Kurdistan

by craig on July 3, 2014 7:23 pm in Uncategorized

An independent Kurdistan is a difficult sell because it is supported by such horrible people – Benjamin Netanyahu and every far right Republican in the US you can think of. Tony Blair is probably holding back on his endorsement until offered a huge consultancy fee or preferential access to “commercial opportunities” in the country.

Nevertheless, I supported self-determination for the Kurdish people long before the Western attacks on Iraq and I still do so now. That is support for a Kurdistan uniting the Kurdish lands of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Western Iran.

(The exception is the isolated Kurdish population of North East Iran, who are geographically far separated from the other Kurdish lands. The North East Iranian Kurdish community were deported there by the Shah in the early nineteenth century to form a barrier against Turkmen incursion).

The history of discrimination and abuse suffered by the Kurdish people is best known as it applies to Turkey, but in fact has been true in all four countries both recently and historically. The independence of Iraqi Kurdistan would almost certainly increase pan-Kurdish sentiment. This would be an undeserved difficulty for the current Turkish government, which has done a great deal more than its military backed predecessors to reduce discrimination and persecution. Neither Iran nor Syria would ever peacefully accept the loss of Kurdish lands.

The neo-con dream is to create a pro-American little state out of Iraqi Kurdistan that provides American bases, oil contracts and pro-Israeli support in the Middle East. There is no doubt that both the current degree of Iraqi Kurdish autonomy and the new push for an independence referendum are American inspired. But the neo-cons are not nearly as clever as they think they are, and have started processes which they have no hope of controlling. I very much hope to see an independent Kurdistan, and I hope to see it grow. Once established I expect to see Kurdistan in short order kick out the Americans and declare support for the Palestinians.

There is another persecuted people in the region who are distantly related to the Kurds. The subjugation and persecution of the Baloch is a direct result of the British invasion of Kelat in 1839. I also hope to see a free Baluchistan, combining both the Pakistani and Iranian colonised Baloch lands.

Tweet this post

71 Comments

  1. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    3 Jul, 2014 - 7:32 pm

  2. Sounds like a wish list which would make the whole area ungovernable if even started.

  3. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    3 Jul, 2014 - 7:51 pm

    The talk about Independence is not all fluff, but right now it’s just a negotiation to move Maliki toward living up to his elected position. Maliki has shown no such desire to keep US up close, but if Kerry can get Iraq to ante up what they owe, it’s a win/win for Kurds.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/genels-kurdistan-oil-production-surging-says-ceo-tony-hayward-1404403726?mod=europe_home

  4. I hope to see the opposite.
    The neo-cons support further chop ups of muslim countries to further weaken them. Make them easier to invade and control.
    What is needed is the opposite. The reunification of whate Syke Picot chopped up.
    A united Kurdishtan within a United Islamic state.

  5. The fighting in Tikrit today sounded and looked horrible.

    ‘There’s been fresh fighting between ISIS militants and the Iraqi army in Saddam Hussein’s former hometown of Tikrit. Thousands of troops have been trying to retake the town, since it fell on June the 11th, but they’ve so far made limited progress.’ Sky News video

    Saudi Arabia have moved 30,000 troops to its border with Iraq.
    http://news.sky.com/story/1294172/saudi-arabia-deploys-troops-to-iraq-border

    No wonder Blair has gone walkies and avoids any questioning.

  6. conjunction

    3 Jul, 2014 - 8:13 pm

    You said in your last post on Iraq that you thought the US would be happy to see the breakup of Iraq if ISIS can help them in Syria. But this will mean strengthening the Iranians and they will lose face if the wonderful democracy they have established in Iraq is blown to shreds.

    Are the Americans really subtle enough to bring off such a volte face?

  7. Craig,

    Your blog is simply the most interesting and intelligent on the internet!

    Really good post.

    Sorry if I sound sycophantic :(

  8. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    3 Jul, 2014 - 9:25 pm

    Aid; If you think this post is awesome, check out the next.

  9. The Kurdish people are blessed with a unique compassion and intelligence derived from Islam. India and Pakistan are aslosh with Machivellian politics against polytheism creep, the worship of saints etc. The qualities of Iraqi Kurdistan are unique and differ from their neighbours who have been absorbed into Syria, Iran, Turkey and Iran.

    The trouble with re-uniting Kurdistan is that politics is itself a form of polytheism and there is no popular wish for re-uniting the Kurdistan that Winston Churchill divided except from those who worship power, i.e political people. The Kurdish understand that breaking boundaries which are now nearly 100 years old will break more hearts who are intermarried with Turkish people and weaken their own culture of Sunni Islam.

    This is a Zionist plan, as was Churchill’s when he broke the Ottoman Empire and asked for Mosul. It’s easy for Craig sitting in Kent to advocate the annexation of South East England with Northern France and a break away from Northern England. Only those who worship power and the opportunities for self-enrichment that arise from re-drawing boundaries, look forward to the turmoil involved.

  10. I wonder whether the Yazidis will return?

  11. As a part of Iraq, Kurdistan is a direct neighbour of Sunni Saudi Arabia. I wonder why the Zionists want to keep Saudi separated fromits friends?

