From: Judicial Watch
Most Americans probably don’t realize that Turkey’s Islamist government is building a colossal mosque in the United States with the input of several branches of a group known as the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.
It’s an alarming story unlikely to receive coverage in the mainstream media, however, a nonprofit dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism has posted information about the project on its website. The $100 million mega mosque will be erected in Lanham Maryland and is expected to “become the largest and most striking example of Islamic architecture in the western hemisphere” when it is finished in 2014.
The massive facility, which will be called Turkish American Culture and Civilization Center, will span 15 acres and will feature five buildings, including a mosque “constructed using sixteenth century Ottoman architecture that can hold 750 worshipers.” It will be a place that will help counter an epidemic of “Islamophobia” in the United States, according to Turkish government officials who recently visited the construction site. The delegation was led by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose goals include increasing Islamist influence in America.
Greeting Erdogan, who is transforming Turkey from a secular democracy to an Islamist state, on his recent visit to Maryland were leaders of two entities of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda. They include Naeem Baig, president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
A U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo cited in the story lists ICNA as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The memo says its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memo even refers to meetings with ICNA where there was talk about a merger. ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation’s largest Islamic terror funding case, is a renowned U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front group.
This is hardly the first time Turkey’s increasingly radical government tries to infiltrate the United States. The same terrorism watchdog group that exposed this outrageous mosque project also wrote about a network of Turkish charter schools, called Fethullah Gulen, being investigated by the FBI. It’s the largest charter school network in America and is a critical component in Turkey’s transformation from a secular democracy to an Islamic state.
Incredibly, the Obama administration gives radical Turkish government officials free reign in the United States. During the recent visit to the mosque construction site in Maryland, Erdogan’s deputy prime minister, Bülent Arınç, slipped away from the delegation for a day, according to a newspaper that covers Turkish affairs abroad. Arınç reportedly visited an “Islamic scholar” who lives in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania.
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Friday, August 10, 2012
24 Baffling Hours In Turkey
The Gatestone Institute has an interesting little article about a terrorist attack in Turkey. Well worth a look, especially as Turkey is increasingly becoming the most important player in the Middle East and may yet complicate our relationship with Israel.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Built in 397, Oldest Christian Monastery At Risk in Turkey
From: AINA
The Mongolians failed to destroy it 700 years ago despite the massacre of 40 friars and 400 Christians. Yet the existence of the oldest functioning Christian monastery in the world, the fifth century Mor Gabriel Monastery in the Tur Abdin plane (the mountain of God's servants) near the Turkish-Syrian border, is at risk after a ruling by Turkey's highest appeals court in Ankara.
Founded in 397 by the monks Samuel and Simon, Mor Gabriel in eastern Anatolia has been the heart of the Orthodox Syrian community for centuries. Syriacs hail from a branch of Middle Eastern Christianity and are one of the oldest communities in Turkey.
Today the monastery is inhabited by Mor Timotheus Samuel Aktash, 3 monks, 11 nuns and 35 boys who are learning the monastery's teachings, the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and the Orthodox Syriac tradition.
Although the monastery is situated in an area at the centre of conflicts between Kurdish separatist with the armed PKK group and the Turkish army, Mor Gabriel welcomes 20,000 pilgrims every year.
The Syriac Orthodox community - estimated to be 2.5 million across the world - is under the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch and considers the monastery a 'second Jerusalem'.
The monastery's reputation 1500 years ago was such that Roman Emperors Arcadius, Theodosius and Onorio built new buildings around it and enriched it with art and mosaics. But in the past 150 years Mor Gabriel has gone through a decline after the massacres of Christians by nationalists at the end of the 19th century - 3,000 Christians were burnt to death in Edessa's Cathedral in 1895 - and clashes between Turks and Kurds in the area during World War I.
In the mid 1960s the community in Tur Abdin numbered 130,000.
Today only 3,500 people are left and the 'second Jerusalem' is in danger. The heads of the three neighbouring Muslim villages, Kurds with the Belebi tribe, filed a lawsuit against the monastery years ago with the support of an MP member of the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Under the lawsuit, the Syriacs are accused of practicing 'anti-Turkish activities' by providing an education to young people, including non Christians, and of illegally occupying land which belongs to the neighbouring villages.
After a number of contrasting verdicts, the highest appeals court in Ankara, which is close to the government, has ruled in favour of the village chiefs and said the land which has been part of the monastery for 1,600 years is not its property, Turkish newspaper Zaman reported.
The lawsuit also claimed that the sanctuary was built over the ruins of a mosque, forgetting that Mohammed was born 170 years after its foundation.
The verdict has been slammed by the Turkish media and Zaman wrote that the judges had 'lost' property and fiscal documents 'proving that the land in question belongs to the monastery'.
Mor Gabriel now needs to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in order to survive, a move already undertaken with success a few years ago by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople to re-obtain the building housing the Orthodox orphanage of Buyukada in Istanbul.
The Mongolians failed to destroy it 700 years ago despite the massacre of 40 friars and 400 Christians. Yet the existence of the oldest functioning Christian monastery in the world, the fifth century Mor Gabriel Monastery in the Tur Abdin plane (the mountain of God's servants) near the Turkish-Syrian border, is at risk after a ruling by Turkey's highest appeals court in Ankara.
Founded in 397 by the monks Samuel and Simon, Mor Gabriel in eastern Anatolia has been the heart of the Orthodox Syrian community for centuries. Syriacs hail from a branch of Middle Eastern Christianity and are one of the oldest communities in Turkey.
Today the monastery is inhabited by Mor Timotheus Samuel Aktash, 3 monks, 11 nuns and 35 boys who are learning the monastery's teachings, the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and the Orthodox Syriac tradition.
Although the monastery is situated in an area at the centre of conflicts between Kurdish separatist with the armed PKK group and the Turkish army, Mor Gabriel welcomes 20,000 pilgrims every year.
The Syriac Orthodox community - estimated to be 2.5 million across the world - is under the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch and considers the monastery a 'second Jerusalem'.
The monastery's reputation 1500 years ago was such that Roman Emperors Arcadius, Theodosius and Onorio built new buildings around it and enriched it with art and mosaics. But in the past 150 years Mor Gabriel has gone through a decline after the massacres of Christians by nationalists at the end of the 19th century - 3,000 Christians were burnt to death in Edessa's Cathedral in 1895 - and clashes between Turks and Kurds in the area during World War I.
In the mid 1960s the community in Tur Abdin numbered 130,000.
Today only 3,500 people are left and the 'second Jerusalem' is in danger. The heads of the three neighbouring Muslim villages, Kurds with the Belebi tribe, filed a lawsuit against the monastery years ago with the support of an MP member of the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Under the lawsuit, the Syriacs are accused of practicing 'anti-Turkish activities' by providing an education to young people, including non Christians, and of illegally occupying land which belongs to the neighbouring villages.
After a number of contrasting verdicts, the highest appeals court in Ankara, which is close to the government, has ruled in favour of the village chiefs and said the land which has been part of the monastery for 1,600 years is not its property, Turkish newspaper Zaman reported.
The lawsuit also claimed that the sanctuary was built over the ruins of a mosque, forgetting that Mohammed was born 170 years after its foundation.
The verdict has been slammed by the Turkish media and Zaman wrote that the judges had 'lost' property and fiscal documents 'proving that the land in question belongs to the monastery'.
Mor Gabriel now needs to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in order to survive, a move already undertaken with success a few years ago by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople to re-obtain the building housing the Orthodox orphanage of Buyukada in Istanbul.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Israel Ignored at Obama’s Counterterror Initiative
From: CNSNews.com
As the Obama administration’s new international counterterrorism initiative develops, the exclusion of Israel becomes more glaring with each passing meeting -- most recently on Monday, at the beginning of a conference focusing on victims of terrorism.
Addressing the two-day Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) event in Madrid, an administration official mentioned a dozen countries in the context of victims of terrorism – but not Israel.
Launched last fall as a “signature initiative” in what the administration calls its “smart power approach to counterterrorism,” the GCTF comprises 29 countries, with the U.S. and Turkey serving as co-chairs.
Israel’s exclusion provoked comment from the outset, given the country’s long experience both as a target of and fighter against terrorism.
The State Department says future Israeli participation is not ruled out. Still, Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government – which disputes that Hamas is a terrorist group – has worked actively to isolate Israel in the international community.
Further, 11 of the 29 GCTF members are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), some of which are hostile towards Israel. All subscribe to the OIC’s 1999 Convention on Combating Terrorism which states that “armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”
According to the State Department, Monday’s opening of the GCTF “High-Level Conference on Victims of Terrorism” in the Spanish capital “brings together government officials, civil society leaders and other stakeholders to discuss how countries can increase their support of victims of terror while cooperating to counter extremist ideologies.”
