Category: Israel

Turkey’s Dangerous Diplomacy

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director, Anti-Defamation League

For a number of decades, I have been deeply engaged in promoting close relationships between the United States and Turkey and between Israel and Turkey.

I am deeply pained, however, that even as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu travels to the United States this week for talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to say it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to sustain that commitment.

Like the U.S., both Turkey and Israel are Western-oriented, share a common commitment to democratic values, and hold free elections. The U.S. has long considered Turkey a vital regional ally — militarily, diplomatically and economically – and those shared interests are also relevant with respect to Israel. The Israeli and Turkish militaries have forged an extremely close relationship, born from common enemies and security concerns, and, until recently, this partnership translated into joint combat exercises, the sale of weapons technologies to one-another, and cooperation on confronting strategic threats.

On the economic front, Israel has become one of Turkey’s most important trading partners. Trade volume between the two countries has risen significantly during the past decade, currently hovering around $3.5 billion annually.

When it comes to humanitarian assistance, both countries have repeatedly aided each other. In the aftermath of the 1999 and 2011 earthquakes in Turkey, Israel played an important role in the rescue efforts, dispatching special recovery teams to search for survivors while contributing significant aid to the devastated regions. And during the 2010 fire which caused severe damage to Israel’s Carmel region, Turkey responded to Israel’s request for aid and sent along special airplanes to help extinguish the raging fire.

For decades, Turkey has been a beacon of democracy, remaining a shining example for the Muslim world. Yet I am concerned that its democratic light has begun to fade.

The country’s recent deviation from democracy can be seen in Turkey’s emerging attitude toward a free press, where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government are demonstrating an unwillingness to tolerate criticism of their policies. They have unabashedly asked the public to boycott newspapers and TV channels owned by the Dogan Media Holdings, a media group that is often critical of AKP policies, and has expressed fears that Erdogan’s government is trying to undermine the secular basis of Turkish society.

Perhaps more troubling was the 2010 world press freedom index report from Reporters Without Borders, which lists Turkey at 138 out of 178 countries ranked, down from 98th place in 2005. According to the Turkish Journalists Union, there are currently 97 journalists in Turkish prisons, a figure exceeding the number of those detained in China.

Coinciding with undemocratic policies is the recent fracturing of Turkey’s relationship with Israel, an unraveling that may be reaching a dangerous tipping point.

In the last three years, there has been a conscious attempt by the Erdogan government to shift toward a foreign policy that negates long-standing alliances in favor of populist diplomatic initiatives and has led to a deterioration of the Turkish-Israeli relationship.

One can point to the testy exchange between Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres during the 2009 Davos forum — which saw Erdogan, in a discussion on Israel’s activities in Gaza, storm off the stage — as the moment when the public was first exposed to the deteriorating Turkish-Israeli relations. This was followed by a cooling of diplomatic and military relations between the two countries, and came to a head with the unfortunate loss of life during the flotilla incident of May 2010, leading Turkey to expel Israel’s ambassador from Ankara.

Yet, instead of trying to work out their problems and salvage the country’s relationship with Israel, Turkish government officials, led by Erdogan and Davutoglu, opted for greater distance and have resorted to rhetorical and diplomatic provocations against Israel.

This approach can be clearly seen in the recent official visit of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to Turkey, a gesture that Israel justifiably saw as another diplomatic slap in the face. During his visit, Haniyeh held meetings with Erdogan and his government, was received with a standing ovation in Turkish Parliament, and met with IHH members on the Mavi Marmara boat, an act of pure contempt designed to stir up tensions surrounding the flotilla incident. Haniyeh was afforded this warm reception, despite being one of the principal leaders of a U.S. and E.U. designated terror organization that openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Just a few short years ago, inviting a Hamas leader to Turkey would have been unthinkable.

Haniyeh’s Turkish visit was a clear indication of the new and dangerous diplomatic path being carved out by Erdogan and the AKP. Considering the frequent comparisons made between Hamas and the PKK, both of which are responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians, there is a certain dark irony to the warmth showered upon the Hamas leader by the Turkish government. I have no doubt it would be unacceptable for Israel’s prime minister to host the head of the PKK in Jerusalem, yet Erdogan has hypocritically rejected the classification of Hamas as a terrorist organization, fondly referring to it as a “resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation.”

