Turkish Forum

Category: Middle East

  • 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)

  • Turkey Expected To Help Rebuild Military

    Turkey Expected To Help Rebuild Military

    March 6, 2009 Turkey and Iraq are expected to sign a deal in which the Turkish military agrees to assist in the rebuilding of the Iraqi military especially regarding issues of education and logistics, Hurriyet reported March 6, citing an earlier report by Radikal.
  • 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

  • AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN IS TRYING TO FIND A SUITABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE ALLEGED – ARTIFICIAL GENOCIDE CLAIMS OF ARMENIAN LOBI.. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING VALUABLE ANALYSIS ABOUT U.S.  FOREIGN POLICY.. A VERY VALUABLE AND AN EYE OPENER COLUMN.  AS TURKISH FORUM  WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND OUR MEMBERS TO READ AND SHARE…

    PS: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION? AND HOW HE REACHED TO? .. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING  POSTING AFTERD THE MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN

    TRUTHS HAVE REACHED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DECISION

    From: Harut Sassounian [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sassounian’s column of March 5, 2009

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end Americaʼs military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkeyʼs leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Todayʼs Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    Due to Turkeyʼs persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    ——————– YORUM SS AYA TARAFINDAN —————-

    Harut Sassounian’s Weekly Commentary

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through READER’S REPLY COMMENTS!

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end America’s military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    “…salivating? What level of literary newsman ship is this, insulting from the first line!

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkey’s leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Benefit of gold (!) over one million dead innocent Arabs plus PKK terror just next door, by aggressors who came 10.000 miles away for looting oil of the neighboring country, bringing calamities of all types instead of democracy and progress! Sir, is your logic normal?

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    That was a dirty agreement between two adventurous leaders, which was “shot dead by accident” thanks God!

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Today’s Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    “fleece USA (?) ! Is Armenia going to send troops to Afganistan or give bases to USA as she did to Russia?

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    Sir, a man of your standing and education should not be swept out of logic just by cause of nationalism! Would USA permit Turkey to “station 65.000 soldiers in Texas, use Houston, New Orleans as landing-transit harbor and go to war with Mexico using USA soil, passing an army and armor of about 100.000 and destroy neighborly relations?” Any answers?

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    The “genocide lie, is a dirty fly in the menu on the table, which has to be served and shared”! Did it ever occur to you how much economic loss and military cost did Turkey suffer because of this unfortunate “oil banditry”?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    Sir, you are trying to guide USA, the country that sheltered you, into adventures and risks, just because of your “Great Armenian ego”! This error was done by your grand fathers a century ago, and it was the innocent

    well-doing Turkish Armenians that paid the bill, when all humpabets ran away leaving their compatriots in misery!

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    “Turkish blackmail ? Or Turkish surrender and tail waging? The diaspora Armenians have not done any good for the Armenians in Armenia, or Turkey or elsewhere. Empty words of rich, secure persons, do not solve hunger!

    Due to Turkey’s persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    Human Rights? Of Turkey or Iraq or USA or Armenia?

    Sir, keep the scenarios and observations for your own self. Turks are not dogs and have no tails to wag, like few typical brainwashed fanatic writers, continuously fomenting nothing but GRUDGE and TROUBLE, which is the only product they are talented to market worldwide! For more historical facts advise Altan and read as suggested.

    March 9, 09

    Sukru S. Aya – Istanbul