Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recent confirmation that he will be visiting Israel in January may have serious implications for Israel, the region, and international relations.
First and foremost, it signifies a choice has been made by Russia regarding who it wishes to ally itself with in the middle-east. The origins of this choice hails back to 2005 when, then, Russian president Vladimir Putin became the first Russian head of state to visit Israel. But Putin was also dealing heavily with Israel’s and the Wests opponents. Indeed, since that 2005 visit Russia has built a permanent navy base in Syria and has been the main supplier, after North Korea, of nuclear know-how to Iran.
Through 2007, the Putin led Russia seemed to be leaning towards choosing Iran/Syria. This choice was made easier by Bush’s aggressive push for missile defense in Russia’s historic sphere of Influence -Poland and Ukraine. Russia was also pushed towards Iran/Syria by the revelations that followed the 2007 Georgian-Russian war. Russia discovered that tiny Georgia was fielding superior Israeli weapons (small arms and UAV‘s), and that Israel had trained Georgian commandos. However the Obama’s reset initiative, which included revising missile defense in conjunction with the election of a more modern thinking Medvedev, spurred Russia to reevaluate its Middle Eastern strategy.
The fruits of the last two years have evidently ripened as evidenced by the Russian president’s announcement to visit Israel. According to Debka.com the agenda will include:
1. Acquiring a billion dollars in Israeli UAV technology in exchange for a long term commitment to not sell advanced technology, like the S-300 air-defense system to Iran and Syria.
2. To not instinctively support unconditional Palestinian demands, .
3. To involve itself, along with Greece, in the process of developing and distributing, the three major oil/gas fields recently discovered off the cost of Israel, which some estimate to have over 30 trillion cubic feet of retrievable oil/gas.
From Israel’s perspective this is great news and a long awaited development because:
1. It seriously undermines Israel’s enemies in the region which history has shown is a prerequisite for peace. For example, it was only after Soviet backed Eygpt and Syria were defeated in the Yom Kippur war that Egyptian president Sadat was amenable to replacing Soviet arms with American dollars and peace with Israel. There is reason to believe that an Iran without the backing of Russia (and hopefully soon China) is an Iran that will open its eyes to peace through peace.
2. Russia’s acceptance of Israel reflects a Russia that is willing to deal rationally with reality; Israel is currently the most stable power in the Middle East- not Iran, Turkey, or the Arabs. (I know some of my Turkish friend may disagree, but Israel has a track-record that does not include a coup every 20 years and does include unwavering support for its friends, despite changes in political power, Turkey does not). This is always good for an Israel that is so often the target of irrational behavior.
3. The very fact that Russia, a long term opponent of Israel is reaching out to Israel is a sign of the times. Namely, rational and forward thinking countries want to be Israel’s friend, not because of some Zionist conspiracy but because Israel has so much to offer. China, a relatively pragmatic nation, has long attempted to establish a special relationship with Israel. But Israel, in its commitment to its closest ally America has “politely” rebuffed these efforts. For example in 2002 Israel violated a 2 billion dollar contract to upgrade Chinese military platforms over objections by America. Russia, like China, wants access to Israel.
Yet Russia’s realignment implies more than just an attempt to access Israel’s intellectual treasures.
Some have interpreted it as a strategic attempt at capitalizing on America’s failures in the region.
Indeed, if wikileaks has exposed anything it is that Obama is misguided, however well-intentioned, in his efforts to force an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Pressure on Israel inevitably strengthens Israel’s enemies by keeping Israel on the defensive, unable to leverage its formidable offensive apparatus. But these enemies, led by Iran, are perceived by everyone in the region excluding Turkey and Syria, as the most immediate threat to regional stability. Thus Russia, sees an Obama led administration as shooting itself in the foot, and wants to access the growing feeling in the Israeli and Arab political establishment that America is not as trustworthy an ally as it should be. Conversely, Russia is seen as capable of seriously undermining Iran by putting pressure on China, and halting its nuclear support to Iran.
