• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Turkey, News & Articles Only

Smith

Smith

Well-Known Member
The comparaison drawn by Alghaliboon between the Armenian genocide and the war between armenia, with all it's atricities, and it's neighbours choked me. But i will go straight to the point: my dear muslim friends don't deny that the muslim majority in the middle esat commited large scale massacres against the minorities in this region. Don't run from these facts by accusing the armenian of acting like israelis, like many muslims accused the maronites of doing so during the lebanese war, don't run by saying that turkey is now a beautiful democratic country, try to think how the turks managed to instigate large massacres against the christians in Damascus and mount-lebanon in 1860. Hezbollah is trying to convince many lebanese, and i'm with him on that, that the conflict between the arabs and Israel, altought he's 50 years old, is still affecting the lifes of millions of people, and that the arabs should not forget what the israelis did and are still doing and should fight untill justice is done. So why do you ask the armenians to forget and ignore what the turks did to them and to their homeland less that 100 year ago? Is it because the turks are muslims and that you are being sectrian about it?
 
  • Advertisement
  • AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    The comparaison drawn by Alghaliboon between the Armenian genocide and the war between armenia, with all it's atricities, and it's neighbours choked me. But i will go straight to the point: my dear muslim friends don't deny that the muslim majority in the middle esat commited large scale massacres against the minorities in this region. Don't run from these facts by accusing the armenian of acting like israelis, like many muslims accused the maronites of doing so during the lebanese war, don't run by saying that turkey is now a beautiful democratic country, try to think how the turks managed to instigate large massacres against the christians in Damascus and mount-lebanon in 1860. Hezbollah is trying to convince many lebanese, and i'm with him on that, that the conflict between the arabs and Israel, altought he's 50 years old, is still affecting the lifes of millions of people, and that the arabs should not forget what the israelis did and are still doing and should fight untill justice is done. So why do you ask the armenians to forget and ignore what the turks did to them and to their homeland less that 100 year ago? Is it because the turks are muslims and that you are being sectrian about it?
    Smith
    I did not say any such thing. I did not draw comparisons between the genocide and the events of war. What you are saying is true, that some 'Muslims' did commit crimes against minorities , however, how does that change the fact that Armenians also committed crimes against Azerbaijanis (I'm not saying they killed Turks during genocide btw because I am now fully convinced that all those are myths spread by Turkey) ? You want me to acknowledge that Muslims have committed crimes in the past, well, that is all fine and well by me, but shouldn't the Armenians also do the same? Should the fact that they have been victims in the past excuse any crimes they might have committed or might commit in the future? Find yourself asking the same question with regards to the "Israelis" and the Holocaust. In fact this argument and attempt to silence those who point also to Armenian crimes (and unlike others I do not do it to delegitimize the fact that there was a genocide) is very similar to the argument used by "Israelis", that since they have been victims of genocide they can never do bad and evil things, that they have "purity of arms", etc.

    Also where did you see me say Armenians should forget or ignore what Turkey did to them???!
     
    Smith

    Smith

    Well-Known Member
    Smith
    I did not say any such thing. I did not draw comparisons between the genocide and the events of war. What you are saying is true, that some 'Muslims' did commit crimes against minorities , however, how does that change the fact that Armenians also committed crimes against Azerbaijanis (I'm not saying they killed Turks during genocide btw because I am now fully convinced that all those are myths spread by Turkey) ? You want me to acknowledge that Muslims have committed crimes in the past, well, that is all fine and well by me, but shouldn't the Armenians also do the same? Should the fact that they have been victims in the past excuse any crimes they might have committed or might commit in the future? Find yourself asking the same question with regards to the "Israelis" and the Holocaust. In fact this argument and attempt to silence those who point also to Armenian crimes (and unlike others I do not do it to delegitimize the fact that there was a genocide) is very similar to the argument used by "Israelis", that since they have been victims of genocide they can never do bad and evil things, that they have "purity of arms", etc.

    Also where did you see me say Armenians should forget or ignore what Turkey did to them???!
    Dear Alghaliboon,
    maybe i'm getting you wrong, but i'm still convinced that you are, indirectly making comparaisons. What turks did was a large scale well planned genocide. What the armenians did was maybe terrorism, maybe massacres, maybe crimes. They didn't wipe out a people and a land, like turks and israelis did. Palestinians are killing israelis in horrible ways (suicide attacks), should they apologize today or anytime in the future: my answer is no. The israelis should apologize for what they did and what they are still doing, same goes for turkey. Palestinians did horrible things in Lebanon: should we every time they talk about their cause reminde them of what they did in Damour, in Beyrouth, in Fath land, etc: No. As you noticed if we want to draw a comparaison let's do it between Turkey and Israel, armenians and palestinians. Armenians waged a war i don't know when, but now they aren't, they did some terrorist acts, but it has been a long time since i heard something related to armenian terrorism. But untill now Israel is killing, invading, turkey is denying that it killed armenians stoled their land, armenians are still being killed in turkish cities, etc.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    What turks did was a large scale well planned genocide. What the armenians did was maybe terrorism, maybe massacres, maybe crimes. They didn't wipe out a people and a land, like turks and israelis did.
    I never said Armenians committed genocide. However, are there any Azerbaijanis in Nagorny-Karabakh today? Were there Armenians before the war in Nagorny-Karabakh? And are there any Azerbaijanis in the lands occupied by Armenians OUTSIDE of Nagorny-Karabakh? How do you define ethnic cleansing?

    You will notice that my reaction was only a response to the Armenians who came here and started talking about genocide, and even brought in Azerbaijan and Shusha.......... what does this have to do with Turkey? Or for that matter, this thread???

    **

    If we are not to bring up the issue of what the Palestinians did in Lebanon every time, then the Armenians should not do the same to Turks, and also to Azerbaijanis (this aside from admitting that they committed ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from the parts of Azerbaijan proper - outside N-K - that they occupied).

    **

    Don't get me wrong, I already mentioned (not that I need to repeat it) that I am strongly against Turkey's history and denial of the Armenian genocide (how does this translate to sectarianism??), and I respect the Armenian people (from what I know of them, i.e. the Lebanese Armenians / Lebanese of Armenian descent). They are very nice, friendly, hardworking people. But should this make me turn a blind eye to some of the racist things they might say? Should I turn a blind eye to something bad someone does in the name of Islam, just because I am Muslim?
     
    jiugiusti

    jiugiusti

    New Member
    Have you been to Turky ? I have and i can sure tell you that 6 out of 10 people i seen look very European, White skin, green or blue eyes, light hair or black hair, The turks with Mongol ancestry stand out they have slightly slanty eyes and are usally shorter and darker.

    The Turkish people are amongst the nicest people i have ever met, A country of gentlemen , They are becoming a modern successful state and once again i salute them for it. They have really turned there country around from the days of the past,


    Your posts regarding turkey are becoming irrelevant. You have a standard ''i hate so you shall all hate'' message that people are getting fed up with,
    (1) Since when the color of the skin decides the 'nature, social and political orientations' of people... They can be white, blond, blue eyes, but still Europe has certain standars/principles to live accordingly if they (anyone) want to live or be part of Europe.

    (2) How long did you stay/live in Turkey? I visited france twice for 15 days; I saw that french are very nice, open, and friendly.. Then, I lived 6 years in france and I can assure that my opinion about them has changed drastically.

    (3) Is turky geographicall in Europe? if yes, than they should join europe and try to get closer to european standards, principles... If no, they should stay out.

    On a different note, Turkey should aknowledge the massacres they did to armenians; they should modify a lot of rules which are very islamic (when it comes to marriage, women, rights, etc.)
     
    Smith

    Smith

    Well-Known Member
    I never said Armenians committed genocide. However, are there any Azerbaijanis in Nagorny-Karabakh today? Were there Armenians before the war in Nagorny-Karabakh? And are there any Azerbaijanis in the lands occupied by Armenians OUTSIDE of Nagorny-Karabakh? How do you define ethnic cleansing?

    You will notice that my reaction was only a response to the Armenians who came here and started talking about genocide, and even brought in Azerbaijan and Shusha.......... what does this have to do with Turkey? Or for that matter, this thread???

    **

    If we are not to bring up the issue of what the Palestinians did in Lebanon every time, then the Armenians should not do the same to Turks, and also to Azerbaijanis (this aside from admitting that they committed ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from the parts of Azerbaijan proper - outside N-K - that they occupied).

    **

    Don't get me wrong, I already mentioned (not that I need to repeat it) that I am strongly against Turkey's history and denial of the Armenian genocide (how does this translate to sectarianism??), and I respect the Armenian people (from what I know of them, i.e. the Lebanese Armenians / Lebanese of Armenian descent). They are very nice, friendly, hardworking people. But should this make me turn a blind eye to some of the racist things they might say? Should I turn a blind eye to something bad someone does in the name of Islam, just because I am Muslim?
    you are still comparing what happened with the armenians in turkey with what they did in a dispute over a territory, that's my main concern. I repeat you connot compare what Israel is doing with what the palestinians are doing.

    in the two cases you have a big big "Mazloumiah" caused by turkey and by Israel. We can't compare it to what the armenians did in Nagorni, neither to the suicide attacks and rockets palestinians are throing on Israel. The armenians don't have to apologize to anybody neither the palestinians.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Smith
    Where do you see a comparison?

    If there is any comparison, it was done by some Armenians here, who insisted that what the Turks did to them is the same as what the Azerbaijanis tried to do (but failed).... So why is it not comparison when the Armenians do it with regards to Azerbaijani intentions, but comparison when I do it with regards to Armenian intentions and actions?? Please adopt one standard, or do not adopt any standard at all (i.e. do not judge or accuse I am comparing).

    This is like the "Israelis" saying that what the Palestinians are trying to do (but failing) is equal to what the Nazis did to them!!! (they do say this ,btw!!)
     
    Story

    Story

    Active Member
    (when it comes to marriage, women, rights, etc.)
    Marriage?

    Turkish Law recognizes women, men as 100% equals, gives women equal rights in divorce and property ownership etc.

    This doesn't mean all the problems have been solved but Turkey is moving in the right direction. Reforms are going on.
     
    AlGhaliboon

    AlGhaliboon

    Active Member
    Btw ya Smith, I have a problem when people try to turn their opposition to ideologies and fascism, into racism and stereotyping of an entire people. Just like it'd be wrong of me and anyone else for that matter to be anti-Semitic just because we have a bone to pick with "Israel"...

    __

    This is an excerpt from a longer piece by Taner Akçam and Belinda Cooper, Turks, Armenians, and the "G-Word".

    [FIELDSET=Taner Akçam]The G-Word

    The term "genocide" was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Jew born in Poland, who as a law student in his native country was struck by a paradox on reading about the trial of Talaat Pasha's killer in Berlin. "It is a crime for Tehlirian to kill a man, but it is not a crime for his oppressor to kill more than a million men?" Lemkin is said to have asked at the time. Although the word itself did not exist in 1915, most qualified historians today agree that the events of 1915-20 constituted genocide. In 2003, the International Center for Transitional Justice, a nongovernmental human rights organization headquartered in New York, commissioned a legal opinion that concluded that the killing of Armenians did fit the accepted legal definition of the term.1 As defined in a United Nations convention, "genocide" connotes an intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not presuppose the murder of an entire people, nor even murder; the operative language refers to the intentional attempt to destroy a collective identity.2 Although the Holocaust remains the most notorious example, after a century of genocides or near-genocides-in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, and Rwanda-we are sadly aware that the crime can take many forms.

    Nevertheless, Turkey emphatically denies that the killings of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire were an intentional attempt to destroy a people. It maintains that the Armenians attempted to subvert the empire in wartime and themselves massacred countless Turks, and that Ottoman authorities simply wished to relocate Armenians from a vulnerable border with Russia. Somewhat contradictorily, the Turkish version argues both that many deaths occurred on both sides in this "civil war," and that the relocation involved little loss of life.

    This view is not confined to government officials. Decades of silence, limited access to historical material, and more recently, active propaganda campaigns have persuaded much of the Turkish public of the truth of the official view. The government's ability to frame the opposing campaign as an attack by foreign enemies on Turkish honor and national existence has given its interpretation broad popular resonance.

    For Armenians, meanwhile, the word "genocide" has acquired an almost sacrosanct aura. Thus the struggle over use of the "g-word" today frequently has little to do with historical debate, but rather resembles a symbolic struggle over mutually exclusive collective identities that can deteriorate into political one-upmanship. Willingness or unwillingness to employ the term has for many become a litmus test, with Armenians taking the view that Turks must explicitly admit that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide before further discussion is possible, while Turks discount the credibility of anyone who employs the term.

    The Burdens of the Past

    Despite its suppression of the Ottoman historical legacy, the newborn Turkish Republic inherited the authoritarian mantle of the empire's military and bureaucracy. The Ottoman experience with the Western powers had left Turkey's leaders with a paranoid fear of internal and external "enemies." Turkey's multiethnic population was viewed as abetting those threats and as an obstacle to the creation of a homogenous Turkish identity. The government in effect declared various social and ethnic groups nonexistent. It was made illegal, for example, to claim the existence of Kurdish ethnicity or to talk about class struggle, and the assertion of Islamic values was prohibited. While no law specifically forbade mention of the Armenian genocide, this taboo was particularly pervasive.

    Over the years, Turkish security forces fought leftist groups, Islamic fundamentalists, and Kurdish separatists. In each case, conflict ultimately led to the lifting of taboos. Today, a moderate Islamic party heads the government, Kurds may engage in their own cultural practices, and leftist parties contribute to the political debate. Only the Armenian genocide taboo remains.

