Category: Israel

  • Erdogan Offers Turkish Mediation in Israeli-Syrian Talks

    Erdogan Offers Turkish Mediation in Israeli-Syrian Talks

    Erdogan Offers Turkish Mediation in Israeli-Syrian Talks

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 141
    July 23, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a one-day visit to Syria, which involved discussions on Turkey’s mediator role between Israel and Syria. Erdogan and the Syrian President Bashar Assad discussed bilateral relations, regional developments and Turkey’s peacemaking role in the region. Assad requested Turkey’s mediating services and Erdogan announced Ankara’s readiness to facilitate the Israeli-Syrian talks. They also agreed to initiate a “high-level strategic council” to bolster economic, political and cultural ties. Moreover, Erdogan addressed a large audience at the University of Aleppo, where he was warmly received. He praised the normalization of ties between Ankara and Damascus and argued that there is a need to address other problems in the region. He called for the re-launching of Israeli-Syrian talks on the basis of the restoration of Syria’s rights (www.cnnturk.com, July 22).Turkish diplomats facilitated indirect talks between Syrian and Israeli delegations, which appeared to be the most viable effort in recent years. Following Israel’s offensive against Gaza in late December, its relations with both Syria and Turkey became more strained. Syria suspended talks with Israel to protest against Israel’s military action. Ankara’s growing criticism toward Tel Aviv and the severing of their bilateral ties also led to questions over Turkey’s role, as Israel’s government had reportedly lost trust in Ankara and questioned its future as an impartial peace broker (EDM, January 30). As a result, these indirect talks moderated by Turkey came to a premature end.

    Erdogan’s visit came against the background of renewed international efforts to refocus on the stalled peace process in the Middle East. The United States and European countries have intensified their work recently to bring Israel and Syria to the negotiating table, but substantial differences remain between both parties. Syria wants to start negotiations on the precondition that the Golan Heights will be returned. Assad earlier maintained that the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to return the Golan Heights in full. “Only when he declared this to Erdogan did we start the indirect talks,” Assad added. However, he blamed the breakdown in the talks on Israel’s unwillingness to commit to an agreement on the definition of borders. He also expressed his willingness to see a more proactive U.S. involvement in the issue (www.ynetnews.com, March 25).

    U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell visited Israel and Syria in an effort to resume peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to start the talks without preconditions, meaning he would not “commit in advance to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights.” Mitchell relayed this message to Assad, who rejected it and emphasized that the talks should start from the point at which they were suspended. Asad underlined that an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights would be the basis of any future talks. Whereas Assad conveyed to Mitchell his willingness to resume indirect talks under Turkish mediation, Netanyahu reportedly opposed this proposal by pointing to Ankara’s position during the Gaza crisis (Haaretz, June 21).

    In contrast to Syria, Israel wants to avoid opening any talks based on the precondition of withdrawal. Moreover, the Israeli side constantly emphasizes that as long as Damascus does not end its support for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel will have difficulties in commencing negotiations with Syria (Jerusalem Post, July 20).

    Fred Hof, an adviser to Mitchell, also held talks in the region last week, but reportedly he could not convince the two parties to change their positions (Hurriyet Daily News, July 22). Since that trip came on the eve of Erdogan’s visit, the Turkish press speculated that Hof was gauging the parties’ interest in Turkish mediation (Sabah, July 20). Mitchell is also scheduled to visit the region later this week (www.state.gov, July 20).

    It is difficult to establish whether Erdogan’s visit was indeed planned in accordance with American diplomatic contacts, but there is a growing convergence between Turkish and American initiatives. Since Mitchell’s visit to Turkey (EDM, March 2), the need for coordinated action between Ankara and Washington toward the Middle East has been emphasized by both sides. During his visit to Turkey, President Barack Obama also acknowledged Ankara’s role in the region and heralded a new era of cooperation between the two countries, which he called a “model partnership” (EDM, April 7).

