Resurrecting the Caliphate

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2302

AntiWar: The “trial” of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic began last week before the Hague Inquisition. Karadzic himself boycotted the proceedings, arguing that he had no time to prepare a defense (the indictment was finalized October 19, though the ICTY had 14 years to do it). The Inquisition’s response — imposing counsel on him and adjourning till March 2010 — was not a surprise. Karadzic has already been convicted by the Western media, but a show trial has certain rules it must follow, even if the Inquisition gets to write its own. With the Inquisition already beginning to misrepresent what dubious evidence it has offered, the railroading of Radovan Karadzic looks set to proceed apace come spring.

At that time, if he is allowed, he may resort to quoting a most unlikely defender: Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

A Neo-Ottoman Minister

A scholar who has influenced Turkish foreign policy since 2002, and became the country’s chief diplomat in May this year, Davutoglu has pursued what his critics have labeled a “neo-Ottoman” foreign policy. He speaks of “historical depth” of Ankara’s relationship with the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, and argues that conflicts in these areas originate in their separation from the Ottoman Empire.

In mid-October, immediately after a trip to Iraq, Davutoglu flew to Bosnia, where he opened a conference titled “The Ottoman Legacy and the Balkans Muslim Communities Today.” His opening remarks, quoted extensively in the Sarajevo weekly BH Dani on October 23, went virtually unnoticed in the West. However, as Davutoglu also met with Serbia’s foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, a Serbian magazine for political analysis dug up the article from Dani and published it on their website. Davutoglu’s speech ought to be alarming not just to the Serbian public and the West, but to all Turks committed to preservation of Kemal Ataturk’s vision of a secular state — if any remain.

The “Golden Age”

On October 11, Davutoglu had met with the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and his Armenian counterpart in Zurich, Switzerland, and signed a protocol to restore bilateral ties. By his own admission in Sarajevo, though, he spent more time with Clinton talking about the “Bosnian issue” than about Armenia.

To the surprise of some Western diplomats at his “drop-in,” he retorted, “We didn’t drop in, we came to Bosnia on horseback.”

At the conference in Sarajevo, Davutoglu explained his view of the Balkans. The region is a geopolitical “buffer zone,” and a crossroads of economic and cultural interaction between Europe and Asia, Baltics and the Mediterranean. Such a region, he argued, “has two possible destinies in history. One is to be the center of world history, and the other to be a victim of global conflict…”

And what an amazing coincidence, it was precisely during the Ottoman Empire’s peak that the Balkans was “at the center of world politics.” The 16th century, he argued, was the “golden age of the Balkans. This is a historical fact.”

Why, without the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed-Pasha Sokolovic would have been a peasant instead of a Grand Vizier, and Kavalali Mehmet Ali-Pasha would have stayed in his native Albania instead of establishing modern-day Egypt!

He didn’t bother with trifling details, such as that Sokolovic was seized by force from his family as a child and turned into a Janissary, or that Ali-Pasha established Egypt by rebelling against the Ottomans. But with this “golden age” as his point of departure, Davutoglu’s conclusion sounds perfectly logical:

“Now is the time for reunification. Then we will rediscover the spirit of the Balkans. We need to create a new feeling of unity in the region. We need to strengthen regional ownership, a common regional conscience… It all depends on which part of history you look to. From the 15th to the 20th century, the history of the Balkans was a history of success. We can have this success again.”

And again, later in the speech:

“The Ottoman era in the Balkans is a success story. Now it needs to come back.”

Davutoglu doesn’t specify as to how. But when he talks about “reintegrating” the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, and how Turkey is a “safe haven and homeland” for Bosnian, Chechens and Albanians, it isn’t hard to fill in the blanks. What Ahmet Davutoglu wants is to resurrect the empire of Mehmet el-Fatih and Suleiman the Magnificent.

The Dark Age

What Davutoglu and his Muslim audience saw as the “golden age” was the Dark Age for everyone else. Vlad the Impaler isn’t a national hero in Romania because he cruelly dispatched his enemies, but because those enemies were mostly Turks. The Ottomans destroyed the Byzantine Empire, which had carried on in the East for a thousand years after the fall of Rome itself. They obliterated the medieval kingdom of Bosnia, depopulated vast swathes of present-day Croatia and Hungary, nearly exterminated the Serbs from Kosovo… Ask the Croats, Hungarians, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Armenians or Greeks what they think of the Ottoman “golden age” and their answer will probably be too vulgar to print.

Yes, Mehmed-Pasha Sokolovic rose to prominence in the Ottoman hierarchy, and he wasn’t the first or the last Janissary to do so. But he also remembered his roots — something the Janissaries were emphatically not supposed to do. The legacy of this is the legendary Bridge on the Drina, and the restored Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church (to which he appointed his brother, Makarije). A far more typical Janissary, and another Grand Vizier, was serasker Hurshid Ahmed-Pasha, the general who built a tower of Serbian skulls after a battle in 1809.

Rejecting Ataturk?

Davutoglu’s Ottoman nostalgia isn’t simply another dream of greatness most politicians are prone to at times, but stands in direct opposition to the Kemalist ideology that is the foundation of modern Turkey.

Kept artificially alive by the European powers throughout the 1800s, the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed following its defeat in the Great War. It was Mustafa Kemal, a German-trained Army officer, who organized resistance to the British and French plans to partition the Empire’s heartland. Under his command, the Turks emerged victorious out of a conflict with Britain, France and Greece (resulting in the destruction of Greek communities in Asia Minor that had existed since antiquity), and established the Turkish Republic in 1923.

The Republic has rested on six pillars of Kemalist ideology ever since: republicanism, secularism, populism, revolutionism, nationalism and statism. Nationalism, for example, explains Ankara’s view that everyone who speaks Turkish is a Turk, and there is no such thing as a Kurd. Hardly a foundation for “multiculturalism,” is it?