  12. Resident Dissident

    3 Jul, 2014 - 11:02 pm

    And I wonder what Arsalan’s friends would do for the freedom of the Kurds in their Caliphate – first signs regarding their tolerance to those they have conquered are not good – to say nothing of their past history.

    I’m afraid much of Craig’s respect for the self determination of the Kurds will go the same way as his respect for the self determination of Ukrainians in the hands of the regulars here who are unable to understand that notion can apply irrespective of which side is currently supporting their cause. I always find it slightly racist the assumption that certain people are unable to manage and determine their own fates and cannot be trusted to deal with outside interference.

  13. Kurds never forget that kurdish warrior of Islam Salahuddin Ayubi liberated Jerusalem once from crusaders.

  14. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    3 Jul, 2014 - 11:17 pm

    Saledin hailed from Tikrit like Saddam but their methods differed. Can there be a leader who is both courageous AND sagacious in the morass of the ME?

  15. ‘I supported self-determination for the Kurdish people long before the Western attacks on Iraq and I still do so now. That is support for a Kurdistan uniting the Kurdish lands of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Western Iran.’

    The unification of all Kurdish lands is probably a non starter given the geopolitical quandaries it is likely to throw up; there is also the issue of the various Kurdish dialects being mutually unintelligible with each other. An independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq however is a real possibility given that state’s near implosion, but whether the Neocon wet dream materialises depends to a large extent on the reaction of Turkey to this likely development. If they can come to an understanding with the new state, and continue bridge building with their own Turkish minority, the odds on it not becoming ‘a pro-American little state’ would lengthen.

  16. I mean of course ‘Kurdish minority’ in the comment above !

  17. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    4 Jul, 2014 - 2:10 am

    BTW; I believe T.E. Lawrence derived his philosophy directly from Saledin’s behaviors, not just pontifications. Just to be clear.

  18. Is that what you believe Ben yeah?

    And were you there?

    Pray tell more….??

  19. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    4 Jul, 2014 - 2:33 am

    Read up, Jives. It’ll be quite a new experience.

  20. Re:Lord Richards, ex General Chief of Staff.

    From Medialens

    Syria conflict: UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels 2 years ago!
    Posted by richard27 on July 3, 2014, 11:13 pm

    The fact that the UK planned this outrage is surely illegal and a conspiracy to overthrow a legitimate foreign government. The chief author of the conspiracy General Sir David Richards should be arrested alongside those who told him to produce it. How can the government get away with this? It proves what snakes there are within the establishment and secret circles. The same monsters behind Iraq, Libya, Bosnia and Ukraine

    “The UK drew up plans to train and equip a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army to defeat President Bashar al-Assad, BBC Newsnight can reveal.

    The secret initiative, put forward two years ago, was the brainchild of the then most senior UK military officer, General Sir David Richards.

    It was considered by the PM and the National Security Council, as well as US officials, but was deemed too risky.

    The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.

    Lord Richards, as he is now, believed his proposal could stem the civilian bloodshed in Syria as rebels fought troops loyal to Mr Assad.

    The idea was considered by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, and sent to the National Security Council, Whitehall sources said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28148943

    Unbelievable BBC spin ” Richards believed his proposal could stem the civilian bloodshed…”

    Posted by SueC on July 3, 2014, 11:55 pm, in reply to “Syria conflict: UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels 2 years ago!”

    Yeah, right. Just a good ‘ole humanitarian. And the BBC does not even pretend to challenge this absurd notion. Our elites are totally out of control – how do you stop these people?

    ~~~~

    My previous comment about him when he was warning of terror coming out of Afghanistan.
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/06/lord-byron-terrorist/#comment-462864

    I found out after that he has a des res at Kensington Palace. Presumably a perk for services rendered – ie warmongering for an evil empire. Anyway a nice neighbour for Wills and Kate and Baby George.

  21. “Once established I expect to see Kurdistan in short order kick out the Americans and declare support for the Palestinians.”
    - Incredibly naive Craig. USUKZ axis would plant their puppets in government. How on earth could you possibly think otherwise???

  22. It is a good idea for Kurds to have their own homeland. Unfortunately, as you say, all countries out of which a Kurdistan could be created are against it, so it’s unlikely to happen.

  23. If you chop and swap the Mid East again, to do a new Sykes Picot. No one will benefit. Not the Kurds, not the people who are not Kurds living in Kurdish areas, not the people who are Kurds living in non-Kurdish areas. A lot of people who call themselves Kurds can’t even speak Kurdish. A lot of the ones in Turkey can only speak Turkish and many in Iraq can only speak Arabic. Many in Turkey have Turkish ancestry and or are married to Turks, and the same applies to Iraq and Iran.

    The Neocons support the creation of a Kurdishstan because nothing gives them more wet dreams than the thought of all the bloodshed its creation will cause.

    The PKK and independence is not the be all and end all of what Kurds want.
    And if a united Kurdishstan is what they want, the best way to get it is to unite the countries where Kurdishstan exists. That way no one will be expelled or transferred. An Islamic EU, or how I would call it, the New Khilafah or the reversal of Sykes-Picot.

  24. Are Paxman and co getting paid to say this (turn our lights off) out of Cameron’s £55m war chest for WW1 ‘commemorations’?

    Paxman set to mark WW1 centenary
    Jeremy Paxman is leading a host of celebrities in marking World War I’s centenary. http://home.bt.com/news/uknews/paxman-set-to-mark-ww1-centenary-11363916981386

    Memo to Cameron and Paxman. Get lost. We do not need reminding of the horror of that war, the war to end to all wars. It is yet more covert propaganda for militarisation. I prefer to listen to Harry Patch’s view of it.

  25. Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    4 Jul, 2014 - 9:42 am

    The Neocons support the creation of a Kurdishstan because nothing gives them more wet dreams than the thought of all the bloodshed its creation will cause.

    I don’t think so. What the neocons want, and it may be a sensible thing to want, is a stable state with which they can deal, sitting on some extremely valuable oilfields. Also, the Israelis (and hence the neocons) are deeply appreciative of anyone prepared to stir it with Iran – this was actively supported in and following 2003, not only by the Israelis but by the US. More recently, any opposition to the ISIS offensive, which the Kurds are able and willing to provide, is worth supporting. But Arsalan is IMO right with the rest.

    Kurdistan is where Kurds live. It’s not in any sense an historical entity-state. The boundaries of what is considered – even by Kurds – Kurdistan have often changed, and half its heartland is in the state least likely to take Kurdish national aspirations seriously – Turkey. (Kurds have been a pain in the arse there since Rome had it – their main source of income was robbing travellers, then). Assuming any kind of resolution to the current bloodshed in the region is possible, highly devolved elected district administrations might be capable of meeting the concerns of both non-Kurds in predominantly Kurdish areas, and vice versa, under the aegis of a unitary Iraq. Otherwise, the almost-state the Kurds have been encouraged since 1998 to build in Iraq should be formalised.

  26. A free Baluchistan? A free Kurdistan? Jeez you know what’s best for everyone.

    I say butt out. We should not be pontificating about redrawing maps the other side of the world. It seems the arrogance of empire persists in the minds of 21st century social democrats.

  27. Arsalan

    That is simply not true. The vast majority of Kurds speak Kurdish, despite attempts to ban or discourage the language.

    I must say I find the argument that it is “colonialist” to support nations fighting the colonial imposed boundaries ludicrous.

  28. ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    4 Jul, 2014 - 11:17 am

    I say butt out. We should not be pontificating about redrawing maps the other side of the world. It seems the arrogance of empire persists in the minds of 21st century social democrats.

    There is much in what you say. OTOH, we are seeing the map redrawing itself across the Mid East right now, and I’m not sanguine that this will result in anything more stable and less bloody than it has before -under us, the Ottomans, the Seljuks (with caveats) the Persians, the Romans, the Greeks or the Assyrians. Are you?

  29. Craig
    Only if you define Kurds as people who speak the Kurdish Language.

    Any other definition and then what you say is wrong. Over the last hundred years populations moved to the cities. It wasn’t all populations but the Kurds. It was people moved. Some one of Kurdish ancestry born in Istanbul or Tehran is very unlikely to speak Kurdish. About as unlikely as an American with German ancestry to speak German.

    And Mr Craig I am sure the Mr Sykes and Mr Picot said the same when they carved Syria and Iraq out the map the way they did?
    divide and conquer is what colonialism is all about, even when they claim they are supporting the creation of new nations.
    Removing colonialist boundaries is to remove the boundaries created by Sykes Picot. It isn’t to create a bunch of new boundaries and all the blood shed and displacement that comes with it.

  30. Craig
    “I must say I find the argument that it is “colonialist” to support nations fighting the colonial imposed boundaries ludicrous.”

    Of course you do. That is because you know what is best for other people. Even those on the other side of the world. The truth is all disputes have winners and losers. All you are doing is making a choice.

    The Kurds are not an homogenous people. No people are. Who the f**k are you to claim to understand the complexity of those societies. To pass judgement about what should happen. All you know is a small spectrum of opinion, almost certainly from the mouths of powerful Kurds. You absolutely do not understand the situation. You just think you do. And what about all the other peoples involved. Do you know everything about them to? No , Craig, your arrogance is the ludicrous thing here.

    That a problem was created by this country is all the more reason for us to stfu. We shouldn’t be building aircraft carriers and we shouldn’t be blogging our judgements over arguments we cannot fully understand. It’s all comes from the same imperialist mind set (no matter how nice and non-imperialist you say you are). Are you listening to Kurdish opinion about Scottish Independence? Of course not.

    Stop being so imperialistic. Stop redrawing maps around the globe. Admit you do not know it all. It’s well past time to stop interfering. Time to stfu.

    Most importantly, you waste your energies. If we really want to help other people, if we really want to help the environment, the dolphins, the whole effing caboodle the best thing, by a million miles, we can do is focus on bringing down the corrupt governments of Europe.

  31. Let us not forget, like Palestine and Syria, Kurd land was fragmented by the British and French colonialists after WW I.

    Netanyahu, Peres and Lieberman don’t support an independent Kurdistan because they love Kurds, as there are over 50,000 Kurd Jews living as second-class citizens in Israel. They want Iraqi Kurdistan to be independent so Israel can use KRG as launching pad to destabilize Syria, Turkey and Iran through Kurdish minorities in those countries.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/07/02/peres-israelis-love-kurdistan/

  32. I think a lot of people here including Craig and people who disagree with Craig have forgot one fact.
    There is a difference between what the Neocons and Israel say they want and what they really want.

