Turkey Genocide Resolution: Huh?

Remove all ads!

martaug,
what that tells me is where you get your information from and that you do have a view on that that is decidedly in favour of Israel. What you and your source provide is a narrative, which is quite powerful but ought to be taken with a grain of salt. In my experience caution is advised wherever adjectives are used, like in "... the Jews reluctantly accepted the unfavorable deal. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and instead invaded..." which carry a lot of value judgement. Not exactly objective.

And that's not exaxctly surprising either. FLAME was brought to you by the author of Weaned on Carrot Juice - or How I survived the Nazis and landed at the Golden Gate via the tin mines of Bolivia and the oil fields of Arkansas. That doesn't mean the man is wrong, he is probably honestly representing his views and experiences.

But it is utterly beside the point whether historically there has been something like the Palestinian people. What does count is that they have developed that identity and now have it as a result of their own powerful forming narrative of diaspora, repression, resistance and occupation. What I want to tell you is that you might be amazed how complex things get all of a sudden when you try to familiarise yourself with it.

[ October 25, 2007, 12:31: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Holy crap. I poked around FLAME for a little bit and...

wow. Just...wow.

Let's see, they have 'Ahmadinejad=Hitler', 'the Arabs hate us because we're good', and 'opposition to Israel = anti-Semitism'. No doubt there're more gems to be unearthed, but I can't be bothered.

 

flame , wiki, us news & world reports & others are just some the places to look. just go to some the al-jazieri(sp?) sites to see the hatred & bias on everything concerning the us & israel. just go to the state sponsored turkish news website and look around on to prove everything i've stated. just read the Balfour Declaration, passed in 1916(maybe 1917). he// just look at The Palestinian National Charter article 15 it calls & i qoute
"and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."

the stated aim of the palestinian charter is the destruction of israel. would your or anybody elses country try to negotiate with someone whos STATED aim was the destruction of said country?

 

Marty,
logically, and very simple, for the Palestinians the restoration of all their pre-settlement property would require the settlers who occupy them now to go. That's if anything a proof of Palestinian abysmal lack of realism, but I fail to see anything vicious in it.

For the Sioux to restore the status quo ante that would require that the white man must leave the territory once given to them by the Great Sprirt, or so.

For a hardcore settler or any zionist, christian or jewish, the territory given to David by God must be returned to the Jews, rendering all subsequent claims, say by the Palestinians, Arab or Christian, null and void.

There is a difference between delusional or conscious bluster and literally exclusive claims that have a chance to see the daylight because those making them have the power to deliver. And in this regard, thus far the Israeli's track record by far is more successful than the Palestinian's.

 

Correct me if I am wrong. But wasn`t the Hiroshima + the Nagasaki bomb also genocide? Technically? It was pretty much only civillian cassualties in them.

 

uh oh ... you sure you want him to address that one?

 

and you still don't answer the question. would you or any other country deal with one who's stated & written into their constitution aims are your complete destruction?

waiting for an answer. just a simple yes or no.


edit,
yes it would, as would any large scale attack.

the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

so every attack on israel in the past 60 years falls under their own definition

 

Marty,
likely Israel has no other choice because demographically they're going down the drain. Their alternative is to start either drive out the remaining Palestinians (continuation of their ethnic cleansing - the Aviogdor Lieberman plan) or kill them off (genocide). For folks like Liebermann there is no place for Arabs in Israel, which they view as a state for Jews exclusively. You are not familiar with the classes of citizenship in Israel I presume? I view the Israeli prospects to perpetuate their enterprise in a sea of hostiles as slim. Finally, the South Africans had to yield, and apartheid collapsed, but then, they didn't have nukes.

Arab talk about the destruction of Israel is mostly hyperbole for domestic consumption that is perfectly suited to tick off folks like you into getting funny ideas, and is thus used accordingly. It is bluster that is entirely unrealistic. It's stuff for hysterics to get upset about

 

hmmm, so the more than 1 million arabs who are full citizens with all rights in israel don't count?edityes there are restrictions on where they can live)

its not hysterics when there are bombings and rockets being lobbed at you.


and you still haven't answered the question.

[ October 25, 2007, 15:31: Message edited by: martaug ]

 

They have nominal Israeli citizenship, and unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa, they do vote for the country's parliament. Avigdor Liebermann wants to repeal that btw.

