...
David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America's Turkish card in Iraq. In the course of the article, when mentioning the Kurds, he referred to them only as terrorists or rebels.
Now think about that for a minute. At a time when most media folks are still debating whether or not Arabs -- who deliberately blow up busloads of Jewish innocents in buses, pizza parlors, teen nightclubs, etc.-- are "militants" or "terrorists," folks like Mr. Ignatius have no problem using the "T" word for Kurds.
...
Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another Palestinian Arab state be permitted to be created (Jordan having been carved out, in 1922, of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920).
Could you envision the outcry around the world? Yet this is precisely what our friends, the Turks, have stated over and over again regarding the Kurds. And besides David Ignatius' comments, this has been echoed elsewhere as well such as in Thomas Friedman's March 26th article in the New York Times. Friedman advised that the Kurds should be told point blank, "what part of 'no' don't you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away."
Nauseating. These are the same authors who, along with many others, have written volumes espousing the creation of that 23rd Arab state,
While the Turks' nervousness over such a thought is understandable, their position (as well as Ignatius', Friedman's, etc.) is morally indefensible...if that means anything these days. We'll return to this issue as well later on. At this time, however, we need to take a good look at the plight of some 30 million perpetually used and abused Kurds. Think about all of the journalistic, political, and other energy which has been devoted to the creation of that 23rd Arab state. Now ask yourselves how much has been devoted to the plight of stateless Kurds? Think of Mr. Ignatius' and Mr. Friedman's comments for starters.
For several decades now, in the study of Middle Eastern Affairs, some subjects have appeared to be taboo while others never seem to leave center stage. Perhaps one reason for this state of affairs lies in the perpetual quest for Arab petro-dollars by financially hungry academic institutions. Another possibly related reason has something to do with those who have hijacked an intolerant control of Middle Eastern Studies in academia. Israel, constantly in the spotlight's glare, is thus frequently picked apart (all in the name of "objective scholarship" of course), and every real and/or imaginary sin is repeatedly exposed for all to see and pass judgment upon. Indeed, many academics have taken the lead recently to single Israel out and treat it as a pariah in their attempts to have their institutions cut all ties to it.
The mere suggestion that Pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism has problems with Jewish nationalism/Zionism for at least some of the same reasons it has had similar problems elsewhere--Berber North Africa, Lebanon, Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan, the Sudan, etc.--can elicit harsh rebuke. In the classroom, however, such subjects are more often than not simply not dealt with at all. Rare is the classroom, for example, that gets into a discussion of the "other side" of the Middle East refugee problem, the one half of Israel's Jews who fled Arab/Muslim lands as a result of the war Arabs launched against the nascent Jewish State. Even more rare is the class that puts the 1947 partition plan for Palestine into the broader context of another partition going on at the very same time between Hindus and Muslims over the Indian subcontinent. The double standard frequently reigns supreme, and while students are often left with the impression that one national movement holds a monopoly on evil and injustice, the other is in line for imminent canonization.
...
Some thirty million proud, much abused, and beleaguered people--still not in possession of one state let alone two dozen others--are thus simply disregarded in a grotesque display of moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy by the very same circles promoting an Arafatian state. What's even worse, outside of academia, an Arabist-dominated State Department perpetuates this problem for its own largely oil-tainted reasons. And most of the media engages in this double standard as well.
The story of Kurdish nationalism is a depressing one when compared with that of other nationalisms in the Middle East. Arab and Iranian nationalisms, for example, are replete with events causing anger, frustration, setbacks, and the like, but their futures remain alive with the promise of a better tomorrow. Not so, however, for the Kurds...That is, not until recently. While great forces are still working against this--not the least being those at Foggy Bottom-- the war in Iraq has the potential to, at long last, right an historic wrong. It is time...
...
The best and most reasonable chance for Kurdish independence was sacrificed, however, in the immediate post-World War I era on the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. What was promised as "Kurdistan" became Arab Iraq instead. The odds against a favorable outcome to such aspirations grew immensely from then on. Among other things, Arab nationalists feared that if such a state arose it would become the focus of immigration for millions of Kurds living in Turkey and Iran. Arabs also wrote that they would see the birth of an independent Kurdistan as equivalent to the creation of another Israel, i.e. it would permanently separate lands from what Arabs claimed solely for themselves.
...
Funny, these same Foggy Bottom folks don't think twice about what the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state will do to both a miniscule, 9-mile wide Israel and a Jordan whose majority population is Palestinian Arab. Repeated partitions are legitimate for Palestine, but not even one is permissible for Mesopotamia/Iraq. There will be no "Road Map" for Kurdistan...What's wrong with this picture?
The real reasons for our State Department not wanting this, of course, are quite different. One of the main issues is the same one that Britain had when it aborted an independent Kurdistan in the first place: fear of angering the Arab world. But think of what could happen if Mosul and Kirkuk's oil became part of a long overdue, friendly Kurdish State with America as its main ally...
...
So here's our current challenge-- if we can overcome the Arabists who too frequently call the shots at the State Department. We now have a chance to right an historical wrong. If Arabs can, after all, have twenty-two states, and very possibly a 23rd in the future, on lands mostly conquered and forcibly arabized from other, non-Arab peoples, how can thirty million Kurds be forced to forever remain stateless and usually at someone else's mercy?
...
http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22gah.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
