… is here. Also here.
We’re on our way to Ankara, going via Bursa, which was the Ottomans’ capital for many years before, finally, they were able to figure out a way to dislodge the Byzantines from Istanbul, which happened some 40 years before the peoples of America were surprised by the arrival of that parvenu adventurer, Columbus.
35 thoughts on “IPS piece on Turkey’s role in region, world”
Comments are closed.
British The Foreign Secretary David Miliband has offered a stark appraisal of the Iraq war, saying the invasion had damaged Britain’s standing by causing “bitterness, distrust and resentment” across the Muslim world.
Helena, it might be good idea if you program your London trip to speak outspoken and wise man Mr Miliband.
Frankly Milliband’s remarks were only addressed to the Islamic world. He would not have said them in front of an Israeli audience, for example, or even a British one.
Yes, Miliband tells people what they want to hear. And he generally talks to the wrong people. His father was quite clever though.
Turkey is a natural leader in the middle east with good relations to both sides. For too long it has seemed to shun this role. Was this a reaction from the years of Ottoman rule? Or just total introspection to allow it to develop a modern – but not necessarily Western – nation? In any event, it is good to see a democratic government as a player to counterbalance the despots and US clients in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi-Arabia.
Two Bushes, Two Iraq WarsAn insider’s view from an advisor who served in both administrations.Richard N. Haass
Fwiw it is quite well known in the UK that David Miliband’s mother has long been a member of the JFJP (Jews for Justice for Palestinians).
But to have become a successful politician, in an allegedly democratic society, perhaps the art of compromise and telling folk what they want to hear are the tools of his trade?
“Frankly Milliband’s remarks were only addressed to the Islamic world. He would not have said them in front of an Israeli audience, for example, or even a British one.” … alex_no
…before, finally, they were able to figure out a way to dislodge the Byzantines from Istanbul….
Are you suggesting that the Ottomans were native to the region? The Byzantines were not “dislodged” from Constantinople. The Ottomans conquered Constantinople.
Good to hear you half-know your history, JES. Yes, the Ottomans were native to northwest Anatolia. mix of Turks and native Anatolians. As much, at any rate, as the Byzantines. Byzantium, if you remember, had its origins as a Greek colony in a non-Greek-speaking land.
It’s just that the Ottomans happened to be Muslims, and Muslims cannot be natives, can they, JES? (Sarcasm alert)
The Greeks conquered, then Romans, then the Ottomans then ????
The same old arguments for war and aggression… “We/they were here first”.
Some North American Indian Tribes believed that the land did not belong to men, that men belonged to the land. I think this will stand the test of time.
I do know my history Alex. It’s just that it’s not the Muslim-centric narrative going around of late, and that you are repeating here.
The Seljuks only arrived in Anatolia in about the 11th century from Central Asia, and Osman was one of their descendents. So, while “Byzantium… had its origins as a Greek colony in a non-Greek-speaking land”, those “non-Greek-speakers” almost certainly were not Turkic speakers who only arrived some 1200 years later!
I don’t doubt that the Ottomans were a “mix”, as you say, of Turkic peoples and “native” Anatolians (a variety of peoples – but not necessarily Turkic). But then so were the Byzantines a “mix” of Greeks, Romans and “native” Anatolians.
As for your last remark: Well aren’t we witty!
Constantinople had existed for over a thousand years when the Ottomans conquered it. I certainly don’t believe – as you and Helena seem to imply – that the Ottomans “liberated” the city.
Some North American Indian Tribes believed that the land did not belong to men, that men belonged to the land.
Nice idea, John. I just don’t happen to buy this “noble savage” stuff.
Yah,
I paid a steep price for my two places too.
JES, you’re getting quite het up over something that neither Alex nor I claimed, or even “seemed to imply”, namely that the Ottomans “liberated” Byzantium.
My reading of what happened is that the Ottomans came from elsewhere and conquered Istanbul, just as, 500 years later, the Haganah came from elsewhere and conquered Palestine, or 400 years earlier, William of Normandy came from elsewhere and conquered southern Britain.
Conquests have been a (never pleasant) fact of history until the modern age, when “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force” became deeply embedded as a norm in international affairs. Thank goodness.
In the meantime, how are we to look at and deal with the legacies of the many conquests that have occurred over the years? One good way is to look at the record of the conquerors in their governance. Through that lens, the Ottomans look fairly impressive for the early centuries of their rule– 15th, 16th, 17th, etc. Not enlightened, rights-respected democrats by any means, of course; but also, considerably more open-minded and pluralistic than, probably, any other significant power-bloc of those years. (Certainly, any European power.)
