Condolences to Turkey

The target of treacherous bullets, to which we have become thoroughly accustomed, was this time Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of Agos journal.

Although Dink did not fully satisfy some angry nationalists in Turkey, he was not particularly at peace with the attitude known as the Diaspora Armenians on the Armenian issue, which signifies nothing other than blind anti-Turkey posture. Dink represented the sensible line to which anyone needing a solution, dialogue, and rapprochement in this field and in sincere pursuit of it would ultimately apply. What he said regarding the Armenian issue in Turkey's history was naturally far from the official thesis. He was saying that Armenians were subjected to genocide, but he approached it differently from those trying to use this thesis against Turkey, especially in the international arena, and seeking to establish a permanent hostility between Turks and Armenians. He wanted an environment where these topics could be discussed, where the parties could at least perceive each other's feelings and where doors could be opened for a gesture to heal these feelings.

He performed a very meaningful act against those trying to destroy this environment on the day France voted on the law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. He declared the absurdity of the law voted on by France by saying, "First I will go to Turkey and say there was a genocide, then I will go to France and say there was no genocide, whichever arrests me first..."

Despite this, Dink was tried for an article he wrote about genocide under a forced and meddlesome reading that put it within the scope of "insulting Turkishness." Yet as I wrote in this column before, there could be no greater "insult to Turkishness" than trying Dink for such a reason.

I had written: "There can be no greater insult to Turkishness than filing an insult-to-Turkishness lawsuit because of this article he wrote."

Now, for days we will listen to a lot of things about the target, timing, and who gained what and lost what from this attack. Naturally, connections will be made with the Armenian genocide resolutions to be voted on soon in the US and EU countries. Naturally, it can be evaluated as a way of disciplining Turkey at a time when Turkey is trying to take initiative in Iraq or Kirkuk. Perhaps it will be linked to what every flying bird is linked to these days: the Presidential election.

No matter what this attack is connected to, unfortunately no analysis will bring Dink back, nor will it cease such murders in Turkey from being a very convenient tool for adjusting the scope and power of politics.

Whatever topic you touch upon in Turkey, it touches upon either religious sensitivities, national integrity, national honor and pride, country's independence, modernity, or secularism. No issue can be approached by giving it its own due and remaining within its own boundaries. What is said on a topic is always understood as expressing other intentions and hiding other calculations. All discussions are conducted accompanied by a discourse of treason. The one who rushes to attach the label of treason secures a huge but unfair advantage over their rival. Therefore, everyone rushes to use this unfair trump card before the other.

When the culture of debate becomes so fragile, those who want to say something properly have to speak with various threats hanging over their heads. But oddly, attacks may not always come from those whose sensitivities are touched. Worse is that in such cases, it is never clear where the attack comes from. It is only known that a package pre-prepared for a murder very useful for various purposes exists.

Hrant Dink knew this too. Being aware that he was walking on a mined field laid out by this debate culture, he was actually speaking very carefully and walking very carefully. Despite this, he realized from the treatments he was subjected to that he was being "skillfully and subtly turned into a target for attack." We all have a large share in making the murder of some people a profitable investment area for others, and in the formation of this debate culture, if not in its failure to be neutralized. Therefore, as a society, we are all flawed in Dink and his predecessors falling victim to murder.

In the end, Hrant Dink has died. Turkey's loss is great. Our condolences.