified posterior expressions of the first and
fundamental religion, which is Islam. All the characters of the
Bible, from Adam to Abraham, Moses to David, the Hebrew prophets,
Mary, Jesus, and the apostles, were Muslim prophets who preached
Islam, and it is only in their quality as Muslims that they are
recognized and respected. They belong to the Koran, not to the
Bible. From this viewpoint the bond between Judaism and Christianity
is a falsification, because the filiation of Christianity is Islamic,
not Judaic. Christianity descends from Islam, the first religion of
all humanity (/din al-fitra/). Christianity is a falsified expression
of Islam, and belongs to Islam. According to a /hadith/, when Isa,
the Muslim Jesus, returns, he will break the cross, kill the pig,
abolish the /jizya/ (poll tax for infidels), and money will flow
like water. Exegetes interpret the destruction of symbols attached
to Christianity — the cross and the pig — as the extinction of that
religion; the suppression of the /jizya/ means that Islam has become
the only religion; and the abundance of wealth refers to the booty
taken from infidels. In other words the return of the Muslim Jesus
could lead to the destruction of Christianity.

The global jihad has made the problems of dhimmitude a worldwide
reality. Europe’s creeping dhimmitude, expressed in a refusal even
to mention in its proposed constitution the “Judeo-Christian” values
of its civilization, is one of the major elements of the current
European-American divide.

Bat Yeor is the author of “The Decline of Eastern Christianity
under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude.” Her latest book, “Islam and
Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide,” has just been reprinted. A
version of this article was first published in French and is translated
by Nidra Poller in collaboration with the author.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-batyeor091803.asp

Armenia has no intention to join NATO

ARMENIA HAS NO INTENTION TO JOIN NATO

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 24, 2004, Monday

The issue of NATO accession is not included into Armenia’s agenda
on foreign policy, Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisyan said at
his press conference last Friday.

“The reply to the question regarding Armenia’s joining NATO is clear
initially, since the Armenian leaders have repeatedly declared that
this problem is not included into the agenda on foreign policy,”
the minister said.

S. Sarkisyan also said that in the immediate future Armenia has no
intention to pull out from CSTO. The minister noted that Armenia’s
involvement in CSTO is among the major components of Armenia’s
national security.

The need for mobilization policy

The need for mobilization policy
By Eduard Harutiunian

14 May 04
Yerkir/AM

According to a common position, it is only the authorities that
are accountable before the country and the society. No doubt, the
authorities’ main role is to ensure internal and external security
of the country.

But because the authorities are formed from among the political force,
any political party has its own part of responsibility.

Political parties’ activities are completely tied with national
security issues. The parties’ responsibility is essential in internal
political developments, too.

After all, these organizations are interim links between the public
and the authorities, and they present socio-economic and political
demands of the public to the authorities. It is not natural that
political organizations, criticizing the authorities, have little
credibility. When people do not accept and trust both the authorities
and the political parties, it means that they deny any form of
political organization of the nation.

There is a dominant perception in the political life of Armenia, for
example, that unlike the government, the activities of a political
party is private and should not be a subject of state or public
control and criticism.

In a political system, the authorities have the same role as the money
in economy. Both have powerful capacities of state-building and in a
civil society, they first of all serve the national structure of the
statehood. Devaluation of the both may have devastating impact on a
country’s socio-economic, spiritual and political lives.

In a transitional society, people are disappointed first of all of
internal indefiniteness and unnecessary exploitation of national
super-issues. From this point of view, in Armenia, for example,
resolution of current problems is even harder because of the unsolved
problems left from the initial period of the transitional period.

This is why Armenia is in the zone of “military-political quakes.” Only
a social system that has reliable qualifications for internal security
can best overcome external threats. History of transitional nations
shows that on the way to open societies, the mobilization policy
should be used as an interim means.

Such policy is crucial when a society finds itself in a crisis,
and social and political tensions run high. In these conditions, the
need to mobilize all external and internal resources, emerges. The
model of state and political mobilization is a policy that enables
to reach a higher immunity of the society through the least expenses
but single-minded efforts.

This is especially true for transitional nations because their
immunity for economic crisis is low because they are not adapted for
market economy. Having no large resources, time and capacities to
establish competent economies, it is necessary to establish functional
definiteness inside the system, well-organized national life and a
determination of discreet conditions for everybody.

