Whom does the mindset that imprisons Turkey in a minefield serve?

The refugee issue is one of the most important issues not only of Türkiye but of the whole world, and it is being lived with a seriousness that grows with each passing day. The number of people displaced from their homes and homelands in world history has passed one hundred million, and numerically this is a record that is rapidly widening the gap.

The approaches of humanity to how it will cope with this problem reveal their own quality, but one of the matters that determine this quality is the distinctions made among refugees. The good reception that those who radically oppose a wave of migration from one place show toward another wave, we saw with admonition in the difference in attitude in European countries toward the waves of migration coming from Syria and Ukraine.

While Europeans put forward their countries' security, the state of the economy and so on against Syrian migration, they practically placed on a pedestal the large number of refugees who piled into their countries from Ukraine within a short time. Because those coming from there were white-skinned and blue-eyed.

Let whoever finds this strange find it strange; this is their trial and they are losing, or perhaps in fact everyone reads the responsibility that their own history, society and cultural heritage place before them.

But what is happening to us? Although our ties of kinship and our cultural and historical closeness with the people coming from Syria are far closer and far firmer than those between Ukrainians and Europeans, why is no strong reaction put forward against the ignorant hatred and hostility that some racists among us are trying to raise?

Whom do you think these hate-filled discourses protect from whom? From our history, our culture, ourselves, do they not? Is it not in the nature of the matter that the one who tries to protect us from ourselves is at odds with us?

When did we ever see these militants facing Türkiye's real enemies? Why have we never seen them against those who truly, with weapons in hand, fight against Türkiye and try to put Türkiye in difficulty on every front?

Despite this, yes, in fact the question is truly this: where do those who now, to the degree of perversion, recklessly raise a base discourse of rancor and hatred, extremely contrary to the cultural, historical and customary values of our country, find this audacity?

How can people remain so silent about this sin, for which, when such thoughts come to a person's mind, a thousand repentances and a thousand pleas for forgiveness are normally required?

If racism remained a thought there would be no problem, but converting it into an action and into an aggression against other races is a clear perversion, a crime against humanity, and this crime against humanity is, step by step, on the verge of planting mines in the peace, stability, identity and character of society.

That someone who has proven, by the cheap heroism he displays against weak, defenseless, sheltering people, that he has not the slightest share of the Turkish custom, culture, identity and character, goes to the Syrian border bellowing to lay mines, first of all disgraces himself, but that he can display this disgrace so recklessly is a shameful situation on behalf of our humanity.

Europe, citing this or that historical, cultural, identity tie, is trying to integrate with Ukraine. By removing the borders and mines placed between them, it opens the ways to integration with it.

Our so-called nationalists, our racists who produce cheap heroism with howling shows in front of innocent civilians, unarmed asylum seekers, women and children, are running, on the feet of the defense of the homeland, to lay mines on Türkiye's Syrian border.

Let us accept that running to action with a mine in the hand of a political party is a very creative action, but creative to the level of another party behaving like the political wing of a terrorist organization.

WHAT DOES THE MINE SYMBOLIZE?

The mine is truly the symbol of the matter. It has no function of protecting Türkiye from anywhere; on the contrary, it symbolizes the chain that the overbearing imperialists who occupied Türkiye after World War I struck upon the Turk.

The mines placed on the borders imposed by the victors of the war on Türkiye, which emerged defeated from the war in one way or another (whether it was itself defeated or counted as defeated because Germany was defeated, in the end), were almost entirely removed 12 years ago. The mines, which express the breaking of the chains struck upon Türkiye and the Islamic world at the end of World War I, were to be cleared, so that Türkiye would embrace anew its own historical, cultural geography of the heart. The clearing of these mines was the symbol of the awakening, the revival, of a whole Islamic world ready to embrace it.

The coups later experienced in Syria and in the Arab Spring countries were the expression of an imperialist resistance against the effort of Türkiye and the Islamic world to be cleared of these mines.

Now, does someone who takes this mine in his hand and runs to lay it on the same border represent Türkiye, or the militant agency of the role the imperialists have assigned to Türkiye?

Do the laid mines prevent the refugee's entry into Türkiye, or Türkiye's embrace with its brothers and its geography of the heart?

The fascist mind that deems this loneliness, these chains, these mines fit for Türkiye cannot be practicing fascism in the name of Turkishness; the Turks, who are free of this mind, have suffered from nothing as much as they have suffered from this fascism.

This is not a mind we do not know. It is the mind that for a century has been telling Türkiye "sit where you sit."

That it can do this, with a complete political counterfeiting, in the name of protecting the homeland and in the name of Turkishness, is first of all a regrettable situation in terms of national security.