http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=123484
People in Kerkuk are woken up for the predawn meal (sahur) by mobile teams touring the city with tambourines in their hands, but they are no longer informed of the fast-breaking time with a booming cannon, an Ottoman tradition, for security reasons.
A bleeding wound ever-present on Turkey’s agenda, Kerkuk is trying to get the most from the month of fasting amidst security concerns that plague the entire country. Kerkuk is known as “little Iraq” as all the ethnic elements of the country can be found there as well as oil, both of which make it a city of strategic importance. However, the existence of a multi-ethnic structure in the society and oil have been presenting a life-and-death situation since the US occupation began four years ago. An anxious day in the city usually ends with kidnappings and killings.
However, despite all this, people are trying to focus away from the daily tension of life in Iraq during Ramadan as much as possible, but it seems that blood and tears will not stop being spilled despite the holiest month.
A Kerkuki Turkmen, Semir Abdullah, 43, sighs when we ask him if the bloodshed would temporarily stop for the sake of Ramadan. “I wish it would,” he says, “but the violence, strangely enough, has escalated in recent weeks, to say nothing of diminishing or ending. These people have nothing to do with the religion or the religious.”
Tambourine instead of drum
Waking up for sahur to the sound of drumbeats is a centuries-old Ottoman tradition, but this has been replaced with tambourine playing in Kerkuk. Latif Najeem has been waking up his fellow townsmen with his tambourine for years, without expecting anything in return. While doing this, Najeem seems to be a citizen of a very peaceful country, not plagued with war, although there are many things he passes by that can remind him of the fact that he is actually a citizen of war-torn Iraq. Three of his nephews accompany him in this materially non-profit business.
The electricity usually goes out in the town -- particularly after sunset, and therefore people have to rise for sahur in their pitch-dark residences. Piercing the dark with their joyful melodies, Najeem and his nephews say that they are very happy to wake up the people of the Priyadi neighborhood, which stretches over a very large area. The residents of the neighbourhood are also very happy to be woken up by tambourines. Some run to the windows to see them, while some even open their door to sing along. Badriya Ahmad, 52, says that they like the band very much, and adds: “May God be pleased with them. Thanks to them, we don’t even have to set our alarm clocks to wake up for sahur.”
Osman Kayacı, 39, a Turkmen, draws attention to the difficulty of waking up for sahur due to the blackouts and says the band is more instrumental in fulfilling an important function rather than only carrying on the tradition.
Previous Ramadans arrived amidst cannon shots
Kerkuk residents used to start preparing for the month of fasting a week in advance. The only thing they can do to observe this tradition is to do the food shopping a week before. We visited Şekibe Hancı, 57, another Turkmen, and asked what she thought about Ramadan. She said she misses old Ramadans very much as they were able to observe the month with a greater joy and zeal in the past. “Like in the past, we did our shopping a week ahead of the month; however things are not like before. The bazaars and all crowded places are not as secure as before. We shy away from going out to the street, particularly while alone,” she complains.
The days when women would frequent the open bazaars, visiting all the stalls with all sorts of things piled high are long gone now. The US occupation that began in 2003 with the support of alliance forces changed everything for good. Now men do the shopping in the town because women, as Mrs. Hancı pointed out, are afraid to go out. Serdar Hancı, 62, goes out only when he has to, and buys the items on a list his wife gives him.
Despite all their troubles, they temporarily leave this world of affliction at the moment of breaking their fast with their beloved ones. Mr. Hancı tells us that before the occupation, a cannon used to be fired to mark the time for iftar. There is an old cannon, dating back to the Ottoman period, on one of the towers of the Kerkuk fort; however, many youngsters don’t know that it belongs to the Ottoman period. A group of youths tell us that the cannon would be fired in the Saddam era. Serdar Hancı bitterly recounts that it is no longer fired for security reasons. “Real cannons are fired nowadays in Kerkuk along with all sorts of other guns, except for our lovely old cannon. Whenever this iftar cannon would be fired, we would know that our fellow Muslims all over the town were breaking their fast. However, now whenever we hear real gunshots and cannon shots, we know that some people are being killed. How can we not miss those days?”
Before breaking their fast, they pray that peace and serenity once again reign in the town as in the past. They invoke and ask their prayers to be accepted for the sake of the blessed month of Ramadan.
Despite the blackouts in the evening and at night, Kerkukis are not willing to renounce one more Ramadan tradition. Ignoring the tense atmosphere of the town, they flock to the mosques in the town after the iftar dinner to perform the terawih prayer. Terawih is a great joy for the children here also because they participate in the first units of the prayer and then play games in the back of the mosques. Although some elders get angry at them, they manage to combine the prayer with play and undoubtedly enjoy the night more than anybody else.
