Doc's Talk: Turkish Regime to Israel; Obama White House to Real Middle East Moderates: Drop Dead

Saturday, September 03, 2011

Turkish Regime to Israel; Obama White House to Real Middle East Moderates: Drop Dead

Barry Rubin

The "Godfather" film coined a famous phrase: To make someone an offer they can't refuse. But in diplomacy there's the opposite phenomen: To send someone an ultimatum you know they can't accept. An example of the latter is recent Turkish government diplomacy toward (or should I say, against?) Israel.

Its ultimatum demanded Israel apologize for Turkish citizens killed in the Mavi Marmara confrontation, pay compensation, and end all sanctions against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. This is in spite of the fact that those killed were radical Islamist jihadis who openly spoke beforehand of happily dying if they could kill Israeli soldiers and about massacring all Jews. As for the sanctions, they are against a terrorist group openly declaring its goal of genocide against both Israel and Jews in general and which has repeatedly attacked Israel. Since Israel refused to surrender to this ultimatum, the Turkish (Islamist) government has expelled Israel's ambassador just as the new, Palmer report on the Gaza Flotilla incident is released. But while the report claims Israel used excessive force--what is the proper amount of force to use on jihadis with weapons who advocate genocide against you?--it also concluded that the blockade is completely legal and that the flotilla activists acted recklessly. In other words, the Turkish regime demands Israel apologize and pay compensation for those who committed an illegal act in order to harm it.

During the negotiations, some high-ranking Israeli officials wanted to apologize; others didn't. But it became clear that the Turkish regime kept increasing its demands to ensure there would be no deal. It wanted a pretext for bashing Israel and reducing relations. Israeli tourism to Turkey has already plummeted but is still valuable; bilateral trade had actually increased.

This cooling of relations is no surprise to Israeli policymakers and does not spring from either the war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip (2008-2009) or the Gaza Flotilla. (Similarly, when an Islamist regime took power in Iran no specific problem was needed to turn that country from a friend to an enemy of Israel and there was nothing Israel could do to prevent that turnaround.)

Before either event happened, Israeli officials knew that the period of close cooperation with Turkey was ending because the Turkish government was an Islamist regime hostile to Israel and to Jews generally. Now we have a Wikileaks document in which the then Israeli ambassador tells an American diplomat that the government leaders passionately loathe Israel.

It seems to be a secret mainly to the White House and most of the Western mass media that Turkey is being turned into a police state, that the regime is taking over institution after institution, and has now broken the armed forces--the last barrier to its long-term hegemony and the fundamental transformation of the country from secular republic to semi-Islamist semi-dictatorship (albeit a dictatorship capable of winning more votes than any other party).

When histories of Turkey are written in future, August 2011 will be the date when the secular republic of Ataturk came to an end. On August 30, marking Turkish victory in its independence war and Army Day, military officers were not permitted to hold receptions. Respected officers are daily sent to prison on flimsy charges.

For the first time ever, the president—Abdullah Gul, a doctrinaire Islamist, will receive greatings on Victory Day instead of the military chief of staff.

The Islamist newspaper Today’s Zaman says:

“The Turkish Army needs to be radically reformed. The past influence of the army over politics has postponed the introduction of such reforms….This Aug. 30 will be different from others in the past -- the celebrations will not be as lively; however, Eid al-Fitr will be the same as always.”
Islamic observance has triumphed over secularism—reflected in the editorial’s headline, “Victory.” Islam is eternal, that’s the message, while the secularist Turkish republic was just a transient experiment.

The army will now be made into the Islamist regime's tool. In the shorter term, careerists and opportunists will be promoted to do the regime’s bidding; in the longer term, Islamist officers will be pushed up the ranks as fast as possible. The same pattern is already being applied to the civil service, the Foreign Ministry, and other institutions.

One columnist refers mockingly to “secularist paranoia.” After all, she says, there’s nothing to fear. And didn’t the old Republican regime enforce conformity also? Yes, it did. But it also openly made clear its views and goals, while the Islamist rulers conceal their views and goals. And many are still willing—and are rewarded—for pretending that everything is just fine.

We still hear about how the Turkish model would be a great thing for the Arab world to imitate: an anti-Western foreign policy; growing repression; the state’s domination of media and courts; with those who dissent arrested on charges of terrorism or murder or treason. Sounds terrific!
And so the Turkish Republic established in the 1920s comes to an end with assurances that nothing is really changing. After all, many of those who disagree are in prison so they aren't able to voice their sorrow, anger, horror, and fear for Turkey's future.

The demonization of Israel--and also of the United States, though few Americans are noticing this--serves the same purpose in Turkey as it does elsewhere: to incite the masses into supporting a radical regime. The Turkish-Israel alliance has been over for three or four years, now the period of open, systematic, long-term Turkish government hostility begins.

Finally, though, I should add what many Turkish friends--who themselves are miserable and angry about what's happening in their country (not to mention their bitterness at the continued international praise of the regime) said to me. Just because the captain and crew are bad doesn't mean the passengers are, too.

As in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and increasingly in Egypt, the real moderates and those Muslims who don't want to live under an Islamist dictatorship watch in tears as their countries get worse and worse. They watch Western governments, media, and intellectuals praise or even work with their oppressors. They marvel at the good press and concessions given to people who they know despise the West and want to destroy it.

As I write this article--and I've been making this point for years--a timely Wikileaks document provides a good example. In May 2008, Saad Hariri, leader of the Lebanese democratic opposition and of the Sunni Muslims as well as the son of a man killed by Syria and Hizballah, spoke to an American diplomat. Remember, this was still the Bush Administration. Here's what he said:

"The Lebanese are greatly disappointed and have no more faith in March 14 [the moderate uprising against Syria and Hizballah] and in the international community, Saad remarked. He quoted the May 9 White House statement on Lebanon, `We hope...' `What is this?' Saad declared.

"'Hope' does not deter Syria. If the U.S. decision is to do nothing, then OK--we know.' Saad strongly urged that the U.S. `just fly a plane over Damascus as a threat.' He also suggested the U.S. send the Sixth Fleet to Syria's shore."

More than three years later, the U.S. government was still cozying up to the Syrian dictatorship. The debate was not over whether to support the Lebanese moderates but about whether or not to engage with Hizballah.

And even today the U.S. government--despite the often good reporting from the U.S. embassy in Turkey--has barely a criticism of a Turkish regime that is aligned with its enemies and destroying Turkish freedom. As if that isn't enough, the White House use Turkey as the mediator for the future of Syria and presents it as a role model for the Arabic-speaking world! No evidence--be it Turkey opposing increased sanctions on Iran or turning against Israel--has any effect on the White House's thinking.

To mix a metaphor, the ship of U.S. Middle East interests is sinking and the Obama Administration is cheering the iceberg.

Historical note: The title of this article is a play on the famous New York Daily News headline: "Ford to New York: Drop Dead."

Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk