Posted on February 02, 2024 10:30
–In one of your speeches, you say that the Sykes-Picot Agreement shaped the Palestine issue; can you open it?
Fuat Önen: With the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Arab geography was shared between France and England. This is the Arab geography that will become a state. Palestine is excluded from this and placed under inter-state control. Before, this was the joint rule of France and Britain. Later, the geography of Palestine was handed over to England. And there is a Palestine issue that has been going on ever since.
In fact, the geography we call Palestine is not a geography in which neither Muslim Arabs nor Jewish Hebrews became a nation. The word Palestine comes from the Philistines who lived in that geography then. There is no solid information about these Philistines, but according to the generally accepted view, They migrated from Crete and settled there. It is said that their language is one of the Indo-European languages. In other words, the Philistines gave their name to that geography.
The migration of the Hebrews dates back 3,100 years. When the Hebrews went there, the Philistines were there. In the first place, the Amalikas were a great kingdom. The Hebrews clashed with both the Philistines and the Amalites. Then, especially during the reign of David, a Hebrew kingdom was established there. They were exiled 2,500 years ago by the Babylonians and then by the Assyrians. Later, some of the Hebrews who were expelled during the Persian period returned to Palestine. Therefore, neither Jewish Hebrews nor Muslim Arabs dominated or governed themselves there for 2,500 years. The arrival of Muslim Arabs there dates back 1,500 years, and they came gradually.
1948 When Britain withdrew from there, the state of Israel was declared that day. England’s project was to establish a Muslim-Arab state and a Jewish-Hebrew state in the geography called Palestine. Not only the Arabs there – in Palestine – but the Arab states in general did not accept this, and as soon as the state of Israel was established, Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordan occupied the Sharia. Conflicts broke out: until 1967, it came not as a Palestinian-Israeli conflict but as an Israeli-Arab war, an Israeli-Arab feud.
After 1967, Especially after the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the emergence of Palestinian organizations such as the Democratic Front and the Popular Front on the political and war scene, it has increasingly turned into a Palestinian-Israeli conflict and war. Meanwhile, Israel committed many massacres.
Finally, with the intervention of the USA and the Soviets, and especially at the initiative of the USA, a Palestinian state was accepted. A Palestinian state was established as an observer member of the United Nations, recognized by nearly 160 states worldwide. Therefore, in this process, since 1948, the Hebrews have built a nation there. So today, we can talk about a Hebrew or Jewish nation there. A Palestinian-Arab nation has been made there with the war waged under the leadership of Palestinian organizations since 1967. Palestinians have two and a half states today, although they are not at the same level.
One is the state ruled by HAMAS in Gaza. The Palestine Liberation Organization, or Fatah, also governs a state in the West Bank. East Jerusalem, however, appears to have an international-controlled status. However, Israeli sovereignty exists in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Their relations continue with a model they maintain with Fatah.
The conflict that has been going on for the last two months is no longer a Palestine-Israel war but has turned into a battle between HAMAS-Israel and HAMAS-Netanyahu. Both the Palestinians and Iran were excluded from the order that was tried to be reestablished in the Middle East in recent years. What they call Abrahamic agreements: In the negotiations that continued under the patronage of the USA, both sides were ignored. In other words, Israel tried to reorganize its relations with Saudi Arabia, but the Palestinian issue and the two-state solution have yet to appear. Iran was not included in the scope of these Abrahamic agreements.
HAMAS’s attraction was the result of this stuckness. I think they carried out a very successful military operation. They can say that they achieved their political goals in the short term. Today, They say everyone, from the Pope to Joe Biden, favors the two-state solution: “But will the war spread?” The USA persistently prevents the spread of the war. Iran also seems not to want this war to spread. While they support HAMAS’ military actions, they are trying to prevent its spread. Before the war applies Well, if it is completed within a few weeks, a political solution for the Palestinian issue will be discussed again.
It is tough to realize this two-state solution after this war. Because Netanyahu sees this as an opportunity and wants to advance as far as he can. In summary, Netanyahu is trying to destroy HAMAS, depopulate Gaza, or create a 2 km wide and 40 km long safe zone from north to south.
Another obstacle to this two-state solution is more political unity among the Palestinians. Therefore, this is an issue that will take years to resolve. It doesn’t seem like the Palestinian problem can be solved alone, where I stand. The fundamental issues here have been since 1918. These are the political borders approved first by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations.
As long as these political boundaries remain, achieving permanent peace and equitable and fair solutions in the Near East and the Middle East will not be possible. But there may be temporary solutions that the capitalist-imperialist system can provide within its own rules. These will be solutions that still need to be solved permanently. It is the Israeli revolutionary forces that can end this war. To the extent that they can escalate the struggle against their governments, this endless conflict can be prevented.
