The President's delayed resolve was not due to inability to decide. He has been deciding between his two diametrically opposed interests and he has not been deciding fast enough. Those interests are:

(1) The votes of the American Jews, of the Christian Right and of the Ideological Right want President Bush to be more pro-Israel. That vote is a constant, it cannot be changed, influenced, or ignored and it is a sizable vote.

(2) The United States is buying about 10 % of its petroleum from Arab countries. The rest comes from domestic sources, neighboring countries such as Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. Also Russia and the Turkic republics have considerable oil. However, Europe and Japan depend mostly on Arab oil. In order to secure that 10 % oil, the United States has been allying itself with Medieval kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, which have no democracy and no human rights, and who's populations are overwhelmingly anti-Western and virulently anti-American. Twelve years ago, the U.S. spent several billions dollars and the blood of some young Americans in the Gulf War to liberate another such Arab kingdom, Kuwait, from the hands of Saddam Hussein. If it would not be for the U.S., Saddam would have invaded Saudi Arabia, after taking Kuwait. If we would add the cost of the Gulf War and continuous expenses in staying in the Middle East to the cost of petroleum that we consume, the price of the gasoline and of the heating oil would be a lot higher than it is now. Actually that would be the true price. Therefore, the question arises why the U.S. does not want to make the effort of replacing that 10 % oil and get its hands away from Arab politics.

In Northern Alaska, there is considerable oil waiting to be exploited. However, the environmentalists oppose it, because they suspect that the normal life of the caribou would be disturbed. It does not make any difference to them, that otherwise the normal lives of millions of human beings might be disturbed for lack of energy.

The per gallon mileage of American cars is very low. During the last decade, Americans have fallen in love with huge cars, that look more like tanks, that lower the national average of per gallon mileage. In stead of worrying about the caribou, the United States government should worry about its human citizens and encourage the lowering of the per gallon mileage and the adoption of new technologies, such as hybrid engines, and the use of non-gasoline sources of energy, such as natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. Such technologies are in fairly advanced stages, perhaps with the exception of hydrogen, which presents a difficult storage problem. Electricity would also save oil, if it is produced from coal or hydroelectric dams.

There now are modern coal combustion technologies that are not any more polluting than oil combustion. Each technology has a preferred area of application. For example, taxis in Istanbul are operated almost exclusively with liquefied petroleum gases that are produced in Turkish refineries. Electrical cars and trucks may be operated by businesses that keep those vehicles inside a city. All these uses will save some petroleum, and it should not be too difficult to save the 10 % of our petroleum use, that corresponds to our purchase from Arab states.

If the United States stops buying oil from Arabs, its foreign policy will suddenly change. It will no longer be obligated to be allied to Medieval kingdoms that stand against everything we stand for. Our forces will no longer go to the Middle East, except for pursuing terrorists. We should no longer have to defend the oil resources of Europe and Japan. Let them get their chestnuts from the fire, themselves, for a change..

Once the flow of Arab oil will no longer concern the United States, American presidents will not have to restrict their ally Israel. That will produce much faster presidential resolves. That may also end the seemingly endless Arab-Israeli war much faster. It may be somewhat unpleasant for the Arabs, but why should we have pity for the folks who danced in the streets for joy on September 11, 2001.?

Now President Bush is trying to get Arafat and the Israelis together in some sort of meeting. This is a measure for old-type peacemaking between two states. In the Middle East the two sides are not two states. The Israelis only act as a state, in the other side Arafat and his Palestinian Authority are completely irrelevant. The actual "side" is the radicalized Islamic population that generates the suicide bombers. The ropes of these bombers are pulled by Iran. Thus, any meeting in which Arafat represents the Palestinian "side" is meaningless, because the radicalized Islamic population is not represented. They are out to destroy Israel and would not be interested in any meeting. It seems that the meeting idea is an exercise in futility. Maybe the State Department wants Israel and Arafat talking rather than fighting, until the U.S. is ready to take on Saddam Hussein.

