Google
 

3 Mart 2008 Pazartesi

The Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi) is a Turkish political party of strongly Islamist views, often seen as the main voice of sensitive Muslims in Turkey.

It was founded on 20 July 2001 by the members of the Virtue Party.

Although an Islamist party, its policy platform covers the whole span of political issues in Turkey.

The Felicity Party has not been particularly successful electorally, polling just 2.5% of the vote in the 3 November 2002 general elections, thereby failing to pass the 10% threshold necessary to gain representation in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. It was more slightly more successful in the local elections of 29 March 2004, winning 4.1% of the vote and a number of mayoralties, although none of any particular significance.

The Felicity Party's vote has been weakened by the success of the moderately Islamic Justice and Development Party government, although it has repeatedly condemned the Turkish government's desire to join the European Union, military ties with Israel and the United States. It has argued that Turkey must adapt its military and foreign policy stance to meet what it argues are increasing threats coming from the West to all Muslim countries.

The Felicity Party was founded by the support of veteran politician Necmettin Erbakan, and its policy platform is based strongly around his ideas and philosophy. It remains an important party, despite its relative electoral weakness, due to its strong grassroots organization in comparison with other political parties in Turkey.

The Felicity Party works both as a political party and an enormous social organization. It has party branches in nearly every discrict, small town and city in the country. In the past it has organized demonstrations on a wide range of issues, often involving tens of thousands of participants. Thousands of protesters joined SP organized demonstrations against the 2004 attack on Fallujah, the occupation of Palestine and recently against the depictions of the Prophet Muhammed in newspapers around the world.

Zionism is an international political movement that regards the Jews as a national entity and seeks to preserve that entity. This has primarily focused on the creation of a homeland for the Jewish People in the Promised Land, and (having achieved this goal) continues as support for the modern state of Israel.[1]

Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. Described as a "diaspora nationalism,"[2] its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[3]

While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE),[4][5] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[6] It constituted a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[7] At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and after the Holocaust became the dominant Jewish political movement. Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[8][unreliable source?]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Terminology
* 2 History of Zionism
* 3 Types of Zionism
o 3.1 Labor Zionism
o 3.2 General Zionism
o 3.3 Religious Zionism
o 3.4 Revisionist Zionism
* 4 The negation of the Diaspora
* 5 Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism
* 6 Non-Jewish Zionism
o 6.1 Marcus Garvey and "Black Zionism"
o 6.2 Christian Zionism
o 6.3 Muslims supporting Zionism
* 7 Footnotes
* 8 References
* 9 See also
o 9.1 Types of Zionism
o 9.2 Zionist institutions and organizations
o 9.3 History of Zionism and Israel
o 9.4 Other
* 10 Other resources

[edit] Terminology

The word "Zionism" itself is derived from the word "Zion" (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon), one of the names of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, as mentioned in the Bible. It was coined as a term for Jewish nationalism by Austrian Jewish publisher Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the first nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890. (Birnbaum eventually turned against political Zionism and became the first secretary-general of the anti-Zionist Haredi movement Agudat Israel.)[9]

Since the founding of the State of Israel, the term "Zionism" is generally considered to mean support for Israel as a Jewish nation state. However, a variety of different, and sometimes competing, ideologies that support Israel fit under the general category of Zionism, such as Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, and Labor Zionism. Thus, the term is also sometimes used to refer specifically to the programs of these ideologies, such as efforts to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel.

Certain individuals and groups have used the term "Zionism" as a pejorative to justify attacks on Jews. According to historians Walter Laqueur, Howard Sachar and Jack Fischel among others, in some cases, the label "Zionist" is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism.[10]

Zionism should be distinguished from Territorialism which was a Jewish nationalist movement calling for a Jewish homeland, but not necessarily in Palestine. During the early history of Zionism, a number of proposals were made for settling Jews outside of Europe but these all ultimately were rejected or failed. The debate over these proposals helped define the nature and focus of the Zionist movement.

[edit] History of Zionism

Main article: History of Zionism

Since the first century CE most Jews have lived in exile, although there has been a constant presence of Jews in the Land of Israel. According to Judaism the Jews would return to Eretz Israel with the coming of the Messiah. However in the nineteenth century the current in Judaism supporting an earlier return got more support. Even before 1882, which is generally seen as the year in which practical Zionism started, some Jewish immigration into Palestine occurred.[11]
Demographics in Palestine[12] year Jews Arabs
1800 6,700 268,000
1880 24,000 525,000
1915 87,500 590,000
1931 174,000 837,000
1947 630,000 1,310,000

In 1882 immigration, called Aliyah (ascent) by Jews, started in earnest. Most immigrants came from Eastern Europe, where anti-semitism was rampant. They founded a number of agricultural settlements, or moshava, with financial support from Jewish philanthropists in Western Europa. In the 1890s Theodor Herzl infused Zionism with a new and practical urgency. He brought the World Zionist Organization into being and, together with Nathan Birnbaum, planned its First Congress at Basel in 1897.[13] This current in Zionism is known as political Zionism because it aimed at reaching a political agreement with the Power ruling Palestine. Up to 1917 this was the Ottoman Empire, and then until 1948 it was Britain on behalf of the League of Nations. The WZO also supported small scale settlement in Palestine.

In 1917 Chaim Weizmann was successful in gaining the Balfour Declaration from the British. This declaration endorsed a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and became the basis of the Mandate the League of Nations gave to Britain. Subsequently Britain supported Jewish immigration in principle, but in reaction to Arab violence it did impose restrictions on immigration.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the Labor Zionism movement in Palestine began to develop. Although it consisted of several parties, in 1920 these parties together founded the Histadrut. The Histadrut did many things for Jewish workers, such as offer a Labor Exchange, health services, and improved labor and living conditions. It was also the largest employer of the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine. An important task of the Histadrut was also the absorption of immigrants by offering them shelter, jobs and other necesitties. Under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion in the 1930s the dominant party of the labor movement, Mapai, also became the dominant party in the WZO.

Among Palestinian Arabs there was a lot of popular resistance against Zionism. There were riots in 1920, 1921 and 1929, sometimes accompanied by massacres of Jews. From 1936 to 1939 a general Revolt broke out. This revolt was suppressed by the British, but in a reaction they restricted further Jewish immigration to an absolute limit of 75,000, and in principle they stuck to this limit until the end of the Mandate.

The Zionist goal of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, as demanded at the Biltmore Conference of 1942[14], conflicted with the demands of the Palestinian Arabs. After WWII, support for Zionism among Jews increased. The British, were attacked in Palestine by Zionist groups because of restrictions on Jewish immigration, and referred the issue to the United Nations. In 1947 the UN decided on a two-state solution, a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. The Arabs rejected the UN decision, saying they wanted a single state with an Arab majority and declared war. During this war the Yishuv first defeated the Palestinian Arabs and their foreign auxiliaries in April and early May 1948, withstood the invasion of armies of Arab states in May and June and subsequently went on to defeat those armies and conquer 78 percent of Palestine. During the war the military offensives of the Yishuv caused an exodus of over 700,000 Palestinians, of whom about half left the territory of Palestine (becoming refugees) and half were internally displaced.

On 14 May 1948, after the last British troops had left, the Jewish Agency, led by Ben-Gurion declared the creation of the State of Israel. After the creation of the State of Israel the WZO continued to exist as an organisation that supported Israel.

[edit] Types of Zionism
This section does not cite any references or sources. (May 2007)
Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

[edit] Labor Zionism

Main article: Labor Zionism
See also: Kibbutz Movement and Kibbutz

Around 1900 the chief rival to Zionism among young Jews in Eastern Europe was the socialist movement. Many Jews were abandoning Judaism in favour of Communism or supported the Bund, a Jewish socialist movement which called for Jewish autonomy in Eastern Europe and promoted Yiddish as the Jewish language.

Opposition to this led to the emergence of a new Zionist movement, the socialist Zionists, who believed that the Jews' centuries of being oppressed in anti-Semitic societies had reduced Jews to a meek, vulnerable, despairing existence which invited further anti-Semitism. They argued that Jews should redeem themselves from their history by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. These socialist Zionists rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people and established rural communes in Israel called "Kibbutzim". Major theoreticians of Socialist Zionism included Moses Hess, Nahum Syrkin, Ber Borochov and Aaron David Gordon, and leading figures in the movement included David Ben-Gurion and Berl Katznelson. Most Socialist Zionists rejected Yiddish as a language of exile, embracing Hebrew as the common Jewish tongue. A major exception was Borochov, committed Yiddishist and Yiddish philologist who wrote extensively on the importance of the language. Socialist and Labor Zionism was ardently secularist with many Labor Zionists being committed atheists or opposed to religion. Consequently, the movement often had an antagonistic relationship with Orthodox Judaism.

Labor Zionism was the dominant force in the political and economic life of the Yishuv during the period of the British Mandate of Palestine - partly as a consequence of its role in organizing Jewish economic life through the Histadrut - and was the dominant ideology of the political establishment in Israel until the 1977 election when the Labor Party was defeated.

[edit] General Zionism

Main article: General Zionists

General Zionism (or Liberal Zionism) was initially the dominant trend within the Zionist movement from the first Zionist Congress in 1897 until the First World War, after which Labour Zionism was ascendant and the Zionist movement was becoming polarized between the Labour Zionists on the left and Revisionists on the right. The General Zionist movement identified with the liberal European Jewish middle class (or bourgeois) from which many Zionist leaders such as Herzl and Chaim Weizmann came and believed that a Jewish state could be accomplished through lobbying the Great Powers of Europe and influential circles in European society. The decline of General Zionism within the Zionist movement and the growing polarization within the movement was reflected in 1922 by the need of General Zionists to officially declare themselves a tendency in the Zionist Congress where, previously, they enjoyed such hegemony over the movement that it was not necessary to organize themselves as a formal faction.