    There are a number of reasons for the taboo's persistence, some of which can be ascribed to the historically determined psychology of Turkish society.3 Many Turks see the accusations of genocide as a continuation of the historical tendency of the Christian West to denigrate Turks as barbaric. This contemptuous view of Turks (and Muslims) extends back to the Renaissance and continued through the First World War, when British prime minister David Lloyd George described the Ottoman Turks as "a cancer on humanity, a wound that has worked its way into the flesh of the earth that it has misruled." Ottoman Turks and later Atatiirk himself took this view very seriously and were determined to combat it. But Turks still feel misunderstood and misrepresented, and believe that Westerners in particular despise them. Thus they reject the accusation of genocide as a slanderous attempt to equate Turkey with Nazi Germany.

    Moreover, Armenians serve as a persistent symbolic reminder of the most traumatic event in Turkish history: the collapse of the empire and the loss of most of its territory. The final Ottoman century was dominated by constant fear of obliteration and dismemberment by European powers. This fear of annihilation runs deep, evoking memories that Turks prefer to forget. Speaking metaphorically, the Turkish Republic conceives of itself as a phoenix rising from the ashes of the failed Ottoman Empire, and the Armenians are a reminder of the ashes. Turkish culture also often shows a predilection to a fatalism rooted in the folk Islam of Anatolia.

    More importantly, questioning the official version of the Armenian genocide risks opening an entire corpus of official history to scrutiny. Since the republic was erected on a deliberately distorted version of the past, this would mean calling into question the very foundations of modern Turkey. The mere acknowledgment that some of the founders of the republic, heretofore glorified as heroes, were involved in genocide could threaten the legitimacy of the state-just as the awareness, for example, that America's founders were slaveholders, and that revered historical figures sanctioned the genocide of Native Americans, inevitably challenges our view of our own national identity. For a nation like Turkey, so unused to self-questioning, this could be seriously unsettling.

    Many Turks regard discussion of historical injustice as a Pandora's box. "Where will it end?" they ask. Armenians are not the only aggrieved group, after all; the history of mass violence in Ottoman Turkey was a long one, and modern Turkey, too, has its dark spots. A freer historical debate on the Armenians could lead to a broader reconsideration of the repression not only of other non-Muslim populations in the empire but of Kurds, Greeks, and Alevites in the republic, and it could open up debate over more recent clashes between fascist nationalists and leftists, over disappearances, death squads, and torture. For a society structured along authoritarian lines, such a wide-ranging debate raises fears of potentially destabilizing consequences. A more concrete reason for the taboo's persistence-on occasion articulated by Turkish political leaders-is the fear that acknowledgment of the genocide would prompt Armenian territorial demands and calls for restitution of property confiscated a century ago.

    Yet Turkish society has undergone rapid change in recent years. The end of the Cold War lessened Western willingness to indulge Turkish authoritarianism, and Turkey's desire to enter the European Union has encouraged a new openness to a more democratic culture. These changes have prompted the rise of an active civil society, encompassing business associations and foundations, newspapers, trade unions, and human rights organizations. In this regard, Turkey has come to resemble a typical European state.

    Until recently, state and society in Turkey had increasingly diverged, in a schizophrenic process similar to that seen in the later stages of East European communism. As a survival strategy, citizens publicly embraced the official version of Turkish history, but increasingly questioned it in private. Concerning the Armenian genocide, Turkey's regional and ethnic subgroups have passed down oral narratives that diverge from the government line; thus residents of Anatolia speak openly in private about their former Armenian neighbors and their fate. In the more relaxed current atmosphere, the coexisting official and private historical versions are beginning to confront one another. In the process, what Turkish scholars have called the "curtain of silence" surrounding the Armenian genocide has become more permeable, and discussion of the genocide has become possible.

    Nevertheless, the Turkish government wishes to ensure that its view of the Armenian killings remains dominant. In response to rising demands from without for acknowledgment of the genocide, and the beginning of questioning from within, official silence has given way to open denial. Where schools previously provided no information on Armenians, in 2002 the Ministry of Education mandated a grade-school curriculum that actively denied the genocide, calling Armenian claims "baseless" and emphasizing Armenian separatism and the massacre of Turks under the Ottoman Empire. A 2003 directive encouraged student participation in essay contests on the "Armenian Rebellion during the First World War." Teachers were required to attend seminars on the "Fight Against Baseless Claims of Genocide." At one seminar, a teacher who questioned this formulation was briefly jailed and suspended. This occurred despite Ankara's promises to revise its textbooks to eliminate bias, in accord with EU regulations.

    Mention of the Armenian genocide had not traditionally been criminalized-the taboo was more psychological than legal, enforced by social pressures-but here, too, the government seems to be digging in its heels. In 2004, the EU criticized Article 305 of the revised Turkish criminal code, which prohibited "acts against fundamental national interests" by which a person "directly or indirectly [receives] benefits from foreign persons or institutions." In the official explanation of the law, the acts covered included "spreading propaganda to the press or publications which purport to claim that Armenians were subject to genocide." After heavy domestic and international criticism, the passage was removed from the published version of the law. Thus it is not yet clear how the law will be applied in such cases, though it will certainly have a chilling effect. The first formal charge was brought against an Ankara lawyer for decrying the Ottoman "massacres of Armenians," under a different section of the code prohibiting instigation of ethnic hatred (an offense contained in many European criminal codes). Previously, this provision had been used primarily against dissidents who referred to a "multicultural" Turkey. Most significantly, Turkey's renowned novelist Orhan Pamuk, whose works celebrate the richness of Ottoman history, was charged under yet another legal provision for "publicly denigrating Turkish identity" after he openly condemned the killings of Armenians and Kurds in a February 2005 interview with a Swiss newspaper. With EU accession now on the agenda and ethnic discrimination forbidden under EU human rights laws, these cases will be an important test for the Turkish judicial system.

    The Turkish government also subsidizes and promotes homegrown "scholars" to produce propaganda that accords with the official view. It views scholarship outside the official framework as subversive and threatening to the state. Scholars writing objectively on the genocide, or even on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, are regularly accused of being in the pay of Armenians. Conversely, history written by officially approved historians, even if clearly propaganda, is touted as a legitimate source of information.

    As Turkish scholars themselves have begun to challenge official history, the government has gone on the defensive. This past summer, three leading Turkish universities organized a conference on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire that was to be attended solely by scholars of Turkish origin who dissented from the official historical line. At a special parliamentary sitting shortly before the conference was to begin, the minister of justice accused participants of "plunging a dagger into the nation's back," while deputies from the governing and opposition parties condemned them as "traitors to the nation." The organizers, concerned for the safety of the participants in this overheated climate, postponed the conference.

    In addition to stirring strong criticism abroad, the incident sparked an unusually broad debate within the country. Even newspapers and columnists that normally support the government's position on the Armenian question criticized its behavior as a violation of freedom of speech. Moreover, those parliamentarians and officials who had criticized the conference apparently did not speak for the entire government, reflecting internal dissension on the larger issue of EU membership. The conference was rescheduled for the fall, and other top Turkish politicians, including Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, gave it their support.

