Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 29 2007
In the name of love
by CEM OZDEMIR
Everybody -- journalists, party leaders, the president of the
republic, the chief of general staff -- found harsh words to condemn
the murder of Hrant Dink. But don't they see that there is a link
between what they are writing, saying and preaching in their daily
professional lives and what happened to Hrant? How can one condemn
his murder and still argue for the absurd Article 301, which brought
him to court multiple times for nothing but his opinion?
How can one continue to argue that the border to Armenia should
remain closed? Some are against opening the border because of the
Armenian occupation of Azeri territory. But that's all the more
reason to take the initiative and establish good relations with your
neighbors, thereby becoming the good broker in the process to
negotiate a fair and just solution.
Those who continue to oppose the recent legislation on foundations
don't understand that treating Armenians and other Christians as
second-class citizens was exactly what Hrant was fighting against.
How can one still be against Christians becoming officers, generals
and members of parliament?
How can one still continue to declare as an enemy everybody who has
another opinion than the official one on the events of 1915?
Just before Hrant was murdered, Sylvester Stallone became the new
enemy. What did he do wrong? He supported the views of the majority
of historians and experts in the world and described the events of
1915 as genocide. Even if one doesn't agree with him, has anyone
bothered to read the script of the movie he is planning? How many
people have actually read Franz Werfel's book about the 40 days of
Musa Dag? Or does the fact that Werfel and Stallone don't share the
official views of the state automatically make them enemies? And if
so, is it treason if I watch Stallone's new film, "Rocky Balboa"?
Recent commentaries on TV and in the papers that say this film too is
now bad, even though it has nothing to do with his announced movie
about Werfel's book, are incredibly shortsighted.
In case it matters: I am still a fan of Stallone and his movies (OK,
except for the Rambo series) and I look forward to seeing "Rocky
Balboa," just as I was looking forward to it only a couple of weeks
ago. The difference now, of course, is that since last Friday, I
don't feel much like going to the movies?.
There is enough sadness in Hrant's death. But it increases my pain
even more to watch people talk about him and his heritage who never
understood Hrant while he was alive. For all the talk about Hrant's
legacy let's not overlook Agos, his Turkish-Armenian newspaper, which
should persevere. Hrant's death should not be used to make arguments
in favor of or against Turkey's accession to the European Union.
Obviously, Turkey's EU prospects were for Hrant -- and remain for
other people of different origins in Turkey -- a chance to improve
their rights. Nor should the death be employed in the debate
surrounding the events of 1915. Hrant did not insist on recognizing
the genocide as a precondition for a dialogue as some people in the
diaspora do. But remember his words when he said that the Armenians
know what happened to them.
One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One man come he to justify
One man to overthrow
One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed on an empty beach
One man betrayed with a kiss
U2 sang this song for Martin Luther King, Jr. I would like to
dedicate it to my brother Hrant Dink.
Do they who betrayed him with a kiss know what they did?
Turkey produced both Hrant Dink and the 17-year-old boy who killed
him. And let's not forget the thousands of people who marched in
solidarity and chanted, "We are all Hrant Dink! We are all
Armenians!"
This is Turkey, and its future depends on whether it produces more
Hrant Dinks -- who live in the name of love -- or more 17-year-old
boys who kill in the name of hate.
Jan 29 2007
In the name of love
by CEM OZDEMIR
Everybody -- journalists, party leaders, the president of the
republic, the chief of general staff -- found harsh words to condemn
the murder of Hrant Dink. But don't they see that there is a link
between what they are writing, saying and preaching in their daily
professional lives and what happened to Hrant? How can one condemn
his murder and still argue for the absurd Article 301, which brought
him to court multiple times for nothing but his opinion?
How can one continue to argue that the border to Armenia should
remain closed? Some are against opening the border because of the
Armenian occupation of Azeri territory. But that's all the more
reason to take the initiative and establish good relations with your
neighbors, thereby becoming the good broker in the process to
negotiate a fair and just solution.
Those who continue to oppose the recent legislation on foundations
don't understand that treating Armenians and other Christians as
second-class citizens was exactly what Hrant was fighting against.
How can one still be against Christians becoming officers, generals
and members of parliament?
How can one still continue to declare as an enemy everybody who has
another opinion than the official one on the events of 1915?
Just before Hrant was murdered, Sylvester Stallone became the new
enemy. What did he do wrong? He supported the views of the majority
of historians and experts in the world and described the events of
1915 as genocide. Even if one doesn't agree with him, has anyone
bothered to read the script of the movie he is planning? How many
people have actually read Franz Werfel's book about the 40 days of
Musa Dag? Or does the fact that Werfel and Stallone don't share the
official views of the state automatically make them enemies? And if
so, is it treason if I watch Stallone's new film, "Rocky Balboa"?
Recent commentaries on TV and in the papers that say this film too is
now bad, even though it has nothing to do with his announced movie
about Werfel's book, are incredibly shortsighted.
In case it matters: I am still a fan of Stallone and his movies (OK,
except for the Rambo series) and I look forward to seeing "Rocky
Balboa," just as I was looking forward to it only a couple of weeks
ago. The difference now, of course, is that since last Friday, I
don't feel much like going to the movies?.
There is enough sadness in Hrant's death. But it increases my pain
even more to watch people talk about him and his heritage who never
understood Hrant while he was alive. For all the talk about Hrant's
legacy let's not overlook Agos, his Turkish-Armenian newspaper, which
should persevere. Hrant's death should not be used to make arguments
in favor of or against Turkey's accession to the European Union.
Obviously, Turkey's EU prospects were for Hrant -- and remain for
other people of different origins in Turkey -- a chance to improve
their rights. Nor should the death be employed in the debate
surrounding the events of 1915. Hrant did not insist on recognizing
the genocide as a precondition for a dialogue as some people in the
diaspora do. But remember his words when he said that the Armenians
know what happened to them.
One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One man come he to justify
One man to overthrow
One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed on an empty beach
One man betrayed with a kiss
U2 sang this song for Martin Luther King, Jr. I would like to
dedicate it to my brother Hrant Dink.
Do they who betrayed him with a kiss know what they did?
Turkey produced both Hrant Dink and the 17-year-old boy who killed
him. And let's not forget the thousands of people who marched in
solidarity and chanted, "We are all Hrant Dink! We are all
Armenians!"
This is Turkey, and its future depends on whether it produces more
Hrant Dinks -- who live in the name of love -- or more 17-year-old
boys who kill in the name of hate.