Month: January 2009

  • Major American-Jewish Organizations May no Longer Back Turkey in Congress

    Major American-Jewish Organizations May no Longer Back Turkey in Congress

    From: BENJAMIN YAFET [mailto:[email protected]]

    Subject: American Jewish organizations are ready to support the Armenian Genocide resolution !!!

    Major American-Jewish Organizations

    May no Longer Back Turkey in Congress

    There are serious indications that Israel and American-Jewish organizations are no longer willing to support Turkey’s lobbying efforts to block a congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide.

    The dispute between the two strategic allies began with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan harshly denouncing Israel’s incursion into Gaza and accusing the Jewish state of committing crimes against humanity. He suggested that Israel be barred from the United Nations as mass demonstrations were held throughout Turkey with banners that read: “Gaza will be a grave for Israel” and “Put Israel on trial for war crimes.” Israel’s Consul General in Istanbul, Mordehai Amihai, told Milliyet that the consulate received hundreds of anti-Semitic e-mails every day during the fighting in Gaza.

    Initially, Israeli officials expressed their displeasure through diplomatic channels. But as the anti-Israel rhetoric intensified, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister publicly warned Turkey that Tel Aviv might retaliate by acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Last week, Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert invited the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic to dinner in Jerusalem after their summit meeting in nearby Egypt. Significantly, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul, who also had attended the summit, was excluded from the dinner.

    American-Jewish organizations, which had for years supported Turkey’s denialist agenda on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Congress, were highly incensed by the Turkish condemnations of Israel. The American Jewish Committee sent a letter to Erdogan on January 8, to express its “grave concern over recent official statements” by Turkey’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. On January 21, a second letter was sent to Erdogan, this time signed by five leading American-Jewish organizations, expressing their “profound concern over the current wave of anti-Semitic manifestations in Turkey.”

    In their joint letter, the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs complained about “gravely distressing” recent incidents: “Protestors besieging the Israeli Consulate in Istanbul have expressed their hatred of Jews. Billboards around Istanbul are full of anti-Jewish propaganda posters. The door of a Jewish-owned shop near Istanbul University was covered with a poster that said, ‘Do not buy from here, since this shop is owned by a Jew.’ The defacing of an Izmir synagogue has brought about the temporary closure of all but one of that city’s synagogues.” The American-Jewish groups also stated that the Jewish community in Turkey feels “besieged and threatened. A connection is clearly perceived between the inflammatory denunciation of Israel by Turkish officials and the rise of anti-Semitism.”

    Ironically, Abraham Foxman, ADL’s National Director, who is now complaining to Prime Minister Erdogan about anti-Semitism in Turkey, had presented a prestigious award to him in 2005. Foxman conveniently overlooked the fact that four days before he gave that award to Erdogan, the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on a report from Hurriyet, revealed that Erdogan in 1974 had written, directed and played the lead role in a play called “Maskomya,” an acronym for the triple “evils” of Masons, Komunists (Communists), and Yahudis (Jews).

    Having given Erdogan one of ADL’s highest awards, Foxman must have been shocked by the Turkish Prime Minister’s recent criticisms of Israel. Foxman told Milliyet last week: “Turkey was our friend. We were friends. I still can’t believe it. I am very sad and confused. The Jews in Turkey are threatened…. They feel encircled…. The Prime Minister spoke very harshly. We were friends. How did we come to this situation?” Jacob Isaacson, an official of the American Jewish Committee, was also unhappy with the Turkish reaction. “Once you start poisoning the well, you do not know where it leads,” he said. Moreover, an unnamed American-Jewish leader was quoted as saying: “This time, we are going to face great difficulty. In the past, we defended the Turkish position, not only because Turkey was right, but also because we were friends.” Yet another American-Jewish official, washing his hands from further involvement in Turkey’s lobbying efforts on the Armenian Genocide, told Milliyet: “Count us completely out of this problem. We don’t believe Congress should deal with it. Let Armenia and Turkey resolve it between them.”

    In another indication of diminishing support for Turkey among Jewish circles, Prof. Benjamin Yafet advised this writer that he had “very reliable information that all major American Jewish organizations are now fed up with Turkey and are ready to support the Armenian Genocide resolution.”

