Ties That Blind........

[Ali Asker]

Ties That Blind

by Vera Beaudin Saeedpour, Director of Research

Turkey's repressive Kurdish policy represents the antithesis of values
Jews espouse. Yet the state of Israel has not only kept silent on
Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, it has been in the forefront of
promoting Turkey's image and Turkey's interests abroad. Prominent
members of the Jewish community in the United States have worked to
undermine recognition of thc Armenian genocide as well. In 1992 Jews
and Turks held celebrations to mark 500 years of Turkish "tolerance."
Why is this so? In large part because Jews equate their survival with
that of Israel, a fragile state in a precarious part of the world. And
this value takes precedence over the historical concern of Jews with
ethical issues.

In this Israel is not alone. All nations are pre-occupied with
strengthening their economies, enhancing their power, and assuring
their survival at the expense of loftier values to which they tend to
pay lip service when there is need to justify or obscure policies.
Stateless people such as the Kurds are natural flotsam in the
interplay of geopolitics, gaining attention and significance, or
relegated to obscurity in almost direct proportion to their utility in
furthering, or at least in not threatening the agendas of existing
states. Such helps to explain why supporters of Israel have long been
promoting the cause of the Iraqi Kurds while ignoring and suppressing
the fact of Kurdish repression in Turkey.

History to Live Up To
Remember Bitburg? TheJewish communitywas outragedwith President Reagan
for agreeing to visit the graves of German soldiers. Elie Wiesel said,
"That place, Mr. President, is not your place. Your place is with the
victims of the SS..." Wiesel went on to talk of what he had learned in
the past fortyyears: "I learned that in extreme situations when human
lives and dignity are at stake, neutrality is a sin...Jews were killed
by the enemy, but betrayed by their so-called Allies who found
political reasons to justify their indifference or passivity...I have
learned the danger of indifference, the crime of indifference."
(Congressional Record, Vol. 131 No. 47, 4.22.85)

When Czech president, Vadav Havel, visited Kurt Waldheim in Austria,
New York Times pundit A. H. Rosenthal mounted the moral high ground to
remind him that "Now and then even a philosopher-hero should take
account of the emotions and values of the people who do remember
yesterday and its lessons."(NYT 9.29.90)

In 1990 when the U.S. moved to condemn Israel's response to the
Palestinian uprising, Jewish groups charged that the U.S. betrayed
Israel and "its own honor." Rabbi MarcAngel, president of the
Rabbinical Council of America called "American complicity in this
hypocrisy...alarming." And he asked, ''Will oil and terrorism become
the arbiters of justice in the world?" (NYT 10.11.90)

It is no accident that Rabbi Angel alluded to justice. For not love,
but justice is the foundation of Jewish ethics. Justice demands equal
application of the same standard one invokes to assess the acts of
one's friends and one's adversaries. If not, such lofty declamations
are relegated to the moral ash heap. Yet, to keep on Turkey's good
side, supporters of Israel have become accomplices in denying the
Armenian genocide. To stay in Turkey's good graces, Jews have remained
silent on Turkey's repression of more than 15 million Kurds, over half
the Kurds in the Middlc East, even as supporters of Israel court Kurds
in Iraq.

Menachem Rosensaft, chairman of the International Network of Children
of Jewish Holocaust survivors had this to say about the responsibility
of Jews, "We must take our place at the forefront of the struggle
against racial hatred and oppression of any kind, and to accept the
heavy responsibility inherent in our unique id.entity." (NY Post
5.28.88) But he also askedJews to "identify unambiguously with
Israel." And therein lies the dilemma.

History to Live Down
Look at a few highlights of Turkey's history. The Ottoman forebears of
the modern Turks swooped down from outer Mongolia to conquer the
Middle East up to the borders of the Persian Empire and to occupy a
vast domain populated by Christians and Muslims. Details of the
conquests still live in dusty stacks in our nation's libraries, though
they remain an enigma to most Americans who still have trouble
locating that part of the world on the map. And what a dismal history
it is.

The Janissaries, crack troops of the Ottoman Sultan, were Christian
boys forcibly taken from their mothers before they reached the age of
eight and raised as Muslims and defenders of the Empire. As men they
were turned loose to murder those who gave them life. History holds
other times when Christian mothers wept. For instance, on September
18,1824, nearlytwo centuries ago, the Salem Observer informed
Massachusetts readers of "the cruelties of the Turks. On entering
Melenia, they put to the sword all the Christians above eight years of
age, and at Pergamos, they massacred in thirty eight hours, ten
thousand Christians." The New York Times of October 11,1917 noted that
before the first crusade, the Arabs had never persecuted Christian
pilgrims to Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, "But the Seljukian Turks
changed all that when they occupied all Syria and the Holy Land in the
eleventh century. They persecuted Arab, Jew and Christian pilgrim
alike." And all their women wept.

Five years later, American Consul to Smyrna, George Horton penned
these unhappy words: "I have often been impressed with the
hopelessness of making people who have not been eye-witnesses,
comprehend the dreadful character of the massacres which are carried
on by the Turks against the Christian population of the Orient...One
of the keenest impressions which I brought away with me from Smyrna
was a feeling of shame that I belonged to the human race...the Turks
were glutting freely their racial and religious lust for slaughter,
rape and plunder within a stone's throw of the Allied and American
battle-ships because they had been systematically led to believe that
they would not be interfered with...And this, the presence of those
battle-ships in Smyrna harbor, in the year of our Lord 1922,
impotently watching the last great scene in the tragedy of the
Christians of Turkey, was the saddest and most significant feature of
the whole picture...Christians were abandoned as no Christian power
desired to offend the Turk, from whom great benefits were
expected...It is a curious fact that the Turk is still able to deceive
Europeans, despite long observation of his tactics..." (Report on
Turkey, USA Consular Documents)

Never mind the historical record. The record of Turkey in this century
alone is rife with massacres, atrocities and repression. Ask any
Armenian, Alevi Arab or Kurd. Yet, in 1986 after the massacre of Jews
in the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey's Permanent
Representative to the United Nations had no qualms about defending his
country's "historical record of religious tolerance and non
discrimination." This at a time when the total suppression of Kurds in
the country had reached its sixty first year and counting. "...all
Turkish citizens are under the protection of the state irrespective of
their religion, language, race and color," he proclaimed. As Jewish
women wept . (NYT 9.10.86)

Of millions of Christians who fell under Ottoman dominion, Christians
of all kinds number less than 0.5% of Turkey's population today. Of
the more than 200,000 Jews in the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the
century, barely 20,000 remained to witness the synagogue massacre in
1986. Even less now. And for more than sixty years after the genocide
of Armenians it has been the Kurds' turn to be assimilated - or else.
And still Kurdish women weep. The argument that the Turk of today is
not the Turk of yesterday is a subterfuge. Turkey has yet to
acknowledge the Armenian genocide. As this is written, the decimation
of Kurds is still underway in a country that is nowhere near the
secular democracy that Ankara and its allies claim.

"Jews who were admitted into the Ottoman Empire bySultan Bayazid 11
are of the opinion that claims of genocide in Jvrkey are ties. " David
Asseo, Istanbul's Chief Rabbi

Relations between Israel and Turkey
Jews were undcrstandablygrateful to Ottoman Turks whogave them refuge
when they fled the Spanish Inquisition in 1492. Not that the Turks
were motivated by altruism. Time and again history records that Jews
were allowed into countries to finance a ruler's misadventures. Denied
land ownership, they served as craftsmen and money-lenders. When the
time for repayment came, more often than not theywere expelled.
Understandably Jews were appreciative when the non-Arab government of
Turkey officially recognized Israel's statehood in 1948. But they were
less pleased when Turkey reacted to Israel's incorporation of East
Jerusalem evicting the Israeli ambassador to Ankara and lowering
diplomatic exchanges between the two countries to the level of second
secretaries. However, as they looked to polish their image and further
their economic interests in the U.S. it wasn't long before the Turks
concluded that the Jewish lobby and Jewish media influence could be of
great use. Israel's supporters acquiesced, eager as they always are to
find a friend of any ilk in an otherwise unfriendly Middle East,
especially a friend blessed by the United States.

George Gruen, the American Jewish Committee's Director of Middle East
Affairs explained Turke's motives in an interview that appeared in the
Jewish Exponent: "Ankara believes that good relations with Israel are
helpful in building support for Turkey in the United States...Not
onlycan it argue that the U.S. should look favorably on Turkey since,
with the exception of Egypt, it is the only Middle Eastern state which
has relations with Israel, but Ankara also can use its relations with
Israel as a lever both with Israel and with the 'Jewish lobby' to
enlist their help in obtaining support for Turkey. ("Turkey's Jews:
Taking the pulse of a community" JE 6.30.89)

If the past decade is any indication, when the government of Turkey
speaks, the government of Israel listens. In the Spring of 1982 when
Jews scheduled an International Conference on Genocide in Tel Aviv,
they invited Armenians to participate. Ankara protested. The Israeli
Government moved swiftly to get organizers to cancel insisting that
the conference as planned would threaten "the humanitarian interest of
Jews." The New York Tmes explained what "humanitarian interest" meant.
Organizers were told by Israeli officials that Turkey meant to sever
diplomatic relations and had threatened "the lives and livelihood of
the 18,000 Jews" in the country.(NYT 6.3.82 and 6.4.82)

To drive home the message, Ankara even sent a delegation of Jews from
Istanbul who warned that they could be in jeopardy if the conference
included Armenians. Chairman Elie Wlesel was first quoted as saying,
"I will not discriminate against the Armenians, I will not hurniliate
them." Later, citing threats to the lives of Jews in Turkeyn he
resigned.

