turkmeneli kerkuk on "Attacking the victims"

turkmeneli kerkuk — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:56:18 +0100

lets get things right. can any body even claim Turkmen for any of several anti-democratic or any "terror flirt " act like Kurdish politician can easily be juged for??? what a pro Saddam - wanna be writer - says is the only critic there could be made against Turkmen. best regards

Peter Travels on "Attacking the victims"

Peter Travels — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:13:20 +0100

After reading Xulam’s response to Jerjis, I found myself returning once more to Jerjis’ article, feeling that I may have missed something, or perhaps read the wrong article. But I had not. Nowhere could I find what Xulam called “a longing, albeit unstated, for the good old days of Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty thugs.” Instead, I found several stated references which clearly show the opposite: • Calling for the return of those “forcefully deported” under the Baath regime • “The return of land confiscated by the Ba'ath Regime” • “The resettlement of the approximately 270,000 Arabs who were brought into Kerkuk by Saddam Hussein's Arabification policy”, and • Condemning “decades of manipulation, distortion and lack of reliable Kerkuk population and census registers” – a clear reference to the Baath regime. No serious and objective reader could possibly confuse the above statements for a sick longing for Saddam and his thugs. Xulam argues that Jerjis should put the “the wrongs of Saddam Hussein under the microscope alongside those of the Kurds, if the latter ask for more than their fair share.” But why should he? We are all aware of Saddam’s horrible misrule, and as Jerjis clearly makes the case, Turkmen today are more harmed by Kurdish encroachment, now that Saddam is in his grave. It is not to say that one is worse than the other, but rather, neither is good enough. If Xulam is truly concerned about human rights, then he should assess Jerjis’ claims, which are plenty, “under the microscope, alongside those of” international human rights standards, and nothing less. Xulam wonders whether Jerjis is aware of the Arabs that were moved to Kirkuk by Saddam. But I had no such questions. Because I read Jerjis’ piece carefully, I could see that he has heard of them, and indeed calls for their resettlement, all 270,000 of them – a figure that he provides. Xulam takes Jerjis to task for “fuzzy analysis”. I would take Xulam to task for fuzzy reading. Furthermore, Jerjis does not state that “The Kurds were the only supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq”, as Xulam would have us believe. Instead, Jerjis states that “Kurdish political actors are almost the only supporters of occupation in the region”, using the present tense, and without reference to the invasion. Xulam’s unnecessary history lesson about Chalabi and Al-Hakim, one we’re all acquainted with, is therefore rendered irrelevant. Xulam then proceeds to call the January 2005 elections as the “fairest and the freest in the history of Iraq”, as if that would negate Jerjis’ legitimate claims about electoral fraud, including “an estimated 228,000 irregular votes”. Despite Jerjis’ extensive catalogue of allegations that Kurds have essentially overtaken Kirkuk’s administrative structure and marginalized other communities, Xulam lectures Jerjis about finding “common ground in shaping the future of the city.” One would have expected Xulam to lecture his fellow Kurds about good governance first. Either way, the first step in finding common ground, Mr Xulam, would be for you to read Jerjis’ article once more, and understand his concerns fully, instead of writing such a flawed critique, or accusing him of subscribing to the conspiracy theories of west Asia.

Attacking the victims, Kani Xulam

Kani Xulam — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:54:39 +0100

Editor's note: As language is invariably tied up in debates over place and identity, the article has retained the Kurdish and Arabic transliteration of the city's name, Kirkuk.

I could not finish reading - at least in one sitting - Sheth Jerjis's piece, "The fate of a city". It was not the length of the article that threw me off, nor was it its strident pro-Turkmen sentiment. What put me off was the startling conflation of culprits, the misidentification of Kurds as "new" Baathists and, worse, a longing, albeit unstated, for the good old days of Saddam Hussein and his bloodthirsty thugs. My disagreement aside, terrorism.openDemocracy deserves kudos for providing a forum for such of views, for they are much less dangerous aired than kept within.

Read the rest of this post...

open Democracy News Analysis - Attacking the victims, Kani Xulam - Comments

turkmeneli kerkuk on "Attacking the victims"

Peter Travels on "Attacking the victims"

Attacking the victims, Kani Xulam