Tweet
MichNews, Michigan
Jan 24 2005
STATE DEPARTMENT MATH
By Gerald A. Honigman
MichNews.com
Over thirty million Kurds remain stateless today, often at someone
else's mercy. At a time when much of the world insists that there be
a 22nd or 23rd Arab state, there is a nauseating silence over the
plight of this people.
Spread out over a region which encompasses parts of southeastern
Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other adjoining areas as well, these
modern day descendants of ancient Medes and Hurrians continue to find
themselves in very precarious circumstances.
Kurdish culture and language has periodically been "outlawed" in
attempts to Arabize or Turkify them, and in an age when other dormant
nations/national groups were able to seize the moment with the
collapse of empires, the Kurds were repeatedly denied this chance by
an assortment of so-called "friends" and foes alike.
Having been promised independence after World War I, the Kurds soon
saw their hopes dashed after the British received a favorable
decision from the League of Nations on the Mosul Question in 1925.
Predominantly Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk were where much of the oil was
located, and the main arm of British imperial power -- the navy --
had recently switched from coal to oil.
The Brits decided that their long term interests involved not
angering the region's Arabs, who -- by their own writings -- declared
that the rise of an independent Kurdistan would be seen as the
equivalent of the birth of another Israel. Regardless of scores of
millions of non-Arabs living in the region (including one half of
Israel's Jews who were from "Arab"/Muslim lands), Arabs declared a
political monopoly over what they regarded as "purely Arab
patrimony." We are living with the consequences of this mindset
today.
Much has been written about America's abuse of the Kurds, although
the mainstream press, media, academia, and other supposedly
"enlightened" folks have -- with some notable exceptions -- too often
ignored this.
Having stood by our side and aided America continuously over the
decades, the State Department has too often pulled the rug out from
under the Kurds after their immediate "use" was deemed over...with
deadly consequences to this people. And yet, they have remained
strangely loyal to Washington.
While I won't rehash the disgraceful behavior of much earlier
periods, recent and current policies are sufficient to make the
point. And while I am focusing on America, the rest of the world --
for the most part -- has been as bad or worse. Since America has the
power to greatly influence the course of geopolitics all around the
world, my focus is thus on my own country.
America should always strive to be a shining light. And I say this
not out of naivete.
America has the power and ability to do this as no other nation has.
All it lacks is the will. And this is largely due to the click that
runs the Department of State. On the Kurdish issue, it has assumed
Britain's posture in the post-World War I era vis-`-vis the Kurds.
Whatever will or won't happen in the upcoming Iraqi elections, the
Kurds are likely, once again, to get the shaft.
Foggy Bottom insists--after hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been
maimed, gassed, and slaughtered in other ways by Arabs just in Iraq
alone over the last several decades (Syrian Arabs have recently
renewed their previous slaughter of Kurds as well) -- that Kurds will
never gain independence. Shi'a and Sunni Arabs may blow each other to
bits...but they're both still Arabs. Neither are about to grant Kurds
any equal status in the "purely Arab patrimony." The heartland of
Kurdistan had been in the region around oil-rich Kirkuk.
State insists that the Kurds remain part of a united
Iraq...regardless of the bloody consequences this will probably have
for them in the future yet again.
America's federalist dream, while looking good on paper, is largely
rejected by the Arabs themselves, be they Shi'a or Sunni. The
majority Shi'a, long suppressed by Saddam, now have other plans.
The Shi'a refuse to grant Kurds any control over their own
fate...regardless of any alleged partial federal agreement achieved
so far with America's continuous prodding. And Arabs, of any stripe,
are still not about to grant Kurds any real equality. A visit to the
Kurdish Media's website would be very useful to any and all needing
"enlightenment" in these regards. An article posted by Dr. Hussein
Tahiri's "The Iraqi Shi'ites: When An Oppressed Becomes Oppressor,"
posted March 8, 2004 in KurdishMedia.com is revealing, but there are
many other good ones as well.
The same State Department -- which fought President Truman over
America's recognition of a reborn Israel in 1948--insists that there
be no partition of Mesopotamia/Iraq. Britain had earlier received the
Mandate for Mesopotamia at the same time it received the Mandate for
Palestine in the post-World War I era. But, unlike Palestine, which
would undergo a number of partitions in attempts to arrive at a
compromise solution between Arab and Jew, a much larger Mesopotamia
was somehow declared to be incapable of doing this for its Kurds.
In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill chopped off roughly 80% of the
original territory Britain received for the Mandate of Palestine on
April 25, 1920, and handed it over to its Hashemite Arab allies.
Purely Arab Transjordan -- today's Jordan -- was thus born. Arabs
rejected another partition in 1947 which would have given them
roughly half of the 20% of the land that was left. President Bush and
State today insist that Arabs will get their 23rd state, and second
one in "Palestine."
The main reason put forth for why Mesopotamia/Iraq is incapable of
this sort of partition is the potential for instability it will cause
in the region. Not only will the Arabs be miffed at someone else
gaining national rights in "their" region, but the Turks, in
particular, will supposedly have a fit due to their own large (and
suppressed) Kurdish minority.
I support a strong Turco-American alliance...always have. But the
Turks are wrong on this matter.
While it is understandable that they're nervous about the potential
problems, this does not give them the right to have a veto power over
the plight of some thirty million long-oppressed and abused people.
An independent Kurdistan set up in northern Iraq -- under the right
conditions -- might actually be a blessing for the Turks. Those Kurds
-- like those Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc. -- wishing to live in an
independent state could migrate to it. An arrangement could also be
made whereby the oil wealth of the area could be shared with the
Turks as well, since they feel they got robbed via the earlier
decision by the League of Nations on the Mosul Question.
Putting things into the broader perspective, consider the following
sickening facts...
A visit to the CIA's Fact Book on the Internet shows Israel to have a
population of roughly 6 million people, of whom about 20% are Arab.
Among the latter are some very hostile elements. Israel's territory
is about 20,770 sq Km.
Turkey has a population of about 68 million people, of whom about 20%
are Kurds. Turkey's territory is about 780,580 sq Km. About 38
Israels would fit into Turkey.
Keeping the above in mind, Foggy Bottom has no problem demanding that
Israel allow the creation of another Arab terrorist state, dedicated
to its destruction, right in its backyard. State continues to ignore
proclamations by even so-called Arab "moderates" that Oslo and all
other such "peace initiatives" are but "Trojan Horses," steps along
the way in the Arabs' post-'67 destruction in phases strategy for
Israel.
Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel's population that is Arab
react to this adjacent potential development? And how will the
majority of Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian Arab
(however you define that...many, if not most, Arabs had entered the
Mandate from elsewhere in the region during the Mandatory Period),
also react to this? Arafat's boys had already tried a takeover of
Jordan in 1970. They were crushed in King Hussein's "Black
September." And Israel's mobilization in the north sent a message to
the PLO's Syrian allies at the time as well. Yet the Foggy Folks seem
not to be worried about any destablizing effects here.
The same hypocrites who declare that Israel must grossly endanger
itself so that a 23rd Arab state might be born insist that Kurds must
remain forever stateless because of some problems their freedom might
cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel's size in territory and
over eleven times its size in population...and with the same 80% to
20% mix of potential "headaches."
There's no defense for this. An ex-State Department career person
contacted me after one of my earlier articles. In our subsequent
correspondence, he told me to just accept the fact that the Kurds
will never be allowed their state...while attacking me, of course,
for my reservations over what State has in store for Israel. He even
brought up the subject of "dual loyalty." I asked him if he would say
that to some 60 million or so -- if not more -- Christians who are
saying the same thing that I am...No answer...Pathetic.
Regardless of America's good intentions (and we were correct in
ridding the land of Adolf, I mean Saddam), it's likely that Iraq will
become even more of a mess -- kind of like Yugoslavia with the death
of Tito, though I really don't like mentioning him and Saddam in the
same breath -- and more costly over time. Entrenched Arab attitudes
-- centuries old -- are not likely to change regarding their
relationships with their conquered, non-Arab populations. Any of the
latter that have not agreed to the forced Arabization process -- be
they Kurd, Jew, Berber, Black African, Copt, Lebanese, etc. have had
major problems to contend with...often deadly ones.
Asking Kurds to forsake the creation of their one, sole state for the
pipedream of an egalitarian Iraq is a travesty of justice if ever
there existed one. When America leaves Iraq, as it will sooner or
later, the backlash will once again fall on the people who supported
us the most...the Kurds. We left them holding the bag too many times
already before.
Think about how the course of history may have been changed if an
Israel existed prior to the Holocaust.
You read about the problems with the Shi'a above. Saddam's regime was
largely Sunni supported. Abu Musab Zarqawi, of al-Qaida fame, wrote a
letter that was recently intercepted by U.S. forces in Iraq. He's the
guy who is believed responsible for the recent slaughter of Shi'a in
Baghdad and Karbala. In the letter he listed four enemies. America,
of course, was No. 1... No. 2 is the Kurds. Here's what he says about
them: They are "...a lump in the throat and a thorn whose time to be
clipped has yet to come."
Now, while Foggy Bottom demands yet another state for Arabs and the
Arafatian/Hamas good cop/bad cop team, think about what direction you
want the greatest country on Earth -- America -- to follow regarding
the fate of our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds.
We can be better than what some in leadership roles would have us be.