    It appears that this time around Israel and American-Jewish organizations will not be as forgiving as they have been in the past, in the face of persistent and vicious anti-Semitic attacks emanating from Turkey. After the loss of lobbying support from American-Jews, Pres. Obama’s election, and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Turkey is expected to have great difficulty in the coming months to block a renewed attempt to pass a congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide. Faruk Logoglu, Turkey’s former Ambassador to Washington, should know! He told Milliyet: “The Jewish lobby is the strongest in the United States and the only one supporting Turkey. Therefore, the letter of disappointment sent to Erdogan [by 5 Jewish groups] is of great importance.”

    To listen to this writer’s hour-long interview with radio KZSU Stanford on this subject, please go to: .< >< >< >< ><–>

  • Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?

    Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?

    Is the Russian-Led Consortium Trying to Overcharge Turkey for Its First Nuclear Power Plant?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 16
    January 26, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey is continuing to debate the construction of its first nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, Mersin. After the tender was launched in March 2008, 13 foreign and local companies purchased documents. All but one, however, failed to submit an offer, because they did not have sufficient time to prepare the necessary documentation. The government did not respond to their call for extending the September 2008 deadline; and only one consortium, a joint venture of Russia’s state-run Atomstroyexport, Inter RAO, and the private Turkish company Park Teknik submitted a bid (EDM, October 10).

    Although many within the energy sector called for the cancellation of the tender, the AKP government went ahead with the plans. The sole bidder submitted its offer to the Turkish government; and, upon technical evaluation, the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) concluded in December that the proposal met the necessary criteria.

    On January 19 the Energy Ministry opened the sealed letter with the offer, which also included the price. This was the third and final stage of the tender process. Energy Minister Hilmi Guler announced that the consortium had offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the electricity it would sell to Turkey. In the coming days, the state-run Turkish Electricity Trading and Contracting Company (TETAS) will evaluate the proposal and present a report to the cabinet for final approval (Dogan Haber Ajansi, January 19).

    Under the bid, the consortium would build “four units of the Russian VVER-1200 pressurized water reactors that generate 1,200 megawatts of electricity each.” The plant would produce around 4,800 megawatts of electricity per year. Since the Turkish government must commit itself to buying electricity from the company for 15 years, it would be paying $86.3 billion for 415.5 billion kWh during that period (Hurriyet Daily News, January 20).

    Turkey is considering the construction of nuclear plants as a source of clean and cheap energy and as a means for reducing energy dependency. By 2020 it seeks to produce 8 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants and increase that amount to 20 percent by 2030 (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 20).

    The price of electricity is a crucial factor. Earlier, Turkish officials had said that they expected the consortium to make a reasonable offer. Some observers had predicted a price offer in the vicinity of 12 to 15 cents. Many observers found the price excessive, arguing that 21.16 cents per kWh was above market prices. Experts and representatives from the energy sector noted concerns about a price that was almost four times higher than the current rates in the Turkish market, which varied from 4 cents to 14 cents. Some described it as the world’s most expensive electricity generated at a nuclear plant, arguing that the world average was around 10 to 15 cents per kWh. Others noted that Turkey had cancelled another tender for the construction of a coal-fired power plant, because even the anticipated 14.7 per kWh had been found too expensive. Turkey also is investing extensively in natural gas power plants, which reportedly produce electricity for around 7 to 10 cents per kWh (Referans, January 20; Today’s Zaman, January 20).

    The chairman of the Electricity Producers Association, however, cautioned that although the price was high, it was also important to remember that this tender model was a first in the world. Under this model, the private sector was assuming all the risks for such a large-scale investment, which might account for why the offer turned out so high. A board member of the Chamber of Electrical Engineers, however, said that since there was no competition, the chamber deemed the tender illegal and incompatible with Turkey’s national interests (ANKA, January 20).

    The same day, the consortium submitted another letter with a revised price. Since the 21.16 cents was offered in September, the company said it wanted to adjust the price, reflecting changes in the world economy and energy costs (www.cnnturk.com, January 19). Guler avoided commenting on the amount but said that there was no obstacle to renegotiating the price. TETAS, however, concluded that the rules regulating the tender prohibited submission of revised
    , because a new price would in essence constitute a new offer. On a TV show the same night, Guler said that the revised letter had been rejected (Anadolu Ajansi, January 19).

    The Turkish press speculated that in its report to the cabinet, TETAS would probably suggest rejecting the consortium’s offer (Vatan, January 21). Responding to questions on this subject, Guler told reporters that the tender process was proceeding well, and a cancellation was not on the agenda (Anadolu Ajansi, January 23).

    The government is keen on building nuclear power plants to diversify Turkey’s energy sources, and plans for the construction of two more plants are also underway. For obvious reasons, environmentalist groups have opposed Turkey’s nuclear energy projects since the beginning. Even the representatives of the energy sector continue to question the government’s policy on nuclear energy, in particular its hasty approach. Moreover, as Turkey is seeking to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, which accounts for 35 percent of Turkey’s electricity production, it would be ironic to award the tender to a Russian company. The government’s disregard of the global financial crisis and insistence on proceeding with these costly projects is also a cause of concern (Today’s Zaman, January 20).

    Guler continuously emphasizes that although Turkey is looking to increase its use of hydroelectric and renewable energy sources, it does not have the luxury to ignore nuclear energy. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether the government will be able to realize Turkey’s nuclear energy ambitions, which have been thwarted for decades. As things stand, most observers see little chance that the cabinet will approve the Russian offer for the Akkuyu plant. In the unlikely event that the cabinet does endorse the Russian offer, Turkey will most probably bargain to decrease the price before it signs the final agreement.

    The government, however, might have learned some lessons from its handling of the project so far. Preparations are reportedly under way to streamline the nuclear energy policy. As a first step, it would push for revising the Nuclear Tender Law. Since the current law prevents opening a second tender, allowing flexibility on that score would be the first rule to change. Also, the current competition model, which discourages many possible contenders from participating, is likely to be amended. Instead of a free market model of private companies undertaking construction, a model based on greater public involvement is likely to be considered (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 21).

    https://jamestown.org/program/is-the-russian-led-consortium-trying-to-overcharge-turkey-for-its-first-nuclear-power-plant/

  • INTRODUCING THE AMBASSADOR James F. Jeffrey

    INTRODUCING THE AMBASSADOR James F. Jeffrey

    AMBASSADOR

    Ambassador James F. Jeffrey

    James F. Jeffrey
    American Ambassador to Turkey

    Ambassador James F. Jeffrey was nominated to be Ambassador to Turkey by President Bush in June 2008.  He was confirmed by the Senate in October.

    Ambassador Jeffrey, a career member of the Foreign Service, previously served on detail to the National Security Council as the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor.  Prior to this, he served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State.  His responsibilities included leading the Iran Policy Team and coordinating public diplomacy.

    Ambassador Jeffrey served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Iraq from August 2005 to August 2006.  Previously, he served as U.S. Charge d’affairs to Iraq from March 2005 to June 2005 and as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad from June 2004 through March 2005.

    Earlier in his career, Ambassador Jeffrey served as Ambassador to Albania from October 2002 to May 2004.  Other assignments have included three tours in Turkey, including Deputy Chief of Mission from 1999-2002, as well as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait and Deputy Special Representative for Bosnian Implementation.

    Ambassador Jeffrey received his bachelor’s degree from Northeastern University and his master’s degree from Boston University. He served in the U.S. Army in Germany and Vietnam from 1969 to 1976.

    Ambassador Jeffrey is accompanied by his wife, Gudrun.  They have two grown children, Jahn and Julia.

    Ambassador’s Remarks and Public events

    U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey’s Written Statement in the Book of Honor at Anıtkabir

    December 3, 2008

    Ataturk’s legacy remains undiminished.  As a soldier who confronted foreign armies, a diplomat who stood toe-to-toe with the Great Powers, and a statesman who molded a modern country, Ataturk is a heroic figure whose vision for Turkey was both sweeping and farsighted.   He remains an inspiration for those who cherish peace, freedom and democracy, and his ideals serve as a beacon for everyone who dreams of a brighter tomorrow.

    As the U.S. Ambassador, it is only fitting that I return to Anitkabir.   I too draw inspiration from these columns, and from the memory of this extraordinary leader.  As Turkey and the United States work together on the challenges that lie ahead, we can be guided by the principles which Ataturk so eloquently championed.