Kemalism has been enforced by the Turkish Army, which has often threatened a coup and made good on the threat several times. However, Turkey is now ruled by the AKP, a party that in 2008 almost got banned for its “anti-secularist” (meaning, Islamic) leanings. Party chairman Recep Erdogan is currently the Prime Minister, and Davutoglu’s former boss Abdullah Gul is the President of Turkey.

Echoes of Izetbegovic

Davutoglu’s claim that under the Ottomans the Balkans used to be the “center of the world” while now it is but a victim of power politics sounds eerily like the argument of Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, who in his 1971 manifesto, “The Islamic Declaration,” wrote this:

“Turkey as an Islamic country used to rule the world. Turkey as an imitation of Europe represents a third-rate country.”

One very important distinction here is that the Ottoman Empire was not “Turkey,” but an Islamic Caliphate. One cannot talk about some sort of Ottoman resurrection without dealing with the Islamic aspect of the Empire. Davutoglu doesn’t address this directly, but merely talks about a shared “cultural heritage” and “multicultural coexistence.”

Then again, so did Izetbegovic. For years, he had the West believe that he was a multi-cultural democrat, rather than an advocate of establishing a Caliphate “from Morocco to Malaysia.” After his death in 2003, several men have competed for the political leadership of the Bosnian Muslims, but the religious leadership has remained in the hands of Mustafa Ceric, Izetbegovic’s Grand Mufti. Ceric openly talks about how “Turkey is our mother” and “Mehmet el-Fatih is our father.”

So, when Ahmet Davutoglu speaks in Sarajevo about how he feels at home, how Sarajevo is “ours” (Turkish) and “Turkey is yours,” and how Turkey’s vital interest is ensuring “your [i.e. Muslim] ownership of Sarajevo and Bosnia,” it isn’t hard to reach the same conclusion as Radovan Karadzic did in 1992: something is seriously wrong with a picture of the country that has no room for over half of its (Christian) population.

Karadzic acted on this realization by mobilizing the Bosnian Serbs for war, and opposing the creation of the Muslim-dominated Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the force of arms. Now countries that have engaged in naked aggression themselves have dubbed this “aggression” and “genocide” and put Karadzic on trial at a “court” they illegally established and control.

Davutoglu, meanwhile, goes about the business of resurrecting the Caliphate.

Erdogan says he favors Bashir over Netanyahu

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2301

Erdogan says he favors Bashir over Netanyahu

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan denies that Sudan’s President al-Bashir is responsible for genocide in Darfur, saying that “a Muslim couldn’t do such things”. I wonder if Erdogan would deny that the shooter at Ft. Hood was a Muslim? One important distinction between Islam and Christianity is Islam’s lack of the sacred act of confession of sin. Thus throughout the Islamic world, there is, as seen here, a frequent denial of sin rather than acknowledgment. This is in fact one of the looming obstacles to Islam’s ability to ever truly self reform as so many optimists long to see. Beyond this, Erdogan’s comments are grossly inaccurate. Muhammad himself oversaw the slaughter of entire Jewish villages, actually commanding the beheading of between 700-900 men in one day. Muhammad’s immediate successors slaughtered far more than Muhammad. Khalid Bin Walid al Makhzumi, the general of the Muslims army under Abu Bakr slaughtered a few thousand Persian Christians and Zoroastrians in one day. However, the extreme inaccuracy of Erdogan’s comments are not the real issue here. It is the deeply revealing nature of his comments that is so troubling. Within just the past few weeks, Erdogan accused Israel of war crimes against humanity: The very charges that The International Human Rights Commission has applied to al-Bashir. So while Erdogan expresses the idea that a Muslim could not commit genocide (even if they have - ala George Orwell) this is in contrast to the Jews that are inherently guilty of such (even if they are not). Muslims are incapable of doing great evil, while the Jewish people are innately evil. This is anti-Semitism of Hitlerian depth coming from a man that President Obama will receive to the White House in just a few weeks. The fact that this man is supported by a wide margin of Turks is also deeply troubling.

YNET: Turkish prime minister says he would be more comfortable talking to indicted Sudanese president than to Israeli premier. He denies Bashir is responsible for genocide in Darfur, saying ‘a Muslim couldn’t do such things’

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday denied that Omar Hassan al-Bashir was responsible for genocide in Darfur and said he would be more comfortable talking to the indicted Sudanese president than to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the state-run news agency Anatolian reported.

“I wouldn’t be able to speak with Netanyahu so comfortably but I would speak comfortably with Bashir. I say comfortably “What you’ve done is wrong”. And I would say it to his face. Why? Because a Muslim couldn’t do such things. A Muslim could not commit genocide,” Anatolian quoted Erdogan as saying.

During joint press conference with French counterpart in Paris, FM Davutoglu says, ‘All countries that seek peace are our strategic allies, including Israel of course’

Turkish government officials said Bashir would not attend an Islamic summit in Istanbul as planned, after the European Union raised objections to his visit.

Bashir, against whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity in Sudan’s Darfur region, had announced plans to attend a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Monday.

“We have learned that he is not coming,” a Turkish government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity, without elaborating. Other Turkish officials, visibly relieved at the news, also confirmed that Bashir was not attending.

The ICC indicted Bashir in March on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but stopped short of including a charge of genocide. The United Nations says as many as 300,000 people have been killed since conflict erupted in Darfur in 2003, although Sudan rejects that figure.

Fraught ties
Erdogan’s comments could further damage Turkey’s already fraught ties with Israel, which have deteriorated since Israel’s offensive earlier this year in the Palestinian Gaza Strip.

Turkey, which has deepened economic ties with Sudan, has not ratified the statute that established the ICC and had said it had no plans to arrest Bashir.

The mainly Muslim country, which is seeking EU membership, had come under pressure from Brussels and international human rights groups to drop Bashir from the guest list.

Campaigning group Human Rights Watch had said that NATO member Turkey’s international image would “plummet” if Ankara did not bar Bashir’s entry.

Bashir has travelled to African countries since his arrest warrant was issued by the ICC in March.

