Turkish Forum

Category: Regions

  • Aslamova claims that RF and U.S. are preparing to face off again in the Caucasus – this time in Azerbaijan

    Aslamova claims that RF and U.S. are preparing to face off again in the Caucasus – this time in Azerbaijan

    Komsomolskaya Pravda
    December 17, 2008
    “USA and Russia Playing a New ‘Caucasus” Gambit in Azerbaijan,” by Artem Aniskin and Darya Aslamova. The authors visit Baku to gage the political scene there: the Azerbaijani are seeking to balance relations with Moscow and Washington.

    Following the war in South Ossetia in the Caucasus a new confrontation involving world powers is under consideration. Caspian natural gas and a Karabakh beachhead are at stake.

    On the Moscow-Baku aircraft two drunken young Azerbaijanis , in outlandishly unfashionable attire, addressed me: “Girl, hey, girl,” one of them urged me, “let’s get acquainted.” “Boy! What kind of girl am I to you?,” I sternly said and hid behind my newspaper. This scarcely diminished the young people’s ardor, who managed to grab at the stewardess’s skirt as she passed by and express their love for the pudgy young woman, as she stood in line for the toilet. The last time I flew to Baku was 20 years ago, and it was just as tedious then when I heard similar words, which caused me to grit my teeth as the youngsters reached toward me. Apparently, the traditions of getting to know women are passed from generation to generation. But one detail stood out from the usual picture. These “new Azerbaijanis” not only accosted every attractive woman under 50, but they were also pouring whiskey into their co-passenger, a German businessman, all the while explaining themselves in an English language that could have been learned only in a good British college.

    The surprises of this “new Azerbaijan” did not end here. The banknotes that I received at the Baku “money exchange” were so suspiciously like the Euro, that I offered a compliment: “Your manats look just like a Euro!” “They are better,” I was informed with pride. “We invited European specialists to Baku to make our money look like European currency. The rate of exchange for our manat is stronger than the dollar.

    An Era of Extravagance

    “The European Charm of the East!” is how the American television channels describe Azerbaijan. A small eastern state has raised up on oil just like leavened dough, which in spite of geography wishes to become part of Europe. The capital Baku is growing rapidly. Everywhere there is a passion for illumination, marble, crystal chandeliers, and expensive rugs. Five-star hotels, luxurious restaurants, and stores shimmer in luxury among the scaffoldings, cement mixers, and torn-up roads. At an average wage of $200 US, the narrow streets are crammed with brand new Jeeps and enormous, ancient ” Mercedes ” automobiles. (The residents of Baku believe that a car of any price must be big.)

    They merely shrug their shoulders over the crisis: “Well, what can happen in a small, oil and gas producing monarchist state? There is a family succession of authority and no upheavals. Is oil getting cheaper? Well, so what, in a couple of years the price will go up again, where it go out of sight. Then, too, we have not been playing the stock market like you Russians. We have a passion for roulette. All of these stocks and bonds. When the world market collapsed, it took the Russian market along with it. We don’t mess around with such foolishness.” A local banker said it more to the point than anyone else: “For the first time in my life I am glad that I live in the stone age.”

    However, the local stone age is awash with all the trappings of the 21st century. The city is reaping the fruits of its oil prosperity and is entering an era of extravagance and boastfulness. Once there was a slogan that said: “If you have money, hide it,” but now the slogan is, “If you have money, spread it around and show off.” “Initially we bought lights for our streets from Russia for $60 each,” said Ilkhan Shaban, a Baku petroleum expert. “Two years later we grew weary of the lights. We ordered new ones from Turkey at $120 each. But income and appetite grow. Now we have purchased lighting in Belgium. Within a span of five years we changed our street lighting three times! We are changing store fronts and making borders out of marble and granite. A German business is building asphalt roads. We have spent $10 billion US on outward appearances. We have foolishly provided the opposition with a pile of money, and it just sits there quietly without blinking. Even though Azerbaijan is seated at the European Council and is participating in NATO projects, we are a typical small Asian country with an Asian way of thinking.”