    In the words of the great Turkish hero and President:  “Peace at Home and Peace in the World.”

    James Jeffrey

    Ambassador Jeffrey’s Remarks at Esenboga Airport

    November 30, 2008
    Ankara, Turkey

    Hello, I would like to say a couple of things.  I’m very very happy to be back in Turkey.  Throughout my 31 year career, I have worked on a number of occasions in Turkey, or worked with Turkey.  First in Adana, then Ankara and the last time in Ankara was in 1999-2002 as Deputy Chief of Mission.

    Turkey and the United States of America have been friends since 1923 and they have also been allies in Korea and then in NATO for 58 years.  We have a special alliance which is important for Ankara and Washington. I am very very glad to be back in Ankara and Turkey.  Thank you.

    Barack Obama:  America’s 44th President *

    James F. Jeffrey
    U.S. Ambassador

    America will mark an historical transition on January 20 when Barack Obama places his hand on Abraham Lincoln’s bible and takes the oath of office as America’s 44th President. The significance of this transition was best described by Barack Obama himself on election night in Chicago:  “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”

    In that same speech Barack Obama drew attention to the challenges ahead, saying: “For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime — two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.”  These challenges that we face are not America’s alone, and America cannot overcome them alone. Turkey and the United States are already working together to respond to the global economic crisis.  No one knows how long or severe this crisis will be, but our countries will confront it with a shared interest in maintaining the free flow of goods and credit.

    The Turkish economy has come a long way since I last served here in 2001.  Turkey is now on the path to EU accession and one of the 20 largest economies in the world.  It has successfully completed an IMF program, attracted billions in foreign investment, and undertaken extensive structural reforms, including a major banking reform that created one of the soundest banking sectors among emerging market countries.  This dynamism and commitment to reform has made Turkey immensely attractive to U.S. businesses and investors.

    U.S.-Turkish trade is still relatively modest at $16.2 billion in 2008, but growing.  My government encourages American companies to look at business opportunities in Turkey.  One sector where there are many such opportunities is energy.  Several U.S. companies have successful energy investments in Turkey and already are contributing to meeting Turkey’s growing energy needs.  In addition to electricity generation investments, U.S. companies are involved in exploration.  Toreador is conducting exploration activities in the Black Sea, and Exxon Mobil recently signed a deal with TPAO for exploration in the same area.

    We want to find ways to do more.  The U.S. is committed to helping Turkey strengthen its energy security and meet its needs by diversifying its energy mix with a particular focus on renewable energy sources.  We want to establish more efficient and productive financing mechanisms to support Turkish energy projects, especially in light of the global financial crisis.  The U.S. Export-Import Bank has financed $1.6 billion in projects in Turkey and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation has supported $500 million worth of projects here.

    American companies are bullish about doing business in Turkey.  76% of U.S. companies responding to an American Business Forum in Turkey (ABFT) survey said their company’s initial decision to invest in Turkey was a good one.  73% said they would recommend investing in Turkey to others.  67% said they plan to invest further in Turkey. Those numbers represent a very strong vote of confidence in Turkish workers and the Turkish economy.

    There are, however, areas of concern for U.S. companies and these are reflective, I believe, of the concerns of foreign investors in Turkey in general.  Among the problems most often cited are the level of taxation and the compliance burden, and the inefficiency and lack of predictability in the legal system, particularly with regard to intellectual property rights (IPR).  Turkey passed some significant tax and IPR reforms in 2008, but more remains to be done.

    Barack Obama made change the hallmark of his campaign, but he also reaffirmed America’s long-standing commitment to open markets, saying:  “… we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.”  I am confident that America’s commitment to its long-standing economic partnership with Turkey will endure.

    *Published in Businessweek Turkey – January 18, 2009

  • The First Turkish Consulate in New York City

    The First Turkish Consulate in New York City

    Cemil Özyurt
    [email protected]

    It was in 1824 that the American government posted its first American Consul, David Offley, to the western Anatolian city of Izmir.  It was only after thirty years of American efforts to establish formal relationships that the Ottomans agreed to open this consulate.   Well, did the Ottomans have an American consulate in the USA at that time? While glancing through the archives of the New York Times, a record starting from 1851 and stretching to the present, I chanced upon a story of some adventures of Turks living in New York City 146 years ago.

