Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Turkey is the Key

Expand Messages
  • WVNS
    Israeli recipe for dealing with the world says if force does not work, use more force. Turkey is the Key By Israel Shamir Bombs go off in Turkey, a great
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Israeli recipe for dealing with the world says "if force does not work, use more force."

      Turkey is the Key
      By Israel Shamir

      Bombs go off in Turkey, a great spree of terrorist bombings and attacks. Practically every day Turkish soldiers and civilians are being killed. The killings are done ostensibly by the Kurd terrorists of PPK, but this is a new step in Israel's warfare against Turkish independence. Encouraged by Israel, PKK extended its operations to the Aegean and the Black Sea resorts all the way to Izmir.

      Israelis armed, supplied and trained Kurdish terrorists for many years; they have turned the Iraqi Kurdistan into their territory with many Israeli businessmen doing their affairs waiting for Kirkuk oil to flow to Haifa as it did in the days of colonial British rule. The Kurds remained a hidden tool of Israel in the region for many years; its activation now shows that Israel still wants to teach Turks a lesson.

      The main neocon magazine in the US, frontpagemag.com, openly called to support the Kurds to retaliate for Turkey's support of Palestine. Another Jewish right-wing think-tank speaks of mobilising the US congress to condemn one-hundred-years-old Armenian tragedy as a means to undermine Turkey. After many years of siding with Turkey, the Jewish Lobby now decided to switch sides and support the Armenian claims. So Turkey is now under attack from all sides. It could be expected, for the popular Israeli slogan says "if force does not work, use more force."

      This was the explanation of the Flotilla Massacre on May 31, 2010. The Mavi Marmara attack was intended to be a short, sharp shock to the increasingly independent Turks. Israelis intended to terrify and frighten them into obedience; that is why they ordered a blood bath on board the Mavi Marmara. As we know now, the Israeli commandos began shooting well before encountering any resistance. They did not want to play soft ball, submission was what they are after. Murder was not a result of surprise or miscalculation: it was an open attack on Turkey.

      Israel's conflict with Turkey was not an unfortunate result of the murderous raid. The confrontation between them became acute two weeks before the massacre, on May 17, 2010. Together with Brazil, Turkey has arranged and signed the Tehran Declaration of a nuclear fuel swap deal with beleaguered Iran. This declaration could derail the US-Israeli plans of sanctioning Iran to death prior to bombing it.

      Israel wants Iran destroyed; as much as she wanted Iraq demolished, Gaza starved and the rest cowed. The swap agreement undermined all the logic behind the sanctions. All the plotting of Israeli lobbyists in the US and Europe was wiped out in an instant. Indeed, as the Muslims say: they plot, but Allah plots better.

      Israel received the news of the Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreement as a heavy blow. "We were defeated by the crafty Turks and Iranians," read the headlines of Israeli newspapers. Not so fast. The US State Department minimized the damage, effectively asking: "Who cares what these lowlifes agree about? If we have decided to bomb somebody, bomb we shall. We shall never allow facts to confuse us." Thomas Friedman in the NYT was disappointed why "a Holocaust-denying thug" is allowed to live.

      Brazenly disregarding the agreement, the Security Council approved the sanctions on June, 9. Moscow and Beijing were bribed or blackmailed to agree. China preferred to play ball in order to avoid confrontation over North Korea. The story of sunken South Korean ship provided a pretext for an attack on North Korea, and such an attack could cause much damage to China. The Chinese are also vulnerable to the Western meddling in Xinjiang and Tibet.

      The Russians have received some precious gifts: Ukraine returned into Russia's fold, Georgia was marginalised, the new nuclear arms treaty was better to Russia than anything they could expect. At the same time, Moscow suffered a severe terrorist attack reminding the Russians of their enemies' ability to seed trouble. Still, Turkey voted against the sanctions, proving its new regional role as a reliable new pivot for the Middle East.