The emergence of a national revolutionary alternative in Palestine is also necessary for a solution. Currently, there is not a national revolutionary alternative to the struggle of the Palestinian people.
HAMAS is a political movement under the control of regional reactionism. Among the states that support HAMAS are Türkiye, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. A political movement under the control of regional reactionism remains far from an egalitarian solution.
Both the 22 Arab states in the region, Turkey and Iran, do not want a severe solution to the Palestine issue. Especially from the perspective of Arab reactionism, from Iran’s perspective, and Turkey’s perspective, not resolving the Palestine issue is an issue that brings political benefit.
The permanent solution is a revolution, but no revolutionary organizations on either side aim to achieve such a revolution. Therefore, this issue raises more water.
–What do you think about the evaluations of Kurdistan politicians and Turkish left politicians in Palestine?
Fuat Önen: The correct attitude on this issue is now the statehood of two nationalized communities. There is no side in the current conflict that I can call “my side.” But it is necessary to oppose the atrocities that Israel has been carrying out for the last two months.
Regardless of the attitudes, practices, and understandings of Palestinian organizations and Palestinian political groups, as a temporary solution to this issue: “Independent-United Palestine” is the right of the Palestinian society.
If Israel wants to ensure its security, it must establish this security belt on its border. In Gaza, which is already six kilometers to ten kilometers deep, handing over two kilometers to Israel would make it uninhabitable.
This time, the attitude of Kurdish political groups was generally moderate. In Northwestern Kurdistan, Hezbollah, HUDAPAR, and Islamic organizations in Southern Kurdistan considered this a means to jihad and carried out activities supporting HAMAS. HAMAS has the same mentality. They are far from a national revolutionary attitude. Neither these Kurdish organizations have a national revolutionary line in Kurdistan, nor HAMAS has a national revolutionary line in Palestine.
Other than that, the Kurdish forces – as far as I observed – took political stances opposing the war, criticizing both sides and wishing for the war to end as soon as possible.
– The most important argument put forward by the Turkish left to support HAMAS was Sheikh Said. Just as we embrace Sheikh Said, If we emphasize its national liberationist character, the number of people who say that HAMAS should be supported with the same understanding is increasing. What are your opinions on this subject?
Fuat Önen: It is very wrong to compare the Azadi Organization with HAMAS. The Azadi Organization had a national revolutionary program and led a national uprising. HAMAS is an organization far from this national extreme attitude. There is no reason for them to draw parallels with the 1925 uprising again to support it. Because they are not similar. Moreover, the Turkish Left was generally against the 1925 uprising.
Turkey and Israel are not the same states. Today, more than one million Palestinian Arabs live in Israel, and they are equal citizens of Israel. As Palestinians, they enter the Israeli parliament, defend the rights of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, and support the struggle for an Independent Palestine.
Israel has never denied the existence of Palestinian Arabs. He does not have a project to Hebrewize them. Israel is not a state that can be compared to Türkiye and the Republic of Turkey. 25 The Kurdish uprising and the Azadi Organization are not organizations comparable to HAMAS.
– While the Sheikh Said uprising is used as an argument, no one mentions the Azadi Organization. Sheikh Said’s religious aspect is highlighted.
Fuat Önen: Why do they resort to this? Since they cannot find enough arguments to support HAMAS, they will draw parallels and keep them. Sheikh Said’s rebellion is a Kemalist definition. We look at it as the 1925 Kurdish or Kurdistan uprising. Those who organized this uprising were modernist cadres. Especially after the murders of Halit Bey and Yusuf Ziya Bey, it was up to Sheikh Said Efendi to lead the rebellion. Analogies are already risky, but it is wrong to compare two completely different movements and two organizations and draw conclusions from them.
What I said is independent of defending that Independent United Palestine is a national right.
-Reports are circulating that Israel was “aware of the October 7 attack but gave way.” And also: “HAMAS misled and did very incompetent things.” Thus, there is news such as: “Israel did not understand that this operation would happen.” What do you think about it?
Fuat Önen: The State of Israel indeed received intelligence that a military operation would exist. Because it is said that this happened after a year and a half of preparation, Israel is the United States of America in the region.
US bases in Turkey also work in parallel with Israel. Therefore, it is true that they were aware, but I think they did not expect an attack of this scope.
The reason why they do not take precautions is that the Netanyahu government needs war.
