The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Nels, Yep. Here a little and easily extendable synopsis of additional material (including items I posted earlier on CASI). Best Andreas --------------------- 1) Study: close genetic connection between Jews, Kurds 2a) BREAK UP IRAQ NOW! 2b) Letters: DIVIDE AND CONQUER - A WISE RECIPE FOR IRAQ 3) Turkey responds to activities of Jewish backed Kurdish Credit Bank with Ziraat Bank 4) Three Iraqs, not one --------------------------------------- 1) http://www.kerkuk-kurdistan.com/nuceyek.asp?ser=4&cep=1&nnimre=2857 Study: close genetic "con"nection between Jews, Kurds Published: 2003-09-20 14:36 Study finds close genetic connection between Jews, Kurds By Tamara Traubman Source: www.haaretz.com ----------------------- [ISRAEL, 20/9 2003] - The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Professor Ariella Oppenheim and Dr. Marina Feirman, who carried out the research at the Hebrew University, said they were surprised to find a closer genetic connection between the Jews and the populations of the fertile crescent than between the Jews and their Arab neighbors. Oppenheim pointed out that previous research of DNA of Jews, including her own work, had revealed great genetic similarity between Jews and Arabs, particularly Palestinians from Israel and the territories. The present study, however, involved more detailed and thorough examinations than previous research. In addition, this was the first comparison of the DNA of Jews and Kurds. Genetic similarity between peoples is measured by comparing the frequency of genetic mutations among them. This information makes it possible to reconstruct their paths of migration and to discover their unwritten history. The present study, however, reveals only part of the story, since it is based on mutations of the Y chromosome. Since this chromosome, which determines male gender, is passed only from father to son, it does not contain information about the mothers' contributions to the genetic reservoir under study. The study's findings are published in the current issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics. The researchers used the DNA of 1,847 Jewish men of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Kurdish descent; Muslims and Christians of Kurdish, Turkish and Armenian descent; various Arab populations; and Russians, Poles and residents of Belarus. ----------------- 2a) http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/169.htm BREAK UP IRAQ NOW! By RALPH PETERS July 10, 2003 -- PRESIDENT Bush consistently has done the right thing by ignoring the nay- sayers before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet he's in danger of making the same mistake his father did at the end of Desert Storm - doing only half the job. Just as the failure to press on to Baghdad in 1991 left Iraq and the entire region with cancerous problems, today's failure to recognize the artificial, unjust nature of the Iraqi state promises enduring discontent. Will American troops need to return to Iraq a third time, in another decade? Speaking of Iraq as a single, integrated country is a form of lying. Its borders were drawn by grasping European diplomats almost a century ago, with no regard for the wishes - or rivalries - of the local populations. Today, the Iraq we're trying to herd back together consists of three distinct nations caged under a single, bloodstained flag. Our problems are with only one of those nations, the Sunni Arab minority west and north of Baghdad. Favored by the British, the Sunni Arabs took power at Iraq's formation and maintained it through massacre, torture and imprisonment. Saddam Hussein was the ultimate expression of Sunni Arab tyranny over Iraq's Kurds and Shi'ites. By holding Iraq together with U.S. troops, we merely encourage the Sunni Arabs - who remain hostile to our presence, whose extremists attack our soldiers and who still intend to recapture control of the entire country. We are punishing our friends, rewarding our enemies and alienating the neutral. President Bush needs to perform radical surgery on Iraq now, while the world remains in a funk over our success. We still have a window through which we can thrust major reforms. But the window is closing. Defending the status quo is deadly folly. The break-up of Iraq should proceed in two stages. First, we should provisionally divide the country into a federation of three states, giving the Sunni Arabs one last chance to embrace reform. * One state would encompass the Shi'ite region in the south, encompassing all of the southern oil fields. * The second would be an expanded Kurdistan, including historically Kurdish Kirkuk and Mosul, as well as Iraq's northern oil fields. * The third would be a rump Sunni Arab state sandwiched between the other two. * Baghdad would become an autonomous district. Stop worrying about Shi'ite extremism. If we mean what we say about democracy, the Shi'ites should be free to choose whomever they want as their leaders - even fundamentalists. Although the odds of theocratic rule emerging or enduring in southern Iraq are lower than the media imply, the Shi'ites, who long have been oppressed and persecuted, should be free to determine their own future. Democracy means letting people make their own mistakes. We've made a few ourselves. The only thing upon which we should insist is strict supervision to ensure an honest vote. We must, however, make it clear to Iran that meddling will not be tolerated. As this column