It's a pretty important question, IMO. I have no idea who is right. I'd like to know more. The challenge is for partisans of either side to provide third-party corroboration for their claims. Vituperation is not going to persuade anyone here.
We understand LP's inclination to support indigenous persons over more powerful intruders, and there is something to be said for that. I don't know Hakki myself, but he seems knowledgeable in his own right. It is plausible that some Kurds would practice violence against other ethnic groups associated with Turkey. That in and of itself does not invalidate their national claims. Obviously sorting out who is and isn't a cop is pretty close to impossible in this setting. Whatever we decide is not very important either. Deciding who is and is not a 'nation' is a dicey business for an outsider. Some nations are defined by the oppression they suffer at the hands of others. The Palestinians, for instance. Or the black "race." That doesn't invalidate their claims or need for some kind of shelter under a bourgeois nation-state of their own. Like the Zionists 100 years ago, the Kurds are likely to side with whoever can offer some protection. At the same time, it seems clear they would not qualify as any kind of oppressor nation comparable to South Africa or Israel. The status quo -- some kind of protected Kurdish enclave in the North of Iraq -- seems a lot better than invasion or total withdrawal. The former raises the question of whether they get screwed by the U.S. and/or stomped on by Turkey; the latter means delivering them back to Saddam. mbs Michael Perelman wrote: >I think that the detailed debates about the intricacies of Turkish >politics might be far afield of the focus of this list right now. I.e., one of the parties to this debate is volatile, so let's move on to something else? Doug