    However, such abstract titles require more concrete definition, and Ankara perceives its mediator role as a means to revitalize its relations with Washington and give substance to the new era of partnership. Through its new openings in the Middle East, Ankara has developed important diplomatic assets to address the challenging issues in the region. As one Turkish scholar, Bulent Aras, points out, through its constructive role in the Palestine and Syria issues, Turkey can not only facilitate a solution but also make the “model partnership” a reality (Sabah, May 27).

    For Ankara, a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, among other factors, depends on the resolution of Israel’s twin problems with the Palestinians and Syria, and the integration of Damascus within the international community. In Ankara’s view, given Damascus’s deep rooted connections and leverage in the region, Syria holds a key role for developing stability in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. For instance, in Ankara’s view, without resolving Israeli-Syrian relations in a manner that is agreeable to all parties, and ending the diplomatic isolation of Damascus, it will not be easy to limit the perceived influence of Iran over Damascus.

    How Israel will respond to Turkey’s renewed mediation offer remains to be seen, particularly considering that Erdogan appeared to support Damascus’s position on the restoration of Syrian sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Since his appointment as Obama’s special envoy to the region, Mitchell has held talks with Turkish officials and heard Ankara’s perspective and concerns on this issue. It will be interesting to observe if he will now exert pressure on Tel Aviv to give the Turkish mediation efforts another chance.

    https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-offers-turkish-mediation-in-israeli-syrian-talks/
    ================================
    ONE MINUTE’E RAGMEN TURKIYE’NIN KAPISINDA
    Thursday, 23 July 2009 08:30
    ISRAIL’DEN TURKIYE’YE YENI RICA
    El Vatan Gazetesi, Turk Diplomatlarina Dayanarak “Israil’in Turkiye’den Suriye ile Gorusmelerinde Araci Rolunu Yeniden Ustlenmesini Istedigini” Yazdi.
    Israil’in Turkiye’den Suriye ile gorusmelerde araci rolunu yeniden ustlenmesini istedigi one suruldu.
    Katar’da yayimlanan El Vatan gazetesi, Turk diplomatlarina dayanarak Israil’in, Turkiye’den Suriye ile gorusmelerinde yeniden araci olmasini istedigini” yazdi.
    El Vatan, Turk diplomatik kaynaklarina dayandirdigi haberinde Basbakan Recep Tayyip Erdogan’in, Suriye-Israil gorusmelerinde yeniden aracilik yapmaya baslamasi yonunde aldigi taleplerin Kudus’ten kaynakladigini belirtti.
    Israil basinina da yansitilan haberde Erdogan’in Suriye ziyareti sirasinda Devlet Baskani Besar Esad’a Turkiye’nin yeniden aracilik yapmasi icin talepler aldigini anlattigi belirtilirken, Erdogan’in Esad’a bu yondeki mesajlarin icerigi konusunda bilgi verdigi kaydedildi.
    Bu arada ayni kaynaklarin, Erdogan’in Turkiye’nin, Gazze operasyonunun ardindan Israil ile iliskilerinde ortaya cikan krizi asmayi basardigini, Suriye ve Israil’in Ankara’nin araciligina guvenmeyi surdurdugunu soylediklerine de dikkat cekildi.
    Turk diplomatik kaynaklarinin, barisin saglanmasinin Suriye, Israil, ABD’nin yanisina Turkiye icin bir ihtiyac haline geldigini ifade ettiklerine isaret edilen haberde Ankara’nin, dort turu yapilan, Israil ile Suriye arasinda dolayli gorusmelerde dogrudan muzakerelere gecilmesi icin gerekli temeller atildigi, bu nedenle Kudus ile Sam arasinda barisa daha kolayca varilabilecegine inandigi da ifade edildi.
    Cabalarin yeniden baslanmak istemesinde diger bir faktorun de Suriye’de faaliyet gosteren buyuk Turk sirketlerinin kalici istikrara olan ihtiyaclarinin da oldugu one suruldu.
  • Did Israel Sign a Deal With Turkey to Import Water?

