Category: Israel

  • UK’s ex-minister: Israel should have apologized

    UK’s ex-minister: Israel should have apologized

    Jack StrawIsrael should have apologized to Turkey for its deadly raid on the Mavi Marmara aid ship, but instead allowed relations to deteriorate, according to United Kingdom’s former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

    “Israel could – and should – have apologized in a full-hearted manner, but in a way that neither humiliated nor embarrassed them. Once the apology had been issued, and accepted by Turkey, both countries would have had a platform for the restoration of normal relations,” Straw wrote in a commentary for the Hürriyet Daily News.

    “Instead, relations have deteriorated, from tepid, then to cold, and now to freezing… Israel has only itself to blame,” he wrote. Comparing the situation today to the sympathy for Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967, Straw said Israel has become isolated due to “its arrogance; its cavalier approach to international norms; and the inability of its leaders to act in a statesmanlike, strategic way.”

    Click here to read the full commentary by United Kingdom’s former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

    Hurriyet Daily News

     

  • The man who could trigger a world war

    The man who could trigger a world war

    By David Warren, Ottawa Citizen

    The greatest threat to the world’s peace, at this moment, comes from a man named Recip Tayyip Erdogan. He is the prime minister of Turkey, at the head of the Justice and Development Party (“AK,” from the Turkish). A former mayor of Istanbul, he was arrested and jailed when he publicly recited Islamist verses (“the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets are our bayonets,” etc.), in defiance of the old secularist, Ataturk constitution, which made it an offence to incite religious and racial fanaticism.

    Erdogan’s credentials as an anti-Semite, but also as an anti-Communist, were established from his school days. He came from an observant Muslim family, and while nothing he says can be taken without salt, he claims an illustrious ancestry, of fighters for Turkish and Ottoman causes.

    He is an “interesting case” in other respects. His post-secondary education was in economics; he is a very capable technocrat, and under his direction the Turkish economy was rescued. He is a dragonslayer of inflation, and public deficits; he took dramatic and effective measures to clean up squalor in the Turkish bureaucracy, and as the saying goes, “he made the trains run on time.”

    Erdogan is also a “democrat,” who has no reason not to be, because he enjoys tremendous and abiding domestic popularity. The party he founded came to power by a landslide, and has been twice re-elected. (He had a stand-in for prime minister at first, for he was still banned from public office.) There are demographic reasons, too, why Turkish secularism has been overwhelmed by Turkish Islamism. The Muslim faithful have babies; modern secularists don’t.

    The “vision” of this politician, which he can articulate charismatically, is to combine efficient, basically free-market economic management, with a puritanized version of the religious ideals of the old Ottoman Caliphate. (Gentle reader may recall that I am allergic to visionary and charismatic politicians, who operate on the body politic like a dangerous drug.)

    Erdogan’s vision has turned outward. His strategy has been to seek better economic integration with the West, while making new political alliances with the East – most notably with Iran. He now presents Turkey as the champion of “mainstream” Sunni Islamism, while trying to square the circle with Persian Shia Islamism. This could still come to grief over Syria, where the Turks want Iran’s man, Assad, overthrown, and the Muslim Brotherhood brought into a new Syrian government.

    Turkey’s military was the guarantor of pro-western Turkish secularism, under the Ataturk constitution. With characteristic incomprehension of the consequences, western statesmen supported Erdogan’s efforts to establish civilian control over the generals – our old NATO friends. By imprisoning several senior officers on (probably imaginative) charges of plotting a coup, Erdogan was able to induce the entire Turkish senior staff to resign, last month.

    They did this because they had run out of allies. Hillary Clinton and company hung the only effective domestic opposition to Erdogan out to dry. Turkey’s powerful, western-equipped military is now entirely Erdogan’s baby, and the country’s secularist constitution is a dead letter. Erdogan, the Islamist, now has absolute power.

    It was he who sent the “peace flotilla” to challenge Israel’s right to blockade Gaza (recognized under international law and explicitly by the U.N.). He made the inevitable violent result of that adventure into an anti-Israeli cause célèbre. He has now announced that the next peace flotilla will be accompanied by the Turkish navy.

    This will put Israel in the position of either surrendering its right to defend itself, or firing on Turkish naval vessels. There is no way to overstate the gravity of this: Erdogan is manoeuvring to create a casus belli.

    He has made himself the effective diplomatic sponsor for the Palestinian declaration of statehood next week – from which much violence will follow. Every Palestinian who dies, trying to kill a Jew, will be hailed as a “martyr,” with compensation and apologies demanded.