[edit] Religious Zionism

Main article: Religious Zionism

In the 1920s and 1930s, a small but vocal group of religious Jews began to develop the concept of Religious Zionism under such leaders as Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine) and his son Zevi Judah, and gained substantial following during the latter half of the 20th century. Kook was concerned that growing secularization of Zionism and antagonism towards it from the Orthodox Jews would lead to a schism. He therefore sought to create a brand of Judaism which would serve as a bridge between Orthodoxy and secular Jews.

[edit] Revisionist Zionism

Main article: Revisionist Zionism

The Revisionist Zionists were a group led by Jabotinsky who advocated pressing Britain to allow mass Jewish emigration and the formation of a Jewish Army in Palestine. The army would force the Arab population to accept mass Jewish migration and promote British interests in the region.

Revisionist Zionism was detested by the Socialist Zionist movement which saw them as being influenced by Fascism and the movement caused a great deal of concern among Arab Palestinians. After the 1929 Arab riots, the British banned Jabotinsky from entering Palestine.

Revisionism was popular in Poland but lacked large support in Palestine. In 1935 the Revisionists left the Zionist Organization and formed an alternative, the New Zionist Organization. They rejoined the ZO in 1946.

[edit] The negation of the Diaspora

Main article: The "Negation of the Diaspora" in Zionism

According to Eliezer Schweid the rejection of life in the Diaspora is a central assumption in all currents of Zionism.[15] Underlying this attitude was the feeling that the Diaspora restricted the full growth of Jewish national life. For instance the poet Bialik wrote:

And my heart weeps for my unhappy people ...
How burned, how blasted must our portion be,
If seed like this is withered in its soil. ...

According to Schweid Bialik meant that the “seed” was the potential of the Jewish people, which they preserved in the Diaspora, where it could only give rise to deformed results. However once conditions changed the “seed” could still give a plentiful harvest.[16]

In this matter Sternhell distinguishes two schools of thought in Zionism. One was the liberal or utilitarian school of Herzl and Nordau. Especially after the Dreyfus Affair they held that anti-Semitism would never disappear, and saw Zionism as a rational solution for Jewish individuals. The other was the organic nationalist school. It was prevalent among the Zionists in Palestine, and saw Zionism as a project to rescue the Jewish nation and not as a project to rescue Jewish individuals. Zionism was a matter of the "Rebirth of the Nation".[17]

[edit] Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism

Main articles: Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism

There are a number of critics of Zionism, ranging from Jewish anti-Zionists to pro-Palestinian activists. Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs,[citation needed] many of whom view Israel as wrongfully occupying what they view as the Arab land of Palestine.[18][19] Such critics generally opposed Israel's creation in 1948, and continue to criticize the Zionist movement which underlies it. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[20], and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State. Critics of Zionism, such as Joseph Massad have asserted that Zionism is a form of racism,[21] both in its support of Israel as a Jewish State, and in its continuing policies such as the Law of Return.

While most Jewish groups are pro-Zionist, some liberal and Haredi Jewish communities (most vocally the Satmar Hasidim and the Neturei Karta group), oppose Zionism on religious grounds.[22] Other non-Zionist Israeli movements, such as the Canaanite movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s, have argued that "Israeli" should be a new pan-ethnic nationality. A related modern movement is known as post-Zionism, which asserts that Israel should abandon the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and instead strive to be a state of all its citizens.[23] Another opinion favors a binational state in which Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy, as in Belgium.

In defense of criticism, Zionists reject the charges that Zionism is racist, insisting it is no different than any other national liberation movement of oppressed peoples, and argue that since criticism of both the state of Israel and Zionism is often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, much of it can be attributed to antisemitism.[24][25]

[edit] Non-Jewish Zionism

[edit] Marcus Garvey and "Black Zionism"

Zionist success in winning British support for formation of a "Jewish National Home" in Palestine helped inspire the African-American Nationalist Marcus Garvey to form a movement dedicated to returning Americans of African origin to Africa. During a speech in Harlem in 1920 Garvey stated that

other races were engaged in seeing their cause through---the Jews through their Zionist movement and the Irish through their Irish movement---and I decided that, cost what it might, I would make this a favorable time to see the Negro's interest through.[26]

Garvey established a shipping company, the Black Star Line, to ship Black Americans to Africa, but for various reasons failed in his endeavour. His ideas helped inspire the Rastafarian movement in Jamaica, the Black Jews[27] and the Black Hebrews who initially moved to Liberia before settling in Israel.

[edit] Christian Zionism

Main article: Christian Zionism

In addition to Jewish Zionism, there was always a small number of Christian Zionists that existed from the early days of the Zionist movement. According to Charles Merkley of Carleton University, Christian Zionism strengthened significantly after the 1967 Six-Day War, and many dispensationalist Christians, especially in the United States, now strongly support Zionism.

Throughout the entire 19th century and early 20th century, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land was widely supported by such eminent figures as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, John Adams, the second President of the United States, General Smuts of South Africa, President Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Ministers Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, President Woodrow Wilson, Benedetto Croce, Italian philosopher and historian, Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross and author of the Geneva Conventions, Fridtjof Nansen, Norwegian scientist and humanitarian. The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago". In China, Wang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that "the Nationalist government is in full sympathy with the Jewish people in their desire to establish a country for themselves."[28]

[edit] Muslims supporting Zionism

Most Muslim public figures oppose Zionism; there is no organized Zionist movement among Muslims. There are, however, a few Muslim thinkers who publicly express Zionist views. The best known is Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship. In 2005, Palazzi told FrontPage Magazine "I find in the Qur'an that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle therein (Qur'an 5:21) and that before the Last Day He will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of their Land, gathering them from different countries and nations (Qur'an 17:104). Consequently, as a Muslim who abides by the Qur'an, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree."[29]

Other public Muslim figures supporting Zionism include Magdi Allam, Salah Choudhury and Tashbih Sayyed, who calls himself a 'Muslim Zionist'.[30].