I greatly fear that Turkey’s fraying democracy and new foreign policy approach will lead the country on a dangerous collision course with its allies in the West. Hosting terrorist organizations like Hamas serves only to further isolate Turkey from the U.S. and Israel, and demonstrates nothing more than populist diplomacy. If Erdogan and the AKP are genuinely concerned about Turkish democracy and sustaining the country’s standing in the international community, I would respectfully urge them to re-evaluate and reverse their anti-democratic initiatives and reassess the government’s diplomatic approach towards Israel. Re-energizing the Turkish-Israel alliance would benefit Turkey, the U.S. and the region.

I am hopeful Turkey will find its way back to a place where I can once again feel comfortable as an advocate for warm relationships between Turkey and the U.S., and Turkey and Israel.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/turkey-israel-relations_b_1260736

February 8, 2012
Israeli Apartheid Week: Call it as it is

Calling the Israeli regime as one of apartheid is not rhetoric, nor is it an exaggeration or a propaganda tool. This is the reality in modern day Palestine, where the Israeli regime is based on discrimination, through laws, practices, education and most aspects of life. This apartheid regime is not only imposed on the people in Palestine, but also on millions of Palestinian refugees denied their right to return home because they are of the wrong religion.

As awareness across the world continues to increase regarding the Israeli Apartheid regime in Palestine, each effort in this aspect would help accelerate the conclusion of this shameful page in history. And as this awareness rises, campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction this regime provide a very effective and natural response. The world witnessed a similar response transpire and bear fruit in the case of South Africa, and there are very good reasons to believe that it will do the same in the case of Palestine.

February 8, 2012
Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?

One very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is “Yes” is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote: “The Israeli government doesn’t want peace. There’s nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”

The headline over her latest article is Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. One of her main points is that Israel has never confronted the trauma of the Nazi holocaust and has “turned it into a placard in the service of the national trauma, to reinforce the constant existential fear and the aggressiveness that comes with it.”

Because what she wrote is so important, and in my view ought to be read by all peoples of all faiths everywhere who want to understand why the Zionist state is what it is, I am going to quote her at some length.

She wrote:

The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.

The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a forgone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).

The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust – which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.

So it is that we don’t have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That’s the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one’s surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.

What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.

I imagine that most if not all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere would welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing, but in my Gentile view it is not actually a prospect to be welcomed. Why not?

If there comes a time when it seemed to them that the Zionist state’s self-destruction was imminent, Israel’s leaders would respond in the same way as they would if their state was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield. As readers of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews know, that response was put into words by Golda Meir in the course of one of my BBC Panorama interviews with her when she was prime minister. In a doomsday situation, she said, Israel “would be prepared to take the region down with it.”

The question arising is something like this. Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?

The more I think about this question, the more I am convinced that there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world. But that must be the subject of another post and I will welcome thoughts from others before I write it.

www.alanhart.net, January 30, 2012

February 2, 2012
Tunisian Jews Reject Calls to Leave

In the wake of the Arab Uprising, which began a year ago in Tunisia, an Israeli government minister said that for their own safety all of Tunisia’s remaining Jews should move to Israel.

Hundreds of thousands of Sephardi Jews used to live across North Africa and the Middle East, before the creation of Israel in 1948.

But the suggestion that the small communities that remain should pack up and leave is being rejected, by many of the Jews themselves.

February 1, 2012
Report: Turkey refuses to host Hamas HQ

Ankara dismisses reports suggesting Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal will set up movement’s new headquarters in Turkey; further denies pledging $300M in aid funds to Hamas

Elior Levy

Published: 01.30.12, 22:43 / Israel News

Ankara will not allow Khaled Mashaal to relocate Hamas’ Politburo to Turkey, the Turkish website Today’s Zaman reported on Monday.

According to the report, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc said that Meshaal’s stay in Turkey was “out of question.”

Related stories:

Report: Mashaal leaves Damascus for good

Hamas officials urge Mashaal to stay on

Op-ed: Hamas in deep trouble

He also denied reports suggesting that Ankara had pledged $300 million in aid funds to Gaza Strip’s rulers.

The Damascus-based Hamas Politburo has decided to relocate following the growing unrest in Syria. It has been looking for another Arab country to host its headquarters, but has so far failed to find one.

