Turkish Forum

Category: Israel

  • Freeman speaks out on his exit

    Freeman speaks out on his exit

    Tue, 03/10/2009 – 5:35pm

    Retired Amb. Chas Freeman, who said today that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council, has just sent this message:

    You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

    I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office.  The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue.  I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.  I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

    As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government.  Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service.  When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.”  I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”  I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception.  It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service.  I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged.  I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

    I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy.  These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration.  Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society.  It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

    The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful  lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

    There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.  I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.  It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.  This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

    The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.  I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

    In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent.  The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read.  The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds.  Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

    Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies.  I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic.  I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself.  I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

    I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair.  Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home.  Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

  • AMERICAN ARMENIANS OPENLY ATTACKS TO JEWISH AMERICANS

    AMERICAN ARMENIANS OPENLY ATTACKS TO JEWISH AMERICANS

    ANC Alerts Hampshire College to Its

    Association with (ADL) Genocide Denier

    By Contributor • on March 5, 2009 •

    Decries Anti-Defamation League’s invitation to ensure campus tolerance

    WATERTOWN, Mass.-The Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Massachusetts has alerted Hampshire College president Ralph Hexter that the school’s relationship with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) would associate Hampshire College with genocide denial.

    The invitation to the ADL to visit the campus “to ensure that all students feel welcome and safe” follows reports, disputed by college officials, that Hampshire College had divested in companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

    “The Anti-Defamation League is an organization that actively engages in genocide denial, which is the highest form of hate speech and the final stage of genocide,” wrote the ANC-MA. “Hampshire College’s inclusion of the ADL in campus discussions on tolerance is an affront to all those fighting for genocide prevention and human rights.”

    The ANC-MA pointed out that as recently as last month, ADL national director Abraham Foxman told the New York Times that the “ADL will continue to oppose a Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide because ‘there’s too much at stake in the [Israeli-Turkish] relationship.’”

    “It is highly hypocritical for the ADL to present itself as an organization that secures the rights of all people while it actively perpetrates the worst form of hatred against Armenians,” the ANC-MA declared. “The Anti-Defamation League is most assuredly not the group upon which Hampshire College should call to ensure an atmosphere of respect and safety for all members of its community.”

    “Hampshire College, widely known for its progressive values and mandate, must not sanction the ADL’s unethical actions by allowing it to define the terms of tolerance. By partnering with the ADL, Hampshire College will become indelibly associated with genocide denial,” the letter concluded.

    ***0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    TURKISH FORUM INSERT TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ARTICLE

    THIS IS TO REMIND OUR FRIENDS FROM ISRAEL ABOUT DASHNAK ARMENIANS AND THEIR NAZI BRIGADE DURING SECOND WORLD WAR – AND – THE JEWISH PEOPLE KILLED BY THEM DURING FIRST PART OF 20TH CENTURY IN EASTERN ANADOLIA...

    The article of Derounian about Dashnak-Nazi collaboration:   http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/derounian-dashnak-dominat.htm The photo of the demonstration of young Dashnaks in Erevan, April 23, 2003:

    See also:

    http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/Nazi-Collaboration.htm

    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Below is the full text of the March 4 ANC-MA letter to Hampshire College.

    Ralph Hexter, President
    Hampshire College
    893 West Street
    Amherst, MA 01002

    Dear Mr. Hexter,

    We are appalled to note that Hampshire College has invited officials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) “to visit the campus, in order to work together to ensure that all students feel welcome and safe on campus,” according to the “Statement from Anti-Defamation League” posted on your website.

    The ADL is an organization that actively engages in genocide denial, which is the highest form of hate speech and the final stage of genocide.  Hampshire College’s inclusion of the ADL in campus discussions on tolerance is an affront to all those fighting for genocide prevention and human rights.