[edit] Footnotes

1. ^ "An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." ("Zionism," Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). See also "Zionism", Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes it as a "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”)," and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, which defines it as "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."
2. ^ Ernest Gellner, 1983. Nations and Nationalism (First edition), p 107-108.
3. ^ A national liberation movement:
* "Zionism is a modern national liberation movement whose roots go far back to Biblical times." (Rockaway, Robert. Zionism: The National Liberation Movement of The Jewish People, World Zionist Organization, January 21, 1975, accessed August 17, 2006).
* "The aim of Zionism was principally the liberation and self-determination of the Jewish people...", Shlomo Avineri. (Zionism as a Movement of National Liberation, Hagshama department of the World Zionist Organization, December 12, 2003, accessed August 17, 2006).
* "Political Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, emerged in the 19th century within the context of the liberal nationalism then sweeping through Europe." (Neuberger, Binyamin. Zionism - an Introduction, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 20, 2001, accessed August 17, 2006).
* "The vicious diatribes on Zionism voiced here by Arab delegates may give this Assembly the wrong impression that while the rest of the world supported the Jewish national liberation movement the Arab world was always hostile to Zionism." (Chaim Herzog, Statement in the General Assembly by Ambassador Herzog on the item "Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination", 10 November 1975., Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 11, 1975, accessed August 17, 2006).
* Zionism: one of the earliest examples of a national liberation movement, written submission by the World Union for Progressive Judaism to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Sixtieth session, Item 5 and 9 of the provisional agenda, January 27, 2004, accessed August 17, 2006.
* "Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression." (Avi Shlaim, A debate : Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews?, International Herald Tribune, February 4, 2005, accessed August 17, 2006.
* "But Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people." (Philips, Melanie. Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews’: opposed by Melanie Phillips, www.melaniephilips.com, accessed August 17, 2006.
* "Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future." (What is Zionism (The Jerusalem Program), Hadassah, accessed August 17, 2006.
* "Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people." (Harris, Rob. Ireland's Zionist slurs like Iran, says Israel, Jewish Telegraph, December 16, 2005, accessed August 17, 2006.
4. ^ "...from Zion, where King David fashioned the first Jewish nation" (Friedland, Roger and Hecht, Richard To Rule Jerusalem, p. 27).
5. ^ "By the late Second Temple times, when widely held Messianic beliefs were so politically powerful in their implications and repercussions, and when the significance of political authority, territorial sovereignty, and religious belief for the fate of the Jews as a people was so widely and vehemently contested, it seems clear that Jewish nationhood was a social and cultural reality". (Roshwald, Aviel. "Jewish Identity and the Paradox of Nationalism", in Berkowitz, Michael (ed.). Nationalism, Zionism and Ethnic Mobilization of the Jews in 1900 and Beyond, p. 15).
6. ^ Largely a response to anti-Semitism:
* "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine." ("Zionism", The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
* "The Political Zionists conceived of Zionism as the Jewish response to anti-Semitism. They believed that Jews must have an independent state as soon as possible, in order to have a place of refuge for endangered Jewish communities." (Wylen, Stephen M. Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, Second Edition, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 392).
* "Zionism, the national movement to return Jews to their homeland in Israel, was founded as a response to anti-Semitism in Western Europe and to violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe." (Calaprice, Alice. The Einstein Almanac, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, p. xvi).
* "The major response to anti-semitism was the emergence of Zionism under the leadership of Theodor Herzl in the late nineteenth century." (Matustik, Martin J. and Westphal, Merold. Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity, Indiana University Press, 1995, p. 178).
* "Zionism was founded as a response to anti-Semitism, principally in Russia, but took off when the worst nightmare of the Jews transpired in Western Europe under Nazism." (Hollis, Rosemary. The Israeli-Palestinian road block: can Europeans make a difference?PDF (57.9 KiB), International Affairs 80, 2 (2004), p. 198)
7. ^ A.R. Taylor, 'Vision and intent in Zionist Thought', in 'The transformation of Palestine', ed. by I. Abu-Lughod, 1971, ISBN 0-8101-0345-1, p. 10
8. ^ Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader[page # needed]
9. ^ De Lange, Nicholas, An Introduction to Judaism, Cambridge University Press (2000), p. 30. ISBN 0-521-46624-5.
10. ^ Misuse of the term "Zionism":
* "... behind the cover of "anti-Zionism" lurks a variety of motives that ought to be called by their true name. When, in the 1950s under Stalin, the Jews of the Soviet Union came under severe attack and scores were executed, it was under the banner of anti-Zionism rather than anti-Semitism, which had been given a bad name by Adolf Hitler. When in later years the policy of Israeli governments was attacked as racist or colonialist in various parts of the world, the basis of the criticism was quite often the belief that Israel had no right to exist in the first place, not opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government. Traditional anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion in the West except on the extreme right. But something we might call post-anti-Semitism has taken its place. It is less violent in its aims, but still very real. By and large it has not been too difficult to differentiate between genuine and bogus anti-Zionism. The test is twofold. It is almost always clear whether the attacks are directed against a specific policy carried out by an Israeli government (for instance, as an occupying power) or against the existence of Israel. Secondly, there is the test of selectivity. If from all the evils besetting the world, the misdeeds, real or imaginary, of Zionism are singled out and given constant and relentless publicity, it can be taken for granted that the true motive is not anti-Zionism but something different and more sweeping." (Laqueur, Walter: Dying for Jerusalem: The Past, Present and Future of the Holiest City (Sourcebooks, Inc., 2006) ISBN 1-4022-0632-1. p. 55)
* "In late July 1967, Moscow launched an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Zionism as a "world threat." Defeat was attributed not to tiny Israel alone, but to an "all-powerful international force." ... In its flagrant vulgarity, the new propaganda assault soon achieved Nazi-era characteristics. The Soviet public was saturated with racist canards. Extracts from Trofim Kichko's notorious 1963 volume, Judaism Without Embellishment, were extensively republished in the Soviet media. Yuri Ivanov's Beware: Zionism, a book essentially replicated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was given nationwide coverage." (Howard Sachar: A History of the Jews in the Modern World (Knopf, NY. 2005) p.722
* See also Rootless cosmopolitan, Doctors' Plot, Zionology, Polish 1968 political crisis
11. ^ C.D. Smith, 2001, 'Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict', 4th ed., ISBN 0-312-20828-6, p. 1-12, 33-38
12. ^ Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 5 (italics from original)
13. ^ Zionism & The British In Palestine, by Sethi,Arjun (University of Maryland) January 2007, accessed May 20, 2007.
14. ^ http://www.mideastweb.org/biltmore_program.htm
15. ^ E. Schweid, ‘Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought’, in ‘’Essential Papers onZionsm, ed. By Reinharz & Shapira, 1996, ISBN 0-8147-7449-0, p.133
16. ^ E. Schweid, ‘Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought’, in ‘’Essential Papers on Zionism, ed. By Reinharz & Shapira, 1996, ISBN 0-8147-7449-0, p.157
17. ^ Z. Sternhell, 'The founding myths of Israel', 1998, p. 3-36, ISBN 0-691-01694-1, p. 49-51
18. ^ El-Nawawy, Mohammed (2002). The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the reporting of western Journalists. Ablex/Greenwood, pg. 19 ISBN 1567505449 "It is a barrier that has been created by years and years of antagonism with Israelis; a barrier that was strengthened by the Egyptian and Arab news media at large which have enforced the Arabs' stereotypes about the Israelis as invaders of Arab land."
19. ^ Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, pg. 19.
20. ^ The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number of Palestinian Refugees was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev.1)
21. ^ Massad, Joseph (February 2003). The legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Al-Ahram Weekly. Retrieved on 2006-09-20.
22. ^ Neturei Karta, Satmar and various left wing anti-Zionist groups make up a tiny fraction of the Jewish population and do not represent main stream thinking, Again Zionists Not Jews, Anti-Zionist Resource Center, Zionism On The Web.
23. ^ Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? by Meyrav Wurmser. Middle East Quarterly, March 1999
24. ^ Taguieff, Pierre-André. Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004.
25. ^ Rosenbaum, Ron. Those who forget the past. Random House, 2004.
26. ^ Negro World 6, March 1920 cited in http://www.international.ucla.edu/africa/mgpp/lifeintr.asp (accessed 29/11/2007).
27. ^ http://www.blackjews.org/RabbiBios/RabbiFord.html
28. ^ Palestine: The Original Sin , Meir Abelson [1]
29. ^ The Anti-Terror, Pro-Israel Sheikh, By Jamie Glazov, September 12, 2005, FrontPageMagazine.com
30. ^ Tashbih Sayyed ― A Fearless Muslim Zionist, by Rachel Neuwirth, 24 Jun, 2007, The American Thinker, posted by Islam-Watch.org

[edit] References

* Taylor, A.R., 1971, 'Vision and intent in Zionist Thought', in 'The transformation of Palestine', ed. by I. Abu-Lughod, ISBN 0-8101-0345-1, Northwestern university press, Evanston, USA
* David Hazony, Yoram Hazony, and Michael B. Oren, eds., "New Essays on Zionism," Shalem Press, 2007.

[edit] See also

[edit] Types of Zionism

* Christian Zionism
* Cultural Zionism
* General Zionists
* Labor Zionism
* Reform Zionism
* Religious Zionism
* Revisionist Zionism

[edit] Zionist institutions and organizations

* Histadrut
* The Jewish Agency for Israel
* Jewish National Fund
* Vaad Leumi
* World Zionist Organization

[edit] History of Zionism and Israel

* "Zion story": an article in the TLS by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, February 20, 2008
* History of Zionism
* History of Israel
* History of Palestine
* Israeli-Palestinian conflict
* List of Zionist figures
* Timeline of Zionism

[edit] Other

* Anti-Zionism
* Jewish Autonomism
* Jewish Emancipation
* Palestinophilia
* Zionism and racism allegations

[edit] Other resources
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Zionism
Wikisource has an original article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia about:
Zionists


For other resources and external links, see Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)

[hide]
v • d • e
Jews and Judaism
Denominations Schisms · Inta-Jewish relations · Orthodox · (Haredi · Hasidic · Modern Orthodox) · Conservative · Reform · Reconstructionist · Jewish Renewal · Rabbinic · Karaite · Samaritan · Humanistic
Philosophy Principles of faith · Chosen people · Eschatology · Ethics · Halakha · Holocaust theology · Kabbalah · Kashrut · Messianism · Minyan · Mussar Movement · Names of God · Seven Laws of Noah · Tzedakah · Tzniut
Religious texts Tanakh (Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim) · Arba'ah Turim · Chumash · Kuzari · Midrash · Mishnah Berurah · Mishneh Torah · Piyyut · Rabbinic works · Shulchan Aruch · Siddur · Talmud · Tosefta · Zohar
Jewish leadership Abraham · Isaac · Jacob · Sarah · Rebecca · Rachel · Leah · Moses · Deborah · Ruth · David · Solomon · Elijah · Hillel · Shammai · Judah haNasi · Saadia Gaon · Rashi · Isaac Alfasi · Abraham ibn Ezra · Tosafists · Rambam · Nahmanides · Gersonides · Joseph Albo · Yosef Karo · Asher ben Jehiel · Baal Shem Tov · Shneur Zalman of Liadi · Vilna Gaon · Leopold Zunz · Israel Jacobson · Abraham Geiger · Ovadia Yosef · Moshe Feinstein · Elazar Shach · Menachem Schneerson
Life and culture Who is a Jew? · Bar Mitzvah / Bat Mitzvah · Bereavement · Brit milah · Etymology of the word Jew · Marriage · Niddah · Pidyon HaBen · Secular Jewish culture · Shidduch · Zeved habat
Roles and places Four Holy Cities (Jerusalem · Safed · Hebron · Tiberias) · Beth din · Gabbai · Hazzan · Kohen · Maggid · Mashgiach · Mikvah · Mohel · Rabbi · Rebbe · Rosh yeshiva · Synagogue · Temple · Tabernacle · Western Wall
Religious articles Aleinu · Amidah · Four Species · Gartel · Hallel · Havdalah · Kaddish · Kittel · Kol Nidre · Ma Tovu · Menorah (Hanukiah) · Mezuzah · Prayer · Sefer Torah · Services · Shema Yisrael · Shofar · Tallit · Tefillin · Tzitzit · Yad · Yarmulke
Other religions Jewish views of religious pluralism · Abrahamic religions · Christianity (Catholicism · Christian-Jewish reconciliation · Judeo-Christian) · Islam · Jewish Buddhist · Judeo-Paganism · Mormonism · Others
Languages Hebrew · Judeo-Arabic · Judeo-Aramaic · Judeo-Persian · Ladino · Yiddish
History Ancient · Temple in Jerusalem · Babylonian captivity · Jerusalem (Significance · Timeline) · Hasmonean · Sanhedrin · Pharisees · First Jewish-Roman War · Diaspora · Middle Ages · Muslim rule · Sabbateans · Haskalah · Emancipation · The Holocaust · Aliyah · Israel (History) · Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts · Land of Israel · Baal teshuva movement
Politics Zionism (General · Labor · Religious · Revisionist) · General Jewish Labor Union · World Agudath Israel · Feminism · Politics of Israel
Antisemitism History · Persecution · New · Racial · Religious · Secondary

, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentarism in U.S. English), is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential republic. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an elected (either popularly or through parliament) president or hereditary monarch. Though in Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be bestowed in the head of state, giving them many codified or uncodified reserve powers, providing some balance to these systems.

The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use "first past the post" voting usually have governments composed of one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats.

Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a parliamentary system.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Types
* 2 Advantages of a parliamentary system
* 3 Criticisms of parliamentarianism
* 4 Countries with a parliamentary system of government
o 4.1 Unicameral system
o 4.2 Bicameral system
* 5 Notes

[edit] Types
This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (November 2007)

There are broadly two forms of Parliamentary Democracies.

* Westminster System or Westminster Models tend to be found in Commonwealth of Nations countries, although they are not universal within nor exclusive to Commonwealth countries. These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of parliament is relatively more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model are elected using "First Past the Post" electoral systems, (e.g. Canada, India and the UK), others using proportional representation, e.g. Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using the alternative or preferential vote while the Senate is elected using PRSTV (proportional representation through the single transferable vote). However even when proportional representation systems are used, the systems used tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a party list. This model does allow for a greater separation of powers than the Western European Model, although the extent of the separation of powers is nowhere near that of the presidential system of United States.