Teaching Kurdish in Public Schools?
By Bruce Fein - Statesmanship is the art of prudent risk-taking. On that score, authorizing public school instruction in Kurdish as an additional language to Turkish (e.g., like French or English) Government of Turkey seems compelling; ditto for broadcasting in Kurdish. The timing, furthermore, seems propitious with the PKK shattered like Taliban. Turkey is not standing at precipice; it stands at its high tide of patriotism and national unity since Ataturk.

Some argue that state sponsorship of Kurdish would threaten non-assimilation or secession by Turkey's 8-12 million citizens of Kurdish ethnicity. But that claim seems far from self-evident. During General Francisco Franco's longstanding rule in Spain, Catalonia and its cultural emblems were banned. Catalans thus became estranged from the central government. When Franco was succeeded by a democratic dispensation and the ban on Catalan cultural life was lifted, separatist tendencies were extinguished. Indeed, Catalonia's leaders soon were deploring the waning popular attachment to the region's heritage. It was no longer needed as a subtextual expression of political dissent or individual dignity.

Turkey's Kurds are admittedly no carbon copy of Spain's Catalans. They are substantially assimilated outside the southeast, and are territorially fragmented. That distinction, however, means only the Spain-Catalan example is not exact parallel of Turkey's relations with Kurds, not that the former is not persuasive in seeking to strengthen rather than weaken Turkish unity.

In Canada, the French language in the province of Quebec became a fighting political issue. Secession and independent statehood was promoted but fell short of success in a referendum. But once the French cultural distinctiveness was accepted by the English-speaking majority in Canada, popular support for a separate French nation plunged. It is now a pipedream.

In the aftermath of World War I, the State of Nebraska in the United States generally banned private instruction in non-English languages. The Nebraska Supreme Court sustained its constitutionality in terms that substantially presage the recurring justification for circumscribing Kurdish in Turkey, i.e., fostering national unity: "The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety...It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country."

The United States Supreme Court, however, in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), nullified the language instruction prohibition as an unconstitutional effort to handicraft an antiseptically pure homogenous nation.

The State of West Virginia similarly sought to promote patriotism during World War II by making the flag salute compulsory for all public school students. Again, the Supreme Court held that effort to force all citizens into a patriotic Procrustean bed unconstitutional. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett (1943), Associate Justice Robert Jackson authored wisdom for the ages that should unbutton the ears of all would-be statesmen: "Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate efforts to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure towards unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means of Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Justice Jackson overstated his case. All enlightened thinking is a matter of degree; and, government curbs on the use of languages or speech may be necessary in emergencies for democratic self-preservation, as during the United States Civil War. Jackson himself was soon warning in 1948, no constitutional charter should be interpreted as a suicide pact.

But Turkey's democratic flowering stands on firm footing. It grows more so by the day as public opinion and the media become increasingly decisive in the corridors of power. Political parties are changing from cult-like to grass-roots. Use of Kurdish in the classroom or broadcasting would seem unworrisome to national idioms and symbols. Instruction of the general public school curriculum in Turkish would remain mandatory. The proposal thus would not be a second edition of dubious bilingual education in the United States where a student is taught the entire course menu in a non-English language. Moreover, most parents of Kurdish ancestry will probably bypass the option of student mastery of Kurdish as a supplement to Turkish in favor of more commercially and politically valuable supplemental languages like English or French. Turkish would also remain the predominant language of broadcasting despite a Kurdish alternative because indispensable advertising revenues cannot generally be satisfied with an exclusive Kurdish-speaking audience.

It might be said that expanding Kurdish cultural space in private domains is preferable to official state recognition. But it seems precisely because Kurdish culture is denied public dignity, like a first cousin amidst a nuclear family, that feelings of alienation or resentment are awakened.