Through that lens, the Haganah/IDF conquest of Palestine does not look very admirable. Also, coming after the UN charter had enshrined the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, their founding act of conquest (1948) had deep moral problems from the get-go… which still remain to be addressed.
But JES, you are a voluntary, US-born participant in the whole Zionist venture, so I guess you have a particular ideological take on all these issues.
Hmmmm. Can you please show me where “‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force’ became deeply embedded as a norm in international affairs”? It certainly was not in the UN Charter. I don’t believe that I saw that particular wording until UNSC Resolution 242, some 19 years following the IDF victory over Arab militias and invading armies in 1949. I don’t believe that it is “enshrined” in the UN Charter, as you say.
I also don’t see how you can assert that the “Ottomans look fairly impressive for the early centuries of their rule– 15th, 16th, 17th, etc. Not enlightened, rights-respected democrats by any means, of course; but also, considerably more open-minded and pluralistic than, probably, any other significant power-bloc of those years. (Certainly, any European power.)” I think the argument is quite petty, actually, and I certainly don’t see where you get off comparing IDF behavior with that of the Ottomans in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries!!!
Finally, as for your last, rather inane point: What does my personal background have to do with it?
We interact here as real people, JES, not as disembodied automata. You have made a choice, as an adult, to become part of the Zionist colonization venture. I made a choice, as an adult, to become part of the European-origined colonization venture in North America. I try to take responsibility for my actions– especially to do what I can (as American Quakers always have) to do as right by the country’s indigenes as possible; to prevent my country from inflicting further harms on people, especially through launching or participating in wars; to educate myself and to seek to educate my compatriots as much as possible about the history of this whole colonization venture and the deleterious effects it has had on so many of our fellow humans… So yes, the choices we have made in our lives that have an impact on others because of the politics behind them are relevant.
We all also need to stay quite aware of how our own commitments might color our ideologies and our views of others.
You seem to be arguing that acquisition of territory by force was quite okay in 1948. I beg to differ.
I try to take responsibility for my actions– especially to do what I can … to do as right by the country’s indigenes as possible….
Oh. So, what have you done lately. Considering that, as a percentage, the population of “indigenes” remaining in the US is less than that of Jews, I’d say not much. Also, I beg to correct you. You didn’t make that choice as an adult. As an English woman it had already been made for you centuries ago, and when you came to Virginia, it had already been conveniently “ethnically cleansed” of “indigenes”. You know, it’s easy to lecture others when you’ve already decimated the native population. There’s nothing more pitiful than a self-righteous, European white woman!
We all also need to stay quite aware of how our own commitments might color our ideologies and our views of others.
As for me, I don’t feel guilty at all. I live on land that was legally purchased in 1928 from a bedouin sheikh that had previously been uncultivated wasteland. I live within the Green Line, and I am on good terms with my neighbors – Jewish and Arab alike. (When was the last time that you ran into an “indigene” in a mall, Helena?)
You seem to be arguing that acquisition of territory by force was quite okay in 1948. I beg to differ.
Well, I beg to differ with you. The acquisition of territory by force is certainly not enshrined in the UN Charter, as you suggest. Further, there is ample precedent for the acquisition of territory as a result of an unsuccessful war of aggression by a party who is subsequently defeated (East Prussia is one example). But beyond this, I suggest that you use your time in Turkey to go up to Ankara and ask Mr. Erdogan or Mr. Bul what’s going on in Northern Cyprus!
And now that we have the red herrings that you dragged across the road out of the way, I think that a simple “No, you misunderstood. That is not what I was implying.” Would have done!
The Seljuks only arrived in Anatolia in about the 11th century from Central Asia, and Osman was one of their descendents.
That’s what I meant by half-knowledge, JES. I knew you’d come back with a remark which showed how little you know of history.
You only have to read the history to understand that a *few* Turks arrived from Central Asia with the Saljuqs. And they multiplied by intermarrying with local women. It’s the eternal story of conquerors. And it’s insulting to Helena to repeat masculine-centered versions of history. That’s why Turks today are not slit-eyed, but have a Mediterranean appearance (except for a few.).
As for ‘Muslim-centric’, that’s rich coming from you. You’ve been repeating a very particular line ever since you started commenting here. Admittedly, not as bad as some others.
That’s why Turks today are not slit-eyed, but have a Mediterranean appearance (except for a few.)
