Monday, November 24, 2003
In today's OpinionJournal:
What is behind the bombing of synagogues in Istanbul? It is not as if there is any overt anti-Semitism in Turkey, nor was there any in the former Ottoman Empire. Empires could not afford to be anti-Semitic; their Jews were too useful. The Turks, an imperial people, took in hundreds of thousands of Jews at quite an early date-- 1520--when they were being expelled from Spain. The then sultan said: Has the king of Spain gone out of his mind? The Turks gave these Jews refuge (they still, in the oldest generation, speak Ladino, which bears the same relationship to Spanish as Yiddish to German) and did very well out of them, just as England did. To this day, while there is often a sort of ritual Muslim muttering against Israel, there is no serious anti-Semitism applied to businesses or people, and the Jews of Turkish origin, living in Israel, are quite good allies of Turkey. For instance, when the Armenian diaspora (quite counterproductively, in my opinion) tries to blame today's Turks for massacres back in 1915, the Israeli Turks come to Turkey's defense, saying, entirely accurately, that what happened then was the outcome of a civil war. The alliance of Israel and Turkey makes a great deal of sense on the Near Eastern ground, and there simply is no evidence of anti-Semitism on the street. The area of Istanbul--Galata--in which I bought an apartment (once Jewish-owned) was very heavily Jewish, and there are two famous synagogues nearby, one of them the target of the bombers. The shopkeepers round about are migrants, mainly from the Black Sea coast. Signs of overt anti-Semitism? None. The elderly Jews are simply part of the landscape. The only problem is that the main brothel of Istanbul--to which I can see, from my balcony, sheepish young men plodding--is too close to one of the synagogues. There are regular complaints, but the owner, a formidable Armenian woman, defies them, saying she pays more taxes than anyone else in the country...
I know this post is from '03, but just the other day Norman Stone (author of the above article) was a teammate of Pat Buchanan's in the debate about WW2 that Adam Holland writes about here http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2009/09/buchanan-churchill-caused-both-world.html
Note this part of the quote from Stone in the Evening Standard's piece about the debate: "Was it a sensible strategy in 1944 and 1945 to bomb Germany to bits? It was very bad realpolitik, whatever its moral purpose. It was a war against tyranny which ended up with Europe under worse tyranny than Hitler's." Worse? I mean: Soviet and Eastern Bloc communism were pretty evil, and if he'd just said "as bad as," then at least in reference to Stalin, he'd have been right. But *worse* than Hitler? Already in that '03 piece, we got a taste of Holland's views re. the Armenian genocide. ..There's more insensitivity on his part on display here http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2198091.ece
not only in how he refers to the Armenian lobby, but also, in a way that's small but telling, in his reference to Einstein's "Christian" name (which I know is just how Brits say "first name," but which Holland must have known would be an odd usage in Einstein's case. (How charmingly eccentric!)) He turned out to be wrong, of course, about the '03 bombings' perpetrators: they were al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists, not PKK. Maybe he'll invite Pat to speak to his students in Turkey! (Actually, that's probably too secular a country for Pat, however much he might admire its authoritarian aspects.)
Twice above you say "Holland" when I believe you mean Stone. Do you want me to edit it?