consistently points out, the Kurds deserve freedom and a state of their own. After the Jews and Armenians, they have been the most persecuted ethnic group of the last hundred years, always denied an independent homeland, shot, gassed, driven from their homes - and even victimized for the use of their native dialects. The world's willingness to look away from the long tragedy of the Kurdish people is inexcusable. And consider how strategically helpful a Kurdish state, reliant on U.S. military guarantees, might be. If the Kurdish people agreed to host our forces, we could abandon our bases in Turkey, the use of which has been restricted almost to worthlessness. New airbases amid a welcoming population would be quite a change in the region. Even the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs would be on notice. And what about Turkey? Our "long-time ally"? I have no personal grudge against Turkey. On the contrary, I've visited the country many times and even took my wife there on our honeymoon. Istanbul remains one of my favorite cities. I've argued for years that Turkey was a vital ally. But times change. Turkish treachery on the eve of our recent war cannot be overlooked. Startled by the swiftness of our victory, the Turks immediately assured us that it was all a minor misunderstanding, that Turkey wished to remain the best of friends. Yet Turkey is again becoming the "sick man of Europe," plagued by ineradicable corruption, growing Islamic radicalism and a self-destructive military. The result of our renewed friendship? Last week, U.S. forces had to break up a secret Turkish military operation in northern Iraq, arresting a dozen of Ankara's special operations troops. The Turkish mission? To assassinate the senior Kurdish leader in Kirkuk. His crime? Cooperating with the Americans. The Turkish chief of staff, Gen. Ozkok, threw a public tantrum, insisting that we had created a grave crisis by busting his assassins. Sorry, pal. You created the crisis. And you just blew any chance you and your government had of rebuilding bridges to Washington that will bear any real weight. The Turkish military's scheme to undercut our occupation underscores the need for the Bush administration to stop thinking small when it comes to nation-building. Instead of just changing the oil in the old jalopy, it's time for a fleet of new cars. An independent Kurdistan should roll off the assembly line first. The second stage of the division of Iraq would kick in if the Sunni Arabs still refuse to cooperate: We would declare the interim Iraqi Federation dissolved, creating three fully independent states in its place, with the Kurdish and Shi'ite states meeting along the Iranian border to guarantee the Kurds a corridor to the sea for their oil, gas and trade. Then leave the Sunni Arabs to rot. Oh, and there just might be a third step down the road, too. We should not miss any opportunity to support the longing for freedom of the tens of millions of Kurds held hostage behind European-imposed borders in Turkey, Syria and Iran. For Americans serious about human rights and freedom, Greater Kurdistan must be a long-range goal. Military operations alone cannot change the Middle East. The European legacy of phony borders must be demolished, starting in Iraq. Don't betray our troops again by leaving the job unfinished to please our enemies. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World." ----------------- 2b) http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/37752.htm DIVIDE AND CONQUER - A WISE RECIPE FOR IRAQ July 12, 2003 -- Full marks to Ralph Peters ("Break up Iraq now!" Opinion, July 10) for his honesty, courage and objectivity - and boldly upholding true American values. His recognition of Kurdistan's strategic geopolitical importance and the Kurds' time-honored loyalty to friends is no less commendable. It would be sad if President Bush's place in history were to be tarnished by his neglect of the Kurds due to irrational reverence for the errors of the past and his undeserved loyalty to tyrannical and phony "friends" like the Turkish generals. Eziz Bawermend Sydney, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trying to hold together coalitions of feuding people who hate each other is not a recipe for success. Democratic values must be fostered before they can trump religious and ethnic allegiances. Turkey should be justly rewarded for its treachery. What it feared most - an independent Kurdistan - is what it deserves. John Erickson Henderson, Nev. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, someone has said what I've been waiting to hear since the fall of Baghdad. The problems of the Middle East are in no small part the result of the breakup of the colonial empires of Europe after World War I and can only be resolved by recognizing the mistakes made at that time. President Bush has an historic opportunity and, I hope, the resolve to act. Jeffery Kempf Auburn, Alaska ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Peters' column about the breakup of Iraq is scary. The same argument could be made for America. We could partition Texas, New Mexico and California for the Hispanic population. The freed slaves could take over the Deep South. Indian reservations could be a new independent nation. America does have the same problems as Turkey and Iraq. We always seem to be able to work them out. David Bebb Palm Springs, Calif. ----------------------- 3) http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/for.htm#f7 Turkey responds to activities of Jewish backed Kurdish Credit Bank with Ziraat Bank Turkey responds to activities of Jewish backed Kurdish Credit Bank with Ziraat Bank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISTANBUL - The Turkish government will take precautions against an increase in banking activities and the purchase of land in northern Iraq. The Turkish government plans to respond to activities of "Kurdish Credit Bank" which grants loans to Kurdish people to purchase land belonging to the Arab and Turkmen people in northern Iraq, by opening a branch of the Turkish state-owned Ziraat Bank in the region. The Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITC) Ankara Representative Ahmet Muratli said that they have discovered that Israel was behind these banking activities in the region. He said he immediately informed the Turkish government about these activities several months ago and as a result they persuaded state-owned Ziraat Bank to become active in the region. Muratli said that northern Iraq has great importance in terms of both potential commercial and strategic importance and they applied to the Turkish Foreign Ministry and Turkish Treasury to establish a branch of the Turkish owned bank. Muratli said, "Everyone wants Ziraat Bank or another Turkish bank in the region. Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen businessmen personally conveyed their demands to Turkish officials in Ankara." 'Purchasing land in Mosul is encouraged' Iraq is an oil rich region and has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Northern Iraq produces approximately 70 percent of all Iraqi's oil reserves. The Kurdish Credit Bank has subsequently caused worries among the Turkmen and Arab people. Muratli said the Kurdish Credit Bank is centered in the city of Suleymaniya in northern Iraq and the Bank was established through the assistance of Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Party. Muratli said they discovered after exhaustive research that Israel was behind the creation of the Kurdish Credit Bank. Muratli said, "Kurdish groups at first wanted to seize the homes and property of Turkmen and Arab people, who form a majority in the Mosul and Kerkuk regions, by force. When the Kurdish groups were not successful in their efforts, they wanted to purchase these homes and property by paying for it. When we talked with Arab tribes, they said that Jewish Kurds and Israelis began to purchase property. The Jewish Kurds and Jewish Arabs, who have obtained long term and interest-free loans from the Kurdish Credit Bank, began to purchase property, which was allegedly their property in the past. We are following the developments very closely." Investment-Development Banking needs specialization and Kurds are not specialized in this area Experts on the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Middle East said that Kurdish groups, who do not have experience in banking, are certainly assisted by some unidentified groups. A former Department Head at the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT), Mahir Kaynak said, "It is certainly necessary for Kurds in northern Iraq to receive asistance from foreign countries. It is necessary to establish a bank in the region in order to carry out daily banking transactions and Turkey must act urgently in this field." Kaynak said that investment-development banks have a wide experience in this field and Kurdish groups can establish such a bank with the help of Jewish businessmen, who are very powerful in world financial markets. The General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Ziraat Bank, Can Akin Caglar said they were researching the new banking laws of the Iraqi Interim Governing Council very closely. He said Ziraat Bank has been continuing discussions with Iraqi officials to open a branch in Iraq as a private bank. Caglar said, "We will determine in time which path we will follow. We continue to be interested in this country and I hope that we have positive results." Cihan News Agency ------------------- 4) http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1706 Three Iraqs, not one 23 October 2003 Daily Times [Pakistan] By Shlomo Avineri Saddam's regime was merely the most extreme manifestation of the harshunderlying fact that Iraq's geography and demography condemned it to rule bythe iron fist. Nor has Saddam's fall changed this fact America's mounting difficulties in setting up a coherent form ofgovernment in Iraq, let alone a democratic one, inspire a question that moststatesmen consider unthinkable: is it possible that there is no way tore-constitute Iraq as one state, and that alternative options must beconsidered, unpalatable as they may appear? Like so many problems in the re-birth of states wounded bydictatorship - Eastern Europe is a good example - Iraq's difficulties havedeep historical roots. To blame everything on the heavy-handedness of theAmericans is too simplistic and shallow, even if their mistakes have,indeed, been legion. Iraq was established in the 1920s by the British, who occupied theregion after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated at the end of WWI. Theirpolicies were dictated by British imperial interests, and gave noconsideration to the wishes, interests, or characteristics of the localpopulation. What British imperial planners did was to stitch together threedisparate provinces of the old Ottoman Empire and put at their head a princefrom Hijaz (now a part of Saudi Arabia). The