Turkish Forum

Author: Media Watch

  • Turkish and The Native Americans

    Turkish and The Native Americans

    TURKISH LANGUAGE AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS
    The Name TURK In Ancient History by Dr. Polat Kaya

    Traces of the Altaic Words “ATA”, “APA”, “ANA” and
    Their Derivatives in the Languages of Some of the Native Peoples of Americas

    By: Polat Kaya

    Polat Kaya

    Abstract
    In early 1980s, out of curiosity, I was wondering about a possible existence of an affinity between Altaic Languages and the native languages spoken in the Americas. So I made a research, (although not as a linguist), with the hope of finding some living words presently used in Turkish and also in the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas. After all thousands of years ago, the ancestors of both the Turks and those of some of the Native Peoples of the American continents shared the same geographic area in Central Asia and Siberia. I wrote a paper about my findings through my research entitled “Probable Existence of a Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Altaic Peoples and the Native Peoples of Americas.” The following is a rearrangement of the original paper.

    1. Introduction
    In my search I used the following facts and/or assumptions:

    1a) Turks and their ancestors are Central Asiatic (particularly Altaic) people. The ancestors of Turks have lived in this part of the world (i.e., Central Asia and most parts of Siberia) not only throughout the known history, but most likely for thousands of years before that in the distant past. From Central Asia they have migrated to other parts of the world. At present, many ethnic Turkish people live in Siberia all the way up to the Kara Sea north of Ural Mountains, to East Siberian Sea and to the Bering Straight in the east as well as in Central Asia.

    1b) The ancestors of most of the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas are known to have migrated from Asia through the Bering Sea many thousands (10000 or more) of years ago.

    1c) In view of these facts, it is very likely that in the distant past, the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas and the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples lived in the same or adjacent geographic regions of Central Asia and/or Siberia. If so, it is again very likely that all these peoples could have been members of the same people or closely related people who spoke the same language or closely related languages. Due to their possible relationship with each other in the distant past, one is inclined to think of probable existence of some cultural and linguistic relationship between these peoples, in spite of the fact that while some members stayed in their homelands in Asia, the others left Asia and went to North America.

    1d) All languages are dynamic and subject to change in time. Similarly, a proto-Altaic language spoken by the members of an Altaic community who became separated from each other, in time by thousands of years and in space by thousands of kilometres, would definitely develop independently of each other in a way that when examined at present, they would appear alien to each other. In present times, it would be difficult for people who speak such languages to communicate with each other with the present form of their languages.

    1e) However, in spite of this independent development of the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas and the Altaic Peoples, there may still exist in both groups of languages some living words that may be used to express the same meaning in the same way as before. There should still be some living words as “linguistic artefacts” which are reminiscence of the language that these ancient people spoke while they were all living in Asia.

    1f) In any language, the first two words that a child learns in his/her mother tongue are probably the ones that correspond to the words “father” and “mother”. These two words are repeated in each person’s life time, particularly early in age, so frequently that they become permanently embedded in everyone’s memory. These two words are the most likely ones to be passed on from generation to generation during the life times of languages that may live thousands of years. Although, peoples of the same ethnic origin may become separated from each other and live in different parts of the world for long duration of time, yet their present languages may still retain these two words either in their original form or in a form which is similar to or a derivative of the original form. In spite of the evolutionary forces that act upon a language and cause changes in its structure and in the pronunciation of its words, one can still recognise these two words in languages which are related to each other.

    1g) Turks being Altaic people of Central Asia are the lucky and proud inheritors of the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” through their Turkic languages.[1] [2] [3] In this set of Altaic words, the first two have been used for “father”, “ancestor” and “old man” and the last one for “mother” throughout the history by different Altaic groups of peoples. Where ever the ancestors of Turks have migrated from their original homelands in Central Asia, they have carried with them these words as “linguistic artefacts” of their Altaic language to their new destinations. In their new homelands, they have passed these words to generation to generation up to the present time. The preservation of these words would particularly be highly likely if the speakers of the language were a dominant group with respect to their new neighbours. In this case, they would not only retain particular features of their language but it is quite likely that they would influence the languages of their new neighbours. On the other hand, if they were not as strong as their new neighbours in the new homelands, it is also likely that their language would be influenced by the languages of their neighbours. In any case, there would be some degree of cross pollination between the languages of people interacting closely with each other. With these suppositions, I feel that it would be very appropriate to use the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives as reference linguistic artefacts to trace the footsteps of the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples.

    1h) In addition to these basic words which do not easily change in time, one could also use as reference the names for some things that influence the lives of people to the degree that people tend to regard them highly and/or worship them in their every day life. People could take with them the names of such things as the Sun, the Moon, stars, gods, mountains, rivers, living things, etc. , wherever they go. Therefore, the names for such objects could also be used as reference linguistic artefacts to trace people.

    1i) In Turkish, the two words that have been used interchangeably for “father”, i.e., the words “ata” and “apa” could go through some transformation in time. Particularly, the phonemes “t” in “ata” and “p” in “apa” would tend to change into consonants “d” as in “ada” and “b” in “aba” respectively. This is noted to be so in various dialects of Turkish.

    1j) The Altaic word corresponding to the word “mother” is “ana”. A probable derivative of this word may be the word “ama” for “mother” which seems to be related to the Turkic word “meme” meaning mother’s breast. For any child, “meme” is nothing but the “mama” or “ama” and hence “ana”. In dialects of a proto-Altaic language, the word for “mother” could have been “ana” or “ama”. By having “n” in “ana” change into “m”, the word “ama” would result; similarly, by having the “m” in “ama” change into “n” would make the transformed word “ana”. We will probably never know the exact nature of the relationship that may have taken place in history between the words “ana” and “ama”. However, it seems that, throughout the historic development of the Altaic languages and thus of Turkish, “ana” is the word which is used most dominantly to mean “mother”.

    1k) Derivative words based on “ata”, “apa” and “ana” are used to express various kinship’s, particularly, for “father’s father”, “father’s mother”, mother’s father” and “mother’s mother”. Table 1 below lists some of the possible derivative words based on these words. Turkish as an Altaic language, has used some of these derivative words not only in its archaic form but also in its present spoken dialects.

    1l) In phonetic languages such as Turkish in Altaic languages, the consonants in a given word make up the skeleton of each word while vowels in the word provide its proper sounding. However as the language develops in time, the vowels in a word may change into other vowels such as “a” into “e”, “o”, “u” while consonants of the words, in general, would tend to maintain their identity in the word through time.

    1m) One should also note that each one of the derivative words from these Altaic words would readily go through transformations as people use and repeat them from generation to generation. For example, in the word “ataata” for “father’s father”, one of the vowels “a” in the middle of the the word would tend to be dropped off and the new form of the word would be “atata”. In time, the word could go through further transformations and may take the possible derivative forms of “taata”, “tata”, “tate”, “tatI”, ‘tete”, “tat” and in the case of “adaada”, it could transform into “adada”, “dada”, “dede”, “dadI” “dad”, etc.. In time, some of these derived words will be used to mean not only the “father’s father” but also to mean “ancestors”, “father”, “old man” and “man”. There are living examples of such usage in Turkish and in other Altaic languages. In my research, I have found evidence that the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives are used in considerable number of languages spoken by the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas. My findings are listed in Table 2 where I have listed the languages which use these words and the names of the Native Peoples of Americas who speak these languages with appropriate references.

    Table 1.

    Basic FormDerivatives from basic words in likely transformations
       Father, ancestor:
    ataada, ta, da
    apaaba, pa, ba
       Mother:
    anana
       Father’s father:
    ataataatata, tata, tatI, tat, tete, tet
    adaadaadada, dada, dadI, dede, dad
    apaapaapapa, papa, papo, pap
    abaabaababa, baba, babi, babo, bab
       Mother’s father:
    anaataanata, nata, nat
    anaadaanada, nada, nad
    anaapaanapa, napa, nap
    anaabaanaba, naba, nab
       Father’s mother:
    ataanaatana, tana, tan
    adaanaadana, dana, dan
    apaanaapapa, napa, nap
    anaabaabana, bana, ban
       Mother’s mother:
    anaanaanana, nana, nane, nanI, nano, nene, neni, nine, nan, nen

    Table 2.

    ItemLanguage“father”“mother”Notes. No.Location
    1Turkishata, apa, babaana, anne[1] [2] [3]Turkey, many regions of Asia
    2Eskimoatataqananaq[4]Canada, Greenland
    3Aleutadaqanaq[5]Aleutian Islands, Alaska
    4Wahtoktataantchaehong[6]W. of Missouri river, USA
    5Konzaetahcehenah (*t1)[6]N. of Missouri river, USA
    6Omahadadaehong[6]Central Plains, USA
    7Siouxatcucuhuco[6]Dakota, USA
    8Minnetaretantaeka[6]USA
    9Pawneateashaterah (*t1)[6]Kansas, USA
    10CherokeeatotuhatsIng[6]Oklahoma, USA
    11Cherokeeudodauji[7]South Appalachians, USA
    12Winnebagochachenahne (*t1)[6]Wisconsin, USA
    13Puan / Nippegonchachenahne[6]USA
    14Naudowesses of Carverahta (*t1)enah (*t1)[6]USA
    15Hennepinahtaenah[6]USA
    16Creeo:hta: (*t1)ka:wIy[8]Canada
    17Fox Creeosaane:he (*t1)[8]Canada
    18Plains Cree “Y” dialectnohtawe (my father)ni kawe (my mother)[9]Canada
    19Menominio:hna (*t1)kIah?[8]Great Lakes, Canada; Wisconsin, USA
    20MicmactatatgIju[8], [10]Maritime Prov., Canada
    21Algonquinpapam, tatagmam, ma:ma:, mamay[8]Ontario, Canada
    22Kenora Indiansta:ta:—[8]Canada
    23Kekchiyuwana[11], [12]Guatemala
    24Quichetatnan?[11], [12]Guatemala
    25Ixilpapnan[11], [12]Guatemala
    26Aguacetectana[11]Guatemala
    27Wappooayaonaoa[13]California, USA
    28MiwokoappIounu[12]California, USA
    29Callam & LumniIaIIntan[15]Washington territory, USA
    30Chinooktlkamamatlkanaa[16]Oregon, Wash. USA
    31Hidatsaate, tatIshIdu, hu[17]North Dakota, USA
    32Cahuillana, taataye[18]California, USA
    33Otchipwepapa, baba, dede, n’otta?[19], [20]Southern Ontario, Canada
    34Mutsunappaanna?[21]Alta Calif., USA
    35Yucatecoyumnaa, na[22]Mexico and Guatemala
    36Papago / Pimaapapaje’e[23]Southwestern USA
    37Navahotama[24]Arizona, USA
    38BiloxiadIunnI[25]Gulf Coast, USA
    39Tsimshianap, abnay[26]USA; B. Colombia, Canada
    40Aguaruna (Jivaro)apaduku[27], [28]Peru, S. America
    41Iquito—nanI[27]Peru, S. America
    42Candoshi—ataatam[27]Peru, S. America
    43Nahuatl (Aztec language)tahtlI (*t1)nantlI[29], [30]Mexico
    44Quechua (Inca language)taytananagash[31]Peru, S. America (*t2)
    45Cayapaapamama[27]Ecuador, S. America
    46Coloradoapamama[27]Ecuador, S. America
    47Aucanaenaemama[27]Ecuador, S. America

    (*t1) In these words where the consonant “h” appears and follows a vovel such as “a” or “o” or “u” seems to be a relic of transcribing these words under the influence of English. Without the “h”, the affinity of these words to the respective Turkish words are very much obvious.

    (*t2) Tarma Quechua is the native language of the province of Tarma which is north of the capital city Lima of Peru. This language is a variety of the Inca language QUECHUA. In Tarma Quechua of Peru, “nana = a woman’s sister” and “nanachIkaq = sister”; “taytancI = grandfather”; “taytacha = young gentleman”; and “tayta inti = father sun”. Affinity between these words and the Turkish “ata” and “ana” should be noted.

    2. Additional Examples of Words Indicating to a Common Past

    In addition to the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” listed in Table 2, some other living words also point to the existence of a common linguistic kinship between the Altaic languages and the languages of some of the Native peoples of Americas.

    2a) In Aztec language (the Nahuatl), in addition to the Nahuatl words “tahtlI” and “nantlI” corresponding to the Altaic words “ata” and “ana” respectively, we observe the word “tepetl” or “tepec” meaning “hill” which is the same both in the meaning and word structure as the Turkish word “tepe”. There seems to be many mountains and/or hills in Central and South America which are named with a name suffixed or prefixed with the word “tepec”. For example, in Mexico we have: “Chapultepec”, Agaltepec, Citlaltepec, Coatepec, Ecatepec, Jamiltepec, Oaxtepec, Ometepec, Quiotepec, Tehuantepec, Tututepec, Tepecoacuilco, Tepetitan and Tepexpan. In El Salvadore: Cojutepeque, Lago de Coatepeque, Igualtepeque. In Guatamala: Jilotepeque, Ixtepeque and in Brasil Sierra Tepequem. Similarly, in Turkic geography where Turkic and other Altaic people live, we have many hills and/or mountains named in the same manner such as Aktepe, Kultepe, Kartaltepe, Goktepe, etc..

    2b) In archaic Turkish, the word “kın” and in modern Turkish the words “gün” or “güneş” are the words for both the “sun” and “day”. The Mayan people also call both the “sun” and “day” with the word “kin”.[34] In Mayan calender, a year was divided into 18 months and each month into 20 kins. It seems that these two words of totally different languages have also some historical common background. Additionally, it is noted that Turkish speaking Altaic peoples associated the word for “sun” and the word for “day” very closely with each other by expressing both concepts with the same word. Similar expressions seem to exist In Mayan languages.[34] In archaic Turkish, the name for the constellation “Ursa Major” is “Yitiken”. In this word, the first part “yiti” means “seven” and the last part “ken” is a changed form of the word “kun”, i.e., the “sun”. Thus, in the language of Altaic people, the word “yitiken” would mean “seven suns” where the concept of “sun” and a “star” was probably considered to be the same.

    2c) In Inca language Quechua, the “sun god” and hence the “sun” was called “Inti”. In the word “Inti”, the prefix “in” stands for “my” and “ti” stands for “father”; hence, the word has the meaning of “my father”. Since the Incas were “sun” and “ancestor” worshippers like most of the Altaic peoples including Turks, finding an image of the Altaic word “ata” in the Inca word “inti” is pleasantly surprising. It should be noted that the Inca word “tayta” and the Turkish word “ata” have the same meaning, i.e., “father” and similar linguistic form (see item 44 in Table 2).

    2d) Inti the Sun God was the ranking deity in the Inca pantheon like the Tengri among the Altaic people. It was represented by Incas with a human face on a ray-splayed disk. He was considered to be the Incas’ divine ancestor.[34]

    2e) In Inca language Quechua, Incas used to call one of their low order Creator-God as “Ataguju”.[34] It should be noted that the initial part of this word is suprisingly the Altaic word “ata”. In this case it probably stands for “sacred ancestors”.

    2f) In Inca society, unmarried princes of royal blood were called “Augui”. On marrying, they became “Inca” or “Atauchi”.[35] It is only reasonable to call an adult man “atauchi” after being married, because, it is most likely that he will become an “ata”, i.e., “father”. So, again we see the images of the Altaic word “ata” in another Quechua word meaning “father”.

    2g) It seems that during the long development process of the languages of Native Peoples of Americas, some of these words may have changed positions. In other words in some cases, the words used to express male kinship in one language may be used for female kinship or visa versa. For example, the native Candoshi people of Peru use the word “ataatam” for “my mother”.[27] In this case it definitely there has been a reversal in the usage of the word from the original meaning of “father’s father” as it is in the present day Turkish, to the meaning of “my mother” in Candoshi.

    2h) In Aleut Language, in order to make the nominative dual of the noun, the suffix “kik” is added to the apocopated nominative of singular of nouns.[5] For example, In the Aleut language, “adaq” is father and “ada” is its apocopated form. Thus for “two fathers”, the composite word “adakik” is used. In Turkish, “two fathers” would be expressed by the expression “iki ata” or “ikki ata” where the word “iki” or “ikki” represents the number two, i.e., the “dual” state. In these examples, not only the word for “father is the same but also the word representing the “duality” is the same in both languages. Hence, it appears that the Altaic word “iki” or “ikki” and the Aleutian suffix word “kik” have a common background.

    3. Structural Similarities of Altaic Languages and Some of the Native Languages of Americas

    3a) Structurally, the Altaic languages such as Turkish and some of the native languages of Americas resemble to each other very closely as agglutinating languages. For example, J. R. Andrews describes the Aztec language Nahuatl by saying that “sentence word” is the basic structure of the Nahuatl language.[29] By “sentence word” is meant a word that contains within itself all the nuclear constituents necessary for a complete sentence. Turkish, similar to Nahuatl, is one such language. Additionally, they follow the vowel harmony rule, although it seems to be more so in Turkish than the native languages in Americas. Both the Nahuatle and Turkish are such languages. Such similar infrastructure of languages that develop by peoples who are separated from each other in time and space can not be attributed to total random processes that shape independent languages. I feel that such languages having similar sentence formation must have had a common history some time in the distant past.

    3b) In Altaic languages the gender for the third person singular and plural is not indicated. For example, in Turkish, only one word, i.e., “O” as the personal pronoun for third person singular corresponds “he/she/it” in English. The referred gender of the subject is understood from the context of the sentence. It is known that considerable number of the languages in the Americas, the genderless word “O”, or “U” or “NO” is used to indicate “he/she/it”. For example, the Cree language in Canada use “O”, the Quiche and Achi languages in Guatemala use “U”. The Micmacs of Eastern Canada use “O-” as prefix for “his/her/its” such as “Oochul” for “his father”, and “Ookwijul” for “his mother”.[34] The Turkish word “O” and the “O” used in this examples of the some native languages of Americas seems to be related to each other, again indicating the presence of a common background in the distant past.

    3c) The general title given to Mayan priests was “ahkin” or “akin” meaning “he of the sun”.[34] In this word, the first part “ah” or “a” is reminiscent of the Altaic personal pronoun “O” for the third person singular and the second part “kin” is the same as the Altaic word “k�n” for sun. Again one is surprised to find so complete a resemblance between these words that such a resemblance cannot be attributed to random linguistic development. Such close resemblance must be indications of a linguistic and cultural kinship between these languages coming from a common historical background in the distant past.

    3d) J. R. Andrews describes the formation of one kind of adverbial adjunct of manner in Nahuatl as follows: “One type of derived adverbial of manner is formed from a preterit theme of a verb combined with the suffix ‘-ca’. Such words are translationally equivalent to English adverbs ending in ‘-ly’”.[29, p. 30] This formation of adverbs by use of the suffix “-ca” in Nahuatl has exact correspondence in Turkish. In Turkish, the suffix “-ca” or “-ce” is used, following the vowel harmony rule of Turkish, in the same way to form adverbs of the same kind.

    Few examples are as follows: In Nahuatl (N): chicahua -> chicahuaca, Turkish (T): saglam -> saglamca, English (E): strong -> strongly; N: chipahua -> chipahuaca, T: temiz -> temizce, E: clean -> cleanly; N: ihciuh -> ihciuhca, T: �abuk -> �abukca, E: quick -> quickly; N: ichta -> ichtaca, T: gizli -> gizlice, E: secret -> secretly; N: cualan -> cualanca, T: kIzgIn -> kIzgInca, E: angry -> angrily.

    In Turkish, the personal pronoun for third person singular is not represented with a suffix or prefix in verb conjugations, as is the case in “gelir, geliyor, or geldi, gelmi$”, etc. A similar grammatical rule as this one is also used in a similar way in the languages of some of the Native Peoples of Americas. The Nahuatl, i.e., the Aztec language, the Aleutian, the Eskimo and Cree languages may be sited as examples.

    4. Some Examples for Probable Cultural Kinship

    4a) Altaic military and Inca administrative systems were based on decimal system. In Inca administrative system, the administration was based on household units of 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 10000 and 40000.[35] Each unit had an official assigned to be in charge of the unit. The official in charge of one of four-quarters of the Inca empire was called “Apu-Cuna” or “Hatun Apu-Cuna”. At the top of the administrative pyramid was the emperor called “Sapa Inca”. In this organisation, the following aspects may be noted:

    The first is that the system was decimal system like the Turkish military system which has always been based on units of 10, 50, 100, 1000 and 10000 soldiers and/or horse-mounted cavalry. The names of the officials were “onbashi, ellibashi, yuzbashi, binbashi and tumenbegi” respectively. It seems that decimal system of numbering was known to both of these communities which had no contact with each other in the known history.

    Secondly, the decimal system was applied to organise the community and/or the military in manageable groups. Could this be the result of a random process of social development or was there an historically known knowledge common to both people? It is quite likely that the decimal system of numbering and its application to social organisations of peoples may have been known to the ancestors of the Altaic peoples as early as 10000 or more years ago. It is up to the scholars of different fields of science to work and discover the truth related to this striking correspondence in the culture of two well separated groups of peoples.

    Thirdly, we also observe the presence of the Altaic word “apa” in the names of the Inca supreme administrators. Is this also the result of a random process? Additionally, the Inca (Quechua) word “Hatun” means “great, big” and is added as adjective to the names of Inca leaders to describe their greatness. Similarly in Turkish, the words “Hatun” and “Katun” are used as the title given to the wife of “Great Hakan”, i.e., the empress (or the first lady, i.e., whatever may be one’s preference) of the Turkish people. In present day Turkish, the word “kadin” is a changed form of “katun” or “hatun”. In fact in present day Turkish culture, it is not unusual to hear among elderly married couples, man calling his wife as “hatun”. It is also interesting to note that one of the highest ridges of the contemporary Altai mountains in Central Asia is known by the Turkic name “Katun”,[36] towering more than 4000 meters. Probably we will never know whether the name of this lofty mountain had any thing to do with word “Hatun” or “Katun” of Turkish language or the word “Katun” of Inca language.

    4b) Altaic words “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin”. The archaic Turkish word “OtUken” is frequently mentioned as the name of a “divine or sacred place” in Turkish epic writings of “Kul Tigin”, “Bilge Kagan” and “Tonyukuk” and also in Kutatgu Bilig.[37] In the Altaic language of Mongolian, the word “Utigin” is also the name given to a “god of certain place”. On the other hand, in the Mayan language of Chorti in Guatemala, the word “Uteq’uin” means “heaven”. The last part of this word, i.e., “q’uin” means “sun” in Chorti. Similarly, the “-ken” in the Turkish word “Otuken” and “-gin” in the Mongolian word “Utigin” may be taken as versions of “kun” or “gun” meaning “sun”. It should be remembered that Altaic regions in Asia were the places where Shamanism were practised very widely. In Altaic shamanism “Sun” and “sky” worshipping is quite dominant. Turkish “Gok Tengri” is the “god sky”. In view of these observations, Turkish “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin” seem to have something in common. That is they are all related to “sun” and a sacred place such as “heaven” and a “place where god “dwells. Turkish and Mongolian are related to each other because they are both Altaic languages and their speakers have interacted with each other throughout the history. The respective words could have been borrowed from one another. But there was no way that these Altaic words could have influenced the formation of the word “Uteq’uin” in Chorti or vice versa unless all these words have historically something in common with each other.

    5. Conclusion

    Ancient Central Asiatic peoples, among them the ancestors of Turks, are known to have migrated from their homelands in steps of Central Asia and Siberia to east, west, north and south. It is also known that the Native peoples of Americas have migrated from Asia to their new homelands in the Americas thousands of years ago. However, in the known history, the ancestors of Turks and the ancestors of Native Peoples of Americas are not known to have made contact with each other. Yet in spite of this fact, it is surprising to see that Turkish, as a member of the Altaic languages, should have common living words with some of the native languages of Americas. The presence of these words in these languages can not be attributed to random and independent development of these languages in two widely separated continents. I believe their presence is a definite indication of the existence of linguistic and cultural kinship between the ancestors of Turks and the other Altaic peoples and the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas that they had while they were living in the steps of Central Asia and Siberia before they were separated some 10 000 or more years ago. It may be that some readers may find this conclusion as hasty. But I am confident that further studies by scholars will establish the validity of my view.

    This study is a small first attempt, in its own way, that uses the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” to trace the ancestors of Altaic peoples among the Native peoples of the Americas. After this study, I have become a believer that these Altaic words are not only very effective tracers of the movements of ancient Altaic peoples, but also are among the oldest living words in human languages. Their wide spread use in native languages of Americas as well as in Altaic languages in Asia is a testimony to this observation.

    Notes
    1. A. Vahid Moran, Turkce-Ingilizce Sozluk (A Turkish-English Dictionary) (Istanbul: Turkish Ministry of Public Instruction, 1945).

    2. Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).

    3. Gunnar Jarring, An Eastern Turki-English Dialect Dictionary (n.p., 1964).

    4. Arthur Thibert, O.M.I., English-Eskimo, Eskimo-English Dictionary (Ottawa: Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology, Saint Paul University, 1972).

    5. Richard Henry Geoghegan, The Aleut Language, ed. Fredericka I. Martin (United States Department of Interior, 1944).

    6. Edwin James, Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, vol.2, (1823).

    7. Durbing Feeling, Cherokee-English Dictionary.

    8. George F. Aubin, A Proto-Algonquian Dictionary (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1975).

    9. Ann Anderson, Plains Cree Dictionary in the Y dialect (Edminton, 1971).

    10. Albert D. DeBlois and Alphonse Metallie, English-Micmac Lexicon (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).

    11. Marvin K. Mayers, Languages of Guatemala (The Hague: Mouton, 1966).

    12. Edna Nunez de Rodas, Directora de Insttuto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala, private communication in 13 August 1985.

    13. Jesse O. Sawyer, English-Wappo Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 43).

    14. Catherine A. Callaghan, Lake Miwok Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 39).

    15. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Challan and Lumni Languages, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol. XI, (New York: AMS Press, 1863; Cramoisy Press, 1863).

    16. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabulary of Chinook Language (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).

    17. Washington Matthews, Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the Hidatsa (New York: Cramoisy Press, 1873).

    18. H. Jakop Seiler and Kojiro Hioki, Cahuilla Dictionary (Morongo Indian Reservation, Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1979).

    19. R. R. Bishop Baraga, A Dictionary of Otchipwe Language (1878; reprint, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, 1966).

    20. G. L. Piggott and A. Grafstein, An Ojibwa Lexicon, (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).

    21. Rev. F. Felipe Arroyo De La Cuesta, A Vocabulary or Phrase Book of the Mutsun Language of Alta California, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol.VIII, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).

    22. Mauricio Swadesh, Ma. Cristina Alvarez, and Juan R. Bastarrachea, Diccionario De Elementos Del Maya Yucateco Colonial (Mexico, 1970).

    23. Dean Saxton, Lucille Saxton and Susie Enos, English-Papago/ Pima Dictionary (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1983).

    24. Berard Haile, A Stem Vocabulary of the Navaho Language (Arizona: St. Michaels Press, 1951).

    25. J. O. Dorsey and J. R. Swanton, Dictionary of the Bloxi and Ufo Languages (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912).

    26. John Asher Dunn, A Practical Dictionary of the Coast Tsimshian Language (Carleton University Library No.: PM831 Z5D8).

    27. Benjamine F. Olson, (ed.), Studies in Peruvian Indian Languages: I (Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, n.d.).

    28. Mildred L. Larsen, Emic Classes Which Manifest the Obligatory Tagmemes in Major Independent Clause Types of Aguaruna (Jivaro) (first article in note 27).

    29. J. Richard Andrews, Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, The Aztec Language (Austin: University of Texas Press, n.d.).

    30. Arthur J. O. Anderson, Rules of Aztec Language Classical Nahuatl Grammar (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1973).

    31. J. F. H. Adelaar, Tarma Quechua Grammar, Texts, Dictionary (The Peter De Ridder Press, 1977).

    32. John Gilmary Shea, French-Onandaga Dictionary From a Manuscript of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cramoisy Press, n.d.).

    33. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 9, p. 260.

    34. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 13, p. 719-722.

    35. Philip Ainsworth Means, Ancient Civilizations of the Andes (New York: Gordian Press, 1964).

    36. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 1, p. 640.

    37. Abdulkadir Inan, “Yusuf Has Hacib ve Eseri Kutatgu Bilig Uzerine Notlar”, Turk Kulturu, sayi 98, Aralik 1970, p. 114-115.

    [This paper is revised from Polat Kaya, “Search For a Probable Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Turkish People of Asia and the Native Peoples of Americas”, Belleten, Cilt: L, Sayi 198, Aralik 1986, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara. Also catalogued in Canadiana, Canada’s National Bibliography with the same title as above under Comparative Linguistics, 497, P. Kaya, C87-7257-9 MRDS Pt. 1]

    Source:  ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/turkic.htm

    ==========================================

    the Name TURK In Ancient History by Dr. Polat Kaya

    July 16, 2012 By admin

    Dr. Polat Kaya

    In the past and even presently, some people have been claimimg that the name TURK came onto the stage of history only recently. This is intentional disinformation designed to deceive and misdirect people! Contrary to all the denials, the ancient world was dominated by the Turanian Tur / Turk / Oguz peoples, their language and their civilization. But that Turanian world, which lasted for thousands of years, underwent an organized upheaval orchestrated by those who were against the Turanian supremacy. In that upheaval, world history was totally altered by creating new languages from the words and phrases of the one language that was spoken world-wide. That language was the monosyllabic and agglutinative language of Turkish which we find out from the decipherment of the words of some of the Indo-European and Semitic languages. The ancient world was then described with those newly ‘fabricated’ languages along with mythology and tall tales. Anything Turanian was denied, altered, alienated, obliterated and also looted by the organizers of the upheaval. Thus ancient history from the western point of view is a totally distorted, biased, Aryanized, Semitized and Romanized presentation. This upside down presentation of world history needs to be cleaned up and rewritten! Up to now, the world was not aware of this distorted situation.

    After having said this, I want to come back to the name TURK. After new languages were fabricated by restructuring the names, words and phrases of an existing Turanian language that the ancient world spoke – the names of the ancient Turanian peoples, their language and their civilization were expressed with newly formatted names in the fabricated new languages. Now the world is viewing a distorted picture of the ancient past where nothing is in its original and authentic form. In this upheaval, names such as TURK, TUR, OGUZ, SAKA (and many more Turanian names) were altered into an unrecognizeable state or were totally erased from ancient history!

    1) Let me start with the English word TURKISH. The Turkish form of this is TÜRKÇE (TÜRKCHE). TÜRKÇE is the Turkish word for the English word TURKISH. The Turkish word TÜRKÇE (TÜRKCHE) consists of two parts, that is, “TURK” + “CHE”. The first part TURK is the ethnic identity of the Turk people. The last part CHE (ÇE) is a suffix, which, when used with the name TURK, identifies the Turkish language (i.e., the language of the Turkish people). The English term TURKISH is also made up with two parts. They are “TURK” + “ISH”. Anyone who can read and think can see that the English suffix “ISH” is nothing but the altered and camouflaged form of the Turkish suffix “CHE” (ÇE). Of course, this act of altering the Turkish suffix CHE into English suffix ISH is deliberate alienation that disfigures the word TÜRKÇE and the suffix CHE (ÇE) into an alienated Aryan form which is difficult to recognize as Turkish. In spite of this, we must note that the name TURK is embedded in the English word TURKISH!

    ***

    2) Now let me go to the Greek word for TURK. The Greek word for the proper name of TURK is given as TOURKOS which is made up with “TURK” + “OOS”, that is, “TURK” + “OGUZ”. Both of these names are not only Turkish but they are also the ethnic names of the Turkish people – who are TURK people and OGUZ people at the same time. Historians and linguists should know these facts! But the fabricated Greek name TOURKOS has disfigured both the name TURK and the name OGUZ by combining them and restructuring them! These alterations are intentional.

    ***

    3) I now come to the Latin term THRACES, or alternatively, THRACUM – both of which describe the inhabitants of the so-called land “THRACE”. [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 252].

    I will examine this encrypted Latin word THRACUM. When the letters of the term THRACUM are rearranged as “TURCHAM”, we see that the Latin name THRACUM is really an altered form of the Turkish word TURKUM – meaning “I am Turk”. Finding this Turkish word TURKUM (describing the so-called Thracians) embedded in the Latin word THRACUM is not coincidence. Rather, it is due to the fact that somebody in the past intentionally fabricated this Latin word THRACUM from Turkish – and thus, not only disfigured the name TURK but also obliterated it! Under these circumstances, one cannot recognise the name TURK. Although TURK is embedded in Latin THRACUM, it is intentionally camouflaged to make it invisible.

    ***

    4) Another form of the Latin name THRACES (or THRACUM) is given as THRAX (singular). THRAX is nothing but the altered form of THRACES and THRACUM. It is also the camouflaged form of the name TURK! The letter X is a bogus symbol which replaces CES and CUM in this case.
    ***

    5) Another variation is the Latin word THRACIUS meaning “thracian”. When the word THRACIUS is rearranged as “TURCHIS-A”, we see again that it is an altered form of the Turkish expression TÜRKÜZ meaning “we are Turks”. This unquestionably shows that the ancient THRACIANS were Turks.
    ***

    6) The Roman Emperor Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus held three consulships of republican Rome and was also three times Roman Dictator.

    One wonders who was this so-called Roman Dictator who took the name TORQUATUS. When we rearrange the name TORQUATUS letter-by-letter as “TURQ-OUS-TA”, we find that it is the altered form of the Turkish name TURK OGUZTU (TURK OGUZDU) meaning “he was TURK OGUZ”. So a three time Roman Emperor used the names TURK and OGUZ as his chosen kingly title and surname. Again this is not coincidence. It is intentional alteration of the Turkish identity and language! We must remember here that the Greek name TOURKOS was also made up from Turkish TURK + OUS meaning “Turk Oguz”.

    ***

    7) The Arabs called Turks by the name “ETRAK”. One wonders why the proper national name TURK was changed into ETRAK? Why did it even need to be changed? Here we have a nation who calls itself by the name TURK, yet someone else comes along and says “I am not going to call you TURK. I am going to call you ETRAK”. Similarly, a Roman comes along and says “even though you are a TURK, I will call you THRAX”. There is no logic in this – but there is bias. We should note that both the Arab term ETRAK and the Roman term THRAX not only mean TURK – but they also both contain the name TURK in them.

    ***

    8) I will now examine the Latin words TROICUS and TROIANUS – both meaning “the Trojan”, [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 258].
    When the letters of the term TROICUS are rearranged as “TURCOIS”, we see that the Latin name TROICUS is really an altered form of the Turkish word TÜRKÜZ – meaning “we are Turks”. So the name TURK is still present in ancient history, but someone has buried it out of sight!

    ***

    9) Similarly, when the letters of the Roman term TROIANUS are rearranged as “TURANSI-O”, we see that the Latin name TROIANUS is really an altered form of the Turkish word TURANCI O – meaning “he is Turanian”.

    Thus, we find that these two Romanized words identify the so-called TROJAN as TURK and TURANIAN. How is it that the so-called historians and linguists cannot see these? Is it because they are conditioned to not see the Turkishness of the ancient world?
    ***

    10) I will also examine the Latin term TUSCI, or TUSCORUM, meaning “Etruscans” or “Tuscans”, [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 259].

    When the letters of the term TUSCORUM are rearranged as “OUS-TURCM”, we see that the Latin name TUSCORUM is really an altered form of the Turkish word “OGUZ TÜRKÜM” meaning “I am Oguz Turk”. This again not only identifies the names OGUZ and TURK in the middle of Europe, but also identifies the so-called ETRUSCAN peoples as being ethnic Turks who lived in central Italy at least during the first millennium B.C.

    ***

    11) When the name ETRUSCAN is rearranged as “AN-TURCES”, we find that ETRUSCAN is an altered form of the Turkish expression “AN TÜRKİZ” (GÖK TÜRKİZ) meaning “we are Sky Turks”. Thus, whichever way we examine the Etruscans, we find that they were Turks – contrary to denials. And the Etruscans and their ancestors lived in Europe at least during the first millennium B. C.
    ***

    12) In my PELASGIAN paper, I discussed the name Scamander (Skamandrius / Skamandrios) of the House of Troy and Dardania. I showed that the name SCAMANDER had the meanings of:
    a) “SAKAMAN’DIR” meaning “he is SAKAMAN”, “he is Saka Turks”.
    b) “MEN SAKA’DiR” meaning “I am SAKA”, “I am Saka Turks” and “I am Sea People”, that is, I am the Lord of the Seas!
    c) “DENiZCi EREM” meaning “I am sea-going man”.

    Furthermore, I showed that the name SCAMANDRIUS, in another meaning, had embedded in it the Turkish expression “AS-DURKMANIS” (AS TURKMANİZ / BİR TÜRKMENİZ) meaning “we are one/peerless Turkman”, “we are one Turk people”. Here again we find the name TURK buried deep down in the name SCAMANDRIUS. This also shows that the name Turk was older than the name SAKA.These Aryanized ancient names show that some people had a strong bias against the name TURK! So they suppressed the name Turk.
    ***

    13) In my paper regarding the PELASGIANS, I also discussed the name TEUCER, that is, the son of Scamander, the first king of the house of Troy and Dardania – (i.e., the House of Turoy and Tatar), . In that study, I showed that the deified name TEUCER, son of Scamander, was another altered form of the name TURK.
    Even the name of the king ERICHTHONIUS of the House of Troy and Dardania (Tatar Öyü), who is said to be the richest man on earth, embeds the Turkish expression “EYI TURK HANIZ” meaning “we are the good Turk Lords”.

    ***

    14) The Chinese called the Turks by the name “TU-CHUEH” that is to say “Gök Türks” or TUKU meaning “Turks”, [“A History of China” by Wolfram Eberhard – (of the University of California), 1969, p. 149-151]. We are told that in Chinese, somehow the letter R can not be pronounced by the Chinese people and therefore it is not voiced. Therefore, R is a silent letter and not used. So we see that even in Chinese, there has been a suppression of the name TURK. When the missing letter R is reinserted back in to the name TU-CHUEH”, it becomes TURCHUEH (TURKUEH) meaning “SkyTurk”. Similarly, when the letter R is reinserted into the name TU-KU, we get the name TURKU. Thus, the name TURK and SKYTURK were in the history of China as well!
    The so-called Yang-Shao culture found in China, that is the neolithic potteries with sun paintings and spirals are very much the ancient Turanian culture in China.

    ***

    15) Let me also point out two more words: The English word GOLDEN means “made of gold” or “gold like”. This is curious because when the word GOLDEN is examined as “G + OLDEN”, we find that the last part of the name “OLDEN” is actually the altered form of the Turkish word “ALTUN” meaning “gold”. So this so-called word GOLDEN is another fabricated word taken from Turkish and camouflaged as an English word! Note that if the supposedly root word GOLD is examined, the Turkish source word ALTUN is not in it any more. This is because the camouflage is so well done.
    ***

    16) Finally there is the English word WOODEN meaning “made of wood”. Curiously, even this word WOODEN is also fabricated from the Turkish word “ODUN” meaning “wood”. Again note that if the supposedly root word WOOD is examined, the Turkish source word ODUN is not visible – because WOOD is not the root of WOODEN. Rather, Turkish ODUN is the root of English word WOODEN!
    ***

    To conclude, it can be said that in the ancient world, some groups were very parasitic towards the Turanian peoples and their civilization. These secretive groups would first infiltrate the Turanian ruling system by befriending them. Then, at the oppurtune time, they would strike from within and take over the Turanian house and claim everything there as their own. At the same time, they would suppress the remaining Turanian peoples, change their Turk identity, their names and religion and then claim them as people not known. For example, this was done to the Turko-Sumerians by the Akkadians some 3500 years ago. Now the world says “we don’t know who the Sumerians were”. The same thing happened to the so-called Egyptians, and the Caananites, and the Anatolians, and the Pelasgians and the Etruscans, etc..
    Those Turanians who resisted these alterations and suppressions lost their lives – and thus came to be the so-called Latin term “tyrannicida”, that is, “tyrannicide” which actually means “killing the Turanians”.

    Spreading new religions againts the most ancient Sky-God, Sun-God and Moon-God religion of the ancient Turanians was carried out with intense hatred and forceful violence by the invaders. When it was resisted the result was the extermination of the resisting people. They were putdown by derogatory terms such as “Paganus” meaning one who is neither a Christian, a Jew, or a Moslem; one who is a heathen, a rural villager, [Britanica Wold Language Dictionary, 1963, p. 906]. With all of this anti-Turan propaganda being spread around by the religious missionaries, of course the name TURK was altered and suppressed. Even as late as the 1980s, Turks of Bulgaria were being forced to change their names into Christian names.

    Similar propaganda games are still being perpetrated against the Turks by “scholarly” sounding publications that are full of sophistry. For instance, there are papers identifying ethnic Turks as Kurds (Kürt) – as if they were ethnically Aryan people who speak an Indo-European or Aryan language – yet this Kurdish language is known to have been artificially constructed by the missionaries.

    These “research” papers conveniently find all kinds of references to the name KÜRT (KURD) but no references to the name TÜRK. And then, the name TÜRK is labelled as “problematic” – because they cannot find examples of it in ancient sources. Yet they cannot remember that the name TURK either has been altered or removed from the ancient writings.

    So I say, let no one claim that the name TURK is historically problematic. It is the Indo-European and Semitic languages that are problematic since they are not authentic – because they were systematically fabricated from ancient Turkish! Evidently, these later languages were made to divide, confuse and obliterate the ancient Turanian world (see GENESIS 11) while looting everything Turanian! It is they that have a whole lot of explaining to do!

    Polat Kaya

    17/04/2012

  • Geopolitics Keeps Pushing Turkey and Israel Back Together.

    Geopolitics Keeps Pushing Turkey and Israel Back Together.

    Highlights
    Turkey and Israel’s strategic alliance in the Middle East, fostered by their shared aim to limit Iran and prevent Arab states from aligning against them, will preserve their relationship through most external shocks.
    Intensifying U.S. efforts to find regional allies it can rely on to contain Iran helps keep the two countries together.
    Turkey’s defense of Palestinian statehood will always be a caustic wedge between the two: While it provides Turkey with important credibility in the Muslim world, it conflicts with Israel’s defense strategy.

    Israel and Turkey appear to be testing the waters in preparation for resuming diplomatic relations. Officials from the two countries are thought to have met in the United Arab Emirates last month to discuss improving their diplomatic ties, which have been on pause since May. Other signs also point to a rapprochement: Turkey recently sent an economic attache to Israel, and Israel recently opened an internal job listing for an ambassador to Turkey. The two countries — sometime allies, sometime enemies — are again being pushed toward reconciliation as they move to counter Iran, cope with U.S. demands and defend their positions in the Middle East.

    The Big Picture

    Among the countries that the United States depends upon in the Middle East, Turkey and Israel stand out as cornerstones. Though they vacillate between friendship and hostility with one another, their ties rest atop a foundation of mutually beneficial trade, which survives even the most contentious times. Since hitting a low in 2010, their relations have been slowly on the mend. In their regional balancing act, Turkey and Israel always find that strategically they have more in common than not, but they will never see the need to entirely bury the hatchet.

    See Israel’s Survival StrategySee Turkey’s Resurgence
    The Search for Common Ground

    Many strategic factors bind Turkey and Israel. They are two of the key non-Arab powers in the region and critical to its balance of power, which includes Persian Iran and Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia. They also have two of the strongest militaries in the Middle East. Turkey maintains the most powerful navy, and Israel the strongest air force. Each sees the other as too powerful to have as an enemy.

    Ultimately, for Israel to protect itself in an unfriendly neighborhood, it must maintain at least a working relationship with Turkey. The alternative means contending with a big regional power while living next door to hostile Arab nations. Also, Turkey is the larger, more influential and more strategically crucial power due in large part to its location between the Mediterranean and Black seas and its status as a counterbalance to Russia, Iran and other regional heavyweights. This same strategic value came into play during the Cold War when the United States joined with Turkey and Israel to offset Soviet penetration of the Arab world.

    Over the past two decades, Israel has had to adjust to Turkey’s way of building regional relationships; that method included picking fights with Israel — particularly over the treatment of the Palestinians — to gain traction with the Arab public. And for Turkey, Israel’s relationship with certain Kurdish factions — some of which it has heavily armed in the past — hits close to home and hampers its goal of weakening a potential Kurdish state. Keeping Israel close could help prevent it from arming the Kurds again.

    Despite their differences, some of their regional goals overlap, especially when it comes to containing Iran’s influence. This objective plays out most clearly in the Syrian conflict, where Turkey and Israel want to direct Damascus away from Tehran and toward Ankara. While Israel is concerned primarily about the stability of the corners of Syria that affect its border, the Iranian presense there unsettles it. Much like Russia, Turkey can influence the Iranian presence but not control it. Israel also knows that Turkey, more than any other power active in Syria, is critical to ensuring that rebel groups there remain distinct from extremists.

    In Lebanon, both have sought to curb Hezbollah’s influence, though they have used different means. Israel fights Hezbollah from time to time, keeping its military expansion in check. Turkey has chosen to take a nuanced and more gradual approach by supporting political and security forces opposed to Iran, counteracting Hezbollah and other proxies of Tehran.

    The Economic Ties That Bind

    Improved trade is perhaps the most deeply shared goal, because even in times of diplomatic rupture, import-export commerce has continued apace. Israel imports about $3 billion worth of raw materials and manufactured goods, such as cement, steel and tomatoes, from Turkey, whose current economic fragility highlights the importance of their trade relationship. For Israel, the imports help ensure that its manufacturing companies have a steady supply of materials.

    Israeli arms sales to Turkey have also played a significant role in their relationship. While Turkey’s weapons industry has matured considerably over the past decade, the arms trade remains a promising area of cooperation. The energy sector, as well, could eventually become another area for collaboration. The two have been competing for natural gas exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean even as they had discussed over the past couple of years the possibility of building a pipeline between them. But the deal between Noble Energy and Israel’s Delek Drilling and the Egyptian East Gas Co. signed in late September to deliver natural gas from the Tamar and Leviathan fields in Israel to Egypt, compounded with the difficulty of building a pipeline across contested Cypriot territory, puts to rest any Israel-Turkey pipeline dreams in the near term.

    The Most Recent Split

    The May 2018 breakdown in ties between Israel and Turkey was just one of many periodic ruptures in their carefully balanced relationship. In December 2017, the United States decided to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, aggravating the most contentious issue between Turkey and Israel: the Palestinian conflict. In May, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of genocide and expelled Israeli Ambassador Eitan Naeh after dozens of Palestinians were killed in unrest in Gaza driven in part by the embassy move. Caustic rhetoric from Turkey about Israel’s actions against Palestinians has been a familiar refrain under Erdogan. Turkey is seeking to be a champion of the Palestinian cause because it raises Ankara’s stature and leadership influence in the Muslim world. In his role as a patriarch of political Islam, the president is building his strongman image at home and solidifying his domestic legitimacy.

    Israel is focused primarily on its security, and denying Palestinian statehood is a means of ensuring that security as well as stability. Turkey will continue to be a bit unpredictable on how far it is willing to go to ensure Palestinian rights. And Israel can withstand all manner of tough rhetoric from the Turkish government; it is used to it. But any new, outright meddling by the Turkish government in the restive Palestinian territories will be seriously troublesome. Israel is already concerned about the Turkish funding of civic and Islamic associations in east Jerusalem. That support is meant to bolster Turkey’s soft power there in its competition with the Arab states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

    The Role of the United States

    That the U.S. embassy decision could spur the most recent Turkish-Israeli split underlines the influence the United States has on their contentious relationship. The United States had previously played a key part in bringing them together. In 2013, President Barack Obama pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apologize for the deaths of Turkish activists killed when Israel intercepted the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” in 2010 and agree to compensate their families.

    Now, the United States needs the cooperation of both and a working relationship with both, as during the Cold War, to counterbalance Iran and reduce its own burden in the region. And the pressure this time, heightened by its economic problems, is on Turkey. Despite the low tide in U.S.-Turkish relations, the United States will continue to encourage Turkey to work with Israel. At the same time, the United States and Israel are in an unusually close period in their relations, which could embolden Israel in its regional and domestic policies, knowing that America has its back. Israel has exploited this greater U.S. pressure on Turkey when dealing with Ankara and has included its own pressure on the United States to not sell the advanced F-35 jet to Ankara.

    Finally, Turkey must consider the quiet Israel-Saudi Arabia rapprochement. Their cooperation, encouraged by Washington and driven by the mutual desire to contain and combat Iran, could undercut Ankara’s goal to increase its influence across northern Syria and northern Iraq. This situation naturally leaves Turkey wanting to work more closely with Israel, so it can mitigate any Saudi moves that might threaten Turkish security imperatives, such as the possibility of arming certain Kurdish groups that fight against Iran. And an improved Turkish relationship with Israel could also help alleviate some of the U.S. pressure as well.

    The Road Ahead

    Though most signs point to an eventual reconciliation, Turkish actions could hinder progress. Turkey is still looking for ways beyond rhetoric to reinsert itself into the Palestinian issue. Ankara’s proposal for a Gaza seaport, which would facilitate Turkish aid reaching the area, could make some headway. And Ankara will forge ahead with building up ties in east Jerusalem, hoping that Israel would prefer to have it involved there in lieu of other powers, namely Iran. But Turkey likely would only provide funding with Israel’s approval. Otherwise, the resumption of further diplomatic ties could be restricted.

    But for now, the ties between Turkey and Israel will remain pragmatic, limited and businesslike, subject to the influence of events in the region. Rapprochement could open economic opportunities for Israeli companies looking to invest in and with an economically weak Turkey. The two countries can be expected to continue discussions on the future of Syria and on ways to isolate Iranian influence there. Those two issues — trade and Iran — remain at the center of their on-again, off-again relationship.

  • To Look at A Jewish Boycott By Arabs

    To Look at A Jewish Boycott By Arabs

    Richard DeGraff <dickdegraff@gmail.com>

    Some time ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.

    In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

    “Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

    “A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

    Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

    If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

    Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

    Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

    Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

    “Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

    They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

    “Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

    Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

    “In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott..”

    Oh, and by the way, don’t call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by Jewish engineer Martin “Marty” Cooper . 

    Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?”

    The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population.

    They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

    Literature:
    1988 – Najib Mahfooz

    Peace:
    1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
    1990 – Elias James Corey
    1994 – Yaser Arafat:
    1999 – Ahmed Zewai

    Economics:
    (zero)

    Physics:
    (zero)

    Medicine:
    1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
    1998 – Ferid Mourad

    TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

    The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population.

    They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

    Literature:
    1910 – Paul Heyse
    1927 – Henri Bergson
    1958 – Boris Pasternak
    1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
    1966 – Nelly Sachs
    1976 – Saul Bellow
    1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
    1981 – Elias Canetti
    1987 – Joseph Brodsky
    1991 – Nadine Gordimer World

    Peace:
    1911 – Alfred Fried
    1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
    1968 – Rene Cassin
    1973 – Henry Kissinger
    1978 – Menachem Begin
    1986 – Elie Wiesel
    1994 – Shimon Peres
    1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

    Physics:
    1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
    1906 – Henri Moissan
    1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
    1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
    1910 – Otto Wallach
    1915 – Richard Willstaetter
    1918 – Fritz Haber
    1921 – Albert Einstein
    1922 – Niels Bohr
    1925 – James Franck
    1925 – Gustav Hertz
    1943 – Gustav Stern
    1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
    1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
    1952 – Felix Bloch
    1954 – Max Born
    1958 – Igor Tamm
    1959 – Emilio Segre
    1960 – Donald A. Glaser
    1961 – Robert Hofstadter
    1961 – Melvin Calvin
    1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
    1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
    1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
    1965 – Julian Schwinger
    1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
    1971 – Dennis Gabor
    1972 – William Howard Stein
    1973 – Brian David Josephson
    1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
    1976 – Burton Richter
    1977 – Ilya Prigogine
    1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
    1978 – Peter L Kapitza
    1979 – Stephen Weinberg
    1979 – Sheldon Glashow
    1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
    1980 – Paul Berg
    1980 – Walter Gilbert
    1981 – Roald Hoffmann
    1982 – Aaron Klug
    1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
    1985 – Jerome Karle
    1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
    1988 – Robert Huber
    1988 – Leon Lederman
    1988 – Melvin Schwartz
    1988 – Jack Steinberger
    1989 – Sidney Altman
    1990 – Jerome Friedman
    1992 – Rudolph Marcus
    1995 – Martin Perl
    2000 – Alan J. Heeger

    Economics:
    1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
    1971 – Simon Kuznets
    1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
    1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
    1976 – Milton Friedman
    1978 – Herbert A. Simon
    1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
    1985 – Franco Modigliani
    1987 – Robert M. Solow
    1990 – Harry Markowitz
    1990 – Merton Miller
    1992 – Gary Becker
    1993 – Robert Fogel

    Medicine:
    1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
    1908 – Paul Erlich
    1914 – Robert Barany
    1922 – Otto Meyerhof
    1930 – Karl Landsteiner
    1931 – Otto Warburg
    1936 – Otto Loewi
    1944 – Joseph Erlanger
    1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
    1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
    1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
    1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
    1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
    1953 – Hans Krebs
    1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
    1958 – Joshua Lederberg
    1959 – Arthur Kornberg
    1964 – Konrad Bloch
    1965 – Francois Jacob
    1965 – Andre Lwoff
    1967 – George Wald
    1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
    1969 – Salvador Luria
    1970 – Julius Axelrod
    1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
    1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
    1975 – Howard Martin Temin
    1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
    1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
    1978 – Daniel Nathans
    1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
    1984 – Cesar Milstein
    1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
    1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
    1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
    1988 – Gertrude Elion
    1989 – Harold Varmus
    1991 – Erwin Neher
    1991 – Bert Sakmann
    1993 – Richard J. Roberts
    1993 – Phillip Sharp
    1994 – Alfred Gilman
    1995 – Edward B. Lewis
    1996- Lu RoseIacovino

    TOTAL: 129!

    The Jews are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.

    The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.

    There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church..

    There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

    Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

    Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.

    Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

    ‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”

    Benjamin Netanyahu: General Eisenhower warned us. It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

    He did this because he said in words to this effect: ‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’

    Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.

    It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

    It is now more than 65 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

    Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

    This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

    How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ‘NEVER HAPPENED’ because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

     

  • Low-income Turks take early crisis blows

    Low-income Turks take early crisis blows

    Turkey Pulse
    Mustafa Sonmez September 17, 2018
    Article Summary
    Turkey’s economic turmoil is already bruising millions of minimum wage earners, who are grappling with a flurry of price hikes and the prospect of losing jobs.

    Following six consecutive quarters of high growth rates, Turkey’s economy appears to be coursing toward stagnation and, ultimately, contraction, as all leading indicators have been pointing to a slowdown since July. For decades, Turkey has had one of the world’s most unfair income distributions. The working classes have taken the hardest blow during times of economic turmoil, responding by voting against the ruling party in the first elections.

    Though Turks went to the polls as recently as June, economic grievances did not figure prominently in the votes of roughly half of the electorate, which backed President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP). Yet, popular discontent has grown fast since then amid surging inflation, company bankruptcies, loan repayment woes and uncertainty over what the country’s economic future holds. Ankara’s extensive control of the media and judiciary — and the more oppressive nature of the presidential system that took effect in June — are discouraging street protests and other public expressions of discontent, but an undercurrent of resentment is clearly growing.

    The muttering in low-income groups is rising primarily over the flurry of price hikes that Turks have come to encounter at the markets. Year-on-year consumer inflation hit nearly 18% in August, becoming increasingly ossified in a way that Turkey has not witnessed in many years.

    Producer inflation is even higher, standing at 32%, which is an omen that consumer prices could rise even further in the coming months. Retailers say they have done their best to minimize the effect of producer hikes on consumer prices, but note they have reached the limit, reinforcing expectations that inflation would hit 20% by the year-end.

    Among emerging economies, Turkey’s inflation is comparable only to that of Argentina, which is already under the watch of the International Monetary Fund. While prices soar, few Turks can hope for pay hikes matching the inflation rate. Out of the 19 million wage earners who make up 70% of the labor force, only about 3 million public employees enjoy some inflation-related pay adjustments, in addition to about 10 million pensioners. For the remaining 16 million wage earners in the private sector, such an adjustment facility does not exist. Moreover, only about 1 million of them are unionized, standing a chance of some organized effort to secure pay hikes. The overwhelming majority of 15 million wage earners are on their own.

    Worse, more than 60% of wage earners work for the minimum wage of 1,600 Turkish liras or even less, according to the micro data of labor statistics by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). This is equivalent to $246, based on the dollar’s average price of 6.5 liras this month — a 42% decrease from the $426 that the minimum wage was worth at the beginning of the year.

    According to the TUIK, the average home rent in Turkey is 1,000 liras, including related fees. Hence, a wage earner’s family needs the equivalent of at least two minimum wages to scratch along or second jobs for extra income or other forms of support. But even this is not enough to protect their purchasing power against 18% inflation, meaning that those families are growing relatively poorer.

    The gloomy picture is now compounded by the risk of losing jobs. The growth rate is falling fast in sectors such as construction, agriculture, tourism and services, where minimum wage earners are heavily employed. Despite the 5.2% overall growth rate in the second quarter announced this week, the agricultural sector regressed by 1.5%, and the construction sector grew only 0.8%. The momentum loss in the manufacturing industry was also significant. Official figures for the third quarter are not yet available, but the pace of growth is known to be sharply falling.

    Non-agricultural unemployment currently stands at more than 12.5%, and it will hardly be a surprise if the figure reaches 14-15% when the figures for August and September are released. The real fears, however, are about the fourth quarter, when a sharper contraction and layoffs are expected. For many families, losing jobs would mean an intolerable situation.

    On top of all those risks, low-income groups are grappling with debt woes stemming from a loan bonanza that Turks had until several years ago as the banking sector was able to borrow for cheap from abroad. A significant increase in credit card use and consumer loans has saddled Turkish households with a hefty debt burden. According to figures by the Turkish Banks Association, the credit card and loan debt of households stands at some 567 billion Turkish liras ($92.5 billion). Setting aside the 244-billion-lira debt linked to car and home loans (which are presumed to belong to the more well-off), the debt in credit cards and personal finance loans — which is generally considered to belong to lower income groups — emerges as 323 billion liras ($52.7 billion).

    Non-performing loans are already close to 6%, and litigations are on the rise. For both debtors and banks, the repayment problem raises the grave prospect of sequestration, which could lead many to lose homes, cars and even domestic appliances.

    In sum, although the crisis has only reared its head, low-income groups are already under severe strain. It is important to note that those groups represent an important segment in the AKP electorate. How long their credit to the AKP will last or how much patience they will show is hard to predict. Yet, local elections are looming in March 2019. Will the voters punish the AKP at the ballot boxes? Could the government temper the crisis until March? These are a few of the questions that will hover in the coming months.

    Found in: Turkish economy

    Mustafa Sonmez is a Turkish economist and writer. He has worked as an economic commentator and editor for more than 30 years and authored some 30 books on the Turkish economy, media and the Kurdish question.

  • China, U.S.: The Trade Fight Escalates With New Rounds of Tariffs

    China, U.S.: The Trade Fight Escalates With New Rounds of Tariffs

    Sep 19, 2018 | 14:44 GMT

    snapshot asia pacific 142
    The Big Picture

    Trade frictions between the United States and China have intensified during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. As Stratfor’s 2018 Fourth-Quarter Forecast indicated, Trump added to a series of tariffs, which, along with other pressure tactics, are part of the broader U.S. strategic competition with China. But despite its slowing economy, China has proved willing to respond with tariffs and non-tariff measures alike. Although both sides have indicated their willingness to negotiate, neither has backed away from the fight.

    What Happened

    The trade war between China and the United States has escalated yet again. Just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump said he was following through on his threat to slap new tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, China responded by announcing tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. products. The U.S. tariffs, 10 percent on a range of goods including electronic and machinery products that are part of the Made-in-China 2025 program targeted by Trump, as well as some consumer products such as furniture and household appliances, would take effect Sept. 24 and would increase to 25 percent on Jan. 1, 2019. As he announced the latest round of tariffs on Sept. 17, Trump added that if China responded in kind, he would begin the process of authorizing tariffs on a further $267 billion in Chinese imports. Thus, with China’s announcement the next day, it appears that their battle over trade is likely only to intensify.

    Since the White House first proposed this round of U.S. tariffs in July, the list of goods it would affect has been adjusted to exclude some more sensitive consumer goods such as smartwatches and Bluetooth devices, sensitive consumer safety items like car seats, and critical raw materials like rare earth metals. China, meanwhile, lowered its own threatened tariff rates from an original 5 to 25 percent, to 5 to 10 percent. But those tariffs still will affect agricultural and chemical products, metals and other exports designed to inflict pain on U.S. farmers, and they will still target the industrial and pharmaceutical sectors. China is also pursuing non-tariff methods to retaliate against U.S. trade pressure, including imposing lengthy cargo inspections for U.S. imports, slowing customs clearance times and undertaking cumbersome regulatory approvals of U.S. businesses hoping to operate in China. Chinese officials have also proposed adding export restrictions on certain metals critical to U.S. industries.

    Why It Matters

    With both the United States and China upping the ante, and with the United States pursuing a long-term strategic economic competition to balance against China, their trade battle is unlikely to end anytime soon. Two rounds of negotiations since May aimed at settling their differences have failed. Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department proposed holding another round of talks, and the Chinese government was reportedly considering the plan. But the latest tariff round could take those talks off the table. Both the White House and Beijing have said they remain open to negotiations, but their positions on trade remain far apart.

    The Trump administration has calculated that as trade tensions escalate, China’s cooling economy would make Beijing more willing to consider concessions and agree to structural economic reforms. After all, in earlier talks, Beijing offered to take steps to reduce the U.S.-China trade deficit and to loosen market access restrictions, allowing U.S. companies to compete in such sectors as banking, security and insurance. But Beijing has steadfastly refused to budge on Washington’s core demands for structural economic reforms. Instead, in a bid to strengthen its negotiating position as the trade tension escalates, Beijing instead has chosen to impose greater costs on U.S. companies operating in China and to further restrict their access. More importantly, Beijing increasingly is taking the view that the trade war is just one part of the overall U.S. strategy to contain China’s rise and prevent it from gaining the upper hand in technology.

    Political pressure is mounting on Chinese President Xi Jinping to hold firm against making significant concessions to the United States. China is likely hoping that the pinch of higher prices for U.S. consumers and industries as midterm U.S. elections near will compel the White House to change tactics. But given Trump’s ideological opposition to trade deficits and the internal divisions within his administration in dealing with China, Beijing’s approach may instead only complicate potential talks down the road.

    What To Look for Next

    • China has yet to publicly decline the Treasury Department’s proposal for a third round of trade talks, to which Beijing had considered sending Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen. The timing and nature of China’s response to the U.S. invitation and who, exactly, would be chosen to represent the U.S. side will determine whether the talks offer any chance to de-escalate the trade dispute.
    • It will be important to note whether China pursues even more aggressive non-tariff measures against U.S. companies operating there and to watch for signs that U.S. and foreign companies are rethinking their supply chain strategy.
    • U.S. business groups could pursue possible legal challenges to the White House’s approach to tariffs, saying that additional tariffs would violate the administration’s statute authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The administration has used that law to justify tariffs on China on national security grounds. Instead, the groups argue, any further rounds of tariffs would first require an entirely new Section 301 investigation to have legal authority.
  • A Deal Between Turkey and Russia Won’t Stop the Crisis in Idlib

    A Deal Between Turkey and Russia Won’t Stop the Crisis in Idlib

    Sep 19, 2018 | 09:00 GMT

    This photo, taken on Sept. 9, 2018, shows destruction in the town of al-Habit on the edges of rebel-held Idlib province.
    (OMAR HAJ KADOUR/AFP/Getty Images)
    Highlights
    • A deal over Syria’s Idlib province will prevent Russian-backed loyalist forces from launching an offensive there and will defuse the growing crisis between Turkey and Russia.
    • The Syrian government, Iran and the jihadist factions among the rebels will try to undermine the agreement.
    • As a result, Idlib will remain unstable and the threat of military operations around the province will continue.

    Russia and Turkey have come to an agreement over Syria’s last rebel stronghold, Idlib. Following their latest round of talks in Sochi, Russia, on Sept. 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced their deal to set up a 15- to 20-kilometer (9.3- to 12.4-mile) jointly patrolled demilitarized zone around the province by mid-October. The agreement, which will prevent Russian-backed loyalist forces from launching a major offensive to reclaim Idlib from the rebels, stands to ease tensions between Russia and Turkey. Nevertheless, the standoff over Idlib is far from resolved, and numerous obstacles remain that could undermine the deal.

    The Big Picture

    The fate of Idlib, the last rebel stronghold in the Syrian civil war, will help determine the future of the conflict. Not only could Idlib make or break Turkey’s relationship with Russia, but it could also draw in external powers and drag the war beyond Syria’s borders.

    Reaching a Compromise

    Russia agreed to the deal out of a desire to preserve its relationship with Turkey. The Turkish government opposed the Russian-backed operation on Idlib, which would have deprived it of a buffer zone in northern Syria while also driving millions of Syrian refugees into its territory. To try to avert the operation, Ankara reinforced its 12 observation posts in and around Idlib and promised its rebel allies in the region more supplies and support. Russia still could have maintained its backing for the Syrian military attacks on the province, striving to avoid a direct confrontation with Turkish forces by steering clear of their observation posts. But given the high risk of accidental strikes on Turkish troops — and the damage they would cause relations with Turkey — Moscow instead opted for a compromise with Ankara. By avoiding significant offensive operations in Idlib, moreover, Russia reduced the chances that the Syrian government would carry out another chemical attack on Idlib’s rebel forces, thereby warding off dangerous strikes from the United States and its allies.

    Though the agreement accomplished Ankara’s goal of deterring a major assault on Idlib, it is not without its costs for Turkey. Turkey, for instance, has openly promised to work to drive out rebel forces from the demilitarized zone around Idlib as part of the deal. In addition, it has probably assured Moscow privately that it would do more to crack down on the extremist groups still operating in the province, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria. These groups and their regional affiliates not only include many Chechen and Uighur militants among their ranks — a source of concern for Russia and China, respectively — but they also have spearheaded attacks against Russian forces in Syria. In several strikes, for example, they used drones to drop rudimentary explosives onto the Russian air base at Latakia.

    Complications

    The extremist groups’ reaction to the deal will pose the most immediate obstacle to its success. Having maintained their ties with Turkey, jihadist organizations like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party will face considerable pressure from Ankara to withdraw from Idlib. Their cooperation is hardly guaranteed, however. The groups have long been wary of Turkey’s intentions and are aware of its efforts to set up a rebel coalition, the National Front for Liberation, to balance and eventually replace them in the fight. Furthermore, giving up front-line positions and quietly withdrawing from the demilitarized zone would contradict their hard-line ideological stance in the fight against the Syrian government. By compromising their beliefs in this way, the groups could risk further splintering and lose recruits to al Qaeda affiliate Hurras al-Deen or to lingering Islamic State cells in the region.

    On the other side of the zone, Russia’s allies Iran and the Syrian government will also challenge the deal. Tehran and Damascus have been keen to get Russia’s backing for a full-scale offensive on Idlib and will not be pleased with the agreement, though they may publicly endorse it. Motivated to destroy the deal and weaken Russia’s relationship with Turkey, the Syrian government could, with Iran’s help, start skirmishes with rebel forces or even launch its own attacks in the region under the pretense of responding to strikes by the extremist groups there. All these constraints mean that violence and instability will continue to grip the region, even without the prospect of a major offensive on Idlib.