    The ADL does not possess the moral authority to lecture anyone on tolerance, having abandoned its mission “to secure justice and fair treatment to all” by lobbying for the Turkish government against recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

    By choosing to prioritize narrow geopolitical interests-Israel’s military/strategic alliance with Turkey-over universal human rights, the ADL simply has no credibility in the area of human and civil rights.

    On Feb. 5, 2009, ADL national director Abraham Foxman told the New York Times that the ADL will continue to oppose a Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide because “there’s too much at stake in the [Israeli-Turkish] relationship.”

    And according to the Feb. 4, 2009 issue of The Forward, “The strong Jewish opposition to Congressional recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been waning, but some Jewish groups, led by the Anti-Defamation League, are actively opposing any move in Congress.  ‘Right now we have no intention of changing our position from last year,’ said Jess Hordes, who heads the ADL’s Washington office.”

    This ADL support for the denialist Turkish government is abhorrent, particularly for an organization that vigorously combats Holocaust denial.  Israel Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, explains the destructiveness of genocide denial: “Denials of known events of genocide must be treated as acts of bitter and malevolent psychological aggression, certainly against the victims, but really against all of human society, for such denials literally celebrate genocidal violence and in the process suggestively calls for renewed massacres-of the same people or of others. Such denials also madden, insult and humiliate the survivors, the relatives of the dead, and the entire people of the victims.”

    It is highly hypocritical for the ADL to present itself as an organization that secures the rights of all people while it actively perpetrates the worst form of hatred against Armenians.  The Anti-Defamation League is most assuredly not the group upon which Hampshire College should call to ensure an atmosphere of respect and safety for all members of its community.

    Perhaps you are unaware that the ADL refuses to unequivocally acknowledge as genocide the massacres by the Turkish government of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923, and that it actively engages in genocide denial by lobbying for Turkey to prevent passage of a United States Congressional resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

    Additionally, the ADL has repeatedly endorsed Turkey’s call for an investigation of the genocide, a standard tactic employed by genocide deniers to raise doubts about settled history. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has condemned this proposal by writing that it “would only serve the interests of Turkish genocide deniers…  There is no more ‘other side’ to the truth about the Armenian Genocide than there is about the Holocaust.”
    Due to the ADL’s unethical position on the Armenian Genocide, 13 Massachusetts communities, including Northampton, withdrew from the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” (NPFH) program in 2007 and 2008.

    In its Sept. 28, 2007 letter to Abraham Foxman informing the ADL of its unanimous decision to withdraw from NPFH, the Northampton Human Rights Commission wrote: “We cannot in conscience continue a relationship with an organization that claims to stand for full accountability for genocide, yet stops short of endorsing a Congressional resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.  We cannot endorse selective recognition of hate by an organization that claims leadership in creating a world where there is no place for hate…  Acknowledging the truth about the Armenian Genocide not only has an impact on survivors and their families, it also has an impact on our ability to address other acts of hate.”

    On April 8, 2008, the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) ended its sponsorship of NPFH, declaring: “The Board believes that unequivocal recognition of the Armenian Genocide is both a matter of basic justice to its victims as well as essential to efforts to prevent future genocides…  The inconsistency between the National ADL’s position on the Armenian Genocide and the human rights principles underlying NPFH is a matter of great concern to MMA Board members and the municipalities they represent…it is imperative to speak with absolute clarity on genocide.”

    Human rights advocates, both here and abroad, have condemned the ADL’s position on the Armenian Genocide; the media is replete with articles denouncing its stance.  In January, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation: “Foxman’s moral compass has gotten so twisted, he has the ADL working to undermine Congressional resolutions condemning genocide-specifically, that committed by Turks against the Armenians…  In light of the desire of so many anti-Semites to treat the Holocaust in a similar fashion, Foxman’s position strikes this Jew at least as one too many ironies to be tolerated.”

    Genocide denial is not merely reprehensible, it is dangerous.  According to the IAGS, “The single best predictor of future genocide is denial of a past genocide coupled with impunity for its perpetrators.”

    Over 25 Armenian political, cultural, religious, athletic, youth, media, and social welfare organizations in Massachusetts have united to combat the ADL’s denial of the Armenian Genocide.  For additional information on this movement, please visit noplacefordenial.com.

    Hampshire College, widely known for its progressive values and mandate, must not sanction the ADL’s unethical actions by allowing it to define the terms of tolerance.  By partnering with the ADL, Hampshire College will become indelibly associated with genocide denial.

    Sincerely,
    Sharistan Melkonian
    Chairperson

  • Next Battle Between Kurds and Baghdad?

    Next Battle Between Kurds and Baghdad?

    By Mohammed A. Salih, IPS News. Posted March 7, 2009.

    The balance of power in Iraq is quickly tilting toward forces that Kurds perceive as hostile.

    COLUMBIA, Missouri, U.S., Mar 3 (IPS) — When U.S. President Barack Obama announced his plan last week to pull out all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by September 2010, the news did not generate much enthusiasm among Iraqi Kurds.

    A simple math operation reveals the reasons behind the Kurds’ anxiety — add the withdrawal plan to the recent staggering victory of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s supporters in the country’s recent provincial elections.

    Kurds are now counting on Obama’s oft-repeated pledge for a “responsible” withdrawal, hoping their interests will be preserved. But a review of statements by Kurdish and U.S. officials reveals the two sides are mostly talking at cross purposes when they speak of “responsibility.”

    Recently, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani gave his interpretation of the term “responsible.”

    “I restate that the role of the United States should be to help resolve the problems in Iraq such as Article 140, the oil law, and the law on the distribution of its oil wealth,” Barzani told reporters in the northern city of Irbil, tallying the list of contentious issues between Kurds and Iraqi government.

    Article 140 refers to a constitutional provision to settle the critical issue of disputed territories between Kurds and Iraqi Arabs, including the gold-prize contested city of Kirkuk which is afloat on some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

    But for the U.S., “responsibility” appears to mean making sure Iraqi security forces can take over the task of protecting the country against rebellious forces once it leaves. To achieve that end, the U.S. is equipping and training Iraqi security forces. But this is hardly reassuring to Kurds, many of whom see a conflict with Baghdad forthcoming in some form in the future.

    When asked whether the U.S. will act to resolve the problems between Iraqi Arabs and Kurds before leaving the country, U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood replied: “It’s not really up to the United States to reassure anyone” and that Iraqis had to work out their differences through their “democracy.”

    But the balance of power in Baghdad is quickly tilting toward forces which Kurds do not perceive as amenable. Just shortly before Obama officially declared the U.S. withdrawal plan, the Kurds’ number one opponent in Baghdad, PM Maliki, found himself in a boosted position as his coalition of the State of Law scored a quite unexpected victory in nine of Iraq’s 18 provinces including Baghdad, the country’s most populous city of around six million. With Kurds and Baghdad at odds over several crucial issues, Obama’s withdrawal plan would only further strengthen Maliki’s position.

    Disputes between the country’s Kurds and central government go back to the early days of the foundation of modern Iraq by British colonialism in 1920s. At the heart of contention are large chunks of territory marking the separation line between Kurdish and Arab Iraq.

    Iraqi governments, most notably under Saddam Hussein, expelled tens of thousands of Kurds and Turkomans from those areas and replaced them with Arab settlers. While Kurds want to annex these areas to their autonomous region known as Kurdistan, the vast majority of the country’s Arab political parties vehemently oppose such plans. Kurdish attempts to expand their federal region have sparked fierce reactions in Baghdad.

    Spearheading a growing trend in Iraqi politics to abort Kurdish efforts and stalling the establishment of new autonomous regions is Shia Prime Minister Maliki. He has called for further centralization of power in Baghdad, accusing Kurds of going overboard with their demands.

    Besides strengthening Maliki’s position, the provincial elections delivered a major blow to the Kurds’ only powerful ally in Arab Iraq that advocates federalism: the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, previously known to be the most powerful Shia Arab party in the country.

    With their power in Baghdad thought to be in decline, Kurdish leaders are these days loudly beating their anti-Maliki drum to draw international attention to their problems with the rest of Iraq. PM Barzani told the Associated Press last month that he thinks Maliki is seeking a “confrontation” with the Kurds.

    Kurdish officials have even reportedly called on Obama to appoint a special envoy to resolve their long-standing problems with Iraqi Arabs.

    One Kurdish official took it even further, telling the Associated Press that al-Maliki was a “second Saddam.” The alleged statement by Kamal Kirkuki, Kurdish parliament deputy speaker, was so ill-calculated that he had to issue a statement denying that he ever gave an interview to the AP.

    As tensions appear to escalate, a consensus is taking shape among many analysts that things are moving toward a possible flare-up point.

    “The threat (of conflict) is real,” Kirmanj Gundi, head of the Kurdish National Congress (KNC) in North America, told IPS in a phone interview from Nashville, Tennessee, where the largest Kurdish community in North America resides.

    “It’s unfortunate that the Kurdish leadership became more vocal about this only recently,” Gundi said. KNC is a non-profit organisation lobbying for Kurdish interests in the U.S. and Canada.

    But concerns about a possible outbreak of conflict between Kurds and the Iraqi government have gone far beyond Kurdish circles.

    “It is critical for the U.S. to start thinking about this now because as we proceed with the disengagement, our influence will wane in Iraq,” said Henry Barkey from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of the need for the U.S. to address existing problems between Kurds and the Iraqi government before it leaves the war-torn country.

    Barkey authored a report for the Washington-based think-tank on how to prevent conflict over Kurdistan. “Therefore, we need to hit the iron when it is hot. And so, it is very important to help and we haven’t done this in the past, to help look at some of these issues,” Barkey said on the sidelines of an event at Carnegie to discuss his report last month.

    While Washington appears indifferent, at least in its official discourse, to calls for helping forge a common understanding between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs, tensions are continuing to build.

    In an attempt to flex its muscles, the Iraqi government recently announced it will not recognize the visas stamped by Kurdish government on the passports of foreign visitors. It also tried to send an army division to take over security tasks in Kirkuk but had to halt the plan for the time being as it met stiff Kurdish opposition.

    The coming two years — from now until the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — will be decisive in determining how the Kurds’ relations with the central government and the country’s Arabs will turn out. But all signs are that Iraq is far from a long-term stability.

    Source:  www.alternet.org, March 7, 2009


    [2]

    “A contemporary anectode tells how [Molla Mustafa] Barzani, accustomed to reciving Eastern Bloc arms, was once surprised and pleased to be given accidentally [!]  a consignment of Israeli made mortars, which he found superior and so demanded more. Barzani had exaggerated  expectations of Israeli capabilities:  he had, according to a  well-placed source, `set his sights  on A JOINT CAMPAIGN IN WHICH  ISRAEL WOULD CAPTURE SYRIA WHILE HE CONQUERED IRAQ’.”

    Source: “Israel’s Secret Wars; the Untold History of Israeli Intelligence”, Ian Black and Benny Morris; (Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1991)

  • Morgenthaus vs. Genocide

    Morgenthaus vs. Genocide

    AFTER DAVOS.. ATTACTS ON TURKISH POINT OF VIEW INTENSIFIED .. BELOW İS AN EXAMPLE … TURKISH FORUM …

    Opinion

    By Rafael Medoff

    Published March 04, 2009, issue of March 13, 2009.

    Robert Morgenthau’s announcement that he will retire after more than three decades as Manhattan’s district attorney caps an impressive career in law enforcement. With his latest case, against banks illegally aiding the governments of Iran and Sudan, three generations of Morgenthaus have now confronted perpetrators of genocide – which is as tragic a commentary on the persistence of human rights abuses in modern times as it is a tribute to a remarkable family that has fought those abuses.

    It began with Robert Morgenthau’s grandfather. A lawyer and realtor in turn-of-the-century Manhattan, Henry Morgenthau Sr. was an unlikely crusader for human rights. His life took a surprising turn when his support for the long-shot presidential candidacy of Woodrow Wilson was rewarded with the post of American ambassador to Turkey.

    Under the cover of World War I, the Turkish authorities embarked on a campaign of mass murder against their Armenian citizens. Morgenthau’s desperate cables to Washington about this “attempt to exterminate a race” – relaying details of the wholesale deportations, massacres and rapes – are among the most important evidence of the atrocities.

    The ambassador persuaded The New York Times and other news media to report on the “race murder,” as he called it; he inspired charity groups to raise relief funds for the survivors. But the Wilson administration, anxious to remain neutral in the war, rebuffed Morgenthau’s appeals to intervene. Morgenthau resigned in frustration in early 1916.

    While Morgenthau was unable to save the Armenians, his example has stood as a beacon to generations of activists determined to stop genocide. Morgenthau’s experience fills the opening section of Samantha Power’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” Now a senior foreign policy adviser to President Obama, Power regards “the American nonresponse to the Turkish horrors” as “establishing patterns that would be repeated” throughout the ensuing century. Power, according to recent media reports, is now attempting to break the pattern by urging active American intervention against the genocide in Darfur.

    Two decades after Henry Morgenthau Sr. resigned his post as ambassador, a twist of fate put his son in a position to act against genocide. As the proprietor of apple orchards in New York’s Dutchess County, Henry Morgenthau Jr. became friends with his neighbor Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1934, Roosevelt named him secretary of the treasury.

    Under ordinary circumstances, the Treasury Department would not deal with matters affecting Jews in Hitler’s Europe, but in 1943 Jewish groups asked the department for permission to send funds into Axis territory to ransom Jews. The State Department’s attempt to stall the rescue plan aroused the ire and curiosity of a senior Morgenthau aide named Josiah DuBois. His investigations revealed that the State Department had been suppressing news of the Holocaust and sabotaging rescue opportunities so America would not have to deal with what one official called “the burden and the curse” of having to care for refugees.

    In early 1944, Morgenthau confronted Roosevelt with the evidence and urged him to create a government agency to rescue Jews. Just then, leading members of Congress, galvanized by the activist Bergson Group, were pressing the president to establish such an agency. The pressure convinced a reluctant Roosevelt to create the War Refugee Board. During the final 15 months of the war, the board helped save an estimated 200,000 Jews.

    Like his father and grandfather, Robert Morgenthau chose a career path that one would not expect to embroil him in international affairs. As Manhattan’s district attorney since 1975, Morgenthau prosecuted the usual array of criminals, from muggers to Mafia bosses to white-collar swindlers.

    Last month, however, Morgenthau announced the results of what is perhaps his most important investigation: His office caught 10 major international banks laundering “billions of dollars” for Iran and Sudan. Part of the money purchased goods that international sanctions prevent Tehran and Khartoum from acquiring. Some of the money was channeled to terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Ironically, Morgenthau’s bank investigators have been collaborating with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control – the same office that, under the direction of Josiah DuBois, his father worked with during the Holocaust.

    Three generations of Morgenthaus were unexpectedly thrust into the international arena and rose to the challenge. Henry Sr. exposed the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Henry Jr. helped interrupt the Nazi genocide. Now the Sudanese regime that is carrying out genocide in Darfur and the Iranian regime that dreams of genocide against Israel are facing their own Morgenthau. The family’s legacy has come full circle.

    Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and the author of “Blowing the Whistle on Genocide: Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. and the Struggle for a U.S. Response to the Holocaust” (Purdue University Press, 2008).

    Source:

    [2]

    Makalenin yazarinin Wikipedia girisi:

    Rafael Medoff is the director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. Medoff received his PhD from Yeshiva University in 1991. In 2001 he was Visiting Scholar in Jewish Studies at the State University of New York at Purchase. He has served on the editorial boards of American Jewish History, Southern Jewish History, Shofar and Menorah Review. He is a member of the Academic Council of the American Jewish Historical Society, and his essays and reviews have appeared in many scholarly journals.[1] He has made a significant contribution to the history of US-Israel relations by examining American Jewish attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian Arabs. [2]In The Deafening Silence, Medoff argues that had American Jewish leaders been more forceful in presenting the case for rescue of European Jews to the Roosevelt administration, they could have moved the administration to act. In Deborah Lipstadt’s review of Holocaust literature, she engages Medoff’s argument, but concludes that “There is nothing on record to indicate that their outspoken support would have changed the mind of restrictionist legislators.” [3]

    Lawrence Davidson of West Chester University cites Medoff’s assertion in Zionism and the Arabs: An American Jewish Dilemma, 1898-1948, that Zionists did not see the Palestinian Arabs as “a distinct national group with national rights-largely because the Palestinian Arabs themselves did not claim the status of a specific national grouping,” to argue against Zionism on the grounds that “no one ruled against self- determination in other parts of Greater Syria where the same views prevailed.” [4]
  • Turkey’s New Mission

    Turkey’s New Mission

    Shlomo Ben-Ami

    TEL AVIV – Ever since Turkey’s establishment as a republic, the country has oscillated between the Western-oriented heritage of its founder, Kemal Ataturk, and its eastern, Ottoman legacy. Never resolved, modern Turkey’s deep identity complex is now shaking its strategic alliances and recasting its regional and global role. Indeed, Turkey’s changing perception of itself has shaped its so-far frustrated drive to serve as a peace broker between Israel and its Arab enemies, Syria and Hamas.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s missionary zeal to replace Egypt as the essential regional mediator, and his violent tirades against Israel’s behavior in Gaza, looks to many people like an attempt to recover Turkey’s Ottoman-era role as the guarantor of regional peace and security. Its credentials for this role in the Middle East are by no means negligible.

    Turkey is a true regional superpower, with one of the largest armies in the world. At the same time, it is the only Muslim country that, while no less worried than Israel about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, can maintain excellent economic and political relations with Iran, regardless of American displeasure. Of course, Syria is Iran’s ally, too, but no country in the region has the leverage with it that Turkey possesses. And Turkey’s diplomatic reach in the region is also reflected in its recent signing of a friendship treaty with Saudi Arabia, while maintaining excellent relations with Pakistan and Iraq.

    Europe’s persistence in snubbing Turkey’s attempts to join the European Union, the rise of violent anti-Western popular sentiment in the wake of the Iraq war, and strained relations with the US – owing in part to the forthcoming Armenian Genocide Act – are major factors in Turkey’s change of direction. The civilizing efforts that Ataturk’s revolution directed inward and in favor of disengagement from the Arab and Muslim worlds are now being revisited. The Turkey of Erdogan’s dominant Justice and Development Party (AKP) appears to be seeking a new mission civilisatrice , with the Middle East and the former Soviet republics as its alternative horizons.

    The uneasy challenge for Turkey is to secure its newfound regional role without betraying Ataturk’s democratic legacy. Turkish democracy and secular values have been greatly enhanced by the country’s dialogue with Europe and its American ties. Turkey can be a model for Middle Eastern countries if, while promoting its regional strategic and economic interests, it resists the authoritarian temptation and continues to show that Islam and democracy are fully compatible.

    For Israel, the long overdue message is that its future in the Middle East does not lie in strategic alliances with the region’s non-Arab powers, but in reconciling itself with the Arab world. In the 1960’s, David Ben-Gurion’s fatalistic pessimism about the possibility of ever reaching a peace settlement with the Arab countries led him to forge an “Alliance of the Periphery” with the non-Arab countries in the outer circle of the Middle East – Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey (he also dreamed of having Lebanon’s Maronite community as part of that alliance).

