Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Cairo removes Ottoman Selim I name from the Street amid Egypt-Turkey strife

By

 

Cairo removes Ottoman name

Cairo removes Ottoman name

By Rami Galal,

CAIRO — Cairo Gov. Atef Abdel Hamid announced Feb. 6 that the city will rename Selim I Street in eastern Cairo’s El Zaytoun district. The new name is yet unknown, but it is unlikely to be that of another Ottoman sultan.

Selim I was the ninth ruler of the Ottoman Empire and the 74th Caliph of Islam who conquered Egypt in 1517 in the battle of Ridaniya. Also called Selim the Grim, he was known as much for his military success as for his rage that spared neither his ministers nor the residents of the cities he conquered. It is believed that the street was named between 1805 and 1848, during the rule of Muhammad Ali Pasha, who decreed that streets would take rulers’ names.

The decision to rename the street came about after Mohammad Sabri ad-Dali, a professor of contemporary history at the Helwan University in Cairo, wrote a report about the problem and demanded a change from the governor’s office. Dali said that it was not right to name a street after a man who conquered Egypt and left it a province of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years, killing thousands of Egyptians defending their land. Selim I also executed the last Memluk sultan, Tuman Bay, and dissolved the Egyptian army.

Maj. Gen. Hesham Abdel Hamid, the head of El Zaytoun, is currently holding community discussions with residents, intellectuals and historians to choose a new name.

Assem ad-Dassouki, a professor of contemporary history at the Faculty of Arts in Helwan University, told Al-Monitor, “The decision is intended to correct the mistake, a common one, of naming streets and squares after conquerors who invaded the country and killed its people. There is a great difference between Selim I and Amr ibn al-‘As, who led the first Muslim Conquest of Egypt in A.D. 640 and fought the Byzantine Empire but did not kill Egyptians.”

He added, “Egypt’s claims that Selim I is a murderer aren’t recent. In fact, Egyptian historian Muhammad ibn Iyas, who covered the period between A.D. 901 and A.D. 928 in his history book “Badai Alzuhur Fi Wakayi Alduhur” [“The Beautiful Flowers About the Events of the Times“], wrote about the atrocities committed by Selim I when his soldiers fought Egyptians and Memluks in mosques. Selim I’s men killed these people, and they even threw Egyptians from minarets. How can we possibly immortalize the name of such a tyrant?”

Dassouki noted that there are no objections to the name because of Selim I’s foreign provenance. He maintained there is no problem with naming streets and squares for foreign figures who served humanity, such as French doctor Antoine Clot, who established the Kasr al-Aini School of Medicine in 1828. He called for a wider reassessment of street names and squares in Egypt, where chaos reigns and names run rampant.

But for Karam Saad, a researcher on Turkish affairs at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, the decision is emblematic of the strained ties between the two countries. Saad told Al-Monitor, “This decision cannot be separated from the situation of Egyptian-Turkish relations since 2013, after the Muslim Brotherhood was toppled and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took over. Turkey considered this change a military coup, and it still insists on this description. As a result, diplomatic representation between the two countries witnessed a setback, with the two countries withdrawing ambassadors and keeping the diplomatic ties at charges d’affaires level. The economic relations also deteriorated between the two countries, and political tensions escalated. Egypt, for instance, recognized the Armenian genocide three years ago and objected to Turkey’s military operation in Syria.”

Saad noted, “Many negative developments have plagued Egyptian-Turkish relations, and this tension has reached the level of changing the names of streets and squares, be they in Turkey or in Egypt.” He added that the animosity is being used by both sides in their domestic propaganda. “Sisi is running for a second term in the presidential elections scheduled in March, amid huge political debate about the electoral process. Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also benefitting from this political climate, as the parliamentary and presidential elections will be held in 2019 in Turkey. If he wins, he would remain in power until 2023,” Saad said.

Saad argued that changing street names is also linked to the conflict between areas of influence in the Middle East. Egypt has allied with Cyprus and Greece to capitalize on their energy resources since 2014 and to limit Turkey’s influence in the eastern Mediterranean basin and hamper its strategic, military and economic moves in disputed areas. Turkey joined forces with Sudan to build a military base on Suakin Island to serve Turkey’s expansionist goals and expand Ankara’s military influence in the Red Sea. The Egyptian authorities have recently worked to tarnish the image of Turkish sultans who are widely popular in Egypt for being Muslim caliphs. The latest step to change the name of the street comes as an attempt to tarnish Turley’s image, according to Saad.

Saad added that Turkey is using its soft power to bolster its image and serve its regional and international expansion of influence. Ottoman sultans have entered every Egyptian house through a popular Turkish TV series. The series “Ertugrul,” which glorifies Ottoman sultans, enjoys the highest viewership ratings in Egypt.