Today, Turkey's Kurds would probably vote overwhelmingly against an independent Kurdish state. They know the fratricidal history of Kurdish people. They look over the borders in Iraq, Iran, and Syria and see more of the same. And a flourishing Kurdish nation cannot be summoned into being in a few days, like the earth and its species in Genesis.

In sum, doesn't persuasive evidence indicate that Turkey's democracy and unity would be more strengthened than weakened by modestly opening the door to Kurdish in public fora?

Constitutional scholar and national-syndicated columnist Bruce Fein is an ATAA Adjunct Scholar. The ideas expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect an official position on the part of ATAA or The Turkish Times.

The Intertwined Fates of Turkey and Israel
"Turkey understands the struggle of both the U.S. and Israel with terrorism"
By Albert Nekimken, Special to The Turkish Times - Since the Gulf War in 1990, in general, and the September 11 terrorist attacks, in particular, the media have been describing the close relations between Turkey and Israel as if they were of recent origin and motivated primarily by a need to placate the United States as reliable allies. Yet, the current partnership between Turkey and Israel has a much deeper and more fundamental basis than is commonly appreciated. Accordingly, it is likely to survive much stress, if unavoidable, and to thrive under favorable conditions.

Geography and historical connections over the centuries between Jews and Ottoman Turks have shaped a commonality of attitudes, experiences and viewpoints that merits a closer, even if brief, examination than that provided by journalists. In fact, the two countries and their two peoples share a network of entwined relationships.

In the mid-1970s, Ilhan Selcuk, a Leftist and often anti-Amercian columnist for Cumhuriyet, a leading Istanbul daily, wrote with empathy about the plight of "the lonely man," by which he meant the country in the Middle East that stood alienated and alone, surrounded by hostile neighbors-presumably Israel. As he developed his argument, the reader gradually understood that the "yalniz adam" (lonely man) was, in fact, Turkey.

Each country is surrounded by hostile or, at best, coldly correct neighbors, none of whom regard Turkey or Israel as "one of them," being the major non-Arab powers in the region. This exclusion is ironic because Islam had its origin in Judaism and, for a period of five hundred years, the Ottoman Empire had been the cynosure of Islam.

While geographically part of the Middle East, both Israel and Turkey are commonly excluded from it politically and considered, along with Australia and New Zealand, to be part of the West, meaning Europe and North America. Journalists commonly refer to Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, under the assumption that Turkey is part of Europe. (and perhaps unfairly excluding Jordan's parliament). However, as Turkey's long-standing negotiations to join the European Union demonstrate, western Europeans resist the notion, perhaps due to subliminal fears of "the Terrible Turk" that threatened the European heartland for centuries and dominated the Balkans. Similarly, Arabs have rejected Israel as an alien, non-Muslim and non-Arab intrusion of Western influence into its heartland-even though the majority of Israelis today came from Arab and non-Arab Muslim countries, bringing with them the cultures and attitudes of those countries.

In the first half of the 20th Century, both Turkey and Israel forged new nations, which required re-engineering languages, customs (dress, alcohol, education, the status of women) and, most important, relations between large ethnic minorities as well as religious and secular authorities. Both countries are sensitive to their Diaspora--Turks to their countrymen in the Balkans, on Cyprus and in central Asia, Israelis to endangered Jewish communities located around the world. Today, Turkey has its Kurdish problem and Israel has its Arab problem. Both minorities have citizenship, but experience numerous obstacles to full assimilation into mainstream society. Both countries live under the cloud of genocide-in the case of Turkey, Armenian allegations of genocide, and, in the case of Israel, those who deny the Holocaust (or are in favor of a new one).

