Two days ago, the same day we discussed violence, the ineffable Condoleezza Rice, a US official, declared that what was happening in Gaza was the Palestinians’ fault, due to their violent nature.

The underground rivers that crisscross the world can change their geography, but they sing the same song.

And the one we hear now is one of war and pain.

Not far from here, in a place called Gaza, in Palestine, in the Middle East, right here next to us, the Israeli government’s heavily trained and armed military continues its march of death and destruction.

The steps it has taken are those of a classic military war of conquest: first an intense mass bombing in order to destroy “strategic” military points (that’s how the military manuals put it) and to “soften” the resistance’s reinforcements; next a fierce control over information: everything that is heard and seen “in the outside world,” that is, outside the theater of operations, must be selected with military criteria; now intense artillery fire against the enemy infantry to protect the advance of troop to new positions; then there will be a siege to weaken the enemy garrison; then the assault that conquers the position and annihilates the enemy, then the “cleaning out” of the probable “nests of resistance.”

The military manual of modern war, with a few variations and additions, is being followed step-by-step by the invading military forces.

We don’t know a lot about this, and there are surely specialists in the so-called “conflict in the Middle East,” but from this corner we have something to say: According to the news photos, the “strategic” points destroyed by the Israeli government’s air force are houses, shacks, civilian buildings. We haven’t seen a single bunker, nor a barracks, nor a military airport, nor cannons, amongst the rubble. So–and please excuse our ignorance–we think that either the planes’ guns have bad aim, or in Gaza such “strategic” military points don’t exist.
(more…)

Weekly Nokta discloses an internal army report which classifies media outlets as “trustworthy” or “precarious” and bases the General Staff’s accreditation process accordingly. 53-page report evaluates individual journalists as “pro-army” or not.
Source: BIA News Center
08/03/2007
(Istanbul) - Weekly news magazine Nokta’s recent issue discloses a series of Turkish army (TSK) reports which examine and classify media outlets and journalists as “pro-Turkish Army” or “con-Turkish army”. (’Olumlu’ and ‘Olumsuz’ as seen in the chart beside)
Ahmet Şık’s article shows how army officials use the accreditation process based on “journalists’ approach to armed forces”. Reports include statistics regarding number of published articles dubbed as “positive” or “negative” and journalists as “trustworthy” or “precarious”.
Following the publication of the report on March 8 in Nokta and cited in several newspapers, General Staff made a declaration saying that an investigation has begun into the incident.
Upto now, there’re no specific details regarding the investigation.

Classification
Prepared by General Staff Public Relations Department and approved by General Staff General Secretary Salih Zeki Çolak, the report titled “Accredited Press and Media Outlets” dates back to November 2006.
Accreditation is defined as follows:
“In light of the examination which classify media outlets as trustworthy or precarious made with regard to the Turkish Armed Forces’ (TSK) indispensable principles, a list of accreditation including those trustworthy is compiled”.
(…) “Participation of media outlets with low levels of trust in events organized by the TSK has been limited and those deemed as trustworthy have been encouraged”. (…) “By not accrediting precarious media outlets, their reputation in public’s eye has been attenuated”. (…) “Despite counter interpretations, the accreditation process serves as an examination of media outlets’ trustworthiness by the TSK”.
(more…)

“You left your loved ones, your children, your grand children. You left these people who salute you here; you left my arms. You didn’t leave your country” -Rakel Dink

Tens of thousands of people gathered in Şişli this morning for Hrant Dink, ethnic Armenian writer who was assassinated on January 19, 2007.
The first ceremony took place in front of the offices of Agos,the newspaper Dink founded and where he was murdered by a young extremist. Mourners, dressed in black and carrying signs reading “We are all Armenians”, crammed the square outside the offices.
Many roads have been shut to allow the mourners to proceed.
The funeral then left for the Armenian Orthodox Church Santa Maria, where Patriarch of the Anatolian Armenians, Mesrob II conducts the religious ceremony. On the other hand, the funeral march reached to the Balıklı Armenian Cemetery where Dink will be laid to rest. Thousands walked the 8 km. road chanting “We’re all Hrant”.

“You’re torn apart from your loved ones, from your children, from me but not from your country” said his wife Rakel Dink addressing to the crowd. Here is Rakel Dink’s complete speech:

Hrant’s companion was given to me. Today I’m here with great sorrow and dignity. Me, my kids, my family and you; we’re all in deep sorrow. This silent love holds us, gives us a aggrieved joy. John 15:13, the Bible says nobody has a greater love than the one who gives one’s life for one’s friends.
Dear friends, today we mourn and salute my other half, my love, father of my children, your brother. We’ll be marching silently without disturbing those near us, without chanting slogans, without banners. With this silence, we’ll cry aloud today. Today is the day when deep darkness would reach out to light.
(more…)

Turkish-Armenian Writer Hrant Dink Assasinated
Prominent Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Hrant Dink has been shot dead today while he was leaving the offices of the newspaper Agos which he founded and worked. He was subjected to criticism and harrasement by nationalists.
Source: BIA News Center
19/01/2007 BİA (Istanbul) - Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Hrant Dink has been shot dead today while leaving the newspaper where he worked.
Dink, 53, was subjected to prosecutions and harrasement by nationalists concerning his views on the Armenian genocide claims and Turkey’s approach to the issue.
He was a public figure in Turkey - one of its most prominent Armenian voices. Despite all harrasement, he always insisted that he’s a Turkish citizen will fight for his right to free speech.
The police is looking for a young man as described by eye witnesses in relation to the murder. Friends tell Dink was receiving threats.