    The NeoCons say they want an independent Kurdistan that they can use as puppet state. That it will be stable and peaceful and most importantly. It would be very very secular, western and Zionist.

    They say they want the above. And people often believe they actually want it. They just assume that the neocons cant see such a thing is impossible. And attempt it will result in huge civil wars that will destablise the middle east.

    What I am saying is the Neocons and Israel can see just what we see.
    They know what we know. They can pradict what we predict.
    They know attempting it it will cause civil wars and destruction just as we know it.
    Just as they knew the invasion of Iraq will cause the mess that is there now.
    They said different, but they knew the facts as as we know the facts.

    The difference between us and them, is they wanted the mess that is in Iraq now. They new the invasion will cause what it caused. They just saw the mess as a good thing.
    Just as they believe the mess that would be caused at an attempt to redraw maps is a good thing.

    Divide and Rule, work in when the British did it in India. And it works now when Israel and the NeoCons do it in the Middle East.

    When all those brown people fight each other in Iraq and Syria, they can’t fight Israel.
    If the fighting spreads to Turkey and Iran even better for the NeoCons and Israel.
    And if it spills over in to America and the UK. What does Israel care?
    It is the Job of the UK and America to protect Israel not the other way.
    And as far as the NeoCons are concerned. Not terrorist on America or the UK are not such a big deal. Their all their loyalty is with Israel, even if they pretend to have a dual loyalty. It isn’t America and Israel they serve. It is only Israel.

  33. Arsalan

    You credit the establishments with way too much puppet mastery abilities. And you are arse over tit with Israel which is just another outpost of empire not the dog.

  34. Resident Dissident

    4 Jul, 2014 - 9:56 pm

    Phil

    “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing” I think another appeaser got there first.

  35. An aspect worth looking at is at what point in time and history did these areas largely peopled by Kurds become part of Turkey proper, rather than additions acquired as part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire’s expansion. In 1917, in WW1 Turkey, on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary but by then thinking only of itself, was still ‘enemy’ and the taking of Turkish controlled and occupied Palestine from Turkish forces was promoted by some to be a massive undertaking requiring up to a million troops, who began being withdrawn from the frontline in France as the mud-months approached. This weakening of the allied forces in the west was underway as Russia’s November ’17 Bolshevik revolution overthrew the previous revolutionary regime of earlier in the year and seen the massacre of the Czar and family, and Russia exiting the war, freeing many Germans who could move from the defunct eastern lines to the west and who now became assertive and had an advantage in France, before the novelty of fresh American troops, dauntingly ‘green’, cheerful, motivated and equipped, could arrive, and Allied troops preparing to or moving to Palestine could be turned around and become operational again.

    As in the end the taking of Palestine was less of a battle and more of a triumphalist procession, as far from massing for a slog of a fight, the Turkish forces more or less withdrew, whilst the allied position in France had been made more precarious and the slaughter there re-intensified. In that sense Palestine then was as much a part of Turkey as the Kurdish areas of Turkey are today, both outposts of the long-vanished Turkish Empire, some being severed whole such as Palestine, Jordan and another: Kurdistan (Land of the Kurds), soon after losing chunks to the newly-fashioned Syria and Iraq.

    It is possible if the Bolshevik Revolution hadn’t happened and Russia had continued fighting Germany, sufficient allied troops would have made it to Palestine, spared from France, for the Allied forces – in the end at a loose end as Palestine fell before a pea-shooter – to chase the Turks even out of the Kurdish areas of modern-day Turkey, probably with Kurdish help, which would have given Sykes and Picot a far larger canvas, a real fear which could explain Turkey’s desire to concede the peculiar allied designs on Palestine, an allied obsession which had calamitous side-effects in France and could have cost and lost them the entire war. Turkey fortuitously ending their war against the allies before their ‘home’ turf, particularly the Kurdish areas, became the battleground.

    A Kurdistan now or not is a tough call, no clear right and wrong positions emerge, but self-determination and self identity are clear inalienable rights, though if there is merely an ethnic basis for forming an independent political entity, that is out of favour, counter to the unstoppable tide of human history and is infinitely problematic as chaos, not good order, is the goal of almost every powerful outsider recommending it.

  36. Resident Dissident

    5 Jul, 2014 - 8:28 am

    Tony M

    That last para made me think of this

    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

    My enemy’s friend is my enemy is what I think you were trying to say. Perhaps you might wish to explain what exactly in which direction the “unstoppable tide of human history” is going as normal tides go backwards and forwards, and leaving aside the impact of global warming tend to end up in exactly the same place.

  37. About whether it is colonialist / right or wrong to involve yourself in struggles to unpick Picot Sykes: there is much I don’t know about and before I read James Barr’s eye opening A Line in the Sand when it came out in 2011 I didn’t know anything about Picot Sykes and the incredible story of how it came about). I either didn’t know about it because there is much I don’t know about it or because it was a conveniently forgotten detail. I thought hang on this is great here is an establishment produced book (during the research the author was a visiting fellow at St Antony’s) which displays some of our warts. I like the book in the same way as Norman Davies’s work – it says wake up and look at this. However, since I read it I begin to hear more and more all the time about the need to unpick Picot Sykes, its even easily discussed on the Today programme – I can’t but conclude there has been a bit of an agenda for a while.

