Bulgaria is expanding its military and economic ties with Israel in the light of a good relationship between the countries’ respective prime ministers and shifting geo-stategic alliances, according to an article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz by Barak Ravid.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu Photo: Wikipedia
“Since its relations with Turkey crumbled over the past year, Israel has begun looking to the Balkan states for new friends and allies. The new initiatives extend to shared intelligence, joint military exercises and boosting tourism,” writes Ravid.
Haaretz says that several countries – the article cites Cyprus, Romania. Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Macedonia – are increasingly concerned about Turkey’s new radicalism.
Warmer relations between Sofia and Jerusalem first became apparent after talks between Netanyahu and Borissov in January, according to Haaretz.
The Israeli newspaper quotes Israel’s ambassador to Bulgaria, Noah Gal-Gendler, as saying that Borissov has concluded that it’s in Bulgaria’s interests to seek better relations with Israel. The ambassador apparently cites Borissov’s decision to visit Jerusalem, the first by a Bulgarian prime minister for 18 years, as proof of Sofia’s change in priorities.
Gal-Gendler is also quoted as saying that Bulgaria is interested in “looking for a new economic engine like Israeli high-tech and want to learn how we did it”.
A pivotal moment in Turkey’s re-alignment – away from its traditionally friendly ties with Israel in favour of solidarity with the Arab world – was the Israeli raid on the flotilla ship bound for Gaza. According to Haaretz, Borissov and Netanyahu had three conversations with each other over two weeks following the incident, concentrating on facilitating the release of two Bulgarian journalists who were aboard one of the ships.
“The Bulgarians are hoping that Israeli tourists who stopped visiting Turkey will come en masse to Bourgas and Varna on the Black Sea coast. Some 150,000 Israelis are expected to visit Bulgaria by the end of the year and Bulgaria wants to increase the number to 250 000 in 2011,” says Haaretz.
Bulgaria has also been mooted as a possible venue for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, although that, of course, would depend on both sides having faith in the impartiality of Sofia to broker negotiations.
The article goes on to say that Greece is also seeking closer ties with Israel. According to Ravid, Athens was “disappointed” not to receive any offers of assistance from Arab nations in the wake of the financial crisis earlier this year.
via Israel and Bulgaria woo each other in wake of Turkey’s re-alignment – Bulgaria – The Sofia Echo.
Emir Feisal I (right) and Chaim Weizmann (also wearing Arab dress as a sign of friendship) in Syria. Feisal later became King of Iraq.
by ISI LEIBLER
Chaim Weizmann would turn in his grave were he aware of the public attacks on the Israeli government by some in the UK Jewish leadership.
Mick Davis, the South African-born chief executive of the powerful mining group Xstrata, is chairman of Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) – the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community.
He also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies.
Anglo Jewry has been blessed in the past with rich philanthropists, many of whom were also endowed with wisdom. Despite his immense wealth and access to the most important leaders in the land, Sir Moses Montefiore was devoted to his people and, far from radiating hubris or arrogance, generated respect and love.
In striking contrast, Mick Davis, also known as “Big Mick,” displays characteristics associated with the nouveau riche, akin to the behavior of some of the Russian- Jewish oligarchs. His opinions are rarely challenged and he contemptuously rejects the suggestion that holding a communal role in any way precludes him from publicly expressing views which would normally be considered incompatible for anyone occupying such a position.
Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.
Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments.
But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.
While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.
RESIDENT IN London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister “for lacking the courage to take the steps” to advance the peace process, arguing that “I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.” He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an “apartheid state” unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.
His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: “I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK.
When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognize that.”
Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.
Jonathan Hoffman, vice president of the UK Zionist Federation (one of the few Anglo-Jewish leaders courageous enough to criticize Davis), expressed outrage that the UIJA chairman could make such a remark. “We are not aware that Hampstead is within range of Iranian or Hamas missiles, nor that its residents have to send their children to the IDF for three years,” he said.
It is telling that over recent years, Davis has not been renowned for condemning the shameful policies of British governments in relation to Israel. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the UK abstained from the UN vote on the Goldstone Report, Davis chaired a JLC reception at which former foreign minister David Miliband was the key speaker. On that occasion, the “outspoken” Davis felt constrained not to express a single word of complaint or disappointment at the perfidious behavior of the British government in relation to this issue.
Admittedly, Davis’ latest outburst is neither intellectually challenging nor persuasive.
But emanating from a Jewish “leader” in the anti-Semitic UK environment in which campaigns to boycott and delegitimize Israel are at an all-time high, and at a time when Israel is under siege and fighting for its existence, it surely represents a level of unprecedented vulgarity.
IN ANY self-respecting Diaspora Jewish community, Davis would have been obliged to tender his resignation immediately after making such outrageous remarks.
Not so in sunny London.
Instead of condemning him, the Anglo- Jewish establishment groveled. Many even seemed delighted that one of their leading spokesmen had distanced himself from what many of them may regard as the unsavory government which the people of Israel had democratically elected.