Well, “There will be a HAMAS attack; some people may be killed.” After that: “We will take this as an opportunity and try to realize our project in Gaza.” I assume they thought. These are, of course, predictive analyses. Otherwise, if the State of Israel had expected an attack of this scale, it would probably have taken precautions. Such states are states that feed on war.
For example, We observe such approaches in the relations of the Turkish state with Southwest Kurdistan. Even for a while -I think he was the MİT undersecretary- “If necessary, we will fire a few rockets from bottom to top and start the war.” they said. Perhaps it is possible to evaluate this latest Ankara attack in this way. Even though they are aware, they can remain silent because they need war to create justification for war.
There are some similarities between the management mentalities of the Turkish state and the Israeli state. I attribute this to the vital Jewish influence in the founding of the Republic of Turkey. But I don’t think they deliberately attempted such an attack.
There have been some allegations that have been made for a long time regarding HAMAS’s relations with Israel. Some say that Israel had a hand in the establishment of HAMAS. Yes, I think that when HAMAS was founded, Israel used this for itself:
He may have supported HAMAS and provided the opportunity to weaken the Palestine Liberation Organization and direct the national movement to different routes.
But when viewed from today’s reality, HAMAS is not a toy in Israel’s hands.
-Can it be said that this ongoing war in Palestine is happening only for religious reasons?
Fuat Önen: This is not a war waged for religious reasons. It results from an ongoing battle with political motives, the world orders established after the First and Second World Wars, and the system of states on which these world orders are based.
Both sides use religious motifs. Maybe the following note should be made for Israel there: The Torah is a book revealed to a people. It is a book that was exposed to the Children of Israel. They need a universal message. In this sense, it is a kind of tribal religion. The Jewish religion is the religion of the Israelites. These motifs are constantly used in the state structure on the Israeli side.
HAMAS is not a national movement but an “Islamic Resistance Movement,” as is its name. But I think it would be wrong to say that this is a religious war. Because religious wars are not essentially a war between Muslims and Jews. In other words, the religious war is essentially a war between Christians and Jews. Christians say that the Jews murdered their prophet. Antisemitism mainly originates from Europe. In fact, during the “Black Death Epidemic” in the 11th and 12th centuries, many Rabbis were burned. It was burned because it was held responsible for the Black Death. The Judeo-Islamic conflict was seen after 1948 as a part of the British regional policies. Therefore, this is not a religious war but a political war. National problems are also issues of land and power.
-Do you think that Israel is an outpost established by the Imperialists?
Fuat Önen: Israel is not just an outpost; it is now a sub-imperial state in the region. Türkiye: A sub-imperial state like Iran and Israel. With these Abrahamic agreements, Israel now has a specific capital accumulation.
Instead of fighting Arab states, they have goals such as exporting capital and investing in them. That’s why I think it’s right to consider Israel as a sub-imperial state rather than an outpost of imperialism.
-“The National Problem is the land problem.” you say. Palestine is a holistic geography before and after the Ottoman Empire. “You advocate a two-state solution in the Palestinian geography.” I understand, is it true?
Fuat Önen: This is not my solution suggestion. I also stated in previous questions that as long as the political borders in the region remain as they are, A permanent, egalitarian solution is not possible, but this is a right in today’s political situation.
In other words, “Independent United Palestine” is a right, and now the state of Israel, that is, the Hebrews, is also a right to live there as a state. Therefore, erasing Israel from history and geography is not a reasonable political goal. Until the 1980s, the existence of the State of Israel was not accepted in the programs of Palestine and Arab states. Both the Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization now consent to the existence of Israel.
A few years ago, HAMAS said it would comply with the two-state solution even though it was not in its program.
And in today’s political situation, as long as there are no regional revolutions, this is a reasonable suggestion as a temporary solution. So it’s not my suggestion.
-In a speech in 2016, you said, “If Kurdistan were established and Armenians came and formed an autonomous structure there, we would not say no to it.” Can you elaborate on this statement?
Fuat Önen: Of course, in Independent United Kurdistan, In the Independent United Kurdistan, where my opinion is dominant, the geography of Kurdistan should be open to all Armenians. And these are their rights if they form a majority and demand autonomy in a particular place. The Kurdistan state does not oppose this. Because we are the ancient people of this land. We have no such fears. In other words, we do not have the Turkish state mentality, the psychology in Turkish society, that if the Armenians come, the Kurdish state will also disappear. As a revolutionary, he settled wherever Armenians felt they belonged to Kurdistan’s geography. Moreover, they may want autonomy, want federation, and even want to secede if they form a majority in a vast geography. So, there is no reason for us to be against them.
-Thank you, Mamoste.
Comments are closed.