Again it's easy for you to say because they are not taking a part of your country, you only see their point of view and disregard the point of view of the other side, I also noticed no one discuss all the bad things they did, and them being a media darling atm it's not surprising.
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I’m giving what I believe is the general Western perspective, which is what I thought you specifically asked for, i.e. “why would anybody sympathize with the Kurds?” My own view is a bit more nuanced, I’ve criticized the Kurds on here in the past for over-stretching in Azaz, Jarablous and Raqqa, for human rights abuses, and for unfurling a massive banner of Ocalan in downtown Raqqa.
(e.g. see here, here, here, here, here)
However, ultimately in this horrible civil war they’ve been the least problematic element from a Western perspective. And as I stated above, they have explicitly not made any claims to independence from Syria, or as you put it “take part of your country.”
On that topic though, how do you feel about the Turkish army now occupying large areas of your country (not to mention Alexandretta/Hatay since 1939)? Does it bother you when Turkish TV shows maps of Turkey including much of northern Syria, while Erdogan speaks about reclaiming territory lost in WW1?
I'm sorry if you took what I said personally, I wasn't really talking about your view rather I was talking about the general view here, I know they made no claims of Independence but you'd be a fool not to think they are not building up to it.
The Kurds also betrayed the trust of the people, when it all started they were going on protests and helping out with the revolution and then suddenly they cozied up to the regime.
I'm not not totally against Turkish side taking part of the land temporarily if it ultimately leads to a safe zone that civilians can go to for the remainder of the war, also no matter what the regime and rebels did, they Kurds are taking out on innocent civilians when they take their lands so I don't agree with the lesser of 2 evils, in fact I'd rather any other side to be in the area than kurds.
Nothing, but as noted to SS, it's a big reason why there's a lot of sympathy for them as well as understanding why an oppressed group that has been subjected to genocide would want their own state.
As has also been noted, the borders we know in the ME began with Sykes-Picot and are not representative of anything other than western spheres of influence.
So if I suffered a personal tragedy I can expect sympathy if I want to take my neighbors house?
Well... you'd kinda need to include that your neighbor's house is artifically larger than it was supposed to be because the contractor changed the contract and took the materials that were supposed to be used to build your house and used them to build your neighbor's.
I dunno... the analogy gets messy, but so does the whole history of the Sykes-Picot, Sevres, and Lausanne treaties.
It's not though, the neighbor is saying that to drive their agenda.
My personal experience with the kurds is my Aunt was married to one, he passed away a few years ago and was a great man, but him and his kids and his family are all against seperation from Syria, as is most Kurds in Damascus (over 500 thousands easily).
I sympathize with Kurds, I really do, as I said I wouldn't mind if they actually take the part that they actually populate which is a lot smaller than what they have now, they can't just take Raqqa, Aleppo's suburbs, and Der Ezzour, for Syria as a small poor country those are vital to keep and they are rightfully ours.
Saying what?
The history of Sykes-Picot / Sevres / Lausanne is messy. The western powers created a massive problem when they broke up the Ottoman Empire.
On this topic, there is a new wave of scholarship currently emerging which is questioning just how artificial the borders are, and the importance of Sykes-Picot. The dominant theme seems to be that the role played by native elites has been overlooked due to the disproportional emphasis on the imperialists. This is a good two-part article considering the case of Iraq:
https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/3...-and-the-Legend-of-the-Artificial-State-Part-1
https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/3...-and-the-Legend-of-the-Artificial-State-Part-2
One of the burning questions in Middle Eastern studies has been how, if the states and their borders lack legitimacy, have they endured so long, even surviving three explicit attempts to undo the post-WW1 system. I think part of the answer lies in this new approach.
I agree, best thing for the area would be if Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq actually unite under a democratic leadership somehow, never going to happen though.
I disagree on Iraq. First of all Iraqies will not accept sharing the wealth of their land with the neighbors
. Second, Iraq is a 7000 years old civilization and I doubt the people would agree on being part of a bigger united area rather than considering themselves as a nation. Third, the majority of the country is Shia and I doubt they would agree on being under the rule of a Sunni leadership again.I disagree on Iraq. First of all Iraqies will not accept sharing the wealth of their land with the neighbors
Asian union like in the EU ?
It's called Sham, we were all one once, it's about the bigger picture rather than wealth.I disagree on Iraq. First of all Iraqies will not accept sharing the wealth of their land with the neighbors
Actually it would be very good for the economy of the Asian countries if this can happen.
Iraq was never part of the Levante or Al sham. Apart of the Assyrian empire with its center in the Iraqi city Mousul when they were united with the other levant states, Iraq has always been a separate state.
While it's true but still there's a sense of unity there.
Iraq will cut any attempt to move them to northern Iraq.