    He has been playing Egyptian politics, by adding to the rhetorical fuel that propelled an Islamist mob into the Israeli embassy in Cairo last Friday. He is himself in Cairo, this week, on a mission to harness grievances against Israel, in the very fluid circumstances of the “Arab Spring.” For action against this common enemy is the one thing that can unite all disparate Arab factions – potentially under Turkish leadership.

    The West is just watching, while Erdogan creates pretexts for another Middle Eastern war: one in which Israel may be pitted not only against the neighbouring states of the old Arab League, but also Turkey, and Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah.

    This is what is called an “existential threat” to Israel, unfolding in live time. It could leave the West with a choice between defending Israel, and permitting another Holocaust. In other words, we are staring at the trigger for a genuine world war. With Recip Erdogan’s twitching finger on it.

    David Warren’s column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

    © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

    via The man who could trigger a world war.

  • Jordanians protest against ties with Israel

    Jordanians protest against ties with Israel

    JordanLondon, (Pal Telegraph) – Hundreds protest Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel and call on their government to shut down the Israeli embassy.

    Hundreds of Jordanians have protested in front of the Israeli embassy in the capital Amman, calling on the Jordanian government to scrap its peace treaty with Israel.

    About 300 demonstrators gathered at the embassy on Thursday after Israel temporarily withrew its ambassadorover fears of the protest turning violent.

    A bigger turnout was expected as activists had called for a “million-man march”.

    Scores of police blocked roads to the embassy complex to prevent protesters from marching to the heavily protected mission.

    The demonstrators, a mix of leftist, liberal and Islamist opposition activists, instead gathered near a mosque close to the complex, shouting, “No Zionist embassy on Arab land”.

    “The people want to bring down the Wadi Araba peace treaty,” one protester said, referring to the country’s peace accord with Israel signed in 1994, the second that was concluded by an Arab country with Israel after Egypt’s own deal in 1979.

    Jordan has long maintained close security cooperation with Israel but has been critical of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and fears a spillover of violence if Israel does not broker peace with the Palestinians.

    Roughly half of the country’s six million population is of Palestinian origin. With Palestinian-Israeli peace talks stalled, some Jordanians fear Israel may try to deport Palestinians to Jordan.

    Jordan’s King Abdullah II has spoken out strongly against using Jordan as a substitute for a Palestinian state, a concept favoured by some Israelis.

    Source: Agencies

    www.paltelegraph.com, 16 SEPTEMBER 2011

  • Tension rises for Jews in Turkey

    Tension rises for Jews in Turkey

    For Turkey and Israel, sports are the only remaining relations that are intact.

    Noga Tarnopolsky

    Turkish riot police stand guard as Maccabi Tel-Aviv players walk towards a bus at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, on Sept. 14, 2011. (Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)
    Turkish riot police stand guard as Maccabi Tel-Aviv players walk towards a bus at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, on Sept. 14, 2011. (Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)

    There are no Jews in Jordan and possibly a dozen Jews in Egypt, once the cradle of a great Jewish culture, but Turkey is different. About 20,000 Jews live in Turkey. Cenk Levy, 33, lives in Istanbul and works for Greenpeace.

    “Weeeell,” he says. “It is not so tense regarding the Jews. You don’t hide it, but you don’t feel very comfortable regarding your identity these days.”

    His name is Levy. “Yeah, absolutely,” he laughs. “It’s very, very obvious!”

    “You hear many statements about how the main problem here is the government, but we have also started to hear about how people themselves are turning. It’s not like it was three or four years ago. People don’t trust Israel, they don’t trust what Israel does. It’s becoming clear that this could disrupt business relations and other ties, not only military.”

    For now, sport remains an area of intact relations. Last night, Istanbul’s Besiktas soccer team played Maccabi Tel Aviv at home.

    Tel Aviv fans who went to support their team reported the paradoxical experience in which merchants and restauranteurs, hearing they were Israelis, welcomed them warmly and with explicit expressions of friendliness. Meanwhile, on the radio they heard that thousands had gathered n Istanbul’s central square to chant anti-Israeli slogans.

    Cenk Levy watched the match at home.

    “Bekistas were trying to reduce tensions as much as possible before the match, to emphasize that it is part of a friendship and sport. They went to some lengths to emphasize that there is a clear distinction between politics and sport, and that there are also Muslim players playing for Israel. There was also very high security in the stadium.”

    “I think there was only one anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, slogan heard during the entire game.”

    Maybe it helped that Bekistas won, 5-1.