He said, “Egypt also has soft power in Turkey, but it is not exploited in the same way. Turkey has succeeded in exporting Turkish series and religious and historical films that suit the Muslim world to cement Erdogan’s ideology of putting Turkey as the leader of the Muslim world and appointing him as caliph for Muslims. Egypt has two-thirds of the world’s antiquities. Compared to Turkey, it has historical and intellectual heritage spanning more than 7,000 years. But Egypt is not using the soft power that could bolster its role.”

Art critic Tarek Al-Shenawy told Al-Monitor, “Changing the names of streets will not bring anything new. People will always remember the initial name, unless the new one is powerful and closer to them. For instance, Queen Nazli square, named after the mother of King Farouk, was changed to Ramses Square after the July 1952 revolution to eradicate the traces of the monarchy. The leadership of the revolution erected the great statue of King Ramses to cement a new mental image of the square.”

Rami Galal is a contributor for Al-Monitor’s Egypt Pulse and works as an investigative reporter for the Rosa el-Youssef website.

Erdogan Basking In The Shadows Of The Ottoman Era

By

It is hard to fathom why Turkey’s President Erdogan, who embarked on the most impressive social, political, and economic reforms during his first ten years in office, turned around and systematically destroyed all that he had achieved. In doing so, he transformed the country into a police state where Islamic nationalism runs supreme. It is no secret that Erdogan is an ambitious man who aspires to become the leader of the Sunni Muslim world and dreams of restoring the “glory” of the Ottoman Empire. He is sparing no efforts to extend Turkey’s wings over countries that he can manipulate and exploit in the Middle East and the Caucasus. Even a cursory review of his actions at home and abroad unmistakably shows that there is a pattern to his madness to resurrect not only images but the influence of the vanished Ottoman Empire that died disgracefully in the wake of World War I.

The Ottoman Empire will always be remembered by its last infamous chapter—the genocide of the Armenian people. Thus, when Erdogan recounts the presumed splendor of the Ottoman era, it should have a chilling effect on any country with which Erdogan seeks active bilateral relations, because there are always sinister intentions behind his overtures. To expand his regional influence, Erdogan has followed the footprint of the Ottomans by first taking extraordinary coercive measures to consolidate his absolute powers at home.

Following the July 2016 failed military coup, he ruthlessly cracked down on his real and perceived political adversaries, including anyone suspected of having an affiliation with his arch enemy Fethullah Gülen, whom he accused of being behind the coup. He took control over the civilian and government institutions by repeatedly extending the state emergency laws. Instead of continuing to promote freedoms and human rights to encourage creativity and competitiveness, he is choking the Turkish people’s natural resourcefulness and ability to excel. With little or no opposition at home, Erdogan moved to promote his Ottoman penchant to establish military bases in Qatar and Somalia, and military ties with Tunisia. Now he is scheming to build another military installation on the strategically located Sudanese Island of Suakin.

Erdogan intends to utilize the island as a military outpost, the way it had served during the Ottoman era. Egypt and Saudi Arabia believe that Erdogan’s military adventure will upset the regional balance of power, which is the recipe for instability and incessant violence. Thus, instead of alleviating the plight of the nearly 20 million Turks under the poverty line, Erdogan is spending billions on his foreign exploits. To seize on the chaotic conditions in Syria, Erdogan decided to undertake a military offensive to crush the Syrian Democratic Force (YPG), which he accuses of being supportive of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), against whom he has been fighting a war of insurgency for 34 years. Although he asserts that his purpose is the elimination of all terrorist elements to protect his people, his real objectives are: establishing a permanent foot-hold in Syria, which was ruled by the Ottomans; maintaining the support of his nationalistic constituency; demonstrating that he is independent and free to use his military as he sees fit; and most importantly, preventing the Syrian Kurds from cementing their autonomous rule.

Hence, instead of solving the conflict with his own Kurdish community, who merely seeks to preserve their culture, he invades Syria under false pretenses to secure his other objectives which are consistent with his Ottoman vision. In the Balkans, Turkey is systematically entrenching itself by increasing its commercial and cultural presence which is evocative of Ottoman rule. In Albania, Turkey is building the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline through the country to supply gas to Europe, and a Turkish consortium is looking to build the nation’s second airport. He is investing in Kosovo’sinfrastructure, building its only international airport, and managing the country’s energy. The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) is assisting the Balkan and Caucasian countries in the fields of industry, agriculture, infrastructure, finance, healthcare, and education. In addition, Erdogan is blatantly interfering in other neighboring countries—including Afghanistan, Albania, Georgia, and Kosovo—where he is exerting inordinate pressure on their governments to close all schools affiliated with the Gülen movement, threatening to use his economic and political levers against these countries unless they fire and replace the teachers with others who subscribe to his religious Islamist orientation.