The internal conditions of the survival of the Armenian nation are
already crossing the threatening line. To correct the situation, it
is necessary to centralize the government, create a just distribution
system, tough control and clarification of the political field. Of
course, these are not components of a market economy. But the
mobilization policy is the only way to bring the state and national
systems out of the current difficult conditions.

Glendale: Students consider landmark ruling

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
May 20 2004

Students consider landmark ruling

GUSD history classes debate 50-year-old desegregation ruling on Brown
vs. Board of Education.

By Gary Moskowitz, News-Press

GLENDALE – The city’s public schools are not legally segregated,
but blonde-haired, blue-eyed Katelyn Murphy knows she would probably
take flak from her peers if she dated a boy who is a minority.

In an Advanced Placement American government class discussion on school
segregation Wednesday at Crescenta Valley High School, Katelyn said
students integrate more freely in the classroom than they do out on
the courtyard at lunch.

“I think it’s kind of sad in a way,” said Katelyn, 16. “At CV,
it’s like taboo to hang out with or date someone of a different
background. In class, it’s easier, because we’re all sitting next to
each other. But we should be trying to integrate more.”

This week, high school government classes throughout the Glendale
Unified School District have been discussing the 50-year anniversary
of the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case and its role in
the civil rights movement.

The case revolved around Oliver Brown, a black man who tried to enroll
his daughter, Linda, in a white elementary school that was seven blocks
away from their Topeka, Kan., home. The school refused Brown’s request.

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that
separate schools are inherently unequal. In 1954, Glendale Unified
was predominantly white, with some “scattered” minority students,
officials said. In 2004, about 40% of the district’s students speak
a primary language other than English.

Edgar Shaghoulian, a Glendale High School senior, was one of many
students who said Wednesday that despite desegregation, students of
various ethnic backgrounds often flock together in social situations
outside of class.

“I think Armenians are the most noticeable, because there is such
a big population here,” said Shaghoulian, 17. “But in high school,
most people just want to fit in, so it’s only natural for students
to stick to what they know. If it’s not forced segregation, I think
it can be a good thing sometimes. But the message forced segregation
sends to society to me is morally a horrible message.”

In the 2002-03 school year, Glendale Unified’s black student
population was about 1% of its 29,000 — or about 320 — students,
officials said. Statistics for the 2003-04 school year were not
available Wednesday.

Many students and teachers in the district said the issue of
segregation and racism is not a “black-and-white” issue in Glendale,
but for Wanda Dorn, it is.

Dorn is the advisor for Glendale High School’s Black Student Union,
which has about 20 members. About half of the club’s members are
black students, but the other half are students from other ethnic
backgrounds, Dorn said.

“In this country it remains a black-and-white issue in many ways,
because there wouldn’t be any civil rights on the books had blacks
not fought and died for them,” Dorn said. “Even though we have been
here longer and fought harder, other groups benefit from it. The black
students are just here, in a way. They don’t have the kind of safety
in numbers that other minority groups have in Glendale.”

Kayla Alexander said she often feels frustrated as a black student
at Glendale High because she doesn’t receive enough guidance or
counseling.

“The African-American students here seem kind of lost, because there
aren’t enough people of authority who support us,” said Kayla, 17. “A
lot of times, we can fall through the cracks because we can’t rely
on other people to guide us toward what we need to succeed. But being
here has been positive for me, overall.

“I never would have been exposed to the Armenian culture if I hadn’t
moved here from Arizona. If we were segregated, people would only
know their own kind and wouldn’t learn about each other.”

DM shrugs off fears of new war

DEFENSE MINISTER SHRUGS OFF FEARS OF NEW WAR

ArmenPress
May 13 2004

YEREVAN, MAY 13, ARMENPRESS: Armenian defense minister Serzh Sarkisian
brushed away Wednesday the talk about a shaky peace and the possible
resumption of hostilities in Nagorno Karabagh, saying they do not
correspond to reality. “But this does not mean that I can exclude
the renewal of military actions in any time,” he said to reporters.

Sarkisian said the main guarantees against a new war are the ongoing
talks between the conflicting sides, the capability of the armed
forces and the activity of international peace brokers. “We have not
been sitting on our hands and I think that today our army differs
substantially, in terms of its strength from what we had back in
1993-1994. It is very different now,’ he said.