    “Things are a bit depressing,” Levy added. “This didn’t start yesterday, with the match, or a month ago. It’s been a long campaign and as you see it moving forward, and with the flotilla incident, now my sense is that the government is using Israel as leverage to stabilize themselves politically in the new Middle East.”

    via Tension rises for Jews in Turkey | GlobalPost.

  • Israel and Turkey, Foes and Much Alike

    Israel and Turkey, Foes and Much Alike

    By ETHAN BRONNER

    Ethan Bronner is the Jerusalem bureau chief of The New York Times.

    JERUSALEM

    Associated Press  Riot police officers surrounded a bus Wednesday as Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer players arrived at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul.
    Associated Press Riot police officers surrounded a bus Wednesday as Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer players arrived at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul.
    Associated Press

    Riot police officers surrounded a bus Wednesday as Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer players arrived at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul.

    ISRAEL and Turkey, key American allies, are clashing. But they disagree over the source of their disagreement. Turkey says it expelled the Israeli ambassador and cut military ties because Israel oppresses Palestinians and refuses to apologize for killing activists aboard a Turkish-based flotilla last year. Israel says Turkey aims for regional leadership so it is forsaking Israel.

    While both claims have merit, there is a third explanation. The two countries have gone through remarkably similar political shifts in recent decades from aggressively secular societies run by Westernized elites to populist ethno-religious states where standing up to foreigners offers rich political rewards.

    Two and a half years ago, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey scolded President Shimon Peres of Israel onstage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland — right after Israel’s war in Gaza — telling him, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.” He stormed offstage to a heroic welcome at home.

    A year later, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, invited the Turkish ambassador to his office, giving him a low seat at a table without refreshments or a Turkish flag. Before the invited guest entered, Mr. Ayalon said to Israeli television camera operators, “The important thing is that people see that he’s low and we’re high and that there is no flag here.” Mr. Ayalon’s standing only rose in his party, Yisrael Beiteinu, run by the nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

    It was not always so. Both societies used to be very different places in rather the same way. And over time, they built a pretty warm relationship of business, military ties and tourism. The surprising thing is what similar — and mutually contemptuous — paths they have taken since.

    The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and the founding prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, had much in common. This was not an accident. Ben-Gurion, who studied law in Istanbul, modeled himself on Ataturk, seeking to build an instantly modern society of like-minded and “ideal” citizens with few deviations in language or culture. Both saw religion as a deviation and ethnicity as a problem. Like the Kurds of Eastern Turkey, the Moroccan and Yemeni Jews on the Israeli periphery faced an official — if less brutal — disregard.

    Sidelining religion and ill treating minorities can be hard to sustain in a democracy, however. The founders’ heirs were dislodged by electoral revolutions — in Israel in 1977 and in Turkey in 2002. Today a religious nationalism plays a central and growing role both in Israel, dominated by the Likud Party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the Turkey of the Justice and Development Party of Mr. Erdogan. The secular elites who set the cultural and political agenda for decades have lost much of their influence.

    Last year, Mr. Erdogan waved away retired Turkish ambassadors who criticized his foreign policy with the words “mons chers” (meaning “mes chers,” or my dears). Foreign Minister Lieberman similarly dismissed Israelis who found his policies too tough as “feinschmeckers,” those with overly refined tastes. In neither case was the derisive use of a European term accidental. Turks have been offended by the endless stalling of their country’s application to the European Union. Israel’s establishment, supported by a mix of Jews from the Middle East and former Soviet Union, views the elite of Old Europe, with its pro-Palestinian sentiments, with disdain.

    “I often compare the Erdogan upheaval of 2002 to the elections here in 1977, which brought Likud to power,” noted Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey who teaches a course on the two countries’ histories and relations at Tel Aviv University.

    “In Turkey, the Kemalist elite ignored the religious leadership, the countryside and the Kurds, creating groups of very unhappy people who cohered into a new political opposition. The same happened in Israel, and Menachem Begin connected with them. Today, both Erdogan and Netanyahu rule from a support base that is more religious, more rural and less educated, where honor and nationalism are important. That makes the relationship between the two very hard.”

    As non-Arabs, they had once built an alliance based on being outsiders. But it is precisely in foreign policy where they differ today, one turning east, the other west. Turkey, while a member of NATO, feels rejected by Europe and renewed in its sense of Muslim and Middle Eastern identity. Last week, Mr. Erdogan went on an Arab Spring tour — to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya — in a quest for leadership.

    Israel, whose Middle Eastern ties are fraying badly, looks to “new” Europe, countries like Poland but also to Romania and Bulgaria where anti-Turkish feelings run high from Ottoman days.