Publicity surrounding the controversy brought pressure on the Israeli
government from other Jews responding to an even higher authority. The
conference went ahead as planned, with a handful of attendees and
Armenian participants.(NYT 6.16.82) Turkey's Foreign Ministry
spokesman Nazem Akiman expressed satisfaction with Israel's decision
to keep govern- ment officials from attending. HWe are not against the
con- ference in Tel Aviv but oppose any linkage of the Holocaust to
the Armenian allegations of genocide," he told the press.(NYT 6.5.82)

When Israeli forces entered Lebanon, Israel's relationship with Turkey
soured. Ankara deplored the move and urged that they "end their
aggression." (NYT 6.8.82) Israeli diplomats managed however, to
placate Ankara by making available in- telligence obtained in Lebanon
on the Armenian group ASALA. But the two countries continued with only
minimal diplomatic ties and did not exchange of ficial visits until
the Fall of 1984 when Turkish MP's were again dispatched to Jerusalem.
In Ankara there was outrage among Muslim Turks sympathetic to
Palestinians. (Greek American 1.31.87) But pragmatism won out over
internal opposition. Wlth a com- bination of pressure on Turkey's tiny
Jewish community and threats to close the border to Jews fleeing Iran,
the Turks managed to get the ear of Jews in the United States, in par-
ticular the powerful American Jewish Congress. Turkey's President Ozal
met with AJC leaders (Foreign Minister Vahit Halefoglu met secretly
with Meir Rosenne, Israel's Ambas- sador to the U.S.) to request that
they use their influence with Congress to increase foreign aid and
decrease attention to things Armenian. (Israeli Foreign Affairs, 6.85.
Reprinted in Azbarez 9.28.85)

Members of Turkey's Jewish community were also recruited to promote
its public relations agenda. In 1985 when a UCLA professor of Armenian
history spoke at a meeting of the Los Angeles Jewish Federation
Council, the organizers received a cable of protest from Istanbul's
Chief Rabbi. To make sure they got the message Ambassador Sukru
Elekdag launched his own protest with the World Jewish Congress in New
York. When California Appeals Court Justice Arabian made a speech on
the Armenian genocide, Turkish diplomats telephoned a protest to
officials of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League.

Murray Wood, the Federation Council's Director of Com- munity
Relations explained the dilemma: HJewish leaders say they feel
whipsawed by Turkish pressure because of Turkey's long record of
tolerance towardJews. Turkeyis the onlyIslamic nation besides Egypt
with diplomatic relations with Israel. We don't want to jeopardize
that. The Turkish government has also extended humanitarian aid to
Jews from Iran, North Africa and the Soviet Union. But Wood went
further to describe what he saw as an implied threat behind the
messages from Turkish officials and Turkish Jews. "The message: play
down the Ar- menian genocide or risk Turkey closing its borders with
Iran, across which several thousand Jews have fled from the Ayatol-
lah. Also Jewish recognition of the Armenian genocide could lead to
poorer treatment of Jews in Turkey." (Azbarez 2.2.85; 2.9.85)

Major Jewish organizations chose not to expose Turkey's blackmail.
Instcad they continued to deploy expertise and in- fluence to make
lirkey look good. And they maintained the silence on Kurdish
repression in Turkey. The irony? What Turkey has been doing to the
Kurds for decades, which is noth- ing but "ethnic cleansing,"
parallels the religious cleansing that threatened and took the lives
of Jews over the centuries.

Turkey's Jewish Lobby
In 1986 a 13-member delegation from the American Jewish Congress
visited Ankara, ostensibly on the invitation of Istanbul's Chief
Rabbi. On their return, AJC president and delegation leader Theodore
Mann prepared a letter (August 15,1986) that fell into the hands of
Armenians sparkingamajor controversy. Affirming the strength of
Israel-Turkey ties, Mann explained the reasons for the group's visit:
"The US. Congress, pressured as it is by Greek Americans, and by
Armenian Americans as well, who claim that their ancestors were
victims of a holocaust in 1915 at the hands of the Turks, has not been
as appreciative of Turkers geopolitical importance as it shouid be.
Turkeyrs leadership shares what is becoming the conven- tionalviewthat
AmericanJews are extremelypowerful. (I need hardly note that such
extravagant notions of Jewish power give me great concern.) Our
invitation was one step by which the Turkish government hopes to begin
to impact upon American public opinion...Turkegs leadership is deeply
concerned that its reputation in the human rights field has been
wrongly tar- nished, and that this impacts negatively on European and
American political figures, diminishing its chances of accep- tance in
the European Economic Community and of increased American aid...That
is probably why the Turkish Minister of State with whom we met
committed to us, in the presence of the leadership of the Jewish
Community and of the American Am- bassador to Turkey, that Turkey
would undertake a major celebration in 1992 of the 500th anniversary
of the humane reception accorded by the Otttoman Empire to the Jews
ex- pelled from Spain and Portugal at the height of the Inquisition.
This is regarded as a matter of considerable importance to the Turkish
Jewish community and, indeed, could become an event of considerable
importance in the Jewish world generally. We advised the Minister of
State that the American Jewish Con- gress... would certainly advise
the Jewish community throughout the United States and, to the extent
possible, the general community of the substantial improvement in
human rights within Turkey over the past few years, of the secure life
that Turkish Jews continue to live, of the improving relation ships
between Turkey and Israel, and of the importance that we place in a
strong and durable relationship between the United States and Turkey."

Here's the text that caused the controversy with the Armcnians: "For
the same reason - their concern that Turkey's human rights reputation
has been wrongly tarnished - Armenian allegations of a holocaust are a
matter of the greatest sensitivity to the Turks. You may be interested
in reading a major statement on the subject by a number of eminent
historians and scholars..But even though so many serious scholars cast
doubt on the allegations, I will not comment, even in this personal
letter, about the merits of the Armenian charge. It is not for the
American Jewish community to deny someone else's claim to a
holocaust...In the weeks ahead, we will be considering what further
steps might be taken to enhance the relationships between the United
States and Turkey, and between Turkey and Israel."

"what ever happened between the Turks and Armenians is not our
business " member of the Istanbul Jewis coommunity

The Armenian National Committee called the Mann letter "a whitewash of
Turkey's role in the Genocide." Phil Baum, AJC's Associate Director
insisted that the letter was private. But the flurry of protests by
concerned Congressmen and other public figures prompted an apology
from Mann. "There is not room for doubt on the massacre of
unimaginable magnitude that was one of this century's great
tragedies," he wrote. (Azbarez 11.86)

Ironically, a year later, when Pope Paul II allowed Austrian President
Kurt Waldheim a Vatican audience, the American Jewish Congress bought
a full page in the New York Tims to publicly condemn his lack of
"sensitivity" to Jewish feelings. The AJC stressed that "the most
sacred command of our generation is memory, not to forget how silence
became indifference, indifference became complicity, and finally
turned into a nightmare of slaughter...Kurt Waldheim represents the
antithesis of memory. He is the ultimate symbol of denial and
evasion." Nor was the leader of the Catholic faith spared the AJC's
moral sword: "How is one to explain so profound an insensitivity to
the meaning of the Holocaust, so painful a failure of the moral
imagination, by the custodian of the Catholic conscience...Isn't it
true that alongwith so much ofthe rest of the world, the official
churches were largely silent and abandoned the Jews to their agony?
And if the church, to which millions look for moral guidance, cannot
yet come to terms with its past, if it cannot respond to the demands
of sacred memory, what hope is there for others?" The letter was
signed by none other than Theodore R. Mann, President of the American
Jewish Congress. (NYT 6.26.87)

Barely three weeks after Mann wrote his controversial letter, 21 Jews
were massacred in an Istanbul synagogue, including 7 rabbis. Arab
terrorists were blamed. (NYT 9.7.86) But clearly there was much to
suggest that the perpetrators were not Arabs. Held three days later,
the funeral was attended by Inte rior Minister Akbulut. President
Ozal, Evren and the armed forces kept their distance and sent wreaths
instead. The Mufti of Istanbul was noticeably absent. The only
prominent Israeli present was Israel's Chief Rabbi. Ankara made it
clear that a cabinet minister would "not be welcome." (NYT 9.11.86) A
subsequent report on the reopening of the synagogue quoted the
congregation's president as saying, "I think the investigation is
probably closed without a solution." (NYT 5.21.87)

In 1988 President Ozal visited the U.S. and met with leaders of the
American Jewish Congress in New York. Months later, another AJC
delegation was dispatched to Istanbul. According to the Turkish
daily,Cumhunyet(2.18.89) they were scheduled to meet with Foreign
Minister Mesut Yilmaz, U.S. Ambassador Strauss-Hope, and U.S. Consul
T. Carolan for briefings on Turkish U.S. relations and the status of
Jews living in Turkey. Cumhunyet also reported that four members of
the delegation would meet with Yilmaz to discuss "the assistance of
the Jewish lobby in getting Turkey known in the U.S." George Gruen,
whom the paper described as the group's "Middle East expert" led the
delegation. When asked whether the "Jewish Lobbywould join Tirkey
against Greek and Armenian lobbies in the U.S., he replied, "I want to
make it clear that we are not a lobby firm. We have been established
to protect the rights of the Jewish community in the U.S...We cannot
take the side of Greece, Turkey or the Armenians. But if Ozal or
Yilmaz ask, we will do whatever we can to help Turkey. In the end the
defense of the Turkish thesis rests with Turkey, not with us."
(Cumhuriyet, 2.13.92) But in 1991 at the height of the Gulf crisis,
George Gruen masked his affiliation with the American Je vish
Committee to write in support of Turkey's claim to northern Iraq. (NY
Newsday 1.21.91).

