Category: Middle East

  • Turkey’s PKK Responds to AKP Flirtation with the Kurdistan Regional Government

    Turkey’s PKK Responds to AKP Flirtation with the Kurdistan Regional Government

    Turkey’s PKK Responds to AKP Flirtation with the Kurdistan Regional Government

    Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 23
    December 8, 2008 03:25 PM Age: 44 min
    Category: Terrorism Monitor, Global Terrorism Analysis, Terrorism, Turkey
    By: NIhat Ali Ozcan and Saban Kardas
    Turkey had high hopes its cross-border operations in the winter of 2007-8 would eliminate the threat posed by the Kurdistan Workers Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan – PKK). The ability of the PKK to strike back in the spring and summer of 2008 through staggering attacks raised questions about the effectiveness of Turkey’s strategy. The PKK survived the Turkish winter offensive and endured heavy weather conditions without losing its operational capability, thanks to its safe havens in northern Iraq. This situation led to a reevaluation of Turkey’s policies. Boosting the dialogue between Turkey and northern Iraqi authorities has emerged as the new approach to the solution of the PKK problem.

    The center of gravity for the PKK problem has shifted to the political and diplomatic realm, and will remain so in the coming months. Unlike the relative calm in the area of military operations in rural southeastern Turkey, the political debates continue unabated and will intensify further as municipal elections approach. The PKK also has been a subject of Turkey’s international and regional diplomatic initiatives (see Terrorism Focus, November 19). We will analyze the AKP government’s new openings in domestic and foreign policy and the PKK’s response to the new political setting.

    Preparing for the Winter

    PKK activity in Southeastern Turkey has declined considerably with the approach of winter. Most PKK militants are getting prepared to cope with the harsh winter conditions; some have withdrawn to their safe havens in northern Iraq, while others are moving to higher elevations where they have traditionally sought shelter in hidden caves. The PKK militants will need to survive through the winter with minimum mobility, living on the limited amount of food they were able to store during the summer. The Turkish Armed Forces (Turk Silahli Kuvvetleri – TSK) has also called back most of the commando units from the region; most will be stationed in their barracks, preparing for new offensives in the spring. The TSK will most probably continue to use high-tech winter equipment to carry out its special operations. The level of armed activity in the region may remain low over the next few months as the PKK shifts to attacks in urban areas, like its December 1 attack on the Istanbul offices of the  Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – AKP) (Milliyet, December 3). The key question is whether Turkey will be able to quell the PKK threat through political openings and prevent new attacks next spring and summer.

    Turkey’s Dialogue with the Northern Iraqi Regional Administration

    The PKK has taken advantage of the mountainous terrain of northern Iraq and used the region as one of its encampment areas since 1983. This situation has had direct implications for Turkey’s relations with northern Iraq’s majority Kurdish population. The main determinant of the nature of this relationship has been the changing balance of power in the region. Despite the historic importance attached to Turkey’s recent dialogue with the Kurdish authorities in Iraq, such cooperation is not a political taboo. Turkey worked closely with Kurdish peshmerga forces and conducted joint operations against the PKK throughout the 1990s. However, the dynamics of regional politics over the last couple of years changed this picture drastically. Growing American influence in the region following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 resulted in the severance of ties between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds. The Iraqi Kurds’ newfound partnership with the United States heightened the Kurds’ perception of their relative power in the region, resulting in a rather daring and at times confrontational attitude toward Turkey. Kurdish authorities in Northern Iraq did not refrain from increasing tensions with Turkey when Turkey protested the Iraqi Kurds’ lenient attitude toward the activities of PKK guerillas in northern Iraq (Radikal, October 22, 2007).

    Within Turkey, the image of northern Iraq’s Kurds as the sponsor of the PKK has created a domestic constituency against any sort of dialogue with the Kurdish authorities, thus contributing to the hostile environment. Relations between Turkey and Iraq’s Kurds are nevertheless going through a new period of optimism lately, after hitting several low points over the last year. The Turkish media abandoned its policy of bashing Jalal Talabani (President of Iraq and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan – PUK) and Massoud Barzani (President of the Kurdistan Regional Government – KRG – and leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party – KDP). Barzani has since adopted a softer language toward Turkey. There are signs the pragmatism of the 1990s might be returning.