three provinces - Mosul,Baghdad, and Basra - each had very distinct characters and very differentpopulation structures. Mosul had a Kurdish majority, with significant Assyrian-Christian andTurkoman minorities; Baghdad was mainly Sunni; and Basra was predominantlyShi'ite. Throwing such disparate groups into one body politic doomed thenewly invented country to decades of strife and repression. The old Ottoman Empire ruled these three provinces - as it ruled allof its imperial possessions - through its historically autocratic means. Thechallenge facing the new Iraqi state was to try to create a non-despotic,relatively representative form of government in which all sectors of thepopulation would find an expression of their political will. This turned outto be an impossible mission. For this reason Iraq - even before SaddamHussein - always suffered the most repressive regime of any Arab state. In a country where Shi'ites form the majority, the Sunnis -traditionally the hegemonic group in all Arab countries - were totallyunwilling to allow any democratic process to jeopardize their rule. A Shi'ite insurrection was brutally put down in the 1920s (with the help of theBritish Royal Air Force). Similarly, Kurdish attempts at autonomy before WWII were drowned inbloody massacres of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and even theAssyrian Christian minority - a relatively small group, with no politicalambitions - was exposed to murderous assaults in the 1930s. Under these conditions, with the Sunni ruling minority constantlyfeeling threatened, it was no accident that the only attempt in any Arabcountry to establish something like a pro-Nazi fascist regime occurred inIraq in the early 1940's under Rashid Ali al-Khailani. The Britishsuppressed this misadventure, but not before hundreds of Jews in Baghdadwere murdered in a wild farhood (pogrom) instigated by the short-livedpro-Nazi government. Saddam's regime was merely the most extreme manifestation of the harshunderlying fact that Iraq's geography and demography condemned it to rule bythe iron fist. Nor has Saddam's fall changed this fact: anti-US violence isnot only an expression of anger at foreign occupation; it is also a Sunniattempt to abort the establishment of a democratic order that would putthem - the historical masters - in a subordinate position. Similarly, one cannot see the Kurds in the north submitting willinglyto a Baghdad-dominated Arab regime, let alone a Shi'ite one (most Kurds areSunnis). There is little understanding in the West of how deep the Sunni/Shi'ite divide runs. Put yourself in pre-1648 Europe, a time when Protestantsand Catholics slaughtered each other with abandon, and you'll understand theenmity immediately. So what can be done? Yugoslavia's example shows that in multi-ethnicand multi-religious countries deeply riven by conflict, partition andseparation may be the only way to ensure stability and democratisation.There is no doubt today that Croatia and Serbia - despite theirdifficulties - stand a better chance of becoming more or less stabledemocracies than if they were still fighting for mastery among themselveswithin the Procrustean bed of the former Yugoslavia. Nor is federation an alternative - as the terms of the federationitself become the bones of contention (see Bosnia or Cyprus). Even thepacific Czechs and Slovaks found it easier to develop their respectivedemocratic structures through a velvet divorce rather than be joined in anunworkable marriage. The time has come to think the unthinkable, about creating a Kurdishstate in the north, an Arab Sunni one in the centre around Baghdad, and anArab Shi'ite state in the south around Basra. Repeating mantras aboutterritorial integrity - the conventional wisdom of international relations -is productive only as long as it ensures stability and averts chaos. Again,as Yugoslavia - and the Soviet Union - showed, once strife replacesstability, territorial integrity loses its strategic meaning and legitimacy. This is not a universal prescription for ethnically homogenous states.The point is simply that there are moments in history when democratisationand nation building coincide, and that in deeply divided societies theminimum consensus needed for both to succeed simultaneously is difficult toachieve. All this may run contrary to conventional wisdom, but who thoughtthat the USSR would disintegrate? Creative and innovative thinking is neededabout Iraq; otherwise today's mayhem will continue - and worsen. - Shlomo Avineri is Professor of Political Science at the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem. ----- Original Message ----- From: "nels bacon" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "as-ilas" <email@example.com>; "casi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [casi] The New York Times: a proposal for ethnic cleansing in Iraq Partitioning Iraq - as proposed by Gelb in the NY Times article posted below- was described in Israel's Hebrew press over a decade ago asa primary goal of the Israeli government. I wondered at the time how long it would take for an influential American Israel Supporter to "propose" it in the US national media. The partitioning plan was partially implemented by the US immediately after their first Gulf War when they established the illegal "No Fly Zones" over Iraq on the pretense that they were to protect the Kurds in the North and the Sunnis in the South from Saddam Hussein. nels _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk