Smooth-talking Prince Hassan, patron and host of Bernard Lewis (a picture of Lewis in Hassan's tent can be found, placed with deliberate pride, on one of Lewis' recent books), likes to talk about the "Arabs" and "the Arab," in nicely-inflected British English. And he, rather than his thick-necked nephew, has become the true inheritor of the "moderate" mantle -- not to be confused with any immoderate keffiyeh -- of his brother, "plucky little king" Hussein. But from time to time the mantle, used as a mask (wrapped around the face, covering everything below those liquid brown eyes), drops, and Hassan appears, the real Hassan, defender of the Faith, and of the Sunni Faith.
Well, here he is. He wants, as do the rulers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Americans to stay and protect the Sunnis and prevent what the Americans, if they have any sense left, will not try to prevent. One piquant detail: Hassan tells us that the Kurds are Sunnis. Yes, they for the most part are. But so what? Their resentment and even hatred of the Arabs, and especially of the Sunni Arabs who have ruled over them, more than makes up for the fact that they share "Sunni" Islam with the Sunni Arabs.
What Hassan simply cannot recognize, any more than the Sunni Arabs in Iraq can recognize, is that the Kurds want out. They've had it with the Arabs. Au ras-le-bol. And if they've had it, so have many non-Arab Muslims, such as the most advanced Berbers, in Algeria, in other parts of the Maghreb, and in France itself. The small organization of maghrebins laiques (secular Maghrebins) in France appeals mostly to Berbers, not Arabs. And that makes sense. For the Berbers, like the Kurds, have another identity, an ethnic one, that plays against, rather than as "Uruba" or Arabness, merely reinforces, one's sense of oneself as a Muslim and nothing but a Muslim. And the creation of an independent Kurdistan will inspire those other non-Muslim Arabs. For Infidels, and for those non-Muslim Arabs, that is a Good Thing.
We want to press the matter home. We want to show how indifferent the Arabs are to the wellbeing of non-Arab Muslims. And Prince Hassan has done just that in his bland remark about the Kurds being "Sunnis" -- and therefore he wishes that their numbers should be toted up, by the world that counts, in the column of Sunnis. But he ignores Al-Anfal, the Sunni-led massacre of 182,000 Kurds, and all the other mistreatment of the Kurds by the Arabs.
In the same way, the westernized secularized Kanan Makiya, who now teaches at Brandeis, ignores what needs the most attention. In a recent article he is described as trying to figure out "what went wrong" in Iraq. He has apparently made the mistake of other advanced, westernized, secularized, long-in-exile Iraqis, who simply did not know, or refused to recognize, the violence, the aggression, the habit of mental submission, the ingrained inshallah-fatalism, that characterize the Iraqi masses, because those masses are Muslims, raised in a society suffused with Islam. That is something that the most unrepresentative "representative" men coming out of those societies, such as Chalabi and Makiya, do not themselves recognize. And what's worse, they mislead the largely ignorant policymakers in the West, including those who believed, with Bernard Lewis, that Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations could in fact be created, and who foresaw that the "liberation of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession," and who even today refuse to confront their own part in misreading Iraq, and misleading the American ignoramuses and naifs, on their messy messianic mission. All that Iraq should mean for Americans and other Infidels is a place to exploit the natural fissues, sectarian and ethnic, in the Islamic world, so as to weaken the advance of the worldwide Jihad. Yet these are the fissures which Prince Hassan so tellingly cannot quite comprehend, as he ignores the ethnic fissure: the Kurds who correctly want to be free of the Arabs after all that the Arabs during the entire history of modern Iraq have done to them -- stealing their oil, stealing their land, and massacring them by the hundreds of thousands.
Makiya wrote a book about the Kurdish massacres. He couldn't understand, in that book, the silence of so many. Why didn't other Arabs in Iraq protest? Why was he, Kanan Makiya, virtually the only one? Why, he might have further asked, didn't the Arab League protest? Why didn't any Arab head of state protest? Why was there silence about the massacring of the Kurds?
But the greatest failure of Makiya in that book is his apparent inability to recognize that the indifference or even approval of other Arabs is no mystery. It is as one with the Arab indifference to the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs in Algeria, who would deny the Berbers their rights to preserve and use their own language and their own folkways. It is as one with the support given, and interference at the U.N. and other forums run by, the Arabs -- all the Arabs in the Arab League, without exception -- for the massacre by Arabs in the Sudan of those perceived to be non-Arab Muslims in Darfur.