    An ad placed in a New York Times newspaper dated November 22, 1863 was eye-catching. The ad was an announcement that Hatchik (Christopher) Oscanyan, the author of a book entitled The Sultan and His People would be giving a lecture on the subject of “The Women of Turkey.”

    The announcement stressed the fact that the speech would be accompanied by a number of photographs detailing the lives, loves, marriages, dances and many other aspects of women living in the Ottoman Empire.

    Who was this Hatchik Oscanyan? And why did he, in the 1850s, feel the need to describe the Ottomans to the people of New York City?  When I went deeper into my research, I learned that this Hatchik Oscanyan was a rather colorful character.

    Born on April 23, 1818 in Istanbul, Oscanyan was an Ottoman of Armenian descent.  He was later to change his first name from Hatchik to Christopher. In addition to Armenian, he also knew Turkish, Greek, Italian, French, and English.  He soon attracted the attention of Reverend Harrison G. O. Dwight, an American missionary working in the Ottoman lands. When Oscanyan’s mother died, the missionary persuaded him to travel to New York in order to continue his education.

    In 1835 Oscanyan traveled to New York City and enrolled in New York University (NYU), but he fell ill and had to postpone his studies. He earned his living during those years by working for the company that was building the Charleston and Cincinnati railroad lines.

    He spent six years in the US before returning to Istanbul, where he began to publish the first Armenian-language newspaper, the Astarar Ptizantian (Byzantine Advertiser).  In 1843, when his enterprising efforts ran afoul of the administrators, he began working as the private secretary of Tophane Müşiri Fethi Pasha, the husband of Atiye Sultan and the son-in-law of Sultan Mahmut II, the 30th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. (1808-1839)

    While he was employed as a private secretary, he was charged by the Palace with the responsibility of purchasing the dowry of Sultan Mahmut’s daughter, Adile Sultan, who was being betrothed to Mehmet Ali Pasha, the head of the Imperial Navy, or the Kaptan-ı Derya.  This appointment gave him an opportunity to have a first-hand look at the workings of the Ottoman Palace.

    Following this marriage, Oscanyan left his position as private secretary and began to serve as the Istanbul representative for several American and European newspapers.

    VOLUNTEER PUBLICIST

    In 1853 he opened an exhibit called the Oriental and Turkish Museum in London. While this effort did attract some attention from the English, it failed to meet with success, and in 1853 he decided to return to New York, the city he had left in 1841.

    In 1857 he published the 468-page book, The Sultan and His People, mentioned earlier. This book received wide attention in New York and 16 thousand copies were sold in just four months.  The book was a wealth of information about the Ottoman Empire of the day, including information about the dervishes, the city’s mosques and the Grand Bazaar.

    In 1868, Oscanyan, an author with palace connections who had also served as a writer, a translator, journalist and politician, was appointed to head up the first New York City Consulate of the Ottoman Empire.

    Were there enough Turks in New York City at that time to require a consulate?  According to research undertaken by Prof. Sedat İşçi, a total of 1.2 million persons migrated from Ottoman lands to the U.S. during the years spanning 1860 – 1921. Of these, 200 thousand were Muslims and ethnic Turks while the rest were non-Muslims.

    TOURING WITH THE GENERAL

    In 1872 General William T. Sherman visited the Ottoman Empire, and Oscanyan was given the responsibility by the Ottoman authorities of taking care of the general during his visit by acting as the “Representative of the Sultan.”  When General Ulysses S. Grant served as US president during the years spanning 1869–1877, Sherman took his place as Commanding General of the Army.

    Oscanyan continued to act as Consul until 1874. After leaving this position, he continued in New York with his literary efforts and he wrote the words to an Armenian opera. There are no records as to when Oscanyan died.He played a very significant role in changing the negative Ottoman stereotypes. 

    As he labored to eradicate anti-Ottoman feelings, he also contributed to sparking English and American interest in the Ottoman regions. He acted as a kind of liaison in forming a bridge between western elites and the Ottomans.