Iran’s anti-American President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country is engaged in a standoff with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program, arrived in Istanbul on Sunday to attend the one-day OIC meeting.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in his first trip abroad since his re-election was announced this week following a fraud-marred ballot, also arrived earlier on Sunday and held bilateral talks with Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul.

Western powers are seeking to exert pressure on Tehran for concessions on its nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad could use the summit to undermine efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile Sunday, Syrian President Bashar Assad said that if Turkey wished to help his country, it must maintain good relations with Israel. Assad told Turkish newspaper Hurriyet that Ankara had been successful in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus for eight months and had conveyed an important message to the West.

“Turkey must maintain good relations with Israel, otherwise how can it fill a significant role in the peace process?” he said.

From Balfour to a Palestinian state

http://templewatch.com/?p=1403

by Temple Watch ~ November 7th, 2009

Arthur Balfour declared that “His Majesty’s government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Winston Churchill’s White Paper stated that [Jewish immigration to Palestine] “cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.” From that hedge, it has been one long retreat from Zionism to the Arab-Israeli conflict of today.

Source: Moshe Arens / The Jerusalem Post / November 3, 2009

Ninety-two years ago today the British foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, sent the now famous letter, known as the Balfour Declaration, to Baron Rothschild to be transmitted to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

Looking at the State of Israel today one might say it all started with the Balfour Declaration. Some would say, it all started with Theodore Herzl and the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, 20 years earlier. And students of Zionist history would say it all started even earlier with the Lovers of Zion, the Hovevei Zion, and the first wave of modern Jewish immigration to Palestine from Eastern Europe, Ha’aliya Harishona. But as far as international recognition of Zionist aspirations, and the political movement that set in motion the Zionist enterprise that became the Jewish state in Palestine, the State of Israel, it all started with the Balfour Declaration.

In World War I efforts had been made to have Jews, as Jews, participate in the fighting against the Turks. The Zion Mule Corps, commanded by John Patterson and his deputy Yosef Trumpeldor, had participated in the fighting at Gallipoli; the NILI spy network in Palestine, led by Aharon Aaronson, had been providing intelligence information to the British; and the Jewish Legion organized by Vladimir Jabotinsky, that was to participate in the fighting in Palestine, was formed in August 1917. All that, and the political spadework done by Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow in London had laid the groundwork for the declaration. And there was the sympathy for the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland in some circles in Britain.

But in the final analysis, as was to be expected in a nation at war, it was the immediate interests of Britain, at the moment, that tipped the scales in favor of this momentous declaration of sympathy with the Zionist cause. The support of American Jewry, thought to have considerable influence, for the war effort was expected to be strengthened by the declaration. And the misperception that the many Jews in leadership positions among the communists in Russia, at the time in the throes of the communist revolution and Russia’s continued role in the war uncertain, might be swayed by the declaration to keep Russia in the war, was a consideration in the issuance of the Balfour Declaration by the British government.

THE DECLARATION, a powerful statement of support for Zionist aspirations, by what was at the time one of the world’s great powers intent on gaining control of much of the Middle East after the war, contained sufficient ambiguities to leave succeeding British governments plenty of room for maneuver to satisfy the exigencies on the ground as seen by British policymakers as time went on. The original draft of the declaration which contained the phrase “Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people” was amended in the final text to read “His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

“In Palestine” could be interpreted as meaning that not all of Palestine should become the national home of the Jewish people. Additionally, the boundaries of Palestine not being defined at the time, left ambiguous the eventual size of the area to be allocated as a national home of the Jewish people. And not least - for Zionism’s goal was the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (Herzl’s manifesto was entitled Der Judenstadt) - the Balfour Declaration had substituted for Jewish state the more ill-defined “national home for the Jewish people.” These ambiguities came to haunt the Zionist movement as British governments exploited them over the years.

The Arab population in Palestine did not welcome the idea of largescale Jewish immigration and the application of the Balfour Declaration to the area. They quickly learned that rioting was an effective tool in getting the government in London to accede to their demands and backtrack on the Balfour Declaration. In April 1920 riots were organized against the Jews in Jerusalem. The following year there were Arab riots against the Jews in Jaffa. The immediate British response was a temporary suspension of Jewish immigration. Proposals by Jabotinsky that Jewish battalions similar to the Jewish Legion be enlisted so as to quell the riots and establish order were rejected, while the British forces stationed in Palestine were completely ineffective in overcoming Arab rioters.

The attitude of the British military in Palestine was generally anti-Zionist and favored the Arabs. In a circular distributed to the British officers serving in Palestine, Gen. Walter Congreve, commanding Egyptian Expeditionary Forces from Cairo, wrote “[The army's] sympathies are obviously with the Arabs… who have been the victims of the unjust policy forced upon them by the British government.”
The Zionist delegation to the Paris peace conference in 1919 had submitted a map of the Jewish national home which included territory east of the Jordan River, as well as the Golan Heights in the north. But no sooner had a British military administration established itself in Palestine than a process of whittling away at the territory to which the Balfour Declaration was intended to apply was begun.
Within a month of assuming the post of colonial secretary in February 1921, Winston Churchill was on his way to Cairo to chair a conference to frame British policy in the Middle East. Paying little attention to the map presented by the Zionist delegation at the Paris peace conference, and the decisions of the Allied conference in San Remo in 1920 which decided that the area west and east of the Jordan River were to be a single territory to which the Balfour Declaration would be applied by the mandatory power, the Cairo conference concluded that Abdullah, who had entered the area east of the Jordan from Arabia with some of his troops, remain there as the ruler of Transjordan within the framework of the British mandate for Palestine.

In making the offer to Abdullah at a meeting in Jerusalem in May, Churchill agreed that the provisions of the Balfour Declaration would not extend east of the Jordan River. The offer was accepted. It was the beginning of Arab rule and the exclusion of Jewish settlers from over 78 percent of what was going to be the Palestine Mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations in June 1922. At about the same time French-British negotiations delineating the northern border of Palestine were concluded leaving the Golan Heights in French mandated Syria. In addition, under the pressure of the Arab riots in Palestine the British government began backtracking on the Balfour Declaration. The Churchill White Paper issued in June 1922 ascribed the Arab riots to “exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration.” The White Paper, announcing the government’s policy, went on: “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become ‘as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s government regard any such expectations as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine.’”

