INTERVIEW WITH ISRAEL SHAMIR
Kim Petersen

uruknet.info, Italy
;l=i&am p;size=1&hd=0
May 2 2006

Israel Shamir is a prominent and controversial Russian-Israeli
thinker, writer, and translator who lives in Jaffa. Shamir brings
to his political writing a refreshing candor, sharp insight, and
inspiring humanity. His principled stand supporting the Palestinian
refugees’ right of return and the rebuilding of their destroyed
villages led to his firing from the “progressive” Israeli newspaper
Haaretz. Following Israeli attacks on Palestinians in January 2001,
Shamir became dedicated to political writings in English.

For the intellectual Karl Marx, the Jewish question was an “unreal
subject.” Marx was baptized a Lutheran and married to a gentile.

Shamir has renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity.

He is a strong proponent of the “One Man, One Vote, One State”
solution for a united Israel-Palestine.

I interviewed the unflinching maverick writer Israel Shamir.

Kim Petersen: You wrote recently that the historian David Irving, who
the corporate media reports as being sentenced for holocaust denial,
was sentenced for denial of “Jewish superiority.” Could you elaborate
on this and what holocaust denial means for you?

Israel Shamir: I wrote about it, in “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” and
in the “Vampire Killers,” at length. No free man can agree with the
proposition that Jewish death (and life) is more important than that
of a goy. But the ban of Holocaust revisionism is the only legally
enforced prohibition in our society. The Armenians were envious of
this elevated status of Jews, and actually succeeded to protect
their tragedy of 1915 by a similar law in France. The result was
tragicomic. They brought an important Jewish historian (and warmonger
of first degree) Bernard Lewis to the court of Paris, and he was
found guilty of denying their tragedy, just like David Irving. But
David Irving has got three years in jail, and now his name is always
preceded with the title “discredited” (see an interview with him in
the Observer), while Bernard Lewis was fined one franc and he still
appears everywhere, and his name graces various petitions. He was
not discredited, but the Armenians were. Apparently, Jewish blood
is redder than Armenian, not to mention lesser species. I quoted
an article by a Jewish American historian denying the genocide of
the native Americans. He was not discredited, either. The scourge
of Irving, Debora Lipstadt, denied the fiery holocaust of Dresden,
and was not discredited, either. Face it, Kim: the very concept of
H is a concept of Jewish superiority.

This has an important religious meaning: Christianity is the denial
of Jewish superiority. Whoever believes or accepts Jewish superiority,
denies Christ for He made us equal. The French Jewish filmmaker Claude
Lanzman, the creator of “Shoah,” said: if you believe in holocaust, you
can’t believe in Christ. I am ready to take his challenge: I believe
in Christ. We can rephrase the words of Lanzman: belief in a special
historical meaning of death of Jews is a sign of apostasy. Indeed,
the creed of holocaust competes with the Church: we believe that
Christ suffered for us and came back to life.

The H believers believe that the Jewish people suffered and came
back by creating the Jewish state. In this competition, the Jews win:
as opposed to H, you can deny Crucifixion and Resurrection and your
career won’t suffer a bit.

Thus the question of H denial is the question of apostasy: will our
society stand on the rock planted by Christ, or will it worship the
Jewish state. This is an important discovery of eternal religiosity
of human spirit: the attempt to create a secular society did not work
out. After an illusionary short break, the gods came back.

KP: Is it appropriate to use such loaded terms as “goy”?

IS: Well, I am not aware this is a loaded term. I translated some
Hebrew books, from Samuel Yosef Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize
winner, to the Book of Lineage by Rabbi Zacuto, a 15th century
Judaeo-Iberian sage, my most recent translation into English. They
all used “goy” and so do Israeli newspapers. The word “goy” has
a meaning: this is a non-Jew as seen by Jews. If you think it is
not a complimentary term, you mean that in your view Jews look with
distaste at a goy. Maybe. But we should deal with problems, not with
words. Dealing with words is easier, but brings no relief. If we were
to use ‘gentile’, would it change the Jewish attitude to one? This
is also a sign of weakness. When (in 19th century) Jews felt weak,
they liked to be called Israelites, or Hebrews. Now they do not mind
being called “Jews.”