    Oscanyan had his own place in elite New York society. He was a close friend of Ada Claire, a woman who was recognized as a leader among writers, artists and in the feminist movement.Very popular magazines of the day, such as Harper’s and Putnam, published reviews of his book The Sultan and His People.  Putnam found Oscanyan’s book to be both “comical and interesting.

    ”It is still possible even today to find Oscanyan’s books being offered by antique auction houses. In June 2008, Green Valley Auctions, Inc, a company operating out of Virginia, sold a work called Oscanyan’s Oriental Album, a book that contains 24 drawings of Ottoman daily life, for $4,520.

    Oscanyan introduced the West to the daily life of the Ottomans at the end of the empire, at a time when the land was being broken apart in nationalist uprisings. 

    He not only was the Consul of the Ottoman Empire during those years, but also served as an ambassador for tourism, a writer, and a translator. He is a person who deserves to be remembered.

  • WHAT IS WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION?

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION?

    Last articles on the cost of universities have generated considerable interest on elementary, middle, and high school education. I wrote four articles on this subject since the beginning of these LETTERS. I want to summarize them here for the benefit of new readers.

    The aim of education in Turkey at the time of Ataturk was (a) to acquire modern knowledge, to learn to think analytically and (b) to acquire a modern conception of the world.( The problem with the Conception of the World will be discussed in an other article) According to the self-taught Eric Hoffer, the purpose should be to produce “learning” people, not “learned” people. As we will see, the U.S. does not achieve any of the two aims of the Ataturk era that were the same as European aims.

    American public schools are the way they are because of the teaching method of John Dewey. Around

    1900 large numbers of European peasants were immigrating to the U.S. Most of them were illiterate and did not speak English. It was a big task to train them and to convert them to useful citizens. The American Public Education System was “redesigned” for a specific purpose to meet this challenge. This job was given to the philosopher John Dewey (1850-1952) who became the most influential man in Public Education., in fact, he was called “The Father of American Education”. Dewey wanted to make education “child-centered”. In his book “The School and Society“ [The University of Chicago Press, Second Edition, 1915] he said, “The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no obvious social gain in success there at. Indeed almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of the term….” He obviously did understand that learning is a purely individual mental process and there is no such thing as a collective learning. That apparently troubled him, because he believed in the supremacy of the society over the individual and all the other socialist failed ideas that eventually carried the socialist countries of the 20th century to destruction.

    In practice, “Child-centered Education” meant that no theoretical (conceptual) knowledge was given to the child. He/she was taught practical (concrete) knowledge in form of so-called class projects, which would develop his/her “social spirit”. Thus, in stead of teaching systematically history, geography, physics, and chemistry, the teacher might, for example, talk about the preparation of woolen textiles, she can give children bits of information on the raising of sheep, the parts of the country, where sheep are raised, etc. The child sees and feels this material as part of his/her life. Hence the term, “child-centered”. Thus, the childen never get any comprehensive and systematic knowledge of history, geography, physics, chemistry, or what ever.

    This system has very grave consequences. Ayn Rand, in her book “The new Left –The Anti-Industrial Revolution” [Signet books (1971) pp. 152-204] made an enlightening analysis of the Dewey System.. She said, “The perception of reality, the learning of facts, the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, are exclusively individual capacities; the mind is an exclusively individual “affair”; there is no such thing as a collective brain”. Sacrificing one’s knowledge and truth to any social pressure is what we call a lack of intellectual integrity. Thus, “the goal of the Dewey system is to stunt,, stifle, and destroy the child’s capacity to develop “intellectual integrity. Dewey encouraged learning by memorizing instead of learning by understanding.

    Dewey’s system produced millions of Americans who have much practical knowledge, but are unable to think conceptually. The fact that “Johnnie can’t read” is a normal result of this system. After the Russians launched

    the Sputnik, there was a revue of U.S. Education. In the 1980’s “The National Commission on Excellence in Education” was created. Their finding called “A Nation in Risk – An imperative in Education Reform” was published in 1983. It said “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well viewed it as an act of war.” Twenty six years passed since that report and nothing has changed. In competition with European and Japanese kids, ours can’t measure up. We cannot hope to stay as a superpower with an education like that. We should get rid of the Dewey system. Why isn’t anything ever done about it? It is inconceivable that a superpower that sends a man to the moon and back, may be unable to fix its own public education. It reminds me of “Brave New World”. (See Appendix) The governments under the influence of Business may not want a smart citizenry who would not swallow all the advertising garbage and would be easier buyers. Anyway, enough hard-minded kids will learn to think in spite of Dewey. Those are feeding the universities plus the foreign students who were taught to think. That deal was probably still adequate 26 years ago but it is no more valid. Business has changed. Things have gotten high-tech. Computers have invaded our country. Brave New World or not, the Dewey System must go!