* Western European Parliamentary Model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tend to have a more consensual debating system, and have semi-cyclical debating chambers. Proportional representation systems are used, where there is more of a tendency to use party list systems than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of these Parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary chamber. This model is sometimes called the West German Model since its earliest exemplar in its final form was in the Bundestag of West Germany (which became the Bundestag of Germany upon the absorption of the GDR by the FRG).

There also exists a Hybrid Model, the semi-presidential system, drawing on both presidential systems and parliamentary systems, for example the French Fifth Republic. Much of Eastern Europe has adopted this model since the early 1990s.

Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ on whether the government needs the explicit approval of the parliament to form, rather than just the absence of its disapproval, and under what conditions (if any) the government has the right to dissolve the parliament.

[edit] Advantages of a parliamentary system

Some believe that it's easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure. Presidents can also face problems from their own parties, however, as former US President Jimmy Carter often did[citation needed]. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.

It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.[citation needed]

There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."[citation needed]

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.[1]

[edit] Criticisms of parliamentarianism

One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of state is in almost all cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her.

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, most parliamentary systems are bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes).

Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, India, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates.

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of newly-democratic Iraq, saying that because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarian and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms."[2]

Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date.

Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people. (citation needed)

In systems where the prime minister is chosen from members of parliament, it prevents people who cannot be elected to parliament from serving. For example, suppose a talented politician from the majority party happens to reside in a district in which another party is dominant and holds the seat. That politician is unlikely to be elected to parliament, and therefore cannot become prime minister, even though that politician may enjoy great support overall nationally. In particular, there have been cases where a sitting prime minister has been ousted solely because they lost their own parliamentary seat in an election. However, in practice, politicians do not necessarily represent the electorate which they originated from, and in some cases may live outside the electorate they represent. This allows promising politicians to be allocated a "safe seat", regardless of their origins.

[edit] Countries with a parliamentary system of government

[edit] Unicameral system

This table shows countries with parliament consisting of a single house.
Country Parliament
Albania Kuvendi
Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangshad
Bulgaria National Assembly
Burkina Faso National Assembly
Croatia Sabor
Denmark Folketing
Dominica House of Assembly
Estonia Riigikogu
Finland Eduskunta/Riksdag
Greece Hellenic Parliament
Hungary National Assembly
Iceland Althing
India Parliament/Rajya Sabha & Lok Sabha
Israel Knesset
Kurdistan Region Kurdistan National Assembly
Latvia Saeima
Lithuania Seimas
Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies
Malta House of Representatives
Moldova Parliament
Mongolia State Great Khural
Montenegro Parliament
New Zealand Parliament
Norway* Storting
Palestinian Authority Parliament
Papua New Guinea National Parliament
Portugal Assembly of the Republic
Republic of Macedonia Sobranie - Assembly
Saint Kitts and Nevis National Assembly
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines House of Assembly
Samoa Fono
Serbia National Assembly
Singapore Parliament
Slovakia National Council
Sri Lanka Parliament
Sweden Riksdag
Turkey Grand National Assembly
Ukraine Verhovna Rada
Vanuatu Parliament

* The Norwegian Parliament is divided in the Lagting and Odelsting in legislative matters. This separation will be abolished with the next parliament in 2009 due to a constitutional amendment.

[edit] Bicameral system

This table shows organisations and countries with parliament consisting of two houses.
Organisation or Country Parliament Upper chamber Lower chamber
Australia Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Austria Parliament Federal Council National Council
Antigua and Barbuda Parliament Senate House of Representatives
The Bahamas Parliament Senate House of Assembly
Barbados Parliament Senate House of Assmebly
Belize National Assembly Senate House of Representatives
Belgium Federal Parliament Senate Chamber of Representatives
Bhutan Parliament (Chitshog)[3] National Council (Gyalyong Tshogde) National Assembly (Gyalyong Tshogdu)
Canada Parliament Senate House of Commons
Czech Republic Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies
Ethiopia Federal Parliamentary Assembly House of Federation House of People's Representatives
European Union Council of the European Union European Parliament
Germany Bundesrat (Federal Council) Bundestag (Federal Diet)
Grenada Parliament Senate House of Representatives
India Parliament (Sansad) Rajya Sabha (Council of States) Lok Sabha (House of People)
Ireland Oireachtas Seanad Éireann Dáil Éireann
Iraq National Assembly Council of Union[4] Council of Representatives
Italy Parliament Senate of the Republic Chamber of Deputies
Jamaica Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Japan Diet House of Councillors House of Representatives
Malaysia Parliament Dewan Negara (Senate) Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)
The Netherlands States-General Eerste Kamer Tweede Kamer
Pakistan Majlis-e-Shoora Senate National Assembly
Poland Parliament Senate Sejm
Romania Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies
Saint Lucia Parliament Senate House of Assembly
Slovenia Parliament National Council National Assembly
South Africa Parliament National Council of Provinces National Assembly
Spain Cortes Generales Senate Congress of Deputies
Switzerland Federal Assembly Council of States National Council
Thailand National Assembly[5] Senate House of Representatives
Trinidad and Tobago Parliament Senate House of Representatives
United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords House of Commons

In 1975 Süleyman Demirel, President of the conservative Justice Party (AP) succeeded Bülent Ecevit, President of the social-democrat Republican People's Party (CHP) as Prime Minister. He formed a coalition of the Nationalist Front with Necmettin Erbakan of the fundamentalist MSP and the extreme right-wing MHP of Alparslan Türkeş. The MHP used the opportunity to infiltrate state security, which seriously aggravated the low-intensity war which was waged between rival factions.[1] The elections of 1977 had no winner. First Süleyman Demirel continued the coalition of the National Front. But in 1978 Ecevit was able to get to power again with the help of some deputies who had shifted from one party to another. In 1979, Demirel once again became Prime Minister. At the end of the 1970s Turkey was in an unstable situation with unsolved economic and social problems facing strike actions and partial paralyzation of politics (the Grand National Assembly of Turkey was unable to elect a President during the six months preceding the coup). Since 1968-69, a proportional representation system made it difficult to find any parliamentary majority. The interests of the industrial bourgeoisie, which held the largest holdings of the country, were opposed by other social classes such as smaller industrials, traders, rural notables, landlords, etc., whose interests did not always coincide between themselves either. Numerous agricultural and industrial reforms requested by parts of the middle upper classes were blocked by others.[1] Henceforth, the politicians seemed unable to combat the growing violence in the country.

Unprecedented political violence had erupted in Turkey in the late 1970s. The overall death-toll of the terror of the 1970s is estimated at 5,000, with nearly ten assassinations per day.[1] Most were members of left-wing and right-wing political organization, then engaged in bitter fighting. The ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves, youth organisation of the MHP party, claimed they were supporting the security forces.[2] According to the British Searchlight magazine in 1979, in 1978 they were 3,319 fascist attacks, in which 831 were killed and 3,121 wounded.[6] In the central trial against the left-wing organization Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) at Ankara Military Court the defendants listed 5,388 political killings before the military coup. Among the victims were 1,296 rightwingers and 2,109 left-wingers. The others could not clearly be related.[7] The 1977 Taksim Square massacre with 35 victims and the 1978 Kahramanmaraş Massacre with over 100 victims are somehow outstanding in the series of attacks. Following the incidents in Kahramanmaraş martial law was announced in 14 of (then) 67 provinces in December 1978. At the time of the coup martial law had been extended to 20 provinces.

As a member of NATO and because of its geographical position, at the crossroads between Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, Turkey was an important ally of the United States. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Washington had lost its main ally in the region, while the Carter doctrine formulated on 23 January 1980 stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. Turkey received large sums of economic aid mainly organized by the OECD and military aid from the NATO but the USA in particular.[8] Between 1979 and 1982 the OECD countries raised $4 billion in economic aid to Turkey.[9]

Washington started developing the Rapid Deployment Forces (RDF) in implementation of the Carter doctrine, for a quick intervention in areas outside NATO, particularly in the Persian Gulf, and without having to rely on NATO troops. On October 1, 1979 President Jimmy Carter announced the foundation of the RDF. One day before the military coup of 12 September 1980 some 3,000 American troops of the RDF started a maneuver Anvil Express on Turkish soil.[10] Just before the coup, the general in charge of the Turkish Air Forces had travelled to the United States.[1] At the end of 1981 a Turkish-American Defense Council (Türk-Amerikan Savunma Konseyi) was founded. Defense Minister Ümit Haluk and Richard Perle, then US Assistant Secretary of Defense of the new Reagan administration, and the deputy Chief of Staff Necdet Öztorun participated in its first meeting on 27 April 1982. On 9 October 1982 a Memorandum of Understanding (Mutabakat Belgesi) was signed with a focus of extending airports mainly in the Southeast for military purposed. Such airports were built in the provinces of

The pretext alleged by the military, headed by General Kenan Evren, for the coup was to put an end to the social conflicts of the 1970s, as well as parliamentary instability. The US-support of this coup was acknowledged by the CIA Ankara station chief Paul Henze. After the government was overthrown, Henze cabled Washington, saying, "our boys have done it."[3] This has created the impression that the USA stood behind the coup. In June 2003 Henze denied this, but after two days Mehmet Ali Birand presented an interview with Henze recorded in 1997 in which he basically confirmed Mehmet Ali Birand's story.[4][5] The US State Department itself announced the coup during the night between 11 and 12 September: the military had phoned the US embassy in Ankara to alert them of the coup an hour before passing to action.[1]

US president Jimmy Carter, elected in 1976 and president from 1977 to 1981, would comment much later that "before the September 12 movement,[sic] Turkey was in a critical situation with regard to its defences. After the [1979] invasion of Afghanistan and the [1979] overthrow of the Iranian monarchy, the movement for stabilisation in Turkey came as a relief to us."[11]

Besides Kenan Evren, the National Security Council also included the general Haydar Saltuk, who was its secretary general. Both men were the strong men of the regime, while the government was headed by a retired admiral, Bülent Ulusu, and included several retired military officers and a few civil technicians. Some alleged in Turkey, after the coup, that general Saltuk had been preparing a more radical, rightist coup, which had been one of the reason prompting the other generals to act, respecting the hierarchy, and then to include him in the NSC in order to neutralize him.[1]

On 29 June 1981 the military junta appointed 160 people as members of an Advisory Assembly to draft a new Constitution. On 7 November 1982 the new Constitution was accepted with a referendum of almost 92% and on 9 November 1982 Kenan Evren was appointed President for the next seven years.