As the delegates met with the Turks, the appointment of Morris
Abramowitz as U.S. Ambassador to llurkey was confirmed. Cumhumyet
announced that "The American Jewish lobby, having learned of the
status of Ibrkish Jews and the certainty of the appointment of
Abramowitz, who is of Jewish origin, as Ambassador to Ankara, left
Turkeyyesterday morning in good spirits." (Cumhuriyet 2.15.89) Calling
Abramowitz "a strong supporter of Israel," Milliyet noted that he
would be the third Jewish diplomat in Turkey in addition to Israel's
representative and France's Ambassador Eric Rouleau and assured
readers that his appointment would "strengthen the Jewish lobby" and
convey Turkey's "real difficulties to Washington. (Milliyet, 2.16.89)

In subsequent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Ambassador Abramowitz actually split with President Bush on the issue
of the genocide. Asked about Turkey's denial, he answered that it was
"unclear whether or not a genocide took place." He also conveyed the
"deep resentment" on the part of the Turkish Government regarding the
issue and suggested that for these reasons "it should be left to
historians." (Azbarez 6.17.89)

Steven Solarz, "Congressman from Istanbul"

Other prominent Jews have been engaged in promoting Turkey's
interests. One is former Democratic House member Steven Solarz of
Brooklyn, called by the Turkish press a "proTurkish Congressman."
(Hurriyet 12.9.85) This wasn't always the case. As a freshman in
Congress Solarz actually co-introduced Res. 269 to designate April 24,
1975 as a "Day of Remembrance of Man's inhumanity to Man" and Res. 148
to commemorate victims of genocide, both induding the Armenians. When
a year later he authored legislation requiring the National Institute
of Education to develop a genocide curriculum, he recommended the
Holocaust and the Genocide for inclusion. In a letter to an Armenian
organization in 1982, Solarz said, "I have no personal doubt, and
indeed have said on many public occasions that the slaughter of a
million or more Armenians by the Turks was one of the most unjust and
unconscionable events of human history, and I certainly join you in
deploring it." (1982 letter to an Armenian-American organization)

Then like the weather, Solarz turned around. Reportedly he was
informed by letter from the Jewish community in Turkey that refusal to
cooperate could jeopardize their wellbeing. In a subsequent statement
on a resolution introduced in 1985 Solarz justified his change of
heart in this way "One of the problems with this resolution is that it
asserts what happened to the Armenians was a genocide when the fact
that it was a genocide is itself in dispute...There is no evidence
that I am aware of which demonstrates that the Ottomans were trying to
exterminate all Armenians." (Congressional Record 12.12.85)

With the passing of time, his opposition increased. In a letter
designed to obtain financial support from Turkish physicians (June
1988) the Congressman wrote, "For over a decade in the U.S. Congress
I've worked hard to advance the interests of the Turkish people...to
ensure a significant and substantial foreign aid program for Turkey
abroad and to expand the rights of Turkish Americans here at home."
Armenians charged that he had "sold out for a $60,000 contribution to
his war chest from Turks." "Why can't I support the people who support
my work?" he countered. (Brooklyn Paper 3.8.89)

Through the Revolving Door- Richard Perle

When Ross Perrot entered the national political arena, one of his
first criticisms was that too often people in government service
parlay insider knowledge and experience into lucrative jobs as
advisors or lobbyists for foreign interests. Former U.S. Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle is a caseinpoint.

Foreign governments with active and powerful constituencies in the
United States tend to deal directly with representatives on Capitol
Hill and have their own methods of disseminating information to
support their agendas. On the other hand, Turkey relies on lobbyists
with connections and influence in the administration to sell their
case to Congress. In 1984, the Washington Times reported that Turkey
was paying$300,000 to Gray and Co., a Washington based firm with ties
to the Reagan Administration and influential Democrats. At that time
Frank Mankiewicz, former head of National Public Radio and Gray Hymel,
former aide to House Speaker Tip O'Neil were Ankara's chief lobbyists.
(Azbarez 6.84) Prior to the establishment of Perle's lobbying firm,
Turkey engaged Hill & Knowlton to oversee public relations in the U.S.
In 1989 they also recruited the British firm of Saatchi & Saatchi, a
company of Iraqi Jews, to polish their image and promote membership in
the EEC. (Armenian Reporter 6.23.89)

In 1989, the Turkish press reported that Richard Perle was under
investigation for his "behind the scenes" agreement with Turkey and
stood accused of "lobbying for a foreign country without registering
with the Justice Department. Cumhurryet claimed that the agreement had
been undertaken by President Ozal without approval from the Foreign
Ministry. Reportedly Perle would receive $875,000 for his services.
The paper quoted him as saying, "I'll be a consultant. I'll run the
works. By running it behind the scenes, I can be more useful for
Turkey." International Advisors (LAI), as the firm would be called,
includes Douglas Feith, Mark Feldman and Michael Mobbs, men with
former White House, Defense and State Department jobs. In the
agreement Perle's name did not appear. (Cumhuriyet 1.24.89)

Ufuk Guldemir, the paper's Washington correspondent, issued another
report claiming that a "warmer atmosphere" had developed after Perle
and his group met with Turkish officials in the U.S.. One target of
its efforts would be the conservative wing of the Congress, another to
strengthen Turkey's sales to the Defense Department. According to
Guldemir, Turkish of ficials were heartened by the "ability of this
team to influence the strong Jewish lobby in the United States."
(Cumhuriyet 1.25.89)

The Financial Times of London printed further details of the
Perle-Turkey deal. Feith, of the law firm of Feith and Zell, would be
the firm's chairman. (In 1982Feith resigned from his White House post
because of alleged involvement with Israel.) Papers signed by Sukru
Elekdag and Feith indicate that the "sole function" of the new company
would be "to serve the Turkish embassy in its lobbying operations in
the U.S." The paper called the fact that Turkey would be IAI's only
client "highly unusual." (FT 2.4.89)

When the Wall Street Joumal reported Turkish press claims that Perle
"sold the idea for the new company to Turgut ozal," Perle was vehement
in his denials. "I am not representing Turkey in any way whatsoever,"
he countered. "I find very distasteful this business where people
leave the government and the next thing you know, they're on the other
side of the table negotiating with the U.S." (WSJ 2.16.89)

Denials aside, this Milliyet report outlining his firm's work clearly
challenges his veracity: "Speaking of the firm he established to do
publicity, Perle described the spheres of activityin which IAI will be
involved: to encourage Americans, especially members of Congress, to
visit Turkey; to assure that even if aid to Turkey is not increased,
all Turkey's debt will be converted to grants; to end the 10-7 ratio
of military aid between Greece and Turkey; to pursue joint Turkish
American production and investments; on publicity, to fLx a general
strategy and plan; to influence American public opinion on Cyprus and
the Ar- menian question. (Milliyet 2.25.89)

TheFinancial Times called Perle's connections with the Israeli arms
industry "well known" and noted that he has encouraged "discrete
negotiations" between the Turkish military and Israeli companies. In
his Pentagon job Perle oversaw military policy and security assistance
to U.S. allies and championed in- creased aid for Turkey. (In 1988
Turkey received $623 million in U.S. military assistance, ranking it
third behind Israel which received $3 billion and Egypt $2 billion.)
One Senate official said that there will be tough resistance if Turkey
tries to in- crease textile exports to the United States. He
complained that American jobs are being lost in his state because of
"dumping" of Turkish textiles. American companies are also on the
alert and have said that if IAI tries to obtain U .S . military
technology for Turkish companies, they will go to Congress to fight to
keep their domestic and foreign markets from being undercut by the
Turks. (FT 2.20.89)

On March 10 Cumhunyet announced that Morris Amitay, former of ficer of
the America Israel Political Action Commit- tee (AIPAC), a powerful
lobby group in Washington, would join the Board of Advisors of Perle's
firm. (See Legal Emes 3.20.89)

Two months later the Turkish daily reported that IAI had passed its
"first test" by helping to defeat a proposal to maintain the 10-7
ratio of foreign aid as the standard on grants and FMS credits to
Greece and Turkey. The paper credited Perle's firm with the
defeat.(Cumhuriyet 4.21.89)

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that when Perle appears
on U.S. television or when he writes, he is identified simply as a
"former Assistant Secretary of Defense" with no reference whatever to
his 1irkey and Israel connections.

The Uses of Academe
The Turkish-Jewish alliance operates in other arenas as well. In 1987
an academic conference was convened at Brandeis University on May 10-
12,1987 on Jews in the Ottoman Empire . The gathering included a round
table discussion of plans to commemorate Turkish tolerance.