Rather than investing in infrastructure, housing, education, and healthcare in the Southeast (Turkey’s poorest region), he is financing foreign projects aimed at influencing and preserving cultural heritage dating back to the Ottoman Empire, further solidifying Turkey’s regional outreach. Although theoretically Turkey still seeks membership in the EU, the accession process is basically frozen, and Erdogan certainly prefers to leave it that way because he is not willing to reverse course and reinstate freedom of the press and human rights, on which the EU insists as a precondition to discussing accession in earnest. Thus, instead of making Turkey a model of Islamic democracy that meets the principal requirements of the EU, he transformed Turkey into an authoritarian Islamic state that resembles the Ottoman governing style. Turkey’s role in NATO appears to be increasingly waning as Erdogan continues to gravitate toward Russia, which is considered the West’s staunchest adversary, cozying up to Putin who declared war on American democracy. Recently, he reached an agreement with Moscow to buy the S-400 Air Defense System, and to cooperate in building three nuclearplants – though for civilian purposes they could easily be converted to nuclear weapons production. This development severely erodes Turkey’s reliability as a NATO member and as a Western ally. The West must no longer invoke Turkey’s geostrategic importance as an excuse for doing nothing to arrest Erdogan’s adventurism. No punitive action should be ruled out to stop him from further destabilizing the region because of his ill-fated aspirations to resurrect some semblance of the Ottoman Empire and satisfy his lust for ever more power.

Erdogan’s Ottoman dream causes storm in Red Sea

By

The word tow the most dictators Erdogan and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan

By Fehim Tastekin,

The Gulf-Egypt axis now has another reason to question Turkey’s ambitions in the region: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in the first leg of his late-December Africa tour, went to Sudan to ask if Ankara could lease Suakin Island. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir agreed to Erdogan’s request.

Erdogan adamantly rejects claims that Turkey is scheming to build a military base at Suakin. But the island, which once served as an Ottoman forward outpost in the Red Sea, could easily assume military features that would provide Turkey with a third military base abroad, in addition to those in Qatar and Somalia.

During his visit to Sudan, Erdogan signed 13 agreements covering a new airport for the capital Khartoum, a free-trade zone in Port Sudan, a port and shipyards for military and civilian ships in the Red Sea, grain silos at various locations, a university, a hospital and power stations. The countries are targeting an annual trade volume between them of $10 billion, up from the current $500 million.

The two countries induced panic in the Arab world when, in addition to Turkey gaining temporary control of Suakin Island, the two countries’ chiefs of staff agreed to develop military cooperation. While explaining why he is paying so much attention to this island that the Sudanese call “the gate to Africa,” Erdogan used the metaphor of “reincarnation,” which reinvigorated the fear of Turks in the region.

Suakin lost its stature and fell into ruin when Port Sudan was built 30 miles to the north between 1905 and 1909. But Erdogan accused Western countries of turning Suakin into a “ghost island.”

“They razed it to the ground. … This is in their nature,” Erdogan said Dec. 25 during a speech at Khartoum University. “Your razing of this place is like us shaving our beards. We will rebuild and reconstruct it in such a way that, like a shaved beard, it will regrow much more abundant.”

Erdogan has this plan in mind: If the island is handed over to Turkey, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism will restore the Ottoman relics there, including a 300-room caravanserai, or inn. TIKA has been operating on the island since 2011 and already has restored the Hanafi and Shafi mosques. When the entire restoration project is completed, Turkish citizens traveling to Mecca for the Islamic pilgrimage of umrah will be able to fly to Sudan to visit historical sites and then go to Jeddah by boat, thus reanimating an Ottoman base and the ancient umrah route.

Whether the island will become a military base is open to speculation, but the port project for military and civilian ships and the accord of military cooperation are enough to raise eyebrows, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Egypt fears that Sudan, empowered by Turkish support, might become even more strident in its claim to the disputed Halayeb triangle on the Red Sea coast. Egypt had posted soldiers at Halayeb in the 1990s to block Sudanese aspirations. Moreover, Egypt has been upset with Sudan’s support of Ethiopia in an argument over the Renaissance Dam on the Nile. Egyptians fear that a Turkish military alliance with Sudan could actually upset the power balance in the region.

Egypt is also worried about a powerful country like Turkey, which supports the Muslim Brotherhood, having direct access to a neighboring country. Egypt exiled leaders of the Sunni Islamist organization, which supported the previous administration.

Egyptian journalist Imadeddin Adib wrote about Egypt’s concerns in his Al Watan column Dec. 27: “Bashir [al-Assad] is playing with fire in return for dollars. Sudan — with its Turkey madness, with Iranian plots and the Ethiopian scheme to deny water to Egypt, and Qatar’s financial gimmicks — is violating geographic and historic realities against Egypt. Sudan is offering its ports and borders for dispatching of guns and terrorists to Egypt and serving the goals of the Qatar-Turkey alliance to restore the Muslim Brotherhood to power.”

Saudis fear that a base in Sudan controlled by Turkey — which is cooperating with Iran — could become a springboard of support for the Qatar- and Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Sudan, despite its promise to remain neutral, gives the impression that it is supporting Qatar in its conflict with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. A partnership with Turkey is considered a concrete indicator of the change in Sudan’s axis.

Arab media gave wide coverage to statements that the 13 agreements between Sudan and Turkey — worth $650 million — were actually financed by Qatar. In November, Qatar had announced plans to develop a port with Sudan on the Red Sea.

Simultaneously with Erdogan’s Africa tour, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim went to Saudi Arabia to try to balance the developments in the Red Sea and dispel concerns. But it didn’t work. Although the Saudi leadership kept silent, comments in the media they control revealed their concerns.

Mohammed Abu Talib, a writer for Saudi newspaper Okaz, reminded readers that Sudan was saved from sanctions thanks to the Saudis. He accused Sudan of serving Turkey’s expansion aspirations.

“Turkey is blatantly seeking expansion in the region and using its influence, especially against Egypt and Gulf countries. The most dangerous aspect of this visit was handing over to Erdogan Suakin Island, which faces Jeddah and which he sees as the symbol of the Ottoman Empire,” Abu Talib wrote.

The Gulf News commented, “Iran can use the new Turkish base in Sudan to ship more weapons to Houthis. Turkey, by using the new military facility, could send more soldiers to Qatar or intervene more in Egypt by manipulating the Muslim Brotherhood. This no doubt will worry Jordan as much as Egypt. With Turkish and Sudanese provocations, Sudanese aspirations for Halayeb [the disputed area] can be reignited.”

Egyptian daily Al Akhbar also wrote that Sudanese deals with Turkey signal changes in Sudan’s axis in a way that will worry regional countries.

The website of Al Arabia TV carried an incendiary comment that said, “The Ottoman presence in Suakin is associated with massacres of Sudanese.”

The last thing Arabs want is to witness a resurrection of Ottoman heritage on Red Sea shores. Arabs already take Erdogan’s inflammatory speeches very seriously.

How justified are their concerns? Is there really a resurrection of Ottomans? Erdogan has established a pattern of loudly recalling Ottoman forefathers, claiming Ottoman relics and referring to the Ottoman heritage when speaking about the Middle East and Africa. He sees Africa as a region of opportunities and believes that he has more right than anybody else to be there. “More dangerous than a shark smelling blood are the imperialists who smell oil,” Erdogan said during his Sudan visit, while repeating that the Ottomans had no imperialist past.

Erdogan also believes he can compensate in Africa for isolation elsewhere. It is true that this is the region where Turkey’s image has eroded the least. His most recent tour to Sudan, Chad and Tunisia was his fifth visit to Africa since he became president in 2014. He also signed a military accord with Tunisia to train Tunisian soldiers in Turkey and also to invest in the defense field.

Since Turkey declared 2005 “The Year of Africa,” it increased its number of embassies in the continent from 12 to 38. It has a sizable military presence in Somalia, where it just opened a base in September. The base, which cost about $50 million to build, now houses 200 Turkish troops and has a military academy that will train Somali officers.

Turkey also sent its first military detachment to a base near Qatar’s capital of Doha in June. So far, there are no more than 100 soldiers at a base that can accommodate 5,000. Troop strength is expected to reach 3,000.

In sum, Erdogan’s approach to building African relations by bringing up history and religion is the core concern for Arabs. Turkey could benefit more by basing its relations on joint interests instead of reviving unpleasant past experiences. Erdogan is making the mistake of becoming a party to regional conflicts as he tries to build new bridges in the region. Also, he prefers to forge personal relations instead of solid, institutional relations, making one wonder about the sustainability of Turkey’s ambitious Africa plans.

Mayer: “Ottoman gang led by Turkish government”

By

Reactions continue after HDP MP Garo Paylan’s announcement that there are assassination plans being made against Kurds, Armenians, journalists and academics in Europe.

Reactions continue after HDP MP Garo Paylan’s announcement that there are assassination plans being made against Kurds, Armenians, journalists and academics in Europe.

German politicians demand a meticulous investigation of the claims. The discussions focus particularly on the Ottoman gang in Germany with ties to the AKP.

Recently the German ZDF television and Stuttgarter Nachrichten newspaper uncovered that gang leaders had ties with AKP Deputy Chair for Foreign Relations and Istanbul MP Metin Külünk.

The news stories were based on surveillance and monitoring protocols of German security units.

Külünk has reportedly transferred money to gang leaders several times. He is among people close to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

On these allegations, the Baden Württemberg Police launched an investigation against the ultra-nationalist gang.

The investigation centers on whether this gang is led from abroad or not.

German Federal Parliament Christian Union Parties (CDU/CSU) Group Spokesperson for Domestic Politics Stephan Mayer stated that these allegations need to be “thoroughly investigated”.

Mayer spoke to the Turkish service of German media institution DW and said the current signs point to the “German Ottomans group being led by the Turkish government” with certainty.

Mayer pointed out that people close to the Turkish president are among those possibly leading the gang. The CSU politician said these allegations “must be taken very seriously”.

German Federal Parliament Free Democratic Party (FDP) Group Deputy Chairperson Stephan Thomae said the state security institutions have started monitoring this group.

Thomae said these allegations must be thoroughly investigated.

Stuttgarter Nachrichten wrote that the Ottoman gang is active in Germany’s North Rheine Westphalia, Hessen and Baden-Württemberg states and targets Kurdish groups in Germany.

OTTOMAN GANG ACTIVE IN TRAFFICKING WOMEN AND DRUGS

According to German agency DW, the German Ottomans gang founded in 2014 in Hessen is active in violent behavior as well as trafficking women and drugs.

In the last year, information on pro-AKP institutions and gang structures have surfaced in Germany.

Espionage activity carried out by mosques and foundations and MİT’s network of spies and assassination plans have been exposed. Many have been taken into custody, but many criminal cases have been closed due to the Merkel government’s ties with the Erdoğan regime.

Source: https://anfenglish.com/news/mayer-ottoman-gang-led-by-turkish-government-23796

Forced into Genocide: Memoirs of an Armenian Soldier in the Ottoman Turkish Army

By

The Armenian Assembly of America is pleased to co-sponsor a book presentation of Forced into Genocide: Memoirs of an Armenian Soldier in the Ottoman Turkish Army by Adrienne G. Alexanian. The event will take place on Thursday, November 16th in Glendale, CA at Abril Bookstore, with an introduction of the author by Armenian Assembly Western Region Director Mihran Toumajan. Click here for the flyer.
There will be a book signing immediately after the book presentation, during the reception. Admission is free and open to the public.

Forced into Genocide is the riveting memoir of Yervant Edward Alexanian, an eye-witness to the massacre and dislocation of his family and countrymen in Ottoman Turkey during World War I. Adrienne G. Alexanian, Yervant’s daughter, has spent years preparing her father’s manuscript for publication.

‘The Promise’ vs. ‘The Ottoman Lieutenant’: Two Movies Battle Over The Armenian Genocide

By

by Alex Ritman , Mia Galuppo

The filmmakers behind the new historical epic, starring Oscar Isaac and Christian Bale, charge that Turkish interests tried to counter their film by creating a competing movie.

The two films — released just over a month apart — look remarkably similar. Both promise sweeping love stories, both boast Hollywood talent, and both are set against the massacre of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I, a gruesome period of history that led to the creation of one of the dictionary’s most horrific terms, genocide, coined by Raphael Lemkin in the wake of World War II.

But the similarities between The Ottoman Lieutenant, which opened March 20, and The Promise, which arrives in theaters Friday, may be more than just coincidence. In fact, the filmmakers behind The Promise charge that The Ottoman Lieutenant may be part of Turkish efforts to deny that the Armenian Genocide took place.

The Promise, starring Oscar Isaac and Christian Bale and directed by Hotel Rwanda’s Terry George, is the more high-profile of the new features, having received a major marketing push in recent weeks. The project, which Open Road is distributing, was a long-time dream of the late billionaire and MGM owner Kirk Kerkorian, who put up the movie’s massive $100 million budget.

The Ottoman Lieutenant stars Josh Hartnett alongside rising actress Hera Hilmar and features a cameo from Ben Kingsley and was directed by Joseph Rubin, best known for such films as 1987’s The Stepfather and 1991’s Sleeping with the Enemy. Released on March 10 by New York-based Paladin, the film played 216 theaters where it collected less than $150,000 in its first weekend.

The trailers for both films appear to follow the same strategy: Both kick off in dreamy fashion in the sprawling continent-straddling and minaret skylined metropolis of Constantinople (now Istanbul), both offering plenty of iconic Turkish imagery, both taking a violent turn with the outbreak of war and both offering a sizeable degree of melodrama along the way.

But, as the reviews have made clear, there is one major difference between the two films.

Whereas The Promise lays the blame for the Armenian Genocide, the systematic extermination of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, squarely at the hands of the Ottoman government, a fact almost unanimously acknowledged by historians, The Ottoman Lieutenant offers a more revisionist viewpoint. While it admits that massacres took place, it blames the murderous events on rogue groups of war-ravaged soldiers, presenting them as the unfortunate consequences of the hostilities and not something ordered from up top (in fact, its dashing Turkish soldier hero ultimately puts his life on the line to save a group of Armenian villagers).

That revisionist argument is also the position of the Turkish government, which has, for the past 100 years, vehemently denied that any such genocide took place. And so the creators of The Promise believe that The Ottoman Lieutenant was produced not only in an attempt to blunt some of the impact of The Promise, but they also suspect and are alleging that there may be links between the film and the hardline government of president Recap Erdogan, who won a controversial referendum, granting him more powers, earlier this week. The key figures in the making of The Ottoman Lieutenant did not respond to THR’s requests for comment.

George, speaking with THR, cited the “remarkable’ similarity in the style of the two films, right down to their publicity materials. The Promise producer Eric Esralien echoed that observation, noting The Ottoman Lieutenant’s title treatment “looked exactly the same as ours.” He called the rival film “another alternative fact-type smokescreen” that tries to “confuse people.” Added George, “It’s not hard to see the motivation. Clearly, they had to have gotten wind of us making this film.”

Mike Medavoy, another of The Promise, takes it a step further, alleging that Bilal Erdogan, the 35-year-old son of the Turkish president, had a hand in financing The Ottoman Lieutenant. The movie “was apparently financed by Erdogan’s son,” Medavoy said to THR at the film’s New York premiere earlier this week. “What’s interesting to me is that they felt they needed to make this counter-political argument.”

To explain The Ottoman Lieutenant’s possible connection to the Turkish government, Carla Garapedian, an associate producer on The Promise who works for the non-profit Armenian Film Foundation, first points to a discovery by an organization called Project Save, a Massachusetts-based archive of old Armenian photos. Contacted by The Ottoman Lieutenant’s producers asking to license some images, the curator made some inquiries. “He found that the production was Turkish-financed” says Garapedian. THR has learned that Project Save ultimately declined to license any photos to The Ottoman Lieutenant.

Bilal  Erdogan is believed to have business ties outside the film industry with Yusuf Esenkel, the founder of Eastern Sunrise Film and also a producer of The Ottoman Lieutenant. Esenkel also is a producer of Filinta, a Turkish soap opera (described by one source as “like a crude Ottoman Downton Abbey”) that aired between 2014 and 2016 and believed to be one of the most expensive series on local TV. President Erdogan and his wife are known to have visited the Filinta set, congratulating the entire production team.

Esenkel’s work often seems to downplay some of the most notorious periods of bloodshed in Turkish history. The producer’s small-screen follow-up to Filinta, also produced by Eastern Sunrise Film (or ES Film as it is sometimes called) is another extravagant period series, Payitaht Abulamid, a biopic of Abdulhamid II, the last sultan of Turkey, which began airing in February. Historians outside of Turkey sometimes refer to Abdulhamid as the “Red Sultan,” a nickname he earned due to the well-documented massacres of hundreds of thousands of Armenians that took place during his rule in the late 19th century, a precursor to the eventual genocide that started in 1915. But in the TV show Abdulhamid is depicted as a noble leader forced to do what he must to protect the Ottoman Empire.

It’s not clear what role Esenkal may have played in shaping The Ottoman Lieutenant. He didn’t respond to THR’s queries, nor did others in the creative team, including the U.S.-based producer Stephen Brown (U.S. Marshals, The Devil’s Advocate). Reps for director Rubin explained that he had a “non-disparagement clause” in his contract and wasn’t doing any press for the film.

The only person who did respond to THR was Ron Bareham, the film’s line producer, who said he wasn’t convinced The Ottoman Lieutenant was produced because of The Promise. “There was talk about [The Promise] when we were filming, but this film was started years before,” he says. “ As far as I know, the gestation period was six to eight years.” U.K.-based Bareham, who was brought on at the last moment to replace a previous line producer who left the weekend before production was to have started, admitted that he was mostly unaware of the history – or financing – behind The Ottoman Lieutenant.

George does acknowledge that “[The Ottoman Lieutenant] started shooting, from what I’ve read, before us.”

But there was definitely jockeying for release dates between the two films.