Addressing the event, U.S. undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights Maria Otero noted that Spain, “like the United States and so many countries around the world,” has had firsthand experienced of terrorism and the pain it inflicts on society. Later, she referred to a documentary that was shown at the GCTF launch last September, recounting the stories of the victims of terror attacks in Pakistan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Spain, Columbia and the United States.
Similarly, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed a GCTF event in Istanbul last month, she mentioned the challenge of terrorism in Turkey, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Maghreb and Europe, referred obliquely to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and commented on terrorist kidnappings in Latin America and the Sahel.
Israel was not mentioned, either by Otero in Madrid on Monday or by Clinton in Istanbul on June 7.
As the Obama administration’s new international counterterrorism initiative develops, the exclusion of Israel becomes more glaring with each passing meeting -- most recently on Monday, at the beginning of a conference focusing on victims of terrorism.
Addressing the two-day Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) event in Madrid, an administration official mentioned a dozen countries in the context of victims of terrorism – but not Israel.
Launched last fall as a “signature initiative” in what the administration calls its “smart power approach to counterterrorism,” the GCTF comprises 29 countries, with the U.S. and Turkey serving as co-chairs.
Israel’s exclusion provoked comment from the outset, given the country’s long experience both as a target of and fighter against terrorism.
The State Department says future Israeli participation is not ruled out. Still, Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government – which disputes that Hamas is a terrorist group – has worked actively to isolate Israel in the international community.
Further, 11 of the 29 GCTF members are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), some of which are hostile towards Israel. All subscribe to the OIC’s 1999 Convention on Combating Terrorism which states that “armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”
According to the State Department, Monday’s opening of the GCTF “High-Level Conference on Victims of Terrorism” in the Spanish capital “brings together government officials, civil society leaders and other stakeholders to discuss how countries can increase their support of victims of terror while cooperating to counter extremist ideologies.”
Addressing the event, U.S. undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights Maria Otero noted that Spain, “like the United States and so many countries around the world,” has had firsthand experienced of terrorism and the pain it inflicts on society. Later, she referred to a documentary that was shown at the GCTF launch last September, recounting the stories of the victims of terror attacks in Pakistan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Uganda, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Spain, Columbia and the United States.
Similarly, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed a GCTF event in Istanbul last month, she mentioned the challenge of terrorism in Turkey, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Maghreb and Europe, referred obliquely to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and commented on terrorist kidnappings in Latin America and the Sahel.
Israel was not mentioned, either by Otero in Madrid on Monday or by Clinton in Istanbul on June 7.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Gaza-bound flotilla "Freedom Waves" leaves Turkey
From: Almasry Alyoum
Two boats set sail from the Turkish port of Fethiye on 2 November, bound for the Gaza Strip in another activist attempt to break the Israeli siege on the Palestinian territory.
Two boats set sail from the Turkish port of Fethiye on 2 November, bound for the Gaza Strip in another activist attempt to break the Israeli siege on the Palestinian territory.
The two boats, one Irish and one Canadian, were supposed to carry some 50 activists and journalists from around the world in an attempt to draw attention to the isolation Gaza has suffered since 2007. The number was reduced to about 25 at the port in Fethiye due to complications with Turkish bureaucracy.
The Canadian boat is carrying US$30,000 in medical aid.
“Stay human,” shouted David Heaps, a member of the boat’s steering committee, echoing the words of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian Gaza solidarity activist who was murdered in April.
The flotilla, called “Freedom Waves” by the organizers, sails after a flotilla of activist boats attempted to break the Israeli siege of Gaza in July but were prevented from leaving port by Greek authorities in a move that activists on board dubbed “Israeli outsourcing” of the Gaza blockade.
The two boats set sail separately but plan to meet in international waters.
"I am ecstatic that we are out of port. Hopefully both ships will get to Gaza and we will show the world that we can break the siege," said Kit Kittredge, an American activist on board.
Unlike previous flotillas, the organizers this time had decided to keep the mission secret until they reached international waters. And although they left from a Turkish port, they had no plans of coordinating with any state as they wanted to keep their action entirely civilian-based.
“We don't want to find out whether the Turkish government would feel some pressure to stop us. Our preference is not to engage any state actor. We're civil society and we prefer to act with as little interference as possible with state actors, even if that state, like Turkey, has taken a constructive approach in isolating Israel,” said David Heap, a member of the steering committee on the Canadian boat, which is called Tahrir.
In September 2011, Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador after the government in Tel Aviv refused to apologize for killing nine activists aboard the Turkish Mavi Marmara boat attacked by Israeli troops as it tried to break the siege on Gaza in June 2010. The attack caused a diplomatic rift between the two countries, which had previously had strong military and economic ties.
Organizers have made sure to keep the current trip secretive after reports emerged that the engine of one of the boats in a 10-ship flotilla that was supposed to set sail in July was sabotaged. The perpetrators of the sabotage went unknown, but most suspected Israel’s involvement.
Meanwhile, the Canadian delegation to the flotilla insisted on setting sail again in November. “We always said we will sail again, especially since we already own the boat; we have the main asset. In September there was a lot of attention on Palestine for political and diplomatic reasons. We felt it was important to keep pressure up,” Heap said.
The boat was acquired right after the Mavi Marmara incident, when Canadian activists insisted on acquiring a boat and attempting to break the siege again.
“People dug into their pockets, some stopped me on the street and gave me five dollars, others signed checks of US$5000. The Canadian boat is owned by all these people,” Heap said.
Besides the Canadian delegation, activists from Australia, the US and Denmark are part of the mission, as well as journalists from Al Jazeera, the independent New York-based program Democracy Now!, and the Iranian state-run Press TV.
Hassan Ghani of Press TV joined the Tahrir boat for his third trip on board a Gaza-bound solidarity flotilla. He was on board the Mavi Marimara when it was attacked in 2010.
“If I am not there I will feel a bit empty inside,” Ghani said. “There is always a possibility that there could be that one major flotilla that breaks through. I see it as one of those waves, and it's important to cover it because it's going to happen and people should know about it.”
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Israel: Turkey's chosen scapegoat
From: Jerusalem Post
Monday morning, Turkey took its anti-Israel campaign to a new level. Beyond downgrading diplomatic relations with Israel; beyond suspending military agreements; beyond threatening naval war; beyond threatening to foment an irredentist insurrection of Israeli Arabs; the Turks decided to terrorize Israeli tourists landing in Istanbul airport.
Forty Israeli passengers, mainly businessmen who had landed in Istanbul on a Turkish Airlines flight from Tel Aviv, were separated from the rest of the flight passengers. Their passports were confiscated.
They were placed in interrogation rooms and stripped down to their underwear. Their carry-on bags were checked. And then they were lined up against a wall, forbidden to sit down or use the washroom.
Passengers who contacted the Foreign Ministry said they felt frightened and intimidated.
The ordeal went on for 90 minutes, until Turkish authorities returned their Israeli passports and permitted them to pick up their suitcases and exit the airport.
What were the Turks trying to accomplish by terrifying the Israeli tourists? They didn’t need to threaten trade ties. Their Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu already took care of that over the weekend.
The victimized Israelis said the Turkish airport authorities wouldn’t even answer their questions.
Any time we asked them a question, the tourists said, the Turks ignored us.
It was as if they weren’t even there.
And that’s the thing of it. The Turks didn’t harass the Israeli tourists in order to send a message to Israel. They have nothing more to say to us. We are non-entities to them. We’re only good for attacking.
No, Israel wasn’t the target audience the Turks were playing to on Monday. Their target audience was the Islamic world generally and the Arab world specifically. Turkey’s influence in these arenas skyrocketed in January 2009 after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused President Shimon Peres and Israel of mass murder as the leaders shared a stage at the Davos Conference.
Similarly Erdogan’s domestic and pan-Islamic support levels increased steeply in the aftermath of the Turkish-supported pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza in 2010. After nine Turkish government-supported IHH terrorists were killed aboard the Mavi Marmara when they tried to murder IDF naval commandos who had lawfully boarded the ship, the Arabs hailed Erdogan as a hero for bravely attacking Israel.
Given how well scapegoating Israel has served him, Erdogan clearly believes it is a no-risk strategy for raising his star from Cairo to Algiers.
Leftist Israeli commentators refuse to accept what is happening. Writing in Haaretz on Sunday, Shlomo Avineri recommended that Israel compensate the nine IHH members whom IDF commandos killed in self-defense on the Mavi Marmara. Avineri argued that by refusing to do so, Israel was playing into the hands of hardliners. True, “it won’t be easy, but we need to grit our teeth and do the right thing,” he wrote.