In 1988 Yeshiva University hosted another conference co- sponsored by
the B'nai Brith Anti Defamation League and the Federation of Turkish
American Societies on the topic of "Turks and Jews: 500 Years of
Shared History." The Turkish press made it quite clear that this
conference and other such activities were designed to recruit the
support of the so-called 'Jewish lobby." (Azbarez 3.12.88)

Even the Jewish Museum held a fundraising masked ball with the theme
'In the Court of the Sultan' to herald an exhibit on the Sephardic
Jews in the Ottoman Empire. (NYT 3.11.90)

The Price Israel Pays
Early in the century when Theodore Hertzl sought to secure land in
Palestine, he offered Sultan Abdul Hamid his influence with the
European press to dissipate the unfavorable image of the Ottomans vis
a vis the Armenian massacres. (Azbarez 8.1.87) If subsequent history
is any indication, the offer still stands. Even Jews who emigrated
from Turkey to Israel are recruited to counter Armenian claims. In
1987, they protested the introduction of the question of the Armenian
Genocide in the European Parliament's Political Commission and the
U.S.Congress. The Turkish-Jewish Association of Israel ad- dressed
letters of protest to both bodies insisting that "no minority in
Turkey is denied any and all rights enjoyed by all Turkish citizens."
(Cumhuriyet 4.22.87)

In 1987 Israel's Foreign Ministry pressured the Israel Broad- casting
Authority to censure a TV documentary with a segment on massacres of
Armenians. In 1990, the Authority banned the showing of the film
"Journey to Armenia" a documentary draw- ing heavily on the Armenian
genocide. The cancellation came as a result of Turkey's Chief Rabbi
and the Turkish Jews in Israel who said the screening aroused fears
among Jews living in Turkey and might harm Israel-Turkey relations.
(AzMarez 4.20.90)

Thanks to the efforts of LAPID, a Jewish movement focused on calling
attention to the lessons of the Holocaust, the film was premiered in
Jerusalem.(Armenian Weekly 7.21.90)

With the help of Jews abroad, the Israeli government downplays or
completely obscures any news that might cast a pall over relations
with Turkey. In 1987 when President Kenan Evren spoke to the Fifth ICO
Summit in Kuwait, he referred to his country's defense of the Islamic
cause and the Palestinian people who were deprived "of their
legitimate and inalienable rights." Not only did Evren reaffirm
Turkey's "profound spiritual ties with the Islamic countries and
peoples of the region" but he noted its role in preserving the Islamic
and Arabic identity of Jerusalem, and support for the Arabs and
Palestinians. "Turkey," he said, "is convinced that unless the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, who have for years been
crushed and subjected to injustice, are recognized, a just and lasting
peace cannot be achieved in the Middle East. Evren also recognized the
PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians condemning
Israel for "its attempts to change the demographic structure of the
occupied territories, and its policy of force. We use every
opportunity to denounce such actions on the part of Israel, " he said.
(Ankara Domestic Ser- vice, Turkish 1.27.87, Inter-Arab Affairs
2.3.87) Evren's words precipitated no reaction from Jewish journalists
in the U.S. Nor did they denounce Turkey for championing Palestinians
while oppressing Kurds.

Noting differingJewish perspectives on Israel-llurkeyrelations writer
Titos Leonidas explains that one camp sees Turkey as non-Arab Muslim
and therefore a bulwark against Arabs. Leonidas sees proponents of
this position as public of ficials in key administrative positions,
universities, think tanks and public relations. They wish to arm
Turkey and to justify its value. In the other camp are those who
remember their past and are reluctant to promote Turkey's position.
(National Jewish Daily2.23.87) Yohannan Ramati, a lecturer on interna-
tional affairs for the Israel Foreign Ministry, takes a different
view, arguing both Turkey's and Israel's importance in the fu- ture
configuration of the Gulf. "Turkey is threatened - political- ly,
economically, and military," he wrote. "The political danger is the
outgrowth of incitement and terror fanned from outside. It has two
sources: the Islamic revival and radical terrorism." (Midstream
June/July 1982) Ramati made no mention whatever of Turkey's internal
policy of repression of the Kurds. Nor could Ramati have foreseen that
ten years later Turkey would have been given hegemony over the Middle
East thus larvelv diminishing Israel's position.

In 1989 the long arm of the Israel government reached Capitol Hill
(October 23, 1989) to press influential American Jewish organizations
to lobby against a Senate resolution proclaiming a national day of
remembrance for victims of the Armenian 'genocide."'As a people which
was itself a victims of genocide, we feel natural sympathy for the
Armenians. But Israel wants to foster its relations with Turkey, which
it views with great importance," sources said, insisting that their
names and those of their organizations be withheld. According to the
New York Emes one major organization had actually prepared a release
supporting the resolution but it was killed at the last minute. (NYT
10.23.89)

Turkey's Jews
In the aftermath of the Istanbul synagogue massacre, a flurry of
articles on Turkey's Jews appeared. One Jewish businessman told the
Jewish Exponent, "Life is good for the Jews here." But like many of
those interviewed, he asked that his name be withheld. "The Turks may
not love us, but they leave us alone." he said.

The Exponent's Lisa Hostein noted a "gnawing sensation felt by an
American visitor that the Jews here are constantly retreating, hiding
or halting conversations that dwell on Jewish issues." This she terms
"a well-accepted fact of life for those who call Turkey home. From the
carpet doctor who covers his mezuzah to the husband who asked his wife
to lower her voice while discussing Jewish matters at a public
restaurant, being Jewish in Thrkey is strictly a private matter, an
observer soon learns." (JE 6.23.89)

Another member of the Istanbul community told her, "In Turkey you
can't be a Kurd and a good Turk. But we want to depict the image that
you can be a Jew and a good Turk. We can only do that by living with
certain conditions." On freedom of speech, a shopkeeper said, "We
aren't able to say everything we want, but then again, neither is
anyone in Turkey." Said another, "Turkey is a democracy on paper, but
the civil and individual rights are not the same as we know them in
the Western world."(Jewish Exponent 6.23.89)

According to New York Emes correspondent Marvine Howe, "While there
are nodiscriminatorylaws againstJewishcitizens, in practice they
cannot reach the top in administration, the professions or the armed
forces..." (NYT 9.7.86) But Henry Siegman, a member of the AJC
delegation who attended the funeral of Jews massacred in Istanbul,
spoke of the community as "prosperous and proud" of their origins and
insisted "that security and human rights had improved vastly in Turkey
in recent years..." (Jewish Exponent 6.30.89)

Relations between Turks and Jews are continually rationalized along
the lines of this New York Emes report, "Although it is surrounded by
Arab and Moslem states and 99 percent of its people are Moslems,
Turkey was one of the first states in the region to recognize
Israel... The Israeli flag flies openly over its consulate in Ankara,
the capital, and Turkey, whose 22,000 Jews have been relatively well
treated over the centuries, has open, but low-key commercial and
tourist exchanges with Is- rael. There are also important but
unpublicized forms of cooperation between the countries. Turkish and
Israeli police and intelligence agents, for example, often work
closely together." (NYT 1.4.87)

The Ottoman Census of 1912 indicates that in Anatolia alone there were
80,000 Jews, not to mention those in Istanbul and Smyrna. Large
numbers of Jews emigrated from Turkey after World War I. Wlth the
establishment of the state of Israel about 48,000 lower and
lower-middle class Jews left the country. Upper middle class and
wealthy Jews stayed, most in Istanbul. The Jewish community now
numbers less than one tenth of what it was at the turn of the century.
Which raises the question, if life is so good in lirkey, why did so
many leave?

Sadly, those few who remain (estimates range from 18,000- 22,000)
serve a purpose far larger than their numbers. Through them, Turks can
twist the arms of Jews overseas. This is also the case with Armenians
and Greeks who remain. The Greek community in the country has shrunk
from about 110,000 at the time of the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 to about
2,500 today. It has been described as "dwindling, elderly, and
frightened." A mis- sion from Helsinki Watch visited Turkey in October
1991 and found that the Ankara government continues to harrass them in
violation of international human rights laws and standards endorsed by
the Turkish government. ("Denying Human Rights and Ethnic Identity:
The Greeks of nlrkeg') Like the Jews in Istanbul, Greeks who spoke
with Helsinki Watch were fearful of being overheard or observed. Like
the Jews, they keep a low profile.(Azbarez 8.15.92)

A number of Jews from Turkey have emigrated to the U.S. Hostein says
that some who have been approached by Turkish officials "expressed
discomfort at being put in the position of defending the killing of
Armenians...." One communal leader put it this way: "We are not
defending the Turks...whatever happened between the Turks and
Armenians is not our busi- ness." (Jewish Exponent 6.23.89)

"They were good to us," says Istanbul's Chief Rabbi David Asseo. "It
is necessary to let the world know that lirks have always been a
tolerant nation...to let the world know of our comfortable lives in
Turkey, we will celebrate a 500th anniver- sary." And President of
Istanbul's Jewish Association, Jak Veyisid relayed his pride in
announcing to the world the" mag nanimity that was shown towards Jews
500 years ago and which continues today." Behcet Turman, General
Secretary for the Endowment to support the commemoration, goes even
fur- ther: "In a manner not seen anywhere else in the world, people of
other races and religions have been living together for hundreds of
years without problems or incidents. This should be made
known."(Milliyet 8.3.89)