As for Jewish immigration to Palestine, the White Paper stated that “this immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.” From there it was going to be one long retreat from the original promise.
And so it was none other than Winston Churchill, throughout his life the greatest constant friend of Zionism among the British leadership, who decided on a drastic reduction of the territory assigned to the Jewish national home, while downgrading the meaning that this national home was to have for future British governments.

The Arabs were led to believe that rioting in Palestine would lead to further retreats by the British government from the Balfour Declaration. The riots of 1929 led to the appointment of the Shaw Commission which recommended that the immigration policy should be reviewed so as to prevent “excessive” Jewish immigration. The outbreak of renewed Arab riots seven years later led to the appointment of the Peel Commission. Based on its recommendation, the British government concluded that the terms of the Mandate were unworkable and that the only feasible solution would be partition of western Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, the Jews being assigned a small enclave covering about 33% of western Palestine or less than 10% of the area originally assigned to the Palestine Mandate for the establishment of a Jewish national home.

Rejection by the Arabs of these recommendations and three years of further Arab riots led in May 1939 to the Macdonald White Paper which rang the death knell for the Jewish state, limiting Jewish immigration to 75,000 during the next five years, and making further Jewish immigration to Palestine contingent on Arab approval. It in effect provided for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine, what in today’s parlance would have been called a Palestinian state.

Winston Churchill in later years was to refer to the MacDonald White Paper as “this low-grade gasp of a defeatist hour.” It slammed the doors of Palestine shut to Jewish immigration just as Hitler’s persecution of the Jews of Europe was beginning to move into high gear. In a conversation with Malcolm MacDonald, the colonial secretary, in May 1939, Chaim Weizmann said: “You are handing over the Jews to their assassins.”

The White Paper was ruthlessly and brutally enforced against those refugees who attempted to reach the shores of Palestine. The Royal Navy was used off the coast of Palestine, while the British secret service was used to spy on the organization of groups of “illegal” immigrants in Europe and Britain’s diplomatic representatives in the capitals of the Balkan countries and Turkey were used to pressure these governments to deny them transit visas so that they would not be able to proceed to Palestine.
The first shots by the Royal Navy during World War II were fired on September 2, 1939 against the immigrant ship Tiger Hill killing two of the refugees on board. It was a policy that was to be pursued throughout the war.

The tragedy of the Struma, which sank in the Black Sea in February 1942, claiming the lives of all but one of its 768 passengers, including many women and children, exemplified the heartlessness, if not to say the inhumanity, with which that policy was pursued. As cables went back and forth between London, Cairo and Istanbul regarding the fate of the refugees on board, stranded in Turkey in a non-seaworthy vessel, Lord Moyne, the deputy minister of state, Middle East, notified the government that he had learned from secret sources that the Struma was the first of several ships which were being chartered in order to carry “illegal immigrants” from southeast European ports to Palestine, and that there was no alternative to carrying out the White Paper policy and refuse the passengers on the boat entry to Palestine. The Palestine high commissioner, Harold MacMichael, lent his support to this recommendation by the further objection that the passengers on the Struma were mainly professional people and would therefore, if admitted to Palestine, constitute an addition to the “unproductive element in the population.” Tens of thousands could have been saved from the Holocaust had Britain relented on executing the White Paper policy. Hundreds of thousands could have been saved had a rescue effort been mounted to bring Jews from Europe to Palestine during the war years.

The Struma tragedy destroyed the last vestiges of the special relationship between Britain and Zionism inaugurated with the Balfour Declaration. From thereon it was going to be a confrontation, and eventually outright mutual hostility. Britain barred the entry to Palestine of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, the Jewish underground carried on a campaign to force Britain to leave, and eventually Britain, relinquishing the Mandate, turned the seemingly insoluble problem over to the United Nations. In the vote on the United Nations partition resolution, dividing western Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, Britain abstained.

During the War of Independence, the British equipped the Jordanian Arab Legion which participated in attacks on Israel, British tanks tried to block the advance of Irgun fighters during their attack on Jaffa and RAF fighters flying out of Egypt engaged the fledgling Israeli air force over Israeli positions in the Sinai. Only eight months after Israel had been established, and had been immediately recognized by the United States and the Soviet Union, did Britain reluctantly extend its recognition to the new state.
What is the explanation for the fact that British governments turned their backs on the Balfour Declaration and over the years pursued a policy that was designed to lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Palestine rather than a Jewish state? That the Jewish state, Israel, was finally established over strenuous British opposition?

Although Britain’s decision-makers were tainted throughout the years by a strain of anti-Semitism at all levels, the military, the civil service and also the government, the decisions reached were basically just plain power politics. The Arabs were considered to have more power, more influence, more ability to cause trouble than the Jews. And as Britain approached the war years, looking for allies and trying to neutralize enemies, it seemed so obvious that the millions of Arabs in the Middle East, and the Arabs of Palestine were far more important to Britain’s interests than the small Jewish community in Palestine, and their Zionist supporters in the world, who in any case had no choice but to back the war against Hitler.

But it turned out to be a miscalculation. British governments underestimated the strength and the vitality of the Jewish community in Palestine and its nascent military capability, and the tenacity of the Zionist movement. The Arabs lent no support to the Allied cause in World War II. Britain’s attempts to appease them brought no returns. Whereas the Jewish contribution to the war effort was not insignificant and might have weighed far more in the scales had Britain been prepared to establish a Jewish army, as called for by Jabotinsky and Weizmann at the outbreak of the war, a call that was not heeded out of concern for the Arab reaction to such a move. The military potential of the Yishuv was significant as became clear a few years later.

