Category: Palestinian N.A.

Palestinian National Authority

Erdogan and the Israel Card

by Steven J. Rosen
Wall Street Journal
June 10, 2010

The deaths of nine Turkish citizens in the Gaza flotilla incident would have brought a severe reaction under any circumstances. What is nonetheless striking in this incident is the unbridled anger and fiercely hostile reaction of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish public. Mr. Erdogan said Israel was guilty of “state terrorism” and a “bloody massacre.” His foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said “This attack is like 9/11 for Turkey,” comparing it to a premeditated act of aggression that took 2,900 lives.

Mr. Erdogan does not always display such reactions to allegations of human rights violations. Last year, he defended Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for killing half a million Sudanese Christians and non-Arab Muslims. In March 2010, he denied that Turks ever killed Armenian civilians. He labeled a U.S. congressional resolution on the Armenian deaths “a comedy, a parody.” He said that the Turkish military garrison stationed in Cyprus since 1974 is “not an occupier” but “[ensures] the peace.” On tens of thousands of Kurds killed by Turkish security forces from 1984 to 1999, he says nothing.

Could it be that there is something more to Mr. Erdogan’s rage against Israel than just a spontaneous reaction to the loss of life here?

Turkish elections, 13 months away, hold the answer. Backing for Mr. Erdogan’s party has fallen to 29%, the lowest level since it won power in 2002 and far below the 47% it scored in July 2007. So Mr. Erdogan decided to play the Israel Card.

He tested this tactic in January 2009, in a confrontation with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos. Mr. Peres asked him in front of the cameras: “What would you do if you were to have in Istanbul every night a hundred rockets?” Mr. Erdogan shot back, “When it comes to killing you know very well how to kill.” Thousands of Turks applauded Mr. Erdogan’s performance, greeting him with a hero’s welcome and a sea of Turkish and Palestinian flags upon his return home to Ataturk Airport.

Mr. Erdogan’s anger at the Israeli blockade is even more popular among his countrymen. In fact, 61% of Turks surveyed in one poll did not find his rage sufficient. “The public is in such a state that they almost want war against Israel,” the pollster commented. “I think this is widespread in almost all levels of society.” Mr. Erdogan has become a hero in the Muslim world, where he is seen as the “new Nasser,” in the words of one Saudi writer.

The truth is that friendship toward Israel was always limited to the Turkish secular elites, including the military chiefs. Turkey is fertile ground for Mr. Erdogan’s demagoguery because many ordinary people are raised to dislike Israel and—dare it be said—Jews. In April 2010, the BBC World Service Poll found negative views of Israel among 77% of Turks.

Jews as a people fare no better than the Jewish state. In the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 73% of Turks rated their opinions of Jews as “negative.” Meanwhile, 68% of Turks rated their opinions of Christians as “negative.”

Turks don’t like the United States much more than they do Israel. The same BBC poll found negative views of the U.S. among 70% of Turks, one of only two countries where perceptions of the United States actually worsened after the election of Barack Obama (positives fell to 13% from 21%, and negatives increased to 70% from 63%).

Nor is it the case that anti-Americanism in Turkey is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Many Turkish citizens view the U.S. as anti-Muslim and see the war on terror as an anti-Muslim crusade across the Middle East. Turks resent the rich “imperialist” superpower and believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil.

Islamists and the Turkish left suspect that the U.S. and NATO propped up a succession of Turkish governments backed by the military. Others believe that the U.S. supports the Iraqi Kurds and may plan to create a Kurdish state in Iraq. And most remain convinced that members of the U.S. Congress who vote for Turkish genocide resolutions do so under the influence of Armenian-Americans, who are more numerous than Americans of Turkish origin.

Anti-American feelings in Turkey exist independently of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but these three phenomena are mutually reinforcing and convergent. More disturbingly, parallels to these trends pervade much of the Muslim world. What the flotilla incident demonstrates is that igniting this tinderbox of hostility toward Israel, Jews and America does not take much of a spark.

Mr. Rosen is the director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.

https://www.meforum.org/2668/erdogan-and-the-israel-card

June 10, 2010
Economic and Defense Ties Between Turkey and Israel in Crisis

Economic and Defense Ties Between Turkey and Israel in Crisis

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 109

June 7, 2010

By: Saban Kardas

In the wake of the flotilla crisis between Israel and Turkey, attention is shifting to the question of what this development might mean for their bilateral relationship. Angered by the Israeli army’s treatment of Turkish citizens seeking to break Israel’s blockage of Gaza, which resulted in nine deaths and various injuries, the Turkish public has expressed deep outrage. While demonstrations throughout the country called for punitive retaliatory actions, the Deputy Prime Minister, Bulent Arinc, set the limits of Turkey’s response. “No one should expect us to declare war against Israel,” said Arinc (Anadolu Ajansi, May 31).

Granted, Turkish leaders unanimously used harsh language, accusing Israel of state terrorism and vowing that they would hold Tel Aviv accountable for its actions. However, representatives of opposition parties and many NGO’s found the government’s response insufficient, demanding concrete measures rather than “political rhetoric” (www.ntvmsnbc.com, May 31).

Amidst these discussions, the Turkish parliament held an extraordinary session to adopt a declaration condemning Israel. The debates in parliament reflect the depth of feeling in the country against Israel, which exerts pressure on the government. Reportedly, the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) expressed reservations over a clause in the draft declaration that stated: “Parliament expects the Turkish government to reconsider economic and military ties with Israel and take the necessary effective measures.” Only after the AKP bowed to growing pressure from opposition parties could parliament adopt the declaration (www.haberturk.com, June 2).

Overall, the Turkish government has stressed that it would prefer to explore instruments provided by international law and diplomacy to force Israel to compensate victims for its actions. So far, Israel has proven reluctant to accept an independent international inquiry into the flotilla incident and it is unclear if it will agree to pay reparations for the material and human losses suffered by Turkish citizens. Inevitably, Turkish-Israeli relations might come down to coercive instruments short of force. Therefore, it is necessary to ponder the following questions: what instruments can Turkey bring to bear on Israel, and how effective will they be in terms of achieving Turkey’s stated objective of punishing Israel? What price will Turkey pay if it continues on this confrontational path?

The economic and military relationship might suffer from the nationalist urge to punish Israel. As regards economic ties, the public has called for boycotting Israeli products. However, experts point out that even if the crisis results in the limitation of the bilateral trade volume, it will not have a major impact either on Turkey or Israel. In 2009, Turkey’s imports from Israel were $1.1 billion, while Turkish exports to Israel were $1.5 billion. Since this trade volume accounts for only 1 percent of Turkey’s foreign trade, its economy will not suffer from any escalation of the crisis. Experts further note that despite similar calls to limit economic activity with Israel following the Gaza crisis in January 2009, Turkish-Israeli trade continued unabated. Nonetheless, analysts observed that since the 2009 crisis, Turkish businessmen doing business in Israel have faced bureaucratic obstacles and those problems are likely to accelerate (Referans, June 2). Turkish Finance Minister, Mehmet Simsek, also expressed similar opinions, arguing that given the limited trade volume, economic measures against Israel will not undermine Turkey’s economic recovery efforts (Anadolu Ajansi, June 3). Nonetheless, major Turkish firms scheduled to invest in Israel announced that they might freeze their investment or downgrade their operations to support the government’s policies (Milliyet, June 1).

Since severing Turkish-Israeli economic ties will hurt neither Israel nor Turkey to a considerable extent, Ankara is evaluating energy cooperation. Although Energy Minister, Taner Yildiz, said it was too early to talk about sanctions in the energy sector early on in the crisis (Star, June 2), he later supported nationalist arguments, saying “we are not considering any projects with Israel, until things return to normal” (www.haberturk.com, June 3). Yildiz emphasized that major energy and infrastructure projects with Israel will be suspended. He was obviously referring to the plans for the construction of multiple pipelines to transport oil, gas and water from Turkey to Israel, commonly termed Med-stream. These are, however, multinational projects that also involve other countries including Russia, Azerbaijan and India (EDM, November 25, 2008; August 7, 2009), and it remains to be seen how they will react to Turkey’s plans to politicize these projects.

Escalation of tensions may have considerable repercussions in military affairs. Israel has been a major supplier to the Turkish army, especially in sophisticated weapons systems. Moreover, Israel has, in the past, undertaken various multi-billion-dollar contracts to modernize Turkey’s aging military hardware. Turkish Defense Minister, Vecdi Gonul, highlighted that although no new large-scale projects with Israeli defense companies were being considered, the ongoing programs, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, would continue (Hurriyet Daily News, June 3). Attending a TV show, a representative from the AKP argued that all agreements with Israel, including defense cooperation, would be cancelled (www.ntvmsnbc.com, June 6). It is, however, too early to tell if Turkey will indeed take this route.

Even if military cooperation continues, relations will fall short of earlier levels, which had led observers to describe Turkish-Israeli ties as a “strategic partnership.” The new era might harm both sides to a significant degree. Previously, in addition to reaping the gains of lucrative Turkish defense contracts, Israel had also benefited from military-defense cooperation with Turkey in strategic terms. Various agreements signed in the 1990’s enabled Israel to conduct joint military exercises and develop defense cooperation with Turkey, which expanded its strategic depth vis-à-vis Syria and Iran. Following the 2009 crisis, Turkey limited Israeli access to its airspace, and have now announced cancellation of further exercises with Israel. Overall, Israel might suffer from the loss of such a valuable “ally,” not to mention its possible alienation in the Middle East due to the deterioration of diplomatic relations with Turkey. Ankara, also might have to pay a price, as Israel is reportedly reluctant to transfer to Turkey advanced strategic weapons systems which are considered essential for the country’s security needs, especially those required in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

https://jamestown.org/program/economic-and-defense-ties-between-turkey-and-israel-in-crisis/

June 9, 2010
Chomsky on Israel: “Sheer Criminal Aggression, with no Credible Pretext”

Noam Chomsky on Israel and the Gaza Flotilla Attack: “Sheer Criminal Aggression, with no Credible Pretext”

CHICAGO, Illinois – June 2 – Professor Noam Chomsky, renowned foreign policy analyst and bestselling author of Hegemony and Survival and most recently of Hopes and Prospects (Haymarket Books) offered the following statement to Egypt’s Al-Ahram regarding Israel’s justification for it’s attack on humanitarian aid boats headed for Gaza and the broader context regarding the economic blockade which the activists aboard the ships were attempting to break. Chomsky, who is Jewish, was recently detained at the Israeli border and barred from entering the West Bank for a planned speaking engagement, provoking an international debate, and outrage over the issue of free speech in Israel.

Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime. The editors of the London Guardian are quite right to say that “If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a Nato taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast.” It is worth bearing in mind that the crime is nothing new.
For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon, killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes bringing them to prisons in Israel including secret prison/torture chambers, sometimes holding them as hostages for many years.

Israel assumes that it can carry out such crimes with impunity because the US tolerates them and Europe generally follows the US lead.
Much the same is true of Israel’s pretext for its latest crime: that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that could be used for bunkers for rockets. Putting aside the absurdity, if Israel were interested in stopping Hamas rockets it knows exactly how to proceed: accept Hamas offers for a cease-fire. In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreeement on November 4, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead on December 27. Evidently, there is no justification for the use of force “in self-defense” unless peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case they were not even tried, although—or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed. Operation Cast Lead is therefore sheer criminal aggression, with no credible pretext, and the same is true of Israel’s current resort to force.

The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted “the wrong way” in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan. The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank.

These are only the bare outlines of very ugly policies, in which Egypt is complicit as well.

June 9, 2010
Israel worried by new Turkey intelligence chief’s defense of Iran

Israeli sources believe Hakan Fidan aided in orchestrating an intentional change in relations between Israel and Turkey.

By Amir Oren

The Israeli defense establishment – and especially the Mossad’s foreign relations department, which maintains ties with Turkey’s national intelligence organization (MIT ) – is concerned over the recent appointment of Hakan Fidan as head of that organization, and the implications of that appointment vis-a-vis Turkish relations with Israel and Iran.