Anti-Semitism in Turkey
Major Jewish organizations vigilant about exposing anti-Semi- tic
episodes around the world have been reticent about calling attention
to anti-Semitism in Turkey. In 1988 Mayor Halil Celik, in a protest
against what he termed "Israel's oppressive behavior against the
Palestinian people," invited PLO leader Yasir Arafat and Abu Firas to
demonstrate in Sanliurfa. Celik then went on to say, "I want to put
flowers on Hitler's grave who sent the Jewish people to soap factories
because what he did was much too little. Nations that scream human
rights if they can't equal Hitler, shame on them....From the moment of
birth, from their mothers, Israelis who have been innoculated with
hatred of Muslims are now oppressing a handful of Palestinians who
have rebelled. The Israeli nation is consuming the product of the
American people and throwing up on the oppressed Muslims. If I could,
I would bury the Israeli society in the center of the Harran plains,
just like radioactive tea. Let them see how one struggles against
oppression, how human rights are defended." (Cumhuriyet 2.28.88)

Later interviewed by Ozcan Ercan of Milliyet, Celik elaborated "Look,
our greatest enemy is Zionism. And I am Jews' greatest enemy...against
those who are doing those things to our brother Palestinians, I can't
behave in any other way. Today, if there is a state governed by
religion, it is with the Jews." Ercan then asked, "Is this the source
of your admiration for Hitler"? "Yes," the Mayor replied. "I put
flowers at the factory where he made soap out of Jews in Belgium. I
wish Hitler had eradicated them all." Asked if such statements might
negatively impact on San- liurfa, Mayor Celik answered, "Those who
occupy the govern- ing offices, people who serve the state, their
thinking is identical to ours. It is not necessary to name them. It
may harm them. I can only state that all in the highlest levels of
bureaucracy are our close fricnds." (Milliyet 5.14.89)

Five days later, Istanbul's Chief Rabbi Asseo responded: "The mass
murder of 6 million civilian Jews; children, youth, the aged because
of their religion during World War II by a psychotic leader,
represents a very sad memory...To admire this greatest tragedy of
human history and its primary actor Hitler, not to memorialize the
innocents and the crematoria, but to venerate the murderers by placing
flowers on their graves is behavior of a kind that is incomprehensible
to the human concience regardless of religion, politics or social
vicws. The words used by Ibrahim Halil Celik...have pained the hearts
of Turkish Jews who have lived as brothers in great tolerance in this
land for 500 years and who have acknowledged this at every
opportunity." (Cumhuriyet, May 19, 1989) But Celik never apologized
nor retracted his remarks, nor did the Ankara government condemn his
statements. Nor did Jewish organizations tell the Jewish community in
the United States what transpired in Turkey.

When Kurt Waldheim made an official visit to Turkey, Nazi hunter Beate
Klarsfeld, Rabbi Abraham Weiss of the River- dale Institute Synagoguc
and Solomon Elijasher flew to Ankara to protest. They were harrassed
and even assaulted. Rabbi Weiss complained to the US Consulate. But
the only comment from Turkey's President Evren was that the Waldheim
visit was "satisfactory." (11.88)

In July of 1992 Chaim Herzog, the first president of Israel to visit
Turkey, participated in ceremonies marking the 500th an- niversary of
the expulsion from Spain. Hundreds of demonstrators chanted "Down with
Israel! Down with America! Intifada until Israel is wiped out" and
"Jew Go Home!" Theyburned U.S. and Israeli flags. Riot police did not
intervene. Rocks shattered the windows of the El Al of fice in midtown
Istanbul. When Herzog spoke to the congregation of Neve Shalom where
the symagogue massacre took place, he praised Israel-Turkish relations
and said they would become even stronger. (Reuters7.17.92) Instead of
exposingthisseamy side of Turkey, leaders of the Jewish community
limited their sights to preparations for commemoratinzTurkish
"tolerance."

"In Turkey you can't be a Kurd and a good Turk. But we want to depict
the image that you can be a Jew and a good Turk." member of the
Istanbul Jewish community

Kurds: Use 'em or Lose 'em
Divided first in the 17th century and again in our own, Kurds
struggling to control their lands and destiny have long been
vulnerable to the service of alien agendas. In the aftermath of World
War II, the Soviets backed the tiny Kurdish Republic of Mahabad in
Iran - until they closed a deal for an oil pipeline with the Teheran
Government. The Republic fell in little less than a year; its leaders
were hung in the town square. In the early 1970's the Nixon-Kissinger
Administration armed Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas because the Shah of Iran
wanted to bring Saddam Hussein to the bargaining table over the Shatt
al Arab. When the deal was cut, aid to the Iraqi Kurds was abruptly
severed. The revolution led by General Barzani ended tragi- cally in
1975. During the Iran-Iraq war some five years latcr, both countries
supported Kurdish guerrillas in revolt across their borders while
theywarred on Kurdish opposition within. The latest Gulf episode
represents the most insidious use of Kurds to date, for Iraqi Kurds
were seduced into a deal with the Turkish government that would
culminate in what may bc one of the darkest episode in the Kurdish
history of this cen- tury. Israel and its Jewish supporters in the
United States would play a role in promoting Turkey's Kurdish azenda.

In line with U.S. policy Israel trained and advised Iraqi Kurds during
thc Barzani revolution, but their support ended when the State
Department so decreed. Prior to Iraqi chemical at- tacks on Iraqi
Kurds in Halabja in 1988, there was no active Israeli support for
Kurds anywhere, except for media and press efforts to draw comparisons
between Iraqi Kurds "willingness" to accept "autonomyH and Palestinian
refusal to do so. Moreover media and print was designed to attack Arab
"hypocracy" for supporting Palestinian national rights while
repressing those of the Kurds. Ironically, promoting Iraqi Kurds as
victims while covering Turkey's Kurdish repression is hardly the basis
from toclaim the moral high ground.

No single Jewish writer has done more to pursue this agenda than
pundit Wllliam Safire. In a series of passionate and poig- nant essays
spanning over 15 years, Safire has yet to devote a single piece of
writing to the struggle of 15 million Kurds in Turkey. What is most
troubling to me as a Jew is that the plight of fifteen million Kurds
in Turkey most closely parallels the plight of Jews throughout
centuries. For unlike the Iraqi Kurds who have always been at liberty
to be Kurds, those in Turkey were ruthlessly legislated out of their
ethnic identity and have remained so for more than sixty years. In
1925 the right to be Kurdish was banned, the most minute infraction of
this prohibition severely punished. I remember opening the New York
Times on my 51st birthday, March 27, 1981, to read that former cabinet
minister Serafettin Elci had just been sen- tenced to two years and
three months at hard labor in Turkey. His crime? He said in public, "I
am a Kurd. There are Kurds in Turkey." But no one, Jews included,
wanted to hear about Kurds in Turkey.

Neither William Safire nor A. H. Rosenthal have committed passion or
pen toTurkey's Kurdish policy.. What Safire has done is to skirt the
broad issue only to land on the Iraqi Kurd- Palestinian equation. Take
for example this 1979 piece: "Drafts of resolutions blow through the
halls of the United Nations in New York, presaging the establishment
of a separate state for a new "people" called the Palestinians, while
no voice is raised in that entire establishment for the legitimate
rights of an an- cient people now being denied by Iraq, Iran, Turkey
and Syria." "the Kurds are not talking of "self-determination," though
that was what they were promised at the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.
Nationood is too wild a dream; all they want is the right to live - as
Kurds - under whatever flag happens to be flying overhead. They seek
autonomy, not sovereignty. They want to be let alone, to have their
culture respected. That reasonable quest has provoked the greatest
series of hypocrisies in the world today...In their travels in the
Middle East, men like Harold Saunders, Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson
might ask their hosts the Kurdish question: Why do national leaders
who loud- ly demand a sovereign state for the PLO ruthlessly - and now
bloodthirstily - suppress the legitimate rights of autonomy of an
ancient people on their own territory?" (The Tennessean 9.24.79)

Writers in Israel tend to follow the same path. In an article printed
in the Jewish Journal on October 12, 1979, Fred Ehrman, Chairman of
the UOJCA Israel Commission writes: "When the Kurds rebelled in quest
of their rights of autonomy in their homeland, they were repeatedly
and ruthlessly sup- pressed. Yet the world remains silent. Why is
their quest for autonomy and "self determination" of no concern to the
moral leaders who clamor for the "rights" of PLO murderers? Ehrman
also makes passing reference to Turkey, but merelyas one of the
countries that rule Kurds.

In the wake of Halabja, Iraqi Kurds sought to contact Israelis on the
assumption that gas attacks reflect the Jewish past. PUK leader Jalal
Talabani asked this writer to do so. If the following is fact,
Talabani succeeded in making his own con- nections. A report from Abu
Dhabi radio indicated that there were indeed meetings in "occupied
Palestine" between Kurdish leaders and Ezer Weizman, Za'aqov Tzur,
Gid'on Pat, and Moshe Arens to coordinate a media plan linking killing
by gas of Jews to allegations against Iraq as the focus of a media
campaign -against Iraq. (FBIS-NES-88-183 9.21.88, p. 14)

Beyond the rhetoric of condemnation which gained momen- tum with
worldwide revulsion over chemical weapons use, nothing was done to
prevent the final offensive of Saddam Hussein on the heels of his
ceasefire with Iran. And so five months after Halabja, in the Emal
week of August, Iraqi forces attacked the Kurds and sent more than one
hundred thousand into flight across the border into Turkey.

In the Israeli press Turkey was showered with praise for its
"humanitarian" act in admitting the fleeing Iraqi Kurds. There was
however a story behind the story, a tale obscured in brief phrases
beneath headlines that misled American readers. U.S. complicity with
Turkey effectively stymied the admission of legitimate humanitarian
aid organizations. But this fact never did become an issue in the U.S.
press. Ankara denied symptoms of the use of poison gas by Iraq,
refused to designate the refugees as such, and deliberately kept the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commission
for Refugces at bay. Three of this writer's letters on the topic were
published in the New Yotk Emes (10.30.88; 4.15.89; 11.22.89). One
argued that thc title "humanitarian" was not applicable to the Turks.
International aid for the refugees was funneled en- tirely through the
Turkish Red Crescent in spite of the fact that Turkey's Kurds
complained bitterly that during a 1983 earthquake in the Kurdish
region, out of millions in foreign assistance, most Kurds received not
so much as a blanket. Yet there was no criticism of Turkey by members
of the Jewish community here or in Israel. Nor was there a hint of
protest over Turkey's subsequent treatment of these Iraqi Kurds. The
choice was no choice. Weighed against Israel's relations with Turkey,
Iraqi Kurds didn't stand a chance. Until nearly three years later when
they could be used to press the common agen- da of the West, Israel
and Turkey in the Gulf crisis.

In the first exodus of 1988, the Israeli government did offer to admit
some 200 Kurdish orphans. The Jerusalem Post printed one refugee's
response. Interviewed in Turkey by Yehuda Litani, he had this to say,
"We all remember how the late Barzani felt towards you, his admiration
for everything that had to do with Israel. And now we hear that you
are ready to let in 200 Kurdish orphans. What is 200 children compared
to the masses of people here in the camps? " The first thing you can
do is take in some thousands of refugees like you took in the Kurdish
Jews." (Jcrusalem Post 10.15.88) But Israel never offered to take in
all refugees. In fact, several Jewish activists contacted the Kurdish
Library suggesting that 300 Kurdish peshmerga from the camps might be
admitted to Israel to be stationed on the Golan Heights presumably to
help defend Israelis against Syrians.

In the wake of the 1988 exodus, Jenzsalem Post writer, Yosef Goell
took a pragmatic approach to justify the concern of Jews for Kurds: "I
would say first and foremost that it is in Israel's interest to
support the Kurdish movement as consistently as possible, and not only
by offering to take in and care for 200 Kurdish refugee children,
although that is a laudably humane undertaking...The essential
interest that we share with the Kurds, and with other non-Arab peoples
in the region, is an insistence that the region is not a "pure Arab
sea" but that there must be room in it for the independence or
broad-scope ethnic autonomy of Moslem, but non-Arab Kurds; of Arab but
non- Moslem Lebanese; of Egyptian Christian Copts; of non-Arab
non-Moslem Sudanese Christians and so-called animists; and yes, of
Jewish Israelis...When I see Westerners and Israelis who have fallen
under the spell of Palestinian propaganda with its 'inalienable rights
of the Palestinian people to national self determination, I try to
subject them to the acid test of their attitude to Kurdish national
independence. If, as is usual, they have never heard of it or couldn't
care less - like the Palestinians themselves who do not possess a
micron of empathy for the cause of Jewish, Kurdish or anyone else's
nationa1 inde- pendence - I write them off as victims of a passing
chicwho are coming into the court of world opinion with unclean
hands." (The Forward 10.7.88)

Taking advantage of the unfolding drama, the Jewish Com- munity
Council of Greater Washington disseminated an Israel Fact Sheet
captioned, "The Kurds, A Test of Arab Veracity" which made these
points: "One reasonable evaluation of Arab intentions toward Israel is
how religiously and politically dif- ferent groups are treated within
Arab societies and how Arab governments provide for human and
political rights for in- digenous minorities." Citing Iraqi references
to Kurdistan as a "Second Israel" and Kurds as "Zionists," it follows
the usual vein: "Arabs demand of Israel the same rights that the Kurds
seek from Iraq....Iraq's response to Kurdish attempts to foster an
independent, secular democratic state must weigh heavily in Israel's
evaluation of similar rhetoric from the Arab world ahout Palestinian
rights." (No. 1. Sept. 1988)

Israeli writers by and large made the same argument pressed through
the sieve of righteous indignation over suffering Iraqi Kurds, and
assiduously avoided Turkey's neglect of those in refugee camps.
Because the "Intifadah" was fast becoming Israel's major headache,
Ofra Benjio of Tel Aviv University indicted Western media for ignoring
the "Intifada in Iraq." (Ha'arets 9.5.88) Countering criticism of
Israel's handling of the Palestinian uprising, Shmuel Schnitzer played
the same tune. "I've been waiting and waiting for the reaction of the
enlightened, and not so enlightened world to the war of Iraq on its
Kurdish population," he wrote. "And I'm still waiting. I've been
waiting for media coverage of the sort that informed the coverage of
the uprising of the Palestinian hoodlums against Israeli soldiers. for
the tidal wave of disguest and moral out rage, like the one that has
inundated us for the past nine months....the West has accorded
recognition of the right to national self-determination for the
Palestinian people...But it is not prepared to accord similar
recognition to the rights of an ancient people such as the Kurds."
Schnitzer then proceeds to indict what he terms the "defective
operation of the European conscience." "Theywill not remain silent in
the face of evil; but they will carefully select between the evils
which they will per- mit to excite their indignation and those which
will leave them in cold indifference.. .An Arab held in administrative
detention will drive them out of their minds. A Palestinian rabble
rouser who will be taken to the border for deportation will arouse
deep feelings of identification. But two thousand dead Kurds or a
hundred thousand Kurds expelled from Iraq to Turkeywill not make them
lose a minute's sleep...The whole world knows that a campaign of
genocide is going on in northern Iraq. But the victims are Kurds. And
the Kurds don't exist as a nation and don't have a right to such an
existcnce according to a world in which justice is weighed by false
measures." (Ma'ariv 9.16.88) Nowhere among all these polemics was
Turkegs Kur- dish polic.y even mentioned.

Kurdish Jews in Israel are used to reinforce of ficial themes. In a
report titled "The Kurdish Way" Pamela Kidron noted that "reaffirming
friendly relations with Moslem Kurds" has been among the reasons
behind the Saharani, the Kurdish festival of Kurdish Jews in Israel.
"In Kurdistan the local Agha would send his guards to watch over the
campsite at night and protect the emptyJewish houses in town. This
time, the Jewish Kurds are watching out for the Moslem Kurds."

Even after Halabia and the August 1988 exodus into Turkey, supporters
of Israel continued their condemnation of Iraq couched in terms of
sympathy for the suffering Iraqi Kurds. But nothingwas forthcoming on
the plight of five times as many Kurds fighting for their rights in
Turkey.

On September 23 Ufuk Guldemir, Cumhuriyet's Washington correspondent,
wrote an article captioned "Israel's Shadow on the Kurdish Question."
Here are excerpts: "Israel's role in the Kurdish question, while
quiet, is active and palpable in the U .S . capital. "... joint
efforts by the directors of an organization called the Kurdish Program
[established by this writer in 1981] which arranged Talabani's visit
to the U.S., and the directors of the Helsinki Watch Committees, who
have written very critical- ly on the Kurdish question, and Israel,
because of their blood ties it is possible to state "On Kurdish
issues, there is an Israeli dimension... Kurdish leader JalalTalabani
came to the US with the assistance of the Israeli lobby, his visit was
made possible by an organization called the Kurdish Program based in
New York, whose directors have blood ties with Israel." The article
also charges that "Israel" reminded Turkey of "the Kirkuk mat- ter."
It was in fact this writer who raised the issue of Turkey's spurious
claims to the oilfields in northern Iraq in a letter printed in the
Baltimore Sun (11.11.86). The letter contested Turkey's "historical
claim to the region" arguing that if conquest is a legitimate basis
for claim, the West should be prepared to return all of the Ottoman
conquests including Jerusalem and the Balkans to lirkey. The AJC's
George Gruen actually ar- gued in support of Turkey's claim. (Newsday
1.21.91). In 1989 when the Kurdish Library mounted a photographic
exhibition in the Cannon Rotunda on Capitol Hill, Cumhuriyet reported
that the Turkish Foreign Ministry was investigating. Ministry
spokesman Murat Sungur told the press that the meeting was "a creation
of a new element from the U.S." A Congressional Human Rights Caucus
briefing in which this writer participated precipitated this comment
from Sungur: "Vera Sacedpour who is renowned for being an enemy of
Turkey, who in a sense has made a reputation by working against the
unity of Turkey's lands, will speak at this meet- ing..."(Cumhuriyet
10.26.89)

