Are you claiming that the leaders of the PA are terrorists?
If so, please tell me why you think that.
Do you even know their names?
Moreover, if you’re claiming that Turkish Muslims can’t be trusted because some Palestinians elected “terrorists” as their leaders(even though Hamas doesn’t run the PA) then by that same standard you should object to Jewish Americans being allowed to vote since Jewish Israelis have on two separate occasions elected terrorists as their PM.
I’m a bit confused by this. Are you contesting that the Palestinians and the Turks have less in common than the Irish and the British or Americans and Mexicans?
I don’t see how anyone remotely familiar with the region could think that.
Why do you feel that way, other than that they’re both Muslims and, by your own admission, you’re strongly bigoted against Muslims.
By those standards, Mexicans and Americans, since both countries are overwhelmingly Christians are interchangeable.
Anyway, the term most people would use for judging the Japanese by Koreans is racism and I see no reason why judging the Turks by Palestinians is less racist, though I’m open to hear your explanation why it’s not.
How is Israel a “better democracy” than Turkey?
Turkey certainly is better to ethnic and religious minorities than Israel. Also, in many ways Turkey is far more “secular” than Israel. For example, Israel does not have civil marriage and as a result, amongst other things, the Israeli government won’t recognize interfaith marriages performed within Israel(though it will recognize those performed outside Israel).
Turks are Turks and Palestinians are Arabs. Their history overlaps but they are a continent apart in origin.
Turkey is legally obliged to recognise certain minorities (Greek, Armenians and Jews) but it cannot cope with any group who doesn’t wish to identify as Turkish. Hence the ongoing troubles with the Kurds (non-Turks) and relative absence of trouble with Laz, Circassian, Tartar, Bosniak, etc (who all self identify as Turks).
As you know, I disagree with pretty well every one of your statements - with the exception of the characterization of the current status of ethnic Kurds or Armenians, which I admit to not being familiar with - though articles such as this give me pause for concern:
In general, though, Turkey has serious problems with the rule of law. In many cases, people are arrested and held without trial for years (that’s what the Generals were resigning about). This applies not only to people with whom the Turkish gov’t is having some sort of insurgency problem with, such as Kurds, but to ordinary average Turks as well. This is not true in Israel, which has a reasonably robust rule of law.
As to the “archaic blood and soil nationalism”, it is true that Israel was founded as an ethno-nationalist state. So were, and are, most of the states in Europe, not to mention the eponymous “Turkey” which is, one should note, named after the “Turkish” people. Israel had and has problems with this of course; and so, for that matter, did and does Turkey. I don’t see any reason for preference there.
Looking at matters of society, in which country would one rather be a woman, or a homosexual? I’d say hands down that would be Israel. It is true that the religious nuts have a stanglehold over the formalities of marriage and the like, but this affects Israelis very little (aside from annoyance). Israeli society is more modern, its economy is more advanced, its GDP per pop more that twice Turkey’s, it is more ‘first world’.
None of this is a slam against Turkey, which as I’ve said is, after Israel, doing the best in the region. But Turkey as a long way to go.
You are making a mistake common to commentators - assuming that the Arab/Israeli conflict is as important to Israelis as the amount of hot air generated by discussion of it would warrant. That’s quite understandable, but gives a distorted view.
I’m familiar with Out-Group Homogeneity. This is not an example of it.
Indonesia is a democracy with the largest Muslim population in the world. I have no fear they will turn into a theocracy. Turkey, however, has voted in several prominent politicians and regimes that were very Islamic. If my fear of them turning into a theocracy was invalid, there should have been a recent example in which they voted secular politicians in instead of more Islamic ones. Granted, that is one criteria I’m focusing on. I’m sure in their many local and regional political offices, there are a lot of secularists. But just like America is by definition a secular state, by practice you’d pretty much have to be Christian to attain high office. Hell, I don’t think some Americans are ready for democracy given the asinine people they vote in
So I’m sure that Turkey and Palestine are very different. But one major thread connects them, and that is the tendency to vote in people who are not exactly the most friendly towards the US
The Hamas are terrorists, yes.