    Where There Is Oil and Gas, There Is Truth and Power

    My new friends, young journalists Gamid and Vadim, with great pride show me Baku nightlife, lit up with those expensive lights: “What does a European capital have that we don’t?” We are eating our evening meal in the private office of a restaurant owner (the Baku Sheik), nibbling on a shashlyk of contraband fried sturgeon. I ask: “Well, lads, what sort of Europe are you? Just look at the map to see where they are and where we are. Why do you need the European Union? You are proud that you are the East. For ten years Turkey has been on its knees begging to join the European Union. Why do you need this humiliation?” Gamid softly responds: “And they will accept us, because where there is oil and gas, there is truth and power!”

    “Azerbaijan is a state focused on western pragmatism, but with eastern roots,” such was the elegant definition given to me by the department chief of political analysis under the administration’s president, Ehlnur Aslanov. “In Copenhagen at a NATO conference I once argued that the Azerbaijanis are Europeans with an analyst. He did not agree with me. A year later we met again. This same analyst announces from the dais that Azerbaijan is part of Europe. I could not contain myself: ‘How can this have changed in just one year later? Is it geography?’ He thought for a bit and then answered honestly. ‘No, the geography is just as it was. The geopolitics have changed.”

    A City of Spies

    The well-known writer Chingiz Abdullayev says: “Baku is the last city of spies on the earth. “All of the secret services of the world are operating here at the same time – Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, England, and America.

    “The petroleum interests of all these states are in Azerbaijan. We are hemmed in between enormous Russia and powerful Iran and we do not want to make any sudden movements. We cannot behave rashly like Georgia has done. Our balancing act is between the East and the West – a forced, intelligent policy. We will never forget that the Russian language brought us into the world at large. We have retained more than 200 Russian language schools. We have a Slavic university and 14 Russian language institutes; in our stores 90% of the books are Russian literature. We are fated to a friendship with Russia. What is more we have excellent relations with the USA, which Iran does not like, half of the population of which, by the way, are Azerbaijanis In addition, Azerbaijan is the only secular Muslim country. You will tell me, but what about Turkey? In Turkey a religious party won in the elections, but here such parties do not even register a half percentage point. Besides, aircraft from Baku fly to Tel-Aviv every day.” “Does this mean that you are flirting with everyone?” “We are just like a discerning bride. Azerbaijan is the key not only to the Caspian area, but to the entire South Caucasus, as well as to the East and on to Iran.”

    The Armenians Are to Blame for Everything

    “Do you know who poisoned Andropov and Chernenko?”, a mustachioed taxi driver throws out to me while we are sitting in a Baku traffic jam. “Probably the Armenians,” I absentmindedly reply. (Within five days in Baku I have concluded that if there is an earthquake in China, it was probably caused by the Armenians.) “That’s right!”, the taxi driver excitedly throws out in defeat, “How did you know?” “Well, someone must have been responsible, why not the Armenians? Were the Soviet leaders really poisoned?”, I ask in turn. “Of course!,” the taxi driver is convinced. “The Armenians slipped them some poison to kill off the USSR and get their hands on Nagornyy Karabakh. Remember how the collapse of the Soviet Union began? With Karabakh. If it hadn’t been for Karabakh, the Dnestr river area, Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Kosovo would not have happened. When there are doubts as to who is responsible, just look to see what the Armenians have been up to at that time. Apparently, that is their tricks.” “And I thought we ought to keep an eye on the Jews!”, I say coming to life. “Nonsense! Wherever an Armenian has trod, a Jew has nothing to do.”

    For 15 years the wounded pride of the Azerbaijanis has found no balm from its border war with Armenia. Karabakh and the seven enclaves adjacent to Azerbaijan (totaling 20% of Azerbaijan territory) that were lost remain a non-healing wound, in which nearly everyone suffered. Some 15,000 people were killed and there were a half million refugees. But feelings of defeatism are quickly being replaced with a thirst for revenge. A new generation has come of age that has not known war, and it is eager to go into battle. “Just give us the weapons and we will regain our land!,” exclaims my colleague Gamid. “All of us will go as one.” “Gamid, you were not in that war and I was. Believe me, it’s not all that simple. Why do you think that all of you can regain what was lost 15 years ago?” “You don’t know anything. There was a great deal of betrayal then. The Russians were helping the Armenians with weapons. We were confused and surrounded by destruction. Everything is different now.”