The far-left and, some in, the far-right in the West may refuse to acknowledge this but Israel’s hegemonic military power is the stabilizing force in the middle-east and Israel’s allies benefit immensely from its position, not the cause of conflict. Russia has come to terms with this just as an Obama led America is moving away from this truth.
I don’t necessarily accept that Russia is attempting to replace America; it is also possible that Russia is coming to terms with its international responsibility, namely, to play a positive role in world affairs. From this perspective, Russia is a rational state that seeks to contribute positively in a way that maximizes its own benefit, and is developing stronger ties with other nations that wish the same –like Israel. This has the tacit effect of moving Russia away from failed ideologies that emanate from the rape-filled prisons of Iran and other such negative state-actors that seem to gravitate towards anti-Israel rhetoric/alliances.
Likewise, Russia may align itself with Israel and by proxy America in order to reinvigorate a Democratic world-order that is increasingly coming under the shadow of an emerging undemocratic China. In short, Russia -which has historically vacillated between the West and East-, is making a choice to align itself with the West as it is embodied by Israel.
Who knows, maybe the next batch of wikileaks will shed light on Medvedev’s Russia.
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East
Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Why Did Netanyahu Agree To Return The Confiscated Flotilla Ships?!
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
No Mention of Turkey in the Obama/Netanyahu Press-Conference
This afternoon Barack H. Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu held a post meeting press-conference. They discussed Iran, the peace process, Gaza, Israeli nuclear arms, and even answered a question on the settlement freeze by an intrepid Israeli journalist. But no mention of Turkey’s demand for a UN “impartial inquiry” into the Flotilla provocation with a bad ending or a request that Israel apologize to Turkey. In fact while the Arab states, Hamas, Iran, and even Netanyahu’s Israel speech congratulating America on July fourth, were mentioned Turkey was not (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/07/06/HP/R/35121/President+Obama+USIsrael+bond+unbreakable.aspx).
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Iran is the True Winner of the Turkish-Israel Break.
Can it be that Erdogan, the savviest of savvy politicians, and Israel, the country of Nobel-prizes are being manipulated by Iran?
Certainly, there is a clear trend.
1. Turkey has distanced itself from Israel since Davos, defending Hamas, an Iranian proxy. Strengthening Iran's proxy while weakening Turkey and Israel by beginning to separate them.
2. Turkey attempted to "broker" a nuclear deal, that had no chance of being successful, distancing Turkey from America, while allowing the Iranians to again delay. Weakening Turkeys, prestige and political connections with America, Israel, and many in the West. Also further separating Israel from Turkey.
3. Turkey helps launch an anti-Israel flotilla. The results Israel and Turkey are weaker without each other, for all the reasons both sides refuse to acknowledge (militarily, economics, political, etc). Remember the Arab street may like Turkey now but, the Arab government are clear about who they do not want to have nuclear weapons.
Not to say that Iran created the seeds of this conflcit, but rather that it is watering the seeds of enmity with great alacrity.
So I ask again is Iran's influence lurking in the background? Is Iran the answer to all the conflict between the Turkish and Israeli narratives? Coincidence or planned, Iran is the true winner of the Turkish-Israeli break?
Certainly, there is a clear trend.
1. Turkey has distanced itself from Israel since Davos, defending Hamas, an Iranian proxy. Strengthening Iran's proxy while weakening Turkey and Israel by beginning to separate them.
2. Turkey attempted to "broker" a nuclear deal, that had no chance of being successful, distancing Turkey from America, while allowing the Iranians to again delay. Weakening Turkeys, prestige and political connections with America, Israel, and many in the West. Also further separating Israel from Turkey.
3. Turkey helps launch an anti-Israel flotilla. The results Israel and Turkey are weaker without each other, for all the reasons both sides refuse to acknowledge (militarily, economics, political, etc). Remember the Arab street may like Turkey now but, the Arab government are clear about who they do not want to have nuclear weapons.