Today’s Turks come in all shapes and sizes, and some are – dare I use your term “slit-eyed”? – although I think that the technical term for it is “epicanthic folds”. BTW, did you know that a large percentage of the Turkish population also have shovel-shaped incisors – a definite sign of Central Asian extraction?
…it’s insulting to Helena to repeat masculine-centered versions of history.
LOL. That’s rich. First of all, I would imagine that Helena would be quite embarassed by your racist “slit-eyed” remark, and if she’s not then she should be! Second, I don’t really understand how it’s “masculine-centric” to maintain that the Turkic peoples arrived rather late on the scene – whether these were men or women – and that they intermixed with non-Turkic peoples who had arrived before. The question is, whether Constantinople, a city that had existed for over a millenium, needed to be liberated by the Ottomans “dislodging” the Byzantines. (Remember, that’s how this all started.) Finally, from what you’ve demonstrated here, you don’t know bubkis about the history of the region.
I think it telling that Helena regards the Haganah, the vast majority of whose actual fighters in ’36-’47 were Eretz Israeli-born, due to the undeniably effective British restrictions on Jewish immigration in the period ’36-’48, as “coming from someplace else to conquer Palestine.” While the mobilized IDF of May ’48 onwards may have had a different composition, this imprecision is more telling in that it reveals that from her perspective, there is nothing the Eretz-Israeli-born Jewish community could have done, including being indigenous, to BE indigenous. The Land is Palestine, inhabited by Palestinians, full stop, the Palestinian Jews to be disposed of by Izzedine al-Qassam, or that famous indigene, Fawzi al-Qaukji EFFENDI, servant of the Ottomans and later of the Nazi-swamp Syria of 1947.
While I admire JES’s fortitude, I have to say that he has taken on a sisyphean task. I live in a house built in 1961, on land owned by the Greek Orthodox church, to which I pay rent. On several occasions, I have pointed wandering Palestinian-European-or-US-Passport holders down the hill to Baka, Katamon, or Talbieh, the actual sites of the “beautiful old houses” whose photographs they clutch while decrying the evils of my colonialism.
JES – Article 2 #4 of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In the UN debates in 1967, the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force” was stated by many representatives to be a corollary of this, with no dissension. E.g. George Brown of the UK: “here the words ‘territorial integrity’ have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal …It follows from the words of the charter that war shall not lead to territorial aggrandizement.” (Quoted in Lall, UN & Middle East Crisis, p.135) The ICJ 2004 Wall decision was unanimous on this point: ” The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law.” (From summary here – http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SZIE-62QPZZ?OpenDocument) The idea that there is a real difference on this point in modern, post Charter law between aggressive and defensive war, is wrong amd insupportable. It is completely irrelevant also, because the idea that 1967 was a simple case of Israel defending itself from aggression is ridiculous.
Eurosabra, having lived for several years in Abu Tor, I know the place well. (I have lived for the past 25 years in the Sharon.) BTW, I love the irony that may be lost on some that neither Izzadin al-Qassam nor Fawzi al-Quakji were Palestinian “indegenes”.
JK, I don’t believe that Helena was talking about 1967. I believe that she was explicitly talking about 1948 (note her reference to Haganah). If the invasion of four armies and the aerial bombing of Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 wasn’t “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”, then I don’t know what was!
BTW Alex, epicanthic folds (what you call “slit-eyes”) are all or nothing: either you have them, or you don’t. Take, for example, the IDF naval chief Eli Marom who had a single Chinese grandparent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eli_Marum.jpg
had previously been uncultivated wasteland
Oh, “uncultivated wasteland” dose that give you rights to steel the land JES?
You may paid money yes but could you tell us what the landlord refused the offer of sale JES?
There are many stories still around and many people still a live, they can speaks telling their stories JES, just like Holocaust stories we hear it till now…..
Ironies, especially multiple ironies, are the spice of life. I think Helena might read up a bit of Shulamith Har-Even, or even some of the odd corners of someone as doctrinaire as Ghassan Kanafani, on the mikvaot of al-manshiyya quarter, Jaffa, to understand that to a certain extent governments, narratives, and certitudes are the enemies of the people. The last mixed, functioning, decolonized Palestinian institution was the Railway Union, and it worked precisely because it was independent of Islamism and Zionism. History is deeper than the decolonization narratives which would “repatriate” both Israeli-Palestinian Fahimis and me across the Line into Exile, in a repartition, away from our actual homes.