    A Hook in the Rib of South Ossetia

    “Everything is different now.” This magical phrase is often repeated by young and old. “My son was born in 1989,” says parliament deputy Aydyn Mirzazade, “and he is a bigger patriot than I am.”

    The former Azerbaijan ambassador in Russia, Khikmet Gadzhizade says: “We are increasing our military budget to $3 billion US a year. (This is more than the annual budgets of Armenia and Georgia combined.) Karabakh is the focus of the entire nation. One day this abscess must break open.”

    “Our president is openly saying that we will fight.” “But, after all, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan just signed a declaration of peace in Moscow!”

    “Whoever Wishes to Fight Will Fight”

    “The Karabakh conflict is a hook beneath the rib of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is a plaited noose and we are dangling from the Kremlin wall,” says political scientist Zardusht Alizade. “Russia does not want to relinquish Karabakh to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Give it to Armenia and Azerbaijan will leave, give it to Azerbaijan and Armenia will steal away to the West. It is best if we all remain on the hook.”

    “And would Russia long remain interested were it not for the events that broke out in Georgia and the smell of a great gas deal?”

    “Let Me Gloat Just a Bit from the Bottom of My Soul”

    There are battles in which the victor fares no better than the defeated. The shadow of the August events hangs over the Southern Caucasus.

    Political scientist Oktay Sadykhzade believes: “Throughout those five days in August Azerbaijan was in a difficult and nerve-racking situation. Russia is our powerful neighbor and three million Azerbaijanis reside there. And Georgia is our energy partner. On whose side shall we stand?”

    Political expert and writer Zardusht Alizade says: “The lesson of Georgia was clearly understood by Armenia and Azerbaijan. In crushing the Georgian army, which had been so lovingly trained by American instructors and Turkish advisors, Russia demonstrated that it will act like America. But take note of the fact that Russia did not bomb the Azerbaijan gas pipeline that passes through Georgia to Turkey. It accurately placed its bombs near the pipeline, on both sides. It simply designated that it has such a capability. Today gas and oil are more important than territory.”

    “In Moscow many classified the August events as a victory for Russia,” says political scientist Rasim Musabekov. “They say we demonstrated to everyone who is most important. What came of this? Armenia – your ally – was isolated from Russia. Nothing was passing through Azerbaijan, and earlier through Armenia, since we have a front line rather than a border. The only dry-land link passed through Georgia, but now of course, the Georgian conflict has cut Armenia off from any Russian assistance.

    The Azerbaijanis speak with deep contentment about the hopeless situation in which Armenia now finds itself. An influential politician told me: “Listen, we did not create this situation. You Russians created it. And so, permit us to gloat just a bit from the bottom of our souls. Let an impoverished Armenia, which has nothing except its cognac and Karabakh, sit and drink its cognac out of grief. We shall wait.”

    Petroleum expert Ilkhan Shaban says quietly, “Sure, we will wait. The situation is just like on a chess board. We have taken many pieces, and we can easily declare mate, but for now we are not announcing checkmate.”

    The Gas Game

    When in the fall of last year Moscow unexpectedly renewed negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan on Karabakh, it seemed that this was only an opportunity for Russia to perform an aria of peace and kindness. However, in the opinion of experts, the entire Karabakh story is only a smokescreen for a more momentous game of intrigue – the gas game.

    The intrigue is that the USA is anxious to start up the ” Nabukko ” pipeline and pump Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan natural gas through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Europe. “The ‘Nabukko philosophy’ is gas from wherever you wish, just not from Russia,” explains Ilkhan Shaban.

    “In Soviet times we had to get permission from Moscow and the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) to build a toilet in the train station in Yevlakha, and now Washington is playing the Gosplan role,” laughs political scientist Zardusht Alizade. “Now, having sensed a danger, emissaries from Moscow are showing up in Baku and saying: “Do you want to sell gas to Europe? Sell it to us at wholesale prices. You are selling natural gas to the Georgians for $150 US and we will pay you $400 US.”

    Ilkhan Shaban says: “As soon as Gazprom set a price of $400 US for a thousand cubic meters of gas, everyone rushed here. The deputy petroleum minister from Iran came and set the same price. And then there were similar offers from Italy, Bulgaria, Israel, and Turkey. Everyone suddenly wanted Azerbaijan gas. And Azerbaijan had room for maneuvering.”

    “Moscow’s wishes are commendable,” says Zardusht Alizade, “but it has to be paid for. And is Karabakh the price for this? Of course! If we draw up a gas contract with Russia, our relations with Europe will worsen. This means that Russia must come up with something else. If Russia surrenders Karabakh, the American ” Nabukko ” project will become unthinkable. Hundreds of billions of dollars and an enormous zone of influence are at stake.”

    While Azerbaijan is offering delightfully evasive responses to everyone – the Russians, the Americans, and the Europeans, the eastern proverb comes to mind: “The longer the meat cures the more tender it becomes.

    “To be honest, we are not excited about this ” Nabukko ” project, and we are in no hurry,” says political scientist Rasim Musabekov. “We can take as long as we wish. Azerbaijan is not something to be handed over for ” Nabukko,” and it has time to get it.”

    Will Russia Deploy Troops in Karabakh?

    Why has tiny, impoverished Karabakh become so important not only for Azerbaijan and Armenia, but for the world powers? From Karabakh to Iran is but the wave of a hand. Azerbaijan does not wish for the USA to start a war with Iran from its territory, and that is why it is rejecting offers to join NATO.

    Karabakh is a different matter. The USA can dig in there on the border with Iran under the pretext of deploying peacekeepers.

    “Russia wants to take control of the Karabakh negotiations and leave the USA out of them,” says political scientist Oktay Sadykhzade. “This has to do with deploying Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh. But the Russians cannot share the region with the Americans. They want to take a stand in the south and they need a beachhead for Iran, and they are offering the north to the Russians. But in general Russia does not want to give the USA access there.”

    “Everyone that wants to deploy troops in Karabakh is only thinking about how to increase its influence,” the writer Chingiz Abdullayev bitterly acknowledges. ” Karabakh is for us like Kosovo is for the Serbs. And the big countries think that they can put their foot down here and not go away.”

    Journalist and political scientist Zardusht Alizade says: “Any conflict is a wonderful opportunity to settle in somewhere and to take advantage of the situation.” “Is this called the ability to control chaos?” I ask. “Right on the mark! The west has already taken our oil. Now it wants our gas. It wants Armenia to tear itself away from Russia. Now the Russians have a chance to solve their problems, but I fear you have neither the intellectual depth nor the political fortitude to make a choice. Either Russia returns Karabakh to Azerbaijan and gets the gas and strategic positions, or America will step by step come into the region. When they tell me that ‘Armenia will not permit this,’ I ask, what sort of resources does it have? How many divisions does it have?” “Do you seriously believe that Russia will surrender Armenia?” I ask.

    “The question is not about surrendering Armenia,” firmly says Alizade. “The question is not to surrender ourselves.”

    Commentary of Experts

    Aleksey Vlasov, General Director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Processes in the Post-Soviet Space:

    “Moscow Will Seek a Balance”

    “Azerbaijan has started playing a more independent role in politics. Great opportunities are opening up for it to find a balance between Russia and the West. I am not certain that the people of Azerbaijan are prepared to make Nagornyy Karabakh into small change for the USA or for Russia. Neither Washington nor Moscow can now guarantee that, shall we say, in 2010 the seven Azerbaijani regions now controlled by Karabakh will be returned to Baku. Without such assurances and time periods how can one influence the Azerbaijan leadership? In no way at all. For 14 years they have been promising to solve this issue. Senselessly!

    Moreover, it seems to me that Karabach’s role as a tool in a Big Game is still exaggerated…

    As regards Armenia, one cannot forget that there is a Russian military base there. And Moscow, as a regular geopolitical player, will still seek a balance between Yerevan and Baku, and distortions are dangerous. It is important to note the Armenian lobby in Moscow, which has evolved historically, since Soviet times, and is more influential and more cohesive that that of Azerbaijan.

    Finally, it is wrong to argue that Russia, to put it bluntly, will abandon Armenia for the sake of Azerbaijan natural gas. Just imagine what our Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) allies will think about us, such as Kazakhstan or Belarus, if they see how easily we can rid ourselves of our partners. This will be an enormous loss of image. It is not yet known if we gain more than we lose.

  • Plan of measures on 19th anniversary of 20th January tragedy ratified

    Plan of measures on 19th anniversary of 20th January tragedy ratified

    A plan of actions to hold the nineteenth anniversary of the tragedy of January 20 was adopted by a resolution of the head of the presidential administration of Azerbaijan Ramiz Mehtiyev, according to AzerTac.

    The document fixes conduction of measures on the anniversary of the tragedy, including conferences, sessions and lectures, their detailed coverage in press, publication of materials about the tragedy of January 20 in the leading world medias as well as on TV channels and internet in the cities and regions, establishments and organizations. (more…)

  • U.S. Government Support for Humanitarian Assistance Activities in Gaza

    U.S. Government Support for Humanitarian Assistance Activities in Gaza

    Fact Sheet
    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC
    January 5, 2009

    The United States Government continues to support the delivery of urgently needed food, health, shelter and other emergency assistance to the people of Gaza through our ongoing support for international organizations such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the World Food Program (WFP), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    On December 30, the United States announced a contribution to UNRWA for its 2009 appeals. Of the $85 million contribution, $5 million will directly support UNRWA’s Gaza Flash Appeal that will provide food, temporary shelter, and medical assistance for over 500,000 conflict-affected refugees in Gaza. The Flash Appeal funding will also supply up to 500,000 liters of fuel to municipalities and utilities for basic public services, including electricity and water treatment. $20 million will support UNRWA’s 2009 Emergency Appeal for the West Bank and Gaza, of which a large portion bolsters UNRWA’s ongoing emergency assistance activities for more than 1 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza. $60 million will support UNRWA’s General Fund for the provision of education, primary health care, and relief services to Palestinian refugees in the region, including Gaza.
    The United States Government continues to provide food assistance through the World Food Program (WFP) to 20,000 non-refugee Palestinian households in Gaza with a bi-monthly package of five basic foods. Since December 28, WFP and its implementing partner, Community Housing Foundation (CHF), have distributed some 720 metric tons (MT) of food commodities to beneficiaries in Gaza. An additional 1,350 MT is available in Gaza for distribution when the security situation allows.
    The United States Government also continues to support the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC ‘s) efforts to supply Gaza’s hospitals and clinics with urgently needed medicines, surgery kits, hygiene kits, intravenous fluids, bandages, plastic sheeting and other medical equipment. The ICRC is bringing two generators into Gaza to ensure continued operation of Gaza’s hospitals despite electricity cuts and maintenance problems resulting from a lack of spare parts.
    The United States Government has provided other medical and food supplies to health care facilities in Gaza, including syringes, tubes, gloves, x-ray film, tape, silk for sutures and bedding (mattresses, blankets and linens), and 18,000 kilograms of plastic sheeting to cover broken windows and help mitigate the cold.
    The United States is the largest bilateral donor to UNRWA, which provides essential services to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere.
    The United States is deeply concerned about the safety of civilians caught up in this conflict, and urges all sides to facilitate the provision of humanitarian relief.
    2009/009

    Released on January 5, 2009
  • Hezbollah will attack if Israeli troops enter the Gaza

    Hezbollah will attack if Israeli troops enter the Gaza

    Email

    Written by dailyclarity on Jan-1-09 11:11am

    From: mydailyclarity. com

    According to Turkish sources Hezbollah has said it will attack Israel from Southern Lebanon if ground troops are sent into the Gaza. Israel must be wary of this development given their experiences in the 2006 war against Hezbollah. If Hezbollah does get drawn into the fighting, this could well see Israel at the center of a broader regional conflict. There appears little doubt that Iran and Syria would support Hezbollah in any such offensive. Given the 10,000 plus Syrian troops poised on Lebanos’ Northern border, it seems unlikely that the fragile coalition Lebanese government could do much to inhibit Hezbollah’s offensive.

    Iran’s Press TV quotes the Lebanese paper al-Hayat as the the source of the report:

    “Turkey and Egypt are reportedly planning to warn Israel that any ground offensive in the Gaza Strip would trigger a response by Hezbollah.

    Citing Turkish sources, the Lebanese daily al-Hayat reported Tuesday that the two countries are seeking to warn Tel Aviv that Hezbollah might open a new front against Israel in Southern Lebanon, should Israeli army launch a ground incursion into the costal sliver.

    Tel Aviv has deployed thousands of troops along the Gaza Strip border on Tuesday, raising concerns over an imminent ground incursion into the region.

    The report came amid the ongoing aerial attacks which have so far left over 385 people killed and 1,800 others wounded in the Hamas-held territory. The military campaign against the region has been ongoing since early Saturday.

    According to the report, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit held a meeting with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan on Monday to discuss a four-point plan for a truce between Israel and Hamas.

    The report added that the plan would include the removal of the Gaza blockade as well as guarantees for respecting the agreement.

    The daily claims that Turkey and Egypt believe that they could convince Israel to end its operation and avoid a ground offensive if they worked together.”

    . com/Israel+ World+News/ articles/ 592/Hezbollah+ will+attack+ Israeli+troops+ enter

    Russians evacuated from Gaza Strip coming to Israel

    02.01.2009, 15.28

    tass.com/ eng/level2. …1652&PageNum=0

    ERETZ CHECKPOINT (Israel-Gaza border), January 2 (Itar-Tass) — The operation for the evacuation of Russian and CIS citizens from the Gaza Strip has come to a close. A total of 101 Russian citizens and 70 citizens of other CIS member countries crossed the border. Only several people remain at the Eretz checkpoint, who have some unsettled problems with the Israeli security services. Their settlement is going on. A truck column with the refugees will soon go to the Jordanian-Israeli border, and from there to Amman, where two planes of the Russian Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) are waiting for them.


    daily.com/ index.php? fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80946

    .
  • Erdogan Searches for Diplomatic Response to Israeli Invasion of Gaza

    Erdogan Searches for Diplomatic Response to Israeli Invasion of Gaza

    Erdogan Searches for Diplomatic Response to Israeli Invasion of Gaza

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 1
    January 5, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    Israel’s ongoing offensive against Gaza has generated waves of anger among the Turkish public and Turkish political elite. Paralleling mounting street demonstrations throughout Turkey are international attempts by the country’s leaders to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The attacks came amid Turkey’s growing involvement in the Middle East as a significant power seeking to exert influence through nonmilitary means, including economic and trade relations, cultural exchanges, and its new-found role as a regional peace broker. The governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has successfully involved Turkey in attempts to resolve the region’s protracted problems, most importantly Israel’s entangled relations with its Arab neighbors.

    When Israel launched air strikes on December 27, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the high number of civilian deaths and emphasized Turkey’s concern that the developments might undermine regional stability (www.mfa.gov.tr, December 27). Erdogan criticized the operation and labeled Israeli aggression as an act against Turkey’s peace initiatives, noting that through this action Israel had shut the door on diplomacy. He said that any diplomatic contact with Israel was meaningless at that point and called on the United Nations to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. He also cancelled his plan to call Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to discuss Israel-Syria negotiations, because Israeli aggression was also “an act of disrespect toward Turkey” (Radikal, December 27).

    Erdogan’s disillusionment with Israel can be better understood given Olmert’s visit to Ankara a few days earlier, during which they discussed the status of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Olmert asked Erdogan to revitalize the Israeli-Syria talks (www.cnnturk.com, December 23). Erdogan was preparing to play a more assertive role as a peace-broker in 2009, but Israel’s unrestricted use of force and apparent “insincerity” toward Turkey might have shattered his optimism about finding a comprehensive solution to Middle Eastern conflicts through dialogue.

    In response to Israel’s uncompromising position, the Erdogan government embarked on a diplomatic offensive to mobilize the international community. Since the outbreak of the crisis, Erdogan has spoken to world leaders such as the UN Secretary-General and European politicians (Anadolu Ajansi, January 4). He went on a “Middle East tour” to consult with regional leaders and explore a common position against Israel. On the first step of his shuttle-diplomacy, he met with the leaders of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, as well as Palestinian politicians. The second step of his tour took him to Saudi Arabia. Following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Erdogan announced Turkey’s proposal for a two-stage plan to calm tension in Gaza. The first stage would be a ceasefire supervised by international peacekeepers, including Turkish forces. The second stage would seek to find a common ground between rival Palestinian groups in order to achieve a sustainable peace in the region (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 2; Sabah, January 3).

    In the midst of these initiatives, Turkey appears to be seeking ways to bridge the divisions among Arab countries as well. While some Arab countries tend to feel that Hamas has the main responsibility for the collapse of talks with Fatah and are seeking to isolate it because of its alleged connections to Iran, Turkey is arguing against its isolation (Referans, December 30). At a time when Hamas is also coming under international criticism for sparking Israeli aggression, Erdogan defended the organization by saying that “agitation does not come from Hamas; rather, Israel has created fertile ground for this agitation.” Referring to a June 2008 deal brokered by Egypt, he maintained that “Hamas complied with the six-month long ceasefire. Yet, Israel did not lift the embargo. The people of Gaza are living in an open prison.” Erdogan went on to add that “Turkey could sponsor Hamas’s conditions for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council [UNSC], because Hamas’s trust in the Palestinian authority and Egypt has been shaken” but it still had full confidence in Turkey (Yeni Safak, January 3; www.cnnturk.com, January 4).

    Here, Erdogan had in mind Turkey’s new role as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, which it assumed this month. However, the United States’ threat to veto any resolution to halt Israeli attacks, as reflected in the January 3 consultation meeting of the SC, will not make it easy for the Erdogan government to use this avenue for supporting Palestinian interests. It is also important to note that Erdogan has repeatedly emphasized Turkey’s willingness to work in tandem with Egypt as a defender of the Palestinian cause.

    At the same time, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with his counterparts. He phoned the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, himself a Turk, and arranged an emergency meeting of the OIC Foreign Ministers (www.mfa.gov.tr, December 28). The final communiqué of the OIC meeting held on January 3 strongly condemned “the ongoing barbaric Israeli assault on the Palestinian people in Gaza” and proposed a number of measures to mobilize the international community to relieve the suffering of Palestinians and end Israel’s attacks (www.oic-oci.org, January, 3). Similarly, Turkey also urged the Arab League’s foreign ministers to work toward a ceasefire and facilitate reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

    The start of Israel’s ground offensive despite these efforts raises questions about the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. In response to a question, Erdogan had earlier said, “Inter-governmental relations cannot afford emotions. Yet, injustice cannot be permitted either. If there is oppression, we cannot support it. We seek to solve it through talks” (Zaman, January 2). Given Israel’s lack of interest in “talks,” on the one hand, and Turkey’s pro-Hamas position and exclusion of Israel from its diplomatic initiatives, on the other, it will be interesting to see how Erdogan will advocate Palestinian rights in international forums and whether Turkish-Israeli cooperation can survive the storm.

    https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-searches-for-diplomatic-response-to-israeli-invasion-of-gaza/

  • The Invasion of Gaza: “Operation Cast Lead”, Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda

    The Invasion of Gaza: “Operation Cast Lead”, Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda

     

     
    by Michel Chossudovsky

     

    URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11606

    The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001: 

    “Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

    It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4: 

    “Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip.  Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.

    The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions. 

    In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel.  During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis.  Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

    Planned Humanitarian Disaster

    On December 8, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan. 

    “Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

    Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities. 

    What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below) 

    The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:  

    “Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… [T]he daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

    “Operation Justified Vengeance”

    A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset the Ariel Sharon government in  2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that  F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities. 

    “Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”. 

    “A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002). 

    According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.  

    “Bloodshed Justification”

    The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:

    The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added) 

    The Dagan Plan 

    “Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency. 

    Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001): 

    “As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)

    The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of the Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:

     “negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)

    From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy

    The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.”  He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008. 

    Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan. 

    Continuity: From Sharon  to Olmert 

    Olmert and Sharon

    It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”: 

    1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yaser Arafat. This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”. According to an October 2000 document “prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.). 

    Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.” 

    “In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan,  www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005

    The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan. In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling. He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.
     

    2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza. A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.

    “It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)

    The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”. Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of  the overall covert operation, which consisted  in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.   

    3. The building of the infamous Apartheid Wall was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government.  

    4. The next phase was the Hamas election victory in January 2006. Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.

    With Hamas in charge of the Palestinian authority, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.

    Ground Attack

    On January 3, Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive: 

    “The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)

    Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address. 

    Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for: 

    “an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)

    The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.

    Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population. Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)