Not to say that Iran created the seeds of this conflcit, but rather that it is watering the seeds of enmity with great alacrity.
So I ask again is Iran's influence lurking in the background? Is Iran the answer to all the conflict between the Turkish and Israeli narratives? Coincidence or planned, Iran is the true winner of the Turkish-Israeli break?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Angry, Frustrated, Vengeful? Either way the Conversation Must Go On!
I know for some of my friends/acquaintances, it is surprising how much time I am spending on the most recent Israel-Turkish spat. Please understand, it’s about understanding.
I know the wave of emotions that my Turkish friends are experiencing. Anger, frustration, shock, sadness. They are completely justified, expected -human.
I know the feeling, because I have experienced it on so many occasions. On 9/11, after the countless suicide bombings in Israel. After my friend was jumped, one Friday evening, and beaten mercilessly by five bat wielding thugs, screaming anti-Semitic epithets. Yes, the anger was palpable. I wanted vengeance, I wanted to hate, I felt vindicated in the explosion of carnal-rage –fury!
Yes, hate, targeting a specific group/groups. Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims... But then you walk into your classroom, into work, or your friend calls you. This person being Muslim…
Your friend comes from THAT group. Is he/she and exception “they are different”? Or do “they” represent a true reflection of a significant and righteous segment of a given group?
Under certain circumstances hate is normal and even justified, but it should not permanently cloud the individuals thoughts. Of course the hate is there. I see it in my own community, and others tell me about it in their communities. I know this because I make it my business to communicate with others, not to convince them or even influence them, but because I like to understand other perspectives.
Let us not criticize others for feeling the way they do, even if we think that ONLY our strong feelings are justified. Let us not be surprised that Turkey, following this recent incident, is almost unanimous in their expression. After all, was our media or congress explaining 9/11 right after it occurred, of course not! It was a time of necessary emotion, of unity of us vs. them.
Later we saw the true greatness of America (the day after their was already a peace demonstration in New York!), those who criticized -were allowed to criticize- the war. Those that offered us a difficult perspective, whether we agreed with it or not, one that went against the consensus, one that may of ringed of ancient lies and hate.
Of course 9/11 can never be compared to the recent events. I use it only to provide a perspective, to understand.
I say let Turkey grieve. If there is evidence that Erdogan/Iran were behind this we can only hope that Turkey will have its own 9/11 commission. Either way the conversation must go on!
I know the wave of emotions that my Turkish friends are experiencing. Anger, frustration, shock, sadness. They are completely justified, expected -human.
I know the feeling, because I have experienced it on so many occasions. On 9/11, after the countless suicide bombings in Israel. After my friend was jumped, one Friday evening, and beaten mercilessly by five bat wielding thugs, screaming anti-Semitic epithets. Yes, the anger was palpable. I wanted vengeance, I wanted to hate, I felt vindicated in the explosion of carnal-rage –fury!
Yes, hate, targeting a specific group/groups. Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims... But then you walk into your classroom, into work, or your friend calls you. This person being Muslim…
Your friend comes from THAT group. Is he/she and exception “they are different”? Or do “they” represent a true reflection of a significant and righteous segment of a given group?
Under certain circumstances hate is normal and even justified, but it should not permanently cloud the individuals thoughts. Of course the hate is there. I see it in my own community, and others tell me about it in their communities. I know this because I make it my business to communicate with others, not to convince them or even influence them, but because I like to understand other perspectives.
Let us not criticize others for feeling the way they do, even if we think that ONLY our strong feelings are justified. Let us not be surprised that Turkey, following this recent incident, is almost unanimous in their expression. After all, was our media or congress explaining 9/11 right after it occurred, of course not! It was a time of necessary emotion, of unity of us vs. them.
Later we saw the true greatness of America (the day after their was already a peace demonstration in New York!), those who criticized -were allowed to criticize- the war. Those that offered us a difficult perspective, whether we agreed with it or not, one that went against the consensus, one that may of ringed of ancient lies and hate.
Of course 9/11 can never be compared to the recent events. I use it only to provide a perspective, to understand.
I say let Turkey grieve. If there is evidence that Erdogan/Iran were behind this we can only hope that Turkey will have its own 9/11 commission. Either way the conversation must go on!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Should Israel End the Gaza Blockade? Three Answers and Two Ironies
There are reports emerging that the Turkish Foreign minister Ahmet Davutogu, has offered to normalize relations with Israel if Israel lifted the blockade of Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-to-normalize-israeli-ties-if-gaza-blockade-ends-1.293757).
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel Failed in Executing its Response to the Turkish Flotilla
Israel’s number one navel Special Forces unit, Shayetet 13, succeeded in its mission to halt, commandeer, and divert the “aid” flotilla to Gaza. However if the underlying objective was anything more than stopping unauthorized aid, they failed miserably.
First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.
Four questions:
1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?
2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?
3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?
4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?
If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?
Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?
Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.
First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.
Four questions:
1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?
2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?
3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?
4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?
If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?
Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?
Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Erdogan and Turkey: Are the Israelis right and has Ataturks legacy failed?
Israel attempt to bolster its relationship with Turkey with a February transfer of Herons (one of the most advanced Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems) to Turkey, had failed. This is due in no small part to Turkeys rhetoric prone Prime Minister Recap Erdogan, who is fixated on destroying the Israeli-Turkish relations.
The Israeli-Turkish relationship has always been emotionless, uncaring, and uneasy. At the same time there has been undeniable strategic partnership since Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, in 1949. The relationship has paid off. Turkey has gained entrance into NATO, and has the 5th largest, and very well equipped, military on earth.
However this April’s revelation that Israel rejected Turkeys request for the Barack 8, a 360 degree naval defense shield, is a tangible indicator that Erdogans rhetoric driven campaign against Israel is succeeding. Israel, and its research partner India, fear Turkey will transfer advanced technologies to belligerent nations like Pakistan and Iran. The fact that Turkey is moving away from its historical relationship with Israel was affirmed when they pulled out of a NATO exercise due to the participation of the Israeli Air Force (AIF). If Turkey had not then staged military exercises with its neighbor Syria, and openly declared that it will not stand by if Israel launches an attack on Syria or Iran, the former move could have seen as simply a protest of the Gaza war of 2008.
The bottom line is that Erdogan has been rather aggressive and successful in his attempt to separate Turley and Israel. But why?
Unless Erdogan is looking for war, Erdogans effort to elevate Turkey to the regional power will have include the collaboration of Israel. Clearly Erdogan is not furthering that goal, at least not through peaceful means. Likewise, the view that Erdogans need to bash Israel to gain the trust of the Arab world is untenable. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all work closely with Israel and would certainly accept Turkey into their alliance against Iran.
Instead Erdogan has aligned Turkey with the minority alliance in the region Syria-Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah. This too is confusing considering that Iran is aiming for regional hegemony, by pursuing nuclear weapons, weapons that would essentially obviate Turkey’s powerful, but un-nuclear military. Is Turkey submitting to Iran!
From a regional perspective it is difficult to defend Erdogans policies towards Israel. Then again that may be the key to understanding Erdogan – his aims are domestic not regional.
Over the last two years Turkey has seen two alleged coup attempts by the military, or so the AK, Erdogans Islamist-leaning party, would have you believe. The first in 2008 ostensibly was executed by the ultranationalist gang, "Ergenekon,” That aborted coup resulted in 400 arrests and zero known convictions ( Interestingly, the left/liberal-leaning new paper, Taraf, broke the story (http://www.csmonitor.com) and later alleged that the Israeli foreign intelligence unit, Mossad, was behind the attempt. The evidence rings of blood-libel proportions –a sack with an Israeli flag and Mossad memorabilia (?!) was found in a conspirators home. The left/Islamic relationship in secular countries is an established phenomenon; suffice to say it requires a separate analysis).
