On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
Showing posts with label PKK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PKK. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Moral Compass: Are the PKK, HAMAS, and Irgun Terrorists?
Following the string of attacks on the Turkish military by the PKK, the Turkish government was quick to remind themselves and the world that the PKK is a terrorist organization. At the same time Erdogan and other like-minded leaders in the Middle-East label HAMAS and Hezbollah “political resistance groups”. America has labeled all three groups “terrorist”, while Israel labels HAMAS and Hezbollah, and now the IHH terrorists it does not the PKK.
So is there is one universal way to define terror, if only to generate a moral compass?
Political Definition:
It is obvious that all the name calling by these governments is simple political expedience. America is allied with both Turkey and Israel, and so it terms Hezbollah, HAMAS, and the PKK terrorist. While Turkey, who is allied with both HAMAS and Hezbollah, calls them legitimate political resistance groups; but the PKK… THEY are terrorists. Israel labeling the IHH terrorist, only recently, is equally difficult to explain except politically (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-adds-ihh-to-terror-watch-list-1.296629). Politics are inherently partisan and patently self-serving therefore it can simply not serve as a universal metric for defining terror.
One Man's Terrorist… Perspective:
This definition was made famous in part by Al Jazeera director general Wadah Khanafar (see Youtube clip minute 47 http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/07/al_jazeera_dire/) who argues that terror is a matter of one’s point of view –one man’s terrorist is another's freedom fighter; and thereby justifying Al Jazeera’s extensive coverage of Bin Laden and co.
The justification perspective, as Khanfar correctly observed, is inherently subjective and therefore cannot be universalized. Furthermore, one potential reason Khanfar and people like him, argue this perspective is to force us into labeling everyone terrorist or nobody a terrorist. This results in the obfuscation (note the precise definition) of any moral compass by placing the perpetrator and the defender in the same box, by way of various justifications. Its sole purpose is to cloud the moral compass.
Intentions vs. Results:
This perspective offers more depth and substance.
On one hand a terrorist could be anyone who deliberately acts in way that causes terror. Therefore any purposeful action that RESULTS in terror, even if it is not intended to terrorize, could be termed a terrorist act.
Or
The act itself must be done in a way that is INTENDED to cause terror.
The practical difference (hava amena, for my Talmud-oriented friends) between these two theoretical definitions can be understood from the following, familiar, “ hypothetical”: A country goes to war with its enemy and attacks a school (after warning civilians with phone calls and fliers to avoid people launching rockets) that is being used to fire rockets.
Based on the results definition that act can be termed terrorist, because it caused terror, even if it was clearly not intended to do so. Based on the intention definition, the act was not inherently meant to cause terror but rather to respond to terror. The fact that civilians become terrorized because the location happens to be a school is not in itself sufficient reason to term it an act of terror.
However even this distinction is problematic, because any individual could claim that they did not intend to terrorize but to attack the enemy. I.e. we can never really judge intent (for more perspective on intention vs. result please see posts http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-understanding-goldstone.html, and http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-intentions-vs-results.html).
The axiom that one cannot judge intent, is compounded by context -the nature of terror and the confusion it creates. Not only can the perpetrator lie about their true intent, but they may actually believe that their act is not intended to terrorize but to wage a legitimate war. Either way, intent alone cannot serve as the defining element.
Civilians vs. Militants Perspective:
This approach seeks to identify the target of an act using evidence of target-location and stated intent.
Going back to our hypothetical. Let us say that the one shooting from the school is asked where his rocket is supposed to land, and he responds around a given town filled with civilians. The soldier firing at the school is asked who are you firing at? The soldier answers at the man firing the rocket, militants.
Thus the target of the attack is an objective distinction. He is targeting civilians, he is targeting militants. The first is a terrorist the second is not.
Three points and their counterpoints:
1.Some will respond that this is the only weapon the “militants” have, using imprecise weapons aimed at civilians.
So that means that they are not intending to terrorize civilians?!
2.Their weapons are less accurate and do not cause many casualties
But they CAN kill, and therefore they DO terrorize.
3.Many of those people in that town are reserve soldiers, have children in the army, or give moral support to their family members in the army i.e. they are not civilians?
Where do you draw the line? Your logic justifies killing the tax payer who pays for the army and the baby who motivates their parent to be an effective soldier.
CONCLUSIONS:
Many do not want to accept this definition; because a moral compass gets in the way of political expediency. Recently, the PKK targeted military personal and the Irgun, even in the oft cited and condemned attack on the King David hotel (which then served as British Mandates Command Center- was preceded by an ignored call to the hotel warning them 25-27 minutes prior to the explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing), only targeted military personal/installations. Likewise labeling the IHH "terrorist" does not serve the purpose of moral clarity -on the contrary it further justifies hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is enabled by lack of moral clarity, and is a standard tool used against Israel. Why should Israel do the same?
Either way one thing is clear HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah and a myriad of other groups do not make a distinction. Instead they primarily target civilians because their aims are not to defeat the enemy but to terrorize anyone connected to their opponent. That makes them terrorists.
So is there is one universal way to define terror, if only to generate a moral compass?
Political Definition:
It is obvious that all the name calling by these governments is simple political expedience. America is allied with both Turkey and Israel, and so it terms Hezbollah, HAMAS, and the PKK terrorist. While Turkey, who is allied with both HAMAS and Hezbollah, calls them legitimate political resistance groups; but the PKK… THEY are terrorists. Israel labeling the IHH terrorist, only recently, is equally difficult to explain except politically (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-adds-ihh-to-terror-watch-list-1.296629). Politics are inherently partisan and patently self-serving therefore it can simply not serve as a universal metric for defining terror.
One Man's Terrorist… Perspective:
This definition was made famous in part by Al Jazeera director general Wadah Khanafar (see Youtube clip minute 47 http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/07/al_jazeera_dire/) who argues that terror is a matter of one’s point of view –one man’s terrorist is another's freedom fighter; and thereby justifying Al Jazeera’s extensive coverage of Bin Laden and co.
The justification perspective, as Khanfar correctly observed, is inherently subjective and therefore cannot be universalized. Furthermore, one potential reason Khanfar and people like him, argue this perspective is to force us into labeling everyone terrorist or nobody a terrorist. This results in the obfuscation (note the precise definition) of any moral compass by placing the perpetrator and the defender in the same box, by way of various justifications. Its sole purpose is to cloud the moral compass.
Intentions vs. Results:
This perspective offers more depth and substance.
On one hand a terrorist could be anyone who deliberately acts in way that causes terror. Therefore any purposeful action that RESULTS in terror, even if it is not intended to terrorize, could be termed a terrorist act.
Or
The act itself must be done in a way that is INTENDED to cause terror.
The practical difference (hava amena, for my Talmud-oriented friends) between these two theoretical definitions can be understood from the following, familiar, “ hypothetical”: A country goes to war with its enemy and attacks a school (after warning civilians with phone calls and fliers to avoid people launching rockets) that is being used to fire rockets.
Based on the results definition that act can be termed terrorist, because it caused terror, even if it was clearly not intended to do so. Based on the intention definition, the act was not inherently meant to cause terror but rather to respond to terror. The fact that civilians become terrorized because the location happens to be a school is not in itself sufficient reason to term it an act of terror.
However even this distinction is problematic, because any individual could claim that they did not intend to terrorize but to attack the enemy. I.e. we can never really judge intent (for more perspective on intention vs. result please see posts http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-understanding-goldstone.html, and http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-intentions-vs-results.html).
The axiom that one cannot judge intent, is compounded by context -the nature of terror and the confusion it creates. Not only can the perpetrator lie about their true intent, but they may actually believe that their act is not intended to terrorize but to wage a legitimate war. Either way, intent alone cannot serve as the defining element.
Civilians vs. Militants Perspective:
This approach seeks to identify the target of an act using evidence of target-location and stated intent.
Going back to our hypothetical. Let us say that the one shooting from the school is asked where his rocket is supposed to land, and he responds around a given town filled with civilians. The soldier firing at the school is asked who are you firing at? The soldier answers at the man firing the rocket, militants.
Thus the target of the attack is an objective distinction. He is targeting civilians, he is targeting militants. The first is a terrorist the second is not.
Three points and their counterpoints:
1.Some will respond that this is the only weapon the “militants” have, using imprecise weapons aimed at civilians.
So that means that they are not intending to terrorize civilians?!
2.Their weapons are less accurate and do not cause many casualties
But they CAN kill, and therefore they DO terrorize.
3.Many of those people in that town are reserve soldiers, have children in the army, or give moral support to their family members in the army i.e. they are not civilians?
Where do you draw the line? Your logic justifies killing the tax payer who pays for the army and the baby who motivates their parent to be an effective soldier.
CONCLUSIONS:
Many do not want to accept this definition; because a moral compass gets in the way of political expediency. Recently, the PKK targeted military personal and the Irgun, even in the oft cited and condemned attack on the King David hotel (which then served as British Mandates Command Center- was preceded by an ignored call to the hotel warning them 25-27 minutes prior to the explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing), only targeted military personal/installations. Likewise labeling the IHH "terrorist" does not serve the purpose of moral clarity -on the contrary it further justifies hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is enabled by lack of moral clarity, and is a standard tool used against Israel. Why should Israel do the same?
Either way one thing is clear HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah and a myriad of other groups do not make a distinction. Instead they primarily target civilians because their aims are not to defeat the enemy but to terrorize anyone connected to their opponent. That makes them terrorists.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Is the Flotilla Fiasco Connected to the PKK Attacks on Turkey?
Turkey and the “outlawed” Turkish Workers Party (PKK) have been in a period of unofficial detente –no major attacks for some time. Until PKK militants, attacked a Turkish navy vessel in Iskenderun on the very same day as the flotilla fiasco. This particular Turkish naval vessel also happened to be closest, proximity-wise, to the very same flotilla.
Since then there have been a number of serious attacks targeting Turkish soldiers. The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAC, allegedly a front group for the PKK), took responsibility for the latest, a remote controlled bomb that resulted in the deaths of four Turkish soldiers and one civilian.
Was it a coincidence?
In Turkey, it seems, most have already concluded that the May 31st attack was not a coincidence (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=did-israel-orchestrate-terror-attack-in-iskenderun-2010-06-03). On June 1st, one day after the flotilla fiasco and the first PKK salvo against Turkey, one of the PKK’s leaders, Abdul Ocalan, said in a statement from prison that his calls for dialogue with Turkey had been ignored and that he was giving his consent to the PKK in northern Iraq to determine which course of action to take (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/06/201062034424526682.html). Even this is interpreted as part of an Israel/USA move against Turkey.
I agree but not for the same reasons.
The predominant Turkish perspective (I have spoken to some Turkish acquaintances, besides the usual press) is that Israel’s Mossad and even the United States' CIA, are behind these attacks, were effectively using the PKK as a weapon to punish Turkey for its support of anti-Western forces in the Middle-East. Some point to decades old allegations, that Israel supported the PKK, as "evidence". Then again America once supported the Taliban. Where is the hard evidence?
Maybe it was Iran which feels that its anti-Israel rhetoric, that helped portray themselves as the “savior” of the Middle-East, has been overshadowed by Erdogan’s antics? Indeed, Iran has its own Kurdish problem, so it makes sense for them to direct Kurdish anger at their Muslim competitor in the region. Maybe, but where is the evidence?
On the other hand, there is evidence for the contrary: In the past, Israel provided Turkey with vital political assistance, by lobbying the Americans on Armenian issues and arms sales that were hampered by Greece(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/8/jewish-community-ends-support-turkey-capitol-hill/print/). Israel also provided essential intelligence and helped modernize Turkeys military- a modernization that ironically continues today. Some sources even claim that it was Israel that helped Turkey capture imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/20/Worldandnation/Turkey_and_Israel_thr.shtml).
Then, in 2002 following the AKP’s assent to power, Israel’s relationship with Turkey plummeted, to the extent that some blame Israel’s lack of preparation for violence by the flotilla activists on the false Israeli presumption that they still had intelligence partners in Ankara (http://www.debka.com/article/8824/). Israel's “partners” either didn’t pass on the information, or were kept out of the loop by a military-wary Erdogan (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html).
The collapse of Israel/Turkey relationship has no doubt severely hampered intelligence sharing. This is a given considering Turkeys burgeoning relationships with Israel’s enemies in the region -Iran, Syria, HAMAS, and Hezbollah.
Without Israeli intelligence, Turkey’s intelligence apparatus is simply incapable of battling the PKK, as is evident from the fact that Turkey seems to be responding to threats, not preventing them. But it doesn’t stop there. Turkey's no vote on Iran sanctions in the UNSC, angered and embarrassed Washington which was looking to at least match the “inept Bush administrations record” which actually passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, two of them unanimously (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html). This could not have strengthened Americas willingness to use its comprehensive intelligence resources in Iraq to tip off Turkey about the impending cross border PKK attack that killed 12 Turkish soldiers.
Indeed if there is a time that Turkey is vulnerable it is now. Turkey wasn't bulletproof when it had Israel/American support, but without that support the suppressed vulnerability became a glaring opportunity. The PKK leader did not overlook this, and the results are stark.
So was the flotilla fiasco connected to the rash of attacks on Turkeys military? Absolutely. Not because of Israeli or American engagement with the PKK, but because of their disengagement with Turkey.
Since then there have been a number of serious attacks targeting Turkish soldiers. The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAC, allegedly a front group for the PKK), took responsibility for the latest, a remote controlled bomb that resulted in the deaths of four Turkish soldiers and one civilian.
Was it a coincidence?
In Turkey, it seems, most have already concluded that the May 31st attack was not a coincidence (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=did-israel-orchestrate-terror-attack-in-iskenderun-2010-06-03). On June 1st, one day after the flotilla fiasco and the first PKK salvo against Turkey, one of the PKK’s leaders, Abdul Ocalan, said in a statement from prison that his calls for dialogue with Turkey had been ignored and that he was giving his consent to the PKK in northern Iraq to determine which course of action to take (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/06/201062034424526682.html). Even this is interpreted as part of an Israel/USA move against Turkey.
I agree but not for the same reasons.
The predominant Turkish perspective (I have spoken to some Turkish acquaintances, besides the usual press) is that Israel’s Mossad and even the United States' CIA, are behind these attacks, were effectively using the PKK as a weapon to punish Turkey for its support of anti-Western forces in the Middle-East. Some point to decades old allegations, that Israel supported the PKK, as "evidence". Then again America once supported the Taliban. Where is the hard evidence?
Maybe it was Iran which feels that its anti-Israel rhetoric, that helped portray themselves as the “savior” of the Middle-East, has been overshadowed by Erdogan’s antics? Indeed, Iran has its own Kurdish problem, so it makes sense for them to direct Kurdish anger at their Muslim competitor in the region. Maybe, but where is the evidence?
On the other hand, there is evidence for the contrary: In the past, Israel provided Turkey with vital political assistance, by lobbying the Americans on Armenian issues and arms sales that were hampered by Greece(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/8/jewish-community-ends-support-turkey-capitol-hill/print/). Israel also provided essential intelligence and helped modernize Turkeys military- a modernization that ironically continues today. Some sources even claim that it was Israel that helped Turkey capture imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/20/Worldandnation/Turkey_and_Israel_thr.shtml).
Then, in 2002 following the AKP’s assent to power, Israel’s relationship with Turkey plummeted, to the extent that some blame Israel’s lack of preparation for violence by the flotilla activists on the false Israeli presumption that they still had intelligence partners in Ankara (http://www.debka.com/article/8824/). Israel's “partners” either didn’t pass on the information, or were kept out of the loop by a military-wary Erdogan (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html).
The collapse of Israel/Turkey relationship has no doubt severely hampered intelligence sharing. This is a given considering Turkeys burgeoning relationships with Israel’s enemies in the region -Iran, Syria, HAMAS, and Hezbollah.
Without Israeli intelligence, Turkey’s intelligence apparatus is simply incapable of battling the PKK, as is evident from the fact that Turkey seems to be responding to threats, not preventing them. But it doesn’t stop there. Turkey's no vote on Iran sanctions in the UNSC, angered and embarrassed Washington which was looking to at least match the “inept Bush administrations record” which actually passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, two of them unanimously (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html). This could not have strengthened Americas willingness to use its comprehensive intelligence resources in Iraq to tip off Turkey about the impending cross border PKK attack that killed 12 Turkish soldiers.
Indeed if there is a time that Turkey is vulnerable it is now. Turkey wasn't bulletproof when it had Israel/American support, but without that support the suppressed vulnerability became a glaring opportunity. The PKK leader did not overlook this, and the results are stark.
So was the flotilla fiasco connected to the rash of attacks on Turkeys military? Absolutely. Not because of Israeli or American engagement with the PKK, but because of their disengagement with Turkey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