KP: You have described the US as a “greater Jewish state.” You laud
Jeffrey Blankfort as having taken “an important next step” in rejecting
the views of Noam Chomsky and others. Is the influence of the “Jewish
lobby” preponderant over US corporate imperialism?

IS: I wrote about it in “A Yiddishe Medina.” The US corporate
imperialism is not a bodiless spirit; it is the sum of desires and
actions by the US elites. And the US elites are Jewish, to great
extent, and they have accepted Jewish values and ideas, to even
greater extent. A few years ago, an American Jewish writer Philip
Weiss wrote in the New York Observer: “I don’t claim to know how
Jewish the membership of the establishment is. Twenty percent,
50 percent? I’m guessing 30.” Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard
students, reported The Forward, a Jewish American newspaper. The
Hillel Society gives such numbers: Total Undergraduate Population:
6658; Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.); Total Graduate
Population: 10351 Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.). Thus
the US elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning
of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of
the Yankees. A less known Marxist, Sombart, wrote about it at length.

Thus in my view it is a mistake to speak of “Jewish Lobby” — we may
refer to a takeover, a displacement of the old WASP elites. The Jews
constitute some three percent of the US population. The Brits took
over India with much less percentage; so did the ruling minority in
Syria. Normans ruled over Britain for centuries with less than that.

All Russian nobility in the Tsar’s days was 2-3% of the population,
while upper castes of Hindu societies constitute some 5% at most.

Now, the Jews are well integrated in the “US corporate imperialism”
on many levels, and they do not have to fight it, they use
it. The Jewish Lobby is an additional mechanism, consisting of
hard-core Jewish nationalists. The problem is that the rest, the
non-Jewish-Lobby part of the US establishment consists, as I have said,
of not-so-nationalistic Jews to great extent. They reach compromise,
and this compromise is the middle ground of mild-Jewish-nationalism.

KP: On the invasion of Iraq, you stated: “Too many coincidences for a
purely American war.” To what extent do you see a Zionist hand behind
the attack and occupation?

IS: Yes, I partly agree with the Chicago-Harvard duo, the conquest of
Iraq and present threat to Iran are caused by the Zionist affiliates
within the Administration. The old canard of Oil Interests was
debunked by reality: oil costs more, oil companies leave Iraq, none
of their executives supported the war. Probably your readers do not
even think of Iraqi WMD or the silly stuff of “bringing democracy” to
the Arabs. Thus the Zionist plot is the first and obvious explanation.

But the Iraqi war, as a part of War on Terror, has a second leg:
this is an even more scary totalitarianism, the drive to create a
caste-based oligarchy of the Iron Heel, in Jack London’s terms. Fear
is its important tool; dismantling of civil freedoms and of cohesive
natural society is the first goal. Without War on Terror, the US rulers
wouldn’t be able to read our emails, listen to our conversations, store
in their data banks every bit of information about our lives. This
totalitarianism was predicted by George Orwell, an avid reader of
the Protocols, and it was lauded by Leo Strauss, a guiding light of
Neo-Cons. Strauss endorsed a society with dictatorial powers of elites;
a follower of Hobbes, he distrusted the people. Though his views
were formed before the WWII, after the war he frequently referred
to the Holocaust as a phenomenon that is liable to come back unless
the society is firmly kept in check. I called the supporters of this
paradigm by the name “Mammonites,” mammon-worshippers. The Iraqi war,
and the War on Terror in general, is a joint product of Zionists and
Mammonites, while these two groups often coincide, as is the case
with the leading Neo-Cons.

That is why our struggle is with Zionists and Mammonites; this is not
only a laudable campaign of support of the peoples of the Middle East,
but first of all the decisive battle for preservation of democracy
and freedom in the US and Europe, for a chance of better life for
our children, for creation of a more egalitarian and more spiritual
society, against the Dark ages were are being led to.