The key phrase you’re missing here is Western values, or my admittedly ethnocentric values. Jewish terrorists are closer in line with my values than Muslim ones. Also, given their history, its forgivable that people like Sharon was elected. Plus, ultimately, their values align much closer to mine than Hamas
I’m asking by what criteria do you judge someone’s culture and then decide how close one is to another
I think you’re taking it a bit far. I don’t want those particular Muslims in Turkey and the ME to be able to democratically elect their governments because I think their secular military is better at keeping down Islamic influence and shares more values with the West. I feel the same way about Mississippians actually, I’d rather they not vote either because they don’t share my values. I think a secular military would be a better government than the current government of Mississippi. That doesn’t mean I won’t go vacation in Miss, or Turkey, just that I think someone else with a more correct viewpoint would do better at governing them. You’ve turned my original statement of “I think the secular generals is better for Turkey” to “OMG You hate Muslims!!”
Its a stereotype somewhat supported by fact. I looked at the ME and what Muslim governments there are, and look elsewhere at secular govenments and compared them. I prefer the secular ones. The end. Its nothing more than that. I can prefer red over blue, apples over oranges, or vaginal sex over anal sex without hating the other. I just like red, apples, and vaginal sex more.
I think Turkey’s big hangup over the Armenian genocide proves they are not as tolerant as you think. Israel, at the very least, has the excuse of the fact that they are still currently being rocketed and bombed on occasion. When’s the last time an Armenian fired a rocket at Turkish sites in order to push his agenda? Your one small example create a trend. Last year, Israel banned a scheduled gay parade in Jerusalem (I think). I didn’t like that, but I also know that Turkey just a few years ago arrested people for converting from Islam to Christianity. The difference is, genocide is a HUGE thing while most of the world is still intolerant of gays, so what Israel did is, unfortunately, expected and the norm
No. I want the Turkish generals to enforce secularism because I think its better for the US. That has been the entire point of my posts in this thread. If you think I should rethink it because it sounds selfish, that’s the point. Yes, I’m selfish, so what? I don’t think more religious influence in the world is good so I’m happy to support a secular government that seems responsible over a religious one
I’m rather familiar with Islamic teachings regarding apostates, but there’s nothing in there about it being illegal in Turkey to convert to Christianity.
Turkey is not Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Yog claimed it was but has shown no evidence this was the case and he’s done nothing to inspire confidence in his knowledge or understanding of the region.
Anyway, I’m amused at another thread where people happily talk about Muslims in ways they’d never dare talk about other minorities.
I imagine that it is “safe” in that many, many have considered all Moslems to be of a radical bent since Spetember 11.
Some Americans still make derogatory statements about African Americans or Jews when they think it is “safe”, meaning among folks who agree with them.
Not yet, but certain Turkey’s Islamist parties and the rest of neighboring Islamic states sure would like to see the secular Turkey come to an end. The absence of the generals putting their foot down in support of the secularism in Turkey that they have historically continued since the republic’s foundation in 1923, you have to say, Turkey becomes more fertile for a change than not, perhaps not that it would happen over night. This is not a baseless concern for example 2007 Presidential election of Abdullah Gül, who’s been involved with Islamist parties and the recent government’s attempt to lift the headscarf ban in universities, etc.
I’m also a bit taken back by the claim that Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are members of Hamas which is like calling Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Republicans and referring to David Cameron as a Labour Party member.
I would certainly submit that anyone who can make such an egregious mistake might want to rethink making proclamations about the Palestinians since no one with even minimal knowledge of the area would make such a mistake.
Beyond that, as mentioned before, making judgements on the Turks based on the Palestinians is at least as racist as making judgements about Japan based on the actions of China.
I’m also a bit puzzled about the complaint that Turkeys leaders are “predominantly Islamic”.
No shit, a Muslim country elected Muslims. You might as well complain that most of the leaders of Christian nations are Christians.
Beyond that, getting all hot and bothered about the religious devotion of AK’s leadership is pretty silly since every US President since Nixon has been more public about their religion than AK’s leaders.
Now if people wish to argue that America’s military should have thrown Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in jail and imposed a military dictatorship on the US, but I think most people would disagree.
Finally, I had to chuckle that people who’ve been educated in America, married people educated in America, and love to talk about how great America is are UnAmerican.
It’s almost as if people are commenting on a subject they don’t know much about(skimming a wikipedia article doesn’t count) and making assumptions about people because they are Muslims.
No, it is a baseless concern. People don’t shit themselves in fear when Germany elects a Christian Democrat.
