Category: Israel

PIPES: Turkey in Cyprus vs. Israel in Gaza

Opinion Commentary

Ankara’s recent condemnation of Jerusalem is hypocritical

By Daniel Pipes

Cyprus/Gaza

In light of Ankara’s recent criticism of what it calls Israel’s “open-air jail” in Gaza, today’s date, which marks the anniversary of Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus, has special relevance.

Turkish policy toward Israel, historically warm and only a decade ago approaching full alliance, has cooled since Islamists took power in Ankara in 2002. Their hostility became explicit in January 2009, during the Israeli-Hamas war. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan grandly condemned Israeli policies as “perpetrating inhuman actions which would bring it to self-destruction” and even invoked God (“Allah will … punish those who transgress the rights of innocents”). His wife, Emine Erdogan, hyperbolically condemned Israeli actions as so awful they “cannot be expressed in words.”

Their verbal assaults augured a further hostility that included insulting the Israeli president, helping sponsor the “Freedom Flotilla” and recalling the Turkish ambassador.

This Turkish rage prompts a question: Is Israel in Gaza really worse than Turkey in Cyprus? A comparison finds this hardly to be so. Consider some contrasts:

c Turkey’s invasion of July-August 1974 involved the use of napalm and “spread terror” among Cypriot Greek villagers, according to Minority Rights Group International. In contrast, Israel’s “fierce battle” to take Gaza relied on only conventional weapons and entailed virtually no civilian casualties.

c The subsequent occupation of 37 percent of the island amounted to a “forced ethnic cleansing,” William Mallinson said in a just-published monograph from the University of Minnesota. In contrast, if one wishes to accuse the Israeli authorities of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, it was against their own people, the Jews, in 2005.

c The Turkish government has sponsored what Mr. Mallinson calls “a systematic policy of colonization” on formerly Greek lands in Northern Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots in 1973 totaled about 120,000 people; since then, more than 160,000 citizens of the Republic of Turkey have been settled in their lands. Not a single Israeli community remains in Gaza.

c Ankara runs its occupied zone so tightly that, in the words of Bulent Akarcali, a senior Turkish politician, “Northern Cyprus is governed like a province of Turkey.” An enemy of Israel, Hamas, rules in Gaza.

c The Turks set up a pretend-autonomous structure called the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” Gazans enjoy real autonomy.

c A wall through the island keeps peaceable Greeks out of Northern Cyprus. Israel’s wall excludes Palestinian terrorists.

And then there is the ghost town of Famagusta, where Turkish actions parallel those of Syria under the thuggish Assads. After the Turkish air force bombed the Cypriot port city, Turkish forces moved in to seize it, thereby prompting the entire Greek population (fearing a massacre) to flee. Turkish troops immediately fenced off the central part of the town, called Varosha, and prohibited anyone from living there.

As this crumbling Greek town is reclaimed by nature, it has become a bizarre time capsule from 1974. Steven Plaut of Haifa University visited and reports: “Nothing has changed. … It is said that the car distributorships in the ghost town even today are stocked with vintage 1974 models. For years after the rape of Famagusta, people told of seeing light bulbs still burning in the windows of the abandoned buildings.”

Curiously, another Levantine ghost town also dates from the summer of 1974. Just 24 days before the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Israeli troops evacuated the border town of Quneitra, handing it over to the Syrian authorities. Hafez Assad chose, for political reasons too, not to let anyone live in it. Decades later, it too remains empty, a hostage to bellicosity.

Mr. Erdogan claims that Turkish troops are not occupying Northern Cyprus but are there in “Turkey’s capacity as a guarantor power,” whatever that means. The outside world, however, is not fooled. While Elvis Costello recently pulled out of a concert in Tel Aviv to protest the “suffering of the innocent [Palestinians],” Jennifer Lopez canceled a concert in Northern Cyprus to protest “human rights abuse” there.

In brief, Northern Cyprus shares features with Syria and resembles an “open-air jail” more than Gaza does. How rich that a hypocritical Ankara preens its moral plumage about Gaza even as it runs a zone significantly more offensive. Instead of meddling in Gaza, Turkish leaders should close the illegal and disruptive occupation that for decades has tragically divided Cyprus.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a visiting fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/19/turkey-in-cyprus-vs-israel-in-gaza/, 19 July 2010

July 20, 2010
Israeli rabbi will meet Turkish PM in Ankara

Chief Rabbi of the Israeli settlement of Tekoa, Rav Menachem Furman, plans to visit Turkey upon Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s invitation, the Turkish newspaper Milliyet reported.

Furman’s visit will take place on the backdrop of controversy in the Turkey-Israel bilateral relations in connection with the Israeli military’s attack on the Turkish humanitarian ship Mavi Marmara routing to Gaza that lead to murder of nine Turks in late May.

Furman, whom is known for his ties with the leaders of the Muslim world, is in contact with the Erdogan administration for more than a year.

He said peace in the Middle East can be achieved only through dialogue and close contact with representatives of the Muslim clergy. Furman believes Turkey will become the country that will bring peace to the region.

Israel regards Furman’s upcoming Turkey visit and his meeting with Turkish politicians as an important step toward reconciliation with former military and strategic ally.

This will be Furman’s second visit for the last month. He also plans to meet with the head of the politburo of the Palestinian movement Hamas, Khaled Mashaal

https://en.trend.az/news/society/religion/1722815.html, 19.07.2010

Rabbi Menachem Froman

July 19, 2010
Einstein Letter Warning Of Zionist Facism In Israel

Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times 1948, Protesting the Visit of Menachem Begin

Letters to the Editor

New York Times

December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the

Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ

HANNAH ARENDT

ABRAHAM BRICK

RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO

ALBERT EINSTEIN

HERMAN EISEN, M.D.

HAYIM FINEMAN

M. GALLEN, M.D.

H.H. HARRIS

ZELIG S. HARRIS

SIDNEY HOOK

FRED KARUSH

BRURIA KAUFMAN

IRMA L. LINDHEIM

NACHMAN MAISEL

SEYMOUR MELMAN

MYER D. MENDELSON

M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY

SAMUEL PITLICK

FRITZ ROHRLICH

LOUIS P. ROCKER

RUTH SAGIS

ITZHAK SANKOWSKY

I.J. SHOENBERG

SAMUEL SHUMAN

M. SINGER

IRMA WOLFE

STEFAN WOLF.

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

July 19, 2010
NYT Ties Turkish Group to ‘Terrorism’–by Mixing It Up With a Different Group

Ever since the Israeli raid on a Turkish group’s boat filled with aid for the Gaza Strip, there has been a lot of attempts in the press, following Israel’s lead, to label the Turkish humanitarian group IHH a supporter of “terrorism.”

The latest salvo comes from a New York Times article about the Turkish group having “extensive connections with Turkey’s political elite.”

The Times reports:

On Monday, Germany banned the charity’s offices, citing its support for Hamas, which Germany considers a terrorist organization. Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said the charity abused donors’ good intentions “to support a terrorist organization with money supposedly donated for charitable purposes.” The newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung said that from 2007 the charity collected $8.5 million and transferred money to six smaller organizations, two belonging directly to Hamas and four with close ties to it.

The charity called the ban a “disgrace” and “misanthropic” and said it would challenge it in court.

It looks like the reporters on this story didn’t do their homework. Numerous news outlets have noted that the German organization, which shares the Turkish group’s initials, is not connected to the Turkish group that co-sponsored the aid flotilla, meaning that Germany did not ban the Turkish group over “terrorist” ties. (The Turkish group’s initials stand for İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri, or Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms; the German acronym stands for Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation, the International Humanitarian Aid Organization.)

A report in Ha’aretz states: “Despite sharing the name, the German IHH has no connection to the Turkish group that organized the flotilla”; the Financial Times reports that “IHH Turkey and IHH Germany share the same roots, as they were founded as a single group in Freiburg, Germany, in 1992. But the group split in two five years later”; and a Turkish daily states that “German authorities” say the group split in 1997 and “are now two separate entities.”

The Times also relays the Israeli talking point that “the group has links to Al-Qaeda,” despite the fact that independent journalist Max Blumenthal forced the Israeli Defense Forces to retract that false claim.

This article originally appeared on the national media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s blog.

https://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/nyt-ties-turkish-group-to-terrorism-by-mixing-it-up-with-a-different-group/

July 19, 2010
Jewish criticism of Israel

Op-ed: While criticizing Israel, US Jews must beware of biased agendas around them

Yoel Meltzer

When American Jews are confronted with actions of the Jewish state that they believe to be wrong or immoral, do they have the right to publicly criticize Israel? Moreover, assuming for a moment that they have the right, should they exercise it? In other words, is their criticism actually helping Israel or is it only providing ammunition for our enemies to further harm Israel?

While American Jews are faced with such difficult questions, not surprisingly their counterparts in Israel are strongly against Diaspora Jewry publicly criticizing Israel in any shape or form. In addition, feeling increasingly threatened and ostracized, Israel now more than ever expects to receive strong support from Diaspora Jewry, especially from the large and powerful American Jewish community.

What then is the proper path to follow? For starters, since the Jewish nation is comprised of every Jew and the land of Israel, eretz yisrael, belongs to every Jew, then certainly American Jews can speak their mind about events in Israel. No one is suggesting that these two cornerstones of our tradition, namely that all Jews have an intrinsic connection with each other as well as with a common land, be tinkered with. However, since we don’t live in a bubble and the situation is obviously more complex, the subject needs to be further analyzed from both sides of the coin.

From the Israeli perspective, one argument frequently heard is that American Jews should not speak out against Israel since they have little or no understanding of the reality of life in the Middle East. Bluntly stated, Israel’s neighbors are not Canada and Mexico. This line of thinking helps explain why many left-leaning Israeli Jews are frequently very different from their American counterparts.

Unlike a Jew living in America, the typical left-wing Israeli has to deal with army service, wars and terrorist attacks. Thus, although he may support certain policies that are considered left-wing, he usually doesn’t do this out of a naïve belief that Jews and Arabs will soon become best of friends or that relinquishing more land will actually bring an end to the region’s hostilities.

Another common assumption in Israel is that those American Jews who feel uncomfortable about Israeli actions or policies are probably struggling with their own Jewish identity. With assimilation ravaging American Jewry, it’s only natural that one’s Jewish identity frequently takes backstage to other identities that are a part of one’s psychological makeup. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that the most steadfast supporters of Israel usually come from Jews who are more traditional since for them the Jewish component is a dominant factor of their identity.

Finally, on a psychological level some claim that Israeli activities that appear harsh or unjust would make an American Jew with a relatively weak Jewish identity feel uncomfortable in his non-Jewish environment. Thus, by criticizing Israel perhaps he is subconsciously trying to be accepted by the non-Jewish world around him.

These are some of the claims from the Israeli angle, in addition to the ubiquitous “if you don’t live here, don’t tell us what to do” claim.

Nonetheless, in spite of any truth that these arguments may contain, as previously stated American Jews have the right to express their beliefs. True, perhaps they should ask themselves why they are criticizing – to honestly help Israel or to merely alleviate their own uncomfortable situation – but this is a side issue. The point is they can criticize.

Non-Jewish morality

Having said all that, perhaps there is something else going on here. Unlike the Middle Eastern culture that has an aspect of tribal affiliation and less internal criticism, American culture is hypothetically based upon an objective pursuit of truth and justice. Therefore, being influenced by the surrounding culture, American Jews tend to give precedence to what they consider the pursuit of truth and justice as opposed to simply granting unconditional loyalty to other Jews.

On the surface this is quite a noble quality, one worthy of exporting to the rest of humanity. However, this otherwise praiseworthy approach also contains two potential flaws. One is the assumption of objectivity and the second is the very understanding of such terms as “truth” and “justice”.

The combined effect today of both the media and the many powerful public relations, marketing and advertising firms is arguably more influential than ever before in shaping the mindset of the average person. Together with this powerful group there is the academic world with its own unique ability to penetrate all sorts of ideas into society.

The problem is that many of the people who have the power to influence are heavily biased when it comes to Israel. For instance, I remember being fed seemingly endless Edward Said and Noam Chomsky while working on my master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies. Although a small minority of students sensed that something was wrong and that the studies were biased, most did not have the tools to argue with our well published and seemingly brilliant political science professor. For the majority of the students, the professor’s words were simply accepted as irrefutable truth.

The point is that there are many intelligent and powerful people, be it in the media or in the academic world, with a very biased approach when it comes to Israel and through their positions of influence they easily blow away the assumed theory of objectivity.

The second problem is frequently just an outgrowth of the first problem since it is people with an agenda that often shape our understanding of what constitutes truth and justice or right and wrong when assessing Israel. Moreover, even in the best-case scenario where this is not happening, the basic understandings that most American Jews have of these concepts usually come from non-Jewish sources. Although occasionally these are similar to Jewish concepts of morality, sometimes they’re not.

Thus rather than judging the Jewish State based upon the rich tradition of Jewish morality and ethics, Israel is ironically being judged by good-intentioned Jews according to non-Jewish morality.

To summarize, American Jews definitely have the right to express their opinion regarding the Jewish State since Israel, like any nation, is certainly not absolved from criticism. However, while continuing with the pursuit of the lofty ideals mentioned above, American Jews need to be more cognizant of the fact that both their understanding of these very ideals and of the actual events that transpire in Israel are frequently influenced by people with a very clear and biased agenda.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3917694,00.html, 11.07.2010

July 13, 2010
Norton: Israel ‘unlikely’ to win another war

Augustus Richard Norton, Professor of Anthropology and International Relations at the Department of International Relations, Boston University

“(…) Since 2006, there has been an uncommon solidarity within the Shiite community and Hizbullah has been the beneficiary. I argue that the solidarity of the Shiite community is an aberration, it is an artifact of the recent war, as well as the fear that another war looms. This is a war that Hizbullah claims it does not seek, but that Israel is expected to launch. Preparations for that war are under way on both sides.

During the late 1990s, while the Israeli occupation continued, Hizbullah’s full-time military cadre numbered about five hundred and was supplemented through a reserve system (in some ways similar to Israel’s). By 2006, that number had doubled. Today, the standing military force is measured in the thousands. There is no way for a civilian researcher to reliably estimate the size of Hizbullah’s arsenal, but by the group’s own estimates its store of arms is far more robust and more sophisticated than it was in 2006.

Despite the fears of war, the Israeli-Lebanese border has been very quiet since the 2006 war. UNIFIL, bolstered under Security Council Resolution 1701, has provided an effective buffer. While it has stopped Hizbullah from publically displaying weapons in the border region, it has not, however, impeded Hizbullah’s ability to rearm.

Unless Hizbullah can be decisively defeated by Israel – defeated in detail, in military parlance – the effect of another war would be to bolster Hizbullah, and to once again validate its narrative.

For a variety of reasons, I believe that it is unlikely that Israel is capable of decisively defeating Hizbullah’s hardened forces. The level of civilian casualties, probably on both sides, would be dreadful, and would prompt a fierce backlash in the Muslim world. Equally important, Israeli soldiers would have to go toe to toe with Hizbullah fighters who know the difficult terrain of

Lebanon intimately and have a strong incentive to protect the home front. The Israeli Army’s comparative advantages, especially technical sophistication, largely disappear in close combat.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to explain the solidarity that currently exists within the Lebanese Shiite community to the benefit of Hizbullah. Yet, there are a variety of divisions with the community as well. These include secular and clerical opponents of Hizbullah, and, of course, the longstanding rivalry with Amal. In addition, there are strong feelings in some quarters that Hizbullah is too closely aligned with Iran, and that the community’s interests are better served through Arab as opposed to Persian ties. We see variants of these views in Iraq. These latent divisions will remain submerged as long as so many Shiite feel that their community faces an existential threat. One key to reducing Hizbullah’s mass appeal may be to reduce the threat of war, rather than heighten it. So long as the threat prevails, Hizbullah will be a prime beneficiary.”

www.dailystar.com.lb, June 10, 2010

July 13, 2010