But it is worth remembering again that the relationship between Turkey and Israel, or Jews, began long before the 20th Century. In 1492, Ottoman Sultan Bayazit II, ordered provincial governors "not to refuse the Jews entry or cause them difficulties [after their expulsion from Span and Portugal], but to receive them cordially." Historians such as Bernard Lewis, write that Jews were not just permitted to settle in Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled to do so. Bayazit II remarked allegedly that "the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey." But this was only the beginning. Jews expelled from territory in Italy under Papal control in 1537 and those expelled from Bohemia in 1542 by King Ferdinand also found safe haven in the Ottoman Empire. In March 1556, Sultan Suleyman "the Magnificent" wrote a letter to Pope Paul IV asking for the immediate release of the Ancona Marranos, whom he declared to be Ottoman citizens. The Pope had no other alternative but to release them in recognition of the superior status of the Ottoman Empire at the time. By 1477, Jewish households in Istanbul numbered 1,647, or 11% of the total and 50 years later, their numbers had risen four-fold.

But all welcomes expire over time and, in the modern period, these links evolved in unpredictable ways.

In 1898, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, met with Sultan Abdul Hamid II on behalf of the Jewish Colonial Trust in an effort to obtain his permission for Jewish immigration to the historical Land of Israel, then known as Lower Syria, or Palestine. Disappointed, he told the Fifth Congress held in Basle in 1901 that his efforts had been unsuccessful.

In 1906, future Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion emigrated from Poland to Palestine, where he worked as a laborer in agricultural settlements. In 1912, he studied law at Istanbul University, but, when World War I broke out, he was deported together with other leading Zionists for his growing political activities. During World War I, he favored Turkey originally and advocated that Jews adopt Ottoman citizenship. However, anti-Zionist persecution changed his mind and, in 1915, he was exiled to Egypt.

In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, began to organize small groups of suicide squads - fedayeen - to terrorize Jews who were able to immigrate. He hoped to duplicate in Palestine the success of Mustafa Kemal in driving the invading Greeks from Turkey. Al-Husseini served in the Ottoman Army during World War I and was both anti-British and anti-Jewish. He was a primary nationalist among Muslims in Palestine and he masterminded bloody riots against Jewish settlements in 1929 and 1936.

In the same year, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey. As a consolation prize for having given the Hejaz and Arabia to the Saud family, Churchill made him emir, which authority over nearly four-fifths of Palestine-some 35,000 square miles-in a newly created Arab emirate called Transjordan.

During WWII, Turkish diplomats rescued many Jews from Nazi persecution by giving them passports and Istanbul became a haven for many Jewish academics, such as Erich Auerbach, who did some his best work in Turkey.

In 1948, the United States was the first nation to recognize the new state of Israel; Turkey was the second. When the General Assembly adopted a resolution in December of the year calling on the Arabs and Jews to negotiate peace and creating a Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), it consisted of the United States, France and Turkey. All Arab delegations voted against it. Israel remains the only one of the 185 member countries of the United Nations that is ineligible to serve on the Security Council. ("Eligibiles" include Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.) The reason? Every UN member state belongs to one of the five regional groups. Geographically, Israel should be part of the Asian bloc, but Arab states such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia prevented Israel's inclusion. As a temporary measure, Israel tried unsuccessfully to join the West European and Others Group (WEOG), which include the democracies of Western Europe as well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States. For this reason, Israel cannot join other key UN agencies, such as UNICEF, the World Court, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the Commission on Human Rights.

In spite of the strong opposition of both Israel and Jordan, in 1949 the General Assembly directed that Jerusalem be placed under a permanent international regime, and the Trusteeship Council was asked to begin preparations. The Resolution was adopted by 38 votes in favor, 14 against, and 7 abstentions. Most of the Catholic, Muslim and Communist states voted for the resolution. Turkey joined Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Yugoslavia in voting against the resolution.

Geographically, historically, diplomatically and militarily the fates of Turkey and Israel appear destined to remain joined.

In 1952 (the year when Turkey became a full member of NATO), General Omar Bradley, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believed that the West required 19 divisions to defend the Middle East and that Israel could supply two. By 1955, he expected only three states to provide the West with air power in Middle Eastern defense: Great Britain, Turkey and Israel.