The AK led government has about as much in common with Iran’s Ayatollahs as the American Republican party has in common with the Nazis or the American Democratic Party has with the Communists.
As with the AK moving to lift the ban on headscarves, I’m a bit confused why we shouldn’t agree with them striking a blow for religious freedom.
Nobody would wet themselves in fear if Obama said he thought it was wrong for American universities to forbid Jewish students from wearing Kippas.
Let’s put it this way: Would the incumbent generals resigning and be replaced by the government appointed puppet generals do more for secularism or less or status quo?
I think the point here is that the concern over secularism is a bit of a red herring, one that disguises the real concerns. Secularism isn’t really at particular risk in Turkey. The generals did not resign over concerns about religion and secularism.
The real issue facing Turkey is not the rise of Islamic fervour, but the creation of a Turkish democratic society free of military interference and equipped with the rule of law.
The resignation episode pits these two against each other, somewhat. The generals resigned over concerns that other military types have been imprisioned for years without trial, contrary to the rule of law. This is seemingly a systemic problem in Turkey - which holds hundreds of prisioners without trial for years, not only these military prisioners but also Kurdish politicians and the like.
The good news is that the resignation of the generals, not followed by a military coup, seems to signal that the era of military coups in Turkey is over and that the civilian government now has too much legitimacy to unseat. The bad news is that the generals have a point - imprisoning people for years without trial is not a good thing, it is contrary to the rule of law, and a democratic society needs both stable legitimacy (which Turkey seemingly now has) and a committment to the rule of law (which is IMO the concern).
Malthus is correct in pointing out to you the real issue facing Turkey. Your characterization is as baseless as Ibn Warraq states. In fact, let’s put it this way, in your terms: In The Republic of Turkey, founded in 1923 and continuing to the present, not a single law has been passed that threatens the secular nature of the republic. Not one single law in 88 years. Get it?
There have been debates on how secular they want to be, but there has never been a verifiable threat to the secular nature of the republic. There has not been even the tiniest hint toward theocracy or a desire for theocracy on the part of AKP since it came to dominate parliament in 2003. Not a single step on the road. Get it?
To replace your notions on the AKP’s desires for Turkey, let’s see what they have actually accomplished: increased trade, greater freedom for Kurds, massive steps relative to the CHP on the road toward the EU, greater peace than ever with its neighbors, greater freedom to express religion (more than just Islam as well), arresting huge numbers of Al Qaeda operatives, putting the military where it belongs in a democratic republic, and now it will rewrite the constitution with individual liberty and inclusiveness in mind. Get it yet?
Or are you going to fixate on their religion again instead of seeing what they are actually doing?
The only nitpick I have with what you said is that I don’t think the detentions are against the law. It should be, but it isn’t. The actions of the government are ruled by law. The laws need to be changed and the process for changing them is not threatened.
It is very confusing, beyond the semantics, as to who is/would be the real provider of a stable, functional, and best compromise (for the region) ‘free democratic secular society’ for Turkey, in long term.
Thank you very much for the clarification to both of you and let’s hope we are right.
To be blunt, Turkey is more secular than Israel and there are quite a few European countries that actually have established state religions(such as the UK) without anyone getting nervous.
What “Turkey is” isn’t what concerns me after this news so much as what may become of it in the absence of the generals holding the fork down, so to speak, immediately after and in the future. The modern Turkey came about after kicking off 623 years of Ottoman rule.., by “the generals”(Mustafa Kemal, a military commander) hence the tradition of military guarding the secularism.
But I read all your points well and I understand the generals are no angels either… I always thought it as a symbiotic relationship of sorts that the generals provided a long term security for secularism (as you stated “Turkey is more secular than…”) and maintained the “in-betweenness” of Turkey by preventing either Islamic or European influence from becoming dominant.
Like I said let’s wait and watch what happens… hopefully for the better.
Posting sober now, (Always said that I would do it once !).
Turkey at this moment is one of the best friends in the M.E. that the West has.
It is a member of N.A.T.O, wanted to join the E.C., even fought in the Korean War on our side.
All male Turks do National Service, and fel priveleged to do so.
As I said in the post where I was feeling overly relaxed, the Military is held in huge esteem, and if the current government try to impose their religious views on the populace, then they’ll get a very bloody nose.
Turkey isn’t Iraq, and it certainly isn’t Iran.
Bloody good people, they’ll fight to the death for their mates .