Amnesty International has estimated that over a quarter of a million people were arrested in Turkey after the coup and that almost all of them were tortured.[2] The Human Rights Association in Turkey (HRA, called İnsan Hakları Derneği) said 10 years after the coup that 650,000 people had been detained on political grounds. Most imprisoned persons were from the intellectual strata of Turkish society. Apart of many militants allegedly killed during shootings, at least four prisoners were legally executed immediately after the coup, the first ones since 1972, while in February 1982 there were 108 prisoners condemned to capital punishment.[1]

After having taken advantage of the Grey Wolves' activism, General Kenan Evren, alleged by historian D. Ganser to be the head of Counter-Guerrilla also decided to imprison hundreds of them, including Colonel Türkeş, head of the MHP, for their role during the strategy of tension.[12] At the time they were some 1,700 Grey Wolves organizations in Turkey, with about 200,000 registered members and a million sympathisers. In its indictment of the MHP in May 1981, the Turkish military government charged 220 members of the MHP and its affiliates for 694 murders.[13] Following the coup in Colonel Türkeş's indictment, the Turkish press revealed the close links maintained by the MHP with security forces as well as organized crime involved in drug trade, which financed in returns weapons and the activities of hired fascist commandos all over the country.[1]

But a short time afterwards, Grey Wolves imprisoned members were offered release if they agreed to fight the Kurdish minority and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the south-east of the country[14] as well as the ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia). They then went on to fight, with Counter-Guerrilla, Kurds, killing and torturing thousands in the 1980s, and also carrying false flag attacks in which the Counter-Guerrilla attacked villages, dressed up as PKK fighters, and raped and executed people randomly.[15] The dirty war had a toll of 37 000 victims.[16] The fact that Counter-Guerrilla had engaged in torture was confirmed by Talat Turhan, a former Turkish general. According to a December 5, 1990 article by the Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Counter-Guerrilla had their headquarters in the building of the US DIA military secret service.[17] In addition, members of this "deep state" carried out operations to assassinate the leader squad of ASALA, Hagop Hagopian, in which they succeeded on April 28, 1988.

[edit] Aftermath and 1983 elections

After the approval by referendum of the new Constitution in June 1982, Kenan Evren organized general elections, held on 6 November 1983.

However, the referendum and the elections did not take place in a free and competitive setting. Many political leaders of pre-coup era (including Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit, Alparslan Türkeş and Necmettin Erbakan) had been banned from politics, and all new parties needed to get the approval of the National Security Council in order to participate in the elections. Only 3 parties, two of which were actually created by the ruling military regime were permitted to contest.

This transition to democracy has been criticized by the Turkish scholar Ergun Özbudun: "The 1983 Turkish transition is almost a textbook example of the degree to which a departing military regime can dictate the conditions of its departure (…)".[18]

Out of the 1983 elections came one-party governance under Turgut Özal's Motherland Party, which combined a neo-liberal economic program with conservative social values. Turgut Özal, who had been vice-prime minister of the junta, had also been the main person responsible for the economic policy implemented by the Demirel liberal administration since 24 January 1980, which was inspired by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He had obtained at the end of 1981-start of 1982 the resignation of the director of the Central Bank, İsmail Aydınoğlu, one of the main opponents of the IMF policies. The latter were based on freezing of wages, an important decrease of the public sector, a deflationist policy, and several successive mini-devaluations.[1]

Yildirim Akbulut became head of the Parliament, succeeded, in 1991, by Mesut Yılmaz. Meanwhile, Süleyman Demirel founded the right-wing True Path Party in 1983, and returned to active politics after the 1987 referendum.

Yılmaz redoubled Turkey's economic profile, converting towns like Gaziantep from small provincial capitals into mid-sized economic boomtowns, and renewed its orientation toward Europe. But political instability followed as the host of banned politicians reentered politics, fracturing the vote, and the Motherland Party became increasingly corrupt. Ozal, who succeeded Evren as President of Turkey, died of a heart attack in 1993 and Süleyman Demirel was elected president.

In 1975 the Turkish politician Necmettin Erbakan published a manifesto that he gave the title Millî Görüş, ‘The National Vision’. It spoke only in the most general terms of moral and religious education but devoted much attention to industrialization, development and economic independence. It warned against further rapprochement towards Europe, considering the Common Market to be a Zionist and Catholic project for the assimilation and de-Islamization of Turkey and called instead for closer economic co-operation with Muslim countries. The name of Millî Görüş would remain associated with a religio-political movement and a series of Islamist parties inspired by Mr. Erbakan, one succeeding the other as they were banned for violating Turkey’s laïcité legislation. Following the ban of the Virtue (Fazilet) Party, a rift that had been developing in the movement resulted in two parties taking its place, the Felicity (Saadet) Party representing Erbakan’s old guard, and the Justice and Development (AK) Party led by younger and more pragmatic politicians around Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who claim to have renounced on a specifically Islamist agenda. The AK Party convincingly won the 2002 elections and formed a government with a strong popular mandate, that brought Turkey closer to acceptance for membership in the European Union than any previous government had done.

Among the Turkish immigrants in Western Europe, Milli Görüş became one of the major, if not the major, religious movement, controlling numerous mosques. Like the movement in Turkey, it went through some remarkable changes, not least because the first generation, which was strongly oriented towards what happened in Turkey, is gradually surrendering leadership to a younger generation that grew up in Europe and is concerned with entirely different matters. Milli Görüş’ public profile shows considerable differences from one country to the next, suggesting that nature of the interaction with the ‘host’ societies may have as much of an impact on its character as a religious movement as the relationship with the ‘mother’ movement in Turkey.

Maddenin Ardındaki Bilgi ve Levh-i Mahfuz

Bilgi... Bu kavram günümüzde bundan yarım yüzyıl öncesine göre çok daha fazla şey ifade ediyor. Bilim adamları "bilgi"nin ne olduğunu tanımlamak için teoriler geliştiriyorlar. Sosyal bilimciler "bilgi toplumu"ndan söz ediyorlar. Bilgi, giderek insanlığın en önemli kavramlarından biri haline geliyor. Peki nedir bilgi?

Bilgi kavramını bu denli önemli hale getiren en önemli bilimsel bulgu, evrenin ve yaşamın kökeninde bilgi olduğunun tespit edilmesi. Tüm evreni "madde ve enerji"den ibaret sayan 19. yüzyıl materyalist felsefesinin yerine, bilim adamları artık evrenin "madde, enerji ve bilgi"den oluştuğunu söylüyorlar.

Peki Bu Ne Anlama Geliyor?
Bunu bir örnekle açıklamak mümkün: DNA. Bilindiği gibi tüm canlı hücreleri, DNA adı verilen sarmal yapıdaki genetik bilgiye göre işliyor. Bizim de bedenimizdeki trilyonlarca hücrenin her birinin çekirdeğinde DNA var ve vücudumuzun tüm fonksiyonları bu DNA'larda kayıtlı. Hücrelerimiz yeni proteinler üretmek için DNA'da yazılı olan protein şifrelerini kullanıyor. DNA'da yazılı olan bu bilgi o kadar büyük ki, insan vücudunun genetik bilgisini kağıda dökmek için, yaklaşık 900 ciltlik bir ansiklopedi yazmak gerekiyor!




DNA Neden Oluşuyor?
Bu soru 50 yıl önce -DNA'nın yeni keşfedildiği sıralarda- sorulsa, bilim adamları buna muhtemelen "DNA, nükleotid adı verilen nükleik asitlerden ve bunları birbirine bağlayan kimyasal bağlardan oluşur." cevabını verirlerdi. Yani DNA'nın sadece maddesel parçalarını sayarlardı. Ama artık bilim adamları farklı bir cevap veriyorlar: "DNA, söz konusu atomlar, moleküller ve kimyasal bağlardan ve bir de (en önemlisi) bilgiden oluşur." Bilgiyi saymamak, "Bir kitap neden oluşur?" sorusuna, "Kağıt, mürekkep ve ciltten oluşur." demek gibi çok yanlış bir cevaptır. Çünkü bu maddesel malzemelerin yanı sıra (ve ondan çok daha önemli olarak) kitabı oluşturan çok büyük bir bilgi vardır. Her satırında anlamsız kelimeler yazan bir kitap ile Britannica Ansiklopedisinin bir cildini birbirinden farklı kılan şey de bu bilgidir. Her ikisinde de kağıt, mürekkep ve cilt vardır, ama birisi bilgiden yoksun iken, diğerinde muazzam bir bilgi yer almaktadır. Bu muazzam bilginin kaynağı ise, elbette, matbaa makinası, mürekkep veya kağıt değildir. Bilginin kaynağı, o kitabı yazan kişidir. Yani bilinçli bir zihindir.

Bu durumda DNA'daki bilginin de yine bilinçli bir varlık tarafından meydana getirildiğini kabul etmek gerekiyor. (http://www.harunyahya.org/Makaleler/levhimahfuz.html)

Evrim Teorisinin ve Materyalizmin Bilgi Çıkmazı
Bu gerçeğin fark edilmesi, materyalist felsefeyi ve onun doğa bilimlerine uyarlaması olan Darwinizm'i büyük bir çıkmaza sokmuş durumda.

Bir kitap, kağıttan, mürekkepten ve içindeki bilgiden oluşur. Bu bilginin kaynağı ise, o kitabı yazmış olan yazarın zihnidir.