      The conflict between Turkey and Israel did not start with the Iran swap: it began earlier, in January 2010, when the Israeli deputy Foreign Minister Dani Ayalon invited Turkish ambassador and publicly humiliated him. In Oriental fashion, Ambassador Chelikkol was offered to take seat in a sofa lower the Ayalon's armchair. Ayalon refused to shake hands with the ambassador and told journalists in Hebrew while cameras were rolling: "We would like to show that he takes lower seat and there is only one Israeli flag on the table".

      Or perhaps the conflict began a year earlier, in January 2009, when the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan walked off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Erdogan was annoyed by an attempt of a western moderator to stop his response to the Israeli president Shimon Peres who justified mass killings in Gaza.

      Or perhaps it started in September 2007 when the Israeli planes flew over Turkey to bomb Syria without as much as `by your leave'.

      Perhaps it was even earlier, when Turkey began to assert its independence by discarding its century-old and worn ideology of Kemalism. Secular nationalism of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a trap for the former Empire. Brutish Kemalist Turkey was necessarily a member of NATO, an enemy to Arabs and Iranians, a docile client of the US, a loyal ally of Israel and a persecutor of Kurds.

      Now is the time to thank the Europeans for doing their bit to reform Turkey. In endless negotiations with Turkey, the European Union demanded to release the Army's iron grip on power. Without this gentle prompting from Europe, Turkey would be still ruled by a Zionist general or by a Zionist generals' appointee. With people being free from military rule, the Turks had ended their violent secularism and regained peace with Islam and with their neighbours.

      I visited Turkey last Christmas, and had met with the activists who were about to depart for Gaza. Turkey is doing well: no economic crisis, steady growth, peace with the Kurds, a brave attempt to make peace with Armenians, and a perfect balance of religion and freedom. Who wants may go to a beautifully restored Ottoman mosque and pray, who wants may go to a café and drink very good Turkish wine. Girls are forced neither to shed their scarves nor to cover their arms.

      "We lost Turkey", said Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defence, and blamed the European Union for refusing to accept Turkey. But we have to thank the Europeans for this refusal. We do not want Turkey in the EU; we need Turkey for ourselves, for the region.

      There is a great new plan of creating a Middle East Union as a regional equivalent of the European Union. This is the right place for Turkey, in the head of this new formation. In a way, it will be restoration of the Ottoman Empire: to the same extent the European Union is a restoration of Charlemagne's Empire. The difference is that Europe was fragmented for centuries, while our region was united until 1917. Even if full political union may be a far-away perspective, this is good to start moving towards this goal.

      There are already free trade treaties between Turkey and its Arab neighbours; the spiritual dimension is there, for Istanbul was the last seat of the Caliphate. Now Turkey may establish a regional International Court to deal with regional problems, among others, with Zionist excesses. Europe is still not free from Zionist control and that is why the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court in The Hague are unsuitable places to try Zionist criminals. Moreover, their present location reminds of Eurocentric world of yesterday. A regional Court may also convincingly deal with war criminals in occupied Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. Great lawyers like Richard Falk and Judge Goldstone could be invited to seat in it.

      Establishment of the International Court (East) would be a serious and realistic step towards further decolonization of the region and its future unification in a Middle East Union.


      It Amazes Me How Israel Shamir Manages to Be So Right About So Much and Still Manages to Be So Wrong in His Final Analyses
      By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
      http://www.jewishracism.com, http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

      Israel Shamir has recently published an article which echoes many things which I have been saying for years and which agrees with my assessment of more recent events, including the gifts the Jews gave to Russia. Once before, I sharply criticized Mr. Shamir for telling us Ron Paul is our savior, and to his credit, he republished what I had to say. Here is Shamir's more recent statement, which agrees in many ways with what I have said before him:


      I like the title aesthetically, but Shamir again is missing the more important points I have elaborated on, while acknowledging, much after me, much of what I have said in the past. I disagree with Shamir's ultimate assessment that Israel and Turkey are really working against each other's interests.