Anything is acceptable as long as people stop dying.
I'm good thanks. I'm all for good relations with everyone but I'd like to keep my identity.
I'm 100% with accepting refugees in Northern Iraq as those people have no place to go but I am absolutely against any SDF members getting into Iraq.
Of course, yay patriotism, good for you.
It wouldn’t work anyway. Most those countries can’t even treat their minorities with dignity, what makes you think a federal system will work. It will collapse almost immediately.
Who the feck is he to decide?
to guard the oilfields - but not the people...
In some ways you almost have to admire the fact that at least hes not trying to pretend its about anything other than oil
I know it would never work, but taking offense from a hypothetical situation and that would actually improve the area and saying thing like "oh I would lose my identity" is beyond idiotic, as if Syrian people would agree to unite with the Lebanese after the way they acted with our refugees.
The US look like complete and utter idiots regarding Syria. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Headless chickens spring to mind.
The protests today in Baghdad was massive and has been bloody. Many innocent people fell today. I could post pics of the protests but I am too sad to do that after seeing pics of the people who fell.
Big* protests in Iran again tonight.
(Edit): maybe widespread would be a better description at this stage. Seems a spontaneous response to the government hiking up gas prices.
(Edit): maybe widespread would be a better description at this stage. Seems a spontaneous response to the government hiking up gas prices.
^ Yes...and now into the second night.
Some of of the chants: "Reza Shah, god bless your soul", "No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, My life is only for Iran" and there is a new chant which in English roughly translates to: "We don't have money or gas for ourselves, who the f*** cares about Palestine"
Banners of Khomeini and Khamenei being burnt and ripped. 9 dead so far.
Interesting that protests also happening in various places in Tehran and Tabriz (this is a major city that was almost completely absent in the protests of 2 years ago).
Unprecedented cold weather and snow in Tehran now too, but people have parked their cars on main squares and blocked the road. Strength to them!
Some of of the chants: "Reza Shah, god bless your soul", "No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, My life is only for Iran" and there is a new chant which in English roughly translates to: "We don't have money or gas for ourselves, who the f*** cares about Palestine"
Banners of Khomeini and Khamenei being burnt and ripped. 9 dead so far.
Interesting that protests also happening in various places in Tehran and Tabriz (this is a major city that was almost completely absent in the protests of 2 years ago).
Unprecedented cold weather and snow in Tehran now too, but people have parked their cars on main squares and blocked the road. Strength to them!
What is driving the protests ? Economics ? Corruption ?
The regime hiked the gas prices by 300% overnight 2 days ago and that's why caused the protests to initially erupt. Maybe it's the sign of them running out of money and sanctions really hitting them hard?
but overall, it's hard to put to word how awful they are. I always say Assad is like Switzerland compared to those who rule in Iran, at least Syrians had some social liberties and freedoms which Iranians have been deprived of for 40 years. Luckily for the Ayatollahs, they've always had the House of Saud religious insanity to use as cover and make themselves look better.
Hence why the most common and popular chants in the protests are people cherishing the memories of Reza Shah and to a lesser extent his son (Funnily Reza shah was a much more ruthless dictator than Mohammad Reza Shah, his son). People don't mind a dictator, as long as it's a competent dictator that improves people's lives and actually cares about the well-being of the citizens. No one is demanding Finland style liberal democracy, just some basic competence, basic needs being met, and Iranian resources used to improve the lives of Iranians (You could say it's Iranian version of IRAN FIRST!") and more social freedoms.
Saw some of the grim footage on twitter. Can't imagine it will be long before Drumpf sticks his beak into this, especially as it would provide for a welcome diversion from impeachment news.
They had one but unfortunately for the Iranians the British and the Americans got rid of him and put the puppet Shah in his place.
While by all accounts Mossadegh was a great man and the one who nationalized our oil, I don't think we can say with 100% certainty he'd be a democratic leader, seeing he only was in charge for about a year or so. Also, I don't agree Shah was a puppet. Yes, in 1953, he owed his rule to the coup and he had great relations with the West, but he wasn't a Western puppet for the entirety of his rule (He pointed out Jewish over-representation in US Media and Banks for example, said if you remove Khomeini's turbon, it has a "Made in UK" sign tattooed to his head" etc. Shah did a lot to modernize Iranian society through his White Revolution and actually genuinely loved and cared for Iran, but he made some big strategic mistakes like trying to change too much too fast, not killing off Khomeini early on in 1964 instead of sending him to exile, not addressing inequality adequately and abolition of political parties to except for one.
The fact is, people now dream of the Shah era and see it in a nostalgic way. While Shah wasn't as popular and effective as his father was, but he was still significantly and by millions of miles better than the current mob who don't even call the country "IRAN", but rather "Islamic Republic".