    Besides its campaign to radicalize domestic audiences through active propaganda disputing the "allegations of genocide," the Turkish government has also turned its activities outward. In April 2005, Turkey's national assembly, in a letter signed by both the current prime minister and the leader of the opposition, demanded that Great Britain apologize to Turkey for the "blue book" on Turkish crimes against Armenians commissioned by the British government during the First World War. Yet it soon became apparent that the blue book, although written for propaganda purposes, contained a great deal of truth.4

    At the same time, the Turkish government recently proposed to the Armenian government that Armenia and Turkey set up a joint historians' commission to consider their common past. Given Ankara's otherwise increasingly aggressive posture and strident language on the issue, however, it is doubtful that the commission it envisions would meet the demands of those pushing for an honest reassessment of history. This is particularly unlikely given the fact that the government has in the past restricted scholarly access by denying the existence of certain documents or refusing permission to work in the Ottoman archives. Although conditions are reportedly improving, scholars tell of being expelled from the archives and of having their notebooks confiscated. Staff members have refused to produce specific documents and have frequently harassed and interrogated scholars, demanding to know why they were seeking information and for whom they were working.

    Broadly speaking, the Turkish government seems to view truth seeking as unproductive and even dangerous (a Turkish official told one of the authors that bringing up the Armenian genocide could anger the Turkish population and turn it against the Armenians). Yet it distinguishes between historical efforts and a more future-oriented "reconciliation" with the country of Armenia or members of the diaspora. Thus Ankara has tolerated or endorsed efforts at concrete cooperation with Armenia and diaspora Armenians on economic, educational, and cultural issues through organizations such as the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission and the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council. Meetings take place between professional groups from the two countries, and on occasion their foreign ministers meet to discuss bilateral relations. But, in general, Turkey has kept its relations with Armenia to a minimum.[/FIELDSET]

    Sorry, it seems the full text is available for all to see... Link
     
    Story

    Story

    Active Member
    armenians are still being killed in turkish cities, etc.
    I don't want to get involved but I guess you are talking about Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Hrant Dink's funeral was the most crowded funeral that Istanbul has ever seen. I'm telling for the one's knowing Istanbul/ Sisli Avenue, the crowd was from Pangalti to Sisli Mosque and most cross streets were also full. People were there to burry an honourable man.

    I seriously cried for someone that I never meet in my lifetime.

    You may not believe but these people were cordial.





















     
    lebanese Christian

    lebanese Christian

    New Member
    i already provided the reasons !
    europeans ( as population ) dont want them in it.
    they are not related to europeans by history
    historically they fought against europeans most of the time and committed massacres against many of them. serbs , russians , greeks, armenians .
    they will be a parasit , an intruder country on the european body .
    You have right in saying that the Europeans never liked Turks . About 2 years ago Turkey s eventual entry in the EU was seen as something impossible or a joke . But now according to the context (Iran s nuclear, the rise against the west in the Arab/Muslim countries) Turkey s entry is becoming a serious possibility taken by the European leaders ,because of political interests.
    Turkey is a big Muslim nation (65 millions) which is culturaly between the west and the east, which government s is politically backing the west . Europe and US need a power which will counter balance Iran and Syria .
     
    S

    SeekNirvana

    Well-Known Member
    An interesting article from the Economist:


    ===================================

    Islam and democracy
    The lesson from Turkey

    Jul 26th 2007
    From The Economist print edition
    Islamist parties that follow the rules should be allowed to win elections

    THE decisive victory by Turkey's ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party in the general election of July 22nd shows every sign so far of having been an excellent result. Big political rows, threats of military intervention, talk of invading northern Iraq, resurgent nationalism and discouraging relations with Europe and America: all that plus a mildly Islamist government in a fiercely secular republic could have been a recipe for trouble, coups, internal strife, you name it. But in fact Turkey has seen a thoroughly democratic election, not too much violence, a big turnout and a clear result (see article).

    Among other things this seems a strong rebuke by voters to the army, which had hinted at interfering in the AK's choice of a presidential candidate. Though Turks still respect their army, most do not feel it should intervene in politics. They are also rewarding a government that has delivered good results and punishing opposition parties that offered incoherent and unconvincing policies. That is exactly how democracy should work. The army has absolutely no cause to intervene, though if the government is wise it will continue to be cautious about an Islamist agenda. Many Turkish voters may want to end the ban on the veil, but they show little appetite for more radical moves away from secularism.

    Is there a lesson in Turkey for the future of democracy in the wider Muslim world? Yes, but approach with care. There are many paths to democracy, and the right choice varies from place to place. Turkey has an exceptional history. Simplifying mightily, its bumpy path to democratisation goes roughly as follows: set up an empire; inherit a caliphate; fight on the losing side in a world war; in desperation dissolve the caliphate and submit to the autocratic rule of a moderniser who pushes Islam ruthlessly to the margins; then wait the better half of a century for the emergence of an Islamist party that looks mild and moderate enough to be trusted with the reins of government. In short, squeeze Islam out of political life for decades before gingerly allowing a tamed version back in.

    Learning from calamity
    The trouble with this approach (apart from the long wait) is that things can go calamitously wrong both at the squeezing-out stage and at the letting-in stage. For an example of the first, look at Iran, Turkey's neighbour. From the 1920s on Reza Shah strove consciously to imitate the secular reforms of Kemal Ataturk by modernising his own country's economy and society at a furious rate and forcibly reducing the role of Islam. Iranians did not take kindly to this force-fed modernisation. The ironic upshot, one less effectual shah later, was the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, in which the clerics the shahs had tried to squeeze out of the picture seized ultimate power for themselves, and have kept it ever since.
    For an example of how things can go wrong at the letting-in stage, remember Algeria in 1992. In this case a secular leadership lost its nerve at the point when it had to decide whether the opposition Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was in fact moderate enough to be allowed to take office after a landslide win in parliamentary elections. In the end the ruling party and army decided against. They cancelled the second round of elections, with catastrophic consequences. In the ensuing decade-long civil war some 200,000 Algerians were killed.

    At the time, Algeria's decision to bar the Islamists from power was supported by leaders throughout the Arab world. Their argument was that parties such as the FIS were not true democrats. Once in power, it was alleged, they would never let it go: it would be “one man, one vote, one time”. In the case of the FIS, Algerians were prevented from putting the party's intentions to the test. But it is striking that precisely the same accusation has long been levelled at the AK in Turkey. Its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, did indeed once say that democracy was a train, from which you could alight once you reached your destination. As prime minister, however, he and his party appear to have got the gist of what democracy really means. There is now no serious doubt that the AK would surrender power if it were to be defeated at the ballot box.