In a sense, both Prince Hassan (who fails to see why the Kurds should not be included in the column of "Sunni Arabs") and Kanan Makiya (who has failed to see why the Arabs outside Iraq never protested the massacre of the Arabs) show the limits of those "moderates," who, no matter how outwardly well-spoken or seemingly Western in their ways, in the end cannot dare to examine Islam. This is what it does to the people who, through no fault of their own, are born into it and swim in societies suffused with it: even a Makiya or a Prince Hassan cannot begin to see that Islam is, and always will be, a vehicle for Arab imperialism -- as the Kurds of Iraq, even the "Sunni" Kurds of Iraq, and so many other non-Arab Muslim victims of Arab Muslim oppressors, can testify.
"Makiya wrote a book about the Kurdish massacres. He couldn't understand, in that book, the silence of so many. Why didn't other Arabs in Iraq protest? Why was he, Kanan Makiya, virtually the only one? Why, he might have further asked, didn't the Arab League protest? Why didn't any Arab head of state protest? Why was there silence about the massacring of the Kurds"?
The same can be said re the Negro Africans in Darfur. The people who kill them obviously have African Negro ancestry too, but the killers of the Negro Africans identify with their masters, the Caucasian Arabs (with their generally stubby Caucasian legs-LOL).
Arabs, "the best people" are the only people who can ever be victims. This system of rationalization led to extermination of non-Arabs in India and elsewhere, why should the Kurds, the Negro Africans, or Jews be exempt? I am coming to the conclusion that Islam at its core is Arab Imperialism.
Independence for Kosovo? Why not independence for Kurdistan?
Isn't it interesting that the Arabs weren't able to get rid of the Crusader Kingdoms until a Kurd, Saladin, came along to show them how? Isn't it inspiring how the Arabs have shown their gratitude ever since?
"Well, here he is. He wants, as do the rulers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Americans to stay and protect the Sunnis and prevent what the Americans, if they have any sense left, will not try to prevent".
It sure is getting tiresome in expecting the US to be the mercenaries for whatever faction of Islam feels threatened by another faction of Islam. It was this sort of nonsense in 1990, when the US had to save Kuwait from Iraq at Riyadh's behest, that led to Bin Laden, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Are we sure the US is really a superpower? It seems more like it's merely a tool of Islam and the worst part of all this is that none of our so called leaders is realizing this. It is our blood and money being wasted by contemptible creatures on behalf of even worse creatures. Expecting the US to save Islam from itself is insane (and hypocrtical on Islam's part). This insanity needs to end and end soon.
Too many people think of Kurds as a different religion because the MSM constantly refer to the divisions in Iraq as Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. I get tired of correcting this all the time locally.
Bring back Kurdistan, and redivide the region based upon the local powers that be, not the imaginary ones forced by the departing British and French colonial powers. The borders might not be perfect, but it might cut down on the killing. Might.
I don't believe that Kurdish ethnicity will trump Sunni ideology for a second. One hundred years ago Sunni Kurds were the ones who responded to the Ottoman Caliph's call for volunteers to wipe out the Armenians and Assyrians. Today, the Sunni Kurdish war against the Christian Assyrians continues as viciously as ever. No, the Sunni Kurds are first and foremost Sunnis and should be treated as such.
Fortunately, the are some Kurdish tribes whose Islam is only an external veneer. Like Marranos who kept their Judaism after outwardly converting to Christianity, these Kurds are externally Muslim but maintain their old Yarsan and Yazdan religions.
Yarsan or Ahl-i Haqq (Kurdish:Yarsan/Yaresan meaning People of the Truth)is a religious sect, and is currently primarily found in western Iran. Adherents are mainly from the Kurdish tribes of Guran, Qalkhani and Sanjabi located in western Iran. They also have adherents in Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan.
Yazdânism or Cult of Angels (also Yazdâni or Yazdanism) is a modern term for the monotheistic, though universalist, religion that was practiced by most Kurds up to the Islamisation during the sixteenth century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarsani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazdanism
It is on these Kurds that we can pin our hope for the future.