    To get rid of the Dewey system there are a number of things that must be done:

    (1) A new curriculum must be written for the entire country for classes 1 – 12. that should be as strong as the French and Japanese curriculums that emphasize the teaching of thinking and philosophy in 12th grade.

    (2) The influence of local ignorant school boards on this curriculum must be definitely prevented.

    (3) The Department of Education must prepare yearly examination questions for all high schools and devise a cheat-proof way of using them that does not show the identity of the student to the grader of the paper.

    (4) The schools must be judged by the percentage of successes and failures, and failing schools must be closed. Same, teachers must be judged by their success in educating their pupils.

    If these things are done, U.S. Public schools can be brought to the level of European schools. Unfortunately,

    to do the above four measures, one must act federally. But education is a job reserved to the states. Here, there are constitutional difficulties. These measures cannot be done without changing the constitution, and we know how difficult that is. If this nation does not want to keep on deteriorating under the stupid Dewey system and eventually crumble like the Ottoman Empire and the USSR, its Congress would find ways of fulfilling the above four conditions.

    The new President-Elect Obama has campaigned on a platform of change. Education should be on top of his list, and here is a tough problem that requires his unusual authority and capabilities. I wish him much success.

    A P P E N D I X

    B R A V E N E W W O R L D

    Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” was a utopia first published in 1932. It described a society existing “700 years after Ford”, that produced its people, not by sex, but by mass incubation of human eggs (??). The society consisted of four working classes and a master class. Each class was prepared differently in the incubators., giving less intelligence to the working classes.

    The TIME editor that prefaced the TIME edition of “Brave New World” in 1963 found that ”Life has imitated Huxley’s art” and many unusual ideas of the book have already been applied. Today we are going to add another one to that list.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………….

    To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to [email protected] with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

  • Marching for Hamas

    Marching for Hamas

    by Denis MacEoin
    Jerusalem Post
    January 22, 2009

    https://www.meforum.org/2056/marching-for-hamas

    Send RSS

    Hamas is a bully aided by a bigger bully, Iran. And, just as strident and threatening human bullies get away with their aggression so long as no one calls their bluff, so Hamas has been getting away with murder and torture because the UN and many states won’t call its two-faced self-portrayal as the victim in the piece. In the struggle to take over Gaza from Fatah, it went on a rampage that killed hundreds of Palestinians. Even during this most recent assault, in early January, it executed Fatah members for violating their house arrest. A few weeks ago, Hamas determined to hurt yet more of its compatriots by introducing Islamic hudud punishments to the Strip, from amputations and stonings, to crucifixions and hangings.

    Like all bullies, it likes to taunt its victims. It did just that for years after Israel left Gaza, firing rockets every day into towns like Sderot or Netivot. No one who has dismissed these rockets as harmless homemade toys has ever had the guts to spend a few weeks in Sderot, scurrying from shelter to shelter. And, oh yes, it also built up an arsenal (supplied by Iran) of Grad missiles that certainly aren’t anybody’s toys.

    Like all bullies, Hamas likes to make boastful threats. Its 1988 Covenant is replete with them. It threatens to destroy the State of Israel by violence and violence alone. It says it will never accept the work of conferences or peacemakers, and only jihad will solve its problems. Meanwhile, the Palestinians see their lives drained away in a culture that embraces death and martyrdom, their children exposed to a steady diet of military training and preparation for violent death as suicide bombers.

    Even if the Palestinians want peace, Hamas won’t let them have it, because Hamas knows best, and jihad “is the only solution.” Don’t believe me, read the Covenant. It likes nothing better than killing Jews, and the bigger bully in Teheran thinks that’s a damn fine thing too. No one says a word, because the UN is dominated by the Islamic states, and the Western governments know where the oil comes from, and nobody likes the Jews much anyway. The people calling for the end of Israel while they march on the streets of London and Dublin aren’t all Muslims by any means.