    Did Israel Sign a Deal With Turkey to Import Water?

    by Zalman Nelson

    (IsraelNN.com) A letter sent by the Israeli non-profit group for ethical government, Ometz, to State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss, calls for a review of a 2004 deal to import 50 million cubic meters of drinking water of from Turkey’s Mangabey River. According to Ometz, Israel paid an undisclosed deposit on the 20-year agreement, which comes with an option for five more years, but the project never began.

    Israel’s dwindling water supply, which prompted the Water Authority’s recently launched “Drought Tax” on high water use, has brought to light the water importing-deal signed with Turkey.

    “Due to the tremendous water shortage and the increased fines imposed on Israeli citizens, Ometz is calling for a review of the water agreements signed between Israel and Turkey. Israel has already paid unknown amounts for the deal, but there is no water,” wrote Ometz Director Aryeh Avneri.

    According to the letter by Ometz, the terms of the agreement established a sale price of up to $1 per cubic meter of water: 13-18 cents per cubic meter and 60-80 cents per cubic meter for import and distribution. Given Israel’s water needs, an estimated 50 million dollars a year was to be paid to Turkey. While a deposit was apparently paid, the letter alleges that the deal was never launched.

    The water deal was signed by the foreign ministers of Israel and Turkey and called for the importation of 50 million cubic meters of drinking water, says the letter. “Carrying out this agreement is the duty of Israel’s Water Commission and Turkey’s Water Authority (DSI), and the governments of Israel and Turkey bear collective responsibility for ensuring that all agreements are followed.”

    Ometz’s letter challenges that the deal failed to establish a timetable for delivery and failed to appoint a director for the project.

    “We turn to you and request a full investigation into this signed agreement to import water, why this program has still not yet started, and what amount of money, if any, remains to pay to begin importing,” Ometz wrote Lindenstrauss.

    Water tax
    The water tax imposes an NIS 20 fine per cubic meter of water on families containing four or fewer members who use more than 30 cubic meters of water in two months. Exceeding the quota cost NIS 8 per cubic meter prior to the tax. Families with more than four members get an additional three cubic meters per family member.

    The tax went in to effect retroactively on July 1 and was criticized by local government councils who said that citizens will be unable to limit water usage. Others criticized the tax on the grounds that the added revenues do not return to the water industry, but rather are drawn into the Finance Ministry’s bank account.

    Source: www.israelnationalnews.com

  • Palestinian President Abbas visits Ankara

    Palestinian President Abbas visits Ankara

    Palestinian President Abbas visits Ankara

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 138
    July 20, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    On July 16-17, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visited Turkey to hold talks on Middle East peace initiatives and discuss bilateral relations with Turkey. Abbas met President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. This came amidst speculation that he had supported the Greek Cypriot position on the Cyprus issue. On July 8-9, Abbas met the Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias. The two leaders supported each other’s stance on international issues. Citing Greek media sources, the Turkish press maintained that Abbas had expressed his support for the Greek Cypriot position on the Cyprus issue (www.ntvmsnbc.com, July 9). Some Turkish media outlets interpreted this attitude as a betrayal and disrespect for Turkey’s earlier support for the Palestinian cause. “Abbas stabbed [Turkey] in the back,” one nationalist newspaper claimed (Yeni Cag, July 10).

    The Turkish foreign ministry summoned the Palestinian Ambassador, Nabil Maarouf, following such news coverage on the issue. Maarouf told Turkish officials that he had investigated the reports by contacting Abbas’ spokesperson and other Palestinian officials. Maarouf said that “Abbas did not make those statements. As a matter of fact, this issue was not even on the agenda. [Palestinians] were never involved in the Cyprus issue and will maintain this attitude” (www.mfa.gov.tr, July 10). On the same day, Maarouf issued a separate statement in which “he reiterated his remarks at the ministry, [and added that] Abbas’ visit to Cyprus was planned one year ago” (Today’s Zaman, July 13). Nonetheless, a statement issued by Christofias after meeting Abbas read: “I wish to warmly thank President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority for their firm and consistent stance in supporting the struggle of the people of Cyprus and the position of the Republic of Cyprus both within the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab world in general, as well as internationally” (www.mfa.gov.cy, July 9).

    Nationalist media outlets continued their criticism of Abbas, ahead of his visit (Yeni Cag, July 14). Abbas therefore tried hard to diffuse tensions in Ankara. During his joint press conference with Gul, Abbas firmly denied these claims, and described the media reports as groundless. He also responded to another allegation about himself, which was raised by Fatah sources last week. A Fatah official claimed that Abbas was involved in a conspiracy with Mossad and the CIA, which resulted in the killing of Yasser Arafat (www.israelnationalnews.com, July 14). These reports also led to an intensive debate in the Turkish media, ahead of the visit by Abbas (Milli Gazete, July 16). He reiterated his rejection of those accusations in Ankara, arguing that the document that allegedly supported those claims was circulating on Israeli websites (Hurriyet, July 18).

    Gul emphasized Turkey’s official position that the two-state solution should be the basis of the efforts to resolve the Palestinian issue. He reiterated Ankara’s support for an independent Palestinian state, which would have East Jerusalem as its capital. He called on Israel to stop building new settlements and lift the blockade to allow for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and the flow of humanitarian aid (www.tccb.gov.tr, July 17).

    In response to one question, Gul expressed Turkey’s objection to a plan suggested earlier by the E.U.’s Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana. Solana maintained that if both sides could not reach a solution within a designated period, the U.N. Security Council should endorse the two-state solution and open the way for the recognition of Palestine by the international community (Jerusalem Post, July 12). Gul noted that Turkey would not support efforts for the resolution of the problem which were not approved by all sides. Gul maintained that imposing a non-consensual solution would not prove beneficial and might be harmful. Turkey is ready to support a roadmap toward a Palestinian state, provided that it comes as a result of consensus, Gul added (www.tccb.gov.tr, July 17).

    Abbas also exchanged opinions with Davutoglu on the Middle East. They discussed specific areas in which Turkey could help the Palestinian administration. It was announced that Turkey will release part of the $150 million aid which it had pledged at the Paris conference to relieve the financial burden of the cash-strapped Palestinian authority. Abbas solicited Turkey’s help for building Palestinian state institutions and constructing infrastructure for education and health services as well as creating jobs. Toward this end, Turkey pledged to build a university hospital, a new industrial zone and a conference hall. Moreover, Turkey will help with the infrastructure of Palestinian television and support the foundation of a diplomatic academy in Palestine (Anadolu Ajansi, July 17).

    Davutoglu also emphasized another important pillar of Turkey’s policy toward the Palestine issue: a permanent and sustainable solution to the problem can only emerge as a result of a consensus between the Palestinian factions. He asked Abbas to conclude the talks on the formation of a national unity government soon, and confirmed Ankara’s support for the dialogue between Palestinian groups mediated by Egypt. Turkey and the Palestinian authority also reportedly agreed to form a joint committee to discuss developments within the peace process (www.cnnturk.com, July 18). In a related development, Egyptian diplomatic sources mediating the talks between Hamas and Fatah reportedly asked the parties to reach a consensus on a unity government by August 25. Since the talks reached deadlock because of the parties’ refusal of an earlier proposal, the Egyptian side suspended their mediation efforts (Cihan, July 19).

    Turkish officials managed to put the unpleasant news stories aside and “talk business” with Abbas, in an effort to make a contribution to achieving peace in the Middle East. Official statements demonstrated once again the underlying principles of Turkey’s approach to the Palestinian issue. In Ankara’s view, third parties should only play a facilitator role and refrain from excluding the major stakeholders. It is for these reasons that Turkey seeks to interject itself as peace broker between the Israelis and Palestinians on the one hand, and among the Palestinians on the other. Although those policies frequently lead to the criticism that Turkey is following a pro-Hamas position, Ankara appears determined to maintain dialogue with all parties and refuse any call to exclude Hamas.

    https://jamestown.org/program/palestinian-president-abbas-visits-ankara/

  • Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza

    Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza

    fA group of soldiers who took part in Israel’s assault in Gaza say widespread abuses were committed against civilians under “permissive” rules of engagement.

    The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.

    Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered anonymous accounts from 26 soldiers.

    Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.

    “We were told soldiers were to be secured by fire-power. The soldiers were made to understand that their lives were the most important, and that there was no way our soldiers would get killed for the sake of leaving civilians the benefit of the doubt,” said one soldier in the report.

    “People were not instructed to shoot at everyone they see, but they were told that from a certain distance when they approach a house, no matter who it is – even an old woman – take them down,” said another.

    Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.

    Amnesty International has accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the 22-day conflict.

    Israeli officials insist troops went to great lengths to protect civilians, that Hamas endangered non-combatants by firing from civilian areas and that homes and buildings were destroyed only when there was a specific military need to do so.

    ‘Ill discipline’

    According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:

    • Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.

    • Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers

    • Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as “the day after”, whereby areas near the border were razed to make future military operations easier

    • Some of the troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude

    There was incidents of vandalism of property of Palestinians

    • Soldiers fired at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans

    • White phosphorus was used in civilian areas in a way some soldiers saw as gratuitous and reckless

    • Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants

    The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are “slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope”.

    “This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate a new the results of our actions,” Breaking the Silence says.

    Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.

    Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.

    According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.

    Investigations

    Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:

    “The IDF [Israel Defence Forces] regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony – without investigating their credibility.”

    She dismissed the document as “hearsay and word of mouth”.

    “The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation,” Lt Col Leibovich added. “This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission.”

    There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel’s operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.

    An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.

    Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that “the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes”.

    It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.

    BBC

  • Once Labeled An AIPAC Spy, Larry Franklin Tells His Story

    Once Labeled An AIPAC Spy, Larry Franklin Tells His Story

    In an Exclusive Interview, Talk of Antisemitism and Betrayal

    By Nathan Guttman

    Speaking Out: Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst at center of AIPAC case, tells his side of the story to the Forward.
    Speaking Out: Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst at center of AIPAC case, tells his side of the story to the Forward.

    WASHINGTON — Former Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin recently quit his job cleaning the restrooms at his local church in West Virginia. He still keeps his weekend job, mopping the floors at a nearby Roy Rogers restaurant. In recent years, Franklin also has gained experience in parking cars, digging trenches and cleaning cesspools. In between, he has been searching for a publisher for his book — a manual for saving America from the Iranian threat.

    On June 30, Franklin marked the fifth anniversary of his meeting with FBI agents, in which he first learned he was a suspect in what would later be known as “the AIPAC case,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Along with Franklin, two of the Washington lobby’s senior officials were charged with violating the seldom-used federal Espionage Act of 1917.

    Although charges against the two other key players, former lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were ultimately dropped in May, Franklin pleaded guilty early on as part of a plea agreement and is preparing to serve his reduced sentence of 100 hours of community service and 10 months in a halfway house.

    Franklin’s narrative of his ordeal, which started off with him being described on national news as the “Israeli mole” in the Pentagon, reflects a mixture of naiveté, frustration with government bureaucracy and a deep belief that his views must be heard, even if it meant breaking the rules. In retrospect, it was a practice in humility for the devout Catholic military analyst.

    “I’ve learned a lot by crawling on the ground,” the 62-year-old father of five said in his first interview since the affair began in 2004. The lessons that Franklin has learned from his experience include the capacity by his colleagues and partners for — as he sees it — betrayal, and the persistence, he has concluded, of deep-rooted antisemitic sentiment in certain quarters of America’s intelligence community.

    “I was asked about every Jew I knew in OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], and that bothered me,” Franklin said. His superiors at the time were both Jewish: Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, whom Franklin believes was a target of the investigation. “One agent asked me, ‘How can a Bronx Irish Catholic get mixed up with…’ and I finished the phrase for him: ‘with these Jews.’” Franklin answered, “Christ was Jewish, too, and all the apostles.” “Later I felt dirty,” he added.

    Bound until recently by a plea agreement that barred him from speaking to the press, Franklin has refrained until now from telling his side of the story. But in the Washington office of his attorney, Plato Cacheris, Franklin seemed eager to share his experience. Cacheris, who took on Franklin’s case pro bono, intervened time and again to warn his client against revealing information that is either classified or under a seal imposed by the court. Franklin was quick to agree, calling Cacheris his “angel” who saved him from prison.

    In exchange for his cooperation with federal prosecutors, Franklin was initially sentenced to 12.5 years in prison as part of his plea agreement. But before entering his plea in 2005, he was approached by two people who suggested he fake his suicide and disappear to avoid testifying in court. At the request of the FBI, to which he immediately reported the encounter, Franklin had several follow-up conversations on the phone with one of them. “I thought I was in a movie,” Franklin said of the episode. Details of the event are still under court seal, and Franklin declined to identify the individuals who approached him or to offer further details.

    Franklin, who speaks seven languages and holds a doctorate in East Asian studies, tends to weave historical references easily into his discourse, from ancient Greece to the modern days. His concern is intense.

    Some in the government, he believes, “had some fantasy of a conspiracy” that had continued, unabated, after the 1985 arrest and 1987 conviction of Pentagon intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard on charges of spying for Israel.

    According to Franklin, the investigators he dealt with believed “that Pollard had a secret partner, a mole, probably in the OSD.” This quest to expose the mole, Franklin said, was, in part, “energized by a more malevolent emotion — antisemitism.”

    In part, it was also fed by a deep suspicion toward Israel. “In the intelligence community,” he said, “you refer to Israelis as ‘Izzis’ and it doesn’t have a pleasant connotation. They can’t get away with kikes, so they say Izzis.” This suspicion became clear to Franklin as he learned of the way investigators viewed activists of the pro-Israel lobby.

    He said it was made clear to him by the FBI that Rosen, then AIPAC’s foreign policy director, was the target of the investigation and had been followed by the FBI for years. “The bureau told me Rosen was a bad guy,” he said. Believing that he himself had “done wrong,” Franklin agreed to cooperate with the FBI investigation.

    This cooperation culminated in a June 26, 2003, meeting at an Italian restaurant in Arlington, Va., where Franklin was sent by the FBI to carry out a sting operation against the AIPAC lobbyists. Before his meeting with Weissman, agents wired Franklin with microphones and transmitters and provided him with a fake classified document alleging there was clear life-threatening danger posed to Israelis secretly operating in Iraq’s Kurdish region. Passing on the information would help seal the case against the AIPAC staffers.

    “At the time, I believed they were guilty,” Franklin said of Weissman and Rosen. Yet he still came to the meeting with mixed feelings. He put the document on the table, but hoped Weissman would not reach out for it. “And when he did not take the document, I did breath a silent sigh of relief,” he recalled. In retrospect, Franklin sees that moment as “one I am not proud of.”

    Though Weissman didn’t take the document, he read its content, which was allegedly classified, and the sting operation succeeded. Weissman hurried back to AIPAC headquarters with the supposedly classified information disclosed it to Rosen, who subsequently relayed it to an Israeli diplomat. Even without Weissman taking the actual paper, prosecutors, who were wiretapping all the players, felt they had enough of a case to press charges against both Rosen and Weissman for communicating national defense information.

    Franklin said he felt betrayed by the two former AIPAC staffers. He believed that he was sharing information with them so that they could pass it to other government officials, and was disappointed to learn they conveyed it to Israeli diplomats and to the press. “I do think they crossed a line when they went to a foreign official with what they knew was classified information,” Franklin said.

    Rosen told the Forward in response: “Franklin did not expect us to warn the Israelis that they would be kidnapped and killed? That’s like telling officials of the NAACP that there is going to be a lynching, but don’t warn the victims, because it is a secret.”

    For Franklin, ties with Rosen and Weissman were instrumental. He had grown frustrated with decisions made by his Pentagon bosses on Iraq and Iran, believing that regime change in Iran was the course America should pursue.

    Franklin warned that Americans “would return in body bags” from Iraq because of Iranian intervention, and called for a preliminary show of force against Iran before invading Iraq, but got no response. Viewing the AIPAC lobbyists as well connected, Franklin bypassed his superiors and asked Rosen to convey his concerns on Iran to officials at the National Security Council, to whom he believed the influential lobbyist had access.

    “I wanted to kind of shock people at the NSC,” he said, “to shock them into pausing and giving another consideration into why regime change needed to be the policy.” Franklin’s attempt to reach out over the heads of his bosses was unsuccessful and eventually got him in trouble. In the June 11 sentencing session at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge T.S. Ellis showed little sympathy for Franklin’s explanation of the reasons that led him to disclose the information. “Secrets are important to a nation. If we couldn’t keep our secrets, we would be at great risk,” Ellis said.

    Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com

    Source:  www.forward.com, July 01, 2009, issue of July 10, 2009.
  • Biden: US Not Stand in Israel’s Way on Iran

    Biden: US Not Stand in Israel’s Way on Iran

    Published: July 5, 2009

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden seemed to give Israel a green light for military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, saying the U.S. ”cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

    Israel considers Iran its most dangerous adversary and is wary of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just won a disputed re-election. He repeatedly has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and contends the Holocaust is a ”myth.”

    Israel and the U.S. accuse Iran of seeking to develop weapons under the cover of a nuclear power program. Iran denies that.

    ”Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Biden told ABC’s ”This Week” in an interview broadcast Sunday.

    ”Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed,” Biden said.

    The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it prefers to see Iran’s nuclear program stopped through diplomacy but has not ruled out a military strike.

    ”If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice,” Biden said.

    Asked about Biden’s comments, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that the U.S. position on Iran and a military strike involves a ”political decision.”

    ”I have been, for some time, concerned about any strike on Iran. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself but unintended consequences of a strike like that,” Mullen said on CBS’ ”Face the Nation.”

    ”At the same time, I’m one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that is very destabilizing,” he said.

    While most experts are in agreement that there’s a good chance Iran could have a usable nuclear bomb sometime during his presidency, President Barack Obama told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday, ”I’m not reconciled with that.”

    A nuclear-armed Iran, Obama said, probably would lead to an arms race in the volatile Mideast and that would be ”a recipe for potential disaster.” He said opposing a nuclear weapons capacity for Iran was more than just ”a U.S. position” and that ”the biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies, like Israel or its neighbors.”

    Israel is also concerned about Iran’s close support for two of its most committed enemies, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

    Obama said in May, after his first meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, that the Iranians had until year’s end to get serious about international talks on curbing their nuclear ambitions. ”We’re not going to have talks forever,” he said.

    But Obama sees movement on Israeli-Palestinian peace as key to building a moderate Arab coalition against Iran, while Netanyahu says dealing with the Iranian threat must take precedence over peacemaking with the Palestinians.

    Most experts believe that wiping out the Iranian nuclear program is beyond the ability of Israel’s military. In 1982 the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a lightning strike. But Iran’s facilities are scattered around the country, some of them underground.

    Biden was asked in the interview that if the Israelis decide they need to try to take out Iran’s nuclear program, would the U.S. stand in the way militarily?

    ”We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do,” the vice president replied. ”Israel has a right to determine what’s in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what’s in our interests.”