    Why so? Some will say that the answer resides in Turkey's secular constitution and the presence of a fiercely secular army that is ready to step into politics the moment politicians threaten to cross the line. That may be too cynical. Another real and arguably stronger discipline on the AK arises from the experience of democracy itself. Mr Erdogan's party knows that its continuing political success and underlying legitimacy depend on listening closely to the desires of voters, which in turn requires it to moderate its Islamist ambitions and obey the rules of the democratic game.
    If there is a broader lesson the Islamic world can draw from Turkey's success, it therefore lies in this. Islamist parties that declare themselves willing to abide by the rules ought to be allowed to participate fully in electoral politics. Though this prescription may sound obvious, it has yet to be swallowed in the places where it is needed most. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood remains squeezed out of formal politics despite its growing popularity. High time now to let it in.
     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Erdogan's Middle Eastern Victory Lap

    The Turkish prime minister's recent tour of Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya was meant to distract from his missteps during the Arab Spring. More importantly, it was aimed at convincing Turks that their country is a powerful regional player.

    As Cairo's citizens drove along the Autostrad this week, they were greeted with four enormous billboards featuring pictures of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. With Turkish and Egyptian flags, the signs bore the message, "With United Hands for the Future." Erdogan's visit marks a bold development in Turkey's leadership in the region. The hero's welcome he received at the airport reinforced the popular perception: Turkey is a positive force, uniquely positioned to guide the Middle East's ongoing transformation.

    More...
     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Is the prime minister a candidate for leadership in the Sunni world?

    MEHMET ALİ BİRAND

    I come across the same question almost everywhere: “Does the prime minister want to step into the fire for Gaza at the cost of a dispute, a clash with Israel? What is his aim? Does he have a strategy in the back of his mind? If so, what is it?”

    Definitely, he has a game plan. Decisions are made together with Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. It is the prime minister though, who will take the steps.

    Well, until where will this go?

    Turkey is almost challenging Israel, stating it would mobilize its navy, increasing doubts and concerns.

    It causes such questions as “Is a war being sought with Israel? Why is there such a challenge?” to become widespread.

    Turkey is at the top of those countries who know only too well what a clash of arms with Israel would mean. It is no secret that in the case of such a probability, one would confront both one of the most effective air forces and navies in the world and also the United States.

    To clash with Israel, however mighty and powerful the Turkish Armed Forces, or TSK, may be, is not very reasonable. It would turn upside down both regional equilibriums and international equilibriums.

    For the prime minister to take such a risk just to gain the sympathy of the Arab world is unthinkable.

    All these calculations are indeed being done in Ankara also.

    Nobody can take the risk of diverting Turkey to such an indefinite place.

    Well, what is this acceleration then?

    Are we alarming the entire world just to avenge the nine citizens killed in the Marmara vessel?

    I don’t think so.

    Do we expect to scare Israel so that it would lift the Gaza embargo?

    If there is such an expectation, then it means a big mistake is being made.

    Gaza is the disgrace of the Arabs

    “Does Turkey want to be the savior of Gaza?

    “Does it put forward itself to deter Israel from the Gaza blockade?”

    It is advisable that we know one truth very well.

    The Gaza blockade, like the Palestine issue, is a disgrace for the Arabs.

    Erdoğan says Turkey’s stance is a humanitarian duty, an act of justice. Actually, Turkey knows very well that the reason the Palestine issue and the Gaza blockade are still continuing and that Israel is acting like a “spoiled child” is entirely a problem for the Arabs. Consequently, it has opted for relegating to the background as much as possible for years.

    If the Gaza blockade has not been solved until this day, its reasons are obvious:

    - Arabs’ own internal controversies, domestic fights and incompetence.

    - Strategic calculations of super powers in the region.

    The Palestinians, in plain words, are the victims of the Arabs.

    The Arabs are using the Palestine issue in almost every field from sustaining their own administrations to power struggles among themselves. In short, Israel is making use of both the U.S. support and the Arab reluctance.

    Now, if there probably is one person who would know best that Turkey’s jumping in like a savior, saying, “Leave it to me, I can solve it,” into a field where such complicated calculations inside other calculations are done, where big games are played and where negotiations are continuing for power equilibriums will not bring any results, is Prime Minister Erdoğan, and the other is Foreign Minister Davutoğlu.

    Well, if the situation is like this, if it is obvious under today’s circumstances bringing Israel to heel is impossible, what does Turkey want to do by raising its voice, and moreover flexing its biceps?

    Probably, there is another fine calculation involved in this.

    Is it Sunni leadership against Shiite Iran?

    What tops the most important of problems that are being discussed behind the scenes in the Middle East and in which deep and fine negotiations are being made is the Shiite Iran that is preparing to become a nuclear power.

    All Gulf nations, foremost Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and Jordan, are in fear. They believe Iran’s ever-increasing power will create a big threat for them in the near future. The administrators of these countries whose powers are at risk at any given moment, even if the Arab Spring has turned into a breeze, they know very well that they cannot handle, alongside with expectations of democracy, a Shiite threat.

    It is known that they want to draw Turkey to their side, to form a rigid Sunni front and that they have frequently conveyed these intentions to the Erdoğan-Davutoğlu duo.

    For the U.S. too, Iran is the biggest threat in the region.

    Washington believes that Iran, whose influence on Iraq is increasing every day, the moment it obtains nuclear power, will storm the region and topple all the equilibriums. If today, a missile shield is being formed within the framework of NATO including Turkish territory, one of its most important reasons is Iran.

    All politics are being formed to prevent a Shiite alliance.

    Also, the biggest concern of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government is a possible Sunni-Shiite conflict. It is a known fact that it is planning to use its power to prevent such a conflict.

    Here, now, we can ask our own selves this question:

    Does Turkey, by toughening against Israel, want to draw the peoples of the Sunni world more to its side, to form a front?

    Several experts both in Turkey and in the region make this analysis and claim that Ankara, with its new Israel policy, want to create a more influential image in the region. Nobody interprets the prime minister’s words as Turkey threatening Israel or intending to search for a clash.

    Washington, who holds the key in its hand on this issue, maintains a different policy.

    On one hand it is content that Turkey takes a role in a Sunni front against Iran. On the other hand, it wants the Netanyahu-Libermann coalition to be slightly bruised and recover and also it wishes that Turkey keeps its showdown with Israel at a certain level.

    As far as I can see, it follows such a fine strategy.

