Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Iraq

Kurdish President Offers Refuge To Christians

2005-12-08

Erbil, 8 Dec. (AKI) - The President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, says they will welcome all Christians seeking refuge from the critical security situation in other areas of Iraq who want to stay definitively or temporarily in the region. At a meeting of religious leaders and members of the Christian community in Kurdistan, Barzani said: "We welcome any Christian brothers who choose to come and live in Kurdistan, whether temporarily or more permanently. This is their country and we will not prevent any of them from taking refuge."

I'm liking the Kurds more and more

The gathering was part of a series of meetings organised in the run-up to the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the country on 15 December.

"You are the owners of this land, you are the protectors of its ancient history, therefore no one can prevent you from living here," the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party said, inviting Christians to "send letters to your relatives and your brothers in Baghdad, Basra or any other Iraqi city, or even abroad, to come and reside in Kurdistan, whether definitively or until the security conditions in the country improve." "I can assure you," he continued, "that we will not allow anyone to oppress you, you are free to accept this fraternal co-inhabitance and to help in the building of your country."

I wonder if the Kurds would be interested in ruling Eastern Arabia after it's been deinfested?

Barzani then went on to ask those present to turn out in force to vote in the upcoming elections, given "the decisive importance of this vote, as the next parliament will discuss more than 50 constitutional articles which must be turned into law. The greater our political weight and presence within the National Assembly, the more we will be able to contribute to the developing of these laws, which will guarantee our constitutional rights," he stressed.

About 3 percent of Iraq's population is Christian - with most belonging to the Assyrian or Chaldean Catholic denominations. Over the last year, there have been several bomb attacks on Christian churches and Christian businesses in northern Iraq and Baghdad. A dozen Christians have been killed in such attacks, prompting a number of people to flee Iraq and closed down their businesses as a result. During Saddam's secular regime they were free to worship. One of the regime's most prominent Christian members was deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz.

Posted by:Steve

#15 mhw,

I still think that you have to cut the current Kurds a good deal of slack for their fathers and grand-fathers sins. It's not like they've spent the last 30 years in some sort of priveledged position.

Maybe if things settle for 5 - 10 years they will be able to confront this. How long did it take the Japanese to confront the treatment of the Koreans and Chinese in the same time frame? And that was after 40 years as a stable, secure democracy.

Posted by: AlanC 2005-12-08 20:39

#14 I believe that it would be best to remember that not all Kurds are Muslim. Some 800,000 of them are Yazidi, an ancient pre-Islamic religion that worships Malak Taâus the Peacock Angel.

And, no, I am not making this up.

Posted by: Secret Master 2005-12-08 20:06

#13 I think that like North African Berber, Kurds are more and more seeing Islam as an Arab tool aimed at enaslaving them. S they begin reject it and try to forge closer ties with other religions (ie christianism). Now let's wait for the next step: we welcome any Jews willing to establish themselves in Kurdistan. That would really make the Arabs mad.

Posted by: JFM 2005-12-08 17:50

#12 LH, It may be fair to say that a good portion of the Germans who emigrated to the US in the '30s were Jews but they did not constitute a good portion of the German Jews. Blame whomever you wish for it, but there was considerable and pervasive anti-semitism in the US through WWII. Re-watch Gentleman's Agreement if you doubt it.

During the war there was little problem as everyone was just trying to stay alive. It was after the war that the problem emerged. We'll disagree on the need for a Jewish state as I see the Balfour Declaration as one of the great noble tragedies of the 20th century.

Posted by: Angereng Hupavigum6267 2005-12-08 17:24

#11 oh, and given the relatively small numbers of German Jews, and the relatively large German quota, a good portion of German Jews made it to the US in the 30's. Theres an entire neighborhood in the Upper West Side of Manhattan that was largely settled by German Jewish refugees. A young woman of particular emotional importance to me when i was in college ;) was the child of a German Jewish refugee father. The real problem was after the war began, when much larger numbers from eastern europe had no place to go.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-12-08 17:00

#10 re the US and Jews in the 30s and 40s.