Initially, when it looked as if The Promise would be getting a December 2016 release, it was announced that The Ottoman Lieutenant would be given an Oscar-qualifying run that same month. When it was then officially announced that The Promise would be released April 21, The Ottoman Lieutenant’s U.S. launch was pushed to March 10. The jostling has led to claims from several online commentators that producers have simply been trying to “confuse” U.S. cinemagoers. The Ottoman Lieutenant’s domestic distributor, Paladin Pictures, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

If The Ottoman Lieutenant was, in fact, a Turkish government-funded piece of cinematic propaganda designed to counter The Promise, it didn’t have much impact at the box-office, where it grossed less than $250,000 in its U.S. run.

The Promise is opening in more than 2,000 locations in an attempt reach more hearts and minds, but it, too, appears to be heading into a box-office wall, with tracking predicting an opening weekend of around $4 million. (The producers of The Promise say that profits from the film will go to charity).

But while the existing of two dueling movies might suggest a debate still exists over whether the Armenian Genocide took place, Bale, attending The Promise’s New York premiere, put it simply. “There’s no debate. I really hope this helps, not to fuel more hostilities and accusations, but it does seem to me with the research and knowledge. there really is no question about this happening and it being a genocide.”

–Ashley Lee contributed to this report

Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/promise-ottoman-lieutenant-two-movies-battle-armenian-genocide-996196

Syrian Foreign Minister Alludes to Ottoman Turkey’s Guilt of Genocide

By

YEREVAN—On the occasion of 25 years of diplomatic ties, Armenian and Syrian Foreign Ministers Edward Nalbandian and Walid Muallem exchanged messages on March 6, the latter noting that “one of the aggressors attacking the people of Syria is the same party that executed the Genocide against Armenian people,” alluding to the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

Nalbandian emphasized in his address that Armenia condemns terrorism and upholds the policy of international peace and security, which includes the Syrian Crisis. Armenia further highlighted that Armenia has provided humanitarian aid to the Syrian people as needed.

According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s press statement, Muallem in his message said that Syria appreciates Armenia’s position regarding terrorist aggression against Syria. He pointed out that one of the parties engaged in aggression against the Syrian people perpetrated genocide against the Armenian people.

“That policy is based on the dreams of autocratic rule, which is doomed to fail and will have the worst consequences,” the Syrian Minister continued, referring to Turkey’s denial policy.

Muallem said that relations between Armenia and Syria “reflect the historical ties between the Syrian and Armenian peoples” and in turn build upon their political, economic, social and cultural relations.

Nalbandian suggested prospects of expansion of Armenian-Syrian cooperation, and highlighted that “the Armenian people won’t forget the great humanitarian aid that Syrian people provided to the survivors of the Armenian Genocide.”

The Armenian and Syrian ministers wished each other peace and prosperity, as efforts to strengthen diplomatic relations will soon develop.

Lena Kalyan. React to the film, The Ottoman Lieutenant ‘Trailer’

By

By Lena Kalyan

I have recently watched the ‘Trailer, film, where is an intension to introduce the small part of the huge tragical historical event: the ethnic cleansing of Armenian nation in 1915 and after.

The Turkish political representatives and the fake historians avoiding to name Genocide this historical event, even they brought up the new generations who trying to creat artificial reasons to reject criminal and guilty past of Ottoman murderer dynasty.

The positive side of the film is that author trying remind  the horrific events against Christianity when Armenian people has been the biggest losers: not just they lost the motherland and the rich culture also physically wiped away, more than the half of nation most brutally murdered.

In the film there is a visible intention: the  fine way the film makers introducing the Turkish soldier’s humanitarian character that he was trying to be helpful to the victims in horrific situation.

This is a real myth.

We should understand very important fact, the real mentality of the Turkish militants.

In this civilised world the Turkish soldiers don’t show any humanity and sorrow to the Kurds and without conches they kill fighting Kurdish woman and civilians.  How it happened the Turkish soldier in his uniform revealed  extraordinary humanity  during the First World War when bloodthirsty ottomans had the ‘holy plans’ in their murderer heads to kill the Armenian nation and obtain their wealth and the land.

This film may be has some good intentions but doesn’t look realistic.
I can see more political intension that intention to introduce the real historical fact.
I believe they want confirm that it was just a unfortunate historical event between two nations and avoid to confirm that historical event was a carefully designed GENOCIDE.

Armenian Genocide it’s not a source for romantic creations.
It is a brutal fact, it needs to introduce the realistic way and put pressure on Turkish politicians and the historians to face to their GUILTY past.

This will be the start of the real HUMANITY.

Erdogan Vows to Tackle Turkey’s Enemies Abroad Evoking Ottoman Past,

By

erdogan-expention-map

Erdogan Ottoman imperialist ambitions map

ANKARA, ISTANBUL (Reuters)—Smarting over exclusion from an Iraqi-led offensive against Islamic State in Mosul and Kurdish militia gains in Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on Wednesday Turkey “will not wait until the blade is against our bone” but could act alone in rooting out enemies.