To your question, “can you please show me where “‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force’ became deeply embedded as a norm in international affairs”….
if your serious, (?) you might want to look back at standard international law texts on the matter of “territory” and “force” — and how norms shifted dramatically in the aftermath of world war I. (in the League Charter)
Then in the 1930’s, the United states took the lead in arguing for the principle. (e.g. the Stimson Doctrine, see Quincy Wright’s works, re. nonrecognition of Japanese claims of sovereignty over Manchuria, etc.) The Nuremburg war crimes trials also invoked the principle — in condemning Nazi attempts to take territories by force…..
By 1970, the UN general assembly’s Principles of International Law (#1) explicitly incorporates the principle….
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
And the principle again and again is invoked in resisting those who would insist that “changed facts” are laws sufficient to themselves — e.g., the Falklands, Kuwait, etc.
and yes, Israel.
And you, Scott, might want to look back at history. The Soviet Union acquired the Baltic States following WWII. Poland acquired East Prussia. China “aggrandized” its territory by forcing Tibet into a request for protection. Turkey invaded the northern portion of Cyprus to “protect” the Turkish population there and created a republic that is entirely dependent on the metropolitan.
Again, Helena was quite explicitly arguing that this principle was deeply enshrined in international law in 1948-49. It wasn’t. In fact, neither was the principle of “ethnic cleansing” (a term that wasn’t even coined until 1991) seen as illegal under international law (and don’t give me that bit about the IVth Geneva Convention; mass ethnic cleansing occurred after the war with tacit approval of all the participants).
And by the way, I consider Helena’s remarks rather snarky and considerably off topic. Her attempt to compare the behavior of 15th century Ottomans with the Hagana is laughable at best.
Interesting cases you reference Jes. The Soviet “acquisition” of the Baltic states was never accepted — under law that is, nor recognized. Tibet & Cyrus also remain “contested” issues…. (don’t recall though the Turks claiming Cyprus as a part of Turkey, per se) And as for Poland, interesting case — wherein we have several conquests back and forth. (and the last one yes, imposed on Germany, but not, per se, as a result of Polish “aggression.”)
In any case, I think the “principle” of the matter indeed has become widely recognized…. and yes, accepted.
Well Scott, I think that the case of the Occupied Territories is definitely contested! But that’s not what we’re talking about here, is it. We are talking about (per Helena’s – not my – assertion) about the original acquisition of territory by Israel in 1948. And that was the result of Arab agression!
And of course Israel’s recognized borders only rarely coincide with treaties of peace: the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli borders are demarcated, recognized, and at peace, while the UN has demarcated and recognized the Israeli border with Lebanon while Lebanon and Syria do not, and the Purple Line and Green Lines are still only ceasefire lines.
Since Helena regards the State of Israel as illegitimate in any borders, from the perspective of supporters of Israel, she is only relevant to the extent that she constitutes a danger to Israel and Israelis through her explicit support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
And of course Israel’s recognized borders only rarely coincide with treaties of peace: the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli borders are demarcated, recognized, and at peace, while the UN has demarcated and recognized the Israeli border with Lebanon while Lebanon and Syria do not, and the Purple Line and Green Lines are still only ceasefire lines.
Since Helena regards the State of Israel as illegitimate in any borders, it is always 1948, as with Fateh/Hamas/Jihad: no recognition as a Jewish state, no demarcation of borders, ROR, no peace until victory.
JES: The Soviet Union acquired the Baltic States following WWII. They had been part of the Russian Empire earlier. Their annexation was only partially recognized internationally, and not by the major western powers. Poland acquired East Prussia. The approval was not just tacit. Look toward the end of the UN charter. There is a forgotten article legalizing the postwar arrangements. (redrawing maps, mass ethnic cleansing, of questionable legality, even then, otherwise) The 4th GC was later, 1949 and strengthened international law. China “aggrandized” its territory by forcing Tibet into a request for protection. The Chinese case is that Tibet had always been a part of China, and imho most experts think their case is strong. Shortly before the Chinese occupation, the Tibetans tried to get other nations to recognize Tibet, but were completely unsuccessful.
There has never been any real debate or question that the UN Charter illegalized the acquistion of territory by force, or that 50 years earlier say, it was legal. The idea that it is not so enshrined is just outlandish, and would get a failing grade in any international law class, in Israel or anywhere else.
You are right, I didn’t realize 1948 was being considered. But there is a good, but moot, case for the parts of Israel outside the partition line but inside the green line being considered occupied territory back then. I believe the US did not consider them officially as part of Israel until Eshkol’s 1964 meeting with Johnson.