KP: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a lot of flak from
the western media for citing the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
about wiping Israel off the map. Apparently, judging by the western
media’s silence, it was okay to wipe Palestine off the map though. Is
the state of Israel a legitimate entity?

IS: No, it is not. We can’t consider legitimate a state that gives no
rights to its inhabitants and officially belongs to World Jewry. It is
in our interests to achieve full independence from the Jews, and to
shift the whole lot of rights and responsibilities to the population
of the country. The sovereignty should be ours, of the people of
Palestine/Israel, not of the Jewish People, the extra-territorial
worldwide body. I call upon my country-fellows to give up their
“Jewishness” and to become adoptive Palestinians, brothers and
sisters to the native folk. I hope eventually it will happen; we
shall integrate and forget the overseas connection.

Meanwhile we follow the colonial paradigm and exclude the natives in
the name of “Jewishness.” We should follow the example of Mexico,
where immigrants from Spain and Italy form one nation with the
descendents of Montezuma.

KP: What does the election of Hamas mean for you? Should Hamas
recognize the state of Israel?

IS: I wrote about the results. The Palestinians rejected the Fatah rule
because they made too many concessions to Israel, and received nothing
in return. Hamas should not recognise the state of Israel, at least
until the Israeli rulers recognise the Palestinian independence, remove
their armed forces and stop to interfere with the free traffic of
Palestinians within and without Palestine. This is reciprocity. I can
imagine an even better solution: Hamas may call for full integration
of all Palestine from the River to the Sea, and for general elections
on the basis of One Person-One Vote. But until it happens, Hamas should
be guided by reciprocity principle: mutual recognition, inter alia.

KP: You are an ex-Jew, a convert to Christianity — why is this? You
have written of “many ex-Jews.” Is this for the same reason as you?

Do you think a growing trend in Jewish apostasy would be effective
in bringing about justice for Palestinians?

IS: Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A
Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism, while
Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows that a
goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish exclusivity is
not acceptable to a Christian. In our country we have many Russian
Orthodox Christians (some of Jewish origin, and some not), and they
pray and celebrate holidays together with our Palestinian Orthodox
Christian brothers and sisters. I was baptised by the Palestinian
priest, Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna, and it helped me to sort
out the question of identity. The important point is not to create a
separate Jewish “Christian” set-up, for such an arrangement defeats its
purpose. Thus I am worried that there are “Jewish Christian” churches
that are devoutly Zionist. In short, yes, baptism is a solution,
but only in connection with rejection of Jewishness. If it is done
as an addition to Jewishness, it is void, and brings no benefit.

Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional
Mi’kmaq homeland colonially designated Nova Scotia, Canada. He can
be reached at: [email protected].

Israel Shamir writings can be read at his website. His essays are
collected in three books, The Flowers of Galilee, Our Lady of Sorrow,
and the Pardes.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SPEAKER OF ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT SEES HIS COUNTRY’S FUTURE NOT IN RUSSIA-BELARUS UNION

Regnum, Russia
May 2 2006

Speaker of the Armenian parliament Artur Bagdassaryan has commented on
reaction of statements by some Armenian politicians to his statements
made in an interview to a German newspaper, according to which “Armenia
is aimed at the US and NATO, and Russia should not hinder the process
of Armenia’s Euro-integration.” To remind, after the statement made
by the speaker of the Armenian parliament, the country’s President
Robert Kocharyan reminded that Armenian foreign policy is defined by
leadership of the country, in particular, the president, and statements
made by the speaker is his personal stand changed with time.

As Bagdassaryan announced on Tuesday, in the interview to the German
newspaper he expressed “logical Armenia’s position favoring European
integration and deepening relations with NATO. I was speaking about the
future, which I think to be right for our country. I know Armenia’s
foreign policy and know that at present moment the issue of NATO
membership is not on the agenda. However, my position is not in that
Armenia becomes a NATO member as early as tomorrow morning; it is
aimed at a much longer perspective, later than in 12 or 20 months.

