open Democracy News Analysis - middle east - Comments

Sivakumar Chelliah on "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka"

Sivakumar Chelliah — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:05:46 +0000

The UN and EVERY rights group has repeatedly told us that in Sri Lanka the Tamil Tigers held 300,000 people as a human shield, and even shot at them whilst they fled.

Neutral news media reported that Sri Lanka paused it's offensive numerous times to allow civilians to flee. There is even video of Sri Lankan soldiers on loud speakers ushering people out of the conflict zone.

So unlike the people of Gaza, Sri Lanka did not attack an entire population to get at the combatants. In Sri Lanka it was the combatants that held people as a human shield.

Clearly not genocide and not comparable under any circumstances.

My gripe with people flaunting the word is that it shows lack of respect to the word and reduces it's value. Millions perished in genocides. We must reserve the word cautiously or it will turn into "just another word."

If you think no one is acting on the accusations of genocide now, that's the main reason. It's impossible to prove allegations if everyone is flaunting the word.

We must all call out and expose those who falsely claim genocide.

The following is an interesting read:
http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2009/genocide-talk020609.htm

david3210 on "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka"

david3210 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:19:03 +0000

Some time ago I was hoping and believing that there will be no more genocides in the world, like in the armenian genocide in 1915, but it is a reality that world has not matured or learned from it as genocides are still happening, it is so unbelievable that these accure again and again, why are world leaders still not stopping the mass murders efficiently, learn from the past already!

Sandgroper on "Psychoactive and Operation Cast Lead"

Sandgroper — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:03:25 +0000

You said: " Our colleagues persistently voiced their opposition to any form of attack on or killing of civilians, whether Palestinian or Jewish..."

Did they voice this opposition at any other time during the 8 years of rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians ...or only after Israel attacked?

(I'm genuinely interested in an answer.)

music teacher on "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka"

music teacher — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:23:25 +0000

I think your comment concerning the UN not wanting to acknowledge genocides as such is a spot on observation. This is supposed to be a global peacekeeping organization and it is disheartening to observe its refusal to take responsibility for some of the most serious challenges taking place today.

Cristian Rus on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

Cristian Rus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:22:43 +0000

Romania joined the EU in 2007, Jan 1st, not in 2004.

O t on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

O t — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:12:27 +0000

I just wanted to point out the same issue as Helen did. It needs to of higher priority to write the names correctly, I guess as the name that is used in the article is more of an Arab name than Turkish and which may lead to missunderstandings.

Kolinsky Most on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

Kolinsky Most — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:53:28 +0000

I have just returned from Cyrpus, where I was appalled to find in Famagusta and northern Nicosia, beautiful churches converted into mosques, with minarets and Turkish and North Cypriot flags flying above them. Deserted Catholic and Orthodox churches and former Greek Cypriot homes fenced off with forbidden entry signs in Turkish. And the beach skyline of deserted Greek Cypriot-built hotels of Vorosha still fenced off and gutted by Turkish bombing in 1974. I talked to Turkish Cypriots who are fed up with Turkish military occupation and want to unite with the Republic of Cyprus so that all Cyprus can become a member of EU. This cannot happen as long as the Turkish military occupation continues, and stunts the north Cyprus economy. Mr Wieland completely ignores this stumbling block to Turkey's membership in the EU.

helen_s on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

helen_s — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:27:19 +0000

The correct spelling of the surname is Davutoğlu. Turkish uses a Latin script. There is no need for a rerendering of the name such as appears in this article.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:05:39 +0000

Congratulations on your conculsions Professor. Very comforting for you. I can't help noticing that you use the words "obsession" and "hatred" rather a lot. I'll keep my conclusions on that to myself.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:58:00 +0000

I never said the British Forces on Cyprus were there to support the Turkish entity in the north. The British have other national-strategic ( not "U.S. puppet") reasons for those bases. (Britain has its own foreign policy--something BC wishes nuttily to deny.) These large British bases--and they are very large indeed--were merely presented by me as evidence of deep British involvement on Cyprus: deeper than in Israel. That's all.

But British policy now does support the Turkish entity in the north; at least that's the way the Greek Cypriot govt and the Greek Cypriot people see it, one the result being demos against the British bases. Those are facts, BC.