Today, although Turkey is a Muslim country, it has become Israel's strongest ally in the region and comprises one leg of an official, strategic and military alliance between the United States, Turkey and Israel. Strong relations between the countries on the levels of trade, tourism and diplomacy stand in sharp contrast to the cold relations between Israel and Egypt, or between Turkey and its neighbor Syria.

Both Turkey and Israel have highly developed intelligence networks, modern weapons and trained armies. Beyond that, Turkey and Israel cooperate on the level of lobbying to influence American and European public opinion on a variety of issues. (With some annoyance, a leading Greek think tank attributed much of the effectiveness of the Turkish lobby in the U.S. to its "ability to manipulate and exploit the US-Israeli strategic relationship and the influence of the Jewish-American community in order to advance the Turkish agenda.")

When Colin Powell left for Israel recently, with the avowed goal of pressuring Prime Minister Sharon to withdraw from the West Bank, he likely had in mind the prior American effort to induce Turkey to withdraw from Cyprus after the 1974 military intervention that saved the endangered Turkish minority on the island. As punishment for Turkey's refusal to comply with U.S. and U.N. demands to withdraw, Turkey suffered a three-year U.S. arms embargo-which the pro-Israel lobby wants to prevent in 2002.

As a result, Turkey and Israel have learned that it can be both exemplary and expensive to be an American ally. The Gulf War cost Turkey an estimated $40 billion in lost revenue, and the ongoing struggle against Kurdish terrorism cost an estimated 20,000 lives and an estimated $7 billion in annual military expenditures, which put the country on the brink of bankruptcy. These serve as powerful credentials to prove that Turkey understands the struggle of both the U.S. and Israel with terrorism.

Cultural "Cleansing"-"What happened to the Turkish-American Community's constitutional rights to express themselves, their identity, a sense of their heritage?"
By Guclu Yazaroglu, Special to The Turkish Times - The depths to which the fanaticism of some members of the Armenian-American community has sunk to is so mind-boggling that it leaves the sane person stunned. How can someone be so brainwashed as to even contemplate the thoughts that they seem to so easily put to paper?

Recently, the Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Jim Naugle, proclaimed April 23, 2002 Turkish Heritage and Children's Day. This day is a key one in the event calendar of the Turkish American community and was specifically set aside by Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, to celebrate the world's youth. This holiday is not only a Turkish holiday but also one that has always been envisioned as celebrating unity, world peace and the future of nations, namely their children. Who could object to such a benign proclamation? Yet, it was with an expectant sigh and with a resigned and not too surprised grimace that I read an e-mail I received from a friend in Florida of a letter concerning Mayor Naugle's proclamation that had been written by a minion in the Armenian National Committee of Florida, a subsidiary of the Armenian National Committee of America, whose former Chairman now resides in jail for, amongst other crimes, weapons related charges stemming from a 1980 bombing of the Turkish mission in New York.

As a longtime observer of the relationship between the Turkish and Armenian communities I have seen the many excesses of the Armenians in their blind pursuit of the elusive White Elephant of the "Armenian Genocide". Over the years this pursuit has taken many forms ranging from the vicious and senseless assassinations and murders of innocent Turkish diplomats and representatives to pseudo-academic conferences where the only invitees and attendees are those who adhere to the half-truths or outright lies that the Armenian propaganda machine produces. Armenian scholars run away from academicians and historians who tell another story, never daring to sit with them on the same panel, but blackballing them freely in public. God forbid if you should have a differing viewpoint in this land where such a concept as freedom of speech is paramount.

In his letter, a Mr. DerBedrossian requests that Mayor Naugle retracts this "historically inaccurate" and "seemingly innocent proclamation" and goes on to obfuscate about a non-existent "multi-million dollar Turkish lobby hard at work here in the United States trying to distort history." Frankly I wish there was a multi-million dollar lobby here in the United States so that plain citizens like myself would not have to put up with Mr. DerBedrossian's fanciful flights of imagination about some massive Turkish government sponsored distortion/conspiracy theory campaign. Although I am sure that he and the ANC are fully aware of exactly how much money the Turkish government spends on lobbying I recommend he take a look, as I did, at publicly available records at the Department of Justice and at the Foreign Agents Registration lobbying reports that are sent to Capitol Hill of exactly how much that figure is (according to the DOJ records it is $1.8 million - small change for a nation the size of Turkey). Also when it comes to spending money to influence the political process, I believe that the Armenian-American community is an example to follow. Meanwhile, I am not even going to deign to bother to answer Mr. DerBedrossian's charges concerning the Republic of Turkey, because not only are they inaccurate and laughable, they have been so regurgitated that I have found identical language in similar letters that were sent by other misguided Armenians to other Mayors and Governors in other Cities and States. And, his arguments completely miss the point and essence of such a proclamation.

And in the end what is this essence? The facts are plain and simple. This brainwashing has gone so far that sadly today much of the Armenian-American community has become so entrenched in their ethnocentric beliefs that they will not and actively do not tolerate the Turkish-American community's constitutional rights to express themselves, their identity, a sense of their heritage. This is no less than cultural "cleansing". In the guise of defending their history and heritage, the Armenian-American community has reached this low point of knee-jerk reactions to anything that is remotely celebratory of anything that has to do with Turkish-Americans, Turks, or Turkey. Their aim is to wipe the Turkish-American community off the cultural mosaic of the United States. But what they do not, and regrettably cannot, understand, is that this proclamation is as it is, just a proclamation celebrating an important day in the Turkish-American calendar. A day that in its essence asks us to look ahead and not behind, to move on with our lives and to build a peaceful world where estranged communities like the Turks and Armenians can live and prosper side by side. Just because this day happens to come before April 24, it has nothing with or against April 24 or the Armenians or their proposed version of history. On the contrary, this Turkish national holiday has been in effect, in one form or another, since 1920, years before Armenians' April 24 commemoration, or for that matter, the Turkish Republic, was ever created. What Mr. DerBedrossian and his cohorts need to understand is that his letter is unnecessary because his request that Mayor Naugle: "set the historical record straight so that further attempts to revise history will not be repeated" is completely superfluous. A quick and objective review of the Florida proclamation will see that it is both grounded in historical fact and that is totally uncontroversial and unrelated to the Armenians or anybody else for that matter. And why should it be? After all the average Turkish-American has no axe to grind with anybody.

My recommendation to Mr. DerBedrossian is that instead of wasting his time in writing letters to the Mayor of Ft Lauderdale he take this proclamation to heart and encourage his community's children to join the Turkish-American community in celebrating a day that was specifically set aside for them. Now there's something worth writing a letter about.

A Friend Indeed
Three cheers for Turkey, stalwart ally and Muslim exemplar
By Tunku Varadarajan, Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal, Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - If I were marooned on an uninhabited island with only a single human companion--in a situation where conviviality, as well as an ability to be philosophical when the need arose, accounted for a great deal--I'd regard myself as fortunate if he or she turned out to be Turkish.

I like the Turks, not just as individuals but also because I admire their country. I believe that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was one of the great politicians of the 20th century, and the nation he constructed from the rubble of a collapsed Ottoman Empire is the most attractive example of social engineering one could hope to observe.

This Saturday, the annual Turkish-American parade will take place in New York City, in which Turks of all stripes--from doctors to gas-station attendants--will lay bare their dedication to their adoptive and native countries. As a committed Turkophile and new immigrant to America, I would urge as many of you as can make it to attend the parade too, for the U.S. has had no ally more loyal, more consistent and more principled than Turkey.

In this, Turkey is on a par with Britain and Israel. Yet if you ask the average American the question Which U.S. ally has been the most stalwart?, you are likely to hear the names of a variety of other countries before you hear that of Turkey.