Mashaal had recently visited Turkey which, unlike its fellow NATO members, recognizes Hamas as a legal political party. The West considers Hamas a terror organization.

Still, Arınc insisted that the relocation was out of question.

Arınc stressed that Turkey’s ultimate goal was “to realize peace process between Israel and united Palestinian political factions,” adding that Turkey believes that “strengthening the Palestinians unity will benefit the Palestinian people and the peace process.”

Meanwhile, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh left Gaza for a regional tour Monday.

Haniyeh’s tour is expected to include stops in Iran, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.

Haniyeh is travelling with his political adviser Yussef Rizq, his minister of housing and public works Yussef al-Mansi and two key Hamas members – Yehia Sinwar and Rawhi Mushtaha. The latter were released from Israeli prison in 2011 as part of the Shalit deal.

The trip is Haniyeh’s second since his appointment to Hamas PM.

AFP contributed to this report

via Report: Turkey refuses to host Hamas HQ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

January 31, 2012
Obama Claims Iran is “Isolated” When the Opposite is True

Obama claims “a world once divided [on Iran]. . .now stands as one” and that Iran is “isolated”. Is it Iran or the US & Israel who are “isolated”?

by Joshua Blakeney

Press TV: US president Barack Obama has asserted the country’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security; while repeatedly threatening Iran with what he calls ‘all options on the table’.

Obama once again renewed US threats against Iran during his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 24, saying that Washington will maintain pressure on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

“America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” the US president said.

Iran has categorically refuted the US-led allegations regarding its nuclear program, insisting that the country’s nuclear program is only intended for peaceful civilian purposes.

Joshua Blakeney, staff writer from Veterans Today; joins Press TV to share his opinions on the issue of the US president’s State of the Union Speech.

What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

[SOURCE: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223209.html]

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney thank you so much for joining us. Let us go directly to the first question which starts with what the US president in the State of the Union address said and is it really a disinformation and that is that, Iran is on the path of acquiring a nuclear weapon?

Blakeney: Yes, it was a quite myopic speech, coming from the president of the United States. I mean, I found it particularly telling that he made the statement that “the world was once divided and”, thanks to him, “the world is now united on the question of Iran.”

I am having some feedback, I apologize. But the reality is of course that the Non-Aligned Movement – which is consisted of a 120 nations – issued a statement just eight days ago in which they endorsed Iranian sovereignty and expressed their hostility towards the US encroaching on Iranian sovereignty.

And therefore that was one utterance from the President of the United States that was evidently false.

Obama forgot to mention in his State of the Union address that the 120 members of the Non-Aligned-Movement support Iranian sovereignty and denounce US-Israeli hostility towards Iran

Obviously the insinuation that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons is buttressed by no evidence and of course the IAEA, [International Atomic Energy Agency], any statements they have made in which they have indirectly implied this, has been inferred from evidence, so called, provided to them by itsmember states like the United States and Israel and Britain and therefore their statements are not reliable at all.

Iran clearly is trying to develop a civilian nuclear program, like France has; like many countries in the world have; which is completely justifiable and indeed legal.

And so the president of the United States I think reflected not necessarily his own perspective but those of his backers. You know, the United States political system is one where money speaks; in a capitalist system those who own capital have political clout.

And the statements that Barack Obama made vis-à-vis the Middle East, and really in general to do with domestic economics also, I believe, were the product of his backers.

And we know who is supporting the Democrat Party financially and what their agenda is in terms of Middle East policy.

And that in my humble opinion is to promote the interest of the state of Israel, often in fact jeopardizing traditional US-Middle East policy which was to try and do bilateral negotiations within ensconced Middle East regimes. And therefore this speech has to go down as an embarrassment.

And in fact if you look, if you go to about an hour, into Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address in about an hour into it, you will see that when he mentions Iran and when he mentions his ironclad support for the State of Israel, that actually only about half of the Congress persons clapped which might indicate that there is some discontent with this tendentious policy of the United States towards the State of Israel.

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney, this all options on the table is something again perhaps, maybe because of a reelection year for Obama maybe its a signal and some say for the Israeli lobby at the same time the great length that the United States is going to get sanctions on Iran.

We know that they have made and introduced the sanctions, trying to get EU [European Union] which they got their approval even though it’s at the behest of Europe in terms of what they are going through regarding the Euro zone crisis, of course going with his co-worker [US Secretary of the Treasury] Timothy Geithner all the way to China and we saw what happened there regarding getting China on board and of course then with India.