Kerkuk’s Ramadan entertainment: sinizerf
The only entertainment Kerkukis can find in currently black Ramadan nights is a game called sinizerf, played by everyone in the town. Played by two teams each consisting of four players, the game involves cups called “zerf” placed on a round brass tray called “sini.” The players are supposed to find the stone hidden under one of the cups. Before the occupation, northern Iraqis used to even hold intercity sinizerf tournaments. Nowadays, they can play it only in their homes.
The tournaments used to be held in Kerkuk, Arbil and Sulaimaniya and the sinizerf would travel between the three cities. Now people still play it in Arbil and Sulaimaniya where it is still possible to securely go out at night. However, it is impossible to say the same of Kerkuk in terms of security.
People retire into their houses before sunset to avoid getting wounded and killed, although roadside and other kinds of bombs are not as common in Kerkuk as in other parts of Iraq. When people clear the streets, soldiers in vehicles equipped with heavy weapons start patrolling the town. Apart from their homes, some people hold minor tournaments in coffeehouses but have to stop playing before 11:00 p.m. and speedily go back home, missing the good old days when sinizerf games would continue late into the night.
01.10.2007
Ramadan
M.ALİHAN HASANOĞLU
mardi 2 octobre 2007
Who committed the Yezidi Massacre in North Iraq?
10-1-2007
Assyrian International News Agency
On Tuesday, August 14th 2007, the Yezidis, one of the minorities in norhern Iraq, were the target of a bloody and ruthless massacre. This massacre took place in the city of Sinjar, in the Nineveh province.
Early Tuesday morning, several trucks - fully loaded with several tons of the much sophisticated and explosive substance of Trinitroluene - TNT - exploded. The explosive is very hard to retain and is used by very well equipped armies or terrorist regimes that cooperate with super powers.
The explosion was aimed at the civilians and is by far the most brutal and ruthless attack against civilians since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The massacre took 520 lives and several hundreds were wounded. This act of terrorism made thousands of families homeless, as they got their homes blown away.
Nineveh-the future of the province
According to the constitution of Iraq, law number 118, paragraph IV (II), the Assyrian province of Nineveh is considered "a province which is not part of a current region." This means that in the Assyrian province of Nineveh, the jurisdiction of the occupational power is the one that should be followed.
The province of Nineveh is today the core area of the Assyrian triangle; the area between Nineveh, Turabdin and the province of Urmi. The Kurdish parties in northeastern Iraq want to change this demography. They do everything in their power to occupy and, against the Iraqi constitution, conquer the Assyrian province of Nineveh - a province rich of oil.
The Assyrian parties have petitioned, to the central government in Baghdad, that the province of Nineveh will be the base for The Assyrian Administrative Area. This would partly give the Assyrians living in the province of Nineveh a safe haven, and partly make way for the Assyrians in the rest of Iraq to be saved from the ethnic cleansing they are being subjected to.
All in all, this means that the issue of the future of the Assyrian province of Nineveh, is not in accordance with the illusion of the Kurdish parties - to conquer the province.
Many questions after the attack in Sinjar
Attacks of this kind against a minority which does not take part in the war, or struggle for power in Iraq, have lead to many questions.
What was the purpose of the attack? Who gained from the attack? Why the province of Nieneveh, and why now?
As usual, the accusations were made aginst the "demon" al-Qaida. It has, so to speak, become a standard procedure; to blame all acts of terrorism on the "demon" al-Qaida.
But nobody asks the question: what would al-Qaida gain in murdering the Yezidies?
Neither Shia nor Sunni muslims consider the Yezidies as enemies in Iraq, a country in civil war. This fact makes it easy to delete these groups from the list of suspects.
Power of protection
After the attack, several of the Kurdish parties and their militias have tried to gain authority to enter the province of Nineveh. The Yezidi Mahmoud Eido, minister in the Kurdish rule, was fast to publicly demand that Kurdish military forces would be allowed to enter the Nineveh province, in order to "protect" the population. The government in Baghdad has not even bothered to answer Eido's demand.
The Kurdish parties have also employed Assyrians in order to try to convince Assyrians to accept a Kurdish occupation of the Nineveh province. The Kurds have employed the Assyrian Sarkis Aghajan. He has, since he was hired, eagerly urged Assyrians to ask for a safe haven with the Kurdish parties.
All in all, the Kurdish parties from northeastern Iraq, through their military forces, for a long time in one way or another, have tried to include the Nineveh province, a province full of oil, into the area they already illegally occupy. All this in hope of making an illusion turn to reality.
Correlation between the act of terrorism and the protecting power
To be able to understand the background to this act of terrorism, one must relate it to a similar mechanism in our surroundings.
It has probably not remained an unknown fact to anyone how some criminal gangs in Sweden have put into system to blackmail business leaders and others in order to get money, as they on the other hand "offer" their protection against violence.
If the targeted business leaders, against all odds, would decline the offer of the criminal gangs, they will -- as a consequence of this -- receive a visit, which is also a threat and/or warnings. If they then choose not to obey the criminals' demands, the threats of bombing and shooting become reality. In Sweden, such acts are classified as criminal and felonious.
In order to answer the question:
"Who lies behind this inhumane act of terrorism?"
one first must answer the question:
"Who is offering his protection?"
Conclusion -- the Kurdish terror
The by far worst act of terrorism in Iraq was aimed at the Yezidis in Sinjar, a city situated in the Assyrian Nineveh province. Yezidies are not part of the Iraqi civil war. Yezidies are neither Muslims nor Christians. They have their own belief and are mainly living in the areas around the city of Sinjar in the province of Nineveh.
The groups that have something to gain in turning the Assyrian Nineveh province into an inferno, are the Kurdish parties and militias.
None of the armies included in the occupation forces wants to interfere in an insecure province, and therefore an offer from the Kurdish forces to "establish" law and order in the province of Nineveh can seem tempting for the occupation power.
In order to urge such a decision, the Kurdish militia forces for the last two years committed acts of terrorism against the civilians in the province of Nineveh. The Kurdish terror is either disguised in Iraqi army uniforms, or as al-Qaida terrorists.
All in all the aim is to intensify and increase the violence in the Nineveh province, with the result of the situation becoming unbearable and forcing the occupation power to considering the option of letting the Kurdish militias invade Nineveh, with the mission of "protecting" the population.
This intrusion will not be limited in time. On the contrary, it is part of the Kurdish militias' plans. Much indicates that the goal is chasing away the Assyrians of Nineveh, in order to set their hands on the oil of the province.
The fact is that the kurdish militias have, during their time as a power factor in northeastern Iraq, been able to cleanse the area from minorities in general, and Assyrians in particular. The experience and the result of the Kurdish protection are unbelievably frightening. As a result of Kurdish terrorism, 58 Assyrian villages have been occupied. These cities are today populated by Kurds.
Many of the Assyrians who protested against the Kurdish terrorism were murdered without the ones responsible for law and security -- the Kurdish militia forces -- trying to find or prosecute the murderers. All in all Assyrians have a long experience of political terrorism from the Kurdish parties. What started as election fraud by the Kurdish parties in the Iraqi elections of 2005, has now developed into an ethnic cleansing of the Assyrians.
The Kurdish parties are trying to portray themselves as a democratic and lawful unit towards the international community. The representative for the Kurdish parties in the US, Qubad Talabani, guaranteed in washingtonpost.com on September 6, 2007, a fair treatment of the religious minorities.
Nothing in Talabani's claim about protection for the religious minorities is a lie. The Kurdish parties are very careful in treating religiously oriented groups well. The Kurdish parites, and their militias in particular, attack the ethnically oriented groups. The Kurdish parties do not want to know of any other ethinical group than the Kurdish in northern Iraq.
If this distincition in the treatment of religiously versus ethnically oriented Assyrians is not being emphasised, this persecution and terrorism of ethnically conscious Assyrians will lead to the pressure on the Assyrians, from having been forced to be Christian Iraqis, to turn into Christian Kurds.
It is, therefore, important to understand the ulterior motive and the idea why the Kurdish parties, with Kurdish money, "approve of" Sarkis Aghan building churces worth 20 million dollars, such as the church/palace in which the Assyrian Patriarch Emmanuel Delly is moving into in Erbil.
This magnificent treatment forms a sharp contrast to the terror and violence regular Assyrians in the province of Nineveh are put to daily. It has turned their lives into a living hell on this earth.
EasternStar News Agency
This item is available as: html
Copyright (C) 2007, Assyrian International News Agency.
Assyrian International News Agency
On Tuesday, August 14th 2007, the Yezidis, one of the minorities in norhern Iraq, were the target of a bloody and ruthless massacre. This massacre took place in the city of Sinjar, in the Nineveh province.
Early Tuesday morning, several trucks - fully loaded with several tons of the much sophisticated and explosive substance of Trinitroluene - TNT - exploded. The explosive is very hard to retain and is used by very well equipped armies or terrorist regimes that cooperate with super powers.
The explosion was aimed at the civilians and is by far the most brutal and ruthless attack against civilians since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The massacre took 520 lives and several hundreds were wounded. This act of terrorism made thousands of families homeless, as they got their homes blown away.
Nineveh-the future of the province
According to the constitution of Iraq, law number 118, paragraph IV (II), the Assyrian province of Nineveh is considered "a province which is not part of a current region." This means that in the Assyrian province of Nineveh, the jurisdiction of the occupational power is the one that should be followed.
The province of Nineveh is today the core area of the Assyrian triangle; the area between Nineveh, Turabdin and the province of Urmi. The Kurdish parties in northeastern Iraq want to change this demography. They do everything in their power to occupy and, against the Iraqi constitution, conquer the Assyrian province of Nineveh - a province rich of oil.
The Assyrian parties have petitioned, to the central government in Baghdad, that the province of Nineveh will be the base for The Assyrian Administrative Area. This would partly give the Assyrians living in the province of Nineveh a safe haven, and partly make way for the Assyrians in the rest of Iraq to be saved from the ethnic cleansing they are being subjected to.
All in all, this means that the issue of the future of the Assyrian province of Nineveh, is not in accordance with the illusion of the Kurdish parties - to conquer the province.
Many questions after the attack in Sinjar
Attacks of this kind against a minority which does not take part in the war, or struggle for power in Iraq, have lead to many questions.
What was the purpose of the attack? Who gained from the attack? Why the province of Nieneveh, and why now?
As usual, the accusations were made aginst the "demon" al-Qaida. It has, so to speak, become a standard procedure; to blame all acts of terrorism on the "demon" al-Qaida.
But nobody asks the question: what would al-Qaida gain in murdering the Yezidies?
Neither Shia nor Sunni muslims consider the Yezidies as enemies in Iraq, a country in civil war. This fact makes it easy to delete these groups from the list of suspects.
Power of protection
After the attack, several of the Kurdish parties and their militias have tried to gain authority to enter the province of Nineveh. The Yezidi Mahmoud Eido, minister in the Kurdish rule, was fast to publicly demand that Kurdish military forces would be allowed to enter the Nineveh province, in order to "protect" the population. The government in Baghdad has not even bothered to answer Eido's demand.
The Kurdish parties have also employed Assyrians in order to try to convince Assyrians to accept a Kurdish occupation of the Nineveh province. The Kurds have employed the Assyrian Sarkis Aghajan. He has, since he was hired, eagerly urged Assyrians to ask for a safe haven with the Kurdish parties.
All in all, the Kurdish parties from northeastern Iraq, through their military forces, for a long time in one way or another, have tried to include the Nineveh province, a province full of oil, into the area they already illegally occupy. All this in hope of making an illusion turn to reality.
Correlation between the act of terrorism and the protecting power
To be able to understand the background to this act of terrorism, one must relate it to a similar mechanism in our surroundings.
It has probably not remained an unknown fact to anyone how some criminal gangs in Sweden have put into system to blackmail business leaders and others in order to get money, as they on the other hand "offer" their protection against violence.
If the targeted business leaders, against all odds, would decline the offer of the criminal gangs, they will -- as a consequence of this -- receive a visit, which is also a threat and/or warnings. If they then choose not to obey the criminals' demands, the threats of bombing and shooting become reality. In Sweden, such acts are classified as criminal and felonious.
In order to answer the question:
"Who lies behind this inhumane act of terrorism?"
one first must answer the question:
"Who is offering his protection?"
Conclusion -- the Kurdish terror
The by far worst act of terrorism in Iraq was aimed at the Yezidis in Sinjar, a city situated in the Assyrian Nineveh province. Yezidies are not part of the Iraqi civil war. Yezidies are neither Muslims nor Christians. They have their own belief and are mainly living in the areas around the city of Sinjar in the province of Nineveh.
The groups that have something to gain in turning the Assyrian Nineveh province into an inferno, are the Kurdish parties and militias.
None of the armies included in the occupation forces wants to interfere in an insecure province, and therefore an offer from the Kurdish forces to "establish" law and order in the province of Nineveh can seem tempting for the occupation power.
In order to urge such a decision, the Kurdish militia forces for the last two years committed acts of terrorism against the civilians in the province of Nineveh. The Kurdish terror is either disguised in Iraqi army uniforms, or as al-Qaida terrorists.
All in all the aim is to intensify and increase the violence in the Nineveh province, with the result of the situation becoming unbearable and forcing the occupation power to considering the option of letting the Kurdish militias invade Nineveh, with the mission of "protecting" the population.
This intrusion will not be limited in time. On the contrary, it is part of the Kurdish militias' plans. Much indicates that the goal is chasing away the Assyrians of Nineveh, in order to set their hands on the oil of the province.
The fact is that the kurdish militias have, during their time as a power factor in northeastern Iraq, been able to cleanse the area from minorities in general, and Assyrians in particular. The experience and the result of the Kurdish protection are unbelievably frightening. As a result of Kurdish terrorism, 58 Assyrian villages have been occupied. These cities are today populated by Kurds.
Many of the Assyrians who protested against the Kurdish terrorism were murdered without the ones responsible for law and security -- the Kurdish militia forces -- trying to find or prosecute the murderers. All in all Assyrians have a long experience of political terrorism from the Kurdish parties. What started as election fraud by the Kurdish parties in the Iraqi elections of 2005, has now developed into an ethnic cleansing of the Assyrians.
The Kurdish parties are trying to portray themselves as a democratic and lawful unit towards the international community. The representative for the Kurdish parties in the US, Qubad Talabani, guaranteed in washingtonpost.com on September 6, 2007, a fair treatment of the religious minorities.
Nothing in Talabani's claim about protection for the religious minorities is a lie. The Kurdish parties are very careful in treating religiously oriented groups well. The Kurdish parites, and their militias in particular, attack the ethnically oriented groups. The Kurdish parties do not want to know of any other ethinical group than the Kurdish in northern Iraq.
If this distincition in the treatment of religiously versus ethnically oriented Assyrians is not being emphasised, this persecution and terrorism of ethnically conscious Assyrians will lead to the pressure on the Assyrians, from having been forced to be Christian Iraqis, to turn into Christian Kurds.
It is, therefore, important to understand the ulterior motive and the idea why the Kurdish parties, with Kurdish money, "approve of" Sarkis Aghan building churces worth 20 million dollars, such as the church/palace in which the Assyrian Patriarch Emmanuel Delly is moving into in Erbil.
This magnificent treatment forms a sharp contrast to the terror and violence regular Assyrians in the province of Nineveh are put to daily. It has turned their lives into a living hell on this earth.
EasternStar News Agency
This item is available as: html
Copyright (C) 2007, Assyrian International News Agency.
800th Anniversary of the birth of Mevlana Jelaluddin RUMI
Konya marks the birth of Mevlana A total of 300 semazens (whirling dervishes) from Mevlevi lodges around Turkey gathered to stage a monumental sema show marking the 800th anniversary of the birth of Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi at the Konya City Stadium on Sunday night as part of year-round festivities for 2007 Year of Mevlana, as declared by UNESCO.
The spectacular show used a monumental stage management system consisting of 33 gigantic screens and covering a surface area of 850 square meters.
In a speech he delivered at the ceremony, Minister Günay said that the world was in need of the tolerance and love for humanity championed by Mevlana. Recalling that festivities in commemoration of Mevlana were being held all around the world in line with UNESCO's decision, Günay said: "Tonight, we are here to celebrate the 800th birthday of a great man who is a guiding light for the whole of humanity. "Tonight, we will see the most magnificent of all shows in this beautiful Konya -- where he lived, matured, got old and was united with his Beloved. It is a great happiness for a man, a mortal being, to be commemorated with enthusiasm, love and respect all around the world 800 years after his birth.
At the center of this glaring focus of interest lies a life dedicated to love, a struggle for learning and teaching, and tolerance needed deliriously by mankind. His immense success, admired by scholars of his time and all times, was based on love -- unlimited, boundless, irresistible and indefinable love for understanding the Creator and His creatures. Love brings eternity and lasts for eternity."
Günay, noting that Mevlana's age-old philosophy now serves mankind as a recipe for solving its problems in the 21st century, said: "Even these ceremonies for commemoration and celebration show that we are in urgent need for the love and tolerance embodied by Mevlana. We need him in our region, in the Middle East, in our neighborhood and inside ourselves."
lundi 1 octobre 2007
Cholera cases in KERKUK
Cholera cases in At-Ta’mim (Kerkuk) Governorate
65% of the total confirmed cholera cases reported from Iraq, are from Kerkuk province.
90% of Kerkuk province cases are from Kerkuk town.
Despite the effort exerted by the DoH authorities; the daily reported diarrhea cases, confirmed cholera cases and severity of the disease seems to be on the increase.
MoH deputy minister Dr. Isam Mamiq is in Kerkuk to lead the cholera containment measures for 10 days as of 26/09/2007.
It is worth noting that despite assurances that the public water supply is safe and repeated efforts by local health authorities that the source of this outbreak is still untraced for the cases in Kerkuk city.
For WHO reports please see:
http://gorillasguides.com/category/iraq/at-tamim-kirkuk-governorate/
65% of the total confirmed cholera cases reported from Iraq, are from Kerkuk province.
90% of Kerkuk province cases are from Kerkuk town.
Despite the effort exerted by the DoH authorities; the daily reported diarrhea cases, confirmed cholera cases and severity of the disease seems to be on the increase.
MoH deputy minister Dr. Isam Mamiq is in Kerkuk to lead the cholera containment measures for 10 days as of 26/09/2007.
It is worth noting that despite assurances that the public water supply is safe and repeated efforts by local health authorities that the source of this outbreak is still untraced for the cases in Kerkuk city.
For WHO reports please see:
http://gorillasguides.com/category/iraq/at-tamim-kirkuk-governorate/
From IRAQ to BURMA - HYPOCRISY RULES THE WEST
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10012007.html
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Shame has vanished from Western "civilization." Hypocrisy has taken its place.
On September 28, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown could be heard on National Public Radio decrying the use of violence against democratic protesters by the government in Burma. Brown declared the British people's revulsion over the violence inflicted by the Burmese government on its people. But Brown said nothing about the violence the British government was inflicting on Iraqis and Afghans.
George W. Bush also struck the blameless pose when he declared: "The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals."
Bush and Brown do not have the same sympathy for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither Bush nor Brown stand in solidarity with those who are demanding their freedom from foreign occupation by American and British troops. Indeed, Bush and Brown, as commanders in chief, are on a killing spree that makes the government in Burma look extremely restrained by comparison.
Why were British soldiers sent to kill Iraqis and Afghans? September 11 had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. No doubt but that the corrupt Tony Blair was paid off to drag the British people into Bush's Middle East war for American/Israeli hegemony, but Brown has done nothing to terminate Bush's use of the British military as mercenaries.
The NPR announcers also supported the Burmese people, but they, too, show little disturbance over Bush's five-year old wars that we now know were based entirely on lies. Al Qaeda is not the Taliban, and Iraq had no WMD. Neither country was a threat to the US.
Now that we know this, why does the media still give Bush and Brown a free pass to use violence against Iraqis and Afghans?
To cut to the chase, what is the difference between Bush and Brown on one hand and the murderous Burmese government on the other? Bush and Brown are actually worse. They pretend to be democrats concerned with what people actually want. The Burmese government doesn't pretend to be anything but a military dictatorship. Moreover, the Burmese government is clean by comparison as it hasn't committed acts of naked aggression--war crimes under the Nuremberg standard--by invading other countries and attempting to occupy them.
Despite all the killing Bush has accomplished, he thirsts for yet more blood. Iran is in his and Israel's sights. All indications are that Bush is going to attack Iran. Propaganda, demonizations, and crass lies are pouring out of the Bush regime and its media and academic propagandists such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger. Both parties in Congress have lined up behind the coming attack on Iran. The despicable senator Joe Lieberman even snuck language into a bill to give Bush the go ahead.
Who is going to stop Bush from a third war crime? Not his vice president, Not his national security adviser, not his secretary of defense. Not his secretary of state. Not Congress. Not the US military. Not the corporate fat cats. Not the Israel Lobby. Not the bought and paid for "allies." Not the anti-war movement. Not the American people. Certainly not the media.
Americans are content with whatever crimes their government commits as long as the justification is Americans' safety.
Americans' willingness to murder others out of fear for their own safety is a result of September 11. The antiwar movement is impotent, because it has accepted the government's 9/11 story. To oppose a war when you accept the government's reason for the war is an indefensible position.
The Bush regime knows that if people will believe its 9/11 story, they will believe anything. Propaganda silences facts, and Americans fall for one set of falsehoods after another. The alleged 9/11 hijackers all came from countries allied with the US, principally Saudi Arabia, but Americans believe the government's lies that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria are responsible.
Americans have been convinced that without "regime change" in these countries, the American superpower will remain helpless in face of stateless Muslims armed with box cutters.
Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Muslims hate us for our "freedom and democracy," whereas in fact the problem is the US government's immoral foreign policy and interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. Bush's message to the Middle East is clear: Be a puppet state or be destroyed.
In the meantime, to prevent democracy and civil liberties from getting in the way of making Americans safe, Bush has set aside habeas corpus, due process, right to legal representation, privacy, and the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution. Otherwise, Bush says, we will lose the "war on terror."
Bush says he has made Americans safe by ridding them of these constitutional impediments to their safety. And once American bombs fall on Iran and Syria, those countries will be free and democratic, too, like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In leading Americans to this conclusion, Bush has sunk the United States to a new low in human intelligence and morality.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Shame has vanished from Western "civilization." Hypocrisy has taken its place.
On September 28, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown could be heard on National Public Radio decrying the use of violence against democratic protesters by the government in Burma. Brown declared the British people's revulsion over the violence inflicted by the Burmese government on its people. But Brown said nothing about the violence the British government was inflicting on Iraqis and Afghans.
George W. Bush also struck the blameless pose when he declared: "The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals."
Bush and Brown do not have the same sympathy for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither Bush nor Brown stand in solidarity with those who are demanding their freedom from foreign occupation by American and British troops. Indeed, Bush and Brown, as commanders in chief, are on a killing spree that makes the government in Burma look extremely restrained by comparison.
Why were British soldiers sent to kill Iraqis and Afghans? September 11 had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. No doubt but that the corrupt Tony Blair was paid off to drag the British people into Bush's Middle East war for American/Israeli hegemony, but Brown has done nothing to terminate Bush's use of the British military as mercenaries.
The NPR announcers also supported the Burmese people, but they, too, show little disturbance over Bush's five-year old wars that we now know were based entirely on lies. Al Qaeda is not the Taliban, and Iraq had no WMD. Neither country was a threat to the US.
Now that we know this, why does the media still give Bush and Brown a free pass to use violence against Iraqis and Afghans?
To cut to the chase, what is the difference between Bush and Brown on one hand and the murderous Burmese government on the other? Bush and Brown are actually worse. They pretend to be democrats concerned with what people actually want. The Burmese government doesn't pretend to be anything but a military dictatorship. Moreover, the Burmese government is clean by comparison as it hasn't committed acts of naked aggression--war crimes under the Nuremberg standard--by invading other countries and attempting to occupy them.
Despite all the killing Bush has accomplished, he thirsts for yet more blood. Iran is in his and Israel's sights. All indications are that Bush is going to attack Iran. Propaganda, demonizations, and crass lies are pouring out of the Bush regime and its media and academic propagandists such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger. Both parties in Congress have lined up behind the coming attack on Iran. The despicable senator Joe Lieberman even snuck language into a bill to give Bush the go ahead.
Who is going to stop Bush from a third war crime? Not his vice president, Not his national security adviser, not his secretary of defense. Not his secretary of state. Not Congress. Not the US military. Not the corporate fat cats. Not the Israel Lobby. Not the bought and paid for "allies." Not the anti-war movement. Not the American people. Certainly not the media.
Americans are content with whatever crimes their government commits as long as the justification is Americans' safety.
Americans' willingness to murder others out of fear for their own safety is a result of September 11. The antiwar movement is impotent, because it has accepted the government's 9/11 story. To oppose a war when you accept the government's reason for the war is an indefensible position.
The Bush regime knows that if people will believe its 9/11 story, they will believe anything. Propaganda silences facts, and Americans fall for one set of falsehoods after another. The alleged 9/11 hijackers all came from countries allied with the US, principally Saudi Arabia, but Americans believe the government's lies that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria are responsible.
Americans have been convinced that without "regime change" in these countries, the American superpower will remain helpless in face of stateless Muslims armed with box cutters.
Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Muslims hate us for our "freedom and democracy," whereas in fact the problem is the US government's immoral foreign policy and interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. Bush's message to the Middle East is clear: Be a puppet state or be destroyed.
In the meantime, to prevent democracy and civil liberties from getting in the way of making Americans safe, Bush has set aside habeas corpus, due process, right to legal representation, privacy, and the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution. Otherwise, Bush says, we will lose the "war on terror."
Bush says he has made Americans safe by ridding them of these constitutional impediments to their safety. And once American bombs fall on Iran and Syria, those countries will be free and democratic, too, like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In leading Americans to this conclusion, Bush has sunk the United States to a new low in human intelligence and morality.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
An old Zionist dream: the partition of Iraq by Gabriele Zamparini
Below is Gabriele Zamparini's latest article in case you have missed it:
Finally the Imperial Senate calls for Iraq's partition.
US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree. The proposal came from Senator Joseph Biden, the smart-ass who heads the chamber's foreign relations committee and is running for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
A few months ago, Sen. Biden, interviewed by Shalom TV, an American mainstream Jewish cable television network, called Israel "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East". "I am a Zionist," stated Senator Biden. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."We know the Israel Lobby is not a very convincing thesis, at least for Noam Chomsky. So, let’s talk about coincidences.
In 1982, Israel Shahak, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, wrote:
The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
Israel Shahak’s The Zionist Plan for the Middle East is based on Oded Yinon's A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, an essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.
Here two passages from Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties:
(…) Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi'ites in Iraq view as their natural leader. (…)
(…) Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization (…)
Just coincidences, of course...