      Whereas Shamir deviates from my theories when he claims that the AKP is the product of the EU and is now ironically working against Jewish interests by opposing the military junta in Turkey, I argue that the AKP is a Jewish production meant to finally incorporate Turkey into the EU, that crumbling Jewish Utopia which shows the same decay, moral and vital, that the Jewish Soviet Union exhibited. And what is it that Turkey will bring in its basket to the EU that the Jews so desperately want? All of North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

      The AKP does not merely want to join the EU. The AKP seeks to create a borderless rim around the African coast of the Mediterranean, as well throughout the Middle East, and probably through Central Asia, though I have not yet seen them make the latter declaration. If successful, this will result in massive immigration into Europe that will destroy it.

      As such, Mr. Shamir's saviors, like Ron Paul, are serving thoroughly Jewish interests, in the case of the AKP, the Jewish interest in World Government and the creation of "Gog and Magog" out of Jewish political theory and Jewish political and military theater. This is hardly the first time the Jews have tried to invade and destroy Europe by means of the Turks.

      Note also a pattern among covertly Jewish saviors of the Palestinians, from Idi Amin, to Saddam Hussein, to Ahmadinejad (. . . to Erdogan?). They each help Israel to enter into war with the next would be supposed savior of the Palestinians. Amin fell and Hussein rose. Hussein fell and Ahmadinejad rose. Ahmadinejad is about to fall and Erdogan rises. Will Turkey end up in the same crucible? Let us hope not.


      Punishing Turkey
      by Philip Giraldi

      Does anyone remember the movie The Boys from Brazil? It told the story of how a group of top Nazis had moved to Brazil where they made a number of clones of Hitler-as-a-child that were being strategically placed around the world to eventually bring about a Fourth Reich. The movie ended ambiguously, with many of the Hitler children still alive and evidently expected to eventually turn into Hitler adults. The movie makers were clearly on to something because there have been a lot of Hitler sightings by Israel and its friends over the past few years. Saddam Hussein was described as a new Hitler while Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been depicted in even more heinous terms as a reborn Nazi leader preparing a new Holocaust. More recently Israel demonstrators have displayed effigies of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with the hairline altered and a moustache added to create a caricature of Hitler.

      The Turkish prime minister's Hitler-like leanings first appeared when he dared confront Israel's President Shimon Peres at an international meeting in Davos in January 2009. Referring to the slaughter of Gazan civilians earlier that month, Erdogan told Peres "…you know well how to kill." But if there was any lingering doubt, Erdogan definitely became Hitler through his support of the flotilla that sought to bring aid to Gaza three weeks ago followed by his denunciation of the massacre initiated by Israeli commandos. His diabolical intent was made manifest when he then demanded justice for the nine Turkish citizens who were murdered. Hitlerization is the price one inevitably pays for criticizing Israel or opposing its policies.

      Whenever Israel discovers that yet another foreign nation has turned Nazi and is intent on recreating the Holocaust, the American lap dog soon picks up the scent. Andrew Sullivan has recently described the phenomenon as "Israel Derangement Syndrome," which he describes as a "…form of derangement, or of such a passionate commitment to a foreign country that any and all normal moral rules or even basic fairness are jettisoned. And you will notice one thing as well: no regret whatsoever for the loss of human life, just as the hideous murder of so many civilians in the Gaza war had to be the responsibility of the victims, not the attackers. There is no sense of the human here; just the tribe."

      The Gaza flotilla has been handled by the mainstream media in precisely that fashion – blaming the victim with a unanimity that overwhelms both justice and fairness. No humanity, no mention of the deliberate attempt to starve Gaza most recently endorsed by alleged United States Senator from New York Charles Schumer who said "strangle them economically." Or, if one prefers the wisdom of Representative Eliot Engel, also from New York, the flotilla was "filled with hate-filled provocateurs bent on violence."

      Confronted by such hatred it is surprising that the Israeli commandos were so restrained, killing only nine passengers and wounding about forty more.