    Source
     
    Venom

    Venom

    Legendary Member
    "ان تي في" التركية: انفجار وسط انقرة وسقوط ضحايا
     
    Venom

    Venom

    Legendary Member
    السيد اردوغان هل يقرأ؟
    في الخطاب الذي ألقاه رئيس الوزراء التركي رجب طيب أردوغان على وزراء الخارجية العرب في القاهرة أقف عند جملتين منه أولاهما ان "تركيا والعرب يشتركون في العقيدة والثقافة والقيم". العقيدة، بلا منازع، هي الاسلام. هنا كلام يتضمن ان دولته لا يرى وجود اثني عشر مليون مسيحي عربي على الأقل وهؤلاء لا ينتظرون من اجنبي تحديد هويتهم القومية. في ما يختص بالثقافة اللغة التي كان لها أثر كبير في الأناضول هي اللغة الفارسية. بعد محمد الفاتح صارت القسطنطينية قطب جذب للشعراء العرب والفرس حتى تأصل التركي البسيط. ولكن بعامة لم يبقَ من تأثير عربي غير مختلط بالأثر الفارسي حول القرنين الخامس عشر والسادس عشر.
    بظهور التنظيمات في القرن التاسع عشر اتجهت تركيا ادبياً نحو الغرب. ثم مع حرب الاستقلال وإعلان الجمهورية التركية السنة الـ 1923 تصلّب الشعور التركي حتى جاء ناظم حكمت الثوري (1902-1963) ثم اتسع الأفق بدءًا بالسنة 1939 بالترجمات والاتجاه نحو الفكر المجتمعي والسياسي. ما هو حي الآن في الأدب لا علاقة له بالعروبة. اما القيم التي يشير اليها السيد اردوغان على انها مشتركة بيننا وبينهم فمنها القديم والحديث، فما من شك ان القديم غير ضاغط علينا واننا تواقون الى الحداثة وذائقون اوروبا بعمق في حين ان الأتراك متعلقون بالعتيق بشدة واوروبا عندهم أمل في الانصهار السياسي بها استكمالا لحلف شمال الأطلسي الذي يجمعهما ويجعل تركيا قوية في دنيا العرب على رجاء عثمانية ما العرب فيها حليف صغير لا شريك كبير.
    اما الأكثر مخافة مما سبق فقول السيد اردوغان: "كان في التاريخ التركي شاب تولى انهاء حضارة سوداء وتدشين حضارة جديدة عريقة عندما فتح اسطنبول وهو محمد الفاتح". انا لا اناقش عراقة الحضارة التركية وعظمتها. ولكن ابدأ بسؤال للسيد اردوغان لا ينبغي ان يصدمه وهو هل قرأ الحضارة البيزنطية التي يسميها سوداء. الأتراك عسكر اقوياء استطاعوا مع مؤامرة الأساطيل الغربية التي كانت تربض هناك ان يغلبوا اعظم فكر حضاري السنة الـ1453. ولكن كيف يريد السيد اردوغان ان يقنعنا ان الحضارة المتكاملة العناصر والخلاقة والسامية روحيا حتى السماء كانت سوداء. كيف لا يرى ان نهضة اوروبا ما اخذت تظهر الا بهجرة العقول البيزنطية الى الغرب الذي اقتبس منهم العقل الاغريقي وانشأ الفكر الحديث؟