But Big C had argued earlier that his obsession with Israel was merely because of British involvement with Israel. (Translation: though highly critical of certain Israeli policies, the British govt believes that Israel has a right to exist, which BC does not.) My point: British govt involvement on Cyprus is much more deep, the refugee problem is very large in scale, its cause is totally imperial aggression (Turkey) in favor of a colonial minority (Turkish) and this British involvement includes important military bases (not existant in Israel). But Big C wasn't concerned about any of *that*. How come, if his political passions have to do merely with British government policy?

Therefore, his argument that his obsession with Israel derives solely from the connection to British govt policy falls to the ground in the face of the fact that he has no obsession with Cyprus, where there is a large and unjustly treated refugee problem with no right of return, and where the British involvement is much more direct--and yet no concern about this from Big C, and no hatred of the Turks.

Conclusion I: despite his statement, BC's obsessive hatred of Israel does not derive from British govt support of Israel. If it did, he'd be angry about Cyprus (now that he knows about it.) Nor does it derive purely from the facts on the ground, for the refugee problem on Cyprus is similar, the colonial nature of the enforced flight of the refugees crystal clear (unlike what occurred in 1947-1948), and British involvement more direct--but there's not much concern from BC about any of this, and certainly no hatred of the Turks, as there is of the Israelis.

Conclusion II: BC's obsessive hatred of Israel derives from left-wing politics, and nothing else: it's political, not humanitarian.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:23:00 +0000

Did you learn your arithmetic from the same teacher who taught you geography professor? Britain's ordering out of Suez by Eisenhower took place in 1956 - though it did mark the turning point in the relationship. It was clear who was boss from that point onwards. Iraq and Afghanistan ( as well as Britain's Israel policy) easily trump the other issues. You may recall that the US also had a presence in Iran until a certain incident took place.

Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?

Professor, what you have done is to attempt to de-legitimise by reference to your presumptions about bien pensants, left wingers etc. I pointed out your deliberate attempt to mis-lead by suggesting that the British troops stationed in Cyprus are there to support the Turkish entity in the north. This is a reference to an objective lie not a presumption of a lie based on ill informed prejudice. The difference is massive.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:10:19 +0000

1. On most points BC now has no reply to my facts, and admits he's not an expert on Cyprus.

2. As for BC's claim that British policy has been tied umbilically to U.S. policy over the past half century--really? Is that what happened in Suez? Did U.S. forces fight in Malaya or Aden? Did British forces fight in Vietnam? Dominican Republic? Haiti? Grenada? Lebanon? The U.S. has no ties with Iran--does Britain, up to and including embassies?

Though Britain and the U.S. are allies, there's a huge literature on the differences betw British and U.S. foreign policies.

And as for our current topic, what is BC's specific *evidence* for his claim that Britain in her relations with Turkey is not following her own strategic interests, and is merely a cat's paw of the U.S.? You made the accusation, BC--*specific evidence* please!

3. Regarding BC's argument that Israel is being discussed on this thread and therefore nothing else is relevant, the Greek historian Polybius destroyed that argument 2,200 years ago: "We learn through comparison."

Comparison like the Turkish army's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, the expulsion of the 200,000 Greeks living there, the turning over of their land to minority Turkish colonists who now conrol it, and the fact that the Greeks have no "right of return". Yet this tragedy is of no interest to the left. Only Israel is.

From a historical point of view, such an approach is called "perspective", esp. since Cyprus is actually not far from northern Israel, and both were once ruled by Britain.

4. Finally, BC writes: "I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you." Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:22:30 +0000

I am not "indifferent" to the fate of either Greek or Turkish Cypriots Professor. I am not an expert on events there but I know enough to see through your hideously partisan distortion of the events themselves and of any British policy towards them.

With regard to Britain and the US you only need to look at British foreign policy for the past 50 years to see that it is umbillically joined to the US.

I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you. Here's a little wake up for you. Israel is not being discussed on this thread because it is a "left-wing issue". It is being discussed because it is what this thread is about. If you wish to initiate discussion on any of the other topics you feel are just as deserving of attention then you are free to submit your doubless learned work for consideration.

Ethan II on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

Ethan II — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:51:30 +0000

1. The British govt desires reconciliation re Israel/Palestine. But for Big C that reconciliationhe defines as "victory" for one side b/c Israel would be allowed to exist, which he opposes. It's a strange defintion of reconciliation he seeks, with one side (Israel) destroyed as a nation. I prefer the British position in support of reconciliation--which has not excluded severe British criticism of Israeli actions.