    Developments on both sides of the Turkish-Iraqi border lay behind these changes. On the one hand, the anticipated changes in America’s Iraq policies in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections and new developments in Iraqi domestic politics have forced the Kurdish groups to re-evaluate their uncooperative attitude vis-à-vis Turkey’s demands. On the other hand, the growing consensus within the Turkish security establishment on the need to cooperate with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq has facilitated changes in Turkey’s policies.

    The Impact of the US-Iraqi Security Accord

    The U.S.-Iraqi security accord requiring the United States to pull out from Iraq by 2011 has important implications for the PKK and the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq. The KRG is uneasy about the growing power of Shiite and Sunni Arabs in Iraq. In a post-American Iraq, the Iraqi Kurdish leadership will not only lose the political leverage they obtained through alliance with the United States, but will also have to calculate the possible risks of a civil war scenario. To hedge their bets against these future uncertainties, Iraqi Kurds have reasons to be on good terms with Turkey. [1] The Kurdish leadership has come to realize that the key to normalization with Turkey is abandoning their tolerance of the PKK by limiting the group’s freedom of movement in areas controlled by the KRG. Recent developments indicate a consensus between the Turkish government and the Barzani administration to increase their grip on the PKK. The question may no longer be whether to fight the PKK together, but how.

    The Trilateral Permanent Security Commission

    Although the first signs of a possible Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish rapprochement emerged during Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Washington in October 2007, the AKP government took concrete steps toward normalization only recently. Here one has to note the crucial role played by the TSK’s decision to support establishing relations with the Kurdish administration.

    The AKP government made its initial overtures last spring. Most significantly, following the decision of the National Security Council (Milli Guvenlik Kurulu – MGK) to enhance relations with “all Iraqi groups” in its meeting on April 24, a Turkish delegation led by Ahmet Davutoglu, Erdogan’s chief foreign policy advisor, met a team of Iraqi officials, including Nechirvan Barzani, the KRG Prime Minister and nephew of Masoud Barzani (Zaman, May 2). [2] The real impetus came with the second phase in early October. An official Turkish delegation composed of high-level representatives including Davutoglu and Murat Ozcelik (Turkey’s Special Envoy to Iraq), met Masoud Barzani in Baghdad (NTV, October 15). In the ensuing days, diplomatic relations improved significantly and areas of cooperation diversified. Turkish Interior Minister Besir Atalay visited Baghdad and held a tripartite meeting with representatives of the Iraqi central government and the United States on November 19, only a few days after the Iraqi-American security accord was agreed upon. The parties decided to establish a permanent commission to streamline Turkish, American and Iraqi efforts in fighting the PKK and to regulate Turkey’s access to Iraqi airspace and territory to carry out cross-border operations in northern Iraq (NTV, November 20). KRG representatives were included as part of the Iraqi delegation. By sending the interior minister, the Turkish government signaled its determination to recognize the Kurdish administration, but only as part of the central government (Radikal, November 23).

    PKK to Kurdistan Regional Government: Don’t spoil Kurdish gains

    PKK sources have been observing the KRG’s attempts to reorient its policies closely and with growing anxiety. They view this development as the main threat to the gains of the Kurdish nationalist movement. The collaboration of the Kurdish administration with the trilateral permanent commission is seen as a shortsighted move that is extremely damaging to the national cause. For the PKK, the only novelty of this new arrangement is its pitting the southern Kurds against the PKK, for the United States and Baghdad government have already worked with Turkey to eliminate the PKK (see Terrorism Focus, November 26). Therefore, the PKK criticizes the shift in Barzani and Talabani’s positions, as this will inevitably undermine the Kurds’ position in the region and in Iraq. From the PKK’s perspective, Turkey’s decision to initiate dialogue with the Barzani administration marks Turkey’s return to its old strategy of the 1990s, which in the PKK’s opinion is bound to fail (Gundem Online, November 30).

    More specifically, PKK sources are critical of the operations carried out by Barzani’s peshmerga militias. The PKK accuses Barzani’s peshmerga of limiting civilian movement in PKK-controlled areas and confiscating villagers’ excess food. The PKK militants depend on local food and the continuation of their freedom of movement in northern Iraq to maintain their logistical infrastructure. Tactically, the PKK seeks to settle civilians in proximity to its camping grounds in order to blend into the local population. Moreover, in case of Turkish airstrikes against these camps, the PKK might use civilian casualties to mobilize international public opinion against Turkey. Another PKK criticism takes aim at the KRG’s failure to protest TSK airstrikes against PKK positions (Gundem Online, November 30).

    PKK to Turkey: Put Your Own House in Order

    The representatives of Turkey’s Kurdish Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi – DTP) have started to criticize Turkey’s rapprochement with Barzani. For instance, Selahattin Demirtas, deputy chairman of the DTP, criticized the AKP government’s willingness to speak with Barzani while at the same time refusing to talk to the DTP. For Demirtas, Barzani “is a party to the problem. He is an outside power,” whereas the DTP is a native force represented in Turkey’s Parliament. Demirtas also distanced the DTP ideologically from the KRG by labeling it a “feudal, conservative, rightist movement,” while the DTP represents a “democratic, pro-human rights and leftist movement” (Zaman, November 30-December 1).

    As the municipal elections approach, the competition between the governing AKP and DTP over winning Kurdish votes has heightened. In the midst of growing tensions caused by the exchange of fighting words between the representatives of the two parties, as well as violent demonstrations in streets, Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin suggested that if imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan called on the PKK militants to lay down their arms, the government might consider easing his conditions in the prison.

    For Ocalan, the real solution is contingent on dialogue. Domestically, he called for the establishment of a “truth and reconciliation commission,’” similar to those established in other post-civil war societies. Only a democratic project at home could save the state and solve the Kurdish question and make Turkey a true regional power. Ocalan seeks to reach out to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani by asking him to get involved by using his status in the Socialist International to promote a democratic solution by mobilizing international actors. Ocalan, however, did not give up covert threats to Turkey; “Right now there is a condition of uprising. It might turn into a hurricane in spring” (Gundem Online, November 28).

    PKK commander Murat Karayilan noted the movement is in favor of a peaceful solution through dialogue but ruled out a unilateral ceasefire; “If the Turkish state comes out and says that it seeks dialogue, and ceases its operations, no bullet will be fired. We are not the attacking side, we are in defense … How can we lay down our arms? We survive thanks to our arms” (Gunderm Online, December 2). Karayilan criticized Erdogan for failing to live up to his promise to find a democratic solution to Kurdish problem by reverting back to the military option. Karayilan underlined that the PKK is prepared for a political solution but also remains vigilant to meet military challenges. He also paralleled Ocalan’s’ threats, by maintaining that if Turkey continues its military operations and fails to develop a settlement that recognized the role of the PKK, the group would abandon its defensive strategy of “low-intensity warfare” and elevate its armed campaign to offensive “medium-intensity warfare.”

    Karayilan, however, recognizes that the PKK is being pressed hard militarily. The mounting Iranian offensive on Kurdish positions along the Iranian-Iraqi border, conducted in coordination with Turkey’s airstrikes, has caused worries for the PKK. Karayilan has criticized Iran for supporting Turkey, citing the economic and energy cooperation between the two countries. He called on Iran to give up futile military measures, and embrace the Kurdish people’s demands for peace and dialogue (Gundem Online, December 2).

    Conclusion

    Through its diplomatic initiatives, the Turkish government may be hoping to worsen the conditions for the PKK during the winter, curbing its operational ability in the spring. In their rapprochement with Turkey, the Iraqi Kurds are driven by a concern to readjust to the new strategic reality of Iraq after an American withdrawal and the development of Iraqi domestic politics.

    The PKK leadership and the DTP are worried about the implications of Turkey’s diplomatic opening to Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. On the military front, the PKK claims to possess the military capability needed to resume its armed activities in Turkey. Through its sabotage attack against the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline on November 22, the PKK might have been sending a warning to both the Iraqi central government and the KRG about their decision to support Turkey.

    The PKK has sought to bring to the fore the argument that a real solution to the Kurdish problem requires the Turkish government to deliver political reforms, meaning it should recognize the PKK as a legitimate actor. In regards to electoral competition, the DTP and the PKK have started to invoke speculation that the Turkish government could use fraudulent techniques to manipulate the local elections. DTP deputies have emphasized this point as part of their election campaign.

    The AKP government came under criticism from pro-reform forces and international observers for abandoning domestic reforms and prioritizing a military solution to the Kurdish issue. It has sought since to use diplomacy and limited political openings to further curb the PKK’s military strength. The DTP, however, consistently calls for “true democratic openings” at home, without relinquishing PKK violence. The AKP is forced to engage in a delicate balancing act—on the one hand, it has to assume political responsibility for the armed struggle against the PKK’s terror campaign; on the other hand, it has to compete with the DTP in the democratic field. While the AKP realizes that tightening the military grip on the PKK may harm its electoral chances in southeastern Turkey, letting up on the PKK now risks more attacks in the spring and may harm the party’s prestige in the West.