When in May 1948 the surrounding Arab armies attacked Israel, Ernest Bevin told Churchill that the Arabs would win. It was another miscalculation. British miscalculations over the years turned out to be of no benefit to Britain, delayed the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, caused a great deal of suffering and claimed many victims, but they could not prevent the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine - Israel. The Palestinian state may yet follow, but this time it will need Israel’s agreement.

“We need more Erdogans” ???

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2298

posted by Joel at Joels Trumpet

An typical opinion piece that perverts history, logic and any sense of justice, yet which finds a wide measure of agreement throughout the Islamic world…

Al-Ahram Daily: Arab and Muslim leaders should emulate Turkey’s prime minister if they want to ensure Israel doesn’t get away with murder again, writes Aijaz Zaka Syed*

Turkey’s Ottoman Empire died a quiet death nearly a century ago. But the country continues to enjoy a unique eminence of leadership across the Middle East and in much of the Muslim world. And Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly justified this love and respect for Turkey with his political courage and candour.

From the lashing Erdogan gave Israel’s Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos following the Gaza offensive earlier this year to his call this week demanding UN action on Justice Richard Goldstone’s report on that offensive, Turkey continues to show rare leadership. Erdogan’s nation stands up for justice and fair play, rather than going along with the shameful double standards that the rest of the world seems to take in its stride.

This is remarkable for a country that enjoys close, strategic relations with the United States, is a NATO member and hopes to be the first Muslim country to join the European Union. More important, Turkey has full diplomatic relations with Israel and is perhaps the only Muslim country with which Israel has close economic and military ties. (So you can’t really throw the regular accusation of “anti-Semitism” against Ankara). This is largely because of Turkey’s historical relations with the Jewish community. The Ottoman caliphs sheltered and protected the Jews for centuries while they were being hunted and killed all across Christian Europe.

These close ties haven’t deterred Turkey’s present leadership from confronting Israel on its persecution of Palestinians. Turkey, Erdogan told a huge public rally last week, has never been on the side of oppressors and it has always defended the oppressed: “We are not against any country, but we are against injustice.” He stopped short of pointing out that yesterday’s oppressed had become today’s oppressors.

Meanwhile, in an interesting interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper this week, Erdogan turned the spotlight on another piece of international theatre involving Israel. Commenting on Iran’s nuclear conflict with the US and Europe, the Turkish prime minister has slammed the West for being unfair to Iran and applying double standards on the issue. Dismissing the Western hysteria over Iran’s non- existent nuclear weapons as “gossip”, the Turkish leader pointed out that many of those lecturing Iran today on its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons had large nuclear arsenals at their disposal. In doing so, Erdogan has given voice to an overwhelming majority around the world that has long felt that the West is unreasonably targeting Iran — just as Iraq had been — even as it turns a blind eye to Israel’s nukes.

This is not the first time Erdogan has exposed international duplicity. During the UN General Assembly session and the debate on nuclear disarmament in New York last month, Erdogan reminded the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and has used banned phosphorous bombs against Palestinians. “Why are these not on the UN agenda? Why is it always Iran?” he asked.

If only more Muslim leaders could think and act like Erdogan, and confront the big bullies of our world, their people wouldn’t be in the mess they are in today. Speaking truth to power is never easy. But it is especially difficult in the Middle East. The rest of the world may have bid farewell to colonial hegemony long ago. But the world’s most volatile and sensitive region remains hostage to its imperial past and its divisive legacy in some way or another. Which is why leaders such as Erdogan come as a ray of hope in an otherwise dark and dull Middle Eastern sky.

I wonder why no other Muslim leader has had the courage to hold a mirror to the West over Iran? You didn’t hear a single voice of protest across the Middle East against this relentless campaign targeting Iran. Is it because Iran is a Shia nation and majority of the Muslim world is Sunni? Or do we truly believe the fiction that Iran’s nuclear programme and its so-called expansionist ambitions are targeted at its Arab and Muslim neighbours? How can we ignore the historical reality that until our colonial masters arrived, Arabs and Iranians, Sunnis and Shias, had coexisted in peace and harmony since the dawn of Islam?

The disastrous, eight year-long war between Iraq and Iran, the only Arab-Persian conflict in post-Islam history and that claimed nearly a million lives, was a gift of the West. When will we realise that from Palestine to Pakistan the Muslim world is on fire today because of our silence and inaction over the games big powers have been playing in the region for decades. And we are silent once again even as the whole world debates the UN report on Gaza and demands action against Israel.

Hundreds of peace activists, human rights groups and bloggers around the world have been running a tireless campaign to hold Israel to account for its war crimes. It was thanks to their noble efforts that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) decided to refer Goldstone’s findings to the UN Security Council. Defying US pressure and a boycott by the Europeans, the UNHRC voted 19 against three to send the report on Gaza to the Security Council.

The matter now rests before the five permanent members of the Security Council. Those big five have to decide if Israel should be asked to probe the Gaza war crimes or to recommend that the International Criminal Court take action against Israel. The US is likely to do neither. Israel’s patron saint could simply veto any UN initiative against Israel, as it always has. The Gaza report stands no chance in the UN as long as the US is there to protect Israel. And it will continue to protect Israel — even while its hands are dripping with the blood of innocents — as long as the Arab and Muslim countries do not speak in one voice.

The report by the South African Jewish judge is not without flaws. First of all it puts Israel and Hamas on the same level for crimes against humanity during the recent Israeli offensive on Gaza, which is absurd. One is a nuclear power and the most powerful military force in the Middle East and the other is a resistance group. All Hamas has at its disposal are its rudimentary rockets.

Even more absurd is Goldstone’s recommendation asking Israel to investigate its own crimes against Palestinians. Even if it does so, to mollify the world opinion, how legitimate can such an exercise be, and what would it achieve? Surely, Israel cannot resolve to punish itself.

However, the UN report is crucial in that it sets a historic precedent of confronting a criminal, ruthless power set against an utterly defenceless and long persecuted civilian population. Israel has gotten away with murder, literally, all these years because the world failed to confront it and its protectors. This is why it keeps killing and terrorising the Palestinians again and again. This will stop only if the Israelis are made to pay for their appalling crimes. And the Goldstone Report provides a rare opportunity to do so.

