On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
Showing posts with label flotilla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flotilla. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
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.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (1)
In a recent piece published in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-the-free-gaza-movement_b_602061.html),one amongst many, David Harris, the President of the American Jewish Congress (AJC), asked the now infamous question of the Free Gaza Movement, "why not them".
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