With the exception of Jewish National Fund head Samuel Hayek, not a single member of the JLC criticized Davis.
The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Vivian Wineman, said, “Mick Davis is entitled to make his remarks – there are a wide range of views in the country and in Israel on these issues.”
Simon Hochhauser, president of the Orthodox United Synagogue and a JLC trustee, may one day regret and feel ashamed for having stated that “there is nothing in the quoted comments I would disagree with.”
Former UIA chairman Brian Kerner said that he was “broadly supportive” of the views expressed by Davis, but questioned voicing them in public because “it is only picked up by our enemies, distorted and used against us.”
Harvey Rose, chairman of the Zionist Federation, also agreed with “much” of the position expressed by Davis, noting that “how Israel is perceived in the UK has a direct bearing on our comfort levels in Britain.”
The non-Orthodox groups, some of whom had always been inclined against Zionism, applauded Davis as “a remarkable leader and a true Zionist leader.”
Anglo-Jewish leaders share a long tradition of burying their head in the sand, avoiding confrontation and displaying a determination not to rock the boat under any circumstances. One of their leaders actually wrote in The Jerusalem Post, proudly boasting how their pro-Israel advocacy approach was based on “whispering” rather than “shouting.”
Today, by lacking the courage to challenge the propriety of one of its most senior “leaders” indulging in coarse public condemnations of Israel, the trembling Israelite establishment has further undermined the standing of the UK Jewish community.
When one proudly recalls the outstanding contribution of British Jews to the development of Zionism, and the role played by leaders of the caliber of Chaim Weizmann, one is left with a sense of profound sadness. The Anglo- Jewish Zionist pioneers would turn in their graves were they aware of the irresponsible behavior of those who have currently assumed the mantle of leadership of their community.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on Israel for settlement of peace.
Erdogan visited Turkmens in Kuvasra village in Akkar region of Lebanon together with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri on Wednesday.
Erdogan said, “Israeli government has to see and understand this: if there is peace in this region, Israel wins as much as the region. If there is war and clash in this region, Israeli citizens are harmed as much as the people in the region. Thus, we, one more time, invite Israel to peace, return from its mistakes and apologize both for the interest of Israel and the people in the region.”
We want Israel immediately to stop its provoking activities which endangers the region and the world, added Erdogan.
We want the whole world and public opinion to assume a stance supporting law and justice, said Erdogan adding that Turkey only wanted peace, justice and tranquility in the region.
Regarding Turkish-Lebanese relations, Erdogan said that they would take steps which would strengthen economic and political cooperation. He recalled that visa procedures were lifted mutually between Turkey and Lebanon.
Noting that Turkey would always support Lebanon, Erdogan said that Turkmens in the region would be a friendship bridge between Turkey and Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Hariri said that Lebanon welcomed Turkey’s building a school in the region, and he thanked Erdogan for his efforts.
ISTANBUL (Nov. 21) — A Turkish movie set to be released in January featuring a James Bond-like hero who avenges the attack on the Gaza flotilla is likely to further strain the rocky relations between Turkey and Israel, while dramatizing Turkey’s increasing role as a “big brother” to the Muslim Middle East.
“I didn’t come to Israel, I came to Palestine,” declares Polat Alemdar, the main character in “Valley of the Wolves – Palestine” — who then proceeds in the movie’s online trailer to mow down several Israeli soldiers.
Alemdar, played by Necati Sasmaz, is a character in the tradition of 007, Rambo and Jack Bauer. “Valley of the Wolves – Palestine” is the latest in a series of movies and TV shows in which he takes on enemies as a secret agent, fighting everyone from U.S. forces in Iraq to the Israeli Defense Forces to Kurdish rebels.
“We’re talking about things people don’t want to hear,” Sasmaz said in a recent interview. “Up until now we have seen only Western heroes such as Rambo and James Bond. For the first time in the history of cinema there is an undefeatable protagonist from the Middle East.”
While James Bond killed countless Russian soldiers during the Cold War, there was little real-world reaction behind the Iron Curtain as the British spy racked up high body counts across several continents. The Bond movies starred a dashing womanizer and conjured up a fantasy without delving too far into reality, but “Valley of the Wolves — Palestine” plunges into the cauldron that is today’s Middle East.
The film was written to depict life in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. While still focused on showing that, the film’s producers changed the script after the Mavi Marmara incident last June, which saw Israeli commandos boarding a flotilla carrying humanitarian goods to the Gaza Strip and killing nine Turks in the ensuing fight.
The incident is now being used as a peg to attract more people to see the movie, which has Almdar going to Israel and killing several Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the flotilla assault.
“We are aiming at the consciences of all filmgoers,” says Bahadir Ozdener, one of movie’s script-writers in an interview reported in Israeli media. “All we want is freedom for the innocent Palestinians who suffer and live in sub-human conditions in the largest prison on earth.”