The US at the time had a country quota for immigrants. Some German Jews came in under the German quota, some Polish Jews under the Polish quota, etc. There was no grant of asylum per se (which at the time would likely have applied to only German Jews, as Poland, etc was not under Nazi rule) So while the US did NOT open up as a land of refuge, it is also incorrect to say that no Jews found refuge here - some did, but only limited numbers through normal immigration procedures.

After the war began, and the evidence of the holocaust taking place appeared, there were international conferences on admission of refugees, and the US did accept some additional refugees beyond the immigration quotas, IIUC, though not tremendous numbers. There is considerable debate about responsibility, with some blaming Roosevelt, some blaming a particular appointee of Roosevelt, some blaming the American Jewish community for not lobbying hard enough, and some blaming the existing presence of antisemitism that constrained Roosevelt AND the American Jews.

Altogether I find it a fruitless argument. There was a necessity to have a Jewish state as refuge for the Jews, and while we American Jews have much to be thankful for, in terms of what America is and what it has done for us, I dont think it was ever realistic to see it as the land of refuge in all circumstances.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-12-08 16:56

#9 AlanC

The Clinton apologies were annoying partly because of the cloying, hypersincerity but also because they were, in some cases, apologies for what the US "should have done" or for what we have already effectively apologied for.

The massacres of the Assyrians (which continued through the 1940s) were different in that the Kurds have not (as far as I can tell) ever acknowledged the truth to themselves and because the massacres were direct, up close and personal.

Posted by: mhw 2005-12-08 16:34

#8 Regardless of the bickering over past deeds it looks as if the Kurds are grasping democracy and trying to develop a multisecular political base. All of the economic gails moose spoke to will have a healthy effect if they unite the Kurds with Christians politically. It gets better every day, too bad the MSM's are missing this!

Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-08 14:20

#7 1) This is a smart move for the Kurds: not only do they gain the industry and hard work of the Chaldeans, etc., but they also gain points from the U.S. -- hey look, a multicultural society!

2) Flick is correct about the Jews of the 1930s, many, many were turned away because of the changes in the immigration quotas put through in the late 1920s.

Posted by: Steve White 2005-12-08 14:14

#6 As I recall the U. S. did not have any offer of refuge for jews in the 1930's and 1940's except for high value individuals like Einstein. Perhaps LH or TW can provide links, I couldn't find any quickly, but I recall the U. S. routinely refused immigration of Jews from Europe throughout this period. Had we accepted them then, I doubt so many would have chosen to go to the Levant.

Posted by: Flick Phung7435 2005-12-08 13:41

#5 It could become very, very profitable for the Kurds to set up a very cordial, even loving relationship with the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Go so far encourage them to build a basilica worth visiting, along with more typical churches.

This would open the door wide to all sorts of big money tourism and other business deals from the Orthodox realm. Imagine how the Turks would itch if thousands of Greek tourists visited Kurdistan?

The Kurds could be in the position of the new gateway between Europe and Asia, *and* between the Christians and the Moslems. This would make them an international commerce center.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-08 12:42

#4 MHW, I'm rather sick and tired of the Clintonesque apology for that which happened in the past. I doubt that any of the Kurdish leaders were even alive in the '30s. Let's judge them by what they do now before we dump on them for what their fathers and grand-fathers did.

Posted by: AlanC 2005-12-08 12:29

#3 I'd feel better if the Kurds would acknowledge their culpability for their role in the many massacres that occurred before WWII.

On some of these occasions, the Kurds aided the Turkish massacres of Armenian and Assyrian Christians, only to be then massacred by the Turks.

Posted by: mhw 2005-12-08 12:01

#2 What, you mean the religion of piss doesn't like Christians? Muhamhead would be proud.

Good for the Kurds. They appear to be the only humans in the giant cat litter box muslime call home.

Posted by: Pagan Piggy Goddess allah 2005-12-08 11:54

#1 I wonder if this will turn out the way America's offer of refuge to the Jews in the 30's and 40's turned out - very, very well for the hosts. It's smart to seek out productive people with the gumption to take advantage of opportunity.

The Kurds seem to get it, I hope they get the chance to live out a bright future.

Posted by: Thinens Ebbonter8653 2005-12-08 11:36

00:00