Who cares about the Kurds?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Israel and Turkey called for a first strike
to wipe out Saddam Hussein's armed forces. (Washington Times 8.31.90)
Among the first to call for "humanitarian intervention" to save the
Iraqi Kurds was none other than Richard Perle. Because his work for
Turkey was never mentioned in his public appearances, he was able to
play asignificantrole as an"objectiveexpert" servingbothIsrael and
lbrkey during the Gulf crisis: for Israel because war would destroy
its major Arab adversary; for Turkey because a decimated Iraq would
facilitate Turkish ascendancy in the post war Gulf. In aNew York Emes
Op Ed which identified him only as a "resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan
Administration," Perle argued against continued reliance on sanctions
and in favor of air strikes to destroy Iraq's military capability.
(NYT 9.23.90)

Even before the January 16th ultimatum, the Emes reported that a
Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf had been established with
Perle playing a leading role. The new commit- tee urged Administration
elimination of Iraq's military capability as "an explicit goal" of
American policy and warned against an objective limited to expelling
Iraq from Kuwait. (NYT 12.10.90) Shortly thereafter, the group took a
full page ad in the Emes in support of the UN decision to "reject an
outcome where Saddam withdraws from Kuwait" and went on to argue that
"Even if Saddam Hussein agrees towithdraw from Kuwait, the threat
posed by his weapons of mass destruction requires that they be
verifiably dismantled - or, if necessary destroyed." Acknowledging
that a military solution would "regrettably result in casualties," the
group chided Bush for making "Iraq's unconditional withdrawal from
Kuwait our principal objective...We believe that we must also find
ways to remove Saddam Hussein's capacity to wage aggression, which now
includes chemical and biological weapons and may soon include nuclear
weapons as well." The nuclear theme would continue to play out through
the ensuing months. Not surpris- ingly, the group claimed that if
Saddam won, the stage would be set for another Arab-Israeli war.
Signatories to the ad in- cluded Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and
Stephen Solarz.

Solarz led the House of Representatives in promoting the war,
submitting a resolution to approve use of military force. Brooklyn
Congressman Major Owens said of the Solarz resolution, "The way the
resolution was worded made it totalitarian and anti-Democratic.
Instead of giving us two resolutions - one in support of troops in the
field and a separate one to approve the president's performance - they
insisted on putting them together." The Solarz strategy was apparently
to frame the resolution so that a vote against the resolution would
appear to be a vote against supporting American troops. Owens was
among those who believed that economic sanctions were working and that
a peaceful solution should be sought. Rlit Salarz and the State
Denartment prevailed.

Many in the Christian community took exception. For ex- ample, Rev.
Finley Schaef said, "We say woe to you who send your men and women to
war" as he looked to the U.S. to serve as the world's "moral example."
(Park Slope Paper 1.25.91) Nor did Solarz' Israel connection go
unnoted. An editorial in the Park Slope Paperhad this to say, "Solarz,
a leading Congres- sional supporter of Israel whose district is home
to a large number of Jewish voters, said his position "went way
beyond" using force to protect Israel, although protecting Israel was
an "additional reasonH for supporting military action. "If Israel
didn't exist, I would have taken exactly the same position," Solarz
told reporters. What he didn't say was that his decisions were as much
carrots to his Turkish constituents. On the other hand, Congressman
Charles Schumer, also Jewish, saw force only as a last resort.
Exchanges on Capitol Hill were heated. Arguing against the Solarz
resolution on the House floor, Owens said, "Once we have the US with a
great occupying army in the Middle East, it will be hard for Arabs and
Moslems to believe that we did not undertake a grand strategy to
control the region and theywill accuse us of having plotted to
dominate the Mideast militarily in order to protect Israel." In 1992
Solarz himself became a casualty of redistricting and lost his bid for
re-election

Media and press on the Solarz side of the issue promoted the idea that
it was not Israel so much as the world that Saddam threatened. But not
only did the war serve Israel's agenda, it worked to the benefit of
Turkey, which without firing a shot received forgiveness of a $7
billion debt, increased imports of textiles to the U.S . and a host of
other percs. The war produced an emasculated neighbor and proved to be
a giant step on the ladder to completion of Ankara's Kurdish agenda,
the destruc- tion of the PKK.

Not surprisingly, the American Jewish Committee's George Gruen used
Iraqi Kurds as the springboard to make a case for Turkey's "claim" to
northern Iraq. In an article appearing in Newsday he argued that "When
Britain carved up the Mideast, the Iraqis got an oil-rich Turkish
province...In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war, the international
community must begin to redress a historic injustice against Turkey
and the Kurdish people [meaning Iraqi Kurds]...From the international
legal and ethnic standpoint, Turkey's claim to Iraq's oil-rich north-
ern province of Mosul is far stronger than Baghdad's...Iraqi Kurds
should be permitted to choose independence or reunion with Turkey."
(1.21.91) A virtually identical argument appeared earlier in a letter
published in the New York Emes of November 24, 1990. Gruen thus opened
the door to justify a Turkish claim to Israel. The Ottomans conquered
more than northern Iraq; they conquered the Balkans and the entire
Middle East right up to the borders of Iran. If conquest were to be
accepted as legitimizing territorial claims, the Turks would have as
much claim to Israel as to Iraq. If conquest is a legitimate basis for
claim, why the demand that Saddam Hussein's forces evacuate Kuwait
which Iraqi forces conquered. Interestingly, both the Newsday article
and the Emes letter identified Gruen only as an adjunct professor of
international affairs at Columbia University. His role in the American
Jewish Committee was never mentioned.

In Israel there was unbounded praise for Turkeys role in the Gulf.
Take this example by David Kushner of the Jerusalem Post: Erkegs
performance during the Gulf crisis has been received with a great deal
of appreciation, sometimes even amazement, by the Israeli public. Not
only did Tbrkey support the allied cause, but it appeared to be the
most decisive and outspoken in its reaction to Saddam Hussein's
invasion of Kuwait." Kushner noted that only a few days before in an
inter- view published in the Post nlrkey's President Ozal had ex-
pounded on "his vision of the new order in the Middle East in which
Turkey could assist in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and help lead
the area toward security and economic prosperity...What tipped the
balance and placed Turkey solid- ly among the members of the coalition
was not only Turkey's traditional support for legality and stability
in international relations, but its conviction that its interests lay
with the Western countries." (Jerusalem Post 1.3.91)

Moreover the Post was among the first to take Ozal's word when he
announced that he would go to the Parliament to lift the ban on
speaking Kurdish in public in Turkey. The Turkish Parliament didn't
move until months later, and even then provided that the Kurdish
language could be spoken in public, but only for "non-political
communication." nPolitical" com- munication would henceforth be
punishable under new Anti- Terror Laws enacted at the same time. This
was of course not made known to readers of the Jenzsalem Post. In
lbrkey, there never was a change of heart; there was simply a change
of tactics.

Among some Israelis, there was opposition to Saddam Hussein's removal.
"We are all with Saddam," one headline read. Labor dove Avraham Burg
commented that "in the present circumstances Saddam Hussein is better
than any al- ternative." "a Shi'ite empire" emanating from Iran could
pose an even greater threat to Israel. (Ha'aretz 3.29.91) Following
the exodus of Iraqi Kurds after the Gulf war, a report in the Jewish
Press argued along similar lines that "..despite the sen- timents
Israel feels for the Kurds, Israel is not expected to rush to
intervene in the current uprising in northern Iraq. While the Kurdish
rebellion is directed against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which
represents a danger to Israel's security, the Kurds are working in
coordination with the governments of Teheran and Damascus, which are
trying to turn the Kurdish zone into a bridge between Iran and Syria.
Creating virtual territorial continuity between the two radical
regimes by means of a common Kurdish ally could constitute no less a
danger to the peace of the region and Israel's security than did the
regime of Saddam. Accordingly, with all sympathy for the persecuted
Kurdish minority in Iraq and all Israel's concern over the cruel
measures the Iraqis are employing against them, Israel must act not
only out of sentiment, but also according to its own security needs."
(Jewish Press 4.12.91)

The toll of Kurdish suffering in the Gulf war was far greater than the
press or vested interests revealed. The embargo starved Kurds as well
as Arabs. Intense and massive coalition bombing raids killed thousands
of Iraqi Kurds serving in Saddam's military. There is no ACLU, no
"conscientious ob- jector" status in Iraq. One serves - or else. But
these realities escaped the attention of the Western and the Israeli
press.