The $10 million film is the most expensive to be made in Turkey, which has a growing TV and film industry. In 2009 a popular Turkish TV series called “Separation” showed Israeli security forces kidnapping children, murdering civilians and destroying Palestinian property. Last January, the Israeli deputy foreign minister summoned the Turkish ambassador to complain about the series, refusing to shake his hand and making him sit on a low couch, embarrassing the ambassador in front of reporters.
The release of the new film is expected to tap into anger toward Israel in the Muslim world and is a signal that Turks may not be ready for any kind of rapprochement with Israel, which has refused to apologize for the flotilla deaths or admit to a disproportionate use of force.
“[Turkey’s] new policies are part and parcel of a very ambitious reassertion of Turkey on the world stage,” Dr. Katerina Dalacoura, a Turkey expert at the London School of Economics, said in an interview with AOL News. “I am not one who thinks these policies are to the inclusion of the European option for Turkey. They are trying to achieve a wider reposition of Turkey in Europe and the Middle East.”
Dalacoura said the Turkish leaders were being more assertive in making Israel an issue in order to increase their popularity. “It is part of a wider ideological purpose of the government. It’s a useful card to play,” she said.
via Turkish ‘James Bond’ Takes On Israel and Mideast Strife – aolnews.com
By bowing to Ankara’s demand to omit Iran, Syria and their ballistic missiles as a threat from the NATO agreement to establish a missile shield base in Turkey, President Barak Obama has devalued any US security guarantees offered Israel – as well as negating the facility’s avowed purpose. The missile shield and its location in Europe were conceived in the first place for detecting and defusing Iranian and Syrian ballistic missile before they reached Europe or the United States.
“For the first time we’ve agreed to develop a missile defense capability that is strong enough to cover all Nato European territory and populations as well as the United States,” Obama declared Friday, Nov. 19, at the NATO summit in Lisbon.
The US president did not say against who or what. Neither did he reveal the full scope of US and NATO’s surrender to Turkey.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the covert clauses in the deal additionally provide for the missile base to come under the command of a Turkish general. President Abdullah Gul held out on this point in discussions with President Obama and NATO leaders, following the lead given him by Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan of Monday, Nov. 15: “Turkey would demand that NATO assign a Turkish commander to oversee the shield. Especially if this is to be place on our soil…,” said Erdogan.
Turkey’s leaders are very close to the Islamic Republic’s extremist rulers and see nothing amiss in their deploying large portions of Iran’s missile arsenal on Syrian and Lebanese soil (in Hizballah’s keeping). A Turkish general in command of the NATO missile shield cannot be expected to regard threatening missile action by Iran, Syria or Hizballah in the same light as would President Obama or NATO Secretary-General Andres Fogh Rasmussen. He would simply follow the orders of his own prime minister.
So NATO’s forward missile interceptor may be physically and technically located in Turkey but, under a Turkish commander, its usefulness as an operational shield for the West against the most concrete perils facing NATO members is nil.
In these circumstances, there is not much point in Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu holding out for American security guarantees, even after the US State Department spokesman stated Friday, Nov. 19, “The United States is prepared to offer Israel written security guarantees if it would help to restart stalled Middle East peace talks.”
Those guarantees were awarded Turkey at the NATO summit in Lisbon and, by extension, to Iran, Syria and their radical allies, whose missiles are poised on Israel’s borders facing in only one direction.
It is important to remember that American missile defense systems are closely inter-linked with and slotted into corresponding Israeli missile interceptors, air defenses and intelligence.
The Lisbon summit confirmed in its final decision that the new missile shield will complement existing US plans – indeed the US system will also be put at NATO’s disposal and eventually be “incorporated into a single coherent defense system.”
So how can vital US-Israeli missile defense collaboration continue after Turkish generals take control of the NATO defense shield?
via DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.
17:25 16/11/2010 MOSCOW, November 16 (RIA Novosti) – The possible deployment of NATO missile defense systems in Turkey is solely aimed at defending Israeli interests, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
“There are dubious intentions behind the story which raised concerns in regional and Islamic countries. We are not a threat to regional countries, and the countries in our region, except the Zionist regime, are not a threat to us,” Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying.
“The measure aims at supporting the Zionist regime and protecting it against its crimes,” Mehmanparast said, adding “we hope that regional nations would prevent such measures.”
Iran has already expressed its concerns on the issue to Turkey, “our friend and neighboring country,” the spokesman said.
Turkish media reported last week that Ankara would agree to deploy NATO missiles on its territory only on Turkey’s own terms. It said the system should be built by NATO, rather than the United States, that the shield should protect all the alliance’s member states, and that Ankara would not allow NATO to turn Turkey into the alliance’s frontline state, as it was during the Cold War.
Earlier this month, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Turkey would not agree to host a missile shield that targeted Iran, Turkey’s trade and political ally.
“Mentioning one country, Iran… is wrong and will not happen. A particular country will not be targeted…We will definitely not accept that,” Gul said in an interview with the BBC’s Turkish service.
Turkey is expected to announce its final decision on the missile defense shield during the NATO summit in Lisbon on November 18-19.