    In any event if you do create artificial boundaries and then try to change them 98 years later you have obviously got a lot more there than the unpicking of a stitch. Is there anyone competent to do that?

  38. Phil

    I don’t believe Israel is an outpost of Empire. Instead I believe Israel claims to be an outpost of empire.
    Israel Pretends to be an outpost of Empire and the Zionist supporters of Israel use this lie to get people in Europe and America to support Israel.

    I don’t believe like some Anti Semites that Israel is a puppet Master able to control everything in the rest of the world. Again I believe Israel pretends it has this ability to scare its enemies.

    But many supporters of Israel have a lot of Power in Europe and America. And these people do not have duel loyalty as they pretend to do. All of their loyalty is to Israel.
    These are the chearleaders for war.
    All that matters in anything they call for is “Is it good for Israel”.
    These people pretended that the invasion of Iraq would be good for America and the UK. They pretended it was about stealing oil. But the UK and America made no money from the invasion. Oil costs more to steal than it does to buy. This wasn’t a misscalculation by the neocons. It just wasn’t that much of an issue. What they were after was the destruction of Iraq, because that was good for Israel.
    attempting to create a Kurdishstan by chopping bits of half a dozen countries will not result in what they pretend to believe it will result in. But that does not matter, the wars and instability it causes will be good for Israel. And that is all that matters to them.

  39. Have you come across Oded Yinon Arsalan?

  40. Gilad Atzmon on Heidegger, Pappe, History, and Concealment

    July 5th, 2014

    /..
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/07/heidegger-pappe-history-and-concealment/

  41. Yes Resident Dissident, that is the same essay that was obliquely pointed out to you (not by me) when you hit us with your “defecating all over the memories of our descendants who fought tooth and nail blah blah blah [...]“. I’m quite surprised you’ve linked that as I don’t see its relevance to my last paragraph above, or to anything much and I’m surprised too that you would bring it up as you couldn’t have looked more foolish last time it had an outing. Admitting the possibility that English is your second language and you have no first, perhaps it stung a little, that was the intention as your comments have an air not of dissidence, but of fearful compliance, of internalised media stenographer orthodoxy, in which facts are malleable inconveniences, just repeating the super-abundant disinformation that lies all around, already discarded discredited waste and noise and from which you select your tawdry wares and try sell it back to us tainted and used.

    The analogy is not the subject, I’ll leave you to your marine charts, tide as some irresistible action is the clear intent, what matters is the increasing contact and interface, interaction between diverse peoples, in peaceful constructive, creative ways, which is something only fools or madmen could ever hope to arrest or stop, but they keep trying all the same.

  42. Resident Dissident

    5 Jul, 2014 - 9:23 pm

    Tony M

    You clearly missed the points about pretentious diction and verbal false limbs. My crime against the English language of confusing ancestors and descendants appears relatively minor set against yours of multiple adjectives and of not knowing when to end a sentence.

    You have still not answered the question about in which direction the unstoppable tide is flowing. Or at least not in words that a normal Englishman could understand.

  43. Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    6 Jul, 2014 - 12:54 am

    RD; Your chastisement of those who fail to address the salient point in question is like Blair disrespecting Khaddafi for pandering to his vested interests.

    Really. Your image in the mirror must elude you.

  44. Mel Gibson, Gilad Atzmon and Czech Jewish Lobby

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/07/06/czech-jews-against-mel-gibson/

  45. Resident Dissident

    6 Jul, 2014 - 8:07 am

    Ben

    I am accused of many things but hiding my views on any subject is not usually one of them.

  46. Well, if the Kurds do go for independence, they’re going to be on very short commons. I finally saw the figures for oil revenue yesterday. The KRG was receiving $540 million a month as their share of national oil revenue, principally from southern Iraqi fields. So far they have managed to sell a total of $54 million worth of oil through the pipeline through Turkey.

    All that prosperity the Kurds show off in Erbil is going to disappear in a puff of smoke. I too am in favour of Kurdish independence, but we’re going to have another basket-case economy. That’s why the Kurds spend their time talking up the new supposed oil-fields. It is unlikely that they are enough to compensate for the lost revenue from Baghdad.

  47. Kyrgyzstan Needs Unity

    by Sufyan bin Uzayr / July 5th, 2014

    Recently, Kyrgyzstan commemorated the fourth anniversary of the violence that shook its southern part back in 2010. Back then, over 100,000 Uzbeks had to leave Kyrgyzstan and seek refuge in Uzbekistan in the aftermath of the riots.

    It all started as a simple brawl between groups of Kyrgyz and Uzbek youngsters in a casino in the city of Osh. Shortly thereafter, it took the form of a full-fledged ethnic violence. A lot many issues were highlighted by the incidents of 2010: Kyrgyzstan’s ever-subtle struggle for power and resources between the elites of Bishkek and their southern counterparts from Osh and Jalalabad, and the acute economic inequality between different communities, especially in the southern region of the country.

    Going Back to 2010

    April 2010 witnessed a revolution in Kyrgyzstan that eventually led to the elimination of the then President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Since Bakiyev was a southerner, the Kyrgyz elites of the north saw this as an opportunity to re-establish their control over the country, and for that matter, they sought and gained support from the Uzbek community too.

    /..
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/07/kyrgyzstan-needs-unity/

    ~~~~

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almazbek_Atambayev
    Atambayev has repeatedly presented himself as a pro-Russian politician. He has announced Kyrgyzstan’s entry into the Customs Union, promised to secure the withdrawal of the American base from the country in 2014, and spoken of the need for closer economic relations with Russia, which temporarily employs about 500,000 citizens of Kyrgyzstan.;[21] however, he also expressed his wish to achieve greater economic and energy independence from it.[22]

    In early 2012 Atambayev travelled to Moscow, where in his meeting with Medvedev he called http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/07/most-effective-agents-of-oligarchs/for the $15 million owed by Russia to Kyrgyzstan for their use of the Kant airbase.

    ~~~~~
    Kyrgyz president attacks UK for ‘hosting a guy who robbed us’
    by Maxton Walker – 14 Jul 2013 – President Almazbek Atambayev demands return of Maxim Bakiyev, son of former leader, for allegedly stealing millions.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/kyrgyzstan-president-atambayev-maxim-bakiyev

  48. Mary, I never heard of
    Oded Yinon
    But have heard of Greater Israel.
    What ever you call it, I believe it is more a Zionists Fantasy than an objective they are working towards.
    Why?
    Most Zionists are atheists. They don’t believe in a single word of their religious scriptures. They know their so called history is all made up even though they don’t like to admit it.

    Yes they would love to control naughbering countries. But, for them why stop at naughbering? They try to control what they are able to, whether naughbering or very far away.

    Israel is not able to control Gaza and the West Bank in the way they would like. They do not have the people to spread any further. They are not able to get enough Jews to have a Jewish majority in the land which they have now. That is why they want to declare Gaza and parts of the West Bank with large numbers of Palestinians are an independent state, completely controled by Israel but with none of the rights.

    I don’t believe Israel does what it does to expand.
    I believe it does it to survive.
    For Israel to survive the Arabs must die.
    Israel needs war to survive. It needs threats to its existance. It needs antisemitism.
    Why?
    How else can ISrael Get JEws to move in, and not leave unless they can scare Jews with Antisemitism. That is why the same people that support ISrael are the ones supporting Nazi groups.
    If the Arab world was unified and didn’t face civil wars, they could turn their guns on Israel. Israel knows this, so supports what ever will result in wars between Arab/Muslim countries and civil wars within them.
    Israel needs Arab countries to threaten ISrael. So a Zionist middle east is not what they really want even though they say they do. If there was peace in the middle east one day their will be civil war in Israel in the next.
    Why?
    There is nothing holding Israel togeather except the threat. ISrael is full of people who have nothing in common. Athesists and Religious extremists. PEople from many different countries. Communists, fascists and capitalists. The only thing stopping them from killing each other is the need to kill Arabs. And even with the need to kill Arabs and the fear of being killed by them, they bearly manage to avoid violnce between themselves crossing the line to civil war.

  49. Arsalan
    “All that matters in anything they call for is “Is it good for Israel”.”

    So what was the “their” priority before 1948?

    By lending Israel special significance you are buying into another illusion fostered to create more division and to divert you away from more complex realities.

    Israel is just another nasty, oppressive country.

  50. Phil
    That statement refers to the NeoCons.

    Yes there are other nasty people working for other empires.

    But for the NeoCons Israel is all that matters.
    It matters more to them than their idiology.
    That is why they are Neo.
    Many of them used to be socialists and even hard core communists.
    Well at least they used to pretend to be, just as they pretend to be capitalists now.
    They will pretend to be anything, so long as it is good for Israel.

    What I am saying is nasty people are not made of just one united camp.
    They have many camps.
    The Zionists pretend to be part of other peoples groups, to get others to help them.
    Such as the Oil stealing camp. But afterwards, what the people who help Israel find is they get nothing back for all they do for Israel.
    And Israel and its supporters do not care, as long as it was good for Israel.

    There is no honour between thieves as far as Israel is concerned. They will get other thieves to help them. But wont lift a finger to help others.

  51. Arsalan

    Over riding self interest is not unique to Israel. Nor deception. Not lack of honour.

  52. True.

    My point was Israel is not an American outpost. They just pretend to be.

  53. OK I see. Sorry I was unclear in my post by what I meant by “empire”.

    I do use it loosely because I am happy with some ambiguity. However, I do not mean America. I do not mean to imply it is any one state or homogenous entity at all. I call it the empire because it is easily preceded by “evil” and resonates to the Star Wars generation and Scientist dub fans. :)

    It could be the security/military/industrial/government complex or corporate states or western banking mafiosas but really it is all of these and more. Probably best described as capitalism.

  54. I can also see that Israel hams up it’s subservience to the US. Clearly things are not that simple.

    However, I do hold that US support for Israel, and thus Israel, would end tomorrow if Israel did not serve to divide the region so the capitalists can control and make money from resources.