    Notes

    1. Turkish analysts believe that a common understanding between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds about the future of Iraq is emerging. Some claim that in case of a civil war, Turkey might throw its support behind the Kurds. See Mete Cubukcu, “Turkiye’nin Irak’taki B Planinda Kurtler Var,” Referans, November 27.
    2. National Security Council Press Briefing, April 24, 2008. www.mgk.gov.tr/Turkce/basinbildiri2008/24nisan2008.htm.

  • Israel ‘prepared to attack’ Iran nuclear plants

    Israel ‘prepared to attack’ Iran nuclear plants

    Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem and Times Online

    Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the US, it has been reported.  

    Officials in the Israeli Defence Ministry told the Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the US, they were preparing plans that would allow them to act in isolation.

    “It is always better to coordinate,” a senior Defence Ministry official told the newspaper. “But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination.”

    However defence officials played down the reports today, telling The Times that an attack by Israeli forces alone would probably fail to take out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which experts say are scattered across several sites, some deep underground.

    “We could not risk an operation which would only partially succeed,” one defence official told The Times.

    “That would leave us open to a nuclear attack from Iran’s remaining weapons stock. Israel would likely need the support, the backing, of forces from a Western ally to successfully carry out the operation,” he said.

    A senior Israeli official quotes in the Jerusalem Post said that while it would be difficult, it would not be impossible to launch a strike against Iran without permission from the US.

    “There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation,” a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

    The US Airforce controls the Iraqi airspace Israel’s jets would have to cross on a bombing mission and access to codes from the Americans, would “significantly improve” Israel’s chances of a successful strike on Iran, an official told The Times.

    He added that because the Iranians have been moving the bunkers deep underground, sophisticated weaponry would be needed to successfully destroy the facilities.

    Responding to reports that Israel would use low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, the official said the method was largely speculative and unreliable.

    Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has reportedly asked the US for a green light to attack Iranian facilities as recently as May.

    According to Israeli officials, the US denied the request, although it outfitted Israel with the X-band radar system which would shave several crucial minutes off Israel’s reaction time to an Iranian missile launch, and allow the United States to oversee Israel’s airspace.

    “There is always the option of Israel going it alone. It just does not seem like a good option at present time,” an Israeli MP told the Times.

    There are three central locations where experts believe Iranian facilities are producing goods for nuclear weapons.

    Israeli officials named these sites as: Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Isfahan, where 250 tons of gas are stores in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

    Israeli officials said they were heartened that international sanctions on Iran were having an effect, but did not feel they were enough to stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The most recent Israeli intelligence reports estimate that Iran will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in late 2009, barring any interruptions in its programme.

    “There is still time and there is no need to rush into an operation right now,” another Israeli official said. “The regime there is already falling apart and will likely no longer be in power 10 years from now.”

    On Monday, Teheran dismissed the possibility of an Israeli strike, saying it didn’t take Israel seriously.

    “We think that regional and international developments and the complicated situation faced by Israel itself will not allow it to launch military strikes against other countries,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Teheran, adding that “Israel makes threats to promote its psychological and media warfare.

    Some Israeli security officials fear that the Iranian retaliation for a strike on its facilities could include a large-scale missile attack on Israel from several Iranian allies, disruption of oil supplies to the West, and terror attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

    They-(Israel)- live so close to the enemy-(Iran), and are so mad at them.
    While we-the USA-support Israel to a point. However if Israel
    wants to make this move,without proper diplomatic channels
    there will be a price to pay.The price may be considerable.
    Human life on both sides will be lost.

    randy, florida, usa

    Are all Iran’s current leaders religious maniacs ? There must be some Iranian pragmatists lurking in the background who are capable of taking over the leadership and establishing some sort of detente with Israel and its allies ? Good Iranian men will take action and remove Ahmadinejad eventually.

    Dr. Jimmy, Nottingham, England

    but its ok for israel to have nuclear waepons.

    its ok for vanunu to spend years in prison.

    such hypocrisy

    aj, london, UK

         

    If Irael do this I would hope the Americans cut them off from the $3bn a year they give to the Iraeli state. If the americans don’t approve it, Israel will risk more by doing it than not doing it. It’s time for the madness to end, even if they had nukes Iran won’t strike Israel, it’d be suicide.

