It was surprising for many who had been involved in either labor or left wing politics of anti-imperialist struggles in the past to read an interview with the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, given to an obscure little film crew in Turkey, how well the Hezbollah leader was versed in left politics in Turkey and […]
It was surprising for many who had been involved in either labor or left wing politics of anti-imperialist struggles in the past to read an interview with the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, given to an obscure little film crew in Turkey, how well the Hezbollah leader was versed in left politics in Turkey and also how sympathetic he was to the left.
The matter became more interesting because of the timing the interview was published because it appeared just at the nick of time when a fiery debate among the left was being waged: Could the Islamic resistance in Iraq or in Lebanon be considered a real anti-imperialist force, or conversely, could these resistance movements bring about a real liberation for the people in the region?
While some who had started to see Iran, or some other fundamentalist movement, as a natural ally in the struggle against western imperialism, more like the, “enemy of my enemy is my friend” position, others were thinking of all the atrocities these forces had committed against labor, minorities, dissidents and wondering if movements led by Sheiks or Ayatollahs could lead the way for liberation.
The interview proved once and for all that both the left and the Islamic resistance forces were fighting against the common enemy, and there were no real, substantial difference between these groups. Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah was voicing his admiration for the left wing revolutionary martyrs in Turkey or for Che Guevara and complaining that the left, Islamic forces and others were no longer as close as they used to.
Yet, in a declaration by Hezbollah, the other day, the rumor mill, the discussions, the debates and the arguments came to a screeching halt. The interview was a fabrication, and no high Hezbollah official had given an interview to any foreign correspondent about the subject matter.
Many people had suspected so. The sudden touchy-feely attitude of the Hezbollah leader was a surprise to many. Although being known not to be like the other fundamentalist organizations in the region, this love relationship was still too close for comfort.
The “interviewers” actually had been suspects not only for this incident but for having published interviews with Fidel Castro, Chavez, and North Korean leader at some time or another. The questions were circulating how a small unknown group of self proclaimed film makers, even obscure in Turkey, had landed such high profile interviews from world’s top leaders known not to give interviews even to very high profile and friendly world renowned journalists.
When the interview was questioned by our site, (Is the interview with Nasrallah fake?), we received an answer accusing us of trying to fabricate something that was not there. (Daily Evrensel’s Reply: Nasrallah’s Interview
The newspaper daily Evrensel, which published the interview without checking for its validity apologized for their mistake while the members of the “film collective” promised to shed full light on the matter and to investigate it further.
Below you will find the letters and announcements of those who questioned the publication and some embarrassing apologies from those who were too eager to prove that the dream of fundamentalist Islamic movement and the left joining forces had finally came true.
MB.
Letter from Gilbert Achcar, a Lebanese writer who first voiced his suspicion:
Dear Friends,
Some of you have probably seen the rebuttal against me and another
Lebanese left-wing academic authored and posted by Alexander Cockburn on CounterPunch a few days ago:
Counterpunch
Instead of replying, I asked my “source in Beirut in close touch with
Hezbollah” to ask the party to issue a statement denying clearly the fake interview. This has now been done in the most vigorous manner (even the Turkish paper that published the fake interview had to acknowledge the fact — see their statement below) and Alexander Cockburn could only follow suit, though he did not make any of the apologies that one would have expected.
If I had more time to devote to this trivial affair, I would have
explained why the interview was very obviously fake “for people familiar with the topic” and why the “insights” of the “professor” quoted by Cockburn are both poor and wrong.
Best,
Gilbert
STATEMENT FROM EVRENSEL DAILY
ABOUT THE FORGED NASRALLAH INTERVIEW
Taylan Bilgic
Cihan Celik
Foreign News Desk
Evrensel Daily / ISTANBUL
TURKEY
It is now clearly understood that, the so-called “interview” with
Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, which appeared on our
newspaper (12th August) in Turkey is a forgery.
Press Representative of Hezbollah, Hussein Rahhal, on a question asked by the official Anatolian Agency correspondent, replied that Nasrallah has not conducted any interview with any Turkish journalist in August.
With this forgery, “Mutlu Sahin” and “Roza Cigdem Erdogan”, the forgers, who are members of the “Sheikh Bedreddin Film Collective” (Turkish initials, SBFK) have attempted to tarnish the reliability of Evrensel, a 12-years old socialist newspaper. But this is not all. They have attempted to erode the reliability of all progressive, antiwar, antiimperialist sources and people all over the world; as the “interview” had far reaching consequences than they probably have imagined in their pathetic minds.
Evrensel General Coordinator, Ihsan Caralan, has made a written statement about the developments. This statement is printed on the 2nd September, 2006 issue of Evrensel, from the front page… We believe this statement will shed light into the forgery, though the real aims and connections of the instigators are still unknown…
Here is the statement:
“This ‘interview’ was sent to us by members of the Sheikh Bedreddin Film Collective members, Mutlu Sahin and Roza Cigdem Erdogan. The fact that these people who are known as ‘documentary filmmakers’ were members of a known cultural organization is the most important factor that we approached them without any suspicion.
These people, whose “Beirut impressions” were printed in some other
newspapers and internet sites, have also sent us, before the said
“interview”, their ‘Beirut impressions’ and these were printed on our
paper, too.
The so-called interview with Sheikh Nasrallah included symphatetic
remarks about historical persona such as Deniz Gezmis and Che Guevera. These remarks were found suspicious by us; but at that time our thought was that Hezbollah, who had won the support of Islamic circles, was attempting to erase the prejudices and suspicions in the West and especially, in left-wing circles by these words. Our aim of publishing the ‘interview’ was, our desire to reflect the developments of an important conflict from all perspectives.
After the interview was published, there were various suspicions raised in various circles. Because of this, we demanded from Mutlu Sahin that he should immediately confirm that the interview was actually done. But they have evaded us until the last minute by continuously saying that they will confirm the interview, will present documented evidence, make Hezbollah print the interview on their website etc.
When the news of Anatolian Agency was put into service, we immediately sent the text to them via Windows Messenger. After reading the message, and without making any comment, Mutlu Sahin became offline and from then on, did not answer our phone calls.
As obvious to all, this attitude amounts to not more
than ‘qualified
forgery’. Our newspaper, since the beginning, has uphold the principles of peoples’ right to true information and learning the truth. But another principle of our newspaper is follow-up. Thus, we will continue to seek and tell the truth about these people and the figures behind them, if there are any. These people are responsible for cheating us and thus, making us the instrument of the dissemination of false information.
But nevertheless, we cannot evade our own responsibility as the
newspaper who printed this false interview. We have encountered such a situation for the first time in our history and this teaches us
again that meticulousness in newsmaking should never be forgotten. We
sincerely apologize from our readers, from the various publications
(online or print) who trusted us and printed this text and those who
translated the text to various languages and sent it to various news
resources.”
And here is another recent development from the film collective. This
piece of news below also appeared on Evrensel on 2nd September.
SBFK did not even apologize Mutlu Sahin and Roza Cigdem Erdogan, who had their names on the fake interview are nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, SBFK made an announcement yesterday:
“This sudden development about the interview was totally unexpected. SBFK Press Representative Yilmaz Kilickaya, Foreign Relations Coordinator Zafer Hanoglu, members Roza Cigdem Erdogan, Berfin Gunes and Esra Celik, have gone to Beirut to inform the public and put an end to the debate. After weekend, they will inform the public on behalf of SBFK, which Hezbollah representatives will also attend.
We had declared that we retain some of our rights. We will explain these rights in this last information we will give.
From now on, the drawees are not Roza Cigdem Erdogan or Mutlu Sahin, but our collective. Until this last information meeting, we deem our friends innocent. After that last moment in which all debate will be put an end, their duties and authorities are suspended temporarily. We also note that we will not take seriously the attacks and insults circulating the internet against our collective and our members.