  55. My point is the US Israel relationship is not a symbiotic one where both benefit. It is a peracetic one where only Israel benefits.
    Israel likes to disguise it as a symbiotic one. But that is a lie.

    Yes Israel will end if America didn’t fill it with money.
    But that is the same as a flea dying when it can’t suck blood from a dog.

  56. One day Israel realised the cost of buying a tank is more than the price of bying a congressman. And when you buy a congressman you can get as many tanks as you like for free, when he approves millitry aid. You can also get many times as much as you paid for him, in the form of other aid.

  57. @Ben-LA PACQUTE LO ES TODO

    Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi was a Kurd, while Saddam Hussein was an Arab. Salahuddin fought against the western imperialism, while Saddam fought 8-year US-Israeli war against Islamic Republic.

    Ben do you know that Israel’s Museum of Tolerance is built over the graves of some of Arabs who fought under Gen. Tariq and Ayubi to liberate Jews from Christian slavery?

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/15/museum-of-tolerance-over-graves-of-jew-liberators/

  58. @Arsalan

    The Oded Yinon Plan aka “Arab Spring” – translated by late professor Israel Shahak.

    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

  59. “I expect to see Kurdistan in short order kick out the Americans and declare support for the Palestinians.”

    An interesting prediction. Israel has been helping the Kurds for years. The oil exported from Kurdish areas of Iraq is shipped to Israel. In those circumstances, I wouldn’t bet on the second part of the prediction.

  60. Israel will demand oil from the Kurds. They will claim they will support them in their independence. But as soon as Kurdishtan gets in the way of making a few pennies, Israel will dump the Kurds and their Kurdishtan.

    Zionists have no honour.

    Israel pretends to be the lesser evil. As a means of us seeing it for what it is. It pretends to be colonialists. But it is far worse because colonialists ruled others. While Israel slaughters and expels. They pretend to be apartheid. But they are not. Aparthied South Africa wanted Blacks to live as second class citizens while Israel doesn’t really give Palestinians the right to live.
    The only nation you can compare Israel to is Nazi Germany.
    But even then Israel compares unfavorably to Nazi Germany because Hitler abolished the reichstag. While the Zionists of ISrael vote for every evil act ISrael does.

  61. it’s really amazing how you all ppl, many of you don’t even live in that region, discuss what is right and what is wrong for the ppl who actually happen to live in those lands. why don’t we just give every ethnic group in the world a piece of land, preferably the lands that were taken from them. perhaps the european americans can start giving back the lands they stole from the native americans to show a goodwill and an example?! oh, you find this absurd? but it is totally making sense to you to take lands from iran, turkey, syria and iraq and give it to the kurdish people? yeah, right.
    smart ppl know that this is all artificial and an agenda to dominate this region. simple and sad as that. i hope it blows in their hands just like crimea did. all in all, in the end it is always those ppl in living there in those lands pay for it in blood.

  62. The Kurds have land in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Each and every Kurd in those countries have full citizenship and all the rights enjoyed by Non-Kurds. Kurds are not Palestinians without passports. Kurds do not loss the right of return if they ever go on vacation outside of their villages.
    Lets not pretend that Kurds live under Zionism where someone from another continent can come over and take his home in which is family has lived for generations.

    We should work for the rights of Kurds in the countries in which they live. Instead of carving out a country out of many countries where Kurds will be able to take the rights away from others.

  63. An interesting comment by Robert Fisk.

    ‘So, that’s what Isis has been up to

    While the Iraqi army supposedly fights back against Isis, it’s worth remembering that the cities at either end of the Islamists’ new self-proclaimed caliphate – Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq – have historic links which precede the post-First World War Anglo-French Mandates that divided them with a Syrian-Iraqi frontier. I’m indebted to a short but enlightening monograph by John McHugo (chair of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine) which points out that “in 1919-20… the separation of Iraq from Greater Syria was still only a division between occupation zones. Aleppo had stronger links and greater fellow feeling with Mosul than with Damascus.”

    Both, says McHugo, were cosmopolitan, merchant cities “which had been trading partners for hundreds of years, if not for millennia, along the Silk Road, and there was no natural frontier between them.” ‘

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38955.htm

  64. Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    8 Jul, 2014 - 1:45 pm

    Arsalan, while taking on board all you say, and agreeing with much of it, should Kurds have rights to the oil around Erbil, or should they (in the teeth of history) come to an agreement with the artificial entity of Iraq? Seems to me that a liberal democracy permitting equal rights to all is pretty far off as far as Iraq is concerned, while the semi-autonomous Kurds are a bit closer to that ideal.

    I agree, this does not address the position of Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Where what you said makes sense, given tolerance from the State concerned and a willingness to accept the State on the part of the Kurds. Neither of which can be taken for granted.

  65. Oil in any land belongs to the people who of that land.

    To say it belongs to the Kurds(Including Kurds that live in the Pakistan and Russia), and not Arabs and Turks that live in Erbil borders on Zionism.

    And no one including the Kurdish Nationalists would say its ownership ends with the boundery of the oilfields.

