A report alleges that Israel’s national intelligence agency, Mossad has been behind the Ergenekon plot to topple the Turkish government.
A secret investigation of detained Ergenekon group members and other studies outside Turkey indicate that Mossad orchestrated coups against the Turkish government, the Turkish daily Milliyet reported Sunday.
The Ergenekon group is a Turkish neo-nationalist organization with alleged links to the military, members of which have been arrested on charges of plotting to foment unrest in the country.
Investigators uncovered evidence that show a Jewish rabbi named Tuncay Guney, who worked for Mossad and fled to Canada in 2004, was a key figure behind attempts to overthrow the Turkish government, the paper said, Fars news reported.
A document uncovered this week by the Sabah daily shows how Guney deliberately infiltrated Ergenekon and another organization known as JITEM, an illegal intelligence unit linked with the police and suspected of hundreds of murders and kidnappings.
Meanwhile, a separate report by Turkish daily Yeni Safak has claimed that Turkish security forces have discovered documents in Guney’s Istanbul house that disclose information concerning suspicious investment and economic activities by certain Jewish businessmen in Turkey.
The businessmen allegedly have significant relations with individuals, political groups and cultural organizations affiliated with the Ergenekon group.
Turkish security forces have detained many members of the Ergenekon group, including retired army generals, politicians, popular lawyers and famous journalists. The individuals currently face trail on charges of plotting to overthrow Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
AO/CW/MMN
Source: www.turkishpress.com, 30/11/2008
Google News search lists the story as follows:
———————————–
PRESS TV
Report: Mossad behind Ergenekon plot PRESS TV, Iran – 9 hours ago A secret investigation into detained Ergenekon group members and other studies outside Turkey indicate that Mossad orchestrated coups against the Turkish …
BARACK Obama’s vice presidential pick of Senator Joseph Biden is widely seen as shoring up the Democratic Party ticket’s foreign policy credentials in the battle against Republican John McCain.
Here are Senator Biden’s main positions on the world’s hot spots:
IRAQ
Unlike Barack Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning – but was not in the Senate at the time of the vote – Senator Biden voted in favour of an October 2002 resolution authorising President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.
Senator Biden however became a fierce critic of Mr Bush’s Iraq policy, saying that while the United States should eliminate Saddam Hussein, a unilateral invasion was “the worst option”.
In 2006 he wrote that a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq was desirable by 2008, a position close to that of Senator Obama, who supports a withdrawal over 16 months starting the day he takes office.
In a 2007 interview with The Politico, Senator Biden said he regretted voting for the war.
He fiercely opposed the so-called “surge” of US troops to Iraq that Mr Bush ordered in early 2007.
Senator Biden has proposed a plan to end the conflict by dividing Iraq into three largely autonomous ethnic regions – a southern Shiite region, a western Sunni region, and a northern Kurdish region – held together by a central government in Baghdad with limited powers.
AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN
Like Senator Obama, Senator Biden believes that the “real central front in the war on terrorism” is not Iraq, “but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan”.
“If we should have had a surge anywhere, it is Afghanistan,” Senator Biden said in a recent opinion article in the New York Times, because “Afghanistan’s fate is directly tied to Pakistan’s future and America’s security”.
“The recent Pakistani elections gave the moderate majority its voice back,” Senator Biden wrote. “To demonstrate to its people that we care about their needs, not just our own, we must triple assistance for schools, roads and clinics, sustain it for a decade, and demand accountability for the military aid we provide.”
Senator Biden also called for Mr Bush to fulfill a pledge for a plan for Afghanistan along the lines of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II.
IRAN
Also like Senator Obama, Senator Biden supports direct talks with Iran.
“I believe the United States should agree to directly engage Iran, first in the context of the ‘P-5 plus 1’, and ultimately country-to-country, just as we did with North Korea,” Senator Biden said in an early July press statement.
The ‘P-5 plus 1’ refers to the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany.
“The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb,” he said.
MIDDLE EAST
Senator Biden is a strong supporter of Israel.
“I am a Zionist,” he said in a March 2007 interview with the US-based Jewish cable television network Shalom TV. “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
He described Israel as “the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East”.
He travelled with Senator Obama to Israel in late July, when Senator Obama promised strong support for Israel against the threat from Iran, and said he would strongly support the Mid-East peace process soon after he takes office.
GEORGIA and RUSSIA
Senator Biden travelled to crisis-plagued Georgia last weekend on a fact-finding mission.
“I am going to Georgia this weekend to get the facts first-hand and to show my support for Georgia’s people and its democratically-elected government,” Senator Biden said before his trip.
In mid-August, following the Russian military incursion into Georgia, Senator Biden said: “I have long sought to help Russia realise its extraordinary potential as a force for progress in the international community, and have supported legislative efforts intended to forge a more constructive relationship with the Kremlin.”
However, Russia’s actions “will have consequences” on its ties to Washington, he said.
“Russia’s failure to keep its word and withdraw troops from Georgia risks the country’s standing as part of the international community.”
Decades before Herzl, Benjamin Disraeli wrote a novel that grappled with Zionism
by Adam Kirsch
By the beginning of 1830, when he was twenty-five, Benjamin Disraeli was tired of England. For three years, he had been suffering from acute depression, brought on by the triple fiasco that marked his entrance into public life. Before he turned twenty-two, Disraeli had lost thousands of pounds in stock-market speculations; alienated the publisher John Murray after their plan to launch a newspaper ended in failure; and caused a scandal with his first novel, Vivian Gray, a satirical roman à clef about high society. For the young Disraeli, already supremely ambitious, these reverses had come as a terrible shock, and it took him years to recover his nerve.
Now, with his second novel completed and the advance in his pocket, Disraeli was set on traveling. But he did not want to follow the usual itinerary of the Grand Tour, which took rich young Englishmen to the churches of Rome and the salons of Paris. Instead, he set his sights on the East—Greece, Turkey, Egypt, and Palestine. In part, he was following the example of his beloved Byron, who had created a vogue for the East in his highly colored poems. But for Disraeli, a journey to Jerusalem had more than literary significance. Although he had been baptized at the age of twelve into the Church of England, Disraeli’s very name made clear that he was a Jew, and the experience of visiting the Jewish homeland was to transform the way he thought about himself, his ancestors, and politics in general. Almost fifty years later, when he was Prime Minister of England, it would be his destiny to redraw the maps of the countries he visited as a young man.
The first fruit of Disraeli’s pilgrimage, however, was a novel—The Wondrous Tale of Alroy, published in 1833. Disraeli wrote that he had been “attracted” to the “marvellous career” of David Alroy even as a child. But Disraeli’s Alroy bears little resemblance to the minor figure mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela, the Spanish Jew whose Travels are a classic of medieval Hebrew literature. According to Benjamin, Alroy, a Kurdish Jew, raised a revolt against the Seljuk Turks in Azerbaijan around 1160 AD. He was credited with magic powers by his followers, who proclaimed him the Messiah, but this pretension won him the hostility of Jewish leaders in Baghdad, who begged him not to antagonize the Turks. Finally he was betrayed by his father-in-law and killed, probably without winning a single battle.
Disraeli’s Alroy is a much grander figure, a kind of Jewish Alexander the Great. In his novel, Alroy wins victory after victory, conquers Baghdad, and comes close to establishing a new empire in the Middle East. Disraeli also provides his hero with a loyal sister, Miriam, and a lover, the Princess Schirene. There is also a good deal of what Disraeli called “supernatural machinery” in the novel, including a magic ring, a secret underground temple, and the Scepter of Solomon, which Alroy must claim if he is to conquer Jerusalem.
Disraeli writes that all this is based on Jewish tradition—“Cabalistical and correct,” he puts it—but it is clear that the real sources of the novel’s mysticism lie in The Thousand and One Nights, the Eastern tales of Byron, and the quest poems of Shelley. In general, Alroy is better understood as high Orientalist fantasy than historical fiction. Even Disraeli’s prose, the emphatic rhythms and repetitions of which suggest that some sections started out as verse, is kitschily intoxicated: “‘Ah! bright gazelle! Ah! bright gazelle!’ the princess cried, the princess cried; ‘thy lips are softer than the swan, thy lips are softer than the swan; but his breathed passion when they pressed, my bright gazelle! my bright gazelle!’”
But if Alroy seems impossibly overripe today, its psychological core remains entirely serious. Disraeli said that he began to write the novel in Jerusalem in 1831, at a moment when he was pondering the role Jewishness might play in his own life and career. And in his hands, the story of David Alroy becomes a veiled meditation on the state of the Jews in Europe, and a parable of his own possible future.
From the beginning of the novel, Alroy, a scion of the house of David, rages against the degradation of the Jews under Muslim rule. But as Disraeli makes clear, the condition of the Jews is hardly unbearable. On the contrary, Alroy’s uncle, Bostenay, is a rich man, and enjoys the honorary title of Prince of the Captivity. “The age of power has passed; it is by prudence now that we must flourish,” he declares. He is, perhaps, Disraeli’s critical portrait of the wealthy English Jews of his own day—men like the Rothschilds and Montefiores, who had all the advantages of wealth, but none of the dignity of power.
Alroy, like Disraeli himself, cannot be satisfied with making money. He is an ardent patriot, disgusted by the state into which his people have fallen: “I am ashamed, uncle, ashamed, ashamed,” he tells Bostenay. When he sees a Turkish official accost his sister, Alroy impetuously kills him and flees into the desert. He is about to die of thirst when he is rescued by Jabaster, a magician and fanatical Jewish patriot. When Alroy has a dream of being acclaimed by a vast army as “the great Messiah of our ancient hopes,” Jabaster decides that the young man represents his long-awaited chance to reestablish the kingdom of David. After a series of romantic adventures, Alroy begins to put Jabaster’s plan into action, scattering the Turks and conquering Baghdad.
But in the meantime, Alroy acquires another advisor—Jabaster’s brother and mirror image, Honain. Honain represents the tempting path of Jewish assimilation: He has achieved wealth and honor, but only at the price of “passing” as a Muslim. In his own view, however, he has not betrayed his people, but simply effected his own liberation. “I too would be free and honoured,” he tells Alroy. “Freedom and honour are mine, but I was my own messiah.” Honain introduces Alroy to the beautiful Princess Schirene, the daughter of the Caliph, and though she is a Muslim he falls in love with her. (“The daughters of my tribe, they please me not, though they are passing fair,” Alroy admits—a sentiment Disraeli himself shared.)
But now, at the height of his fortune, with an empire in his grasp and a princess for his wife, Alroy begins to succumb to Honain’s worldly counsel. Why, he asks, should he exchange rich Baghdad for poor Jerusalem? Why not rule over a cosmopolitan empire, rather than a single small nation? “The world is mine: and shall I yield the prize, the universal and heroic prize, to realise the dull tradition of some dreaming priest, and consecrate a legend?” Alroy asks. “Is the Lord of Hosts so slight a God that we must place a barrier to His sovereignty, and fix the boundaries of Omnipotence between the Jordan and the Lebanon?” Mischievously, Disraeli even makes Alroy begin to speak in the stock phrases of modern English liberalism: “Universal empire must not be founded on sectarian prejudices and exclusive rights.”
Jabaster tries to recall his king to the righteous, Jewish path, but to no avail. At last he attempts a coup against Alroy, but he is defeated and sentenced to death. From that moment, however, God’s favor deserts Alroy. In his next battle he is defeated, and a Muslim king, Alp Arslan, takes him prisoner. Now Honain reappears with one last, Satanic temptation: If Alroy converts to Islam, his life will be spared. But the scion of the house of David has learned his lesson. His strength is not his own but his nation’s, and individual glory means nothing next to the redemption of the Jews. He taunts Alp Arslan with his refusal, and the king, in a rage, cuts off his head.
For Disraeli, writing at the very beginning of his own career as an English politician, the moral of Alroy was deeply ambiguous. After all, David Alroy is a gifted youth like himself, but one who sacrifices worldly ambitions for love of the Jewish people, and is exalted by that love. The novel does not endorse the Jewish sectarianism of Jabaster—Disraeli expresses a Voltairean hatred of priestcraft—but it clearly repudiates the plausible assimilationism of Honain, which leads only to dishonor and disaster. Indeed, it is Disraeli’s distinction between Jewish belief and Jewish solidarity, and his insistence that it is possible to have the latter without the former, that makes Alroy a significant proto-Zionist text. If Disraeli had obeyed the novel’s logic in his own life, if he had tried to translate Alroy’s vision to the nineteenth century, he might have become a real-life Daniel Deronda.
Source: www.nextbook.org, 08.26.08
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”