The "They Did Not Join the Joint Gaza Action" Claim
Partly true
Claim
Fact
In August 2014, while the attack on Gaza that had begun in July 2014 was continuing, a joint press statement was held in Adana. The Furkan Foundation did not take part in this programme as an institution. This is true, and it is written so in the foundation's own statement.
The reasons for not taking part are in that same statement. A request for institutional support is conveyed through a meeting held between the institutions; no such meeting took place here. A few people took the decision among themselves, and in the telephone call that followed, only attendance was asked for. The content of the programme, who would speak and who would take part were unclear.
Even so, there were members of the foundation who took part in the programme individually. The person who made the accusation confirmed this too; in the text he published after the reactions, he wrote that his criticism was directed at "institutional support not being given", not at "individuals not taking part".
Why this label, "Partly true"?
Because the factual part of the claim holds: institutional participation did not take place. Rather than deny this, we write it openly.
But this is not a fault. A foundation cannot put its own name and its members behind an action whose programme and whose speakers it does not know; if it does, it also takes on responsibility for every word said there. An invitation made in due form was not refused — an invitation made in due form never existed at all.
The part of the claim that is false begins here: it presents a procedural objection as though it were indifference.
Other claims arising from the same article: the arrogance claim and the claim of indifference to the Palestinian cause.
What happened?
In July 2014 Israel's attack on Gaza was continuing. In August 2014 a joint press statement was held in Adana to protest against the attack. The Furkan Foundation did not take part in this programme as an institution.
Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder, then published the article entitled "A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation?" and treated the non-participation not as a question of procedure, but as a question of character and sincerity.
The part that is true
The label of this page is "Partly true", because the factual core of the claim holds: institutional participation did not take place. The foundation did not deny this either; it wrote it openly in its own statement.
What is under discussion is not whether there was non-participation, but what that non-participation means.
How is institutional support asked for?
If support is being asked between institutions for a joint activity, there is a known procedure for it: the other institution is spoken with, the framework of the activity is explained, the conditions of participation are discussed, and the decision takes shape together.
None of this happened here. The decision was taken by a few people among themselves, and in the telephone call that followed, the foundation was only asked to attend. In an activity where an institution puts its own name forward, a single telephone call is not the whole of an invitation.
While the programme and the participants were unclear
The second reason is more concrete still. An institution whose name is read out at a press statement also shares the responsibility for every sentence said there and for every name it stands beside. Institutional support given without knowing who will speak or what the programme contains is a signature that cannot be accounted for afterwards.
This has to do with a religious community not being able to act as an individual does. A sentence Kuytul put into words years ago sums the matter up:
"Tribes do not understand the condition of states, nor individuals and groups the condition of religious communities. They cannot look at an event as they do."
An individual can decide overnight on an action they wish to join. A structure that represents thousands of people, on the other hand, has to account for every decision it takes, to those people and to the public.
There was individual participation — and the one making the claim confirmed it too
There were members of the foundation who took part in the programme. This is not a point that later became disputed; it appears in the text of the person who made the accusation as well. In the statement he published after the reactions, he wrote that his criticism was directed at "institutional support not being given", not at "individuals not taking part".
So there were people in the square. The only thing missing was an institutional signature, and the procedure required for that signature had not been followed.
Can participation be a criterion?
To want an institution to take part in a programme is legitimate; to declare its not taking part a fault is another thing. The second means that whoever issues the invitation turns their own programme into a test for all structures.
If this were the criterion, the same criterion would work both ways: every structure would have to publicly declare everyone who did not come to its own programme to be at fault. In the hundreds of programmes the Furkan Foundation has held over the years, no such list was drawn up; it was accepted that those who did not attend had the right not to attend.
Conclusion
The part that is true is this: institutional participation did not take place, and this has not been hidden.
The part that is false is this: an objection concerning procedure has been conveyed as indifference to the cause and as arrogance. An institution asking the question "under what conditions do I put my signature to this" does not show that the institution is indifferent to the matter.
Other claims arising from the same article are under separate headings: the arrogance claim and the claim of indifference to the Palestinian cause.