    Abharrisson, London,

    Honestly i doubt the will attack. While Israel is capable of attacking iran. They also need to take into a account that they have to fly into currently US controlled air space to get into iran so unless they fly around it chances are this wont happen till the US gives approval.

    Mike, Roseville, USA

    Good for them….at least some people are willing to take action on this. Israel learned long ago that they can’t count on the United States much less Europe to back them up.

    Ian , Fort Collins , United States

    This is inevitable. And after the Israelis attack, Iran will retaliate wildly against any US facility and all Arabian Gulf traffic, because they are too weak to strike Israel directly. That will bring the US and possibly other gulf countries into it, giving cover for a second strike from the US.

    Kevin Finnerty, Atlanta, USA

    Israel is looking out for itself. Israel realizes that Iran is a threat, and with the party swing the U.S. elections brought about, especially seeing how Barack Obama promises to leave Iraq entirely in a few years, Israel needs to be militarily independent. I hope they can do it, for liberty’s sake.

    William Mayer, Mahwah, New Jersey, U.S.A

    These reports seem to surface every 3 months or so, yet nothing happens. My guess, Israel is waiting for the outcome of the Iranian elections and the American transition to take decisive action.

    Jeremy, Atlanta, USA

    Iraq or Iran – Seems confusing

    Edward Manley, London, UK

  • Olmert accuses Jewish settlers of pogrom

    Olmert accuses Jewish settlers of pogrom

    The Associated Press,

    Published: December 7, 200

    JERUSALEM: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says Jews who attacked Palestinian civilians carried out a “pogrom.”

    Settlers went on a rampage after Israeli forces evicted a group of squatters from a contested building in the West Bank city of Hebron.

    Video footage supplied by an Israeli human rights group shows a settler firing shots at Palestinian rock-throwers from close range, hitting two of them. A second settler is also seen opening fire.

    Palestinians said that in all 17 Palestinians were wounded in the clashes, five of them by gunfire.

    Olmert told his Cabinet on Sunday that the incidents have “no name other than pogrom” and that he was “ashamed.”

    Pogrom is a word most often used to describe mob attacks against Jews in Europe.

    The two settlers caught on film have turned themselves in to police.

    Source: International Herald Tribune, December 7, 2008

  • Iran Hangs Convicted Spy for Israel

    Iran Hangs Convicted Spy for Israel

    Security Official in Tehran Sees ‘Intensifying Intelligence War’

    By Thomas Erdbrink

    Washington Post Foreign Service

    TEHRAN, Nov. 22 — Iran has executed a man convicted of spying for Israel in an “intensifying intelligence war” between the two countries, a high-level Iranian security official announced Saturday at a rare news conference.

    Ali Ashtary, a businessman who sold communication and security equipment to Iranian security organizations, was arrested in 2007 and found guilty in June of spying for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency quoted the official as saying.

    The official, who heads the counterespionage unit of the Intelligence Ministry but was not identified by name, said Ashtary was put to death Monday morning. The Associated Press reported that he was hanged.

    The case “shows a new dimension and intensifying of the widespread intelligence fight between us and the Israeli intelligence service,” the official reportedly told a select group of local reporters.

    Israel has repeatedly said it is prepared to attack Iran over its nuclear program. Israel and the United States say Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran, which does not recognize Israel, maintains that its nuclear program is meant only for energy purposes.

    The counterespionage official said the Mossad is using satellite television advertisements and Internet chat rooms to recruit Iranians in order to obtain information about Iran.

    Pars TV, one of the dozens of Farsi-language opposition satellite television channels that broadcast from California, is running advertisements offering $10 million for information about a missing Israeli airman, Ron Arad, whose plane was shot down in 1986 over Lebanon. The ads urge Iranians to call or fax if they have information about his case.

    “Some people inside our country who were trying to make some money got in touch with that organization. But they fell into the intelligence operation created by the Zionist regime,” the official said. “Those people were changed into pawns in the hands of the Mossad, but they didn’t have any news on the Israeli pilot. Neither do we. They were used by Mossad to gather information.”

    Offering insight into Iran’s international intelligence operations, the official said that four people had been “identified and arrested” in the neighboring Kurdish region of Iraq, where anti-Iranian militant groups are active.

