Κυριακή 31 Ιανουαρίου 2021
Σάββατο 30 Ιανουαρίου 2021
Παρασκευή 29 Ιανουαρίου 2021
What is the man? By Şehîd Atakan Mahir
CENTRAL NEWS
We are a gender whose free characteristics are very weak. We must be honest about this. We have been taught freedom, but it is difficult to recognize it in our own personalities. As a man I did not succeed to, like the leadership, develop a free personality in a very concrete way. I have not even made it my aim. I can say that quite honestly. I really yearn for freedom. But it has not become a feature of my character. It seems that we have more or less set out on this path under force. We treat it as a duty: to work a little bit for the Kurdish people, to live a little bit good. We limit ourselves far too much. How much interest can I have in Jineolojî if I am not able to live free in a concrete way as a man, if I have neither internalized it nor made it my aim? I have often asked myself where the mistakes in our way of questioning lie. First of all, very fundamentally, what are the qualities that make up a man’s character? The fundamental difference between us and the leader lies precisely there. It is precisely for this reason that we do not really strive decisively for freedom. We are more likely to be dragged along on the path to freedom. If we, as men, question our situation a little more thoroughly, we realize that we resemble a slave to freedom. We treat the pursuit of freedom like a compulsion or a duty. We always give self-criticism because we do not even succeed in freeing ourselves or anybody else.
How, then, are the people to be set free? Of course it is not enough for that. It quickly becomes clear. You have been a part of this struggle for 30 to 40 years and people are therefore oriented towards you. But why don’t you touch the women? Why don’t you develop a free attitude? The same goes for families that we visit. I have often wondered why we don’t succeed in influencing their lives in a certain direction. You’re fighting a battle, you’re part of the guerrilla movement – they respect you for that. But the things they notice about us are very general and superficial. The people see us in something like this: ‘They are selfless. In the mountains, they die for us. And while they die there, they also live sexually celibate. ` It remains with a very rough perception. They say, ‘Unlike us, they renounce all the pleasures of this world. Can it be that the Kurdish people look at me this way? The approach to women goes a little bit further and reaches another level. When I question all this, I come to the following conclusion: Why don’t they see in us the same freedom as they see in the leader? Why can they not deduct a high level of morality and politics from our gender behaviors?
Why?
Because we remain superficial. Because we are not clear to ourselves why we have joined this path towards freedom and treat it as a duty. Like articles of clothing that we have put on. We remain shallow. I can see all this in myself. If so, we can come to the following conclusion: Because man’s need for freedom is not really concrete and tangible, it always falls back into the hegemony of his own sex. It will always look favorably on the existing conditions. Questioning these conditions will always be a kind of duty, a compulsion for her. I, for example, am someone who really has a little interest in this topic and is researching it. But I can’t get beyond looking at the various aspects separately and only according to my own needs. I also only do this when I encounter difficulties myself. Only as far as my interest in the autonomous women’s sphere goes. I do not follow a consistent line. I have already mentioned the reason for this. The concrete need for freedom is very weak. Because of this, the following happens to me: I take up the different areas such as ideology, women’s freedom, the concept of freedom separately. I also put them into practice in isolation from each other. Always each area on its own. Always only limited to a certain time. Only when a problem has arisen. Why doesn’t this interest take on a permanent form? Why does the learning process not take place continuously? Why does it not express itself permanently in the practical implementation and in the behavior? When I ask myself all these questions, a clear picture of the state of things arises. There are one or two things I would like to mention, which we will correct and question a little. For example, I have always wondered why we were brought up in this way. I could also say something about the approach of women, but there may not be enough time for that. This is a subject for a different context. That is why I will not go into it at this point. On this issue, my most basic observation is this: Firstly, a false understanding of freedom ultimately leads to slavery, a lack of
drive to understand the whole thing as a duty, not to make these aspects part of one’s own personality like the leader. Secondly; to define the man through the distinction from the woman, as something ‘that is not like the woman’. That is very dominant here. When you ask a man about his definition of man, he does not go beyond that kind of definition. Only in very few cases does this happen. We try to do it to a limited extent on the basis of the knowledge that the PKK passes on to us. So when you are asked what the man is, you can list everything in this sense that the woman is not. Anyway, the first thing we start with is the nature of the body. But this approach leads to the fact that you do not know or cannot recognize yourself.
‘What is the man? That which the woman is not. Okay, but then what is the man? I don’t know. ‘
At this point you stop, because the definition of man was taught to you this way. There is a second related side, which is even more dangerous: The leader has always analyzed the murders of women.
This has led me to ask myself certain questions. I, for example, am a man who is involved in the PKK struggle. I have softened or corrected a few characteristics of myself. But I wondered whether I was capable of killing a woman. The answer is, yes, I would be capable of it. This is not at all harmless, because it means that the second page of the definition of man – that is, ‘that which is not a woman’ – says: ‘Every man must kill a woman. Every man must oppress a woman. Every man must rule over a woman.` This definition leads to exactly that. If every man is ‘what a woman is not’, he must necessarily define his non-womanly side. This state is very dangerous. In this sense it leads to the internalization of a hostility towards woman. The simplest effect of this hostility is to look down on the woman from above. In the sense ‘Woman cannot think that far. She can’t do it as well as I can.` On the other hand, the female friends can start fighting early on and mediate this fight to us as well. We can therefore change this concrete attitude quickly. But the other side is much more internalized. Every man really carries a very deep- seated hostility towards women within him. If a man has not yet killed a woman himself, it is pure coincidence. Sometimes it may be the result of precautions. The following reaction to this would be wrong: ‘The man is also a human being after all. Marry a man and after a few days you will be able to see how he beats his wife. After a short time he does other things. In the heart every man carries the desire to beat a woman. In extreme words: As the ultimate affirmation of his own identity, every man longs to kill a woman. This is a result of my own reflection process. As a human being you really tremble at this truth. Why is a man’s identity so constituted? Because he does not fill out his other half. The more you develop an alternative to the man who is ‘not like the woman’, the less bad he will be able to do to the woman. The more you will be able to bring about changes in your own identity as a man.
Another point: There is immaterial love. We live it ourselves again and again. You think about the woman you love. With regard to my own feelings, I have often asked myself in this context: As a man, am I really capable of loving a woman? With such an exaggerated male identity – can I really love a woman? My first insight in this question is this: First of all, in love with a woman, every man loves himself. When you first try to love, you are not even aware of it, but you must overcome it. The woman thinks that you love her, but that is not the case at all. Something like this: ‘Look, I can love. I am a man. I have to prove to myself again and again that I am a man. And you don’t even notice that. ‘Manliness is a mechanism that confirms itself every day. But the woman thinks the man loves her. But that’s not the case at all. I say it honestly: A man who is really capable of loving a woman – that is something really hard. I know that from my own emotional world. It requires a very determined struggle. Every man loves himself in his relationship with his wife. His forms of self- love are not enough. Therefore he has the need to be loved by others. If your self-love were strong enough, that would be enough. But man’s self-love is not enough. That’s why you as a man have the need to complete yourself with love from outside. In short, the male identity is really questionable or problematic. You can question, evaluate and overcome it to a certain degree. In parts this really leads to a systematic overcoming.
Love must first of all mean that a third identity emerges from it. Long-term friendships are characterized, for example, by the fact that, detached from the name of the friend, a friendship develops which is like a kind of third identity: You cannot say or do everything you feel like doing. You cannot simply leave him or her when you feel like it. We can also see this in the friendships between women and men in our ranks. The old friends among us do not have the luxury of simply giving up on each other. This does not mean that we let each other get away with everything. No. But you can’t just break up a friendship like it was just yesterday. Because that’s when a friendship was built. It’s like a third identity. It’s connected to certain principles. The same goes for the concept of love. We as individual personalities must not simply be concerned with finding each other as quickly as possible. Rather we must strive to create the concept of love. Love must offer us certain things. It must offer us a common framework. Within this framework, things like affection, respect or trust must be able to accumulate. All the values that we as men value in a woman and that the woman values in us men – they too must be able to be collected in this framework. But this is not how we approach the concept of love. In love there is the following egoism: body and mind strive for unity and you try to reach this unity as fast as possible. This approach leads in a certain way to egoism. It prevents love from becoming something immaterial. Instead, love very quickly becomes something that is completely material and limited to only one person. But love is like a universal law. For its realization one must really become one. A human being, whether as a man or as a woman, actually feels all his life like something half, something imperfect. You feel that something is missing. But at this point something else often comes into play. We can call it individualism or – as the leader does – the personification of love. It is this attitude that comes into play: ‘That’s exactly it. That is the right thing. I am right.` But that is the wrong approach.
How is it that you become aware of all this?
You’re fighting a battle with the help of your friends. For a long time I’ve wondered why we always learn freedom from women who have already proven themselves. It made me realize this: To constantly meet a woman with the attitude of ‘Are you really human? Prove it! If you do not prove yourself, I will not establish a relationship with you and I will not see you as a human being’ – that is a very bad fascism. To force a woman to a position where she has to prove herself all the time is fascism. I have seen that position with me, I still see it today. I came to the following conclusion: Friends fight a battle, develop understanding of the leader’s thoughts, and because of that certain things go to pieces. As soon as that happens, you understand that you are also affected by it. Then you start to learn and to question. But our dealing with it still remains partial or isolated. I have already mentioned this before. We only deal with it as much as we think it is necessary. Just enough to keep us on our feet. So that we can correct a mistake when we make it. Only if you’re interested in issues relating to women’s autonomy. All that is limited. I say this for the following reason: I feel that these mechanisms are also important for women. ‘I am in our territory and therefore strong. There is no reason for me to be afraid. If I come to your territory, my autonomy will be lost. The woman is very strong. But as a woman, I have to carry the strength from my area with me, and on this basis I have to lead discussions and bring about changes in the other areas.
For example, the woman takes a step back at the first obstacle she encounters. Why? ‘He is a man. He will not change. For thousands of years we have dealt with you. You won’t be right anymore.’ So there’s a strong excuse. But it doesn’t hit what it’s really about. It rests on the autonomous structures. This is a mistake. So the woman’s equipment is not quite in place. In this sense, the mechanism is not sufficient. In fact, there is no reason at all to discuss the legitimacy of autonomous female structures. There, in my opinion, there has been a considerable accumulation of power.
Among friends there is the following phenomenon: He says to the woman ‘OK, let’s work together’, but does not give her trust. Interestingly, after a certain time, the man asserts his control. It happens, for example, that areas that are opened up by the women for cooperation with the men come under the control of the men after a certain time – when the men have little values and decency. We also discuss this phenomenon time and again in the various areas of practice. Does this mean that women are guilty of something, even though they meant well? Has she made herself guilty by acting in cooperation with you as a man? A man excludes a woman who does not suit him. The one he does like, he brings under his control. Generally speaking, we as men don’t know how to work with women. Don’t give men’s excuses any meaning. Even when the strongest, best woman comes to an area where a man is the commander at the front, it is easy to see that the man cannot even work with this woman. The following things happen on the side of the man: Nervousness, very concrete attempts to bring the woman under one’s own control, to use the competences given to him in a completely different way, to use power to enforce his control, to insist on having the last word in the style of habitual masculinity. All kinds of attitudes in this style then come to light. As men, we too have a need to work with women when we want to lead an area. Why should we first take precautions after a person has left? In short: This variety of mechanisms will result from the fact that woman and man will discard their power- and domination-focused qualities.
SOURCE: REVISTA LÊGERÎN 02 ENG
PKK Executive Committee: “We will make them pay a high price”
On the path of truth with dynamism of the youth - Nûçe Ciwan
The PKK Executive Committee Member Murat Karayilan spoke to Dengê Welat Radio on developments in Kurdistan and Turkey.
CENTRAL NEWS
In regard to the recent developments in Kurdistan and Turkey, Sawt al-Watan (Dengê Welat) Radio held an interview with the PKK Executive Committee Member Murat Karayilan.
At the beginning of his speech, Murat Karayilan who is both a member of the PKK Executive Committee and the commander of the People’s Defense Forces headquarters (the armed forces of the PKK) emphasized the importance of the “It Is Time For Freedom” campaign which was launched to establish the physical freedom of Leader Abdullah Ocalan. He said: “Revolting against the isolation imposed on the Leader in Imrali, is a struggle against fascism; without achieving the freedom of Leader Ocalan, the conflict cannot end, nor will the Kurds achieve their freedom or democracy prevail in Turkey.”
The commander continued: “The campaign that the resisters started in the prisons of fascism is of great meaning and importance because the freedom of leader Abdullah Ocalan means the freedom of all prisoners of freedom, opinion and thought. In another sense, it means the freedom of Kurdistan and the achievement of democratic transformation in Turkey.”
He said: “It is imperative for the families of the struggling prisoners and detainees, the patriots of our country, as well as the democratic institutions to support the resistance in prisons. Only so, will the campaign be able to achieve its goals.”
The fifth anniversary of Autonomous Administration’s resistance
On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Autonomous Administration in Northern Kurdistan, the the PKK Executive Committee Member Murat Karayilan said: “We commemorate all our martyrs who signed a historic epic of heroism, in all regions and cities that participated in the Autonomous Administration’s resistance against Turkish fascism. We renew our pledge to follow their path of freedom and victory, and to achieve their hopes and goals for which they sacrificed.”
In his talk about the Autonomous Administration’s resistance, Murat Karayilan shared the depth of the war by Kurds in northern Kurdistan to establish an Autonomous Administration:
“60 brave young men resisted against fascism in Amed for 103 days, led by Cîyager, and the same thing happened in Nesibin, Cizir, Şirnex, Gever and Hezex. This legendary resistance was against the scheme of destruction and elimination of Kurdish existence. The enemies aimed to impose submission and surrender on our people, but thanks to that historic resistance, they were unable to implement their agendas.” He also made clear that there is no alternative other than resistance, to secure the fate and future of the Kurdish people.
Not only political leaders, but Yazidi community elders and religious leaders must intensify their struggle
Murat Karayilan touched on the sinister agreement that the Iraqi government concluded with the Kurdistan Democratic Party regarding Şengal, and said: “The Turkish state responds to Autonomous Administrations at the same rate, regardless of which part of Kurdistan. It does not want the Yazidi community to enjoy its will and autonomy even though the system of Autonomous Administration has legal basis in the federal law of Iraq.
The Turkish state claims that it is hostile to the Autonomous Administration in Şengal because of the PKK presence. The Yazidi community seeks to maintain its existence as a society which has always been subject to oppression and pressure by Islamists, being defended by no one. Therefore, the society in Şengal has a natural right to establish its own defense forces and an Autonomous Administration that manages its affairs and respects its will and privacy.
The duty to defend this truth is not limited to the political leaders only, but all personalities and notables from the Yazidi community, as well as the religious leaders of the Yazidi community must intensify their efforts and highlight their position regarding what is happening in Şengal to express the will of their community. Şengal must enjoy an autonomous administration in the Iraqi law and constitution, as well as in the laws of the Kurdistan Regional Government in order for the Yazidi community to protect its existence.”
The Şengal Agreement is not in favor of Kurds
Murat Karayilan stressed that the ominous agreement concluded between the Iraqi government and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (PDK) regarding Şengal is not in the interest of Kurds, and stressed that Al-Kadhimi government was not able to demonstrate an independent position that expresses the will of Iraq and its people, but rather yielded to foreign dictates, on top of which are Turkish state interferences.
He said: “Al-Kadhimi government faces many issues and problems in Iraq. It should have directed towards solving those problems and issues that determine the fate of Iraq, instead of moving towards concluding an agreement against the people of Şengal and deploying 10 thousand government forces, claiming a phantom victory over people who just recently survived a genocide.”
He continued: “This agreement is not in the interest of the Kurdish people, and it means aborting the Autonomous Administration of the Yazidi people in Şengal. The Kurdistan Democratic Party wants, through its accession to this agreement, to send a message that it will destroy anything it has no interest in, whatever the price.
With this agreement, KDP will hand over Kurdish gains to the Iraqi government, in an agreement that is hostile to the Autonomous Administration of Şengal and the will of the Yazidi community.”
Enemies attack Kurdish society through special warfare methods
Commander Murat Karayilan continued: “The enemies do not only attack the Guerrilla and political activists in Kurdistan, but they attack the Kurdish society with various methods and special tools of war. They also target women and youth in particular in the Kurdistan society. In response to this, the Free Women Movement expressed its will by launching a campaign named “We Will Defend Ourselves,” and this campaign is of great significance.”
He added: “The brutal rape incident that took place in Gercus in Batman became widespread in the press and media, and it is clear from the merits of this crime that the perpetrators are Turkish officers, and that the Turkish state does not pay salaries to these officers to fight an honorable fight, but to desecrate honor and dignity of the Kurdish community.
Therefore, I appeal to the Kurdish people in Northern Kurdistan, and tell them to take caution towards these officers assigned by the Turkish occupation state. If these officers are Kurds, they are traitors, and if they are Turks, they are representatives of the occupation and mercenaries.”
Murat Karayilan warned about the silence of the Kurdish community in the face of such crimes, and said: “This deadly silence must be broken. The Free Women Movement announced its position and it continues to struggle to a certain degree, but the entire society of Kurdistan must declare its position and struggle against these crimes and immoral practices that want to undermine Kurdish dignity and honor.”
He continued: “Kurdistan today suffers from an apartheid system wherever a Kurdish person is killed. The Turkish state seeks to mislead the true racist cause, hide the crime, in addition to granting impunity for the perpetrator. We have seen how they threw Kurdish citizens from a helicopter, and in return the perpetrators of the crime were defended and justified by government officials such as ministers. ”
They will pay for everything
Commander Murat Karayilan emphasized that the Turkish occupation state is practicing a chauvinist racist policy in Kurdistan, and seeks to conceal the truth of its crimes with different tools and methods. He said: “We will hold all the perpetrators and criminals accountable, and in order to hold the enemies and tyrants accountable and take revenge on them and avenge the blood of the martyrs of the Kurdistan people, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) Movement was established, and our people must trust this and realize well that we will not stand idly and silent about all these brutal crimes. We will make them pay a high price.”