The second coup occurred in 2010 and included the arrest of 7 high ranking military officers, including the three former heads of the navy, air force, and Special Forces, along with 50 others.
For those that are unfamiliar with the modern Turkish system, this is part of the Turkish political process. The Turkish secular revivalist, and founder of the Modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk, established a system whereas the military in Turkey is empowered to ensure the secular nature of Turkey –a check on the government if you will. Since 1945 there have been 3 major coups conducted by the military in 1961, 1970, 1980.
Some explain Erdogans attack as an attempt to subdue the military which impedes Turkey’s aspirations in the international community -and has often been pointed to as a major barrier to Turkey’s acceptance into the EU. At the same time Erdogan has repudiated Turkeys desire to join the EU, and his recent alliances with Syria and Iran do nothing to further Turkey’s acceptance into the EU.
What is infinitely clear is that whether the military coups were fabricated or real, the military and Erdogan perceive each other as a threat.
Were it not for this week’s resignation of Turkey’s long standing leader of the secular Republicans People Party, Deniz Baykal, over an alleged sex scandal, the above discussion would do little more than affirm the belief that Turkey is in the midst of a struggle over its nature Ataturk/secular/military or religious/ Muslim/Erdogan. Yet taken as a whole it seems that Erdogan is keen on taking complete power or at least minimizing all his opponents.
Placed in this light, Erdogans attack on Israel is really an attack on the two major forces of opposition in Turkey, the military and the secular parties. To be fair both of these groups are not friends of Israel, but they do have close ties with Israel and are actually supported by Israel. In other words Israel is not stupid; it did not transfer huran UAV’s because they trusted Erdogan. They did so because it would strengthen the hand of the secular/military in Turkey, who can claim “look it pays to be secular, it pays to ally with Israel”. Moreover, it indicates that Israel still believed that Turkey’s staunchly secular military would be able to reassert themselves against Erdogans political onslaught. After the latest failed coup, Israel’s decision not to provide further military hardware reflects Israel’s conclusion that the Turkish secular/military alliance has faltered (fatally ?).
Only a secular Turkey could ally itself with Israel, and Erdogan seeks to undermine his secular opponents in any way possible. By fostering anti-Israel sentiments in Turkey, Erdogan is also engendering negative attitudes towards Israel’s perceived allies within Turkey –the secular/military. Furthermore Turkey relationship with Israel is predicated on a simple trade, advanced military hardware, for political allegiance. But now that Israel refuses to give any more advanced weapons to Turkey the military in Turkey is further delegitimized. After all it was the military that pushed an alliance with Israel, but what has it done for Turkey, Israel won’t even provide weapons!
This also explains Erdogans alliance with Iran. If he is going to lose one nuclear regional power and supporter of his military he needs to trade it for another regionally and nuclear strong ally. Since Erdogan is focused on domestic hegemony, for the moment, his ire aimed at the larger barrier to that goal -Israel.
Erdogan is savvy politician and employing exceptional stratagem. The mistake of the observer was to accept it as a given that Erdogans main focus was regional, and that Israel was the ends of his strategy. In fact Israel is but one piece, one means, to Erdogan ends -national subjugation to his will.
But what are Erdogans national aims, and are the Israelis right, has Ataturk’s legacy failed Turkey?
The Israeli-Turkish relationship has always been emotionless, uncaring, and uneasy. At the same time there has been undeniable strategic partnership since Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, in 1949. The relationship has paid off. Turkey has gained entrance into NATO, and has the 5th largest, and very well equipped, military on earth.
However this April’s revelation that Israel rejected Turkeys request for the Barack 8, a 360 degree naval defense shield, is a tangible indicator that Erdogans rhetoric driven campaign against Israel is succeeding. Israel, and its research partner India, fear Turkey will transfer advanced technologies to belligerent nations like Pakistan and Iran. The fact that Turkey is moving away from its historical relationship with Israel was affirmed when they pulled out of a NATO exercise due to the participation of the Israeli Air Force (AIF). If Turkey had not then staged military exercises with its neighbor Syria, and openly declared that it will not stand by if Israel launches an attack on Syria or Iran, the former move could have seen as simply a protest of the Gaza war of 2008.