His life

Dink was born in 1954 in Malatya. When his parents divorced after moving to İstanbul in 1961, Hrant and his two brothers were placed in an Armenian orphanage in Gedikpasa.
He was influenced by the socialist movement in his youth. Following his graduation from İstanbul University he married to Rakel who he had met in the orphanage.
While working in the publishing house he established with his brothers, Dink also managed with his wife the Tuzla Armenian Children’s Campus where poor children were placed. The campus was confiscated by the state after 21 years of its establishment.
Dink began his writing career with book reviews for magazines published by ethnic Armenians in Turkey. Criticizing the closeness of the Armenian community, he moved on to establish Agos, a newspaper in Turkish and Armenian in 1996.
Hrant Dink promoted a culture of solidarity and peace between erthnic Armenians and Turks. He also called on the Armenian diaspora to evaluate the events of 1915 without a fixation on genocide but couldn’t avoid being punished for insulting Turkishness at home.(EU)

Saul Newman
March 2006

In 1798, Kant wrote the following about the French Revolution:

But even if the end viewed in connection with this event should not now be attained, even if the revolution or reform of a national constitution should finally miscarry, or, after some time had elapsed, everything should relapse into its former rut (as politicians now predict), that philosophical prophecy should lose nothing of its force. For this event is too important, too much interwoven with the interest of humanity, and its influence too widely propagated in all areas of the world to not be recalled on any favourable occasion by nations which would then be roused to a repetition of new efforts of this kind…

For Kant, the enthusiasm that the1789 Revolution inspired in onlookers was a clear sign of human progress. It revealed a disposition for improvement and a confidence in being able to achieve the fundamental goal of humanity – a republican constitution which would, moreover, prevent offensive war. Even if the upheaval itself proved to be a failure, even if it drowned itself in blood, the Revolution created a permanent fissure in the fabric of time, inscribing itself on the collective memory of history. It was an event which would continue to exist, whose significance would continue to reverberate long after the din of cannons had died away and despite the restoration of reactionary regimes in its wake. It would be a permanent horizon of human progress - something which could be recalled to memory and invoked in subsequent struggles.
(more…)

by Saul Newman

Max Stirner and Michel Foucault are two thinkers not often examined together. However, it has been suggested that the long-ignored Stirner may be seen as a precursor to contemporary poststructuralist thought. Indeed, there are many extraordinary parallels between Stirner’s critique of Enlightenment humanism, universal rationality, and essential identities, and similar critiques developed by thinkers such as Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and others. However, the purpose of this paper is not merely to situate Stirner in the “poststructuralist” tradition, but rather to examine his thinking on the question of freedom, and to explore the connections here with Foucault’s own development of the concept in the context of power relations and subjectivity. Broadly speaking, both thinkers see the classical Kantian idea of freedom as deeply problematic, as it involves essentialist and universal presuppositions which are themselves often oppressive. Rather, the concept of freedom must be rethought. It can no longer be seen in solely negative terms, as freedom from constraint, but must involve more positive notions of individual autonomy, particularly the freedom of the individual to construct new modes of subjectivity. Stirner, as we shall see, dispenses with the classical notion of freedom altogether and develops a theory of ownness [Eigenheit] to describe this radical individual autonomy. I suggest in this paper that such a theory of ownness as a non-essentialist form of freedom has many similarities with Foucault’s own project of freedom, which involves a critical ethos and an aestheticization of the self. Indeed, Foucault questions the anthropological and universal rational foundations of the discourse of freedom, redefining it in terms of ethical practices. Both Stirner and Foucault are therefore crucial to the understanding of freedom in a contemporary sense–they show that freedom can no longer be limited by rational absolutes and universal moral categories. They take the understanding of freedom beyond the confines of the Kantian project–grounding it instead in concrete and contingent strategies of the self.
(more…)

Dmitrov (Moscow province)
21 December, 1920
Respected Vladimir Illich,
An announcement has been placed in Izvestiia and in Pravda which makes known the decision of the Soviet government to seize as hostages SRs [Social Revolutionary party members] from the Savinkov groups, White Guards of the nationalist and tactical center, and Wrangel officers; and, in case of an [assassination] attempt on the leaders of the soviets, to “mercilessly exterminate” these hostages.
Is there really no one around you to remind your comrades and to persuade them that such measures represent a return to the worst period of the Middle Ages and religious wars, and are undeserving of people who have taken it upon themselves to create a future society on communist principles? Whoever holds dear the future of communism cannot embark upon such measures.
Is there really no one around you to remind your comrades and to persuade them that such measures represent a return to the worst period of the Middle Ages and religious wars, and are undeserving of people who have taken it upon themselves to create a future society on communist principles? Whoever holds dear the future of communism cannot embark upon such measures.
It is possible that no one has explained what a hostage really is? A hostage is imprisoned not as punishment for some crime. He is held in order to blackmail the enemy with his death. “If you kill one of ours, we will kill one of yours.” But is this not the same thing as leading a man to the scaffold each morning and taking him back, saying: “Wait awhile, not today…”
(more…)