Give Azerbaijan its language!

Alik Bakhghi

 Give Azerbaijan its language!

   Stalin coined the term "Azerbaijani" for the language spoken in Azerbaijan. Before the Russians arrived in the Caucasus, the language was defined as Turkic. In fact, the Russians sometimes called the population of Azerbaijan "Caucasian Tatars" or "Persians," but they were wary of calling them Turks for political reasons. Any analogy with Turkey was perceived by Moscow as a political provocation and was strictly persecuted.

   Recently, the slogan "one people, two countries" has come into common usage. If we accept this as reality, then the people of Azerbaijan and Turkey are precisely Turkic, and their language is Turkic. Regarding citizenship, Turkic people living in Azerbaijan will retain their citizenship as citizens of Azerbaijan, just as Turkic people living in Turkey are citizens of Turkey; their people and language are Turkic.

   For example, the English in England speak English, and the English in Australia also speak English, but their citizenship is different.

  The time has come to correct the historical mistake imposed by Stalin and return the people of Azerbaijan to their original Turkic language.

September 25, 2026

Даёшь Азербайджану его язык!

Алик Бахши

Даёшь Азербайджану его язык!

     Определение языка, на которым говорили в Азербайджане придумал Сталин, назвав его азербайджанским, до прихода русских на Кавказ, язык определялся как тюркский. Вообще надо сказать население Азербайджана русские называли то кавказскими татарами, то персами, но назвать их тюрками остерегались по политическим причинам. Любая аналогия с Турцией воспринималась Москвой политической провокацией и строго преследовалась.

С недавних пор в обиход вошел лозунг "один народ, - две страны". Если принять это за реальность, то народ в Азербайджане и Турции именно тюркский и не иначе, и язык тюркский. Что касается гражданства, то тюрки, проживающие в Азербайджане, сохранят своё гражданство как граждане Азербайджана, также как и тюрки, проживающие в Турции, являются гражданами Турции, народ и язык - тюркский.

Например, в Англии англичане говорят на английском, в Австралии тоже живут англичане и говорят на английском, но гражданство у них разное.

Пришло время исправить историческую ошибку, навязанную Сталиным, и вернуть народу Азербайджана его исконный тюркский язык.

25.09.2026

My response to human rights activist Elena Bonner

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

My response to human rights activist Elena Bonner

 

 

"The heart of the pure is a transparent, beneficent reservoir.

And she cares for her people."

                                                                       Nizami

 

    Russian liberals and human rights activists, who position themselves as impeccably pure and principled in the fight for democracy and human rights, are guilty of a biased dependence on their nationality when it comes to Israel, whose apartheid regime toward the Palestinians they unconditionally support. While condemning the punitive actions of the Russian army in Chechnya, which seeks to escape imperial clutches, Russian human rights activists ignore the right of Palestinian Arabs to their own state and, moreover, are trying in every way to convince the international community that the Palestinians have no right to fight for their rights. Thus, Valeria Novodvorskaya, leader of the Russian Democratic Union, calling Israel a "super-democratic state" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y6H4ZYSWq0&feature=channel), whose democracy, in her opinion, is "even excessive," considers the Palestinians' desire for their own state a whim. They have representation in parliament, work and study alongside Jews—what more could they, the "insinuate ones," as she calls them, need? True, but the liberal Novodvorskaya either forgets or deliberately fails to mention the Palestinians in the occupied (or controlled, as the Jews officially call it) territories. The situation of these people is unique. While within Israel's borders, they are not citizens of Israel and have no rights—they are nothing. The Jewish state cannot grant them citizenship status, because such a legal status, common to any state, would instantly change the demographic situation. However, Novodvorskaya is simply lying when she talks about Palestinian rights in Israel, and based on this lie, she concludes that they should be deprived of their right to a state:

   "If the people prefer to create terrorist concerns instead of a state—if they don't want one, then that's fine. Let them live within the Israeli state, do internships, and study. But that requires the desire to learn. Israel doesn't refuse to be a teacher. Israel has provided employment for all members of the Arab population who wanted to work and study, who wanted to become civilized, with jobs, elected them to the Knesset, even made their language the official language, and conscripted them into its own army, if they so desired. Go ahead, study, and maybe you'll learn something. But if there's no desire to learn, no desire to create a state, but a desire to interfere with another state, then it's time to rescind this mandate until better times." And this will be the only possible resolution to the conflict in this situation."

 

    Suggesting stripping the mandate for the state, Novodvorskaya doesn't propose what to do with the "insane eaters." Presumably, taking their lives; no other option follows from the verdict handed down by the leader of the Russian democrats.

    The Jewish state needs ethnically clean territories. This was partially achieved in the first years of the state's creation, resulting in more than 4 million Palestinian refugees scattered across neighbouring countries. Those who remained were isolated from the rest of the world by a concrete wall. For them, the entire Israeli "super-democracy" consists of the right to exist in one enormous open-air prison, from which some are taken in the morning, like prisoners—which is what they are—through checkpoints to perform hard physical labor for pennies on Israeli construction sites and plantations, only to be returned in the evening behind the concrete wall. However, the half-century-long expectation that the Palestinians will die out in the reservations and disperse, being refugees, does not produce the desired result. Moreover, these "stupid people" do not appreciate Israel's "excessive democracy," as Novodvorskaya puts it, and have the audacity to demand anything, even the right to their own state.

Actually, after discussing the "stupid people," I see no point in further analyzing the chauvinism of the liberal Ms. Novodvorskaya. I just want to note that Israel, with its occupied territories, is like a "dog in the manger." The intention to retain territories with densely populated Arab populations creates serious problems and is the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is metastasizing in various parts of the world.

 

   The flourishing international terrorism has Middle Eastern roots, and looking for other causes, such as Islam and the war of civilizations, is not only unwise but also dangerous. (For more details, see "International Terrorism and Its Interested Parties" (https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/04/international-terrorism-and-its.html  ).

 Arena The conflict has spread throughout the world. The clarification of relations between Arabs and Jews is taking place wherever possible, regardless of borders and countries. A striking example of this was the Arab attack on America, Israel's military ally, on September 11, 2001, which, in its audacity and number of casualties, was comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

   This mournful date marks the beginning of the essay-message to the world (Speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum http://www.grani.ru/Politics/World/Mideast/m.151256.html) by human rights activist Elena Bonner (better known as the wife of Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov). Unlike Novodvorskaya, Bonner, in a gentle, intelligent address to the reader, explains why a Jewish state has a right to exist, while a Palestinian state does not. Like an artist, with a few vague, irrelevant strokes, she attempts to lead the reader to her essentially false conclusion:

 

"In the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the entire world has changed incredibly—historically, incredibly quickly. But has it become better, more prosperous for the six billion eight hundred million people inhabiting our small planet? Despite all the new advances in science and technology, despite the process we commonly call progress, no one can answer this question definitively. It seems to me that the world has become more unsettled, more unpredictable, more fragile. This unpredictability, anxiety, and fragility are felt to varying degrees by all countries and by each individual. And social and political life is becoming increasingly virtual, like a picture on a computer screen."

Strangely enough, for Bonner, this is typical nostalgia for people of the communist period.

"Meanwhile, the external backdrop of life, shaped by television, newspapers, and radio, remains the same: countless conferences, summits, forums, and various competitions—from beauty to sandwich-eating. Rapprochement in words, but disunity in reality."

Why disunity? Because, as it turns out, for life to be more than virtual, everyone needs to rally around Israel in support of it.

"And it's not because an economic depression suddenly struck, and then swine flu. It all started on September 11th."

 

So, no more, no less, the origins of all misfortunes, including swine flu, must be sought in the date of September 11th, which Bonner quite correctly links to the Jewish state. She then immediately gets to the heart of her revelation:

"I'm going to talk about Israel and the Jews. And not only because I'm Jewish, but first and foremost because the Middle East conflict, throughout the entire period since the end of World War II, has been a springboard for political games and speculation by great powers, Arab countries, and individual politicians seeking to vindicate their political reputations in the so-called 'peace' process, and perhaps even win the Nobel Peace Prize."

 

   Is Bonner perhaps referring to the dove Tzipora Livni, who soiled her feathers with "Cast Lead"? No. She's referring to Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yitzhak Rabin, whose life that peace cost. Ms. Bonner refuses to recall that Rabin died at the hands of a Jewish terrorist, an opponent of peace with the Palestinians. If he had been killed by an Arab, however, Bonner would have been quick to point out the "insinuity" Israel has had to contend with on its difficult path to peace. Incidentally, Bonner justifies Israel's "Cast Lead" military operation, condemned by the international community, which is highly questionable given her status as a human rights activist. In her article "Lead Rain" (http://www.grani.ru/opinion/bonner/m.146107.html ), she writes that by striking schools with phosphorus bombs containing children, "Israel is simultaneously liberating the civilian population of Gaza, all of whom—to a man—are held hostage by Hamas." It's important to understand that the human rights activist welcomes the idea of ​​schoolchildren being exempted from life. But if we accept that Palestinian children are future Hamas militants, and this is undoubtedly the case, then their elimination, as is now fashionable to say and as practiced by the Mossad around the world, is a good deed. 

    There's no reason to be hypocritical; every Palestinian has the right to see their country and their people free from occupiers, and Israel and our human rights activist deny them this natural right. Bonner fights for the rights of the Chechen people, but she denies the Palestinian people the right to freedom, even though there's no fundamental difference in the status of these peoples. Moreover, at least formally, Chechens have citizenship status, something denied to Palestinians trapped behind a concrete wall. So what's the reason for our human rights activist's such different assessments of freedom? The reason lies in her nationality; there's no other explanation. This is precisely why Bonner opposes the just principle of "Two countries for two peoples," and she argues:

 

    "Israel's population is approximately 7.5 million, of which 2.5 million are ethnic Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Imagine Israel with another five million Arabs, and the Arab population significantly outnumbering the Jews. And next to it, a Palestinian state will be created, completely cleansed of Jews, because in addition to the demand for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, there is also a demand to clear Judea and Samaria of Jews and hand them over to the Palestinians, and today there is not a single Jew left in Gaza."

   First, there is another lie here: the Palestinians have no objection to Jews continuing to live in settlements; they just don't want to be left in a powerless state under the surveillance of Israeli soldiers. Secondly, Bonner unwittingly revealed the truth behind the emergence of Palestinian refugees, and this truth is hidden in the figures she cites:

 

"Jews (about 600,000) were accepted by the then-newlywed state of Israel."

 

Further: "According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the number of registered Palestinian refugees has grown from 914,000 in 1950 to 4,600,000 and continues to grow."

 

   Comparing these data reveals only one thing: that to accommodate 600,000 Jews, 914,000 Arabs were expelled. It was virtually impossible to create a Jewish state where the Arabs had numerical superiority. This is the reason for the emergence of Palestinian refugees.

   Let the women not be offended, but, as is typical of most women (women are inferior strategically, but equal and can surpass men tactically), Bonner is guilty of limited logic and sees no promise in the conclusions that follow from her words:

 

"According to the official UN status, only those who fled violence and war are considered refugees, not their descendants born in another land."

 

   In other words, Bonner means that only the 914,000 refugees themselves have the right to return, not their descendants. But then what about the fact that the descendants of Jews who left Palestine 2,000 years ago are returning to Palestine? Thus, logic breaks down. She, without intending to, deprives the Jews of the right to return to the Promised Land.

   And another important detail I'd like to point out: Palestinian refugees, despite all the obstacles, are eager to return to their homeland, while Jews, even the majority of them, are reluctant to return to Israel, even with repatriation financed by Jewish organizations, preferring, like Bonner, to remain in Galut. Moreover, if America hadn't been closed at the insistence of Jewish organizations, the Great Aliyah would never have happened. Paradoxically, when leaving the USSR, Jews preferred Germany over the Promised Land.

   Jews living outside Israel don't understand the gravity of the situation facing the Jewish state (see «Israel, - way to nonexistence»

 (https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2024/08/israel-way-to-nonexistence.html )

 and, through powerful Jewish organizations, use economic and political leverage to support right-wing extremists in Israel. Israel's future is seen only in peace with its neighbors, and this peace can only be achieved at the negotiating table (possibly in the UN Security Council), followed by the deployment of UN forces to the dividing line between the two countries and the two peoples.

 

   Yelena Bonner concludes her message to the world with the words of A. Sakharov, which embody the truth and reflect the formula of humanism. However, I have serious doubts about Yelena Bonner's own morality. Caring for one's people is a noble cause, but the trouble is, there are examples of villains doing the same, and only morality has achieved the final outcome, of all possible options. Therefore, I will allow myself to conclude my response to "human rights activist" Yelena Bonner with words that embody a great truth:

 

"Ultimately, the moral choice turns out to be the most pragmatic."

                                                                                                                     Andrei Sakharov

 

05.02.2010

Мой ответ правозащитнице Елене Боннэр

 

 

Алик  Бахши

Мой ответ правозащитнице Елене Боннэр

 

«Сердце чистой – прозрачный, благой водоём.

  И печётся она о народе своём.»

                                     Низами

       Российские либералы и правозащитники, позиционирующие себя безупречно чистыми и принципиальными в борьбе за демократию и права человека, грешат конъектурной зависимостью от их национальной принадлежности, когда речь заходит об Израиле, апартеид которого по отношению к палестинцам, все они безоговорочно поддерживают. Осуждая карательные действия русской армии в Чечне, стремящейся выбраться из имперских когтей, российские правозащитники игнорируют право палестинских арабов на своё государство и даже, более того, всячески пытаются убедить мировое сообщество не в правомочности палестинцев вести борьбу за свои права. Так лидер российского "Демократического Союза" Валерия Новодворская, называя Израиль «сверх демократическим государством» (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y6H4ZYSWq0&feature=channel), демократичность которого по её мнению "даже избыточна", находит желание палестинцев обрести своё государство блажью. Они имеют представительство в парламенте, работают и учатся наравне с евреями, мол, что им «оглоедам», как она их называет, ещё надо. Да, но либерал Новодворская то ли забывает, то ли умышленно не упоминает о палестинцах, находящихся на оккупированных (контролируемых, как евреи официально именуют) территориях. Положение этих людей уникально. Находясь в пределах границ Израиля, они не являются гражданами Израиля и не имеют никаких прав – они вообще никто.  Еврейское государство не может предоставить им статус граждан, потому что такой обычный для любого государства правовой статус его жителя мгновенно изменит демографическую ситуацию. Однако Новодворская попросту врёт, говоря о правах палестинцев в Израиле, и  на основе лжи подводит к выводу - лишить их в праве на государство:

«Если народ предпочитает создавать террористические концерны вместо государства – не хочет, не надо. Пусть живут в рамках израильского государства, стажируются, учатся. Но для этого нужно желание – учиться. Израиль не отказывается быть учителем. Всех представителей арабского населения, которые хотели работать и учиться, хотели стать цивилизованными, он (Израиль) и трудоустроил, и избрал в Кнессет, и даже язык их сделал государственным, и в собственную армию призывает, при желании. Пожалуйста, на здоровье – учитесь, глядишь, чему-то научитесь. Но если нет желания учиться, нет желания создавать государство, а есть желание мешать другому государству, значит пора этот мандат аннулировать до лучших времен. И это будет единственно возможным в данной ситуации разрешением конфликта".

    Предлагая лишить мандата на государство, Новодворская не предлагает, что же делать с «оглоедами». Надо полагать, лишить жизни, никакой другой вариант не вытекает из приговора, вынесенного лидером российских демократов.

     Еврейскому государству нужны этнически чистые территории. Частично это удалось осуществить в первые годы создания государства, как результат, - более 4-х миллионов палестинских беженцев, размётанных по окрестным странам. Оставшихся изолировали от остального мира бетонной стеной. Для них, вся израильская «сверх демократия» заключается в праве существовать в одной громадной тюрьме под открытым небом, из которой некоторых по утрам, словно арестантов, а таковыми они и являются, через контрольные пункты  вывозят на тяжелый физический труд за гроши на израильские стройки и плантации, чтобы вечером вернуть за бетонную стену. Однако, полувековое ожидание, что палестинцы вымрут в резервации и рассосутся, будучи беженцами, не даёт желаемого результата. Более того, эти «оглоеды» не ценят израильской «избыточной демократии» по Новодворской и имеют наглость чего-то требовать вплоть до права на своё государство.

     Вообще-то после «оглоедов» не вижу смысла далее разбирать шовинизм либеральной госпожи Новодворской, хочу лишь заметить, что Израиль с оккупированными территориями подобен «собаке на сене». Намерение сохранить за собой территории с компактно проживающим арабским населением создаёт серьёзные проблемы и является главной причиной арабо-израильского конфликта, дающего метастазы в различных частях Света.

    Расцвётший международный терроризм имеет ближневосточные корни и искать другие причины, как то, в Исламе и войне цивилизаций, не только не разумно, но и опасно. (Более детально см. «Международный терроризм и его интересанты» http://proza.ru/2008/03/22/568). Ареной конфликта стал весь Мир. Выяснение отношений между арабами и евреями идёт повсюду, где это только возможно, невзирая на границы и страны. Яркий пример тому арабская атака на Америку, военному союзнику Израиля, 11 сентября 2001 года, которая по дерзости и числу жертв подобна японской атаке на Перл-Харбор.  

     С этой скорбной даты собственно и начинается эссе-послание Миру 

(Речь на Форуме свободы в Осло

 http://www.grani.ru/Politics/World/Mideast/m.151256.html) правозащитницы Елены Боннэр (более известной как жена нобелевского лауреата Андрея Сахарова), которая, в отличие от Новодворской, мягким интеллигентным обращением к читателю, объясняет, почему еврейское государство имеет право на существование, а палестинское – нет.  Подобно художнику, несколькими туманными, не имеющими никакого отношения к теме, мазками она пытается подвести читателя к предлагаемому ею, по сути ложному, выводу:  

«За годы, прошедшие с момента падения Берлинской стены, весь мир неимоверно – исторически чрезвычайно быстро – изменился. А вот стал ли он лучше, благополучней для шести миллиардов восьмисот миллионов человек, населяющих нашу маленькую планету? На этот вопрос, несмотря на все новые достижения науки и техники, на тот процесс, который в привычной терминологии мы называем прогрессом, никто однозначно ответить не может. Мне кажется, что мир стал более тревожным, более непредсказуемым, более хрупким. Эта непредсказуемость, тревога и хрупкость в разной степени ощущается и всеми странами, и каждым человеком в отдельности. И жизнь общественная и политическая становится все более и более виртуальной, как картинка на дисплее компьютера.»

Как ни странно для Боннэр, - типичная ностальгия людей коммунистического периода.  

«При этом внешний фон жизни, формируемый телевизором, газетой или радио, прежний: конференциям, саммитам, форумам, различным конкурсам – от красоты до поедания бутербродов – нет числа. На словах сближение, а в реальности разобщение. »

Почему разобщение? Да потому, что, как окажется далее, чтобы жизнь не была виртуальной, всем надо сплачиваться вокруг Израиля для его поддержки.

«И это не потому, что вдруг грянула экономическая депрессия и к ней вдобавок свиной грипп. Это началось 11 сентября.»

   Вот так, ни больше, ни меньше, истоки всех напастей и свиного гриппа в том числе, надо искать в дате 11 сентября, которую Боннэр совершенно правильно связывает с еврейским государством. Далее она сразу переходит к сути своего откровения:

   «Вот об Израиле и евреях я и буду говорить. И не только потому, что я еврейка, но в первую очередь потому, что ближневосточный конфликт в течение всего времени, прошедшего с окончания Второй мировой войны, является плацдармом политических игр и спекуляций больших держав, арабских стран и отдельных политиков, стремящихся на так называемом "мирном" процессе подтвердить свое политическое имя, а может, и получить Нобелевскую премию мира.»

  Уж не голубку ли Ципору Ливни, замаравшую пёрышки «Литым свинцом» Боннэр имеет ввиду? Нет. Она имеет ввиду лауреата Нобелевской премии мира Ицхака Рабина, которому этот мир стоил жизни. То, что Рабин погиб от руки еврейского террориста, противника мира с палестинцами, госпожа Боннэр не хочет вспоминать. Вот если бы его убил араб, то Боннэр не преминула бы напомнить, с какими «оглоедами» Израилю приходится иметь дело на трудном пути к миру. Кстати военную акцию Израиля «Литой свинец», которую осудило мировое сообщество, Боннэр оправдывает, что весьма сомнительно в её статусе правозащитницы. В статье «Свинцовый ливень» (http://www.grani.ru/opinion/bonner/m.146107.html) она пишет, что нанося удары фосфорными бомбами по школам с детьми  «Израиль одновременно освобождает мирное население Газы, которое всё - поголовно - является заложником ХАМАСа». Надо понимать, что освобождение от жизни школьников приветствуется правозащитницей. Но, если принять, что палестинские дети – будущие боевики ХАМАСа, а это без сомнения так оно и есть, то их ликвидация, как сейчас модно выражаться, и как практикуется Мосадом по всему Миру, благое дело. Нет резона лицемерить, каждый палестинец в праве видеть свою страну и свой народ свободными от оккупантов и в этом естественном праве ему отказывает Израиль и наша правозащитница. За права чеченского народа Боннэр ведёт борьбу, но палестинскому народу она отказывает в праве на свободу, хотя принципиальной разницы в положении этих народов нет. Более того, формально чеченцы хотя бы имеют статус граждан, чего лишены находящиеся за бетонной стеной палестинцы. Так в чём причина столь различной оценки прав на свободу у нашей правозащитницы?  А причина в её национальности и другого объяснения нет. Именно поэтому Боннэр против справедливого принципа "Две страны для двух народов" и она обосновывает:

   «Население Израиля составляет около 7 с половиной миллионов человек, из них два с половиной миллиона – этнические арабы, называющие себя палестинцами. Представьте себе Израиль, когда туда вольются еще пять миллионов арабов и число арабов в нем будет существенно превышать число евреев. А рядом будет создано палестинское государство, полностью очищенное от евреев, потому что кроме требования возвращения в Израиль палестинских беженцев выдвигается также требование очистить от евреев и передать палестинцам Иудею и Самарию, а в Газе на сегодня уже нет ни одного еврея.»

    Во-первых, здесь присутствует очередная ложь; палестинцы ничего не имеют против того, чтобы евреи продолжали жить в поселениях, они лишь не желают находиться в бесправном положении под надзором израильских солдат. А во-вторых, Боннэр невольно раскрыла истину в появлении палестинских беженцев, и истина эта сокрыта в цифрах, которые она приводит:  

 «Евреев (около 600 тысяч) принял новорожденный тогда Израиль.»

      Далее: «По данным Ближневосточного агентства ООН для помощи палестинским беженцам и организации работ (БАПОР), число зарегистрированных палестинских беженцев выросло с 914 000 в 1950 году до 4 600 000 и продолжает расти.»

   Сопоставление этих данных, говорит лишь об одном, а именно, что для принятия 600 тысяч евреев было изгнано 914 тысяч арабов. Практически невозможно было создать еврейское государство, где арабы имели бы численное превосходство. Вот где причина появления палестинских беженцев.

    Пусть женщины не обижаются, но, как свойственно большинству женщин (в плане стратегии женщины уступают, но в тактическом – равны и могут превосходить мужчин), Боннэр грешит ограниченной логикой и не видит перспективы в выводах, которые следуют из её слов:

  «По официальному статусу ООН беженцами считаются только те, кто бежал от насилия и войн, но не их потомки, родившиеся на другой земле.»

 То есть, Боннэр имеет ввиду, что в праве на возвращение, имеют только непосредственно 914 тысяч, но не их потомки. Но тогда как же быть с тем, что в Палестину возвращаются потомки евреев покинувших её 2 тысячи лет назад. Таким образом, логика обрывается. Она, сама того не желая, лишает права евреев на возвращение в Землю Обетованную.  

    И ещё одна немаловажная деталь, на которую хочу обратить внимание: палестинские беженцы, несмотря на все препятствия, стремятся вернуться на Родину, в то время как евреи и таких большинство не рвутся в Израиль, даже с учётом финансирования репатриации еврейскими организациями, предпочитая подобно Боннэр оставаться в Галуте. Скажу даже более, если бы Америку не закрыли по настоянию еврейских организаций, не случилась Большая алия. Как это не парадоксально, но, покидая СССР, евреи большее предпочтение отдавали Германии, чем Земле Обетованной.   

      Живущие за пределами Израиля евреи, не понимают серьёзность ситуации, в которой находится еврейское государство (см. «Израиль, путь в небытие», http://proza.ru/2008/03/23/506) и посредством мощных еврейских организаций экономическими и политическими рычагами поддерживают правых экстремистов в Израиле. Будущее Израиля видится только в мире с соседями и мир этот можно достичь только за столом переговоров (возможно в Совете Безопасности ООН), с последующим введением сил ООН на границу раздела двух стран для двух народов.  

      Своё послание Миру Елена Боннэр заканчивает словами А. Сахарова, которые заключают в себе истину и отражают формулу гуманизма. Однако, у меня большие сомнения в нравственности самой Елены Боннэр. Забота о своём народе благое дело, да вот беда, известны примеры, когда и злодеи этим занимались, и только нравственность оставляла окончательный результат, из всех возможных вариантов. Поэтому позволю себе также завершить мой ответ «правозащитнице» Елене Боннэр словами, заключающими великую истину:  

      "В конечном итоге нравственный выбор оказывается самым прагматичным".

                                         Андрей Сахаров

05.02.2010

 

 

 

The Constitution in Russia, or Why the Hell Does a Priest Need an Accordion?

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

The Constitution in Russia, or

Why the Hell Does a Priest Need an Accordion?  

 

 

    The Constitution of the United States of America was adopted in 1787. Two centuries later, a Constitution appeared in Russia under Nicholas II in 1906, but every misfortune begins with a bad start. The Constitution, like a promiscuous prostitute, was stripped and dressed in the new outfit of his choice by each master of the Kremlin. In short, subsequent constitutions in Russia were adopted in 1918, 1924, 1936 (Stalin's), 1977 (Brezhnev's), and 1993 (democratic). But most of all, it was the long-time President Putin who had this Constitution in all its forms, namely in 2008, 2014, 2019, and finally, God willing, not for the last time, in 2020. (1) It's noteworthy that the Russian people, who live not by law but by justice, haven't needed this very Constitution for a hundred years, much less a democratic one. Due to their mentality, the Russian people reject democracy, which envisions active popular participation in organizing political and economic activity. The concept of a "Russian people" and "democracy" is nonsense. (1) Under Yeltsin, the people coughed up blood when the emerging oligarchs, mostly of non-Russian ethnicity, took advantage of the people's passivity and mercilessly plundered the country. Putin dispersed most of the oligarchs who refused to play by his rules and, in essence, restored the previous totalitarian regime, calling it sovereign democracy—that is, democracy for the sovereign.

 

    The idea of ​​a strong-willed decision to introduce democracy in Russia failed miserably for compelling objective reasons. Although the reasons are objective, they are in reality subjective, for they pertain to such a subject as the Russian people. (3) Democracy, a constitution, elections—all these Western gimmicks, alien to the Russian people, have become a thing of the past, like a bad dream. Thanks to their benefactor, Putin, the Russian people have been freed from the organizational responsibilities that are alien to them. Now there is a tsar again, let him do what tsars are supposed to do.

 

 

1.  The Constitution as a guarantor of the president

  https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/#post-alikbahshi-48875

  https://samlib.ru/editors/b/bahshi_a/alikbahshi137.shtml 

https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-constitution-as-presidents-guarantor.html

          2. The people's destiny, or to each cricket its own hearth.

https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-peoples-fate-or-to-each-cricket-his_01010016616.html

             3. Democracy is contraindicated for an empire.

        https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/09/empire-democracy-is-contraindicated.html

 

       05.02.20

A Second Holocaust Is Just Around the Corner

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

A Second Holocaust Is Just Around the Corner

 

 

    The most hardworking and self-sufficient nation, the one that raised Germany from the ruins of World War II and propelled the country to the top of the global economy—a nation that, despite its economic achievements, lives rather modestly due to its mentality—a nation that gives money freely to Greece, a country of idlers and lazybones, in a vain attempt to teach Greeks to live within their means—is now forced to feed and house more than a million Arab refugees who have suddenly arrived. One gets the impression that these refugees, mostly young people, were just waiting for troubles in their own countries to leave and obtain refugee status, taking advantage of Europe's humane laws.

 

    It should be noted that by accepting refugees from Syria, Europe is in fact pandering to dictator Assad and the militants of the newly formed Islamic Arab State (ISIS). The fact is that the bulk of the refugees are not the elderly and children, but rather young, aggressive youth who could well organize resistance to their dissatisfaction, rather than seek a better life outside their homeland. Europe is, in fact, making a grave strategic mistake by allowing thousands of healthy, idle people to settle in, brazenly demanding paradise while refusing to integrate with European culture and way of life. As a result, the Syrian problem must be resolved by Europe, risking the lives of its soldiers. Moreover, as history shows, any external invasion, especially military, by people with a completely alien mentality and culture only exacerbates the problem.

 

    Essentially, the refugee situation unfolding in Germany is an external invasion by a large mass of people with a completely different mentality, culture, and religious ideology, reaching the level of fanaticism, precluding any prospect of spiritual rapprochement with the German people. This difference quickly became apparent during the first days of the refugees' stay, when they came to celebrate the main Christian holiday, Christmas and Sylvester. The Arab refugees' rejection of Christian values ​​manifested itself in aggressive actions, specifically by throwing pre-prepared firecrackers into a crowd gathered on New Year's Eve in a Cologne square. Symbolically, firecrackers were also thrown toward a church, with the intention of setting it on fire. But what outraged the German public most was the refugees' extremely hooligan behavior toward women, including overt sexual acts and even rape. It's noteworthy that just minutes earlier, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in her New Year's speech, called on the German people to provide assistance and show understanding for the poor Arabs who had found refuge in Germany. It seems that Angela Merkel's New Year's gift to her people in the form of Arab refugees openly demonstrating their rejection of European values ​​will come back to haunt her during the elections.

 

 

 

    I have no doubt that the German people would have welcomed the refugees if not for the excessive audacity of their demands and their provocative behaviour in the country that granted them asylum. And if the German government fails to take effective measures to curb the Arab outrage or continues to accept them contrary to common sense, the situation could lead to a new outbreak of anti-Semitism (Arabs, like Jews, are Semites).

 

   Today, social conditions that existed on the eve of the Holocaust are re-emerging in Germany. Anti-Semitism in Germany certainly did not arise out of nowhere. The fact is that Jews in Germany, despite their long residence in the country, failed to integrate at all. Having created a ghetto, which stood in stark contrast to the cleanliness and orderliness of German cities, the Jewish community lived its own isolated life. Due to their mentality, Jews primarily worked in trade and service industries. Germans who produced material goods were forced to buy them from Jews at three times the price. The Nazis took advantage of this situation, organizing pogroms of shops and synagogues throughout Germany and Austria on the night of November 9-10, 1938. This action became known as the "Night of Broken Glass" or "Kristallnacht." The brazen behaviour of the Arabs flooding Germany, while the authorities remained silent, could provoke a wave of protest from the outraged population, and who knows what form this might take.

 

17.01.2016

The Turkic Language and Azerbaijan

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

The Turkic Language and Azerbaijan

 

     The Moldovan Parliament made a bold decision to rename the state language from "Moldovan" to "Romanian." "Those who for decades have been telling us that we, citizens of the Republic of Moldova, speak the 'Moldovan' language, not Romanian, have only one goal: to divide us," wrote President Maia Sandu. Russia, having annexed part of Romania, gave it the name Moldova, thus creating the Moldovan people and the Moldovan language. Although, in fact, the population of so-called Moldova is Romanians and their language is Romanian. A similar, and even, I would say, more complicated, situation has developed in Azerbaijan, a full understanding of which requires looking back to the distant past of the two most numerous peoples of the Middle East, namely the Turks and Persians (Iranians).

 

    The Iranians are credited with the powerful Persian Empire (Achaemenid Empire), which existed from 646 to 329 BC, and the Parthian Empire, which was revived after the empire of Alexander the Great and the Seleucid Empire. The Sassanid Empire (250 BC – 227 AD), which halted the Roman Empire's advance eastward, and the last Sassanid Empire (227 – 651 AD), which fell as a result of Arab conquests and the formation of the Arab Caliphate. It should be noted that from then on, the Iranians lost power within their own state for many centuries until the Islamic Revolution and the expulsion of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, from the country.

 

    The infiltration of the Seljuk Turks, which began particularly actively in 1036, ultimately led to the collapse of the Arab Caliphate. In 1055, Toghrul Beg deposed the Caliph of Baghdad and became Sultan of Baghdad, and the Ottoman Empire began to emerge in Asia Minor. In 1256, the Middle East was invaded by the Mongols, establishing the Turco-Mongol Empire. The Hulagunid Empire (1256–1335) with its capital in Tabriz. An important point for understanding the future situation discussed in this article is that the official languages ​​of the Hulagunid Empire were Turkic and Farsi (Persian). However, traditionally, Farsi continued to be used exclusively in Eastern poetry.

 

   The Hulagunid dynasty was later replaced by the Timurids. A talented military leader of Turco-Mongol origin, Timur (demir, meaning "iron" in Turkic), known in Europe as Tamerlane, created the empire of "Great Turan" (1370–1507) with its capital in Samarkand.

 

 

    Timur became ruler of the entire East. He defeated the army of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, and his campaign against Khan Tokhtamysh ended with the complete defeat of the Golden Horde and Tokhtamysh's pursuit to the borders of Moscow. After this campaign, the Golden Horde never recovered and subsequently became easy prey for the Moscow Principality. In my opinion, the main problem of the Turks, and this can be traced throughout their history, is their constant internecine strife, which ultimately resulted in their inability to confront their enemies.

    After Timur's death, his empire disintegrated, and two warring Turkic alliances emerged: the Ak Koyunlu and the Kara Koyunlu. The former were Sunni, while the latter were Shia. The internecine war ended with the victory of the Ak Koyunlu, who turned their attention to the by then-strengthened Ottoman Empire, but suffered defeat. Over time, as a result of internal struggle, power in the Ak Koyunlu state passed to the Turkic Safavid dynasty, who professed Shia Islam. The Safavid Empire (1501-1736), also known in history as The Qizilbash State.