    “This team had gadgets and weapons made by Israel and intended to assassinate people who were not officials of the country. But now they are important for us,” he said, adding that the targets were not politicians or other members of Iran’s leadership. “Because we control the borders and have operations there, this group was arrested before they could carry out any action.” His comments were carried in the semiofficial Fars News Agency.

    Iranian officials accuse Israel and the United States of supporting several militant separatist groups inside and outside their country. One of the groups is a splinter of the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which regularly attacks Turkish troops. Both militant organizations operate from the mountainous areas along the Iraqi-Turkish border. Since 2003, dozens of Iranian troops and insurgents have died in raids in the area.

    On Tuesday, at the start of a trial in Tehran, three men confessed to involvement in the bombing of a place of worship in the central city of Shiraz in April. Iranian officials have said the United States and Israel were involved in the blast, which killed 14 people.

    Ali Akbar Heidarifar, representing Tehran’s prosecutor general, called for death sentences in the attack, which also wounded 200, the official IRNA news agency reported.

    “I was brainwashed by the Iranian monarchy association to act against Islam and the system and told I had to save the people,” Mohsen Islamian, one of the defendants, reportedly said, referring to an unknown opposition group.

    Source: www.washingtonpost.com

  • Rector kicks out Israel ambassador

    Rector kicks out Israel ambassador

    ANKARA – Istanbul University’s rector, Mesut Parlak, drove away two Israeli officials from his office due to the presence of their armed bodyguards, daily Haaretz reported yesterday.

    The Israeli ambassador to Turkey, Gabby Levy, and Consul General Mordechai Amichai visited Parlak in his office Friday and he became annoyed by the bodyguards who entered his office without permission. “This is a university and we cannot hold a meeting under these circumstances. There is no such protocol here. I am responsible for your security and these bodyguards cannot stay,” Parlak told the officials who insisted on keeping the bodyguards with them. Parlak then canceled the meeting and saw them to the door.

    Israeli sources confirmed the incident saying they did not want to leave the ambassador alone at the meeting after protests by Palestinian students at Bahçeşehir University earlier in the week.

    Israeli diplomats in Turkey are provided with “Shin Bet protection,” but it is customary to keep the presence of police and security personnel to a minimum on university campuses. The altercation erupted when the two diplomats failed to adhere to this unwritten rule.

    Source: www.hurriyet.com.tr, 23 Nov 2008

  • Ankara warns Israel over museum atop Muslim cemetery

    Ankara warns Israel over museum atop Muslim cemetery

    27 November 2008

    Turkey has warned Israel over plans for the construction of a museum in Jerusalem on a site that is now a Muslim cemetery in which companions of the Prophet Muhammad are buried.

    A top Israeli court’s recent ruling giving the go-ahead for the construction of the “Museum of Tolerance” has led to tension in the region and is likely to spark reaction from Muslims around the world. Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Gabby Levy was recently summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where Turkish diplomats explained Ankara’s stance on the issue, while Turkish Ambassador to Israel Namık Tan conveyed Ankara’s uneasiness over the plan during a meeting with Israeli Foreign Ministry officials. “Everyone should avoid actions that may lead to new tensions in the region,” Levy was told at the meeting on Nov. 14, as the Turkish side underlined the delicacy of the Middle East peace process. Ankara has been careful in its warning’s wording due to its mediation efforts between Israel and Syria, sources said. “We have been following the issue very closely,” Foreign Minister Ali Babacan told reporters late on Tuesday.

    Earlier this month the Palestinian ambassador to Turkey asked for the Turkish government’s help after the court decision was issued, rejecting an appeal against the construction plans.

    Palestinian Ambassador to Turkey Nabil Maarouf described the museum plan as “a typical Israeli attack.” Citing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s harsh reaction against Israeli archaeological work near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Haram al-Sharif complex — the third most important site in Islam — Maarouf urged Ankara to assist in stopping the project. Israeli Embassy officials in Ankara, however, said no political interference into a judicial ruling was possible.

    Israel’s Supreme Court ruled late last month that it would not block the construction since no objections had been lodged in 1960, when the city put a parking lot over a small section of the graveyard. The museum is sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Los Angeles-based Jewish organization, and is intended to bring the city’s divided residents together. The court sought to address religious demands for respecting the dead by giving the project 60 days to reach an agreement with the state-run Antiquities Authority over plans for either removing the human remains for reburial or installing a barrier between the museum’s foundation and the ground below to avoid disturbing the graves.

    Source: www.todayszaman.com, 27 November 2008