In future I see Armenia in the European Council, not in the
Russia-Belarus Union. I think, there are no serious contradictions
between my position and positions of other coalition forces and the
president. If there are serious contradictions in foreign and domestic
policies, Orinats Yerkir Party is ready to leave the coalition in
order not to put the colleagues into a difficult position,” the
Armenian speaker, who heads the party, said.

He also noted that speaking about the Euro-integration process, he did
not mean bad relations with Russia. “I am not proponent of the forces
that are trying to oppose Russia to Western values. As for NATO, we
have the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) that envisages
legislative and institutional reforms. The Armenian parliament is
ready carry out these reforms. At the same time, Russia has been
deepening relations with NATO, and why shouldn’t Armenia do the
same by deepening these relations that meets its national interests,
Artur Bagdassaryan asked in conclusion.”

THE LESSONS OF A PREDOMINANTLY MIDDLE EASTERN TURKEY
By Rami G. Khouri

Daily Star – Lebanon
May 2 2006

Full disclosure from the start: I am a great admirer of Turkey. Of
course I am glad that four centuries of Ottoman control over the
Arab world ended after World War I, yet I wish that Turks and Arabs
had more regular encounters so that the modern Turkish experience
could rub off on us and inspire us. I admire not only the history,
power and astounding rhythms of Istanbul, which twice ruled pivotal
regions of the world in the Byzantine and Ottoman eras. I also admire
its ongoing trajectory to modernity.

Turkey can teach several important lessons to two groups of people who
seem to be increasingly at odds with one another: nationally distressed
and wobbly Arabs, and a United States-led West that views Arab Islamist
parties that have triumphed in elections with perplexity and hostility.

I am a Turkey fan because the Arab world’s large, predominantly Middle
Eastern and Muslim northern neighbor is seriously addressing all those
core issues of nationhood, citizenship and modernity that the countries
of the Middle East generally avoid. These include important challenges
like making a full democratic transformation, deepening Turkey’s
secular tradition, coming to terms with a pluralistic identity,
integrating Islamists into the political system, fostering civilian
control over the military, grappling with the status of minorities and
historical traumas, strengthening human rights guarantees, promoting a
truly productive economy, maintaining a vibrant civil society, steadily
reforming a country to become eligible for European Union membership
while not losing sight of Turkey’s links with the Middle East and
Central Asia, and forging a new, more dignified, less servile, and
mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S. Any country that does
all this simultaneously, as Turkey is doing, is impressive in my book.

For those Turks who dispute my description of their country as
predominantly Middle Eastern, and who prefer to be called European,
I offer as compelling anecdotal evidence just one experience: I was in
a taxi in the center of Istanbul at rush hour when the driver suddenly
reversed at high speed, drove backwards against one-way traffic, inside
a major roundabout, in order to avoid going through a few congested
streets. Not only did the driver act like a Middle Eastern maniac, but
all the other drivers seemed to understand and tolerate this behavior
and facilitated his lawless and reckless reverse journey against the
oncoming traffic. Pretty spectacular, and distinctly Middle Eastern.

Modern Turkey has always had a core of democratic and secular values
since the birth of the modern state after World War I. Yet it has also
mirrored the rest of the Middle East in keeping all major national
and strategic decisions in the hands of the armed forces.

This made every issue a security issue, and allowed military leaders
to step in and run the state at their whim. This is changing rapidly.

Turkey’s experience since 1997-1998 has been impressive because it
revolves around three related dynamics that also challenge the Arabs.

The first is development of a deeper, more pluralistic and inclusive,
democracy that can accommodate the participation, and even the victory,
of Islamist parties. Several Islamist surges in the last decade were
voided by the armed forces and ruling elite, but more mature attitudes
prevailed finally when the current government was formed in late 2002
by the mildly Islamist Justice and Development Party headed by Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This government has enthusiastically
championed reforms to bring Turkey into Europe, and has taken bold
steps to resolve the Cyprus problem.