The bottom line is that Erdogan has been rather aggressive and successful in his attempt to separate Turley and Israel. But why?
Unless Erdogan is looking for war, Erdogans effort to elevate Turkey to the regional power will have include the collaboration of Israel. Clearly Erdogan is not furthering that goal, at least not through peaceful means. Likewise, the view that Erdogans need to bash Israel to gain the trust of the Arab world is untenable. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all work closely with Israel and would certainly accept Turkey into their alliance against Iran.
Instead Erdogan has aligned Turkey with the minority alliance in the region Syria-Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah. This too is confusing considering that Iran is aiming for regional hegemony, by pursuing nuclear weapons, weapons that would essentially obviate Turkey’s powerful, but un-nuclear military. Is Turkey submitting to Iran!
From a regional perspective it is difficult to defend Erdogans policies towards Israel. Then again that may be the key to understanding Erdogan – his aims are domestic not regional.
Over the last two years Turkey has seen two alleged coup attempts by the military, or so the AK, Erdogans Islamist-leaning party, would have you believe. The first in 2008 ostensibly was executed by the ultranationalist gang, "Ergenekon,” That aborted coup resulted in 400 arrests and zero known convictions ( Interestingly, the left/liberal-leaning new paper, Taraf, broke the story (http://www.csmonitor.com) and later alleged that the Israeli foreign intelligence unit, Mossad, was behind the attempt. The evidence rings of blood-libel proportions –a sack with an Israeli flag and Mossad memorabilia (?!) was found in a conspirators home. The left/Islamic relationship in secular countries is an established phenomenon; suffice to say it requires a separate analysis).
The second coup occurred in 2010 and included the arrest of 7 high ranking military officers, including the three former heads of the navy, air force, and Special Forces, along with 50 others.
For those that are unfamiliar with the modern Turkish system, this is part of the Turkish political process. The Turkish secular revivalist, and founder of the Modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk, established a system whereas the military in Turkey is empowered to ensure the secular nature of Turkey –a check on the government if you will. Since 1945 there have been 3 major coups conducted by the military in 1961, 1970, 1980.
Some explain Erdogans attack as an attempt to subdue the military which impedes Turkey’s aspirations in the international community -and has often been pointed to as a major barrier to Turkey’s acceptance into the EU. At the same time Erdogan has repudiated Turkeys desire to join the EU, and his recent alliances with Syria and Iran do nothing to further Turkey’s acceptance into the EU.
What is infinitely clear is that whether the military coups were fabricated or real, the military and Erdogan perceive each other as a threat.
Were it not for this week’s resignation of Turkey’s long standing leader of the secular Republicans People Party, Deniz Baykal, over an alleged sex scandal, the above discussion would do little more than affirm the belief that Turkey is in the midst of a struggle over its nature Ataturk/secular/military or religious/ Muslim/Erdogan. Yet taken as a whole it seems that Erdogan is keen on taking complete power or at least minimizing all his opponents.
Placed in this light, Erdogans attack on Israel is really an attack on the two major forces of opposition in Turkey, the military and the secular parties. To be fair both of these groups are not friends of Israel, but they do have close ties with Israel and are actually supported by Israel. In other words Israel is not stupid; it did not transfer huran UAV’s because they trusted Erdogan. They did so because it would strengthen the hand of the secular/military in Turkey, who can claim “look it pays to be secular, it pays to ally with Israel”. Moreover, it indicates that Israel still believed that Turkey’s staunchly secular military would be able to reassert themselves against Erdogans political onslaught. After the latest failed coup, Israel’s decision not to provide further military hardware reflects Israel’s conclusion that the Turkish secular/military alliance has faltered (fatally ?).
Only a secular Turkey could ally itself with Israel, and Erdogan seeks to undermine his secular opponents in any way possible. By fostering anti-Israel sentiments in Turkey, Erdogan is also engendering negative attitudes towards Israel’s perceived allies within Turkey –the secular/military. Furthermore Turkey relationship with Israel is predicated on a simple trade, advanced military hardware, for political allegiance. But now that Israel refuses to give any more advanced weapons to Turkey the military in Turkey is further delegitimized. After all it was the military that pushed an alliance with Israel, but what has it done for Turkey, Israel won’t even provide weapons!
This also explains Erdogans alliance with Iran. If he is going to lose one nuclear regional power and supporter of his military he needs to trade it for another regionally and nuclear strong ally. Since Erdogan is focused on domestic hegemony, for the moment, his ire aimed at the larger barrier to that goal -Israel.
Erdogan is savvy politician and employing exceptional stratagem. The mistake of the observer was to accept it as a given that Erdogans main focus was regional, and that Israel was the ends of his strategy. In fact Israel is but one piece, one means, to Erdogan ends -national subjugation to his will.
But what are Erdogans national aims, and are the Israelis right, has Ataturk’s legacy failed Turkey?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Turkey and Israel: Two perspectives (part 1)
They say it started in Davos when the Turkish prime minister Recyap Erdogan stormed off the public stage after he was prevented from continuing his criticism of Israel's operation cast lead. Others argue that it was the collapse of Syrian-Israeli peace talks spearheaded by Turkey. Turkey claims,that Israel's attack on Gaza led to the collapse of Syrian-Israeli negotiations. This was compounded by what many considered to be an insult, considering that Erdogan was not informed by Israel that they were about to respond to 3 years of mortar attacks from Gaza. Furthermore, Erdogan claims he was assured by the Israeli that no attack was forthcoming. But my Turkish friends tell me it is part of a larger regional strategy begun before Erdogan Islamic-leaning Justice and Development Party (AK) came to power.
So I decided to talk to some of my more informed Turkish friends to gain some perspective.
The following is a very rough transcript of our conversations.
Me: What is going on with Turkish Israeli relations?
Friend: You mean the TV shows?
Me: Yeah. Valley of the Wolves and that other one that came out a couple of months ago, their so stereotypical and fictitious.
Friend: It's not like the government sponsored these shows.
Me: Yeah but the government would never have allowed them to be shown two years ago.
Friend:I hear you it is unnecessary.
Me: Hey don't get me wrong I'm all for complete freedom, but this reflects a deeper shift in the Turkish-Israeli relationship.
Freind: Yeah, Turkey wants to redevelop its regional dominance. It's overtures to Iran,agreement with Armenia, softening of restrictions on the border with Syria, and meetings with Lebanon are all part of the same strategy pushing Erdogan to be so critical of Israel, both formally and informally, such as Turkish TV.
Me: That I understand, but does Turkey really want to give up its strategic partnership with Israel? After all Israel is constantly providing Turkey with military hardware and assistance. Remember the 2006 PPK conflict, Israel provided key intelligence to Turkey. Now Israel is selling 10 of the most advanced UAV's in the world to Turkey.
Friend: Still, many in Turkey remember when the Mossad was providing material support for the Kurds against Turkey.
Me: That's Israel. Yet I think they tried to make up for that by sending medical and search and rescue teams to Turkey after that earthquake.
Friend: That was important, but expected. Remember Turkey has a long history of protecting its Jewish minority.
Me: No question about it. Following the Christian expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and the subsequent explosion from Portugal, Turkey accepted the Jews,and has treated them relatively well, for close to 5 centuries.
Me: The bottom line is that Erdogan has taken every opportunity to bash Israel. That "admonition" to Turkish students that "they should learn from Jews how to make money", and his public statement, to President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, that he didn't believe the ICC's (international criminal court) indictment to be true because, "Muslims cant commit genocide", are not helpful to regional dialogue.
Don't get me wrong Ayalon's treatment of the Turkish ambassador, placing him on a lower couch and admonishing him publicly, was plain stupidity.
Friend: Yeah what was that about?
Me: That was an immature explosion following months of passive aggressive behavior on the part of Israel. What Israel should have done was challenge Erdogan following specific instances of, what Israel deemed, abuse. Not wait and then act impulsively.
Friend: Agreed. Why can't Turkey, Israel, and Iran just establish a non-Arab alliance?
Me: Yeah right.
Friend: I know.
Me: Does Turkey see Israel as standing in their way of a Turkish dominated Middle East? If so Iran seems to be the bigger threat to that hegemony?
Friend: I think Turkey sees Iran as the other power broker in the Middle East. Besides, Turkey just completed a very successful summit with Russia. As Turkey moves away from their bid to join the EU it makes sense that they are reorienting towards
Russia, another quasi-ally of Iran.
Me: Yet Turkey is part of NATO, how does that jive with a Turkey-Russian-Iranian pact?
So I decided to talk to some of my more informed Turkish friends to gain some perspective.
The following is a very rough transcript of our conversations.
Me: What is going on with Turkish Israeli relations?
Friend: You mean the TV shows?
Me: Yeah. Valley of the Wolves and that other one that came out a couple of months ago, their so stereotypical and fictitious.
Friend: It's not like the government sponsored these shows.
Me: Yeah but the government would never have allowed them to be shown two years ago.
Friend:I hear you it is unnecessary.
Me: Hey don't get me wrong I'm all for complete freedom, but this reflects a deeper shift in the Turkish-Israeli relationship.
Freind: Yeah, Turkey wants to redevelop its regional dominance. It's overtures to Iran,agreement with Armenia, softening of restrictions on the border with Syria, and meetings with Lebanon are all part of the same strategy pushing Erdogan to be so critical of Israel, both formally and informally, such as Turkish TV.
Me: That I understand, but does Turkey really want to give up its strategic partnership with Israel? After all Israel is constantly providing Turkey with military hardware and assistance. Remember the 2006 PPK conflict, Israel provided key intelligence to Turkey. Now Israel is selling 10 of the most advanced UAV's in the world to Turkey.
Friend: Still, many in Turkey remember when the Mossad was providing material support for the Kurds against Turkey.
Me: That's Israel. Yet I think they tried to make up for that by sending medical and search and rescue teams to Turkey after that earthquake.
Friend: That was important, but expected. Remember Turkey has a long history of protecting its Jewish minority.
Me: No question about it. Following the Christian expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and the subsequent explosion from Portugal, Turkey accepted the Jews,and has treated them relatively well, for close to 5 centuries.
Me: The bottom line is that Erdogan has taken every opportunity to bash Israel. That "admonition" to Turkish students that "they should learn from Jews how to make money", and his public statement, to President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, that he didn't believe the ICC's (international criminal court) indictment to be true because, "Muslims cant commit genocide", are not helpful to regional dialogue.
Don't get me wrong Ayalon's treatment of the Turkish ambassador, placing him on a lower couch and admonishing him publicly, was plain stupidity.
Friend: Yeah what was that about?
Me: That was an immature explosion following months of passive aggressive behavior on the part of Israel. What Israel should have done was challenge Erdogan following specific instances of, what Israel deemed, abuse. Not wait and then act impulsively.
Friend: Agreed. Why can't Turkey, Israel, and Iran just establish a non-Arab alliance?
Me: Yeah right.
Friend: I know.
Me: Does Turkey see Israel as standing in their way of a Turkish dominated Middle East? If so Iran seems to be the bigger threat to that hegemony?
Friend: I think Turkey sees Iran as the other power broker in the Middle East. Besides, Turkey just completed a very successful summit with Russia. As Turkey moves away from their bid to join the EU it makes sense that they are reorienting towards
Russia, another quasi-ally of Iran.
Me: Yet Turkey is part of NATO, how does that jive with a Turkey-Russian-Iranian pact?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