In a speech at his palace, Erdogan conjured up an image of Turkey constrained by foreign powers who “aim to make us forget our Ottoman and Selcuk history,” when Turkey’s forefathers held territory stretching across central Asia and the Middle East.

“From now on we will not wait for problems to come knocking on our door, we will not wait until the blade is against our bone and skin, we will not wait for terrorist organizations to come and attack us,” he told hundreds of “muhtars,” local administrators generally loyal to the government.

“Whoever supports the divisive terrorist organization, we will dig up their roots,” he said, referring to Kurdish PKK militants who have waged a three-decade insurgency against Turkey and have bases in northern Iraq and affiliates in Syria.

“Let them go wherever until we find and destroy them. I am saying this very clearly: they will not have a single place to find peace abroad.”

Erdogan has struck an increasingly belligerent tone in his speeches in recent days, frustrated that NATO member Turkey has not been more involved in the U.S.-backed assault on Mosul, and angered by Washington’s support for Kurdish militia fighters battling Islamic State in Syria.

He is riding a wave of patriotism since a coup attempt failed to oust him in July, his message of a strong Turkey playing well with his fervent supporters.

Ankara has been locked in a row with Iraq over the presence of Turkish troops at the Bashiqa camp near Mosul, as well as over who should take part in the offensive in the largely Sunni Muslim city, once part of the Ottoman empire and still seen by Turkey as firmly within its sphere of influence.

Erdogan has warned of sectarian bloodshed if the Iraqi army relies on Shi’ite militia fighters.

He said agreement had been reached with the U.S. military on Turkish jets joining the Mosul operation, although Washington has said it is up to the Iraqi government on who takes part.

“They thought they could keep us out of Mosul by bothering us with the PKK and Daesh (Islamic State) … They think they can shape our future with the hands of terrorist organizations,” he said. “We know that the terrorists’ weapons will blow up in their hands soon.”

Turkey has felt increasingly powerless to control events across its borders as the U.S.-led coalition focuses on fighting Islamic State in Syria rather than on removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the root cause of the war in Ankara’s view.

It has been particularly angered by U.S. support for Kurdish militia fighters in Syria. Washington views the Kurdish YPG as useful allies in the fight against the jihadists, but Turkey sees them as a hostile force and an extension of the PKK.

“We know this business in this region. You are foreigners here. You do not know,” Erdogan said, to loud applause, in a speech on Tuesday to mark the opening of the academic year.

While criticizing the West, the Turkish leader has restored ties with Moscow in recent weeks, vowing to seek common ground on Syria after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, despite Moscow’s backing of Assad.

Erdogan said he discussed with Putin by phone an agreement on Tuesday night on removing from Aleppo the group formally known as the Nusra Front, and now called Jabhat Fatah al Sham. He gave no details.

Erdogan has made repeated references in his speeches this week to the term “Misak-i Milli” or National Pact, referring to decisions made by the Ottoman parliament in 1920 setting out the borders of the Ottoman Empire.

He often laments the concessions made by Turkish leaders after World War One, with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne that brought modern Turkey into being in 1923. Pro-government media this week published maps depicting Ottoman borders encompassing an area including Mosul.

He warned of efforts to “restructure the region” and said Turkey would not sit by.

“I’m warning the terrorist organizations, the sectarian fanatic Baghdad government, and the Assad government that kills its own people: you are on the wrong path. The fire you are trying to start will burn you more than us,” Erdogan said.

“We are not obliged to abide by the role anyone has set for us in that sense. We have started carrying out our own plan.”

Islamic State “ISIS” with new name New ‘Ottoman Party’ founded in Turkey

By

 

ottoman party isis“This is the result when Turkey was not fully defeated”

A new political party called the “Ottoman Party” has been founded in Turkey with the slogan “Turkey is the Leader,” the Hurriyet Daily News reports.

The party features Arabic words on its emblem and aims to “participate in the next elections by forming organizations in a short period of time.”

“Nothing will be the same. We will place everything in an institutional structure,” the head of the party, İbrahim Ünye, said, adding that they would “change politics in Turkey.”

“In the near future, we will have a camp, complete our training and announce our projects. We will reach the furthest point of our country. We will knock on every door and won’t leave a hand that wasn’t shaken and a heart that wasn’t entered,” he also said.

Noting that members of the Ottoman Party are “from the heart of Muslim Turkish society,” Ünye said they were creating projects for “the Muslims in Turkey and the world.”

“We will cultivate all of the soil that our ancestors graced under the name of Turkish-Islamic unity. No one will be able to fool around on Muslim soil,” he added. 

A total of 30 people can gather and found a party in Turkey, according to the law on political parties.