Turkey has a PR problem in this country. This is the result of three factors. The first is the innate modesty of the Turks themselves. They are not a gaudy or boastful people; and since their support for the U.S., and for NATO, wells up from an implacable conviction that Turkey's interests are inseparable from those of a U.S.-led West, they prefer to go about their business quietly.

Besides, the Turkish end of the alliance was not forged opportunistically, or to win cheap brownie points, or infusions of cash or arms or aid. It endures because the Turks want it to endure, and it endures even though Turkey is treated with contumely by the European Union, a collection of states that, barring Britain, has done far less for U.S. security and strategic well-being than Turkey has. Ask Donald Rumsfeld if he'd prefer a world without France or one without Turkey. See what he says!

The second factor working against a better appreciation of Turkey's contribution is the small size of the Turkish-American population. The most liberal estimates put it at 300,000, though the truest figure might be nearer 200,000. Although they are concentrated in a few urban nodes, such as New York and Chicago, they haven't the collective muscle in any one place to form a voting bloc to which politicians must pay obligatory court. So they're ignored. Or worse.

And here's where the third factor comes in. It is Turkey's misfortune--and the misfortune of Turkish-Americans--that there exists in the U.S. a range of Armenian and Greek organizations that dedicate themselves to damaging Turkey's reputation. I was at a conference of Turkish-Americans in Chicago over the weekend and heard numerous tales of harassment from ordinary Turkish professionals who do their best to make Turkey's case in the U.S. A gentleman who runs a Turkish Web site recounted his experiences of death threats from Armenians, as well as instances of hacking into his, and others', sites.

Because of the vocal, and virulent, anti-Turkey organizations that roam unchecked in the American political landscape, politicians are afraid to espouse the cause of Turkey. Ironically, the anti-Turkey rancor in this country, at least where it comes from Greek-Americans, is increasingly anachronistic; in reality, Greece and Turkey are growing closer to each other politically, and it was noticed by all, at a conference I attended in Istanbul earlier this year, that George Papandreou, the Greek foreign minister, addressed his Turkish counterpart in terms so warm one might have mistaken him for the latter's long-lost brother.

May I, therefore, make a suggestion? The bipartisan Turkey Caucus in Congress consists of a mere 20 members (it is headed by the Democrat Robert Wexler, who, though quite insufferable during the Florida presidential recount, proves with his support for Turkey that he's not all bad); this is a piffling size. So why can't those congressmen and -women who constitute the informal Israel caucus take on Turkey's cause?

Israel, like the U.S., counts Turkey as a loyal friend. Muslim Turkey's diplomatic relations with the Jewish state have always been genuine and comprehensive--and conducted at the risk of great opprobrium in the ummah, or the Muslim world--unlike the ersatz diplomatic relations Israel has with Egypt or Jordan. What is more, the relations rest on a bedrock of people-to-people affection, and not on some opportunistic calculus. Turkey is alone in the Muslim world--although one must remember that the country, though a state of Muslims, is not a Muslim state--as a place that offers a haven to Jews, and in which Jews live and work without fear. (It was a revelation, when I was in Istanbul, to find that one of the most respected newspaper columnists in the country is called Sami Kohen--the "Cohen," here, being spelled in accordance with Turkish orthography.)

Those Americans who are Israel's friends must declare themselves Turkey's friends too. And those American politicians who work sedulously to ensure the protection of Israeli interests must do the same for Turkey. For Turkey's security affects our security, and our security ensures Israel's. So let the connections be made plain, and obvious, and let them be pursued to their logical conclusion.

March with Turkey--on Saturday, and after.

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Tuesdays.

Puzzling and Uncomfortable Post-9/11 Trends
By David Barchard, Special to The Turkish Times - The post-September 11th world is a confusing time for everyone. There are some ways perhaps in which it is more disturbing for the British and other Europeans than it is for North Americans, since there is now a complex flaw-line between Christian and Islamic populations inside our societies, and perhaps it is most confusing for Turks in Europe, who could end up getting the worst of both worlds.

The assassination of Pim Fortuyn, the flamboyant radical Dutch politician who argued that immigration should be stopped if it was not accompanied by cultural integration, has touched many raw nerves. For political correct folk in Britain and other western European countries today, it is more or less an article of faith that immigration should not be accompanied by assimilation. That is what 'multi-culturalism' is all about. Forget history, ignore international politics, disregard all preceding scholarship and research, all that really matters is the crusade ---oops, I mean campaign-against fascism and racism.

So when Fortuyn was murdered, one left of centre British journalist wrote in a letter to the Guardian last week asking "Pim Fortuyn has been assassinated; should we journalists be celebrating this as an anti-racist act or condemning as an anti-gay one?" Some of the Guardian's other readers thought they had the answer. "Fortuyn sought to gain power by inciting intolerance against a section of society least able to defend itself-Muslims, so let's not have crocodile tears."

It is a sign of the times that people break into print in the liberal British press these days who do not automatically regret any political murder. Even Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the rightwing Daily Telegraph reporter who was a scourge of Bill Clinton during his time in the White House, branded as "infamous" Fortuyn's views that Islam never went through the Enlightenment.

Yet a Turkish friend who actually lives in the Netherlands took a different view. He thought Fortuyn had said things which are useful in the context of Dutch society today. He feels like that because, as a professional with an Istanbul Technical University degree, he has worked hard to learn Dutch and fit into Dutch society himself. He was puzzled, and indeed a touch embarrassed, as he watched other Turks joining hands with Moroccans and the Dutch left and partying in the streets at the news of Fortuyn's murder.

The killing of course turned out to have nothing directly to do with Islam or immigration. The Dutch politician was slain by an animal rights activist who was reportedly angered by Fortuyn's willingness to allow mink farms. But the wave of protest, whipped up by journalists on the BBC and similar-minded organisations may well have contributed to the general background to the assassination-or so Fortuyn himself argued in a poignant protest at his demonisation by the world's media, recorded only a few days for his murder. They were hungry for another Len Pen type Fascist target and Fortuyn was a convenient bogeyman. Never mind the details or the facts.

Certainly no one I heard in the British media made the point that Fortuyn, however combative and obnoxious his personal style may have been, was making some points which are also made by Islamic modernists-where they are given the chance to raise their voices in safety.

In Britain they, and Turkish secularists, get a limited hearing because Tony Blair's liking for dealing with 'faith communities' means that the spokesman for the Muslim community in Britain, which is mostly from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, are Ulema belonging to organisations backed by one or other of a familiar list of Middle Eastern countries. One of Blair's most significant decisions has been to allow these organisations to set up 'faith schools' with government money. Watch where they go over the next few decades.

In some British cities, notably Bradford, there are now large self-administering Islamic communes from the Indian subcontinent. There is some criticism of their self imposed isolation, but little knowledge of what actually goes on other side of the frontier. Though some groups, gays and women's rights activists, voice concern, the liberal establishment is often prepared to shut its eyes. A few weeks ago, the BBC ran a discussion programme with a woman Member of Parliament from Bradford who is running refuge centres for Muslim women who are victims of violence. A laudable cause you might think? Not at all, she came under fire from a Saudi lady who thought that Muslims should be left to themselves on such matters and a politically correct lady interviewer who wondered if she wasn't giving ammunition to racist propagandists.

This is the same BBC which regularly gives us alarming coverage, I dare say accurate, about the growing danger from Christian religious politicians in the United States and which reports disapprovingly from time to time about attempts in Turkey to keep religion and politics separate by using the law.

For secular Turks, who identify as Muslims but want to live in a modern way in the modern world, these trends are puzzling and uncomfortable. "What happens if the Blair government ever does recognize special legal rights for a Muslim nationality in Britain as some people want it to?" a Turkish woman friend of mine asked me not long ago. "Does that mean I could be bound by its rules?"