    The key issue is, the borders of the country.
    Should it be kept as what Sykes Picot drew after WW1?
    Or how the Zionists and colonialists and Zionists would prefer, a further chop up of the middle East resulting in even smaller petty nations that fight more wars over their tiny borders?
    Or what I am calling for, a reversal of Sykes Picot.
    Not a new colonialism with new borders and a new set of wars caused by them.
    But a return to what was there before.
    A return to the Khilafah. And the oil will belong to all the people within it, Kurds, Turks Arabs and Persians.

    When it comes to Turkey, Syria and Iraq reuniting, and whether Kurdishstan should exists as a single unit within it with control over the oil there. I don’t really have an opinion on the issue as long as all citizens have equal rights to the wealth of the land what ever they label themselves as.

  66. Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    8 Jul, 2014 - 3:29 pm

    To say it belongs to the Kurds(Including Kurds that live in the Pakistan and Russia), and not Arabs and Turks that live in Erbil borders on Zionism.

    Indeed it does, and I hope you don’t think that’s what I’m saying. But to clarify, let’s say “the citizens of a hypothetical state in the predominantly Kurdish area of Iraq”. Which would seem at least possible.

    The key issue is, the borders of the country.
    Should it be kept as what Sykes Picot drew after WW1?
    Or how the Zionists and colonialists and Zionists would prefer, a further chop up of the middle East resulting in even smaller petty nations that fight more wars over their tiny borders?

    What Sykes-Picot did was to establish some autocratic rulers over bits of the Ottoman Empire. This worked, sometimes, because the rulers were at least from the local majority. Jordan and Saudi survived, for instance, and the Gulf states are still governed by the descendants of local tribal leaders. When the autocrats failed to hang on, there was and is trouble. I don’t see retaining the territorial divisions that work as altogether a bad thing. Or colonialism, necessarily.

    You say, small rival states are a recipe for conflict: true (though I don’t think the little Gulf states are violent to each other). So is a large and unwieldy central administration failing to balance its policy – an extremely hard thing to accomplish – between diverse and historically opposed regions. And a Sunni caliphate would always have to contend with its Shi’a citizens, more especially since the West has been enlarging the division as hard as it can since 2001. ‘Religious’ idiots are always with us (and see Northern Ireland).

  67. Ba'al Zevul (Chimp Assassin)

    8 Jul, 2014 - 3:32 pm

    Or as colonialism, I should have said. Though as to colonialism, the periods the region or a good part of it was peaceful and reasonably law-abiding were, arguably, under the Roman and Ottoman Empires…

  68. You will get conflict if you had a Sunni Khilafah or a Shia Khilafah.

    I similar type of conflict that results from the race based states you have now.

    When you have a state dedicated to one people, and not the other people that share that state you will have conflict.

    The way to resolve this is the state belonging to its citizens, Shia, Sunni, Muslim and non-Muslim. And the sate not favoring one ethnicity over another, and never interfering in personal acts of worship.

    People only mind when they disagree with a law that interferes with their personal lives, issues which the state has no business interfering with.
    When it comes to state issues, such as taxes and expenditures. People are willing to tolerate things even if they would have preferred to do things differently as long as justice is served. Even if that justice is influenced by another school of Islamic law.

    Jordan and Saudi Arabia survive due to the guns of the rulers. The Saudi family didn’t take power by the consent of the people. They took power by killing, and keep power by killing. The Ruling family of Jordan took power by the British killing and installing them in power and supplying them with what ever they need to stay in power when ever the people of Jordan attempt to remove them.
    These two countries are ruled by two families. Not by the consent of the people.
    And the same thing applies to all the other Arab countries.

  69. Ba'al Zevul (With Gaza)

    9 Jul, 2014 - 9:24 am

    The way to resolve this is the state belonging to its citizens, Shia, Sunni, Muslim and non-Muslim. And the sate not favoring one ethnicity over another, and never interfering in personal acts of worship.

    Big ask, Arsalan. Would you say the UK belongs to its citizens? I mean, I’m all in favour of that as a solution, but it was you who wanted A return to the Khilafah. (above), and the obvious difficulty with that is that it presupposes that one or the other major branch of Islam, probably the Sunnis, will be making the laws. Which would not be a good idea in Iraq, where there is a lot of bad history and a Shi’a majority. I, as a pessimist, think your ideal is unrealisable: that tribalism would trump democracy, and everyone would be back where they started, with strongmen like the Sauds in charge.

    What the Middle East needs to do IMHO is rapidly to become a lot more cynical about religion. When religion is less central to existence, states can concentrate on real issues, and I think this is maybe what happened in the West over the last century or two. While it doesn’t guarantee peace, it at least removes a frequent and poisonous cause of war.

  70. Khilafah will be more acceptable to the Shia population than the American impossed system Iraq has now. Or the Bathists system that proceded it or the British Impossed Monarchy that proceded it.

    People are more inclined to tolerate rules influenced by a different branch of Islam than rules that ignore Islam. As long as the state does not dictate on how they should practice their individual acts of worship.
    But that is the key issue here. There isn’t really a difference between the shia interpretation on how to run a state or the Sunni. We do keep our hands in different places during the standing position of prayer. But when it comes to how to run a country there isn’t really more of a difference between schools of Islamic thought as there is within them.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos