Category: Israel

  • David Miliband’s regrettable expulsion of Israeli diplomat

    David Miliband’s regrettable expulsion of Israeli diplomat

    Telegraph View: Expelled Israeli understood to be the Mossad head of station.

    Whenever the British Government feels compelled to order a diplomatic expulsion, it is normally because a hostile foreign power, such as Russia, has been caught indulging in activity that threatens our national interests. It is, therefore, deeply regrettable that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday ordered the withdrawal of a senior diplomat serving at the Israeli Embassy in London.

    The decision to expel the Israeli – understood to be the Mossad head of station – was taken following an investigation by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency into allegations that the Israeli secret service had used forged British passports for its operation to assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas commander, in his Dubai hotel room in January. Although the investigation could not prove unequivocally that Mossad was responsible, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the passports had been forged by Israel, which was culpable, in the words of Mr Miliband, of a “profound disregard for the sovereignty of the UK”. This was compounded by the fact that the offence was committed by a country that is supposed to be our ally.

    While few will mourn the death of al-Mabhouh, who was wanted in Israel for the abduction and murder of two Israeli soldiers, there are many reasons to be concerned about a diplomatic rift between Britain and Israel. The two countries have co-operated closely on a number of important global security issues, particularly the potential threat posed by Iran’s illicit nuclear programme. Good relations between Israel and the West are essential if any significant progress is to be made in negotiating a lasting peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel should acknowledge Britain’s justifiable anger and reflect on its priorities.

    But the prospects for the resumption of normal diplomatic discourse appear remote so long as Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, is intent on adopting a confrontational attitude towards his allies. During his visit to Washington this week Mr Netanyahu has been unrepentant about his government’s decision to press ahead with building more settler homes in Jerusalem, even though the announcement provoked an angry response from the Obama administration. Mr Netanyahu’s critics in Israel, moreover, claim he has deliberately embarked on this course of action because he has no intention of making peace with the Palestinians. If that is the case, then Israel risks isolating itself even further – and that is not in the interests of the West and can only diminish the prospects of a lasting settlement.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7507392/David-Milibands-regrettable-expulsion-of-Israeli-diplomat.html, 23 Mar 2010

  • Israeli diplomat ‘spy’ expelled over cloned UK passports

    Israeli diplomat ‘spy’ expelled over cloned UK passports

    Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent, and James Hider in Jerusalem

    A serious rift in relations between Britain and Israel opened yesterday after a criminal investigation uncovered “compelling” evidence that Jerusalem had cloned the UK passports used in the assassination of a senior Hamas operative in Dubai.

    Britain responded by expelling a senior Israeli diplomat, believed to be the Mossad station chief in London; imposing new travel advice, warning Britons of the threat of state-sponsored identity theft in Israel; and demanding a public assurance that Israel would never misuse British passports again.

    Israel’s Ambassador expressed his disappointment but said he was determined to “strengthen the firm foundations” of the relationship between Britain and Israel. The froideur only increased, however, when it emerged that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had cancelled his scheduled attendance at a reception marking the renovation of the Israeli Embassy yesterday.

    Instead, Mr Miliband told the Commons of the conclusion of the investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and denounced Israel’s behaviour as “intolerable” and displaying a “profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.

    “The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury,” he added. He said he had demanded a formal assurance that the fraud would not recur from Avigdor Liebermann, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The travel advice to be issued to British citizens would depend on the answer that he received.

    Diplomatic sources told The Times that the assurance would have to be public — in effect, forcing Israel to admit its involvement in the fraud and, by implication, in the assassination of Mahmud al-Mabhuh on January 19.

    Suspicions fell on Israel’s intelligence agency immediately after the killing, but they were reinforced when it emerged that all of the Western passport holders whose identities were used were also Israeli nationals. Mr Miliband said that Soca investigation had lead directly back to Israel and that no other country appeared to have been involved.

    “Given that this was a very sophisticated operation, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judges it is highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service,” he said. “Taking this, together with other inquiries, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports.”

    The passports of Irish, German, French and Australian citizens were also used but those countries are yet to conclude their investigations.

    Israel said that it regretted the British move to expel the Mossad representative but, while the Government in Jerusalem was measured in its response, , MPs from the far Right denounced the British as untrustworthy “dogs”.

    “I think the British are behaving hypocritically,” Aryeh Eldad, of the National Union, an ultra-nationalist, pro-settler party, told Sky News. “Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?”

    Michael Ben Ari, another National Union MP, said: “The British are dogs but they are not loyal to us . This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism”.

    , March 24, 2010

  • Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

    Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

    Gulnara Inandzh
    Director
    International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

    RELATED INFO

    https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

    mete62@inbox.ru

    The visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Baku on February 8-11, which has attracted so much comment and speculation, is a constituent part of Tel Aviv’s policy in the post-Soviet space.  An analysis of the results of this visit shows that the resonance arising from the Baku meetings of the Israeli minister serves only as a cover for the discussion behind the scenes of issues, which have strategic geopolitical importance.

    Azerbaijani and Israeli media in their discussion of these meetings devoted most of their attention to several questions, including the broadening of Azerbaijani-Israeli ties at a time when contacts between Ankara and Jerusalem are increasingly tense, Azerbaijani permission for Israeli use of the territory of the country in the event of military actions against Iran, and a mediating role of official Baku in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.  The links among these various issues become obvious upon close examination.

    As far as the first question is concerned, one should note that Israel and part of the Jewish lobby, which has spoken out against military actions in Iran, do not consider the territory of Azerbaijan as a place des armes for military actions against Iran.  Related to this and as part of an effort designed to restrain Iran, the United States and Georgia have signed an agreement on the use of Georgia’s territorial waters in the Black Sea if US military bases in the Persian Gulf are used for an attack on Iran.

    Correctly assessing the situation, Israeli political analysts understand that Azerbaijan will not under any circumstances agree to the use of its territory for an invasion of Iran but rather will do everything it can to prevent the beginning of military actions against its southern neighbor.  Any military invasion, be it a broad scale military action or surgical strike, would entail a humanitarian catastrophe (including an incalculable number of refugees from the northern part of Iran), a collapse of the economy, and a growth of terrorism in Azerbaijan.  These threats in turn are entirely capable of delivering a destructive blow to the security of Azerbaijan.  Consequently, official Baku cannot agree to such a step even in exchange for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    There is, however, a plethora of other issues that invite attention of Baku and Tel Aviv, as well as Ankara, and could hence serve as a solid foundation upon which the relations among the three could develop further.  Since Lieberman’s visit to Baku, there have been several extremely interesting events.  On February 16, Pinchas Avivi, the deputy director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and head of that organization’s Division for Central Europe and Eurasia, made a working visit to Ankara.  Not only did the two parties discuss bilateral relations, but they also touched upon the issues of cooperation and interaction in “third countries,” in particular those in the South Caucasus (Goldenstein 2010).  That suggests that the meeting in Ankara represented a continuation of the Baku negotiations.  The possibility of tripartite cooperation in dealing with the regional issues at a time when Turkish-Israeli relations appear to be in “conflict” is not fantastic if one comes to analyze more closely recent events.  Despite a certain public cooling in recent months, both countries have enough in common that cooperation with regard to regional issues is far from impossible.  As one Turkish official put it, “populism is part of contemporary politics,” but “Turkey was and remains a most serious guarantor of Israel’s security” (Oguz 2010).

    Consequently, while some experts have hurried to bury the Azerbaijan-Israel-Turkish military-political union, it is obvious that precisely this union and not individual states are capable of being a key geopolitical center and playing a defining role in the region.  And local conflicts, which are taking place in these countries, are considered not in isolation but as part of regional policies.