The second change has come in the fields of human rights and minority
rights. This has especially affected the status of Turkey’s large
Kurdish minority and how to deal with the allegations of genocide
against the Armenians in 1915-1916, which the world beyond Turkey
widely acknowledges occurred. Turkish government and society are
haunted by the prospect of Turkey shrinking again if Kurds seek
independence or deep autonomy in their southeastern provinces. But the
civilian and military leaders recognize there is no military solution,
even as they open up formerly shut doors to public discussion of the
Armenian issue.

The third, most important, issue has been the gradual expansion of
civilian control over the military, in a political system “whose
Constitution was written by and for the military in 1982,” according
to university professor and columnist Soli Ozel. The Constitution was
recently amended in a more liberal and democratic manner, he told me,
largely as a result of the terms of the EU accession process, which
the public strongly supports. This, it seems, in contrast to what
happened in Iraq, is one way to do external intervention in order to
bring about Middle Eastern democracy.

The civilianization and democratization of Turkish politics are
ongoing, gradual processes. They are crucial to allowing Turkey to deal
with its substantial challenges in the vast arenas that are identity,
history, economy, geography and nationalism – and instructive for
the rest of us who watch this process close-up, even from the back
seat of a lawless taxi driven by a loveable but modern maniac.

Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

GARABAGH MEDIATORS TO MEET IN MOSCOW TUESDAY

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
May 2 2006

Baku, May 1, AssA-Irada
The OSCE mediators from Russia, France and the United States brokering
settlement to the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict
will meet in Moscow on Tuesday, television reports said.

This follows the latest unsuccessful round of talks between the two
countries’ leaders in Rambouillet, France in February.

The course of peace talks and the date for the intermediaries’ next
visit to the region will be considered during the discussions, to
be attended by the OSCE chairman’s special envoy Andzhei Kaspshik,
said the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Yuri Merzlyakov.

During the talks in Azerbaijan and Armenia, the mediators are
expected to discuss new proposals on the conflict settlement with
the two presidents.

RA AMBASSADOR TO POLAND ASHOT GALOYAN APPOINTED PLURALISTICALLY RA AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY TO ESTONIA

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 02 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Ashot Galoyan,
the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic
of Armenia to the Republic of Poland was pluralistically appointed
by RA President Robert Kocharian’s April 29 decree the Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Armenia to the
Republic of Estonia (residence in Warsaw). Noyan Tapan was informed
about it by the RA President’s Press Office.

NKR PRESIDENT AND RA FOREIGN MINISTER DISCUSS INITIATIVES STATED BY CO-CHAIRMEN DURING RECENT PERIOD

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 02 2006

STEPANAKERT, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Prospects of
development of interdepartment cooperation between RA and NKR Foreign
Ministries were discussed at the April 28 meeting of NKR President
Arkadi Ghukasian with the delegation headed by RA Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian. Attaching importance to deepening of expert’s mutual
cooperation and programs of making existing ties closer, Arkadi
Ghukasian expressed confidence that they will bilaterally assist
strengthening of positions of the Armenian sides in the negotiation
process. The NKR President touched upon the social-economic state and
prospects of development of the country. As Noyan Tapan was informed
by the NKR President’s acting Press Secretary, Arkadi Ghukasian had a
private conversation with Vartan Oskanian on the same day. The sides
discussed the present state in settlement process of the Karabakh
conflict and exchanged opinions concerning initiatives stated by the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen.