By a strange coincidence, the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and the larger General Assembly are with two countries that are sympathetic to Palestinians — Turkey and Libya. UN chief Ban Ki-Moon is under intense pressure to end the world body’s inaction on the Israel issue. All that is needed is unity in the ranks of Arab and Muslim states. Only this can persuade the US from blindly protecting Israel.

So can the Arab and Muslim countries, and all reasonable people everywhere, please stand up and speak out for a change? History will not forgive them if they fail to do so yet again.

* The writer is opinion editor of The Khaleej Times.

Turkish-Iranian Ties Strengthen Ahead of Ahmadinejad Visit

http://newsblaze.com/story/20091107052632zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Published: November 07,2009

By Realite-EU

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will visit Turkey for two days, Sunday and Monday November 8 and 9, 2009. Ahmadinejad is expected to take part in theOrganization of the Islamic Conference economic summit in Istanbul.

Ties between the two populous nations have strengthened in recent months. In late October 2009, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went to Iran on an official trip, boosting bilateral ties between the two countries. Referring to Ahmadinejad, Erdogan said: "There is no doubt he is our friend." Erdogan defended Iran's nuclear program and declared that it is

In September 2009, Ahmadinejad boasted of Iran's excellent relations with Turkey saying: "Our two countries cooperate in the fields of energy, tourism, cultural and international issues." Turkey has in recent years improved its links with Iran, and has sought to help resolve the nuclear standoff between its Western allies and Tehran.

After Ahmadinejad's disputed presidential re-election in June 2009, Erdogan and his ally, Turkish president Abdullah Gul were among the first foreign leaders to make congratulatory phone calls, ignoring the mass protests and concerns of Western leaders over the result's legitimacy. Erdogan justified the move as a "necessity of bilateral relations."

Economic Ties

The existing trade volume between Turkey and Iran is $11 billion. "Iran and Turkey have always seemed to be rivals in the region, but they need to cooperate due to common interests and threats," said Arzu Celalifer Ekinci, an analyst from the International Strategic research Organization (USAK) in Ankara.

On October 28, 2009, Erdogan said Turkey and Iran were about to enter serious trade relations. "The initial target for the bilateral trade volume was $20 billion but Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi suggested, 'Why not make it $30 billion', so we raised the target."

Rahimi also proposed the establishment of a joint airline by Iran and Turkey in a bid to streamline bilateral trade. He predicted that the annual trade between the two countries would rise to $30 billion within the next four or five years. Erdogan welcomed the suggestion, saying the two states should double efforts to remove obstacles on the way of border trade, specifically reduce custom charges.

In order to encourage Turkish and Iranian businessmen, new regulations in the fields of banking, customs and insurance will be enacted. An Iranian delegation to move the projects forward will travel to Turkey in the next three months.

Iranian and Turkish authorities agreed to boost ties and conduct bilateral trade in their own currencies. Iran announced that it had already started to use Turkish currency in trade with its neighbor. Turkey has made the relevant legal arrangements. Iran is seeking ways to attract foreign investors to its energy sector to break economic sanctions imposed due to its controversial nuclear weapons development program.

South Pars Gas Field

During Erdogan's visit to Turkey in October, the Prime Minister announced a deal to explore natural gas in Iran's South Pars basin. On October 28, 2009, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz and Iran's Oil Minister Masoud Mirkazemi signed an agreement on joint exploration and production of natural gas in the South Pars field. The same agreement also confirmed the transportation of Iranian gas to Europe via Turkey and extended an earlier protocol to carry Turkem gas to Turkey via an Iranian route.

In July 2007, Turkey signed a memorandum of understanding, allowing TPAO to pump 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas from the South Pars gas field. In support of this agreement, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "We import oil and natural gas. We want to reduce the amount we pay for our imports."

The Nabucco Pipeline

To cement their mutuality of interests in this project, Iran and Turkey countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on July 14, 2007 related to gas and oil transit and joint energy investments. The pipeline is designed to be 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) long, to transport up to 40 billion cubic meters (1.4 trillion cubic feet) of gas annually. The estimated cost of construction is €5 billion, to be borne in equal shares by a consortium of five countries -Austria's OMV AG, Hungary's MOL, Romania's Transgas, Bulgaria's Bulgargaz and Turkey's BOTAS (Turkey's petroleum pipeline corporation). Turkey is pivotal because the pipeline must traverse its territory. Turkey will be a beneficiary in four ways: First, it will secure a supply of natural gas; second, it will collect transit fees; third, it will bargain for preferential prices for the Iranian gas; and fourth, as a leading conduit of gas to Europe, it will enhance its eventual integration into the European Union by earning points for diversifying routes and supplies away from Russia.

Turkey wants to see Iranian gas in the Nabucco project. "Iran has a strategic position in the fields of petroleum and gas as a country of consumption, production and transportation," Erdogan said in October 2009. The joint exploration and production will start in the next weeks; Turkey is expected to invest $4 billion to produce 35 billion cubic meters.

Strategic Dimensions

As a historical adversary of Iran, Turkey indeed has managed to steer a remarkable course in foreign policy in recent years, maintaining cordial relations with Tehran even as it remains a key U.S. ally and the only Muslim country with high-profile military cooperation with Iran's arch-rival, Israel.

As a Muslim (albeit secular), non-Arab nation, Turkey can advise Tehran with a credibility that the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) could not match when they tried unsuccessfully to convince Tehran to drop its nuclear program. But if diplomatic efforts over Iran's nuclear program continue to falter, Turkey is the only country in Iran's vicinity on which the United States has pre-positioned tactical nuclear weapons that it could deploy against Iranian facilities.

In September 2009, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu both called for the expansion of security cooperation between the two countries. In a separate meeting with the Turkish Foreign minister, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said Tehran and Ankara "can play constructive roles in regional stability."

Early cooperation between Iran and Turkey was rooted in the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) - an intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985 by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey for the purpose of promoting economic, technical and cultural cooperation among the member states. It was the successor organization of what was the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), founded in 1962, which ended its activities in 1979 with the advent of Khomeini in Iran.

