Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkish News Summary

    Turkish News Summary

    Around the world, liberal democracy is in retreat. The West is divided, and Caesarism is flourishing. Why?

    Turkish News Summary
    and news blackout

    Claire Berlinski

    I’m safely back from Mauritania, where I had no access to the news at all. It was just me, my family, and five Moors. My life was like this:

    I was so much happier that way.

    Next week I’ll tell you all about it, but for now, I want to reprint a letter I received from a correspondent who wishes to remain anonymous. The news from Idlib and Turkey, which is cataclysmic, is scarcely being covered in the US amid the Coronavirus panic and the American election. It should be, and since my correspondent does such a good job of it, I thought I’d pass it on.

    He writes:

    1.    Both Turkey’s and Russia’s security councils have met. The Turkish security council did not issue a statement, though spokesmen have continued to refer to an attack on Turkish troops by Syrian rather forces rather than by anyone else and President Erdoğan has uttered the traditional revenge formula, “Their blood will not stay on the ground.” But there have been no clear details about what happened, where, or when.

    2.    The Russian Security Council met later and did issue a statement, in which it essentially blamed the Turks for the deaths that had taken place, saying that no Turkish soldiers had been killed in the agreed observation posts in Idlib. Those who had died did so because they were involved in or close to terrorist attacks on Syrian forces

    3.    33 deaths  of  Turkish soldiers in Idlib have been officially acknowledged. Soldiers sending home messages have, from the moment the news broke, been claiming much higher figures, originally 86 (the figure circulating inside the Turkish civil service) and 150 (from soldiers on the front.)

    There is no way of telling whether or not these figures are correct. Families have also revealed that they were getting farewell calls from their sons serving at the front over the last few days saying that they were being bombarded and would soon die.

    4.    Turkey has not blamed the Russians or declared hostilities against them. Its accusations are confined to the Syrian forces, against whom it says it is retaliating. Instead the AKP proposes to hold a secret session of the Grand National Assembly. This is traditionally done to protect information of impending military or security initiatives, but in this case the motive appears to be to conceal the facts of this catastrophe from Turkish public opinion. (Two years ago when two Turkish soldiers were burnt alive by ISIS, the government similarly successfully concealed news of the event by threatening in public to send anyone mentioning it to prison, even though a video of the murders was available on the Internet.) Metin Gurcan, the strategic studies commentator, has boldly issued a personal condemnation of the secret session. Elsewhere, the government has warned that messages on the social media are being followed and may lead to prosecution. (A specialist department of the police was recently created to do this.)

    5.    Yesterday evening around midnight its time, Turkey opened its borders to Syrian refugees(those already in the country and not those still in Idlib) and provided free transport by local municipalities for them to cross into the EU via Greece. Response from the EU to this seems so far to have been muted. There is absolutely no rational or moral explanation for a policy move of this kind. Greece is inevitably repelling the would-be immigrants with tear gas.  Despite it, a number of Western commentators have called for international support for Turkey and its president against Syria and Russia.

    6.    Turkey has appealed to both the EU and NATO for assistance and has had expressions of sympathy. It is hard to see how NATO could possibly go to the assistance of an invading country who troops are involved in a conflict with the legitimate government of that country—though of course other NATO members have also long broken international law by stationing their troops there and assisting in attempts to partition it, opening the way for a steady succession of international problems, including of course the displacement of millions of people. Turkey’s motive for appealing to NATO may be largely cosmetic—to give it the opportunity to proclaim to its population that the EU and NATO are its opponents.

    7.    Turkey seems to be planning to resolve the issue with a summit meeting between Presidents Putin and Erdoğan. President Putin will presumably only agree to this when he is sure that there will be a full Turkish climbdown. Those looking for a historical parallel might recall the Battle of Sadowa/Königratz in 1866 when Bismarck fought and cowed Austria-Hungary into permanent acceptance of Prussian, later German, dominance.

    8.    The Turkish public is mostly well aware that a catastrophe has happened and that this is the result of policies by one or more specific individuals. This is not good news. It implies that as life returns to normal there will have to be another emergency crackdown on opposition activists and media—those that remain, and it will probably be harsher than that which followed the Gülen-led attempted coup of July 2015.

    9.    British and American news coverage will continue to focus on transgender rights, Harvey Weinstein, and Prince Andrew and other overwhelmingly important issues. Governments will continue to try and placate Ankara while keeping a safe distance.

    More from me soon as I ease back into Western life. Mauritania was extraordinary, and I have a lot to say about it. But unfortunately, I came back to a gravely ill cat—the Smudge has suffered a massive stroke. In the coming days I’ll be nursing her, either back to health, which growingly seems unlikely, or toward the most peaceful end I can give her.

    As anyone who has loved an animal knows, it is unspeakably sad. We must endure our going hence, even as our coming hither: Ripeness is all.

    If a reader wishes to contribute to the veterinary bills, or other bills, I’d be very grateful. I hadn’t budgeted for them. This is the link, and thank you.

    I will have fascinating tales from Mauritania to tell you soon.

  • Remnants of an Old Armenian Village Near Ankara

    Remnants of an Old Armenian Village Near Ankara

    Argun Konuk, a 24-year-old Turkish travel and history enthusiast, published a recent article about the Armenian village of Stanoz located near Ankara.

    Konuk reported that Stanoz was “once a prosperous Armenian village in the Ottoman era, now, nothing but ruins and tombstones…. Old Armenian manuscripts reveal that the first inhabitants of the village of Stanoz came from Cilicia in the 15th century. As records show, the population of Stanoz before World War I was 3142 people (668 families) and consisted of Armenians only. Up until its abandonment, Stanoz remained an Armenian-speaking settlement.”

    The residents of the village of Stanoz were skilled in carpet weaving, embroidery and leather processing. Furthermore, they produced fabric from goat hair which was in high demand in Europe. The villagers were also knowledgeable about agriculture, cattle-breeding and construction.

    Konuk also reported that unfortunately the only things that remain in Stanoz now are the graveyard, a stone bridge, and ruins of an Armenian Church. The damage was mostly caused by Turkish gravediggers or treasure hunters. The size of the graveyard keeps shrinking as the Turkish neighbors have been encroaching on the property.

    Stanoz was mentioned in the journals of many travelers for centuries. An 18th Century British military officer, Frederick Burnaby, reported that during his visit to Stanoz, one of the Armenian priests told him that Armenians of Stanoz live in peace with people who practice Islam and Judaism.

    Konuk also reported that “the well-known Turkish traveler Evliya Celebi shared remarkable anecdotes in his journal about this village after his visit in 1643. He spoke of Stanoz as a wealthy town with impressive productivity. Furthermore, he shared that Stanoz had a thousand dwellings, a big bazaar, a fully functioning Turkish bath and even a laundromat.”

    There were three religious buildings in Stanoz: Sourp Prgich Church, Karasoun Manoug Church, and a Protestant Church. There were two Armenian schools: Sourp Ghevontyan School with 140 male and 40 female students and Lusignan School with 50 male and 35 female students.

    Due to the Genocide and deportation of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey, many Stanoz residents were either killed or fled the area leaving the village as a ghost town.

    The writer found that currently only three Armenians live in Stanoz. Kevork Balabian, who was born in Stanoz, told Konuk: “Stanoz had 1200 households and a population of 7-8 thousand. Ottomans valued Stanoz a lot. At the time, the Armenian population of Stanoz migrated to modern cities such as Istanbul, Marseille and Beirut. Only my wife and I, who came from Hatay, and our daughter live in the region. I go there often as I have a farm and a vineyard. Some treasure hunters come there in hopes of pillaging and finding some valuable artifacts but they are afraid of me so they mostly leave. We have graves there and I still look after them”

    An old Turk told Kunuk: “We all grew up with Armenians, went to the same schools. Back then if you were hungry, you could easily knock on an Armenian’s door and ask for food and it was the same for them. We did many things together. There was an Armenian doctor whose name was Mihran Kiremitchi. Every single child who was born in this region owes him so much as he cared for everyone and cured everyone’s child regardless of ethnicity and social class. We never saw him asking for money from anyone. And again, weddings, funerals, everything else, we did together with the Armenians. We even celebrated religious holidays together. They used to paint eggs and we used to sacrifice animals. We miss them.”

    An Armenian by the name of M. Suryan wrote in Aravod newspaper on April 28, 1919: “Some of the houses of Armenian residents who were exiled during World War I were looted and robbed. A considerable part of Albanians and Bosnians resettled in these abandoned homes. The new residents demolished many of the structures and provided firewood by removing wooden pillars, floor-ceiling boards of many homes. Moreover, instead of acquiring wood from the forest, they cut the fruit trees in the gardens to warm up. The aftermath was appalling as this notable village became dilapidated ruins. Gradz Kar, a small Armenian village, which consisted of twenty houses, located an hour away from Stanoz, also suffered the same fate.”

    Konuk is highly offended that Turkish gravediggers have violated the sanctity of the Armenian graves: “The graveyard is particularly in such an abject condition that human bones are scattered around the graves that are pillaged by the treasure hunters and many of the tombstones are damaged. The tombstones are priceless. Each of them represent historical importance, however, their current state is heartbreaking. Even now after devastating centuries, there are still many artifacts and historical objects lying around. For me the most appalling thing was to see some human bones scattered around the graves. In hopes of finding gold or other valuable goods, treasure hunters dig the graves illegally and throw around the bones of the Armenians who are resting there eternally. Undeniably, this is an extreme case of disrespect.”

    Konuk concluded his report with the following heart-warming words: “We Turks lived with Armenians in peace for centuries and I believe this place should carry the same importance as other Turkish cemeteries. Regardless of ethnicity and religion, the Turkish state should have taken measures to protect the memory of this village. Unfortunately, the future of Stanoz seems bleak. It is quite sad to see that this old and notable settlement completely vanished…. After five months of my first visit, I decided to go there again and it shocked me to see that many tombstones were missing! The Armenians of Stanoz were our kin. Who knows what stories and secrets this settlement has to tell us. Unfortunately we will never learn them.”

  • Turks Attack Each Other: Cypriot Turkish Leader Criticizes Turkey

    Turks Attack Each Other: Cypriot Turkish Leader Criticizes Turkey

    Turkish columnist Orhan Kemal Cengiz wrote an article in the Turkish website “al-Monitor” on February 18, 2020, titled: “Why is Turkish Cypriot leader declared ‘enemy’ in Turkey?” The article provided the details of the antagonism between the government of Turkey and the leader of Turkish Cyprus.

    Ever since the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus in 1974, the Republic of Turkey has spent billions of dollars and stationed thousands of Turkish troops to preserve its foothold on the island.

    In recent months, the Turkish media has publicized the hostility between the government of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leader. “Turkish officials and politicians visiting the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized as a state only by Ankara, have refused to meet with its president, Mustafa Akinci, since October,” wrote Cengiz.

    The conflict started with the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria last October, when Akinci dared to criticize the “Sultan” of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan: “Now, even if we call it [the Turkish invasion of Syria] Operation Peace Spring, what is being spilled is not water but blood. For this reason, it is my greatest wish that dialogue and diplomacy come into play as soon as possible.” Hundreds of Turks in Turkey have been imprisoned for criticizing the Turkish military campaign in Syria. Going beyond Syria, Akinci expressed his disagreement with Turkey regarding its invasion of Northern Cyprus: “Even though we called it Operation Peace, it was a war and blood was spilled in 1974.” According to Cengiz, “by drawing a comparison between the two interventions, Akinci was obviously trying to say that military operations in foreign lands create lasting problems and, therefore, he was inviting Turkey to consider other options in Syria.”

    Even though Akinci’s criticisms of the Turkish military invasions were well-meaning, Erdogan, who does not tolerate dissent, was furious, stating that Akinci had “exceeded his limits” and adding that the electorate will soon teach him a “lesson.” Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay also condemned the Turkish Cypriot leader. Cengiz reported that “in Northern Cyprus, meanwhile, Akinci received death threats, for which he requested a judicial investigation.”

    Columnist Cengiz further reported that “Akinci’s remarks made him a scapegoat in Turkey and fueled an unprecedented wave of reactions, the harshest that any Northern Cyprus representative has ever seen. [Turkish] MHP leader Devlet Bahceli called on Akinci to immediately resign. ‘Akinci and his supporters should not forget that Cyprus is Turkish and will remain Turkish,’ Bahceli said. He also suggested that Akinci move to the Greek Cypriot south. AKP spokesman Omer Celik urged Akinci to apologize, while Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the Northern Cyprus leader was being ‘hostile to Turkey’ and that he had never seen ‘such a dishonest politician’ in his life. With the tone set like that by top politicians, pro-government newspapers were even harsher. ‘The Crusaders’ Akinci should resign immediately,’ one paper said, while another declared that Akinci was ‘like an enemy.’”

    Cengiz explained in his article that “it is Turkey that pays the bills in Northern Cyprus through direct and indirect financial aid. Therefore, Cypriot Turks should always be grateful to Ankara. Turkey is ‘the mother’ and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is her ‘baby.’ Anything that goes beyond this notion of subordination would threaten the status quo.”

    In an interview with The Guardian on February 6, 2020, Akinci warned the “permanent partition of its [Cyprus’s] Greek and Turkish communities unless an agreement is swiftly reached involving an ‘equitable’ federal solution.” Akinci said he disagreed with Erdogan’s vision of the relationship between Ankara and Nicosia as one of “mother and baby…. I want independent, brotherly relations,” he explained. He acknowledged the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus had to do more to make its economy less reliant on Turkey, which pays the government’s bills. To do this he needed support from the [Greek] south, Akinci told The Guardian.

    “Akinci — who on Wednesday evening [Feb. 5, 2020] launched his re-election campaign — said the only viable solution to Cyprus’s nearly half century of division was reunification under a federal ‘roof’…. ‘If this failed to happen,’ Akinci told The Guardian, ‘the north would grow increasingly dependent on Ankara and could end up being swallowed up, as a de facto Turkish province.’”

    “Akinci’s vision, which is shared by many Turkish Cypriots, calls for a bi-communal, bi-zonal Cyprus with political equality and a single ‘personality,’ he told The Guardian. It is based on a shared identity of being islanders of Cyprus, rather than being Turkish or Greek,” Cengiz wrote.

    “Akinci’s likely election run-off rival is Ersin Tatar, an outspoken pro-Ankara populist who opposes reconciliation with the south. Tatar, the current prime minister, favors a two-state solution. He enjoys strong support from Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and from settlers who have arrived in unquantified numbers from the mainland, changing the island’s religious and cultural makeup,” The Guardian wrote.

    “I’m not going to be a second Tayfur Sökmen,” Akinci told The Guardian, referring to the president of Hatay, who in the 1930s merged his republic — formerly part of French-mandated Syria — with Turkey after a referendum.

    The dispute between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leader is deviating the Turkish government’s attention away from a slew of other serious conflicts Turkey has with Armenia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Greece and Cyprus.

  • Finally, After 105 Years, Syria Recognizes the Armenian Genocide

    Finally, After 105 Years, Syria Recognizes the Armenian Genocide

    The Syrian people were the first to be aware of the Armenian Genocide as tens of thousands of Armenians were deported by Ottoman Turkey to the killing fields of the Syrian Desert at the beginning of the 20th Century. A large number of Armenian orphans were adopted by local Arabs who raised them as their children. The surviving Armenians in Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir Zor, Damascus and elsewhere were welcome by the local population. Armenians settled in their new homeland, rebuilt their lives, reestablished their cultural structures, including churches, schools, and societies and gradually prospered.

    I was born in Aleppo, Syria, as some of my grandparents’ family had survived the Genocide. I had a happy childhood and had not experienced any prejudice or discrimination, despite the religious differences. Syria had its own dispute with the Republic of Turkey, such as the annexation of Iskenderun (Alexandretta) to Turkey in 1939, after an illegitimate referendum. Nevertheless, the Syrian government, in an Islamic solidarity with Turkey and unwilling to antagonize its more powerful Northern neighbor, had declined to raise the issue of the Armenian Genocide.

    I recall that during the deliberations of the United Nations’ Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1985, the Syrian human rights member told me that even though he was aware of the Armenian Genocide, he could not vote to adopt the report that recognized it, as he would be dismissed from his job. Under the circumstances, I asked him to be absent from the hall during the voting. He did, and the UN report was adopted by an overwhelming majority.

    In the years prior to the 2011 civil war in Syria, the relationship between Syria and Turkey had improved to the point that the the presidents of the two countries met often and went on vacation together. The Syrian government even banned the sale of books on the Armenian Genocide in Syrian bookstores. During those honeymoon years, I was informed that during the visit of Catholicos Aram I to Damascus, Pres. Bashar al-Assad had told him that Armenians should forget about the Armenian Genocide, open the border and establish friendly relations with Turkey.

    When I visited Damascus in 2009, an Armenian friend with access to the Presidential Palace, tried to arrange a meeting for me with Pres. Assad. I wanted to warn Pres. Assad that his honeymoon with the Turkish President could come to an abrupt end and Erdogan, as an untrustworthy ally, could betray him. Of course, I had no idea that two years after my visit to Syria, there would be a massive invasion of Syria by radical Islamic terrorists armed and supported by Turkey. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to meet Pres. Assad. His Chief of Staff refused to arrange the meeting, telling my Armenian friend that he could not allow such a meeting given my many critical writings of Turkey. He said that Turkey would cut off its friendly relations with Syria if Erdogan found out that Pres. Assad had met with me!

    Edmon Marukyan, head of the Bright Armenia opposition party in the Armenian Parliament, told reporters last week that when he met Pres. Assad in Damascus during his trip to Syria in 2014, Assad said: “I was being told in Armenia that I shouldn’t trust Erdogan so much, I didn’t listen to you.” Pres. Assad made an official trip to Armenia in June 2009. However, violating Armenian protocol, he refused to visit the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan to pay homage to the Genocide victims out of concern for Turkish criticism.

    Pres. Assad told Agence France Presse (AFP) in January 2014 that the brutal attacks on Syria reminded him of “the massacres perpetrated by the Ottomans against the Armenians, when they killed a million and a half Armenians, and half a million Orthodox Syriacs in Syria and in Turkish territory.”

    The unanimous decision by the Syrian Parliament on February 13, 2020 is the first official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Syria. The text of the parliament’s resolution also referred to the genocide of Assyrians and Syriacs. Some have expressed their unhappiness that the Syrian government finally recognized the Armenian Genocide only when it suited its own political interests. While that is true, Armenians have to be realistic. No country is going to adopt a decision that is contrary to its national interests. It is true that the Syrian Parliament’s decision is mostly due to the recent Turkish invasion of Northern Syria. However, the decision is not wrong. It is the right thing to do. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. The wrong was not recognizing the Armenian Genocide for all those years. Thus Syria became the second Arab country after Lebanon to have recognized the Armenian Genocide. We hope other Arab countries, such as Egypt, Iraq and Jordan, will follow suit.

    Two immediate benefits of the Syrian Parliament’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide are:

    1)    The mass media once again reminded the world’s public opinion about the dastardly act of the Armenian Genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey, putting one more nail on the coffin of Turkish denial.

    2)    The Turkish government issued a statement denying the Armenian Genocide and condemning the Syrian government which further publicized the Turkish genocide of the Armenians.

    Armenians around the world welcomed Syria’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide, further squeezing the noose around Turkish denialism. As the saying goes, “Better late than Never!”

  • The World Dislikes Trump & his Policies, According to Pew Research Center

    The World Dislikes Trump & his Policies, According to Pew Research Center

    A study published by the Pew Research Center revealed that many in the world do not approve Pres. Donald Trump’s foreign policies. This is not a surprising discovery, but is in total contrast to what the President has been claiming regarding his exaggerated accomplishments.

    Even before his election, candidate Trump repeatedly stated that Pres. Barack Obama was not respected by the rest of the world and that he, as President, will restore respect to the United States by foreign countries.

    Given Pres. Trump’s many exaggerations and outright lies, no one should be surprised by the untruth of what he claimed. The fact is that his predecessor, Pres. Barack Obama, was highly respected around the world, and to the contrary, Pres. Trump has become the laughing stock of most people, in and out of the United States, except by the autocratic leaders of Turkey, North Korea, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

    Let us look at the actual numbers based on the Pew Research Center. In the 33 countries surveyed, the median of only 18% of the people stated they viewed Trump’s foreign policy as positive. Not surprisingly, Trump’s highest foreign policy rating was among Israelis (55%), while 32% disapproved and 13% said, “no difference.”

    The following countries, in descending order, expressed their degree of Pres. Trump’s approval of foreign policy: Poland (34%), Hungary (31%), Ukraine (29%), Nigeria (29%), India (27%), Kenya (25%), South Africa (25%), Slovakia (24%), Australia (24%), Lithuania (22%), Czech Republic (22%), Philippines (21%), Indonesia (19%), Greece (19%), Bulgaria (18%), Lebanon (18%), UK (18%), Italy (17%), Japan (17%), South Korea (16%), Canada (16%), Russia (14%), Netherlands (11%), Sweden (11%), Argentina (10%), Tunisia (9%), Mexico (9%), Turkey (9%), France (9%), Brazil (8%), Spain (7%), and Germany (6%). In the United States, Trump’s approval rating on foreign policy was 37%. It is concerning that some of the lowest ratings were among the NATO allies, while the ratings in the neighboring countries of Canada and Mexico were also very low.

    When asked about individual policy issues, the median of the people in the 33 countries surveyed showed the following ratings:

    — U.S. increasing tariffs or fees on imported goods from other countries: 18% approve; 68% disapprove.

    — U.S. withdrawal from international climate change agreements: 14% approve; 66% disapprove.

    — Building a wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico: 24% approve; 60% disapprove.

    — Allowing fewer immigrants into the U.S.: 34% approve; 55% disapprove.

    — U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear weapons agreement: 29% approve; 52% disapprove.

    — U.S. negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un about the country’s nuclear weapons program: 41% approve; 36% disapprove.

    Regarding the respect the current and the two previous U.S. Presidents — Trump (2017-2019), George W. Bush (2001-2008) and Barack Obama (2009-2016) — enjoyed around the world, the Pew Research Center discovered that Obama was ranked much higher than both Bush and Trump among the people in the 33 countries surveyed. Here are the rankings of the three Presidents with the lows and highs during the various years of their presidency:

    Canada: Bush (28%-59%); Obama (76%-88%); Trump (22%-28%).

    France: Bush (12%-25%); Obama (83%-91%); Trump (9%-20%).

    Germany: Bush (14%-51%); Obama (71%-93%); Trump (10%-13%).

    Greece: Bush (not available); Obama (27%-41%); Trump (17%-25%).

    Italy: Bush (30%-43%); Obama (68%-77%); Trump (25%-32%).

    Netherlands: Bush (39%); Obama (92%); Trump (17%-25%).

    Spain: Bush (7%-26%); Obama (54%-75%); Trump (7%-21%).

    Sweden: Bush (21%); Obama (93%); Trump (10%-18%).

    UK: Bush (16%-51%); Obama (72%-86%); Trump (22%-32%).

    Bulgaria: Bush (27%); Obama (not available); Trump (26%).

    Czech Republic: Bush (36%); Obama (75%-77%); Trump (28%).

    Hungary: Bush (not available); Obama (58%); Trump (29%-33%).

    Poland: Bush (29-47%); Obama (49%-64%); Trump (23%-51%).

    Slovakia: Bush (21%); Obama (not available); Trump (34%).

    Russia: Bush (8%-28%); Obama (11%-41%); Trump (20%-53%).

    Ukraine: Bush (19%); Obama (11%-41%); Trump (44%).

    Australia: Bush (23%-59%); Obama (77%-84%); Trump (29%-35%).

    India: Bush (not available); Obama (48%-74%); Trump (40%-56%).

    Indonesia: Bush (14%-23%); Obama (53%-71%); Trump (23%-30%).

    Japan: Bush (25%-35%); Obama (60%-85%); Trump (24%-36%).

    Philippines: Bush (not available); Obama (84%-94%); Trump (69%-78%).

    South Korea: Bush (22%-36%); Obama (75%-88%); Trump (17%-46%).

    Israel: Bush (57%-83%); Obama (49%-71%); Trump (56%-71%).

    Lebanon: Bush (17%-34%); Obama (35%-46%); Trump (15%-23%).

    Tunisia: Bush (not available); Obama (24%-28%); Trump (12%-18%).

    Turkey: Bush (2%-8%); Obama (12%-45%); Trump (11%).

    Kenya: Bush (72%); Obama (78%-95%); Trump (51%-65%).

    Nigeria: Bush (not available); Obama (53%-84%); Trump (58%-59%).

    South Africa: Bush (32%); Obama (72%-77%); Trump (39%-42%).

    Argentina: Bush (5%-7%); Obama (31%-61%); Trump (11%-22%).

    Brazil: Bush (not available); Obama (52%-69%); Trump (14%-28%).

    Mexico: Bush (16%-28%); Obama (38%-55%); Trump (5%-8%).

    Finally, in comparison with other major world leaders, Pres. Trump ranked at the bottom third of the Pew Research Center survey in 33 countries, losing to French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin, but outscoring Chinese President Xi Jinping by a single point.

    The next time Pres. Trump boasts about how he is respected around the world vs. Pres. Obama, you can smile and tell yourself: one more lie!

  • Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian ‘Peace Plan’ Is Recipe for a Prolonged War

    Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian ‘Peace Plan’ Is Recipe for a Prolonged War

    Pres. Trump unveiled in the White House on January 28, 2020 his long-awaited ‘peace plan’ between Israelis and Palestinians. The architect of the plan is the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.

    The ‘peace plan’ had several drawbacks even before it was announced. To begin with neither Pres. Trump nor his son-in-law had any clue about the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the start of his Presidency, displaying his ignorance, Trump kept saying that this is an easy problem to resolve. His son-in-law, an Orthodox Jew, is just as ignorant about the Middle East conflict. If the problem was so easy to resolve, it would have been solved a long time ago.

    Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is nothing but a ploy to distract attention from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s indictment on corruption charges and Pres. Trump’s impeachment proceedings. A good faith mediator between Israelis and Palestinians must be objective and neutral. Pres. Trump is far from fulfilling this basic requirement, not after moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the disputed Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and announcing that Syria’s Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, is Israeli territory. These are matters of complicated international law and subject to extensive negotiations. These are the reasons why the conflict has not yet been solved. Only someone who is ignorant of these complexities would opine that this is an easy issue to resolve and come up with a plan that is completely one-sided and meets all of Israel’s demands, but none of the Palestinians!

    The proposed ‘peace plan’ actually promotes neither the interests of Israelis nor Palestinians. The terms of Pres. Trump’s plan is dictated by Israel under the guise of preserving its security. It ‘legitimizes’ the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and prolongs their existence. These settlements inside the borders of a future Palestinian state create a considerable risk to the security of Israeli settlers, continuing the conflict and bloodshed. The proposed Palestinian state is surrounded on all four sides by Israel maintaining total military control over Palestinians. Furthermore, the status of Jerusalem remains unresolved. Israel is supposed to take over the entirety of Jerusalem, restricting Palestine’s capital to a village in the outskirts of the city. This is totally unacceptable not only to Palestinians, but all Arabs and Muslims in the world, as well as all those who believe in peaceful settlement through international law.

    Trump’s ‘peace plan’ provides a window of four years for negotiations between the two parties. However, right at the bat, the plan places Palestinians in a losing situation depriving them of their sovereign rights in a weak and diminished area, as Israel will shortly declare the Jewish settlements in the West Bank as Israeli territory.

    No Palestinian leader attended the January 28 White House ceremony. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the “deal of the century,” calling it the “slap of the century.” He also refused to accept the $50 billion investment plan offered by the White House. Abbas said: “Trump, Jerusalem is not for sale. Our rights are not for sale.” Out of 22 Arab States, only the Ambassadors of Bahrain, Oman, and United Arab Emirates attended the White House ceremony.

    On February 1, the foreign ministers of the Arab League’s member states unanimously adopted a resolution rejecting the Trump Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace plan,’ stating that “it does not satisfy the minimum of the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

    In a rare sign of unity, Abbas met last Tuesday with the leaders of Hamas, Palestine Liberation Organization and Islamic Jihad to form a common stand against Trump’s ‘peace plan.’ If anything, this ‘peace plan’ has served to unite the diverse and often conflicting Palestinian groups.

    At the conclusion of the White House ceremony last week, Mosques in the West Bank and East Jerusalem began broadcasting a verse from the Koran that warns, “Do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.”

    Twelve Democratic Senators signed a joint letter to the White House criticizing the ‘peace plan’ as “one-sided [and] not a legitimate attempt to advance peace. It is a recipe for renewed division and conflict in the region.” All Democratic Presidential candidates objected to Pres. Trump’s ‘peace plan,’ criticizing it as being a ‘unilateral move’ leaving out the Palestinians. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter also denounced the ‘peace plan’: “the unilateral annexation to Israel of a large piece of the occupied Palestinian territories offers the Palestinians fragmented statehood, without control of their borders…. The plan violates the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders….”

    The ‘peace plan’ is actually contrary to Israel’s national interests, according to many American Jews and Israelis who were harshly critical of Trump’s plan. Israel’s leaders do not seem to understand that the more they antagonize the Palestinians, the more they prolong the hostilities and continue to live under a state of war and terror!

    “Peace Now,” Israel’s largest and longest-standing movement advocating for peace through public pressure, announced on its website that Trump’s ‘peace plan’ “not only neglects to advance peace, but also has the potential to severely harm prospects for a genuine peace plan for both parties.”

    The American Jewish liberal advocacy group “J Street” denounced the peace deal as having “zero chance of serving as the basis for renewed diplomacy….  It was the logical culmination of repeated bad-faith steps this administration has taken to validate the agenda of the Israeli right.”

    The Jewish-led “Americans for Peace Now” declared the ‘peace plan’ “a recipe for disaster, for annexation, for the perpetuation of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, for the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, [and] for misery and bloodshed.”

    Pres. Trump’s ‘peace plan’ will hopefully never see the light of day. Both Israelis and Palestinians should denounce violence and sit at the negotiating table to find a peaceful solution to their long-standing conflict. They should both avoid the intervention of mediators who are more interested in their own self-interests than the interests of Arabs or Israelis!