NKR PRESIDENT SINGS DECREES ON CONFERING HONORARY TITLES AND REWARDING WITH NKR MEDALS

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 02 2006

STEPANAKERT, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. NKR President
Arkadi Ghukasian signed a number of decrees on April 29 on confering
honorary titles and rewarding with NKR medals. According to them,
Hamlet Grigorian and Sergey Sargsian were confered title of the NKR
honorary figure of science for great contribution in the affair of
development of the spheres of science, education, display of exclusive
professional skills and scientific activity. As the NKR President’s
acting Press Secretary informed Noyan Tapan, Elmira Gabrielian, Vazgen
Gasparian, Zoya Iskandarian, Armo Mkrtchian, Lyudmila Shakarian were
confered honorary title of the NKR Honorary Pedagogue for teaching
children, teenagers and youth and the exclusive contribution in the
spheres of bringing up. Violeta Baghdasarian was confered honorary
title of the NKR honorary figure of culture. Sergey Avanesian was
confered honorary title of the NKR honorary figure of physical
training and sports. By Arkadi Ghukasian’s decree, Zhasmen Davtian,
Zoya Hovhannisian and Zhanna Hovsepian were rewarded with “Vachagan
Barepasht” medal for development of education and science in the NKR,
preparing qualified specialists, aimful and productive activity in
the spheres of education and brigning up. By NKR President’s another
decree, Aramayis Aghasian, Armenak Davtian, Grisha Ghazarian and
Marat Sahakian were rewarded with “Yerakhtagitoutiun” (gratitute)
medal for significant contribution in the spheres of education and
bringing up of the younger generation.

ARTUR BAGHDASARIAN: “I SEE FUTURE OF ARMENIA IN EUROPEAN UNION, BUT NOT IN RUSSIA-BELARUS UNION”

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 02 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. “I see future of Armenia
in the European Union, but not in the Russia-Belarus union, see in
the succesive European integration,” NA Speaker Artur Baghdasarian
stated at the May 2 plenary sitting of the Parliament, at the same
time expressing an opinion that there are no great differences among
positions of himself and other political forces representing the
coalition, as well as of the President of the republic. According to
A.Baghdasarian, if there are differences, they will be discussed,
and as a result, it will be possible to come to corresponding
conclusions. In the case of existence of a serious contrast, the
“Orinats Yerkir” (Country of Law) party headed by him is ready to
leave the coalition, not to put the partners in “bad situation.” The NA
Speaker also mentioned that to see future of Armenia in the European
family does not mean that Armenia must have strained relations with
Russia, and he himself is not for opposing Russia and the European
values. According to him, no issue of membership to the NATO is put
on the agenda of the foreign policy being implemented at present,
but to speak about the prospect of deepening relations with the NATO
does not quiet mean that “Armenia must become a NATO member in tomorrow
morning.” Responding independent deputy Hmayak Hovhannisian’s question,
the NA Speaker assured that in his all public speeches, inclduing the
interview given to one of famous German newspapers recently, his and
his force’s position was clearly expressed. “The right of pluralism
is more important than its contents,” Artur Baghdasarian. Expressing
sorrow, that “the successive retreat of morality in the policy of
Armenia brought to a great tragedy,” the NA Speaker mentioned at the
same time, that he, as a “incorrigible optimist,” thinks that not
everything has already been lost.

RA NA PLENARY SITTINGS START ON MAY 2

Noyan Tapan
May 02 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. Regular plenary sittings of the RA
National Assembly started on May 2. Unlike the usual sittings, they
will last 3 days as the Monday was a holiday. More than 5 dozens of
issues and 13 international agreements presented for the RA President’s
certification are on the agenda. Before starting discussion of issues
on the agenda, the Parliament adopted 7 drafts discussed during the
previous four-days sittings. They envisage amendments and additions
to the acting laws.

NA ULP FACTION’S STAFF TO REMAIN UNCHANGED

Noyan Tapan
May 02 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. Member of NA United Labor Party faction
Levon Poghosian withdrew his application in the term set after he
made public his resignation. NA Speaker Artur Baghdasarian declared
this at the May 2 parliamentary sitting. L.Poghosian, as well as
head of the faction Gurgen Arsenian transferred all shares of the
companies belonging to them to the trust management of the Swiss
juridical company and fulfilled the constitutional requirement
of MP’s being engaged in an entrepreneurial activity this way. To
recap, the application publicized by L.Poghosian at the NA previous
four-day session on resigning his MP commissions and on assuming the
position of Director General of Mshak company was conditioned by the
above-mentioned ban.