Does Violence get you...(a comparative viewpoint)

[byzantineklibanophori]

Being a former history and politics student and all, Middle Eastern history was an integral part of our course.

The Palestinian conflict found plenty of sympathisers amongst the staff and students. Now, frankly, I care not a jot about who they sympathise with. What really interested me was the attention paid to the Palestinians (self-determination, independence, identity, oppression, occupation, etc, etc all the usual issues.)

I meet people who would often say "violence is wrong, but they had no choice given their situation".

Well, considering their situation, it was probably a choice they had to take up in the light of Israeli complacency towards issues of occupation, etc.

And then, I COMPARE IT TO THE ASSYRIANS.

The Assyrians are one of the most ancient communities in history...and one of the most persecuted and oppressed arguably MORE so than the Palestinians.

Since the Iraqi war, nearly 2/3 rds of Iraqi-born Assyrians have emigrated out of the country. 40% of Iraqi refugees are purportedly Assyrians who have since made new homes in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and other western countries willing to take them in (ie. Sweden).

The Assyrians have also survived the genocide brought upon them by the Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century which is well documents by eye-witnesses be they Turkish, Assyrian, Kurdish, American, German, British, etc, etc.

Currently, they are caught between a rock and a hard place as they struggle to maintain their political identity against fanatical Islamic insurgents/freedom fighters (whatever your flavour), a strong Kurdish political movement in the north and a current US-Backed Maliki administration which has more things to worry about than some tiny minority group.

To add further insult to injury, the Vatican has pressed its opinion that an autonomous region for the Assyrians should not be created for whatever reason it seems fit.

Here is the crux of the issue.

Being in a worser situation than the Palestinians, why have the Assyrians not resorted to violence in the manner the Palestinian political leadership advocated by Arafat, Habash, Nasrallah, etc, etc?

Would they recieve more attention to their plight if they resorted to attention grabbing acts like hijacking, kidnapping, and assassinations that the Palestinian political leadership has resorted to.

Would the adage "Violence is wrong, but in their situation, they had no choice" apply to the Assyrians?

[Caduet]

More of an Acadamy thread, I think.

To answer your question- Yes.
Why? Up until now, I had never heard of any Assyrian plight.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Being a former history and politics student and all, Middle Eastern history was an integral part of our course.

The Palestinian conflict found plenty of sympathisers amongst the staff and students. Now, frankly, I care not a jot about who they sympathise with. What really interested me was the attention paid to the Palestinians (self-determination, independence, identity, oppression, occupation, etc, etc all the usual issues.)

I meet people who would often say "violence is wrong, but they had no choice given their situation".

Well, considering their situation, it was probably a choice they had to take up in the light of Israeli complacency towards issues of occupation, etc.

And then, I COMPARE IT TO THE ASSYRIANS.

The Assyrians are one of the most ancient communities in history...and one of the most persecuted and oppressed arguably MORE so than the Palestinians.

Since the Iraqi war, nearly 2/3 rds of Iraqi-born Assyrians have emigrated out of the country. 40% of Iraqi refugees are purportedly Assyrians who have since made new homes in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and other western countries willing to take them in (ie. Sweden).

The Assyrians have also survived the genocide brought upon them by the Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century which is well documents by eye-witnesses be they Turkish, Assyrian, Kurdish, American, German, British, etc, etc.

Currently, they are caught between a rock and a hard place as they struggle to maintain their political identity against fanatical Islamic insurgents/freedom fighters (whatever your flavour), a strong Kurdish political movement in the north and a current US-Backed Maliki administration which has more things to worry about than some tiny minority group.

To add further insult to injury, the Vatican has pressed its opinion that an autonomous region for the Assyrians should not be created for whatever reason it seems fit.

Here is the crux of the issue.

Being in a worser situation than the Palestinians, why have the Assyrians not resorted to violence in the manner the Palestinian political leadership advocated by Arafat, Habash, Nasrallah, etc, etc?

Would they recieve more attention to their plight if they resorted to attention grabbing acts like hijacking, kidnapping, and assassinations that the Palestinian political leadership has resorted to.