The discrimination is more subtle: Non-Jewish children attend separate schools, that is, there is segregation in the educational system, and live in areas that receive a fraction of the funding of their Jewish counterparts. Much of the land of the country, controlled by the quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund, cannot be leased or sold to non-Jews. That means that non-Jewish citizens cannot aquire land property in Israel. A 2003 law stipulates that an Israeli citizen may bring a non-citizen spouse to live in Israel from anywhere in the world, excluding a Palestinian from the occupied territories. Their low representation in public jobs when compared to their share of the general population suggests discrimination in that field as well.

That said, the cycle of violence in Palestine and Israel is mutual. I do not think that this benefits both sides. Unconditional support for the Israelis is merely encouraging and rewarding stupid behaviour. It is in my view time the US take the honest broker role, that is, a neutral role, but that ain't gonna happen now because atm there is bipartisan support for a one sided pro-Israel policy. That said, Israel and the US (and you) better gets realistic about what can be achieved - that is a hudna - a temporary peace after Islamic law. Once people get used to that, and interact, then, only then, one can think about something like a permanent peace.

What Israel is not, never, going to get is to armtwist the Palestinians into recognising the Israeli state, because everybody stupid enough to sign such a treaty will be politically and probably literally dead meat.

When Ahmedinejad is talking about Israel being iirc erased from the page of history, he is alluding to the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem. What's left of that today, 700 years later? Ruins. What is left of the christian Byzantine empire? Turkey. Ahmedinejad is speaking in historical dimensions, apparently far surpassing your perception. That is why you don't understand the man and what he sais. All that has profound religious reasons (that you can look up yourself). 700 years was yesterday. When it's for you ancient history, well, for the inhabitants your delusions about the Middle East don't count.
But this is seriously getting us

[ October 25, 2007, 16:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

ragusa you must be the most obstinate human being on the planet. Ahmedinejad has stated that he is NOT talking about the ancient crusaders but the present day state of israel.

as far as israel & the US(and me) getting realistic, you need to pull your head out of the sand. trying to negotiate with terrorists has never & will never work.

you , my delusional little friend, are what we call an enabler. oh if we just give them what they want they will leave us alone. nope never happens. read your history books a little better.

i can see you will never be able to see this rationally so i am done with you. goodbye

 

marty,
my point exactly. You are familiar with the rhetorical tools of *allusion*, and *analogy*?

EDIT: As far as I understand Ahmedinejad, like the crusader kingdom, like the Byzantine empire Israel will simply wither away because it is God's will. It isn't neccessary to do anything to accelerate it. He merely sees it as inevitable.

 

Oh, no! The War on Terror/Terrorist Hot Button: Press Here To Nuke All Incoming Dialogue!

 

Oh my,that article was hilarious., I kinda wondered how they omit interpret the fact that the "Jewish" territories barely had more Jews than Arabs, and the ratio in the other cases was along the lines of 80-20. Unfavorable deal, eh?

Anyway, has anyone else practically missed the Dalai Lama medal thing? I bring it here because it strikes me as, in many ways, similar to the genocide resolution: a (empty) gesture of respect for a recognized humanitarian cause, which has the unfortunate drawback of annoying an important international player. Certainly, one could invoke the importance of Iraq, where Turkey could exert a lot of influence and make things harder for the US and other peacekeepers. However, the current US administration has antagonized Iran - a country with much more means to help or hinder progress in Iraq than Turkey possibly could - so that argument might be a little weak.

Bottom line: the whole thing was partisan as usual - if not the resolution (which imo was in response to an Armenian lobby), then at least the response.

 

Somehow, I think Iran wants to do a lot more than 'help' Iraq. Trusting Iran to help Iraq seems a lot like trusting to fox to guard the hen house.

 

Good one The faction the Iranians support atm is the US run Shia Iraqi government. The Iranian are no less selfish in helping Iraq than the US. It is ridiculous for one to accuse the other of having hidden motives. It is beyond doubt that they both have them, so one would expect it is time to speak about common interests. But that would require to speaking with Iran eye to eye, which is not on the US agenda for some time to come.

The US backed Shia government was a godsend to Teheran, as most of the Shia elected have quite friendly ties to Iran, have lived there in exile when Saddam ruled. The Iranians take advantage of that to reduce a threat to their western border. In face of US rhetoric and de facto encirclement it is hard to blame them for such caution. They are profiting from the many, many mistakes the US made.