Historical and Cultural Dimensions

Today's Turkish-Iranian relations are shaped by the historic rivalry between the Ottoman and Persian empires of yore. The Ottoman Empire, from which modern Turkey evolved, controlled all the Central Asian Republics. The mistrust towards Iran among Arabs, Turks and other Muslim nations of the greater Middle East has always been there. During the Ottoman era, Iran and Ottoman Empire couldn't be allies, and couldn't ensure any serious economic or political co-operation. To this day Turkey resents Iran's meddling in the affairs of these nations.

Long-standing cultural and religious differences shape the relationship as well. The Turks are mostly Sunni Muslims, but Turkey includes a Shia minority that is widely viewed as "second class".

Iran's state religion is Shiite Islam and most of its people are ethnically Persian, but minorities of various ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds number in the millions, including ethnic Kurds, Baluchis, and the largest ethnic minority, the Azeris. Azeris, comprising a quarter of Iran's population, are ethnically Turkish and their language is a Turkish dialect. Iran and Turkey share a common problem with their Kurdish minorities, although this constitutes more of a problem for Turkey than for Iran. Turkey's stand points are being completely opposite to revolutionary Iran in almost all fields. Turkey has been emerging as a new role model for many Iranians.

While both countries are Muslim, Turkey has had a long tradition of a secular and democratic political system. The changes that took place in Turkey in recent years under the AKP government have not affected its economic policies, which remained free market oriented. By contrast, Iran is a theocratic state with aspirations of regional hegemony and an active supporter of terrorism.

The year 2009 has been designated as "Iran-Turkey Culture Year". Joint cultural activities have been organized in Turkey. Turkish Marmara University and the Iranian Consulate in Istanbul, for example, have arranged an "Iran-Turkey Cultural Relations Conference".

Turkey backs Iran's 'right' to nukes

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/November06/0641.html

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who is steering his country toward more eastward thinking and away from reliance on the West, is backing Iran's "right to peaceful nuclear energy," according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

But he goes further, warning the West that if it doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, then Western countries, including Israel, need to give up theirs.

He accuses Western countries of hypocrisy in criticizing Iran's nuclear program while remaining silent on Israel's apparent possession of undeclared nuclear weapons.

Erdogan, who is carving out a mediating role for Turkey among Muslim countries, at the same time called for a nuclear-free Middle East.

In a recent meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Erdogan referred particularly to Israel, which has approximately 200 nuclear weapons, according to U.S. intelligence assessments.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons. President Obama recently extended an agreement dating back to the Nixon administration of the 1970s recognizing Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and keeping them from being reported under the multi-lateral Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has been threatened with increasing sanctions, especially from the U.S. and Europe, over its declared nuclear development program. The U.N. Security Council and the U.S. already have imposed sanctions. However, they have threatened further, more stringent restrictions if current discussions should fail to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment efforts.

U.N. Security Council members Russia and China, while somewhat concerned over Iran's nuclear program, do not favor more stringent sanctions, owing to their increasing military and economic relations with Iran.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is to develop electricity, but Western countries believe it is a cover to produce nuclear weapons, given Iran's intensive uranium enrichment efforts.

Iran has made no secret of its enrichment program and recently revealed one such facility located on a military base outside the city of Qom. U .S. intelligence has known of its existence since 2006, despite a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate claiming Iran had halted its nuclear weapons enrichment program in 2003.

The fact that it is located on a military base enhances the concern that the enrichment facility is for nuclear bomb production. The Iranians counter that it is on a military facility deep inside a mountain to protect it from possible attack, given frequent U.S. and Israeli threats to such facilities.

Iranian officials disclosed its existence after they learned of U.S. knowledge of the facility and its location.

U.S. intelligence also is aware of other Iranian nuclear facilities dotted across the country ostensibly to avoid attack on any central facility that could knock out the nuclear development program altogether.

"Those who criticize Iran's nuclear program continue to possess the same weapons," Erdogan said. "I think that those who take this stance, who want these arrogant sanctions, need to first give these weapons up. We shared this opinion with our Iranian friends, our brothers."

The Turkish-Israeli Alliance Over

http://www.globalpolitician.com/26019-israel-turkey

Prof. Barry Rubin - 11/4/2009

The Turkey-Israel alliance is over. After two decades plus of close cooperation, the Turkish government is no longer interested in maintaining close cooperation with Israel nor is it—for all practical purposes—willing to do anything much to maintain its good relations with Israel.


The U.S.-Turkish alliance, which goes back about six decades, is also over but much less visibly so, though the two relationships are interlinked.

And that’s one important point in the first development. If the Turkish government was really concerned about protecting the kind of tight links with America that have existed for so long, it would be far more cautious about jettisoning the old policy toward Israel.

But let’s take a step back and talk about the nature of the bilateral relationship and why it has come to an end. Basically, there were four important reasons for the close cooperation between the two countries which made eminent sense in the 1980s and 1990s.

First, Turkey and Israel had common enemies, or at least threats. Iraq and Syria were radical Arab nationalist regimes which had problems with both countries. Syria claimed part of Turkey’s territory—Hatay—and was backing Armenian and Kurdish terrorists against Turkey. Iraq’s ambitions under President Saddam Hussein were also chilling for Ankara. Iran, as an Islamist state, was hostile to Kemalism and promoted subversion within Turkey.

If Arab states were unhappy about Turkey’s growing proximity to Israel, they weren’t prepared to do anything about it, and had not given Ankara any great benefits previously. Moreover, as devotees of realpolitik, Turkey’s leaders thought that if Arab regimes and Iran were upset or fearful of this new alignment, it would give Turkey more leverage. While Turkish leaders complained that Israel didn’t do more actively to help Ankara win its confrontation with Syria over its safe haven for the PKK leadership, Damascus’s willingness to give in was surely related to the fact that it knew neighbors to both north and south were working together against it.