    All of these countries did not have any particular dispute with Israel, and all, to varying degrees, had tense relations with their Arab neighbors. The myth of Israel’s military power, resourcefulness in economic and agricultural matters, and an exaggerated perception of its unique capacity to lobby and influence American policy combined to make the Israeli connection especially attractive to these countries.

    The “Alliance of the Periphery” was a creative attempt to escape the consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It reflected the yearning of the Jewish state to unleash its creative energies in economic and social matters, as it created space for an independent, imaginative foreign policy that was not linked to, or conditioned by, the paralyzing constraints of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Shlomo Ben Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as vice-president of the Toledo International Centre for Peace, is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

    But the security that this scheme was supposed to produce could never really be achieved; the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict could not be attenuated. The Arabs’ capacity to maintain their pressure on Israel and to keep world opinion focused on the Palestinians’ plight made Israel’s quest for evading the consequences of the conflict, either through periodic wars or by forging alternative regional alliances, a futile exercise.

    The Islamic revolution in Iran, the changes in Ethiopia following the end of Haile Selassie’s rule, the collapse of Maronite Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s takeover of that country left Turkey as the last remaining member of Israel’s Alliance of the Periphery. Turkey’s powerful military establishment may want to maintain close relations with Israel, but the widely popular change in Turkey’s foreign policy priorities, and the serious identity dilemmas facing the nation, send an unequivocal message that the alliance can no longer serve as an alternative to peace with the Arab world. From now on, it can only be complementary to such a peace.

    Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice-president of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

    © Project Syndicate 1995-2009

    Source:  www.guatemala-times.com, 03 March 2009

  • Turkey-Armenia relations

    Turkey-Armenia relations

    Davos scandal strikes the first blow on Turkey’s rating in Azerbaijan

    Baku. Vugar Masimoglu – APA. The policy of “improving relations with Armenians”, which started with Armenia-Turkey football match, has already passed the next stage. The reports that Ankara gave up stipulation of Nagorno Karabakh issue in the talks with Yerevan are observed with serious concern in the public opinion of Turkey and Azerbaijan. Actually, the information first leaked from Armenian sources, and it was the results of the purposeful policy. The news “Turkey puts Nagorno Karabakh issue into the background” was a kind of taking the pulse in the region. In fact, if Ankara had immediately refuted the information, which was circulated by Armenia and made a bomb effect, it would not have caused so much tension in Azerbaijan. But Turkish government has not yet refuted the report that Nagorno Karabakh problem, one of the three main stipulations put forward for establishment of direct political, economic and diplomatic relations with Armenia was removed from the political discussions. On the contrary, official Ankara’s reaction shows that AKP government is going to take serious diplomatic steps to normalize relations with Armenia.

    AKP government’s efforts to normalize the relations with Armenia are based on a number of external and internal factors. High probability that new U.S. administration will recognize the so-called Armenian genocide, tension in Turkey-Israel relations makes Ankara improve relations with Armenia. For long years efforts for recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the US were impeded by the Jewish lobby in the country. But the word duel between Prime Minister Erdogan and Israeli President in Davos cast shadow on Turkey-Israel relations and therefore it is doubtful that Jewish lobby will help Turkey to impede the recognition of “Armenian genocide” in the U.S. Congress.

    In other words, Turkey’s foreign policy is suffering from Prime Minster’s steps in Davos intended for domestic policy. That’s why official Ankara tries to remove negative results of the uncertain relations with Israel, its serious strategic ally in the region, at the cost of improving relations with Armenia. So, Turkey has involuntarily made a tactical change with respect to Armenia and “Armenian genocide” – Ankara has given up proving that these claims are false and in stead begun to demonstrate that Turkey is interested in improving relations with Armenia and recognition of “Armenian genocide” will impede this improvement.