Çünkü bu teori, tüm canlıların sadece maddesel etkenlerin bir araya gelmesiyle oluştuğunu savunuyor, canlıların genetik bilgisinin ise, bu maddesel etkenler biraraya gelirken "tesadüfen" ortaya çıktığını iddia ediyor. Bu, bir kitabın, kağıt ve mürekkebin rastgele birleşmesi sonucunda yazılmış olduğunu iddia etmek gibi bir şey.

Materyalizmin söz konusu iddiası "indirgemecilik" olarak bilinmekte. Bir başka deyişle bu felsefe, bilginin maddeye indirgenebileceğini, madde dışında bir bilgi kaynağı aramak gerekmediğini savunuyor. Ama bunun büyük bir yanılgı olduğu ortaya çıkmış durumda ve artık materyalistler de bunu itiraf etmeye başladılar.

Evrim teorisinin yaşayan en önde gelen savunucularından biri olan George C. Williams, 1995 tarihli bir yazısında, herşeyin madde olduğunu varsayan materyalist (indirgemeci) yaklaşımın yanlışlığını şöyle ifade etmektedir:

“Evrimci biyologlar, iki farklı alan üzerinde çalışmakta olduklarını şimdiye kadar fark edemediler; bu iki alan madde ve bilgidir... Bu iki alan, "indirgemecilik" olarak bildiğimiz formülle asla biraraya getirilemezler... Genler, birer maddesel obje olmaktan çok, birer bilgi paketçiğidir... Biyolojide genler, genotipler ve gen havuzları gibi kavramlardan söz ettiğinizde, bilgi hakkında konuşmuş olursunuz, fiziksel objeler hakkında değil... Bu durum, bilginin ve maddenin varoluşun iki farklı alanı olduğunu göstermektedir ve bu iki farklı alanın kökeni de ayrı ayrı araştırılmalıdır.” (George C. Williams. The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution. (ed. John Brockman). New York, Simon & Schuster, 1995. ss. 42-43)

Evrim teorisini ve materyalist felsefeyi eleştiren bilim adamlarından biri olan, Cambridge Üniversitesi'nden bilim felsefecisi Stephen C. Meyer kendisiyle yapılan bir röportajda bu konuda şunları söyler:“Bu konuyu okulda öğrencilerime açıklamak için iki ayrı bilgisayar örneğini veriyorum. Birisinde software (bilgisayarın işletim sistemi ve programlar) yüklü, diğeri ise tamamen boş. Sonra soruyorum: Bu iki bilgisayar arasında maddesel olarak fark nedir? Elbette maddesel olarak hiçbir fark yok... Çünkü bilgi maddesel olmayan, hacim tutmayan bir kavram. Bilgi, maddesel bir varlık değil... Bilgi, madde ve enerjiden farklı bir varlık, bilginin boyutunu ve nasıl ortaya çıktığını madde ve enerjiyle açıklamak mümkün değil...”

“19. yüzyılda, bilimi ilgilendiren iki temel varlık alanı olduğunu düşünüyorduk: Madde ve enerji. 21. yüzyılın başında ise artık farkına varıyoruz ki, üçüncü bir varlık alanı vardır ve bu da bilgidir. Bu varlık alanı maddeye indirgenemez.” (Stephen Meyer, "Why Can't Biological Information Originate Through a Materialistic Process", Unlocking the Mystery of Life, DVD, Produced by Illustra Media, 2002)




Bilgiyi maddeye indirgemek için 20. yüzyıl boyunca ortaya atılan tüm teoriler (rastlantıya dayalı yaşamın kökeni tezleri, "maddenin öz örgütlenmesi" efsanesine dayanan senaryolar, türlerin genetik bilgisini mutasyon-doğal seleksiyon mekanizmaları ile açıklamaya çalışan biyolojik evrim teorisi) başarısız olmuştur. Darwinizm'in günümüzdeki en önemli eleştirmenlerinden biri olarak kabul edilen Amerikalı Profesör Philip Johnson bu konuda "Bilgi, maddenin üzerine işlenmiş olsa da, madde değildir. Farklı bir kaynaktan gelir, bir bilinçten" yorumunu yapmaktadır. (Harun Yahya. Hayalin Diğer Adı: Madde)

Kitap örneğinde olduğu gibi, bir kitap, kağıttan, mürekkepten ve içindeki bilgiden oluşur. Bu bilginin kaynağı ise, o kitabı yazmış olan yazarın zihnidir.

Dahası bu zihin, maddesel öğelerden daha önce vardır ve bunların nasıl kullanılacağını da belirler. Bir kitap, önce o kitabı yazan yazarın zihninde oluşur. Yazar zihninde mantıkları kurar, cümleleri dizer. Bunları ikinci aşamada maddesel bir şekle sokar. Yani bir daktilo ya da bilgisayar kullanarak zihnindeki bilgiyi harflere dönüştürür. Sonra da bu harfler matbaaya girerek kağıt ve mürekkepten oluşan kitaba dönüşür.
Buradan da şu genel sonuca varabiliriz: "Eğer bir madde bilgi içeriyorsa, o zaman o madde, söz konusu bilgiye sahip olan bir akıl tarafından düzenlenmiştir. Önce bir akıl vardır. O akıl sahip olduğu bilgiyi maddeye dökmüş ve ortaya bir tasarım çıkarmıştır."

Levh-i Mahfuz
Allah, insanlara yol gösterici olarak indirdiği Kuran'da, evrenin yaratılmasından önce, evrendeki tüm varlıkları ve olayları açıklayan bir "Saklanmış Levha" (Levh-i Mahfuz) olduğunu bildirmiştir.

Bilimin, vardığı sonuç ise: Tüm evreni ve canlıları, sonsuzdan beri var olan, üstün bilgi sahibi Allah yaratmıştır.
Modern çağın laboratuvarlarında ulaşılan bu sonuç, bundan 14 asır önce Kuran'da açıklanan önemli bir sırra işaret etmektedir. Levh-i Mahfuz'un "korunmuş" (mahfuz) olarak nitelendirilmiş olmasının bir hikmeti, burada yazılı olan bilgilerin herhangi bir müdahale ile değiştirilmekten, bozulmaktan uzak olmasıdır. Kuran'da Ümmü'l-Kitap (Kitapların Anası, Ana Kitap), Kitabun Hafiz (Koruyan Kitap), Kitabın Meknun (Saklanmış Kitap) ve sadece kitap olarak da anılır. İnsanların başlarına gelecek şeyleri da ihtiva ettiği için Kitabul-Kader(Kader Kitabı) da denir.

Allah Levh-i Mahfuz'u birçok ayette niteliklerini belirterek açıklar. Buna göre Levh-i Mahfuz içinde hiçbir şeyin eksik bırakılmadığı bir kitaptır:





“Gaybın anahtarları O'nun katındadır, O'ndan başka hiç kimse gaybı bilmez. Karada ve denizde olanların tümünü O bilir, O, bilmeksizin bir yaprak dahi düşmez; yerin karanlıklarındaki bir tane, yaş ve kuru dışta olmamak üzere hepsi (ve herşey) apaçık bir kitaptadır.”
(Enam Suresi, 59)

Bir ayette, yeryüzündeki tüm canlılığın Levh-i Mahfuz'da kayıtlı olduğu şöyle haber verilir:

“Yeryüzünde hiçbir canlı ve iki kanadıyla uçan hiçbir kuş yoktur ki, sizin gibi ümmetler olmasın. Biz Kitap'ta hiçbir şeyi noksan bırakmadık, sonra onlar Rablerine toplanacaklardır.”
(Enam Suresi, 38)

Bir başka ayette , "yerde ve gökte", yani tüm evrende "zerre ağırlığınca" küçük varlıklar dahil her şeyin Allah'ın bilgisinde olduğu ve Levh-i Mahfuz'da kayıtlı olduğu şöyle açıklanır:

“Senin içinde olduğun herhangi bir durum, onun hakkında Kuran'dan okuduğun herhangi bir şey ve sizin işlediğiniz herhangi bir iş yoktur ki, ona (iyice) daldığınızda, Biz sizin üzerinizde şahidler durmuş olmayalım. Yerde ve gökte zerre ağırlığınca hiçbir şey Rabbinden uzakta kalmaz. Bunun daha küçüğü de, daha büyüğü de yoktur ki, apaçık bir kitapta (kayıtlı) olmasın.”
(Yunus Suresi, 61)

Maddeden Önce Var Olan Zihin
Doğadaki bilginin kaynağı, materyalistlerin sandığı gibi maddenin kendisi olamaz. Bilginin kaynağı madde değil, madde-ötesi üstün bir Akıl'dır. Bu Akıl, maddeden önce vardır. Madde O'nunla var olmuş, O'nunla şekil bulmuş ve düzenlenmiştir.
Bizi bu sonuca götüren tek bilim dalı biyoloji de değildir. 20. yüzyıl astronomi ve fiziği de evrende muhteşem bir denge ve tasarım bulunduğunu ortaya koyarak, "evrenden önce var olan ve onu yoktan var edip düzenleyen" bir Aklın varlığını göstermiştir. Dünyanın en saygın üniversitelerinin başında gelen MIT’de (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) fizik ve biyoloji dallarında çalışmış ve aynı zamanda The Science of God (Allah'ın Bilimi) isimli ünlü kitabın yazarı olan İsrailli bilim adamı Gerald Schroeder’in bu konu hakkında oldukça önemli yorumları vardır. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth Allah isimli yeni kitabında, moleküler biyoloji ve kuantum fiziği gibi bilim dallarının ortaya koyduğu sonucu şöyle ifade etmektedir:




Resimde gördüğünüz kelebeğin daha yumurta olduğu anından koza haline, kozadan çıkıp uçmaya başladığı andan ölüp çöplere karıştığı haline kadar her hali, şu anda Allah katında mevcuttur. Kelebek, şu anda kozadan çıkmakta, şu anda uçmaya başlamakta ve şu anda ölerek yere düşmektedir.



“Bir bilinç, evrensel bir akıl, bütün evreni kuşatmış durumdadır. Var olan her şey, bu aklın bir tecellisidir.”