Second, and related to the previous point, was the preference of Turkey’s powerful military which wanted the close relationship with Israel. Aside from the threat assessment, the Turkish armed forces saw Israel as a source of advanced equipment and technology that would be quite useful for itself. Especially useful was Israel’s ability to upgrade existing equipment at a relatively low price.

Third, it was believed in Ankara that the relationship with Israel would help its vital connections to the United States, given the perceived strength of the pro-Israel forces there. This benefitted Turkey in regard to Greek and Armenian criticisms of the U.S.-Turkey relationship.

Finally, there were mutual economic benefits. Commerce rose to high levels. Tourism from Israel brought a lot of money into Turkey. And there was the prospect of water sales, though these have never really materialized.

But perhaps more important it related to Turkey’s need for a new strategy as the Cold War ground to an end. Turkey’s big asset, and the basis of its NATO membership, was Ankara’s value in confronting the USSR and its Balkan satellite states. How could Turkey replace this lost rationale and maintain its value to the West, whose approval it sought and whose aid it needed? The road to Washington thus was seen as going through Jerusalem (though Turkish policymakers might have said “Tel Aviv.”)

These three factors have all eroded, in part due to objective changes in the world though to a very large degree due to the AKP taking Turkey down an Islamist path. I would suggest that while previous governments had their criticisms of Israel, if the AKP were not in power, the bilateral link would continue rather than being terminated.

Basically, of the four reasons cited above, the armed forces’ and commercial interests have not changed at all. The same applies, to a slightly lesser degree, of Ankara’s need and desire for good relations with Washington. Under a non-AKP government, all these would remain pretty constant.

The one change has been the collapse of one previous threat—Iraq—and the weakening of another, Syria, which no longer poses a Kurdish problem either, to the point that it wanted to avoid antagonizing Turkey. Yet even these external changes would not have been sufficient to sabotage the relationship.

From the AKP regime’s standpoint, however, all but the commercial factor are of limited value and, of course, it is ideologically hostile to Israel. The government uses anti-Israel and even antisemitic sentiment to build its base of support. It is not so sympathetic to “Arabs” or even “Muslims” as such but to fellow Islamists. Thus, for example, the AKP regime’s passion for Hamas in the Gaza Strip is not matched by any profound concern toward the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Let’s go through the three non-commercial factors to see how they’ve changed for the AKP. Rather than view Syria and Iran as threats, the AKP government sees them as allies. Relations with both countries have steadily tightened. Turkish-Syrian relations have become a virtual love fest with regular visits, agreements, and cooperation.

Rather than have common enemies, then, it could be suggested that the new alignment of Turkey with Iran and Syria have a common enemy in Israel.

The Turkish military, of course, has faced a steady weakening of its political influence, due both to European Union pressure and to the AKP’s strenuous efforts. Symbolic here, is the cancellation of the planned Anatolian Eagle joint military maneuvers after six successful such exercises. The armed forces may be very unhappy with the Turkish government’s behavior and prefer the close alignment continue but has far less say in the matter.

Especially intriguing is the U.S. angle. The AKP regime has the enviable situation of being able to show disrespect and a lack of cooperation with U.S. interests without paying a price for this behavior. The situation began in the Bush administration and the 2003 invasion of Iraq but has grown more intense with the Obama Administration. Since the new president views Turkey as the very model of a modern, moderate Islamist government and is reluctant to use pressure on anyone, the White House lets Turkey get away with it.

The AKP thus no longer needs Israel as help in maintaining Ankara’s standing in Washington. On one hand, its status with the United States is secure; on the other hand, that connection is far less important for the Turkish regime.

Israel is not in a good position to inflict costs on Turkey for Ankara’s hostile, even insulting, behavior though Israeli policymakers have no illusions about the end of the special relationship. There is serious consideration of cancelling some major arms sales, especially given new fears that the technology could find its way to Iran and Syria. In addition, Israeli tourism fell off sharply, at least temporarily, and Turkish Jews knew their future in Turkey is uncertain.

It should be understood that Israel does not want to respond to the AKP’s hostility by taking steps that would be seen as “anti-Turkey,” such as vigorously backing Armenian genocide resolutions or conducting an anti-Turkey campaign in the United States. There must be some hope that in a post-AKP future—if any—more moderate forces in the country would prevail and at least make the bilateral relationship a good one even if they did not return to the past alignment.

Like all politicians, those of the AKP would like to have their kebab and eat it, too. They still want to play a role as mediator between Israel and Syria as well as Israel and Hamas, yet Jerusalem is not going to play along with magnifying the importance and treating as a fair-minded adjudicator a country which it knows is so hostile. At the same time, Israeli leaders will avoid if possible any confrontation with Turkey which Ankara would use as an excuse to turn the temperature down even further.

It would be nice to be able to suggest some way in which the relationship could be salvaged. Given, however, the AKP’s ideology and redefinition of Turkish interests, the weakness of the Obama Administration, and Israel’s lack of leverage, this is unlikely to happen. The sole real question is how fast and obviously the AKP will move to express publicly—and sometimes demagogically—its hostility in the way that was done during the Gaza War of early 2009.

There is some reason to believe that the Turkish military could play some continuing role as a restraining factor, while American criticism (more likely from Congress than from the White House), and the desire to maintain Israel’s trade and tourism might also restrain the AKP government. Perhaps the most powerful issue in this regard is any lingering hope by the Turkish government that it could play a major diplomatic role in Israel-Palestinian, Arab-Israeli issues.

Finally, there is a gap between Israel and U.S. perceptions. (The Turkish-Israel issue plays no role with EU countries.) Israeli decisionmakers and opinionmakers—except for a very small group of marginal voices whose influence might well be overestimated in Ankara—understand precisely what’s happening. In contrast, U.S. counterparts are barely aware of any problem with Turkey for their own interests. One can expect that the conflict will force itself into their attention in future.

The Turkish-Israel alignment played an important and productive role in regional stability as well as for the economic well-being of both countries for some years. It was a good situation, but clearly not a permanent one.