    Washington, in hopes of restoring the Israeli-Turkish relationship, is pushing Israel to take conciliatory steps on the Palestinian issue, partly to avoid a showdown at the United Nations this month over a Palestinian statehood resolution. It is also pressing Turkey to move away from its recent moves to improve ties with Iran and Syria. It recently persuaded Turkey to place a NATO radar station focused on Iran on its soil, a step that will benefit Israel.

    And there are other mutual interests that could help reunite them. Both are engaged in battles against militants — Israel against Hamas and other Palestinian groups, Turkey against Kurdish separatists unimpressed by Mr. Erdogan’s moves toward tolerance. Both occupy land in defiance of the international community — Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Turkey in northern Cyprus. Moreover, although resource-poor, both are economic success stories, high-growth members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, exceptions in the region.

    Still, they will have to overcome deep societal trends. As Efraim Inbar, a specialist on Turkish politics at Bar-Ilan University, says: “Nationalism in Turkey today is ethno-religious. The same for Likud. Neither listens too much to what outsiders say.”

    A version of this news analysis appeared in print on September 18, 2011, on page SR5 of the New York edition with the headline: Israel and Turkey, Foes and Much Alike.
  • Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone

    Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone

    By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
    I’VE never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.
    Friedman New articleInline
    Josh Haner/The New York Times

    Thomas L. Friedman

    This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.

    Israel is not responsible for the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or for the uprising in Syria or for Turkey’s decision to seek regional leadership by cynically trashing Israel or for the fracturing of the Palestinian national movement between the West Bank and Gaza. What Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, is responsible for is failing to put forth a strategy to respond to all of these in a way that protects Israel’s long-term interests.

    O.K., Mr. Netanyahu has a strategy: Do nothing vis-à-vis the Palestinians or Turkey that will require him to go against his base, compromise his ideology or antagonize his key coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an extreme right-winger. Then, call on the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear program and help Israel out of every pickle, but make sure that President Obama can’t ask for anything in return — like halting Israeli settlements — by mobilizing Republicans in Congress to box in Obama and by encouraging Jewish leaders to suggest that Obama is hostile to Israel and is losing the Jewish vote. And meanwhile, get the Israel lobby to hammer anyone in the administration or Congress who says aloud that maybe Bibi has made some mistakes, not just Barack. There, who says Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a strategy?

    “The years-long diplomatic effort to integrate Israel as an accepted neighbor in the Middle East collapsed this week, with the expulsion of the Israeli ambassadors from Ankara and Cairo, and the rushed evacuation of the embassy staff from Amman,” wrote Haaretz newspaper’s Aluf Benn. “The region is spewing out the Jewish state, which is increasingly shutting itself off behind fortified walls, under a leadership that refuses any change, movement or reform … Netanyahu demonstrated utter passivity in the face of the dramatic changes in the region, and allowed his rivals to seize the initiative and set the agenda.”

    What could Israel have done? The Palestinian Authority, which has made concrete strides in the past five years at building the institutions and security forces of a state in the West Bank — making life there quieter than ever for Israel — finally said to itself: “Our state-building has not prompted Israel to halt settlements or engage in steps to separate, so all we’re doing is sustaining Israel’s occupation. Let’s go to the U.N., get recognized as a state within the 1967 borders and fight Israel that way.” Once this was clear, Israel should have either put out its own peace plan or tried to shape the U.N. diplomacy with its own resolution that reaffirmed the right of both the Palestinian and the Jewish people to a state in historic Palestine and reignited negotiations.

    Mr. Netanyahu did neither. Now the U.S. is scrambling to defuse the crisis, so the U.S. does not have to cast a U.N. veto on a Palestinian state, which could be disastrous in an Arab world increasingly moving toward more popular self-rule.

    On Turkey, the Obama team and Mr. Netanyahu’s lawyers worked tirelessly these last two months to resolve the crisis stemming from the killing by Israeli commandos of Turkish civilians in the May 2010 Turkish aid flotilla that recklessly tried to land in Gaza. Turkey was demanding an apology. According to an exhaustive article about the talks by the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, the two sides agreed that Israel would apologize only for “operational mistakes” and the Turks would agree to not raise legal claims. Bibi then undercut his own lawyers and rejected the deal, out of national pride and fear that Mr. Lieberman would use it against him. So Turkey threw out the Israeli ambassador.

    As for Egypt, stability has left the building there and any new Egyptian government is going to be subjected to more populist pressures on Israel. Some of this is unavoidable, but why not have a strategy to minimize it by Israel putting a real peace map on the table?

    I have great sympathy for Israel’s strategic dilemma and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and President Obama’s one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation.

    Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.