Category: Palestinian N.A.

Palestinian National Authority

  • Middle East parties must be brought together

    Middle East parties must be brought together

    Gordon Brown has insisted that all parties to the Middle East dispute over Palestine must be brought together to thrash out a lasting peace settlement despite the recent hostilities in Gaza.

    Speaking at a press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Downing Street on Thursday, the PM said that peace could be achieved in the Middle East based on a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. Progress on the issue remains a top priority for the UK and international partners will be urged to work together to come to an agreement, he said.

     

    www.number10.gov.uk

  • Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    By Ferruh Demirmen

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from the Gaza panel in Davos last week created quite a stir on the international scene. The walkout strained the Israeli-Turkish relations, and the direction the Turkish foreign policy is headed became a subject of debate.

     

    The occasion was a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis where two of the four panelists were Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres. During his talk Erdogan blamed Israel for the Gaza violence, and Peres passionately defended his country’s policy. The tempers became inflamed when the moderator refused to allow Erdogan sufficient time to reply to Peres. This brought the panel discussion to a breaking point, and the PM walked off.

     

    The prevailing sentiment in Turkey is that Erdogan was justified in his action. Upon return from Davos, the PM was welcomed as a courageous leader by his supporters in Istanbul. The Arab world, in particular Hamas, lauded Erdogan’s action. There were alarm signals from the American Jewish lobby and the Israeli media, the former warning that Turkey’s image was damaged and making a sarcastic reference to PKK. In the rest of the world, the reaction was one of bemusement,

     

    The substance

     

    In substance, it is difficult to disagree with Erdogan on his criticism of Israel on the Gaza crisis. While the Jewish state deserved sympathy for the plight of its citizens that came under rocket attack from Hamas militants, its response was grossly disproportionate. Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip created a humanitarian crisis in an area that was already reeling under a military lockdown. Some 1300 Palestinians lost their lives, as opposed to 13 on the Israeli side. Gaza’s industry was destroyed, and even schools, mosques, hospitals and a UN compound came under attack.

     

    The notion that a vastly superior military firepower was turned on a nearly defenseless population under siege, with graphic images of Palestinian civilians suffering and dying, was too much to bear for the world at large, in particular the Islamic world. Erdogan verbalized these sentiments.

     

    What made the Israeli action particularly offensive was that the military campaign appeared to be planned months in advance, and that Israel was timing its military campaign according to presidential turnover at the White House. Israel’s banning of journalists from the war zone also exacerbated anti-Israeli sentiments.

     

    The style

     

    Putting substance aside, the manner in which Erdogan handled himself in Davos was both right and wrong. To make sense of conflicting reports of the incident, this writer viewed the official webcast of the panel discussion. It is clear from the webcast that Erdogan was justified in protesting to the moderator.

     

    A cardinal rule in panel discussions is that the participants are allowed equal time. In this case, Peres was allowed to speak considerably longer than Erdogan.

     

    It is also a standard practice in panel discussions to allow a second chance to the speakers to respond to each other. There was no such provision in the panel discussion. Erdogan wrestled to get additional time to respond to Peres, the last speaker, but when the moderator cut him off after two minutes, the PM became visibly agitated. Turning red-faced, he stormed out.

     

    Because the other two panelists had talked shorter than both Erdogan and Peres, the moderator could have allowed Erdogan more time to respond, thereby preventing a diplomatic crisis.

     

    On the other hand, the PM could have chosen to remain calm, letting the audience judge the unfairness of the situation. His parting remark to the moderator, “For me, Davos is finished,” was unnecessary, and his rhetoric aimed at Peres, “You are older than me. Your voice is coming strong, this has to do with a guilty conscience.” … ”You know well how to kill,” were quite inappropriate. He had lost his temper.

     

    In diplomacy, there is no substitute for composure.

     

    In Ankara, retired Turkish diplomats who criticized Erdogan’s behavior in Davos also drew the PM’s ire, who called them “monsieurs” – a thinly disguised pejorative term.

     

    Some commentators in Turkish media compared the PM’s action to the bluster of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when he, in a fury, took his shoe off and banged it at the table at a United Nations conference in 1960. The comparison, however, was off the mark.

     

    The motive

     

    Erdogan’s action raised some basic questions. What was the PM trying to accomplish by becoming the spokesman for Hamas when the Arab world is almost indifferent to the plight of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip?

     

    And if the PM was sincere in his humanitarian concerns over the Gaza crisis, why did he not raise similar objections to the killing fields in Darfur, and, for that matter, next-door Iraq?

