Category: Israel

  • Israel’s dirty secrets in Gaza

    Israel’s dirty secrets in Gaza

    Army veterans reveal how they gunned down innocent Palestinian families and destroyed homes and farms

    By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

    Friday, 20 March 2009

    Palestinians' lives were seen as 'very, very less important than our soldiers'

    Israel was last night confronting a major challenge over the conduct of its 22-day military offensive in Gaza after testimonies by its own soldiers revealed that troops were allowed and, in some cases, even ordered to shoot unarmed Palestinian civilians.

    The testimonies – the first of their kind to emerge from inside the military – are at marked variance with official claims that the military made strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties and tend to corroborate Palestinian accusations that troops used indiscriminate and disproportionate firepower in civilian areas during the operation. In one of the testimonies shedding harsh new light on what the soldiers say were the permissive rules of engagement for Operation Cast Lead, one soldier describes how an officer ordered the shooting of an elderly woman 100 metres from a house commandeered by troops.

    Another soldier, describing how a mother and her children were shot dead by a sniper after they turned the wrong way out of a house, says the “atmosphere” among troops was that the lives of Palestinians were “very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers”.

    A squad leader said: “At the beginning the directive was to enter a house with an armoured vehicle, to break the door down, to start shooting inside and – I call it murder – to shoot at everyone we identify. In the beginning I asked myself how could this make sense? Higher-ups said it is permissible because everyone left in the city [Gaza City] is culpable because they didn’t run away.”

    The accounts, which also describe apparently indiscriminate destruction of property, were given at a post-operation discussion by graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military course at the Oranim Academic College in northern Israel. The transcript of the session in front of the head of the course – details from which were published by the newspaper Haaretz – prompted the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) military advocate general Avichai Mendelblit yesterday to announce a military police investigation into the claims. Haaretz said the airing of the “dirty secrets” would make it more difficult for Israelis to dismiss the claims as Palestinian propaganda. The course principal, Danny Zamir, told the newspaper that after being “shocked” by the testimonies on 13 February he told the IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi he “feared a serious moral failure” in the IDF.

    In one account, an infantry squad leader describes how troops released a family who had been held in a room of their house for several days. He said: “The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn’t understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was okay… The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him. He shot them straight away. I don’t think he felt too bad about it, because, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders he was given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to, the lives of Palestinians, let’s say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers.”

    A second squad leader, who described the killing of the elderly woman, says he argued with his commander over loose rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, soldiers had complained that “we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist.” The squad leader said: “To write ‘death to the Arabs’ on walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics.”

    Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, said: “I say to you that from the chief of staff down to the last soldier, the most moral army in the world stands ready to take orders from the government of Israel. I have no doubt that every incident will be individually examined.”

    But Israeli human rights organisations, including B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, called for an independent investigation and complained that the military police inquiry had only been announced after Haaretz published the story, “three weeks after the relevant materials reached the Chief of the General Staff. This tardiness follows a pattern of failures to investigate suspicions of serious crimes”.

    Amos Harel, the paper’s respected military correspondent who broke the story, wrote that Mr Zamir was sentenced in 1990 for refusing to guard a settlers’ ceremony at Joseph’s tomb in the West Bank. But he added that a reading of the transcript shows that Mr Zamir “acts out of a deep concern for the spirit of the IDF”.

    In their own words: Soldiers’ stories

    Squad leader Aviv

    “At the beginning the directive was to enter a house with an armoured vehicle, to break the door down, to start shooting inside and to ascend floor by floor and – I call it murder – to go from floor to floor and to shoot at everyone we identify. In the beginning I asked myself how could this make sense? Higher-ups said it is permissible because everyone left in the city [Gaza City] is culpable because they didn’t run away. This frightened me a bit. I tried to influence it as much as possible, despite my low rank, to change it. In the end the directive was to go into a house, switch on loudspeakers and tell them ‘you have five minutes to run away and whoever doesn’t will be killed’.”

    Soldier Ram

    “There was an order to free the [confined] families. The platoon commander set free the family and told them to turn right. A mother and two children didn’t understand and turned left. [Officers] had forgotten to tell the sniper on the roof that they were being set free and that everything was okay and he should hold fire. You can say that he acted as he was supposed to, in accordance with the orders. The sniper saw a woman and children approaching him, past lines that no one was to be allowed to cross. He fired directly at them. I don’t know if he fired at their legs but in the end he killed them.”

    Source:  www.independent.co.uk, 20 March 2009

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Turkey, U.S.: Strengthening Ties as Ankara Rises
    March 19, 2009 | 1837 GMT ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty ImagesTurkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoganSummary
    U.S. President Barack Obama will visit Turkey on April 6-7 and meet with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The United States and Turkey have many areas of mutual interest, including Iraq, Middle Eastern diplomatic efforts, Iran and Central Asia. Obama’s visit indicates that his administration recognizes Turkey’s growing prominence, and it gives the United States a chance to coordinate policy with a rising power.

    Analysis
    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed late March 18 that U.S. President Barack Obama will be visiting Turkey on April 6-7. In an interview with Turkish news channel Kanal 7, Erdogan said he had invited Obama to attend a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative in Istanbul on April 7, but “did not expect” Obama to arrive a day early for an official state visit to Ankara. “Combining the two occasions is very meaningful for us,” he added. Obama’s trip to Turkey will follow a visit to London for the G-20 summit on the global financial crisis, a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, and a trip to Prague to meet with EU leaders.

    Obama’s decision to visit Turkey this early in the game highlights his administration’s recognition of Turkey’s growing prominence in the region. The Turks have woken up after 90 years of post-Ottoman hibernation and are in the process of rediscovering a sphere of influence extending far beyond the Anatolian Peninsula. The Americans, on the other hand, are in the process of drawing down their presence in the Middle East in order to free up U.S. military capabilities to address pressing needs in Afghanistan. With the Turks stepping forward and the Americans stepping back, there are a number of issues of common interest that Obama and Erdogan will need to discuss.

    The first order of business is Iraq. The United States is putting its exit strategy into motion and is looking to Turkey to serve as an exit route for U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq. The Turks would not have a problem with granting the United States such access, but they also want to make sure that U.S. withdrawal plans will not interfere with Turkey’s intentions of keeping Iraqi Kurdistan in check. With key Kurdish leader and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani retiring soon and Kurdish demands over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk intensifying, the Turks want to make clear to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq that Ankara promptly will shut down any attempts to expand Kurdish autonomy. Turkey will not hesitate to use the issue of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters hiding out in northern Ir aq as a pretext for future military incursions should the need arise to pressure the KRG in a more forceful way, but such tactics could run into complications if the United States intends to withdraw the bulk of its forces through northern Iraq. Therefore, the decision on where to base U.S. troops during the withdrawal process will be a political one, and one that will have to address Turkish concerns over the Kurds. Washington likely will see this as a reasonable price to pay, as it has other problems to handle.

    Related Special Topic Page
    Turkey’s Re-Emergence
    Beyond Iraq, the United States is looking to Turkey as the Muslim regional heavyweight to take the lead in handling some of the knottier issues in the Middle East. The Israeli-Syrian peace talks that went public in 2008 were a Turkish initiative. These negotiations are now in limbo, with the Israelis still working to form a new government, but the Turks are looking to revive them in the near future. Turkey, Israel, the United States and the Arab states all share an interest in bringing Syria into a Western alliance structure, with the aim of depriving Iran of its leverage in the Levant. However, the Syrians are setting an equally high price for their cooperation: Syrian domination over Lebanon. These negotiations are packed with potential deal breakers, but Turkey intends to take on the challenge in the interest of securing its southern flank.

    Iran is another critical area where the United States and Turkey see eye to eye. The fall of Saddam Hussein and the rise of the Shia in Iraq have given Iran a platform for projecting influence in the Arab world. But the Turks far outpace the Iranians in a geopolitical contest and will be instrumental in keeping Iranian expansionist goals in check. Erdogan’s outburst over Israel’s Gaza offensive was just one of many ways Turkey has been working to assert its regional leadership, build up its credibility among Sunnis in the Arab world and override Iranian attempts to reach beyond its borders. At the same time, the Turks carry weight with the Iranians, who view Turkey as a fellow great empire of the past and non-Arab partner in the Middle East. Washington may not necessarily need the Turks to mediate in its rocky negotiations with Iran, but it will rely heavily on Turkish clout in the region to help put the Iranians in their place.

    Some problems may arise, however, when U.S.-Turkish talks venture beyond the Middle East and enter areas where the Turkish and Russian spheres of influence overlap. Turkey’s influence extends into Central Asia and deep into the Caucasus, where the Turks have a strong foothold in Azerbaijan and ties to Georgia, and are in the process of patching things up with the Armenians. As the land bridge between Europe and Asia, Turkey is also the key non-Russian energy transit hub for the European market, and through its control of the Bosporus, it is the gatekeeper to the Black Sea. In each of these areas, the Turks bump into the Russians, another resurgent power that is on a tight timetable for extracting key concessions from the United States on a range of issues that revolve around Russia’s core imperative of protecting its former Soviet periphery from Western meddling.

    The U.S. administration and the Kremlin have been involved in intense negotiations over these demands. Washington is still sorting out which concessions it can make in return for Russian cooperation in allowing the United States access to Central Asia for supply routes to Afghanistan, and in applying pressure on Iran. As part of these negotiations, Obama will be meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the G-20 summit and later in the summer in Moscow. Though it is still unclear just how much the United States is willing to give the Russians at this juncture — and how flexible the Turks will be in challenging Russia — Washington wants to make sure its allies, like Turkey, are on the same page.

    But as STRATFOR has discussed in depth, Russia and Turkey now have more reason to cooperate than collide, and recent diplomatic traffic between Moscow and Ankara certainly reflects this reality. In areas where the United States will want to apply pressure on Russia, such as on energy security for the Europeans, the Turks likely will resist rocking the boat with Moscow. The last thing Turkey wants at this point is to give Russia a reason to politicize its trade relationship with Ankara, cause trouble for the Turks in the Caucasus or meddle in Turkey’s Middle Eastern backyard. In short, there are real limits to what the United States can expect from Turkey in its strategy against Russia.

    Obama and Erdogan evidently will have plenty to talk about when they meet in Ankara. Though the United States and Turkey have much to sort out regarding Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia, this visit will give Obama the stage to formally recognize Turkey’s regional prowess and demonstrate a U.S. understanding of Turkey’s growing independence. Washington can see that the Turks are already brimming with confidence in conducting their regional affairs, and can expect some bumps down the road when interests collide. But the sooner the Americans can start coordinating policy with a resurgent power like Turkey, the better equipped Washington will be for conducting negotiations in other parts of the globe.

    Tell STRATFOR What You Think

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

  • Obama adviser urges talks with Hamas

    Obama adviser urges talks with Hamas

    Paul Volcker, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, has urged him to break with US policy and open talks with Hamas in order to test the militant group’s willingness to join a unified Palestinian government.

    By Alex Spillius in Washington
    Last Updated: 4:19PM GMT 15 Mar 2009

    Paul Volcker has urged talks with Hamas

    Mr Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was picked by the president to head his new economic recovery advisory board, signed a letter with nine other Washington veterans and senior ex-officials urging him to open dialogue.

    Other signatories of the letter, delivered to the president days before he took office, include Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to the first George Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who performed the same role under Jimmy Carter.

    The group is expected to be granted an audience at the White House as early as this week to make their case that lines of communication should be opened with the group that is blacklisted as a terrorist organization and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians.

    They are likely to make a forceful case given their personal experience of tortuous Middle East negotiations. “I see no reason not to talk to Hamas,” Mr Scowcroft told the Boston Globe. “The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process. Don’t move it to end of your agenda and say you have too much to do.”

    Mr Obama has made peace in the Middle East a central goal of his presidency. Within days of taking office he appointed former senator George Mitchell, a heavy-hitting veteran of the Northern Ireland peace process, as a special envoy to the region.

    Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, made an early trip to the Middle East and swiftly held out an olive branch to Iran-backed Syria, sending in senior diplomats for talks.

    Some in Washington see a rare opportunity to open talks with Hamas now that the group is discussing a unity government with Fatah, the more moderate Palestinian faction. Hamas was elected to power in Gaza in 2007 and has been shunned by the US for its refusal to renounce violence or recognize Israel’s legitimacy.

    Source:  www.telegraph.co.uk, 15 Mar 2009

  • MIDEAST: Israel and Syria Step Closer

    MIDEAST: Israel and Syria Step Closer

    By Mel Frykberg

    RAMALLAH, Mar 16 (IPS) – As reconciliation talks between the various Palestinian factions continue to falter, and peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems even more remote, the chance of Syria and Israel reaching an agreement remains a real possibility.

    Several weeks ago Israel’s chief patron, the U.S., sent two top envoys to Damascus to discuss strengthening ties, in a significant sign that relations between the two countries could be thawing.

    The U.S. withdrew its ambassador to Syria in 2005 following the assassination of former pro-U.S. Lebanese president Rafiq Hariri. Syria was said to be behind the murder – a charge it denies.

    Now indirect peace negotiations between Syria and Israel under the mediation of Turkey have been taking place on a regular basis following Israel’s 2006 Lebanese war. Syria suspended talks several months ago in protest against Israel’s bloody military offensive on Gaza.

    However, hitherto the U.S. actively discouraged Israel from negotiating with the Syrians. Former U.S. president George Bush said Syria was too close to what he described as the “Axis of Evil” which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

    There has long been a political divide between the two chief protagonists in the Middle East and their support of regional proxies as they sought to enforce a policy of divide and conquer in pursuit of their geopolitical interests.

    The U.S. and Iran have not only been involved in a war of words but have been fuelling tensions in the area by supplying their regional clients military and political aid.

    The U.S. has repeatedly expressed concern about the strengthening Shia crescent headed by a regionally ambitious Iran.

    Iran is Syria’s main political ally. Furthermore, both countries finance, arm, train and give political succour to a number of local resistance groups including Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas.

    Although Syria is a Sunni country, the leadership under President Bashar Assad is predominantly Allawite, a breakaway sect of Shia Islam. Hamas too is Sunni, but its militant ideology finds common ground with Iran’s theocracy.

    The U.S. in turn has been the prominent backer of Israel with enormous financial and military support over the decades. But the U.S. has also provided military and financial support to Arab regimes in the region hostile to and afraid of Iran, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Countries.

    However, the new administration in Washington, in accordance with U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of détente, has been putting out feelers towards the Syrian leadership in a bid to try and resolve issues in a non- confrontational manner.

    Assad welcomed Washington’s decision to send the two top Mideast envoys to Damascus to meet with Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem for discussion on improving ties between the two countries.

    Syrian ambassador to the U.S., Imad Mustapha, commenting on Washington’s more conciliatory stance, told the media that, “they’ve given up on the idea that Syria has to do this and that.”

    The U.S. needs Syria. Threats and bullying have not only failed to reconcile Israel and Syria but driven Syria further into the arms of Iran, thereby strengthening the Shia crescent.

    Besides Syria wielding influence with Hamas and Hizbullah, any peace agreement between Israel and Syria would also put pressure on Lebanon to reach an agreement with Israel. This would free the Jewish state from being hemmed in by hostile neighbours.

    The U.S. also needs Syria to prevent anti-U.S. Islamic militants from crossing its border into Iraq – something the U.S. has accused Syria of failing to do in the past.

    Syria for its part wants U.S. sanctions against its Baathist regime removed. The sanctions have stifled bank transfers, technology imports and grounded some jets for lack of spare parts.

    But Syria’s biggest priority is for Israel to return the Golan Heights, which were captured during the 1967 six-Day Arab-Israeli war, and it sees U.S. involvement as crucial for their return.

    Israel regards their possession as strategically important and will only consider returning them on condition that Syria first ceases support of Hamas and Hizbullah.

    There are also more than 15,000 Israeli settlers living and farming on the Golan and more than 70 percent of the Israeli public rejects a territorial compromise. Israel is also dependent on the Golan’s water resources.

    However, the Israeli elite recognises the value of an accord with Syria which would not only weaken Iran’s regional influence but also deprive local resistance groups of their military and economic support.

    A deal could also open the region to Israel economically, diplomatically and for tourism. Syria in turn would get the return of its territory, long-term regional stability, economic support and in turn a stable and prosperous domestic status-quo.

    It would also join the regional Sunni club and gain new political prestige from like-minded neighbours if it chose to leave the Shia crescent. This is feasible as Syria is secular in nature and not a natural bed-fellow of Islamic fundamentalism.

    Before this would happen, however, Syria would have to fundamentally realign its relationship with Iran. In order to do so it would have to be persuaded that its interests would be best served by making this choice.

    This is where Turkey could once again step in as a mediator, which it has already offered to do.

    Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has very good political, economic, and security relations with Iran but is not locked into a political or military alliance.

    The fundamentals of the conflict between Israel and Syria have largely been resolved on paper during previous negotiations. But the finalisation and implementation of any deal, particularly Israel’s withdrawal from Syrian territory, could take years, and would probably have to be done in several stages. This is where the new U.S. support for rapprochement would come into play.

    Ultimately any successful peace agreement between Israel and Syria would be dependent on full and impartial U.S. involvement. This would mean, amongst other things, leaning on Israel to make the necessary concessions. (END/2009)

    Source:  www.ipsnews.net, March 16, 2009

  • Israel Considers Buying Water from Turkey

    Israel Considers Buying Water from Turkey

    Israel thinks about buying water from Turkey once again as an option to overcome water shortage, the worst in the country over the past ten years.

    Officials of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), established to help alleviate the national water shortage, discussed whether or not water import from Turkey could be feasible.

    Turkey and Israel once agreed on water trade to ship fresh water from Turkey to Israel –via either a pipeline or tankers– but the project was put on ice as it was considered too costly and non-operable.

    The Fund is in talks with Turkish and Israeli governments, as well as Israeli companies, to revive the idea of carrying Turkish water to Israel, said Russel Robinson, an official from the JNF.

    Israeli officials believe that it is almost impossible to find investors for projects to desalinate sea water amid global financial downturn. JNF officials said water import would be a feasible alternative.

    Before recent rainfall since the beginning of March, analyst had said the country could face the worst water crisis in 80 years due to dry winter.

    TEL AVIV (A.A)

    Source: www.turkishweekly.net, 14 March 2009


  • 2009 ANNUAL DUES, DONATIONS and Book Sales

    2009 ANNUAL DUES, DONATIONS and Book Sales

    2009 MEMBERSHIP DUES AND YOUR DONATIONS ARE NEEDED TO CONTINUE OUR POSTED PROGRAMS WITH OUT INTERUPTION

    THE FOLLOWING LINKS WILL TAKE YOU TO THE DUES AND DONATIONS PAGE

    ÜYE AİDATLARI, BAĞIŞLAR VE KİTAP SATIŞLARI

    Dear Friends,

    The Turkish Forum (TF) is the GLOBAL organization with branches and working groups COVERING 5 CONTINENTS, working with many regional Organizations in the America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Turkey.  TF’s mission is to represent the Turkish Community in in the best way possible, to empower the people of Turkish origin and friends of Turkey to be active and assertive in the political and civic arenas, to educate the political establishments, media and the public on issues important to Turks, and cultivate the relations between the working groups located an five continents, serving the Turkish Communities needs.

    In order to achieve these goals we have performed many activities and completed many projects, THEY ARE ALL LISTED IN THE WEB PAGES OF TF, . You have been informed about these activities and projects, many of you participated voluntarily and contributed heavily and still contributing to these activates and projects. As the events happen and the major steps taken the information always reaches to you  by the TF Grassroots DAILY NEWS Distribution Service.  Needless to say, each activity and project requires a large amount of human and financial resources. TF has a  completely volunteer board, none of the board members receives any compensation or salary or even a small reimbursement. TF also has many volunteer committee members, WELL ESTABLISHED ADVISORY BOARD and project leaders. In addition to our large volunteer pool, please see them an https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/turkish-forum/ TF sustains Permanent Offices in New England, Germany and in Turkey and has a number of professional staff to upgrade its systems, and to solve the technical problems.  Please check our website at https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/turkish-forum/

    As the 2009 did begin we kindly ask you to support TF by becoming a member, if you are not already one.  You can also contribute a donation if you wish to upgrade your regular membership  to a higher level. Your financial support is critical to TF in order to pursue its mission in a professional manner. Needless to say, it is the financial support that we receive from our members and Friends of Turkey  is the backbone of our organization. As long as this support is continuous we can achieve our objectives and work for the communities across the globe.  Your contribution is tax-exempt under the full extent of the law allowed under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) (3).

    Becoming a member and making an additional contribution are easy: You may become a member online at http://www.turkishnews.com/dagitim/lists/?p=subscribe&id=3

    I thank you for your belief in TF, and look forward to another successful year with your uninterrupted support.

    Sincerely,
    Kayaalp Büyükataman

    Dr. Kayaalp Büyükataman, President CEO
    Turkish Forum- World Turkish Coalition