Schroeder'e göre, çağımızın vardığı bilimsel sonuçlar, bilim ve teolojinin ortak bir noktada buluşmasını sağlamıştır. Bu, yaratılış gerçeğidir. Bilim, insanlığa İlahi kitaplar ile binlerce yıldır öğretilen bu gerçeği bulmuştur.

Sonuç


Bu makalede incelediğimiz gerçekler, bir kez daha, modern bilimin bulgularının, Kuran'da insanlara haber verilen gerçekleri doğruladığını göstermektedir. Bilime empoze edilen materyalist dogma, bizzat bilim tarafından reddedilmektedir.

Bilimin bilgi konusunda vardığı sonuç ise, materyalist felsefenin, maddenin ezeli olduğu ve madddeden önce hiçbir şeyin var olmadığı iddialarının geçersizliğini açıkça ortaya koymaktadır. Maddeyi, ezelden beri var olan, sonsuz akıl ve ilim sahibi olan Allah yaratmıştır.

Tarih boyunca insanlara peygamberler tarafından öğretilen bu gerçeğin günümüzde bilimin bulgularıyla gözler önüne serilmiş olması ise, "ateizm sonrası" yaklaşan Altınçağın bir müjdesidir. İnsanlık, "Allah'ın her şeyi bilmekte olduğunu" kavrama noktasına doğru yaklaşmaktadır, aşağıdaki Kuran ayetinde Allah’ın insanlara bildirdiği gibi:

“Allah'ın, gökte ve yerde olanların hepsini bilmekte olduğunu bilmiyor musun? Gerçekten bunlar bir Kitaptadır. Hiç şüphesiz bunlar(ı bilmek), Allah için pek kolaydır.”
(Hac Suresi, 70)

Değişim mi? Gelişim mi?

Türk milleti fikirde, ilimde, bilgide, siyaset anlayışında, sorumluluk yüklenmede düne göre çok daha duyarlı ve ileride, siyasi liderler eskiye nazaran birbirlerine karşı daha saygılı ve hoşgörülü. Siyasi partiler, ülke sorunlarına daha net ve şeffaf yaklaşabiliyorlar. Bugün ülkemizde siyaset yapanların düşüncelerine sosyolojik bir tahlil yapacak olursak özetle şöyle diyebiliriz.
Bir kısım siyasiler, aydın, yazarlar, siyaset bilimcileri gelişerek değişebiliyor; bir kısmı hâlâ at gözlüğü ile bakıyor, ne ileriye ne de geriye doğru bir gelişim ve değişim göstermeden statükoyu muhafaza ediyorlar. Bir kısım kalem erbabı, yazar ve siyasetçiler de adeta cahiliye dönemindeki baskı ve zulmü istercesine geriye doğru bir değişimden yana tavır sergiliyorlar. Diğer bir kısım siyasiler de, aydın ve yazarlar da gelişimin tamamlandığına inanarak, tamamlanan gelişimi değiştirmeden gelişmekte olanların, statükoyu muhafaza edenlerin geriye doğru değişenlerin idrakine anlayacağı ve kavrayacağı bir lisanla ikna metoduyla anlatmaa çalışıyorlar.
Bugün siyasi parti liderlerinin temel insan haklarına, bakışlarını, saygılı, samimi düşüncelerini dinlerken açıkçası ümitlenmekteyim. İyiye doğru gelişerek değişen siyasilerimize, aydın ve yazarlar, bürokrat, sivil toplum örgütleri, gönüllü kuruluşlar, iş dünyası ile medya dünyası da destek verirse Türkiyemizin yarını çok parlak olacaktır.
Siyasi parti liderleri Türkiye’nin sorunlarını şöyle özetlemektedir. Üretimsizlik, işsizlik, eşitsizlik, yönetenlerin millete yabancılaşması, milleti tanımamak, anlayamamak gibi çözüm için ezberi bozarak, kalıplaşmış bir anlayıştan sıyrılarak asrın beklediği bir anlayışa adım atmalıyız. Yeniden yapılanmalıyız, rant ekonomisinden vazgeçmeliyiz, kendi gücümüzle kalkınmasını bilmeliyiz. Siyasi partiler arasında diyaloğa önem vermeliyiz. Eskiden yapılan kavgalı, karalamalı anlayışlardan vazgeçmeliyiz, bir yumuşama ortamını sağlamalıyız. Siyaseti geliştirmeliyiz. inançları, kimlikleri inkar etmemeliyiz, ırka, mezheplere dayalı siyaset yapmamalıyız. Siyasi anlayışlar değişebilir, kimlikler, inançlar asla değişmez. Siyaset; kimlikleri, inançları korumalı, onların önünü açmalı, kucaklamalıdır. Başörtüsü meselesini bütün kesimlerle uzlaşarak halletmeliyiz. Başörtülüleri rejim düşmanı, terörist gibi görme anlayışından vazgeçmeliyiz. Türk devletinin siyasi, sosyal, ekonomik, kültürel meselelerini iç ve dış politik anlayışlarını TBMM tanzim etmelidir. Siyasilerin üzerine baskı yapılmamalıdır. Türkiye siyasi yasaklardan bir an önce kurtarılmalıdır.
Bu güzel gelişmelerin öncülüğünü yapan, bu uğurda bedel ödeyen herkesi kıskanmadan taktir etmeliyiz. Bu taktiri önce siyasi liderler, aydın, yazarlar, etkili yetkili kişiler ve milletimiz yapmalıdır. Yiğidi öldürmeden hakkını vermeliyiz. Bu konuyu biraz açmakta fayda vardır diye düşünüyorum.
Çok partili döneme geçtikten sonra;
* En zor dönemlerde ihmal edilen halkımızı doğrudan yönetime katan, parlamentoya taşıyan, icra makamına getiren,
* Halkın ahlâk ve maneviyatına önem veren,
* Türkiye’nin sanayileşmesinin gerektiğini söyleyen,
* Ağır sanayi hamlesini başlatan,
* Kıbrıs Barış Harekatı’na önemli katkısı olan,
* Devletin mili politikası haline gelen D-8 projesiyle Türk dış politikasını dünya siyaset masasında ağırlığını hissettiren,
* Havuz sistemiyle ekonomiyi canlandıran,
* Siyasi yasaklara, engellere, hakaretlere rağmen hiç küsmeyen, ülke insanının ufkunu açarak bugünlere ve daha güzel günlere gelmesi için didinen, uğraşan Erbakan Hoca’yı unutmamalıyız. Önemli şahsiyetleri, dünyasını değiştirdikten sonra değil, sağlıklarında taktir etmesini bilmeliyiz.
Onun mücadelesi kardeş kanı dökülmesin, millet sömürülmesin, insanlar özgür olsun, inancını yaşasın, her yönüyle bağımsız güçlü bir Türkiye kurulsun arzusundadır. Erbakan Hoca’yı sevenler, sevmeyenler kendilerine şu soruyu sorduklarında karşılığında cevap bulamayacaktır:
Soru: Erbakan Hoca’nın Türk ve dünya kamuoyuna açıkladığı fikirlerinden, yaptığı ekonomik, sosyal, siyasal, kültürel icraatlarından hangisini ciddi manada red veya tenkit edebiliriz?..
Erbakan Hoca her zaman haklı çıkmıştır. Kısa vadede anlamadan tenkit edenler uzun vadede mahcup oldular.
Erbakan Hoca, Ağustos-Eylül 2002 tarihlerinde yaptığı basın toplantılarıyla Türk milletini ve Türk siyasetçilerini uyararak tarihi bir görevi yerine getiriyordu. Bir kısım siyasiler dikkatle dinliyor, bu uyarıları ciddiye alarak, o istikamette gelişim gösteriyorlar. Bir kısım siyasiler de, Hoca aynı Hoca, hiç değişmiyor, biz değişerek bu ülkeye hizmet yapacağız, diyorlar. Önlerine konulan engellerle uyanacakları yerde daha derin uykuya dalıyorlar. Yüce Allah cümlemize feraset, şuur nasip etsin.
Değişim deyince benim aklıma iki şey gelmektedir. Maddî değişim, manevî değişim. Bu iki değişime açık olan tek varlık insandır. İnsanın haricindeki bitkiler ve hayvanlar değişime uğramadan emredildikleri şekilde hayatlarını sürdürerek gelişirler ve yok olurlar.
İnsanoğlu fizikî, ruhî, nefsî, fikrî değişikliklerle karşı karşıyadır. Fizikî değişiklikler; tabiat şartlarına bağlı olarak yöresel ve bölgeseldir. Nefsî değişiklikler; makam, mevki, şan, şöhret, para, kin ve ihtirasa dayalıdır. Fikrî değişiklikler; inanç, örf, anane, kültür ve medeniyetlerin tesirine göre değişir. Ruhî değişiklikler; insanın cüz-i iradesi ile tercih ettiği yaşama ve inanç özgürlüğüne bağlı olarak şekillenir.
Yüce Allah (c.c.) şöyle buyuruyor; “Bugün sizin için dininizi kemale erdirdim. Üzerinizdeki nimetimi tamamladım. Ve size din olarak İslâm’ı ihtiyar ettim.” (Maide Sûresi, 3. Ayet)
Bu âyete göre değişecek, yenilenecek hiçbir şey yok. Herşey tamamlanmıştır.
Yüce Allah (c.c.), Kur’an’da insanın gelişmesi için şöyle buyuruyor; “Siz de düşmanlara karşı gücünüzün yettiği kadar her türlü kuvvet ve cihad için bağlanıp beslenen atlar hazırlayın.” (Enfal 60) Bu âyet gelişmeye açık bir âyet “bağlanıp beslenen atlar hazırlayın” âyeti zamana göre, gelişen şartlara en uygün teknolojiye sahip olmak için çalışmayı emrediyor.
“Deliler ve ölüler değişmez” sözü ile kendilerini savunmaya ve değiştiklerini ispatlamaya çalışan fikir fukarası acemi politikacılar ne demek istiyor? Bize göre deli, yaşayan ölü gibidir, sorumluluğu yoktur, o delidir, ne yapsa yeridir, der geçeriz. Çünkü aklı yoktur, değişmeyi de bilmez, gelişmeyi de... Ölü kişi dünyadan ilişkisini kesmiştir. Dünyada meydana gelen gelişmelerden ve değişmelerden sorumlu değildir.
Sorumlu olan aklı başında, buluğa ermiş dünya meşakkati içinde hayat süren insandır. İnsan mahlûkatın en şereflisi olarak yaratılmış, akıl nimeti ile donatılmış, ilahi kitaplarla ikaz edilerek sorumluluk yüklendirilmiş, peygamberlerle uyarılmıştır. Bu ikaz ve uyarılara dikkat ederek yaşamayı sürdüren insanlar asrın teknolojik şartlarının üstünde bir arayışın içinde iseler, o insanlara gelişmeye açık insanlar, diyoruz. Bu ikaz ve uyarıları kabul etmeyenlerle birlikte olmak çağdışı bir değişimle, geriye doğru bir gidiş olur. İlahi ikaz ve uyarıları dün anlamayıp bugün bu istikamette bir anlayış içinde olanlara çağdaş bir değişim ve yenileşme diyebiliriz.
Herkesin inancına, düşüncesine saygısı olanlara, her ferdin inandığı gibi yaşama, düşünme özgürlüğüne sahip olmasını isteyenleri gelişmeye açık insanlar olarak takdir ederiz.
Gelişmeye açık olmayan insanların gönlüne girmek için aynı pistte dans da etsek, horon da tepsek, içkili masalarında da otursak, dün konuştuklarımızı da red etsek onlar gibi inanmadığımız müddetçe bizleri asla kabul etmeyeceklerdir.
Eba Müslim Horasani'nin şu veciz sözlerini aklımızdan çıkarmayalım: “Onlar; zararlarından emin oldukları için dostlarını uzak tuttular. Kendilerine bağlamak ve kazanmak için de düşmanlarını yaklaştırdılar. Yaklaştırılan düşman dost olmadı, ama uzaklaştırılan dost düşman oldu. Herkes düşman safında birleşince yıkılmaları mukadder oldu.”
Şunu iyi bilinki; değişen hiçbir şey yok. Dünya kendi ekseninde dönüyor. Kaderî ilahi ne ise oluyor. İnsanlar imtihan oluyor. Herkes cûz-i iradesi ile ruhlar aleminde üstlendiği rolü oynuyor. Hiçbir beşerî güç Yüce Allah (c.c.)’ın takdirini değiştiremez. Kul hak üzere emredildiği şekilde tedbirini almakla görevlidir.
Sonuç olarak ya hayır söyleyelim, ya da susalım. Küçük rüzgarlara karşı paniklemeleyim. Küçük gürültüleri sabırla geçmeyi bilelim. Önümüzdeki büyük fırtınalara, gürültülere karşı güçsüz kalmamak için siyasi bölünmüşlükten vazgeçelim. Seçmen sermayemizi bölerek rüzgara vermeyelim. Selam ve dua ile... 03.02.2003, Alaattin KÖKSAL, Milli Gazete