     

    Erdogan twice welcomed in Ankara Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashira radical Islamist – who has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. These are questions only the PM can answer.

     

    But there is little doubt that Erdogan’s stance in Davos was driven at least in part by domestic politics. Local elections are scheduled for March, and by embracing the staunchly Islamic-oriented Hamas, the PM calculated that he could boost his popularity with his Islamist base at home. His popularity, in fact, did receive a boost, at least temporarily.

     

    The rallying welcome the PM received at the Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning just after leaving the panel discussion was obviously planned in advance.

     

    Israeli-Turkish relations

     

    The larger issue with the Davos incident is whether it heralded a major shift in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. In press releases, both sides tried to downplay the significance of the event, claiming that the relations between the countries remained fundamentally strong.

     

    There is considerable truth in that assessment, as the two countries have long had close bilateral ties, from tourism to commerce to defense. The two countries also have shared common strategic interests, a point verbalized by Peres during his talk at the Turkish Parliament in November 2007. Both countries will want to continue the alliance.

     

    The alliance, however, will face challenges. Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and unless the organization becomes more moderate, a serious rift in the Israeli-Turkish alliance will be inevitable. Turkey’s relationship with the US and the EU will also be affected.

     

    There is also the concern, raised by the American Jewish lobby, but also by the Turkish Jewish community, that Erdogan’s pro-Hamas stance may stoke anti-Semitism in Turkey. The PM tried to allay this concern by stating that his quarrel is with the Israeli administration, not Jewish people.

     

    The problem with this argument is that his constituents in the Islamic camp may not make such distinction.

     

    Any rise in anti-Semitism in Turkey would be very unfortunate. Since the Ottomans welcomed Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century, Turks and Jews have lived in peaceful coexistence. The secular republic established by Kemal Atatürk bestowed full citizenship rights on Jews, as it did on other religious and ethnic groups.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In summary, a badly administered panel discussion was at the root of a bizarre incident in Davos. Although there will be challenges, Turkey and Israel should put the bizarre incident behind and move on. The Jewish state should use the Davos incident as a wakeup call from a friend for resolution of the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Turkey’s part, it should weigh carefully its association with Hamas. A lasting peace in the Middle East is far too important to let an emotionally charged panel discussion to be a distraction. On Erdogan’s part, he should learn how to control his anger in conflict situations.

     

    [email protected]

     

  • American Jewish Committee Letter to the PM R.T.Erdogan

    American Jewish Committee Letter to the PM R.T.Erdogan

    From: BENJAMIN YAFET [mailto:[email protected]]

    Open Letter to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan

    “Dear Prime Minister Erdogan”
    by David A. Harris
    Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
    February 1, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister Erdogan,

    I write as a friend of Turkey.

    These days, though, I’m finding it harder to feel well-disposed. I’ve been stunned by things I’ve heard, seen, and read in recent weeks. The outburst of animosity for Israel and the anxiety awakened in the Turkish Jewish community make me wonder what’s going on and what the future holds.

    If this only emanated from the “street” or from an extremist fringe, it would be worrisome enough. But it goes deeper – and higher. It starts at the very top. Yours has been the loudest voice, and you have used it to attack Israel in a manner that is not only vicious, but also disconnected from the facts.

    Let me step back for a moment.

    I have long admired Turkey. Like all countries, it’s not perfect, but there is much to appreciate.

    As an American, I have valued Turkey’s strategic partnership with the U.S. and the close ties that have linked our two countries.

    As a Jew, I have always remembered the Ottoman Empire’s warm welcome to Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition and the rich history of the Jewish presence in Turkey.

    As a democrat, I have appreciated Turkey’s commitment to many values I cherish, including its participation with the Allied nations in the Korean War and its front-line role in NATO.

    As a friend of Israel, I have witnessed the strengthening of bilateral links between Ankara and Jerusalem over the years, serving the vital interests of both nations, as many Turks and Israelis have learned to appreciate.

    As a peace-seeker, I have been grateful for the role of Turkish peacekeeping forces, including in southern Lebanon, not to mention the facilitation of indirect talks between Israel and Syria.

    In that spirit, I have acted on the assumption that friends help friends.

    When Ankara has needed assistance in Washington, or even in European capitals, Turkish officials have often turned to American Jewish groups, ours among them. Whenever we could, as you know, we have been there to help.

    When Turkey was struck by a major earthquake in 1999, we were there to build a school in the devastated region of Adapazari as a gesture of solidarity and friendship.

    And when Turks in Germany were targeted by hate crimes, we spoke up. Indeed, in 1993, we traveled from New York solely to attend the funeral service at the Cologne mosque after an arson attack killed five Turkish women in nearby Solingen.

    I don’t say these things to pat ourselves on the back, but to underscore our deep commitment to the relationship – in many ways, over many years.

    Which brings us to the present.

    Mr. Prime Minister, you have described Israeli policy in Gaza as a “massacre” and a “crime against humanity” that would bring about Israel’s “self-destruction” through divine punishment. These words are inflammatory, and they are wrong.

    You seem to believe that Israel had other ways to deal with the relentless barrage of missiles and mortars fired at its civilians, even though months of restraint accomplished nothing.

    You contend that Hamas is a reasonable negotiating partner. You even invited its leaders to Ankara, though it had not met the Quartet’s demands to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by previous agreements. It still has not done so, and it still seeks Israel’s destruction with weapons imported from your neighbor, Iran.

    You have accused Israel of deliberately seeking to kill civilians. In reality, as British Colonel Richard Kemp told the BBC, “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties. … Hamas has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield.”

    Even if you disagreed, you might have been respectful of such public criticism of Hamas, whether from Col. Kemp, EU official Louis Michel, Egyptian and Saudi leaders, or, in more hushed tones, some Gaza residents themselves. Instead, you accused “Jewish-backed media” of spreading falsehoods.

    Mr. Prime Minister, Israel yearns for a secure and lasting peace. No one has more fully embodied that hunger for peace, or worked more tirelessly to achieve a new start for the Middle East, than Shimon Peres – Israel’s president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and your fellow panelist at Davos last week.

    Yet, in your remarks, you essentially called him a child-killer. And, inexplicably, you quoted an obscure ex-Israeli who has turned into a rabid anti-Semite.

    And then you left, claiming that the moderator had been unfair. We hope the conciliatory phone call between you and President Peres helped to repair the breach, but, make no mistake, damage has been done. By storming off the stage, you not only insulted him, but you harmed the image of Turkey. Maybe you gained popularity in the Turkish street, where anger against Israel and Jews has been stoked in recent weeks, but you did your country no service by your unstatesmanlike behavior.

    Mr. Prime Minister, I wonder what Turkey would do if its population were targeted, day after day, by merciless enemies determined to wreak havoc, terrorize, and intimidate.

    But wait. We know exactly how Turkey would act if it saw its national interests endangered.

    When Turkey feared union between Greece and Cyprus, it rushed troops to the northern part of the island in 1974. A new government was declared. The UN Security Council later “deplore[d] the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported succession.” Only Turkey recognized the new state. And over the years, the population of the Turkish part of the island markedly increased. Where did the growth come from? Observers insisted that it was a policy of settlement from Turkey.

    Now, however, you assert that Israel should not be “allowed to enter through the gates of the UN” because it has defied the Security Council.

    Turkey knows something about terrorism. The PKK has targeted your country for years, initially seeking an independent Kurdish state that included part of Turkey. Now it claims to seek greater autonomy for the millions of Kurds living in Turkey. Even as the PKK has apparently lowered its demands, has Turkey pursued talks with that murderous group?

    Absolutely not.

    Indeed, I recall a rather blunt threat from Ankara to neighboring Syria in the late 1990s: If the PKK continued to receive protection there, the Turkish army would cross the border and take matters into its own hands. Luckily for Turkey, Syria was smarter than Hamas. It got the message. I also remember last year’s incursion of Turkish forces into northern Iraq to stem PKK attacks from there.

    But now, you demand that we “redefine terror and terrorism in the Middle East.”

    And wasn’t it Turkey, objecting to Armenian policy toward Azerbaijan, that chose to close its border with landlocked Armenia from 1993 to today? Yet you now accuse Israel of creating “an open-air prison” by sealing its own frontier with a hostile territory.

    Please understand me. I am not – I repeat, not – seeking here to pass judgment on Turkey’s actions. Rather, I am simply recounting them to show what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

    It’s so easy to tell another country what it should or shouldn’t do in the face of threats, especially when one’s own country is ten times more populous and 38 times larger. But ultimately, Israel, like its friend Turkey, must make tough choices to protect its citizens.

    Mr. Prime Minister, only you know how far you want to take your belligerent posture. It has already resulted in damage to your country’s reputation in the United States, concern for the well-being of the Turkish Jewish community, and, no doubt, joy in Iran and Hamas’ radical circles.

    The Turkey I know and admire would recoil from partners like Iran and Hamas. Their central beliefs are antithetical to everything that modern, democratic Turkey ought to stand for.

    And so, even as I worry, wonder, and despair, I’ll be watching, waiting, and, yes, hoping.

  • Abdullah, Gul to discuss Palestine, bilateral relations

    Abdullah, Gul to discuss Palestine, bilateral relations

    Posted by: “ALI BENLIOGLU” [email protected]

    Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:45 pm (PST)

    GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN / ARAB NEWS

    RIYADH: Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah will hold talks with Turkish President Abdullah Gul here tomorrow in a renewed bid to boost bilateral ties and exert more efforts to pressure Israel and the international community to resolve the crisis and restore peace in the Middle East.

    “The Turkish president, who will be accompanied by a 140-member delegation, will begin a four-day official visit to the Kingdom on Tuesday,” said Turkish Ambassador Naci Koru, here yesterday.

    The visit of Gul on the invitation of King Abdullah is very important keeping in view the fact that Turkey can play an influential role in eliminating divisions among the Palestinians, a move strongly supported by King Abdullah himself. Koru said the two leaders would discuss the whole gamut of bilateral, regional and international issues, including Gaza,
    Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in their talks.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was given a hero’s welcome recently on his return to Istanbul after accusing Israel of “knowing very well how to kill” during a heated debate at the World Economic Forum. Moreover, Riyadh and Ankara have also renewed their commitments to boost bilateral ties, which have been progressively growing following the historic visit of King Abdullah to that country in 2006.

    Asked about any accord to be inked by the Kingdom and Turkey during the president’s visit, Koru said that Gul would also witness the signing of two major agreements. The accords include an agreement in maritime transport sector and another in the field of youth and sports. He said that Gul’s itinerary, which will take him to Riyadh and Jeddah, would be intense because of several official-level meetings and visits to Saudi academic institutions.

    The ambassador said that the Turkish president would also visit the Riyadhbased King Saud University, the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and a military center near Al-Kharj, some 45 km south of Riyadh.

    He said that the Turkish president would address members of the Turkish community in Riyadh on Wednesday. He will visit the headquarters of the Organization of Islamic Conference on Feb. 5, the day he will arrive in Jeddah. The diplomat said that Riyadh and
    Ankara had forged closer ties on all fronts. The two-way trade exceeds $5 billion annually, representing a growth of 30 percent. Also, the tourism traffic has reported a massive increase from 22,000 Saudis visiting Turkey in 2001 to over 70,000 in 2008.

    Turkish Air is currently operating 28 flights a week from Saudi Arabia, compared to only a few flights per week four years back.

    This is in addition to the flights operated by Saudia and other Gulf carriers. In the field of agriculture, Riyadh and Ankara have mapped out a new strategy, which is now facilitating joint agriculture projects. Several Saudi and Turkish companies have come forward with proposals for joint projects, which need to be OK’d by regulatory authorities. In fact, the
    recent visit of Saudi Minister of Commerce and Industry Abdullah bin Zainal Alireza
    to Turkey cleared the decks for agriculture cooperation.

  • Would ‘Washington Post’ writer David Ignatius put his arm on President Obama during a debate?

    Would ‘Washington Post’ writer David Ignatius put his arm on President Obama during a debate?

    Phil Weiss

    […]

    And yes, while Ignatius has been forward-thinking/realist since, he can be justly scored, I think, for putting his hand on the Turkish Prime Minister to stop the debate so everyone could go to dinner the other night at Davos. It’s easy to say this in retrospect, but there was no sense on Ignatius’s part of the Moment. Ignatius should have extended the time to let both men finish their points, Peres and Erdogan. Let the stomachs grumble. As it is, he appeared to dis the P.M.–and as we see, appearance is everything in these matters–and failed to recognize that when you give a stage to a man defending the slaughter of 450 children, the placement of the salad fork should not be the highest concern, a structural problem with the Establishment, in my humble opinion.

    […]

    …and I'm to blame?

    Source: www.philipweiss.org

  • “A New World Leader”

    “A New World Leader”

    Yet Another Crisis in Turkey-Israel Relations

    Emrullah Uslu

    In an earlier EDM analysis it was observed that since Israel’s Gaza offensive began, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s harsh criticism of the operation has made him the champion of the man in the street in the Muslim world (see, EDM, January 7, 15). Despite the fact that Turkish diplomats and ministers have tried in the last three days to repair the “Gaza damage” (see, EDM, January 27), Erdogan condemned Israeli policies in Gaza in the presence of Israeli President Shimon Peres in a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 29. In response, Peres raised his voice, pointed his finger at Erdogan, and fiercely defended his country’s incursion into Gaza:

    What would you do if rockets were fired at Istanbul every night? …Do you understand the meaning of a situation where hundreds of rockets are falling a day on women and children who cannot sleep quietly, who need to sleep in shelters? What is the matter with you? You don’t understand, and I am not prepared for lies (Jerusalem Post, January 30).

    Erdogan wanted to respond to Peres but the moderator unsuccessfully tried to end the panel. Erdogan, however, had a minute of response in which he slammed Peres back by saying:

    You are raising your voice, because I know it is a sign of expressing a guilty feeling. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know very well how you killed children on the beaches. Two of Israel’s Prime Ministers personally told me—if asked I could reveal their names—that they feel happy when they enter into Gaza… (“The Great Game Revisited,” , January 29).

    After he left the panel Erdogan said that his anger was toward the moderator but he did not step back from his remarks on Israeli policies on Gaza. Later it was reported that Peres phoned Erdogan and apologized about raising his voice and explained that “I raised my voice because I am told that it was difficult to hear if you do not speak loudly” (Yeni Safak, January 30).

    The heated debate in Davos immediately resonated in Turkey. The people of Turkey, who had already demonstrated their anger toward Israel over the Gaza crisis (see EDM, January 7), showed their support for their prime minister. Within a few hours, 97.5 percent of the respondents (36344 votes) to an opinion poll in the Internet said they supported Erdogan, while only 1.7 percent (620 votes) said that Erdogan’s response was not right (www.haber7.com, January 29). Thousands of people went to the airport to welcome Erdogan when he arrived in Istanbul at 2:20 AM in the morning. TV channels began live broadcasting upon his arrival. Erdogan said at a press conference that:

    I do not want to be a leader who made his decision on Turkish-Israeli relations at a time of anger. We should know that Turkey should not determine its policies with the attitude of who says what. The other side should think “what happens if we lose Turkey?” Turkey is a big country and should act with this perspective (NTV, January 30).

    After his press conference Erdogan delivered a speech to thousands of joyful people carrying signs saying “welcome conqueror of Davos” and “a new World leader.” Erdogan told them that “I understand the feelings of you who came here in the middle of the night. Turkey should not make its decisions on the basis of who says what if Turkey takes this step or that step. The other sides should think about what happens if they lose Turkey” (NTV, January 30). While Erdogan was outlining Turkish-Israeli relations on the basis of the idea that “the other side [Israel] should think what happens if it loses Turkey,” an Israeli official outlined Israel’s position: “Erdogan’s actions in Davos show that he doesn’t want to miss an opportunity to further harm Turkish-Israeli relations. …Israel’s strategic relationship with Turkey is important to us, but it is no less important to Turkey.” The official warned that Israel was growing increasingly tired of Erdogan’s tirades, and was unlikely to make any more efforts to “chase after the Turks” (Jerusalem Post, January 30).

    Political observers in Turkey and around the world wonder why Erdogan stormed off the stage. The first reason may be found in his psychological makeup. Even he himself admits that he is not one to use diplomatic language. When he feels he is being attacked, he responds fiercely. Second, and more important, if Erdogan had not responded to Peres’s “loud and finger-pointing response,” it could have meant his political demise in Turkey. Not only would the opposition parties use Peres’s angry response against him but majority of his admirers, who see him as a straight- talking, fearless leader, would abandon him permanently. Erdogan’s strident criticism of Israel may have put him in a situation from which he cannot step back. An opinion poll by the Genar poling company from January 9 to 19 showed that 71.9 percent of the respondents approved of Erdogan’s stance toward Israel; 59 percent supported the idea of sending Turkish troops to Gaza for a peace-keeping mission; 59.4 percent felt that volunteers should be allowed to go to Gaza; and 63.2 percent of those who approved of the volunteers wanted to go Gaza themselves (www.haber7.com, January 30).

    It will be interesting to see how Turkish and Israeli diplomats will manage to normalize relations again, but on the domestic level, Erdogan has become a hero of the masses. With this popularity one can assume that Erdogan is already assured of victory in the municipal elections in March.

    On the international level, Erdogan’s condemnation of Israel may harm Turkish foreign policy positions, but in the streets of the Arab world Erdogan is becoming a “new Nasser.” A Turkish TV channel reported that Palestinians would organize rallies after Friday prayers to show their appreciation for what Erdogan said (Ulke TV, January 30).

    Source:  Eurasia Daily Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation – January 30, 2009 — Volume 6, Issue 20