I mean what is it that the US president means with this ‘all options on the table’?

Blakeney: Well, I think it is largely empty rhetoric from the President of the United States and I think there is a tendency among the political class to think if they repeat something as many times as possible that it would begin to be true.

And Barrack Obama said in his State of the Union address that the world is now united against Iran and that is patently false, is Venezuela against Iran? Is China against Iran? Is the Non-Aligned Movement of 120 nations against Iran?

I do not think so, so we are seeing the decline of Anglo-America and this kind of Euro- American imperialist world that the planet has been victim of for the past 500 years really since 1492 and we are living in a multipolar world now, one where Iran has some agency.

China and Iran continue to trade with each other irrespective of the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and E.U.

And if the European Union and the United States wants to work in Israel’s interests and against its own interests of doing commercial dealings with Iran, then Iran will go elsewhere and trade its resources and goods with other nations which I think is a good thing. I think it is good that we are living in a multipolar world.

One of the intellectuals authors of the “war on terror” was an individual named Charles Krauthammer, who in 1990 authored a paper entitled The Unipolar Moment, in which he said, oh this moment after the Soviet Union has declined US must jumped on it, because it won’t be there for ever.

And that unipolar moment, you know, metastasized into the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. But I believe that actually they cannot invade and attack Iran because they are bereft of soldiers for a start; they’re overstretched militarily, the United States, and moreover Iran has a capability to defend itself.
Press TV: So what is it [the US] trying to do there when it keeps saying it Joshua Blakeney, I mean, some say well it is a distraction from the problems that he [Obama] is facing at home. And I am talking about the Occupy movement, do you agree with that?

Joshua Blakeney and Mark Glenn critically analyze Barak Obama’s State of the Union speech on Press TV.

Iran is on the right side of history contributing to the success of the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America. Iran and many nations in Latin America are at the forefront of the resistance to the international imperialism of the US, Britain and Israel

Blakeney: Yes, to an extent. You know it offers a scapegoat, a smokescreen to distract people. So I do agree to a large extent with what my colleague said.

You know the fact of the matter is that US politicians need to pander and Kowtow to the Israel lobby in the United States.

JJ Goldberg did a study in the 1990′s in which he deduced that 45% of Democrat party donations came from individuals who are partisan to the State of Israel.

And in 2006 Richard Cohen did a study in the Washington Post, in which he indicated 60% of the Democrat Party [money] comes from individuals whose primary allegiance is to the state of Israel.

So if 60% of the Barack Obama’s money is coming from individuals whose first priority is Israel, is it very surprising that Barack Obama would have this so called ‘ironclad’ consensus with the state of Israel?

I think that this is historically precedented, if you look in 1965 for example, when the British empire was trying to extend self determination and self rule to the inhabitants of the Rhodesia, the natives of Rhodesia, we saw the local crazed ethnic nationalists form a schism in the British empire and rise up and declare independence likewise the US after the Cold War had no use for Israel anymore.

The divergence between a rational U.S. Middle East policy and the Israeli Middle East policy of denying Arabs and Muslims cohesion and stability is analogous with the divergence of interests between the declining British Empire and regional Rhodesian white ethnic nationalists in 1965 (as portrayed from 5 mins 52 seconds in the above video). ]

After 1967 Israel proved itself to be a formidable fighting force and within the context of the Cold War the United States could use Israel to smash up this or that Arab nation or to extend its Middle East policy.

After the Cold War what use did the US have for Israel or for South Africa? In the case of South Africa, the Afrikaners did not have a lobby in the United States and so the US cast them adrift in the 1980′s and the VETO they provided them in the United Nations dissipated.

Unfortunately, what would have been logical and rational from the perspective of US hegemony who would obviously want to win over Middle East governments to resist the hegemony of the …..

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney, the US president said that this is the right time for the United States to be on the right side of the Middle East.

Is the US on the right side of the Middle East? Quickly [we have] twenty seconds or less.

Blakeney: No, it is definitely not. In the 1980s the Israeli government formulated a new policy of wanting to destabilize the Middle East which goes against US oil interests, against the US rational interests as a global hegemon.

www.veteranstoday.com, January 28th, 2012

January 29, 2012