Would the adage "Violence is wrong, but in their situation, they had no choice" apply to the Assyrians?

Living in Israel, and seeing news from all around the world, I can easily tell you why the Palestinians got more 'publicity':
Their organizations are FAR better funded and do a much better job at killing, so they bring a lot of light to their story.
The Palestinians know how to speak to the media, and the media gulps it all up because they know this will bring more viewers.
Those are pretty much the main two reasons, I will not say further in order not to spark a gigantic argument over who's right and who's wrong.

However, in answer to your question, I really don't know, because violence, no matter how 'unnecessary', will happen. And it does happen. Everywhere, all the time. It's just human nature to fight over petty things.

[Tankbuster]

Yes, violence does get you publicity.
That was actually the 'merit' of Yasser Arafat: putting Palestine back on the map again, although at a horrific price.

Before Arafat started his often terrorist-like attacks, the public in Europe and the US didn't know anything about the Palestinians. The idea they had of Israel was about a small island of Jews in a large sea of violent Arabs who wanted to kill them; that's roughly the way they viewed the 6-day war and the Yom-Kippoer War.
Only when the PLO made the news, it became clear that it was not simply Israel vs the Arab nations around them, but that there were also Palestinians in Israel, who were not at all happy with their current situation, and who were (quasi-)surpressed by the Israelis.

Since then, the public opinion towards Israel has been much more ambiguous. But again, it came at a heavy price.

[byzantineklibanophori]

Why? Up until now, I had never heard of any Assyrian plight.

Apart from their days as Empire, the Assyrians have always pretty much been a peaceful people for centuries.

The only physical resistance the Assyrians have formed, as far as I know are informal groups of men arming themselves in their communities. There is some news that the Kurdish authorities are allowing some form of limited police force. Hardly Intifada stuff!

And well, the fact that you've never heard of their plight means they haven't used the means of violence to raise awareness of their situation to the same extent of the Palestinians.

Does the conduct of the Assyrians damn the Palestinian leadership and their apologetists who think that violence was a fait accompli?

[Caduet]

Does the conduct of the Assyrians damn the Palestinian leadership and their apologetists who think that violence was a fait accompli?

No. It damns the Assyrians. Their failure to make their oppression known proves the failure of their methods.

[Gromovnik]

I seem to remember there is one big difference between Assyrians and Palestinians...
(I mean, there's an elephant in the room here, right?)

[Trey]

I seem to remember there is one big difference between Assyrians and Palestinians...
(I mean, there's an elephant in the room here, right?)

You mean the Assyrians are mainly Christian, and the Palestinians mainly Muslim? Probably plays a part.

The biggest part is that the Assyrians were nearly wiped out in the early 20th century. Physically by the Ottomans(Turks if you prefer)/Kurds, and culturally by the rise of Arab nationalism. There simply aren't enough Assyrians to make their plight known, and there is no one to speak for them. Furthermore, any sort of armed uprising would likely lead to their slaughter. They are outnumbered and outgunned, most have left the area as the OP stated.

[BlackPirate]

So you saying that only muslims are violent in order to achieve political goals?Nop i disagree.In Sudan the christian south had a 20 year old war against the muslim north.Of course the felt surpressed but that why Palestinians and others revolt

[Trey]

So you saying that only muslims are violent in order to achieve political goals?Nop i disagree.In Sudan the christian south had a 20 year old war against the muslim north.Of course the felt surpressed but that why Palestinians and others revolt

You miss the point. Muslims being oppressed in a predominantly Muslim region are going to garner more support and sympathy than Christians being oppressed in a predominantly Muslim area. Assyrian violence would likely target Muslims. You understand?

[BlackPirate]

You miss the point. Muslims being oppressed in a predominantly Muslim region are going to garner more support and sympathy than Christians being oppressed in a predominantly Muslim area. Assyrian violence would likely target Muslims. You understand?

And the reason is?

[Trey]

And the reason is?

Are you joking?

[BlackPirate]

Are you joking?