Ten days ago, Hakan Fidan, 42, a personal confidant of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, assumed the post of head of MIT, which combines the functions of the Mossad and Shin Bet security force.

Israeli security sources believe last week’s the Mavi Marmara incident reflects an intentional change in relations between Israel and Turkey – orchestrated by Erdogan, along with Fidan and Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu.

There is no concrete information, however, regarding Fidan’s involvement in the incident or his ties with IHH, the group that organized the flotilla.

In meetings between Mossad officials and others in the local political-security establishment, it was noted that Fidan has close ties with Erdogan’s Islamist party, and that during the past year he was deputy director of the prime minister’s office and played a central role in tightening Turkish ties with Iran, especially on the nuclear issue.

Fidan’s appointment at MIT will help strengthen Erdogan’s control over certain civilian elements in the Turkish intelligence community, both in terms of determining foreign and defense policy, and also vis-a-vis members of the senior military echelons, who are considered to be a central threat to the Islamist party’s power.

To date intelligence ties between Israel and Turkey have been good, in parallel to the good relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Turkish military, and their respective intelligence services.

In April the last head of MIT, Emre Taner, retired after a five-year stint. Erdogan appointed Fidan as acting head then, but he only formally took over late last month. Fidan served in the Turkish military for 15 years, until 2001, but was not an officer.

MIT has extensive authority, in both internal security and foreign intelligence gathering. Its chief answers directly to the prime minister, although the law obliges him also to report to the president, the chief of staff and the country’s National Security Council.

Fidan completed a B.A. at the University of Maryland, and he completed his master’s and doctorate in Ankara. His dissertation was a comparative analysis of the structure of U.S., British and Turkish intelligence organizations.

After his military service, Fidan served in the Turkish embassy in Australia, and last year he represented Ankara in the International Atomic Energy Agency, where he defended Iran’s right to carry on with its nuclear program for “peaceful purposes.”

With Davutoglu, Fidan formulated last month’s uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran.

Apparently, he supports the idea of splitting MIT’s authority into an internal and an external intelligence organization, like in Israel, Britain and the United States. It is reported that he intends to concentrate on “institutional” tasks and to work with an independent security service, one of whose main purposes is to deal with the Kurdish PKK organization – partly to deflect criticism of his appointment.

In Israel there is concern Fidan’s appointment will have a two-pronged effect: on one hand, that exchange of intelligence between the two countries will be harmed, and on the other, that Israel will have to limit the transfer of information to Turkey, out of a concern that it may be passed on to enemy organizations or states.

, 07.06.10

June 7, 2010
Photos show Mavi Marmara passengers protecting, aiding Israeli soldiers

Israel hasbara fails again: Photos show Mavi Marmara passengers protecting, aiding Israeli soldiers

Ali Abunimah

June 6, 2010

Updated: Even more photos of Israeli soldiers being cared for, not hurt

The website of Turkish newspaper Hürriyet published a gallery of photos showing Israeli soldiers captured after their attack on the Mavi Marmara in international waters in the early hours of 31 May.

The predictable response of the Israeli army, as quoted in Haaretz, was that the “published pictures serve as clear and unequivocal proof of Israel’s repeated arguments that aboard [the Mavi Marmara] were mercenaries who intended to kill Israeli soldiers.”

The photos indicate nothing of the sort; if anything they show the opposite. First, it is clear that the passengers would have had ample time and opportunity to seriously harm or kill the Israeli soldiers if that had been their intention. While at least 9 flotilla passengers were killed by the Israelis, no Israeli was killed even though it appears at least two and up to four were disarmed and captured.

In some of the Hürriyet photos passengers or medics appear to be protecting and aiding the Israeli soldiers. Below we see a passenger taking a clearly wounded Israeli attacker and protecting him — not from any violent attack — but merely from being photographed.