Comparing ancient and modern conquests is not fruitless. A modern conquering democracy may be forced by its democratic nature to ethnically cleanse its conquests as it fears the conquered will vote the wrong way. The Palestinians might have been better off with a dhimmi status under an Israeli sultan, and their homes and lands retained, than the reality of having a mere fraction of them remaining, with practically all their lands, even those of the remnant, stolen by the Israeli “democratic” state.
They [the Baltic states] had been part of the Russian Empire earlier.
Yes. But they had not been part of the Soviet Union! (And Poland had also been part of the Russian Empire. And most of the Transcaucasus had been part of the Ottoman Empire. And the Levant had been part of the Roman Empire….)
The 4th GC was later, 1949 and strengthened international law.
Yes, but this occurred after the armistice.
The Chinese case is that Tibet had always been a part of China, and imho most experts think their case is strong.
And isn’t that the case that the advocates of a “Greater Israel” make?
Eurosabra, I don’t where you got the idea that I think the state of Israel is “illegitimate in any borders”, as you stated. I do believe that all Israel’s conquests that lie outside the area allotted to it in the Partition Plan are of questionable legitimacy, and that retention of any of the areas conquered in 1967 is much more deeply illegitimate. Do Israel’s rulers want to negotiate a final peace treaty with the other legitimate claimants to the land of Mandate Palestine– that is, the 4.3 million Palestinians of the OPTs and the five-plus million Palestinians of the diaspora? If so, whatever those two parties– Israeli and Palestinian– agree between themselves in a fairly structured negotiation should surely receive the support of the whole international community, whether it is one state or two states.
But how can we build such a fairly structured negotiation that gives both national claimants to the land fair, that is more or less proportional weight and representation? (Assuming that the rights of one Palestinian are equal to the rights of one Israeli, as we must.) That is the big challenge, that 16 years of Bill-Clinton-GWB dominance of the process never got close to addressing. Instead, they just arbitrarily wiped out the claims of the diaspora Palestinians (many of who are still actually stateless and very vulnerable) and gave Israel a veto power over the remainder of the negotiation.
I hope the nuance of my position– which I’ve spelled out in many places, here and elsewhere– is not too hard for you to grasp.
Sure, and a peaceful demilitarized Palestinian state with an internationalized Jerusalem in a customs union with Israel is going to fulfill the other conditions of that plan. Sure. There is no nuance to pie-in-the-sky fantasizing, except to say that if it were possible, it would have been done. You count Palestinians to ensure demographic superiority, as does UNRWA, and push Trojan Horse recognition of Hamas, knowing that it means a bloodier war. So, really, I’ll be happy that you’re tied up with activism and verbiage, since I live in the realm of real threat on a daily basis, and don’t care to have my future dictated from Charlottesville.
That may have something to do with the fact that I’ve met more suicide bombers in action (3) than Palestinian negotiators (1, Saeb Erekat). Frankly, I don’t think any Palestinian government will ever recognize Israel as a Jewish state, nor do I think any Israeli government will give up settlements in the Territories. A clumsy modus vivendi will probably predominate.
Do Israel’s rulers want to negotiate a final peace treaty with the other legitimate claimants to the land of Mandate Palestine– that is, the 4.3 million Palestinians of the OPTs and the five-plus million Palestinians of the diaspora?
Interesting, I wonder if Helena would ever refer to Obama as the ruler of the United States?
So, really, I’ll be happy that you’re tied up with activism and verbiage, since I live in the realm of real threat on a daily basis, and don’t care to have my future dictated from Charlottesville.
Well said, Eurosabra!
I don’t think the Palestinians are interested in a final-status agreement that includes the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This is entirely in keeping with the PA Constitution, the PLO Charter, and the Hamas Charter. Since the beginning of Intifada Two, Palestine has been a non-state engaged in an undeclared war against Israel. Madrid was a Trojan Horse, Oslo was a Trojan Horse, Camp David and Taba were preludes to war. I can personally understand why Israel wants an intact PA, so as not to have the burden of the daily administration of the Palestinians in the Territories, and to kick the demographic can further down the road to Abu Dis. Part of this is the lovely Levantine tolerance for irresolution and ambiguity, the last “Western” state to take rocket fire on a daily basis from an armed enemy enclave was Croatia, which situation ended badly for Krajina Serbs. Israel seems to be following a strategy of maximal coercion with minimal bloodshed, which isn’t so bad considering the neighborhood, and the minimum demands of Hamas/Jihad.