      As the popular narrative in the media has unfolded, Turkey was the aggressor and Israel yet again the victim. Turkey now has to be punished. Congress is already considering passing the frequently shelved Armenian Genocide resolution and Representative Mike Spence warns "There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the State of Israel." Representative Shelley Berkley agrees, saying that she would actively oppose Turkey's attempt to join the European Union. Just exactly how she will do that is not completely clear.

      The American media and the punditry in Washington has obediently been lining up to condemn Ankara, using two basic arguments. The first contention is that Turkey has become a stronghold of Islamism, is edging towards a political and economic alliance with Iran, and is even acting friendly to terrorism-supporting neighbors like Syria. The second narrative is that Turkey is no longer reliable due to its support of initiatives like the flotilla and also its bid to negotiate a solution to the Iranian nuclear program dilemma.

      Those who know Turkey well realize that the country's Islamism is a reflection of the simple fact that many Turks are deeply religious. It does not mean that Turkish democracy is dead and the desire to make the state more reflective of religious sentiment will be held in check by the many Turks in the judiciary and military who see themselves as guardians of the secular constitution. Educated Turks in liberal urban environments are also frequently not religious at all and many are hostile to expressions of piety. It is absolutely in the United States' national interest to encourage the development of political systems in Muslim majority countries that accommodate both democratic pluralism and religiosity. Turkey is far from perfect but it is a good example of how such a system might develop and should be encouraged, not subject to criticism that really has nothing to do with the Turks themselves and everything to do with Israel.

      As for the claim that Turkey is sliding eastward, Turks have always seen themselves as a bridge between east and west and establishing a modus vivendi with one's neighbors is just good politics and good business in the Near East. As for the charge that Turkey is no longer reliable, one only has to note that nearly the entire world excepting only Israel supports the lifting of the siege of Gaza while many nations welcomed Turkey and Brazil's initiative to resolve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The United States, inevitably lining up in support of Israel and seemingly willing to go to war with Iran on Tel Aviv's behalf, is, as usual, politically isolated in its support of policies that will go nowhere and accomplish nothing.

      The hysteria about Turkey is, if anything, more intense at the various neocon think tanks and in their websites on the internet where leading supporters of Israel are calling not only for punishing Turkey but also for kicking it out of NATO. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) has led the charge. JINSA is the home base of leading neocons to include John Bolton, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle and Kenneth Timmerman. A JINSA report issued on June 8th cited Turkey for its "anti-Semitic ravings" and recommended that Washington "seriously consider suspending military cooperation…as a prelude to removing it" from NATO. The hue and cry was shortly thereafter picked up by the other neocon heroes who continue to feature on the mainstream media in spite of their inability to get anything right. The National Review Online's Victor Davis Hanson called Turkey a "…sponsor of Hamas, ally of theocratic Iran, and fellow traveler with terrorist sponsoring Syria" conditions that are "antithetical to its NATO membership." Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University added in a June 7th Wall Street Journal op-ed that "A combination of Islamist rule, resentment at exclusion from Europe, and a neo-Ottomanist ideology that envisions Turkey as a great power in the Middle East have made Turkey a state that is often plainly hostile not only to Israel but to American aims and interests."


      The Jews turn on Turkey
      Kevin MacDonald

      Kevin MacDonald: Well, that didn't take long. Turkey's involvement in the flotilla and its support for the Palestinians has now made it an enemy of the Israel Lobby, with all that that entails. All in all, it's a good example of Jewish power and moral particularism. After long opposing any resolution on Turkey's genocide of Armenians, Rep. Howard Berman, a major force for Israel in the US Congress, suddenly supports a Congressional resolution, stating, "nothing justifies Turkey's turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian genocide." He and "a host of other members of the House's unofficial Jewish caucus have signed on as co-sponsors."

      Berman suddenly found his moral bearings, along with the organized Jewish community. The neocons are naturally leading the charge, summarized by Jim Lobe who quotes from a report by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:

      "If Turkey finds its best friends to be Iran, Hamas, Syria and Brazil (look for Venezuela in the future) the security of that information (and Western technology in weapons in Turkey's arsenal) is suspect. The United States should seriously consider suspending military cooperation with Turkey as a prelude to removing it from [NATO]," suggested the group.

      [JINSA's] board of advisers includes many prominent champions of the 2003 Iraq invasion, including former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, and former U.N. Amb. John Bolton.

      What's interesting here is the proposal to eject Turkey from NATO. It wasn't long ago that Turkey was being assured that it could become a member of the EU. Turkey's exclusion from Europe is widely seen as a big factor in its change of foreign policy. Thomas Friedman: "After a decade of telling the Turks that if they wanted E.U. membership they had to reform their laws, economy, minority rights and civilian-military relations — which the Erdogan government systematically did — the E.U. leadership has now said to Turkey: `Oh, you mean nobody told you? We're a Christian club. No Muslims allowed.' The E.U.'s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world."

      And that's the good news. The neocons and the organized Jewish community were big supporters of Turkey's bid to join the EU–which would have meant that 71 million Turks would have the right to move anywhere in Europe. This would mean the end of Europe as having any defining culture or biological coherence — obviously not a concern to Jewish activists like Friedman.

      It's worth remembering that Jewish activist organizations regarded the admission of Turkey to the EU as a way of civilizing Europe and ensuring cultural, religious, and ethnic pluralism — precisely the policy proposals that the Jewish community has advanced in all Western societies, particularly since the end of World War II. In 2002, at the height of the push for Turkey's admission to the EU, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) had this to say in response to former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's argument that Muslim Turkey has no place in the European Union:

      Ironically, in the fifteenth century, when European monarchs expelled the Jews, it was Moslem Turkey that provided them a welcome…. During the Holocaust, when Europe was slaughtering its Jews, it was Turkish consuls who extended protection to fugitives from Vichy France and other Nazi allies…. Today's European neo-Nazis and skinheads focus upon Turkish victims while, Mr. President [d'Estaing], you are reported to be considering the Pope's plea that your Convention emphasize Europe's Christian heritage. [The Center suggested that Giscard's new Constitution] underline the pluralism of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic Europe, in which the participation of Moslem Turkey might bolster the continent's Moslem communities—and, indeed, Turkey itself—against the menaces of extremism, hate and fundamentalism. A European Turkey can only be beneficial for stability in Europe and the Middle East. (See here; the statement has presumably been removed from the SWC website.)

      Turkey in the EU was obviously a win-win situation for Jews: The end of Europe as a Christian civilization with an ethnic core combined with a moderating influence on the Muslims that would benefit Israel. I rather doubt that we'll be seeing this sort of thing anymore. The chances of Turkey being admitted to the EU now are less than zero.
      Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's argument that Turkey has no place in Europe is just as valid against admitting any Muslims to Europe. Although the rejection of Turkey doesn't change the present suicidal dynamic in Europe, it will certainly slow down the process compared to what would have happened had Turkey been admitted, perhaps allowing enough time for Europe to waken from its slumbers.


      Turkey and the Neocons
      Posted By Stephen M. Walt

      It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however -- fueled primarily by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians -- the ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders of Israel began switching sides, too.

      Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service, detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.

      First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism. But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy, and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only democracy in the Middle East."

      But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally of the United States. Of course, Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey, and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.

      Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not. So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq -- even though Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- and why they are now pushing for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.

      As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.

      One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's interests over America's. After all, if the interests of the two states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue (a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.

      I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions -- yes, billions -- of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues, such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President Obama's failures on this front -- despite his repeated pledges to do better--make this all-too-obvious.

      At the same time, this unusual relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.

      Although the United States and Israel do share certain common interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly) will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal track record and their underlying motivations.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

      To leave this list, send an email to:


      Please consider contributing to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... !
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.