    □ □ □
    الحضارة البيزنطية اهم ما فيها الثقافة. عرفت الخط مكتوبا باليونانية واللاتينية في اعمال المؤرخين القدامى ورسائل في الزراعة والفن العسكري، في الطب والطب البيطري، في تأويل الأحلام، كل هذا الف مكتبة كبيرة. اليها كانت مكتبة البطريركية المسكونية التي كانت تحوي أعمال المجامع وكتب الآباء. الى هذا مكتبات خاصة. هنا وهناك كتب طقوسية. ندرة الكتب نابعة من كونها غالية.الوصول الى الكتاب يسهل في العائلات الغنية. المدرسة الابتدائية يشرف عليها الأسقف، يتعلّم الولد فيها القراءة والكتابة والحساب. الكتاب الرئيس هو المزامير. في المدرسة علم الجمل حيث لكل حرف قيمته في الرقم كما في العالم العربي. الترتيل متقن في المدارس.
    كل الأولاد كانوا يتبعون المدارس الوسطى. تعلم الناس كل ما في الحضارة القديمة: هوميروس، الهندسة، البلاغة، الرياضيات. كانت الفلسفة تتضمن اللاهوت والرياضيات، الموسيقى، علم الفلك، الطبيعيات. في القرن الثالث عشر ظهر في الترجمة اعمال لاتينية وفارسية وعربية. أخذ القوم عن اللاتينية مفردات الحياة الإدارية وعن العربية تلك المتعلقة بالنسيج. كانت الكنيسة متعلقة باللغة القديمة. عرفت القسطنطينية غير مؤسسة جامعية، ثم كان للبطريركية تعليم جامعي.
    □ □ □
    المعرفة العالية كان لا بد ان تتضمن تفسير الكتاب المقدس، وبعد تحديد العقيدة ظهرت المفردات اللاهوتية. لقد اثر النسك والتصوف في التعليم وتركزت العقيدة على كتب يوحنا الدمشقي. الصوفيون الكبار كانوا سمعان اللاهوتي الحديث وغريغوريوس بالاماس ونيقولاوس كبازيلاس. هنا تظهر سير القديسين. الكتب الطقوسية وضعت بين القرن الرابع والقرن الخامس عشر وعليها يعيش الارثوذكسيون حتى اليوم. جزء اساسي من الثقافة البيزنطية ان تعرف استعمال كتب العبادات ولا سيما حسب الأعياد والمواسم.
    ثم تأتي الأعمال الأدبية الموضوعة بلغة العلماء. وتعالج التاريخ والجغرافية والفن العسكري والبلاغة والقصة، والفلسفة والألسنية وقواعد اللغة.
    التاريخ يبدأ من بدء الخليقة وينتهي عند زمن الكاتب. الى هذا الفلسفة اليونانية التي أظهرت اباء الكنيسة. وقد استعار الفكر المسيحي مصطلحات الفلسفة لينتقل ورأى انه يكمل الفكر القديم بالوحي. غير انها بقيت مستقرة في جوهرها. استعملت أساليب مختلفة في بناء اللاهوت غير ان عدد الفلاسفة الأصيلين كان قليلا ولكن كثر العالمون بالآداب اليونانية الكلاسيكية والنقاد وعلماء اللغة وبرز شعراء مسرحيات.
    لعل اجمل ما كتب الشعر الديني. كل ما يسمى في الصلوات القنداق والقانون شعر. الى هذا عرفت بيزنطية الشعر الشعبي والقصة بالفصحى وبالعامية. كذلك عرف علماء رياضيات وفيزياء وبصريات.
    عرف البيزنطيون علم الحيوان من الناحية التطبيقية وعلم النبات التطبيقي اي استعمال النبات في الطب والصيدلة. اخذوا الخيمياء عن سترابون وطبقوها في المعادن والصبغة والأدوية والزجاج.
    على الصعيد الطبي في التنظيم الصحي. أسست مستشفيات وصار للأطباء تعليم نظامي وعززت مواردهم. اشتهروا في علم العين: بولس من ايجينا كان دارس الجراحة والتوليد وأثر في الطب العربي. ميخائيل بسيلوس وضع قاموسا في الأمراض. خصصوا كتبا في طب الأسنان والتمعوا في البيطرة وفي طعام الحيوان. الصيدلة كانت عندهم جزءا من تعليم الطب وأخذوا في الصيدلة شيئا من العرب والفرس.
    □ □ □
    عظمت الخطابة وسيلة للدعوة السياسية او الدينية. ومن الخطابة الوعظ الذي اشتهر فيه يوحنا الذهبي الفم في القرن الرابع ومطلع الخامس في أنطاكية والقسطنطينية ولدينا مواعظه في اللغة اليونانية مترجمة الى معظم اللغات الأوروبية وبعضها الى العربية.
    ظهرت الأيقونة الخشبية او الجدارية في الامبراطورية ولا سيما لتعليم الأميين. منذ القرن الرابع بدأ الرسم كما الفسيفساء. اقدم الفسيفساء (العذراء، القديس جاورجيوس) في سالونيك. القليل حفظ في ايا صوفيا وبقيت ايقونات كشف عنها من عهد أتاتورك. القليل في قبرص والأكثر في رافينا (ايطاليا). وبسبب غلاء الفسيفساء استعيض عنها بالرسم الجداري الذي عرف كثيرا في ما هو الآن المشرق العربي وهو في حال التجدد اليوم في كل انحاء سوريا ولبنان. كذلك زينت المخطوطات بالتصاوير ولا سيما كتب الأناجيل. وارتبطت الصور بصناعة الصياغة والتطريز.
    انتبهت الكنيسة الى ضرورة الأيقونة في المجمع المسكوني السابع وحددت تكريمها تحديدا عقديا في السنة الـ787 ملأت الكنائس والبيوت في الدنيا الارثوذكسية وكان بادئ التنظير لها القديس يوحنا الدمشقي الذي عاش راهبا في فلسطين وتبنت الكنيسة رأيه في الأيقونة وهو القائل ان التجسد الإلهي يفرضها. ان روحانية الايقونة في كل بيت ارثوذكسي في العالم الى جانب استلهامها في الكنائس كان من العوامل التي حفظت الايمان.
    كل البيزنطيين، كما يؤكد المؤرخون، كانوا مؤمنين. اذا وجدوا راهبا في الطريق يطلبون بركته. في هذا الجو لك ان تفهم اهتمامهم بالمرضى والفقراء.
    لقد ظلم بعض الأباطرة لكن بعضهم تركوا الملك ودخلوا الديورة رهبانا. كان هذا المجتمع على خطاياه يريد ان يدشن في الأرض ملكوت الله في استقامة الرأي وطهارة السيرة. علامتها البكاء على الخطايا واللطف والتسامح والسلام والتعاطف والزهد بالمال والتقشف. هذه كلها مجتمعة بكلمة واحدة هي محبة الرب.
    الأمر كله ان يهتدي الانسان من الامور الخارجية الى الامور الداخلية. بكلام آخر كل المؤمنين في وسط هذه الحضارة كان نهجهم صوفيا، بحيث تقيم في سر الله ولا تعلم حواسك شيئا مما تأخذ من إلهك وتصلي دعاء الرب يسوع في داخل قلبك مرددا اسمه مئات المرات في اليوم او ألوفا حتى تنطفئ الكلمات ويصبح قلبك كلمة.
    من عرف العبادات البيزنطية التي تكونت اصلا من بلادنا يرى فيها غنى لا يتجاوزه غنى آخر. كل صلاة من الصباح الى الغروب الى نصف الليل تحمل هذه القناعة التي نعبر عنها يوم الفصح بقولنا: "المسيح قام من بين الأموات" انت في القداس ترجو الله بعد ان يأتيك جسد الرب ودمه ان يجعلك في "كمال ملكوت السماوات"، متحررا من المحاكمة في اليوم الأخير ومن الدينونة. كل هذه الصلوات الكثيفة، العميقة، البلورية وجسدك ساجد او منتصب ونفسك بلورية نابعة من الكتاب الإلهي او هي نظم له لتصبح شعرا إلهيا مع الجماعة.
    اذا قرأ السيد اردوغان كل هذا هل يقدر ان يقول ان كل هذا البهاء الذي وصفناه ما قدر لنا هو حضارة سوداء؟ انت لست معذورا ان قرأتنا وفهمتنا خطأ. انت لست معذورًا ان رأيت النور ظلاما. أجدادك اقتحموا المدينة التي كانت تعرف انها وحدها آنذاك مقر الحضارة في العالم. انصف ما كان قبلك جميلا واقرأ لأنك مسؤول.

    المطران جورج خضر
     
    G

    g.kfouri

    New Member
    the ottoman empire is the great one and the byzantine is the black one ......... wow , knowledgeable in history indeed lol.
    anyway he picked the perfect crowd for that speech because no one other than an arab would buy this .
     
    Weezy

    Weezy

    Well-Known Member
    تركيا تطرح نظاما إقليميا جديدا

    في وقت يمور فيه الشرق الأوسط بالاضطرابات والانتفاضات الشعبية، تطرح تركيا نفسها كدولة تملك الحلول لمشاكل المنطقة وأزماتها.

    ومع ذلك لا يبدو أن هناك من هو ميال لاعتبار الفترة الراهنة حقبة الهيمنة التركية بالشرق الأوسط ذلك أن سياستها الخارجية هذا العام مثقلة بالأخطاء والأزمات والمكاسب التي تغلب عليها النبرة الخطابية، بل إنها تفتقر لعدد كافٍ من الدبلوماسيين، وفق ما يرى أنتوني شديد في تقريره المنشور بعدد الثلاثاء من صحيفة نيويورك تايمز الأميركية.

    لكن في عالم عربي يبدو فيه النفوذ الأميركي في تراجع، والتأثير الأوروبي غير ذي جدوى، وقوى مثل إسرائيل وإيران في حالة اضطراب وعدم يقين، ومسؤولون ميالون لتأكيد الذات أحيانا ويفتقرون للباقة، طرحت تركيا رؤية لما قد ينبثق من الاضطرابات في المنطقة التي قلبت كل التوقعات.

    يقول أستاذ العلاقات الدولية بجامعة بيلجي في إسطنبول سولي أوزيل إن تركيا "هي الدولة الوحيدة التي تملك وعياً بما ستؤول إليه الأمور، وإن الرياح تأتي كما تشتهي سفنها".

    ولعل السياسة الخارجية لتركيا استحوذت على اهتمام الكثيرين في الشرق الأوسط وما وراءه عقب جولة قام بها هذا الشهر رئيس وزرائها رجب طيب أردوغان لثلاثة أقطار عربية شهدت ثورات وهي تونس ومصر وليبيا، حتى أن منتقديه أُخِذوا بالدلالات الرمزية التي انطوت عليها الرحلة.

    ومع أن كثيرين أخذوا على أردوغان سمته الاستبدادية في وطنه، إلا أن الشعوب في الخارج ظلت مبهورة على ما يبدو به بحسبانه رئيس وزراء قدّم نفسه على أنه قائد معتز بإسلامه لبلد ديمقراطي مزدهر برز بقوة منحازا إلى الثورات ومنافحا عن الحقوق الفلسطينية.