No i am not.I cant understand this logic.Christian Europe shows more sensitivity to muslims than christians? It doesnt make sense.If those people have a justified cause they will recieve support

[Каие]

Frankly I opposed the Iraq war for the exact reason of the plight of the Assyrian and other minorities, the general lawlessness and complete breakdown of Iraqi society. I would support them too, if they were to defend themselves.

[Trey]

Frankly I opposed the Iraq war for the exact reason of the plight of the Assyrian and other minorities, the general lawlessness and complete breakdown of Iraqi society. I would support them too, if they were to defend themselves.

True. I had the incredible fortune to take a class with a woman who lived in Iraq but moved here in 2003. Things have changed so much since then.

She was from Babylon, and spoke of how she used to go to Easter and Christmas services with her friends and vice versa, now the churches are bombed and many of the Christians have left.

[Каие]

Saddam was a Secular Nationalist. As bad as he was, all he ever demanded was you be personally loyal to him, and be loyal to Iraq. His best friend, Prime Minister and right hand man was a Christian. However in the ensuing power vacuum, those who had issue with who people were, rather than how they behaved, took control. So whereas before people were persecuted for being rebellious against Saddam... now they are persecuted simply for being a certain faith or race.

[Trey]

Saddam was a Secular Nationalist. As bad as he was, all he ever demanded was you be personally loyal to him, and be loyal to Iraq. His best friend, Prime Minister and right hand man was a Christian. However in the ensuing power vacuum, those who had issue with who people were, rather than how they behaved, took control. So whereas before people were persecuted for being rebellious against Saddam... now they are persecuted simply for being a certain faith or race.

I'm well aware. People would be pretty surprised that it is like that in several Arab countries. Ironically, It was probably better to be Christian than Muslim in Syria in the early 80's, possibly even today. At least you know you won't be targeted as a fundamentalist. Either way, both the secular and religious dictatorships are trash. The democratic movement is so outgunned by both of them, I often wonder if it can even be fully implemented anywhere in the Middle East.

[byzantineklibanophori]

So you saying that only muslims are violent in order to achieve political goals?Nop i disagree.In Sudan the christian south had a 20 year old war against the muslim north.Of course the felt surpressed but that why Palestinians and others revolt

I specified the Palestinian political leadership and their use of violence, I never mentioned anything about Muslims in this entire thread. I'm simple pointing to the differences between the Assyrians and the Palestinian political leadership and the use of violence.

[Tankbuster]

Saddam was a Secular Nationalist. As bad as he was, all he ever demanded was you be personally loyal to him, and be loyal to Iraq. His best friend, Prime Minister and right hand man was a Christian. However in the ensuing power vacuum, those who had issue with who people were, rather than how they behaved, took control. So whereas before people were persecuted for being rebellious against Saddam... now they are persecuted simply for being a certain faith or race.

Saddam was not secular. A secularist has a problem with religion interfering with the government, and tries to stop this, for humanist and enlightened reasons.
Saddam opposed religious interference in his government because that would mean he had less power. But when his power dropped (especially after the First Gulf War), he had absolutely no problem with building giant mosques, subjecting his government to compulsory religious education, quoting various Qu'ran verses in his speeches, setting up Islamic radio stations, and so on.

And by the way, he didn't just use religion when his power was dropping. The extermination campaign against the Kurds in 1987-1988 was called the Al-Anfal campaign, which is the name of the eight sura of the Qu'ran, in which it is explained how the soldiers of Allah beat a large number of pagans (the Kurds were real secularists). Religious motivation and justification for his horrible campaign.

Hussein pragmatically used religion to his own advantage whenever he saw fit. He did pay close attention that it wasn't gaining more power than himself, obviously.
He wasn't a secular nationalist. He was an oppurtunistic nationalist.

[Gauvin]

he had absolutely no problem with building giant mosques, subjecting his government to compulsory religious education, quoting various Qu'ran verses in his speeches, setting up Islamic radio stations, and so on.

He tried to build the biggest mosque, in fact. He also had the Qur'an written in his own blood. He had genealogists trace (probably bogusly) his ancestry to Muhammad.

He supported Islamic supremacists, and Muslim fanatic groups, like Egyptian Islamic Jihad who was trying to set up an Islamic government in Egypt, the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad was Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's 2nd in command.