Ekonomik Krizlere Kur'an'dan Çözümler

Yaşanan iki büyük dünya savaşından sonra, 1960’lı yılların sonlarında "savaş sonrası hızlı büyüme modeli" son nefeslerini vermişti. Diğer bir ifade ile bu model çerçevesinde verimliliği daha fazla artırma programları artık tükenmişti.

Petrol krizinin ardından
Bu yıllarda başlayan ve 1974’de petrol kriziyle belirginleşen bunalım, gelişmiş ülke ekonomilerinde verimlilik hızının yavaşlaması ve kar oranının düşmeye başlamasıyla belirginleşti. Öyle ki, bünyesinde sadece Batılı Avrupa ülkelerini, Amerika, Kanada, Japonya gibi gelişmiş ülkeleri barındıran OECD ülkelerinde işsizlik 10 milyonlarca kişiye ulaştı. Bu atmosferde, reel üretimde değerlenme olanağı bulamayan sermayeler, dünya ölçeğinde kar arayışına girdi ve diğer gelişmekte olan ülkelere yöneldi. Böylece, teknolojinin sağladığı imkanlar ve kolaylıklarla beraber, son yirmi yılın en süratli gelişen sektörü finans sektörü oldu.
Bu süreç içinde dikkatlerini gelişmekte olan ülkelere çeviren sermayeler, büyük karları bu bölgelerde elde etmişlerdir. Bu dönemde uluslararası sermayenin hedef teşkil ettiği ülkeler aldıkları paraların çok az bir kısmını reel değer üretimine kaydırdılar. Oysa para ancak üretimde kullanıldığında değerini artırabilir, böylece hem alınan borçların geri ödenebilmesi, hem de ekonomilerin gelişmesi mümkün olabilirdi. Ancak, alınan borçların ciddi bir bölümü verimsiz kullanılmış, bir bölümü de rüşvet yoluyla tekrar uluslararası finans sistemine dahil edilmiştir. Az gelişmiş ülkelerin sermayelerini gerçek değerlendirme alanlarından uzaklaştırmaları, ülkeleri –borçların geri ödenmesi noktasında– birçok sıkıntılarla yüzyüze getirmiştir.
Biriken borçlar ve kredi çıkmazı
Biriken borçlarını ödeyemeyen ekonomiler çareyi tekrar borçlanmada bulmuşlar ve içinden çıkılması imkansız bir kısır döngü içinde bırakılmışlardır. Buna müteakip, piyasadaki verimsiz kredi genişlemesini faiz oranlarının artışı izlemiş, borç faizlerinin yeni borçlarla karşılanmaya çalışılmasıyla faizin sürüklediği bir borçlanma sürecine girilmiştir. Bu süreç üretken yatırımların verimliliğini düşürürken, yatırımcıların bir bölümünü iflasa, bir bölümünü de işletmelerinde ciddi daralmaya sürüklemiştir.
Piyasadan iyice elini çeken para, üreticilerin ürünlerini satmakta sıkıntı çekmelerine ve bankalara olan borçlarını ödeyememelerine neden olur. Sanayicilerden alacaklarını tahsil edemeyen banka ve finans kurumları da borçlu oldukları diğer yurt dışı kaynaklarına (uluslararası sermayelere) borçlarını halktan topladıkları mevduatlarla ödemeye kalkarlar. Bu durum herhangi bir söylentide (kötüye giden ekonomilerde söylentilerin piyasalara ciddi etkileri olduğu göz önünde bulundurulursa) parasını geri almak isteyen müşterilerin genelde isteklerinin yerine getirilememesi sonucunu doğurur. Banka, sonunda iflasını açıklayarak, yurt dışına olan tüm borç yükünü devlet devralmış olur.
Altından kalkılamayan faiz yükü ve Arjantin
Bunların altından kalkamayan devlet çözümü yine –bu sefer ciddi faiz yükümlülüğü altına girerek toleranslar vererek- ek borç almada bulur. Ama yine kurtulamaz. Dikkat edilmesi gereken nokta, ödünç alınan paranın geri ödenebilmesinin ancak sermayenin reel üretimde değerlendirilmesiyle mümkün olmasıdır.
80’li ve 90’lı yıllarda yaşanan krizlerin temel nedeni bu sermayelerin reel üretimde yeterli bir oranda değerlendirilmemesidir.
Günümüzde faiz kıskacına giren ülkelerden verilebilecek en son örnek ise 130 milyarlık dış borcuyla ekonomisi çökmüş olan Arjantin'dir. Kapanan işyerleri, açıkta kalan işsizler, sesini duyurmak isteyen çaresiz insanlar, hepsi sosyal sıkıntılara sebebiyet verirler. Nitekim bu ülkede yaşanmaya başlayan ve yakın gelecekte yaşanması muhtemel sosyal sorunlar endişeyle izlenmektedir.
Öncelikle borçlar verimsiz veya haksız bir şekilde erimemeli, tümüyle verimli üretim sahalarında değerlendirilmelidir. Bu yatırımlardan yararlanan sanayiler imkanları doğrultusunda düşük fiyat ve yüksek kaliteyi yakalamalı; böylece yabancı malların ithalatını düşürmeli ve ülkenin ihracatını artırmalıdır.
Ekonomik kaosun çözümü Kuran ahlakı
Ekonomisine para giren ülke, borçlarını rahat ödeyebileceği gibi verdiği güvenle yeni ve güvenilir bir yatırım sahası olacak, dünyada karlı işletmelere yatırım yaparak kazanç sağlamayı bekleyen sermayeleri çekecektir. Bu sayede o ülkenin şirketleri değerlenecek, parası istikrara kavuşturacak, işsizlik oranı azalacak ve hepsinden önemlisi halk huzura kavuşup, geleceğe umutla bakacaktır.
Faiz ekonomisinin neden olduğu derin kaos, günümüze kadar bir çok ülkede kendini göstermiş ve faturasını o ülkenin halkına çok ağır bir şekilde ödetmiştir. Kişisel çıkarların ve gayri ahlaki kazançların neden olduğu ve birçok ülkenin yakasını bırakmayan bu sıkıntıların kesin çözümünü Allah Kuran-ı Kerim'de açıkça belirtmiştir. Allah, kişilerin mallarının haksızlıkla yenilmesini ve varolan kaynakların israf edilerek kullanılmasını haram kıldığı gibi, kendi menfaatleri uğruna diğer insanları hiçe sayıp, onları sıkıntılara sokmayı da yasaklamıştır. Ekonomideki olumsuzlukların çözümü verimli, adaletli, girişimci bir insan modelini tavsiye eden Kuran ahlakının tüm insanlar arasında yaşanmasıdır.
İnsanlar arasında barış, adalet ve huzur ortamının sağlanması ancak insanların Kuran ahlakını yaşamasıyla sağlanabildiği gibi; ekonomideki olumsuzlukların ortadan kaldırılması ve her insanın yaşam kalitesinin artması da yine Kuran ahlakının hayatın her alanında uygulanmasıyla mümkün olabilir.