Jan 24 2005
STATE DEPARTMENT MATH
By Gerald A. Honigman
MichNews.com
Over thirty million Kurds remain stateless today, often at someone
else's mercy. At a time when much of the world insists that there be
a 22nd or 23rd Arab state, there is a nauseating silence over the
plight of this people.
Spread out over a region which encompasses parts of southeastern
Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other adjoining areas as well, these
modern day descendants of ancient Medes and Hurrians continue to find
themselves in very precarious circumstances.
Kurdish culture and language has periodically been "outlawed" in
attempts to Arabize or Turkify them, and in an age when other dormant
nations/national groups were able to seize the moment with the
collapse of empires, the Kurds were repeatedly denied this chance by
an assortment of so-called "friends" and foes alike.
Having been promised independence after World War I, the Kurds soon
saw their hopes dashed after the British received a favorable
decision from the League of Nations on the Mosul Question in 1925.
Predominantly Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk were where much of the oil was
located, and the main arm of British imperial power -- the navy --
had recently switched from coal to oil.
The Brits decided that their long term interests involved not
angering the region's Arabs, who -- by their own writings -- declared
that the rise of an independent Kurdistan would be seen as the
equivalent of the birth of another Israel. Regardless of scores of
millions of non-Arabs living in the region (including one half of
Israel's Jews who were from "Arab"/Muslim lands), Arabs declared a
political monopoly over what they regarded as "purely Arab
patrimony." We are living with the consequences of this mindset
today.
Much has been written about America's abuse of the Kurds, although
the mainstream press, media, academia, and other supposedly
"enlightened" folks have -- with some notable exceptions -- too often
ignored this.
Having stood by our side and aided America continuously over the
decades, the State Department has too often pulled the rug out from
under the Kurds after their immediate "use" was deemed over...with
deadly consequences to this people. And yet, they have remained
strangely loyal to Washington.
While I won't rehash the disgraceful behavior of much earlier
periods, recent and current policies are sufficient to make the
point. And while I am focusing on America, the rest of the world --
for the most part -- has been as bad or worse. Since America has the
power to greatly influence the course of geopolitics all around the
world, my focus is thus on my own country.
America should always strive to be a shining light. And I say this
not out of naivete.
America has the power and ability to do this as no other nation has.
All it lacks is the will. And this is largely due to the click that
runs the Department of State. On the Kurdish issue, it has assumed
Britain's posture in the post-World War I era vis-`-vis the Kurds.
Whatever will or won't happen in the upcoming Iraqi elections, the
Kurds are likely, once again, to get the shaft.
Foggy Bottom insists--after hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been
maimed, gassed, and slaughtered in other ways by Arabs just in Iraq
alone over the last several decades (Syrian Arabs have recently
renewed their previous slaughter of Kurds as well) -- that Kurds will
never gain independence. Shi'a and Sunni Arabs may blow each other to
bits...but they're both still Arabs. Neither are about to grant Kurds
any equal status in the "purely Arab patrimony." The heartland of
Kurdistan had been in the region around oil-rich Kirkuk.
State insists that the Kurds remain part of a united
Iraq...regardless of the bloody consequences this will probably have
for them in the future yet again.
America's federalist dream, while looking good on paper, is largely
rejected by the Arabs themselves, be they Shi'a or Sunni. The
majority Shi'a, long suppressed by Saddam, now have other plans.
The Shi'a refuse to grant Kurds any control over their own
fate...regardless of any alleged partial federal agreement achieved
so far with America's continuous prodding. And Arabs, of any stripe,
are still not about to grant Kurds any real equality. A visit to the
Kurdish Media's website would be very useful to any and all needing
"enlightenment" in these regards. An article posted by Dr. Hussein
Tahiri's "The Iraqi Shi'ites: When An Oppressed Becomes Oppressor,"
posted March 8, 2004 in KurdishMedia.com is revealing, but there are
many other good ones as well.
The same State Department -- which fought President Truman over
America's recognition of a reborn Israel in 1948--insists that there
be no partition of Mesopotamia/Iraq. Britain had earlier received the
Mandate for Mesopotamia at the same time it received the Mandate for
Palestine in the post-World War I era. But, unlike Palestine, which
would undergo a number of partitions in attempts to arrive at a
compromise solution between Arab and Jew, a much larger Mesopotamia
was somehow declared to be incapable of doing this for its Kurds.
In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill chopped off roughly 80% of the
original territory Britain received for the Mandate of Palestine on
April 25, 1920, and handed it over to its Hashemite Arab allies.
Purely Arab Transjordan -- today's Jordan -- was thus born. Arabs
rejected another partition in 1947 which would have given them
roughly half of the 20% of the land that was left. President Bush and
State today insist that Arabs will get their 23rd state, and second
one in "Palestine."
The main reason put forth for why Mesopotamia/Iraq is incapable of
this sort of partition is the potential for instability it will cause
in the region. Not only will the Arabs be miffed at someone else
gaining national rights in "their" region, but the Turks, in
particular, will supposedly have a fit due to their own large (and
suppressed) Kurdish minority.
I support a strong Turco-American alliance...always have. But the
Turks are wrong on this matter.
While it is understandable that they're nervous about the potential
problems, this does not give them the right to have a veto power over
the plight of some thirty million long-oppressed and abused people.
An independent Kurdistan set up in northern Iraq -- under the right
conditions -- might actually be a blessing for the Turks. Those Kurds
-- like those Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc. -- wishing to live in an
independent state could migrate to it. An arrangement could also be
made whereby the oil wealth of the area could be shared with the
Turks as well, since they feel they got robbed via the earlier
decision by the League of Nations on the Mosul Question.
Putting things into the broader perspective, consider the following
sickening facts...
A visit to the CIA's Fact Book on the Internet shows Israel to have a
population of roughly 6 million people, of whom about 20% are Arab.
Among the latter are some very hostile elements. Israel's territory
is about 20,770 sq Km.
Turkey has a population of about 68 million people, of whom about 20%
are Kurds. Turkey's territory is about 780,580 sq Km. About 38
Israels would fit into Turkey.
Keeping the above in mind, Foggy Bottom has no problem demanding that
Israel allow the creation of another Arab terrorist state, dedicated
to its destruction, right in its backyard. State continues to ignore
proclamations by even so-called Arab "moderates" that Oslo and all
other such "peace initiatives" are but "Trojan Horses," steps along
the way in the Arabs' post-'67 destruction in phases strategy for
Israel.
Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel's population that is Arab
react to this adjacent potential development? And how will the
majority of Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian Arab
(however you define that...many, if not most, Arabs had entered the
Mandate from elsewhere in the region during the Mandatory Period),
also react to this? Arafat's boys had already tried a takeover of
Jordan in 1970. They were crushed in King Hussein's "Black
September." And Israel's mobilization in the north sent a message to
the PLO's Syrian allies at the time as well. Yet the Foggy Folks seem
not to be worried about any destablizing effects here.
The same hypocrites who declare that Israel must grossly endanger
itself so that a 23rd Arab state might be born insist that Kurds must
remain forever stateless because of some problems their freedom might
cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel's size in territory and
over eleven times its size in population...and with the same 80% to
20% mix of potential "headaches."
There's no defense for this. An ex-State Department career person
contacted me after one of my earlier articles. In our subsequent
correspondence, he told me to just accept the fact that the Kurds
will never be allowed their state...while attacking me, of course,
for my reservations over what State has in store for Israel. He even
brought up the subject of "dual loyalty." I asked him if he would say
that to some 60 million or so -- if not more -- Christians who are
saying the same thing that I am...No answer...Pathetic.
Regardless of America's good intentions (and we were correct in
ridding the land of Adolf, I mean Saddam), it's likely that Iraq will
become even more of a mess -- kind of like Yugoslavia with the death
of Tito, though I really don't like mentioning him and Saddam in the
same breath -- and more costly over time. Entrenched Arab attitudes
-- centuries old -- are not likely to change regarding their
relationships with their conquered, non-Arab populations. Any of the
latter that have not agreed to the forced Arabization process -- be
they Kurd, Jew, Berber, Black African, Copt, Lebanese, etc. have had
major problems to contend with...often deadly ones.
Asking Kurds to forsake the creation of their one, sole state for the
pipedream of an egalitarian Iraq is a travesty of justice if ever
there existed one. When America leaves Iraq, as it will sooner or
later, the backlash will once again fall on the people who supported
us the most...the Kurds. We left them holding the bag too many times
already before.
Think about how the course of history may have been changed if an
Israel existed prior to the Holocaust.
You read about the problems with the Shi'a above. Saddam's regime was
largely Sunni supported. Abu Musab Zarqawi, of al-Qaida fame, wrote a
letter that was recently intercepted by U.S. forces in Iraq. He's the
guy who is believed responsible for the recent slaughter of Shi'a in
Baghdad and Karbala. In the letter he listed four enemies. America,
of course, was No. 1... No. 2 is the Kurds. Here's what he says about
them: They are "...a lump in the throat and a thorn whose time to be
clipped has yet to come."
Now, while Foggy Bottom demands yet another state for Arabs and the
Arafatian/Hamas good cop/bad cop team, think about what direction you
want the greatest country on Earth -- America -- to follow regarding
the fate of our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds.
We can be better than what some in leadership roles would have us be.