An additional photo, not included in the Hürriyet gallery, but posted on the Facebook fan page of The Economist shows the same soldier, and the person who was holding him, while a third person administers medical care. (Thanks to for tracking down this picture)

Another photo from the Hürriyet gallery, below, again shows a soldier who appears to be getting assistance to stop bleeding on his face with a bandage or white cloth. Of course it is possible to give a lurid, sensational and imaginative, explanation to this photo — as the Israeli army is trying to do — and claim that someone is trying to suffocate the soldier! But given the fact that he wasn’t suffocated and all the Israeli soldiers came home alive, the most likely explanation, that fits with all the other evidence, is that he was being cared for.

Finally, the fact that passengers were giving aid to captured Israeli hijackers even as the ship was still under full scale assault by the Israeli military is bolstered by video which has recently emerged of the first moments of the attack. In the video, passengers are appealing for help and one says clearly that several soldiers were injured in their descent from the choppers, that they had been taken by the passengers and were receiving medical care. This is in the thick of the action, so it seems entirely credible that the passenger is reporting what he had just witnessed.

At about 3:34 in this video, a man speaking Turkish appears, and according to the french subtitles on the video, says that Israeli helicopters dropped about 10 soldiers onto the ship, that passengers had subdued two, and two others had been injured during their drop. He then says, “our friends are trying to come to their aid right now,” and adds, “What we say to the Israelis is that no one should be injured, neither them nor us. Their soldiers who fell onto the bridge are in good hands. Our friends are looking after them, no one is doing them any harm. This operation must be stopped!”

Update 1: More photos of Israeli soldiers being cared for not, hurt

The following photos, which appear on the Turkish news websiteinternethaber.com also clearly show Israeli soldiers being cared for, not hurt by Mavi Marmara passengers. (The same gallery shows injured passengers as well. This also appears to the source of the photo above found on The Economist’s facebook fan page. h/t )

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m66715&hd&size=1&l=e, June 6, 2010

June 7, 2010
Operation Mini Cast Lead

By Gideon Levy

Like in “Mini-Israel,” the park where there is everything, but smaller, Israel embarked yesterday on a mini Operation Cast Lead. Like its larger, losing predecessor, this operation had it all: the usual false claim that is was they who had started it – and not the landing of commandos from helicopters on a ship in open sea, away from Israeli territorial waters. There was the claim that the first act of violence came not from the soldiers, but the rioting activists on Mavi Marmara; that the blockade on Gaza is legal and that the flotilla to its shores is against the law – God knows which law.

Again came the claim of self defense, that “they lynched us” and that all the dead are on their side. Once more the use of violence and excessive and lethal force was in play and once more civilians wound up dead.

This action also featured the pathetic focus on “public relations,” as if there is something to explain, and again the sick question was asked: Why didn’t the soldiers use more force.

Again Israel will pay a heavy diplomatic price, once which had not been considered ahead of time. Again, the Israeli propaganda machine has managed to convince only brainwashed Israelis, and once more no one asked the question: What was it for? Why were our soldiers thrown into this trap of pipes and ball bearings? What did we get out of it?

If Cast Lead was a turning point in the attitude of the world toward us, this operation is the second horror film of the apparently ongoing series. Israel proved yesterday that it learned nothing from the first movie.

Yesterday’s fiasco could and should have been prevented. This flotilla should have been allowed to pass and the blockade should be brought to an end.

This should have happened a long time ago. In four years Hamas has not weakened and Gilad Shalit was not released. There was not even a sign of a gain.

And what have we instead? A country that is quickly becoming completely isolated. This is a place that turns away intellectuals, shoots peace activists, cuts off Gaza and now finds itself in an international blockade. Once more yesterday it seemed, and not for the first time, that Israel is increasingly breaking away from the mother ship, and losing touch with the world – which does not accept its actions and does not understand its motives.

Yesterday there was no one on the planet, not a newsman or analyst, except for its conscripted chorus, who could say a good word about the lethal takeover.

The Israel Defense Forces too came out looking bad again. The magic evaporated long ago, the most moral army in the world, that was once the best army in the world, failed again. More and more there is the impression that nearly everything it touches causes harm to Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/2010-06-01/ty-article/operation-mini-cast-lead/0000017f-db60-db22-a17f-fff155150000, 01.06.10

June 7, 2010