2. I'm not sure what 'reconciliation" would mean on Cyprus. But the British seem pretty well to have accepted the division of the island--which is not a neutral position and which the Greek Cypriots have protested both officially and through demos in the streets. So BC if you're a general humanitarian whose only concern is British govt involvement in a tragedy, where's your hatred of Turkey?

3. BC, what's the *evidence* for your assertion that the British Govt merely slavishly followed the U.S. bidding on Turkey and supports Turkey's admission to the EU for that reason rather than its *own* strategic and economic interests with Turkey. (Which is exactly what the Cypriots are protesting.) *Specific evidence please.* Or did you get this the same place as you got your assertion that the British bases on Cyprus were NATO bases?

Is it your position on this blog that the British govt is a puppet of the United States?

4. The 2007 Anglo-Turkish treaty contained a pledge by Britain to try to end the "isolation" of Turkish northern Cyprus, BC.

BC, if as you now claim the Cypriot govt is lying about the British govt attitude for its own purposes of winning elections, that is because most Cypriots agree with *me*, about what is going on and therefore are hostile to Britain. Don't you see that?

It should be clear to you that I have *lots* of evidence for what I have asserted. If it's not, well, there's nothing I can do as you kick and fume against reality.

Meanwhile, in northern Cyprus many Greek churches have been damaged, or turned into schools or farms, 25 have been destroyed, and some have been turned into mosques. I don't believe for one second that this is going to be rectified.

5. Your argument was that your hatred of Israel had to do with British govt involvement in Israel, which turns out now to mean support for Israel's existence. But your indifference to the plight of the Greek Cypriots at the hands of Turkish invasion cannot now be asserted to be because the British govt isn't involved in this situation. If anything, the British government is *more* deeply involved on Cyprus than it is with Israel. Ask the Cypriot students demonstrating their hostility to Britain in front of the bases of British Forces Cyprus. So that is not the reason for your indifference to this issue.

6. Be honest: your indifference to Cyprus compared to your hatred of Israel, is not because of anything other than the following. The fact is that Cyprus--despite the 200,000 refugees tossed out by the Turkish army in 1974 with their land given to 20% of the population (namely, Turks), and that the Greeks can't return even under the UN Plan of 2004, and that all this happened decades more recently than 1948--the fact is that *this* is not a left-wing cause. Period. And that indicates, BC, that your motivation re Israel is not a motivation from humanitarianism, nor from a general concern for injustice, nor because of British government non-involvement on Cyprus or with Turkey. It's simply political.

So...behind the mask of outraged humanitarianism about Israel stand no general principles but simple left-wing politics and nothing else. Otherwise, I'd expect you to be organizing demos in Trafalgar Square against Turkey, and British govt support for Turkey including admission to the EU, and urging the boycott of Turkish academics because of the invasion of Cyprus, the creating of 200,000 refugees, and the turning over of their property to Turks. And yet I feel I will be waiting a long time for this. BC, no matter how you twist and squirm, you've just been unmasked.

7. BC, it would've have been better for you simply to admit you knew and know nothing about the Cypriot situation. Of course, the reason for that ignorance of a situation which is worse than what happened with the creation of Israel (invasion by a Turkish army which led to huge parcels of Greek land going to Turkish colonists) is that ...despite the injustice and the 200,000 refugees, and no right of return...Cyprus is not a left-wing issue.

And why is that? No Arab money behind the issue? No fashionable "third-worldism" of the left to excuse every ridiculous self-destructive policy and every brutality of suicide bombing and proclaimed genocidal ideology by the Palestinians? Only Israel is subjected to the double standard.

bigC on "Cash flow in the Gaza Strip"

bigC — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:52:13 +0000

You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on Professor. The US wants Turkey in the EU so the UK, doing it's bidding, is attempting to facilitate this. Hence the 2007 agreement. The Greek Cypriot government, mindful of it's own electoral interests is making empty noises about Britain's supposed implicit recognition of the Turkish government in the north when no such thing is occuring.

Britain along with every other European country desires reconciliation in Cyprus, not the victory of one over another. It cannot say this is about Israel where it has refused to condemn repeated breaches of international law such as the invasion of Lebanon and the razing of Gaza and continues to treat it as a valued ally and trading partner.

Meanwhile Greek and Turkish Cypriots are in the process of reclaiming their property in the respective parts of Cyprus. The comparison with the forcing out of the Palestinians by foreign colonists is utterly fatuous.