    This nexus also reflects Azerbaijan’s interest in playing a larger international role.  Indeed, many countries hope that it will.  In May 2009, for example, when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov was in Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Azerbaijan could take on itself greater responsibility and leadership in the resolution of important issues in the region of the South Caucasus.  She stressed that “Azerbaijan is a strategic location which is important not only for Azerbaijanis, but also for the region and the entire world,” including not unimportantly not only the Caucasus but the areas to its south. [1]

    Not surprisingly, therefore, during Lieberman’s visit to Baku, the two parties discussed in detail the possibility of Azerbaijan’s mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Baku’s growing interest in playing a greater role in the broader region to its south is also reflected in its continuous reluctance to open up its embassy in Tel Aviv.  Experts in Baku often cite relations with the Organization of the Islamic Conference and with Iran as the reasons Azerbaijan has not taken that step, but the experience of Turkey and Israel suggests that in reality there is another reason at work: a desire, on the part of Baku, to demonstrate its respect for, and solidarity with, the Palestinians and the Islamic world more generally, something which will help increase the influence of Azerbaijan as a mediator in the Middle Eastern conflict.

    As the situation around the region heats up, the links between Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel seem certain to become closer, and this axis is destined to bear a direct effect on the broader region for years to come.

    Note

    [1] See (accessed 25 February 2010).

    References

    Goldenstein, Alexander (2010) “Турция и Израиль сохраняют координацию по Кавказу” [“Turkey and Israel keep coordination on the Caucasus”], Izrus, 17 February, available at http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2010-02-17/8651.html (accessed 25 February 2010).

    Oguz, Dzhem (2010) “Есть причины, вынудившие Турцию изменить отношение к Израилю” [“There are reasons that prompted Turkey to change its attitude to Israel”], Regnum, 11 February, available at (accessed 25 February 2010).

    source

  • Israeli army chief visits Turkey amid tension

    Israeli army chief visits Turkey amid tension

    JERUSALEM, March 15 (Xinhua) — Israeli army chief headed for Turkey Monday morning for a one-day visit amid tension between the two countries.

    Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of the general staff, is scheduled to take part in a NATO conference on terrorism and international cooperation, and hold a meeting with his Turkish counterpart during the trip, IDF said in a statement.

    It is the first time in five years that an Israeli army chief has visited Turkey, according to the statement.

    The once close ties between Israel and Turkey were strained after the Jewish state launched a massive attack at the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008.

    Turkish military cancelled a joint air force drill with Israel last October due to the offensive.

    The relation hit a freezing point when Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon in January humiliated Turkish ambassador to Israel by deny the latter a handshake and sitting him on a lower chair at a meeting.

    An IDF spokesperson told Israeli army radio on Monday that Ashkenazi’s visit “is on the military-strategic level, not a diplomatic level.”

    xinhua net

  • Jewish lobby behind U.S. Armenia genocide vote

    Jewish lobby behind U.S. Armenia genocide vote

    Pro-Israel activists manipulated Congress to damage Turkey, says London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

    Jewish lobbyists contrived a U.S. congressional vote that labeled the World War One-era massacre of Armenians by Turkish forces as genocide, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper claimed on Saturday.

    Pro-Israel lobbyists had previously backed Turkey on the issue ? but changed tack in retaliation for Turkish condemnation of Israel’s policies in the Gaza Strip, the Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily said in an editorial, according to Israel Radio reports.

    Israel and Turkey are traditional allies but ties took a downturn in 2009 when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned Israel’s offensive in Gaza, in which some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.

    A crisis in diplomatic relations came to a head in January when when Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon publicly humiliated Turkey’s ambassador in front of press cameras.

    In his leading article, Al-Quds Al-Arabi editor Abd al-Bari Atwan curged Erdogan not to give in to the Jewish lobby’s “extortion” tactics.

    Erdogan on Thursday recalled Turkey’s ambassador to Washington after the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 23-22 to approve the non-binding resolution, clearing it for consideration by the full House.

    “The decision of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not hurt Turkey, but it will greatly harm bilateral relations, interests and vision. Turkey will not be the one who loses,” said Erdogan, speaking at a summit of Turkish businessmen.

    Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said the vote was a boost for human rights.

    The vote calls on President Barack Obama to ensure U.S. policy formally refers to the massacre as genocide, putting him in a tight spot.

    In a telephone call with Turkish President Abdullah Gul on Wednesday, Obama emphasized his administration had urged lawmakers to consider the potential damage to efforts to normalize Armenian-Turkish ties, a senior administration official said.

    At a news conference in Costa Rica on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she and Obama, who both supported proposed Armenia genocide resolutions as presidential candidates, had changed their minds because they believed the drive to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia was bearing fruit.

    Turkey, a Muslim secular democracy that plays a vital role for U.S. interests from Iraq to Iran and in Afghanistan and the Middle East, accepts that many Armenians were killed by Ottoman forces but denies that up to 1.5 million died and that it amounted to genocide – a term employed by many Western historians and some foreign parliaments.

    Turkey regards such accusations as an affront to its national honor.

    Haaretz

  • Armenian Genocide Vote Threatens US-Turkish Ties at Key Moment

    Armenian Genocide Vote Threatens US-Turkish Ties at Key Moment

    Thursday’s vote by a Congressional committee condemning the deaths of up to 1.5 million Armenians during World War I as “genocide” is almost certain to complicate U.S. ties with Turkey, a long-time strategic ally and increasingly influential player in the Middle East and central and southwest Asia.

    The 23-22 vote by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives prompted the immediate recall of Turkey’s ambassador here and an announcement by Ankara that ratification of a pending U.S.-backed treaty with Armenia will be frozen.

    And the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which sent several senior Turkish lawmakers and hired a high-priced public relations firm, as well as a former House speaker, to lobby against the resolution, is likely to take much stronger measures if it reaches the House floor later this year, according to both U.S. and Turkish analysts.

    “We are seriously concerned that the adoption of this draft resolution …will harm Turkey-U.S. relations and impede the efforts for the normalization of Turkey-Armenia relations,” the Turkish embassy said in a release after the vote.

    “This decision, which could adversely affect our cooperation on a wide common agenda with the United States, also regrettably attests to a lack of strategic vision,” it added.

    After maintaining silence about the resolution for several weeks, the administration of President Barack Obama came out against it just hours before the vote – apparently too late to affect the final outcome, according to a number of lawmakers.

    “We do not believe that the full Congress will or should vote on that resolution and we have made that clear to all the parties involved,” Clinton said during a press conference in San Jose, Costa Rica, Thursday morning in the administration’s first official statement on the issue.

    The administration, which needs Turkey’s support on a slew of key issues, ranging from Arab-Israeli peace to Iran and Afghanistan, is likely to lobby hard against any effort by lawmakers to bring the resolution to the floor, despite the fact that both Obama and Clinton promised to support some version of it during their 2008 presidential primary campaigns.

    At least half a million U.S. citizens, many of them concentrated in the electorally powerful state of California, claim Armenian ancestry.

    The Armenian-American community, which is among the wealthiest and best organized of the many U.S. ethnic minorities, has long sought recognition of the 1915 death toll as a genocide. In 1975 and again in 1984, it succeeded in getting such resolutions passed by the House, although never in the Senate.

    In 2007, the Foreign Affairs committee approved a similar “genocide” resolution. However, it was never referred to the floor of the House due to intense opposition by the administration of President George W. Bush backed by the powerful “Israel Lobby,” which has frequently intervened in Congress on behalf since the late 1980s when Ankara and Israel began building a strategic alliance.

    But Israeli-Turkish ties have become increasingly strained in recent years, particularly since Israel’s “Cast Lead” military campaign in Gaza, which Erdogan strongly denounced in a heated exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in late January last year, just days after the offensive had ended.

    A number of subsequent incidents, most recently the apparently deliberate televised humiliation in January by Israel’s deputy foreign minister of Ankara’s ambassador in Tel Aviv, have added to the strains.

    Indeed, some analysts here and in Turkey suggested that the resolution’s passage was due as much to the Israel Lobby’s failure to oppose it, as to the Obama administration’s delay in coming out against it. Several key lawmakers who are considered close to the Lobby, notably Gary Ackerman, Brad Sherman, and committee chair Howard Berman, spoke in favor of its approval.

    “In the past, the pro-Israel community has lobbied hard against previous attempts to pass similar resolutions, citing warnings from Turkish officials that it could harm the alliance not only with the United States but with Israel…,” noted the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) Friday.

    “In the last year or so, however, officials of American pro-Israel groups have said that while they will not support new resolutions, they will no longer oppose them, citing Turkey’s heightened rhetorical attacks on Israel and a flourishing of outright anti-Semitism the government has done little to stem,” it asserted.

    The resolution, which was introduced by a California Democrat, calls on the president to use the annual presidential statement on the 1915 mass deaths next month to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.”

    Turkey has argued that the Armenian deaths were a great tragedy played out under the chaotic conditions of World War I when the collapsing Ottoman Empire was under attack on many fronts, including internally in the form of a Russian-backed Armenian insurgency.

    Unlike most of its predecessors, the Erdogan government has indicated a willingness to review the events of that time, possibly even in cooperation with Armenia with which it agreed only last September to establish diplomatic relations and re-open borders that have been closed since 1993.

    It was hoped that that agreement, which was mediated by Switzerland with strong backing from Washington, would be quickly ratified by both countries and lead to the resolution of the territorial dispute between Armenia and oil-rich Azerbaijan over the Armenian enclave of Nagorno Karabakh.

    Despite U.S. urging – most recently in a conversation between Obama and Turkish President Abdullah Gul Wednesday – Erdogan has insisted that implementation of the treaty is dependent on progress in resolving the territorial dispute. Ankara’s decision to freeze the ratification process in the wake of Thursday’s committee vote here could deal a lethal blow to the treaty’s prospects.

    In the four years since the committee last voted out a genocide resolution, Turkey’s strategic importance to Washington has significantly increased.

    In addition to having the largest army among the European members of NATO and having recently increased its troop contribution to U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, Turkey continues to permit the U.S. access to key military bases on its territory, provides critical supply routes to Iraq, and acts as an increasingly important transit route – bypassing both Russia and Iran – for Caspian and Central Asian oil and gas.

    Ankara’s influence and involvement in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq and Syria, have grown sharply in recent years, and its friendly ties with Iran have positioned itself as a potential mediator between Tehran and the West.

    Turkey has thus far resisted U.S. pressure to host a radar base that would be part of larger regional defense network designed to intercept Iranian missiles and to vote for stronger economic sanctions against Tehran on the U.N. Security Council, of which it is a member.

    Some sectors, particularly those most closely associated with Israel here, have become increasingly concerned about Turkey’s growing orientation toward the Muslim world under Erdogan, who heads the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), in both its foreign and domestic policies.

    Indeed, neoconservatives, whose views often reflect those of Israel’s Likud Party, have been attacking Erdogan and the AKP with growing fervor in recent months, accusing them of a systematic effort to weaken Turkey’s traditionally secular institutions, notably the once-dominant armed forces.

    In a column coincidentally published Friday by the neoconservative Wall Street Journal, Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish-born specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), accused Erdogan of transforming Turkey into a “police state.”

    At the same time, hard-line neo-conservatives, such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Journal’s editorial board, opposed the genocide resolution precisely because of fears that it will serve only to further poison bilateral relations with a country whose geo-strategic importance to Washington and its Israeli ally is simply too great.

    www.antiwar.com