 

   Two powerful, eternally opposing Turkic states emerged in the Middle East: the Sunni Ottoman Empire and the Shiite Safavid Empire, in which the official languages ​​were Turkic and Farsi.

 

 

    It is important to note that the Turkic-speaking population in the Safavid Empire was largely concentrated in its northwestern region, which in ancient times was called Antropatena, preserved but transformed over the millennia into the name Azerbaijan. The Turkic population of this historical and geographical area became known as Azeri, or, in Russian, Azerbaijanis.

 

    While power in the Ottoman Empire remained in the hands of the Ottoman dynasty throughout its history, the same cannot be said of the territory located to the east. Power of the Safavid dynasty passed to the vizier and regent of the last Safavid shah, Nader Shah, from a Turkic family. Afsharov, who proved to be a mad despot, known for his bloody repressions against his subordinates, brought Persia to a political and economic crisis due to continuous wars with its neighbors. As a result of a conspiracy by the court khans, Nadir Shah was assassinated in 1747, followed by a reshuffle of the Afshar dynasty's shahs. This disastrous political crisis for the country lasted until 1795.

 

     The situation in Persia stabilized with the accession of the new Turkic dynasty of the Qajars (1795-1925). However, this dynasty suffered the misfortune of having to confront the Russian Empire's plans to conquer the Caucasus. Russia, while seizing lands, dealt harshly with the indigenous peoples. The conquest of Kuban was accompanied by the complete expulsion of the Nogais, some of whom fled to Dagestan, while others found refuge in Turkey. Lands were distributed to Cossacks serving in the Russian army. Thus, the Kuban Cossacks and the Terek Cossacks, with their numerous villages, emerged on the seized lands. Having conquered the North Caucasus, the Russians invaded Persia. As a result of the Russo-Persian War of 1804-1813, the Russian Empire and Persia signed the Treaty of Gulistan (the village of Gulistan in Karabakh). According to the Treaty, Russia ceded Georgia, Dagestan, and the following khanates: Baku, Karabakh, Ganja, Shirvan, Sheki, Derbent, Quba, and Talysh.

    Russia's military successes in the wars with Persia were facilitated by the constant hostility between the Azerbaijani khanates. It should be noted that although the central power in Persia was exercised by the Shah, a Turkic ethnic group, the Turkic khanates of Azerbaijan, while formally subordinate to the Shah, waged endless wars among themselves. I have already noted that constant rivalry is the scourge of the Turks, haunting them throughout their history. There were, however, attempts by individual khans to unite them, but all ended in failure. Thus, the last and most significant of these, undertaken by Fatali Khan, also failed. The only remaining Turkic state with a strong central authority is the Ottoman Empire, which lasted for over six centuries.

 

   Russia did not stop there and in 1826 renewed the war with Persia, which ended in 1828 with the Treaty of Turkmenchay, according to which the Yerevan and Nakhichevan khanates were ceded to Russia, and a new border was established along the Araks River. The remaining 12 Azerbaijani khanates remained in Persia. Thus, the Azerbaijani khanates and their people found themselves in separate states.

 

   The Russians called the local population of the captured territory Caucasian Tatars, due to the similarity of their language to the Kazan Tatars. The local population, however, identified themselves as Turks or Azeri (Azerbaijan is a historical and geographical region), and their language as Turkic (Türk Dili), or Turkish in Russian. There was no state of Azerbaijan, no nationality of Azerbaijani, and no definition of language as Azerbaijani. Moscow, for political reasons, to conceal the close affinity of the Turkic population of the occupied territory with the Turkic people living in Turkey and Iran, named the newly formed Soviet republic Azerbaijan. The people became Azerbaijani, and accordingly, the language became Azerbaijani, although the local population had called it Turkic for centuries.

 

   The slogan "One people, two states," voiced by Presidents Erdogan and Aliyev, means one thing: the Turkic people live in both Turkey and Azerbaijan, and their language is Turkic. Incidentally, the Arabs also have several states, and their language is Arabic; there is no separate Egyptian or Jordanian language.

 

  In my opinion, it would be a good idea to restore historical justice and return the Turkic people of Azerbaijan to their Turkic language, as was done in Moldova, which restored the Romanian language.

 

   Restoring the status of the Turkic language to the people of Azerbaijan will be an important step for the Union of Turkic States.(1)

   Stalin coined the term "Azerbaijani" for the language spoken in Azerbaijan; previously, it was defined as Turkic. Recently, the slogan "one people, two countries" has come into common usage. If this is accepted as reality, then the people of Azerbaijan and Turkey are truly Turkic, and their language is Turkic. Regarding citizenship, Turkic people living in Azerbaijan will retain their citizenship as citizens of Azerbaijan.

    This way, the historical error imposed by Stalin can be corrected.

 

1. One language, one homeland.

https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/16879.html,   ,  https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/09/one-language-one-homeland.html

 

 1.04.2023