In the U.S., the public's attention was directed down a well- trodden
path. At the height of the exodus, A. H. Rosentha] penned an essay
countering Administration fears about Kur- dish aspirations with the
usual presumptions: "...the Kurds have said they will not demand
independence. They might jump at what the Israelis have offered
Palestinians - elections and substantial self government."(NYT 4.2.91)
William Safire followed suit. "The way to give the Kurdish people the
freedom they deserve is the same way to give Palestinian Arabs,
includ- ing those driven from Kuwait, the freedom they deserve: create
a new category of sovereignty. The Kurds seek what Pales- tinian
terrorcrats scorn: self-government, with cultural dignity respected,
within the borders of an existing state...the world bandied about is
'suzerainty,' which allows the encompassing state a sovereignty
limited to defense and central banking, while providing the
inhabitants of a region with real autonomy and ethnic identity short
of total independence." (NYT 4.15.92)

What is most disturbing in these writings is the presumption of these
pundits that they are privy to what Kurds want . True, Iraqi Kurdish
leaders have for years indicated willingness to accept autonomy. But
in twelve years of monitoring Kurdish issues on a daily basis, we have
no indication whatsoever that this is actually the case. We are
persuaded that Iraqi Kurds have been schooled by their Western friends
to tell the West what the West wants to hear. Ironically, it has been
the Kurdish armed op- position in Turkey, the PKK - condemned as
"Marxist terrorist" by Safire - who have been most forthcoming in
expressing the Kurds' desire for an independent greater Kurdistan in
the Mid- dle East. But like the countries that house Kurds and their
Western allies, Israel and its supporters do not want to hear that
Kurdish demands parallel those of Palestinians. Our 1991 study of
Kurdish aspirations revealed that an independent greater Kurdistan is
the ultimate goal of virtually all Kurds. (See Summary of Results,
Kurdish Life, No. 2, Spring 1992)

Throughout the Gulf crisis and to this day, Rosenthal and Safire have
continued to hammer away at Iraq with not so much as a good word for
the beleaguered Kurds in Turkey, a conflict that escalated at an
alarming pace particularly since the instal- lation of the coalition's
Hprotective" umbrella for Iraqi Kurds only. Nothingwaswritten
exposingthe dealbetweenPresident Ozal and Iraqi Kurdish leaders Masoud
Barzani and Jalal Talabani. Ozal proposed a federated Iraq in the Fall
of 1990, the north for the Kurds, the mid-section for the Turkmen of
Iraq and leftovers for the Arabs. In return Iraqi Kurds were to
"secure" their border against Kurdish guerrillas from Turkey. Less
than two years later, this rapprochment culminated in Kurds killing
Kurds when on October 4, 1992, in collaboration with the Turkish
military, Iraqi Kurds attacked their kinsmen.

In fact, a Safire essay only a week before the outbreak of the October
joint offensive against the PKK urges the Administra- tion to
"persuade" Turkey to join the U.S. in recognizing and supplying food
and arms to the "democratically elected government" of Iraqi Kurdistan
in return for its "curbing Kur- dish agitation within Turkey." To call
the guerrilla war of Kurds in Turkey "agitation" is to call the L.A.
riots a shouting match. Kurds inTurkeywere so crushedbythelate 30's
thattheycould not lift their heads, no less their arms until 1984.
Since then over 5,000 people died, 2,000 in 1992 alone. Their struggle
is defamed, ignored, distorted and manipulated by the Western powers
and a Western press. Safire's most recent New YorAc 7-mes essay runs
the same gauntlet. Minimizing the population of Kurds in Turkey and
exaggerating the numbers in Iraq he argues for U.S. foreign assistance
of $150 million to "democratic" Iraqi Kurds who apparently earned this
reward in large part for "cooperating with Turkey." As Safire put it,
"Pesh Merga fighters behind Masoud Barzani successfully took on the
Marxist terrorist Kurds." (NewYorkTimes 5.13.93)

While Israel benefits from Iraq's destruction as an Arab power, its
relations with Turkeymayverywellbe detrimental to Israel's future.
Beyond peace and security, arid Israel needs water. Shimon Peres and
Turgut Ozal already discussed a plan to get water to Israel by
creating a pipeline from Turkey traversing Syria, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia. Peres was right when he ar- gued that "the next war in the
Middle East could well be over water, not land, and Turkey is the only
land in the region with excess water. (Jerusalem Post 4.28.91) Not
surprisingly, the AJC's George Gruen with a grant from the U.S.
Institute of Peace, an organization established and funded by
Congress, is now studying Turkey's water resources. But the water that
Israel seeks originates in the Kurdish region of Turkey - a region
that yearns to be free, a region Israel and the West are helping
Turkey to keep.

Yet in the wake of the Gulf war the Anti Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith bought a full page ad in the New York Nunes. The League's
solicitation for funds for Iraqi Kurds was headlined, "Who cares ahout
the Kurds? We do "

"My faiture to stop the destruction of the Armenians had made
Turkeyforme a place of horror, and If oundintolerable my further daily
association with men who, however gra cious and accommodating and
good-natured they might have been to the American Ambassador, were
still reeking with the blood of nearly a million human beings." Henry
Morgenthau, U.S. Arnbassador to Turkey (1913-1916)

"A good deed is its own reward"

Like the late Henry Morgenthau, himselfaJew, todaythereare Jews both
in Israel and in the US who vehemently oppose compromising positions.
Unfortunately, most members of the Jewish community here and abroad
are not privy to what goes on behind the scenes. When they do become
aware, many are outraged. In fact, the advocacy of the Fresno Jews and
Rabbi Kenneth Segel of Temple Beth Israel prompted the convention of
the Union of American Hebrew Congregations to pass a resolution in
support of the Armenians. Rabbi Segel defended his position as "the
right thing to do." (Azbarez 2.2.89) At an event in his honor, he told
guests, "If they can denyyour history, they can deny ours..a good deed
is its own reward." (Azbarez 1.25.89)

Others complain that Israel's official position is shameful and flies
in the face of a Jewish ethos. Gershon Gorenbert, editor for the
Jetxusalem Post wrote that his first impression on reading that
Israeli diplomats and American Jewish lobbyists had op- posed a
resolution to commemorate the Armenian genocide was that the source
must have made a mistake. "Israeli diplomats were asking senators to
forget the massacre so that a minor matter of genocide would't upset
relations with Turkey." Gorenbert too alludes to two schools of Jewish
thought. The first: "As victims of the ultimate crime, the Jews are
owed a huge moral debt by the rest of the world, but our only
obligation is to protect ourselves. The second school maintains that
on the moral level what makes the Nazis' action a crime is not that
the victims were Jews, but that they were people. Read that way, our
history tells Jews that we have a special duty to speak out against
any act of genocide, whoever the victims may be." (Armenian Reporter
11.9.89)

Yosi Sarid, a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee put it this way: "Jews who lost six million of their people
in the horror of the Nazi genocide should be the last to join in
denying the existence of another genocide." Sarid complained that this
wasn't the first time Israel supportedTurkey's positions to improve
relations. Now diplomatic sources hoped that despite the failure of
Israeli diplomats and Jewish lobbyists to block the Armenian Genocide
resolution in the U.S. Congress, Turkey would ap- preciate Israel's
contribution and move to restore full diplomatic relations. "There is
hardly a single outrage this government is not willing to commit under
the pretense of a narrow-minded national interest which is bound to
prove counterproductive," Sarid told Ha'aretz..

Needless to say, if history is a guide, like human rights, morality is
the servant of geopolitics. In one sense, Israel's policy towards
Kurds in Turkey is even less excusable than its manipulation of Kurds
in Iraq if only because the situation of the Kurds in Turkey most
closely reflects Jewish history. Ironi- cally, it was the demand that
Jews accept Catholicism that precipitated the Inquisition that drove
Jews into the arms of the Ottoman Turks five hundred years ago. For
more than sixty years in Turkey, it has been precisely those Kurds who
insisted on retaining their identity who suffered most.

In recent months Turkey has given Israel's supporters in the U.S. a
second test. And that is promoting American intervention in Bosnia as
a "moral imperative." Never in history an independent state, Bosnia
was simply an administrative district under Ottoman rule and later
under Tito. Nor has Bosnia anything like a homogeneous population. Yet
geopolitical interests, not morality, legitimized and recognized
Bosnia and must bear responsibility for the ensuing tragedy. Such
political status has never been promoted for Kurds in Turkey - over
seven times the population of Bosnia - by supporters of Israel. It is
preciselythis selective treatment that maywellcausefuture demands by
Jews on Kurds and on the moral conscience of the world to fall on deaf
ears. As Kurds in TurkeyKain more atten tion - and this will surely
come to pass - they will point an accusing finger. Complicity with
Turkey can only generate anti-Israel sentiments among 25 million Kurds
of the Middle East. For in the final analysis, Kurds will ultimately
align with Kurds. And this maywell have far-reaching implications in
the region. What matters outside is what an already cynical world will
believe when history writes the record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vera Beaudin Saeedpour. Director of Research
Number 6, Spring 1993

A publication of the Center for Research, the Kurdish Library, 345
Park Place, Brookl yn, New York 11238.. Tel 718-783-7930 Fax
718-3984365

[Ömer Yigit]

Copy-Paste.....
or write bullshit.. like aliasker

"Ali Asker" <pasa_...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:26059bb9.02121...@posting.google.com...

[REAL]

You are in no condition to give advise when it is crystal clear that you are
incapable of reading and comprehending english.

Now I suggest you enrol yourself in a course to develop at least some reading
and comprehension skills otherwise don't bother replying.

[Ömer Yigit]

From your new posting everybody can see that you aren t better than ali
asker...
be quit!

"REAL" <nospam...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3DFEDDE0...@hotmail.com...

[Ali Asker]

" mer Yigit" <ooy...@web.de> wrote in message news:<atncf9$l8r$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE>...

> From your new posting everybody can see that you aren t better than ali
> asker...
> be quit!

of what?

[REAL]

Ali Asker wrote:

> " mer Yigit" <ooy...@web.de> wrote in message news:<atncf9$l8r$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE>...
> > From your new posting everybody can see that you aren t better than ali
> > asker...
> > be quit!
>
> of what?

It's obvious Omer is still not making any sense. Ignore him and hopefully he will take those
lessons.