But no. The US motives are benign and rational and the Iranian motives are sinister and irrational. It appears the US have 'moved on' and now want to partition Iraq - with a formal senate resolution about what's good for the Iraqis, no less - into a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia state. Not that anyone bothered to ask the elected Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people. Partition by imperial decree. Now begone. The Iraqi Shia led government vehemently opposes that. They are seeing the US propping up Sunnis with great concern, because they fear a counterweight to the central governments power. They see that as a first step toward partition, fear secession. The Iranians helping the Iraqi government may also want to prevent that from happening and would doubtless prefer to see one state under Shia control as their neighbour rather than three smaller ones that would have to be dealt with separately.

If the US push Iraq toward partition, the Kurds will be all for it, as it will formalise their de facto status as a separate country. Against that separate country predictably the Turks will declare war, and considering the ambition of Kurdish territorial claims, in the long run the Shia and the Sunni and the Syrians and maybe the Iranians as well. The current civil war will then become a full regional war, with the civil war parties of today being the warring states of tomorrow. It is already sparking into Turkey. The Kurds may well be inviting their own undoing if they don't get their act together and tone down their nationalist fervor and ambition.

Besides, fascinating view by the ever spectacular and insightful Spengler on Turkey and the US. I don't fully agree with him, but he is as always a good read.

Hahaha! It is to me bitterly ironic that the US genocide resolution, born out of abominable stupidity and cooked up for domestic consumption, now triggers the Turks, hurt in their pride, into lashing out against the Kurds for their territorial claims, even though it was the Kurds who for the Young Turks did most of the butcher against the Armenians then, which then freed Armenian lands for Kurdish settlement. The tragic absurdity of this bloody farce is hard to surpass. One shakes his head in disbelief and searches for a bottle of booze. No. Champagne!

[ October 30, 2007, 11:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

BTA, Rags may have a point. The resolution would supposedly "urge" a "hastening" of this "evolution." First of all, there is the moral problem of one state telling another how to mind its business. A sovereign state would consider that interfering in its affairs, or at least presuming to. Of course, given the US interest in Iraq, that is almost unavoidable - but even then, it pays to be careful.

What could be a big problem is if this resolution actively pushes towards greater federalism and thus, directly or not, breakup of Iraq. I myself have little doubt that the Kurds would love to see that, especially if they could find a way to keep Turkey - and maybe Iran - from invading. I don't know the actual text of the resolution, and I don't know what it will mean in terms of the actual course the US will pursue in the region, but the situation is tricky as it is - and I hope Washington has finally gotten its act together, or we may get a long-term hotspot to rival Palestine (where, accidentally, there was a vaguely similar solution planned in the 1940's). I'm not saying a federal state is not a good solution, simply that if this resolution is too strongly worder or gets implemented too zealously, it may do more harm than good.

Oh, and Rags - Welcome to the region. While this takes place in Asia, it sounds positively... Balkan. Still, I don't know how accurate the article is - I'd say Turks who dislike the US are a lot more moderate than, say, Pakistani or Libyans who tick the same answer on a questionnaire.

 

My reason for bringing up the senate resolution was to compare it to 'Iranian interference'. Making up a resolution about a state's borders, in violation of that state's alleged sovereignty while having troops on the ground to practically enforce it, is as much interfering as it can get. The US getting upset about Iran's intentions in Iraq are the pot calling the kettle black.

As for the borders, I remember one particular neo-con in 2003 remarking dismissively that Iraqi sovereignty was worthless, after all Iraqi territory was only about arbitrary borders, drawn by the British. Yay! That's the spirit! After that it was Ralph Peters to dream up maps redrawing the borders of the entire Middle East, properly this time - as blood borders Enthusiastic endorsement of that brilliant proposal *sarcasm alert* that would by the way hand a large swath of Turkish, after all still formally an ally's territory, to the Kurds: Drawing Borders with Other People’s Blood.

That sovereignty thing is tricky. Thus far I haven't seen the US getting all that serious about it, else they wouldn't have immunised US contractors in Iraq for instance. Would the US let fictious Mexican mercenaries hired to protect the mayor of the town get away for a shooting spree on the streets of Austin, TX? I mean, how sovereign is Iraq really - in the fertile imagination of US pundits and government officials as opposed to what they write or say?

And, pre-emptively, as for my champagne reference: It was not to celebrate anything but simply a style statement, along the line: If you need to get drunk, do so with dignity.