    Is the change having purely defense character in Turkey’s foreign policy course permanent? It will be known after April 24. If Turkey can persuade the United States that it is interested in improving the relations and solving all the problems with Armenia, the U.S. President in his annual speech will not regard the happenings of 1915 as genocide. But for this, Turkey should take some practical steps. Otherwise, Ankara may face more serious problems in terms of “Armenian genocide” next year and its position in the world.

    What steps is Turkey going to take to improve the relations with Armenia? It is difficult to express concrete opinion, as the process is going on behind the curtains. But the information leaked to media and reactions of AKP officials allows us to say – the process of improving the relations (or giving such an impression) has started! AKP’s goodwill messages to the Armenian community in the country, statements made on different levels that the borders with Armenia will open, cross-border trade will extend, the businessmen trading with Armenia will get tax and customs concessions allow us to surmise Turkey’s next steps.
    Measures taken toward the Turkish-Armenian approach were estimated for the domestic political interests too. Weakening of the ruling party’s influence will lead to losing of votes in the municipal elections. This fact was recognized by AKP representatives as well. AKP, which is seriously fighting for every vote, is trying to win the support of Armenian community (Turkey’s Armenian community is close to CHP) and business people living in the areas bordering with Armenia as well. AKP election campaign in the Eastern Anatolia is based on the theses of allowance for the free trade with Armenia and its impact on improvement of social situation of the population in border areas.
    Long-time different campaigns (involving the international organizations, financial institutions, political parties, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, media and etc.) were provided in that region for direct trade with Armenia and small electorate, which is wishing the normalization of relations with Armenia, was formed in Ardahan, Kars, Igdir and Agri provinces. One of the reasons forcing AKP government to approach with Armenia is to win the support of that electorate. The government should take control over the municipalities in the border areas to open the borders with Armenia. Therefore the opening of borders became the main strategic line in the election campaign.

    Basic reasons of the Ankara-Yeravan approach are known and the protest of Azerbaijan against this approach is also known. How long will this concern last and will Ankara take measures to lift it? Turkish foreign policy yet doesn’t show a willingness to do that. Ankara doesn’t express weighty reaction to the reports about its retracting the one of the basic principles of the Turkish diplomacy – settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

    The statements made so far show that Turkey will not take into consideration the interests of the third countries in its policy toward Armenia. This message was sent to Azerbaijan because there is no other country except Azerbaijan, which is concerning over this approach. It is naturally that Azerbaijan concerns over it, because Turkey is intending to normalize its relations with Armenia at the expense of interests of our country.

    Turkey’s foreign policy toward Armenia was always formed within the triangle of Ankara-Baku-Yerevan and three conditions were basic principles in the relations with Yerevan: Armenia must leave its territorial and 1915 “genocide” claims against Turkey, must unconditionally withdraw its forces from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. Over the past 20 years, Turkey followed this course and didn’t leave it even in the most difficult times. But now Ankara was forced to change this course and to disregard the Azerbaijan’s interests. Turkey took out the Nagorno Karabakh issue from the discussions to prevent the recognition of “Armenian genocide” this year. What costs it will pay in the next years?
    Essence of the tensions in the Azerbaijani society is that Turkey gave away the Azerbaijan’s interests for its unsuccessful foreign policy.
    AKP government, which is trying to eliminate the results of its unsuccessful foreign policy at the expense of approach with Armenia, and blamed media for the concerns among the Azerbaijani society. Azerbaijani media is sharply criticizing the Turkish-Armenian approach, but these critics are targeting not Turkey, but the AKP government, which is making mistakes in the foreign policy. Undoubtedly the Turkey’s unsuccessful foreign policy toward Armenia will severely hurt Azerbaijan. Attempts to approach with Armenia are the signals of threats, because it is impossible to believe that Turkey, which abandoned the interests of Northern Cyprus and Kirkuk, will meet the interests of Azerbaijan.