    There can be no greater indication of this boastfulness than what has happened in recent days. Having taken a heavy battering from Israel, Hamas now proclaims a “great victory,” and its supporters dance in the ruined streets of Gaza, drunk on their own demagoguery. For all its bluster, Hamas, like all bullies, is a coward at heart. Watch those films of Hamas gunmen dragging screaming children along with them to act as human shields, watch how they fire from behind the little ones, knowing no Israeli soldier will fire back. And even as they put their own children’s lives at risk, they shout to high heaven that the Israelis are Nazis and the Jews are child-killers. This blatant pornography spreads through the Western media, and people never once ask “what does this look like from the other side,” because they are addicted to the comforting news that the Yids are baby-killers as they’d always known, that they do poison wells, that no Christian child is safe come Passover. Hamas has become proficient at resurrecting the blood libel, just as its fighters use the Nazi salute, just as their predecessor in the 1930s and ’40s, Haj Amin al-Husseini, conferred with Hitler about building death camps in Palestine and raised a division of SS troops in Bosnia to fight for the Reich.

    We watch The Diary of Anne Frank on television, and some of us attend Holocaust Remembrance Day events, and others pay lip service to Jewish victimhood; we like our Jews emaciated and helpless under the SS boot. But the moment real Jews stand up and show themselves the stronger for all their deaths, it awakens an atavistic fear, and people recoil from them. Jews in uniform, how unseemly. Jews beating the bully, how unheard of. Jews with their own state, what upstarts.

    IN MY home country of Ireland, we glamorize the great nationalist heroes who rebelled against the bullying forces of imperial Britain in the uprising of Easter Sunday 1916. In France, they venerate the heroes of the Resistance against the occupying forces of Nazi Germany. In Spain, they have not ceased to heap praise on those who fought against the forces of fascist bullies and lost. To stand up against an enemy bent on your destruction is everywhere counted an act of bravery. But not when it comes to Israel. In 1948 and 1967 and 1973 and 2006, Israel fought off overwhelming forces who made no secret of their plans for an imminent massacre of the Jews. But nobody now seems to care, no one lauds the courage the Israelis displayed, and no one praises the extraordinary restraint they showed in victory.

    In a bizarre reversal of all their commitment to human rights and the struggle of men and women for independence and self-determination, the European Left has chosen again and again to side with the bullies and to condemn a small nation struggling to survive in a hostile neighborhood. It is all self-contradictory: The Left supports gay rights, yet attacks the only country in the Middle East where gay rights are enshrined in law. Hamas makes death the punishment for being gay, but “we are all Hamas now.” Iran hangs gays, but it is praised as an agent of anti-imperialism, and allowed to get on with its job of stoning women and executing dissidents and members of religious minorities. If UK Premier Gordon Brown swore to wipe France from the face of the earth, he would become a pariah among nations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to do that to Israel and is invited to speak to the UN General Assembly

    Israel guarantees civil liberties to all its citizens, Jew or Arab alike, but it is dubbed “an apartheid state”; Hamas, ever the bully, kills its opponents and denies the rest the most basic rights, but we march on behalf of Hamas. The Left prefers the bully because the bully represents a finger in the face of the establishment? Almost no one on the Left has any understanding of militant Islam. Their politics is a politics of gesture, where wearing a keffiyeh is cool but understanding its symbolism is too much effort even for intellectuals.

    I have personally had enough of it all. The whining double standards, the blatant lies, the way their leaders have forced Palestinians to suffer for 60 years because peace and compromise aren’t in their vocabulary and because they won’t settle for anything but total victory. Painful as it was, in the 1920s Ireland created a republic by compromising on the status of the North. Ireland subsequently became a prosperous country and, in due course, one of the hottest economies in the world. When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, they left state-of-the-art greenhouses to form the basis for a thriving economy. Hamas destroyed them to the last pane of glass. Why? Because they had been Jewish greenhouses.

    The writer is the incoming editor of the leading international journal Middle East Quarterly and the author of a blog entitled ‘A Liberal Defence of Israel.’

    Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Palestinians