    ووصفت إحدى الصحف التركية جولة أردوغان بأنها استهلال "لعصر جديد في منطقتنا، وأثنى كاتب عمود مصري على "سجايا الزعامة" عند القائد التركي.

    وتحدث وزير الخارجية أحمد داود أوغلو بجرأة عن محور بين مصر وتركيا، وهما من أقوى بلدان المنطقة عسكريا وأكثرها كثافة بالسكان، بينما يوحي ببزوغ فجر نظام جديد في المنطقة حيث سيكون مآل إسرائيل التهميش حتى تصنع سلاما مع جيرانها.


    تكامل بعد ازدراء

    ولطالما تعاملت تركيا مع العالم العربي بشيء من الازدراء، وظلت سنوات تجني ثمار علاقاتها مع العقيد معمر القذافي في ليبيا والرئيس بشار الأسد في سوريا.

    وحتى بعد اندلاع الانتفاضات الشعبية، كانت تركيا تعارض تدخل حلف شمال الأطلسي (ناتو) في ليبيا. وكان الأمل يحدوها حتى الشهر المنصرم في أن يشرف الأسد على مرحلة انتقالية في بلاده رغم أن المعطيات كانت تشير إلى عكس ذلك.

    وبرغم أن أردوغان خرج مبكرا ليطالب الرئيس المصري حسني مبارك بالتنحي، فإن ذلك لم يتمخض عن تبعات كثيرة عليه، فالرجلان لم يكونا أثيرين لبعضهما البعض.

    ويرى إرسين كلايجي أوغلو –أستاذ العلوم السياسية بجامعة سبانجي بإسطنبول- أن السياسة التركية القديمة انهارت، ولا بد من سياسة جديدة الآن تجاه الشرق الأوسط.

    وفي مقابلة أُجريت معه، رسم أوغلو –الذي ينظر إليه الكثيرون على أنه مهندس العلاقات بالمنطقة- سياسة جديدة. فبالإضافة إلى التحالف المقترح مع مصر، قال الوزير إن بلاده تقف إلى جانب الثورات خصوصا في الجارة سوريا، التي تمثل أكبر التحديات لتركيا.

    وشدد على أن أنقرة قد تساعد في تكامل المنطقة اقتصاديا، بعد أن زادت صادراتها إلى ثلاثة أضعاف تقريبا منذ تولي حزب العدالة والتنمية برئاسة أردوغان زمام السلطة عام 2002.

    غير أن الإحساس الطاغي هذه الأيام في تركيا بصعود نجمها قوة ونفوذا يكاد يقترب من الشوفينية أو المغالاة الوطنية، بل لامس تيار الوطنية العميق وربما قدرا من الرومانسية عند من هم أكثر تدينا، فرحا بعودة تركيا إلى عالم عربي ظل تحت حكمها لأكثر من أربعة قرون.
     
    Weezy

    Weezy

    Well-Known Member
    تركيا تقترح تحالفا مع مصر

    ذكرت صحيفة نيويورك تايمز الأميركية اليوم الاثنين أن تركيا طرحت رؤيتها لنظام جديد في الشرق الأوسط يقوم على تحالف بينها وبين مصر، في وقت تمور فيه المنطقة بالثورات والانتفاضات الشعبية ضد الحكام.

    وقدَّم هذا الطرح وزير الخارجية التركي أحمد داود أوغلو في مقابلة تلفزيونية استغرقت ساعة كاملة، وذلك قبل مغادرته إلى مقر الأمم المتحدة في نيويورك الذي يتوقع أن تشهد أروقته هذا الأسبوع مداولات مثيرة للجدل بشأن طلب الفلسطينيين لنيل الاعتراف بدولة مستقلة لهم.

    ونقلت الصحيفة عن أوغلو الذي ينظر إليه الكثيرون على أنه مهندس السياسة الخارجية التي جعلت من تركيا أحد أوثق اللاعبين صلة بالعالم الإسلامي، القول -وهو يصف أوضاع منطقة في خضم المتغيرات- إن بلاده "في قلب كل الأحداث".

    وصرح الوزير بأن إسرائيل وحدها المسؤولة عن شبه الانهيار في العلاقات مع تركيا التي كانت حليفة لها في السابق، كما اتهم الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد بالكذب عليه بعدما منح المسؤولون الأتراك حكومته "فرصة أخيرة" لإنقاذ سلطتهم من الانهيار بوقف قمع المحتجين.

    على أن المدهش -على حد تعبير نيويورك تايمز - أن أوغلو تنبأ بشراكة بين تركيا ومصر، البلدين الأقوى عسكريا والأكثر كثافة سكانيا والأعرض نفوذا في المنطقة، واللذين قال عنهما إنهما قادران على تأسيس حلف جديد في وقت يبدو فيه النفوذ الأميركي بالشرق الأوسط في اضمحلال.

    وقال في هذا الصدد "هذا ما نريده.. ليس هذا محورا ضد أي دولة أخرى، لا إسرائيل ولا إيران أو أي بلد آخر، لكنه سيكون محورا للديمقراطية في أكبر بلدين بمنطقتنا من الشمال إلى الجنوب، من البحر الأسود حتى وادي النيل في السودان".

    وجاءت تصريحات أوغلو هذه بعد جولة قام بها الأسبوع الماضي الزعماء الأتراك –بينهم هو شخصيا ورئيس الوزراء رجب طيب أردوغان- إلى تونس ومصر وليبيا، وهي الدول الثلاث التي شهدت ثورات شعبية هذا العام.

    ورأت الصحيفة الأميركية في الانتقادات التي وجهها مهندس السياسة الخارجية التركية إلى حلفائه القدامى (إسرائيل وسوريا) وتبنيه حلفاء جدد، تأكيدا للثقة التي تنعم بها تركيا هذه الأيام وهي تسعى لتكون في جانب الطرف الرابح في المنطقة.

    وأردفت قائلة "وعلى خلاف إسرائيل القلقة، وإيران المرتابة، والولايات المتحدة التي ظلت سياستها الإقليمية محل انتقاد بسبب تخبطها وتناقضها الظاهر أحيانا، نهضت تركيا من عثراتها السابقة فقدمت نفسها نموذجا للتحول الديمقراطي والنمو الاقتصادي، في وقت تمر فيه منطقة الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا بتغييرات جذرية".

    ووصفت نيويورك تايمز "القبول الحسن واللافت" الذي حظيت به تركيا في العالم العربي -"وهي منطقة كانت تركيا تنظر إليها ذات مرة بازدراء"- بأنه تطور أشبه بالزلزال تماما مثل الانتفاضات والثورات العربية.​
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    Ah, that delusional dream of resuscitating their Ottoman imperial glory... They will never get over that...
     
    Top