Finally the Imperial Senate calls for Iraq's partition.
US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree. The proposal came from Senator Joseph Biden, the smart-ass who heads the chamber's foreign relations committee and is running for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
A few months ago, Sen. Biden, interviewed by Shalom TV, an American mainstream Jewish cable television network, called Israel "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East". "I am a Zionist," stated Senator Biden. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."We know the Israel Lobby is not a very convincing thesis, at least for Noam Chomsky. So, let’s talk about coincidences.
In 1982, Israel Shahak, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, wrote:
The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
Israel Shahak’s The Zionist Plan for the Middle East is based on Oded Yinon's A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, an essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.
Here two passages from Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties:
(…) Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi'ites in Iraq view as their natural leader. (…)
(…) Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization (…)
Just coincidences, of course...
Turkmen condemnation of the decision to divide Iraq
29-09-2007
Condemnation by Turkmeneli party
(Extract)
We condemn the recent decision taken by the US Senate approving the division of Iraq into sectarian and ethnic entities. In any case, we strongly reject any attempt to ordering the Iraqis to change their future and the future of their country, and stress that any project which decides the fate of Iraq as a state and as a nation should be the project of the Iraqi people alone not the others.
....
Therefore, we ask the Iraqi people and their religious and political parties to confront such schemes.
In our view, we can confront this dividing resolution as follows:
1 - The majority of the Iraqi people are hostile to this division and insists on amending the articles of the Constitution to prevent the division of their country.
2- All political blocks, forces, movements, writers and intellectuals obligated to raise their voices against the American project of dividing Iraq into three zones Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish.
3-We ask all the political blocs to overcome their political divisions and stand shoulder to shoulder to prevent the passing of any draft resolutions aiming at dividing Iraq into sectarian and ethnic entities.
4 - The division draft is a against international law and trespasses the sovereignty of a member country of the Arab League and Organization of the United Nations, therefore we ask the Arab League and the United Nations to use all legal and political means to deal with this fateful decision.
5- We ask all neighbouring countries to stand with the Iraqi people and help them to eliminate such destructive schemes for the unity of Iraq and its people.
Turkmeneli Party
http://www.tanis-turkmen.nl/
Condemnation by Turkmeneli party
(Extract)
We condemn the recent decision taken by the US Senate approving the division of Iraq into sectarian and ethnic entities. In any case, we strongly reject any attempt to ordering the Iraqis to change their future and the future of their country, and stress that any project which decides the fate of Iraq as a state and as a nation should be the project of the Iraqi people alone not the others.
....
Therefore, we ask the Iraqi people and their religious and political parties to confront such schemes.
In our view, we can confront this dividing resolution as follows:
1 - The majority of the Iraqi people are hostile to this division and insists on amending the articles of the Constitution to prevent the division of their country.
2- All political blocks, forces, movements, writers and intellectuals obligated to raise their voices against the American project of dividing Iraq into three zones Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish.
3-We ask all the political blocs to overcome their political divisions and stand shoulder to shoulder to prevent the passing of any draft resolutions aiming at dividing Iraq into sectarian and ethnic entities.
4 - The division draft is a against international law and trespasses the sovereignty of a member country of the Arab League and Organization of the United Nations, therefore we ask the Arab League and the United Nations to use all legal and political means to deal with this fateful decision.
5- We ask all neighbouring countries to stand with the Iraqi people and help them to eliminate such destructive schemes for the unity of Iraq and its people.
Turkmeneli Party
http://www.tanis-turkmen.nl/
dimanche 30 septembre 2007
Lost in Translation: AHMADINEJAD and The Media
By Ali Quli Qarai
09/28/07 "ICH" -- - First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.
Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.
What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.
Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush’s way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.
By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)
By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.
There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”
Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive. (In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)
Mr Bollinger’s hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News. ·
Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.
It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someone’s remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions.
This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,” (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel.
By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’ By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements.
In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.
As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth” has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography.
What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine.
Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.The savants of the media are free to interpret Ahmadinejad’s statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.
I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.
Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation of the Quran. He can be reached at altwhid@gmail.com
09/28/07 "ICH" -- - First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.
Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.
What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.
Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush’s way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.
By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)
By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.
There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”
Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive. (In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)
Mr Bollinger’s hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News. ·
Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.
It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someone’s remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions.
This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,” (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel.
By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’ By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements.
In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.
As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth” has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography.
What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine.
Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.The savants of the media are free to interpret Ahmadinejad’s statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.
I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.
Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation of the Quran. He can be reached at altwhid@gmail.com
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