Others have argued that Israel may be able to rebuild its strategic relations with Turkey by selling Ankara more drones with which to kill Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. The Turkish military claimed it killed 100 Kurdish fighters in its attacks last month in Iraq and along the Turkish-Iraqi border. Israeli UAVs reportedly played a key role in the bombing. But Turkey needs more. If we sell them more, the argument goes, maybe they will see how useful we are and stop attacking us.
Aside from being morally reprehensible, these arguments fail to recognize the basic reality that Turkey has no interest whatsoever in rebuilding its ties with Israel. The once-important strategic alliance is over and gone, and Israel cannot do anything about it. All Turkey sees us as today is a scapegoat.
Monday morning, Turkey took its anti-Israel campaign to a new level. Beyond downgrading diplomatic relations with Israel; beyond suspending military agreements; beyond threatening naval war; beyond threatening to foment an irredentist insurrection of Israeli Arabs; the Turks decided to terrorize Israeli tourists landing in Istanbul airport.
Forty Israeli passengers, mainly businessmen who had landed in Istanbul on a Turkish Airlines flight from Tel Aviv, were separated from the rest of the flight passengers. Their passports were confiscated.
They were placed in interrogation rooms and stripped down to their underwear. Their carry-on bags were checked. And then they were lined up against a wall, forbidden to sit down or use the washroom.
Passengers who contacted the Foreign Ministry said they felt frightened and intimidated.
The ordeal went on for 90 minutes, until Turkish authorities returned their Israeli passports and permitted them to pick up their suitcases and exit the airport.
What were the Turks trying to accomplish by terrifying the Israeli tourists? They didn’t need to threaten trade ties. Their Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu already took care of that over the weekend.
The victimized Israelis said the Turkish airport authorities wouldn’t even answer their questions.
Any time we asked them a question, the tourists said, the Turks ignored us.
It was as if they weren’t even there.
And that’s the thing of it. The Turks didn’t harass the Israeli tourists in order to send a message to Israel. They have nothing more to say to us. We are non-entities to them. We’re only good for attacking.
No, Israel wasn’t the target audience the Turks were playing to on Monday. Their target audience was the Islamic world generally and the Arab world specifically. Turkey’s influence in these arenas skyrocketed in January 2009 after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused President Shimon Peres and Israel of mass murder as the leaders shared a stage at the Davos Conference.
Similarly Erdogan’s domestic and pan-Islamic support levels increased steeply in the aftermath of the Turkish-supported pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza in 2010. After nine Turkish government-supported IHH terrorists were killed aboard the Mavi Marmara when they tried to murder IDF naval commandos who had lawfully boarded the ship, the Arabs hailed Erdogan as a hero for bravely attacking Israel.
Given how well scapegoating Israel has served him, Erdogan clearly believes it is a no-risk strategy for raising his star from Cairo to Algiers.
Leftist Israeli commentators refuse to accept what is happening. Writing in Haaretz on Sunday, Shlomo Avineri recommended that Israel compensate the nine IHH members whom IDF commandos killed in self-defense on the Mavi Marmara. Avineri argued that by refusing to do so, Israel was playing into the hands of hardliners. True, “it won’t be easy, but we need to grit our teeth and do the right thing,” he wrote.
Others have argued that Israel may be able to rebuild its strategic relations with Turkey by selling Ankara more drones with which to kill Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. The Turkish military claimed it killed 100 Kurdish fighters in its attacks last month in Iraq and along the Turkish-Iraqi border. Israeli UAVs reportedly played a key role in the bombing. But Turkey needs more. If we sell them more, the argument goes, maybe they will see how useful we are and stop attacking us.
Aside from being morally reprehensible, these arguments fail to recognize the basic reality that Turkey has no interest whatsoever in rebuilding its ties with Israel. The once-important strategic alliance is over and gone, and Israel cannot do anything about it. All Turkey sees us as today is a scapegoat.
Friday, August 05, 2011
Turkey's Long Road to a New Military Culture
From: Real Clear World
Turkeys ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is developing a major plan to restructure the Turkish Armed forces (TSK), Todays Zaman reported Aug. 2. According to the report, the envisioned restructuring would help normalize civilian-military relations and lead to the transformation of the armed forces into a more effective fighting force. The report comes as the annual meeting of the Supreme Military Council (YSK) chaired by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in session. The meeting is scheduled to conclude Thursday.
Promotions and appointments are usually unveiled in these YSK meetings. Three days before this years session, the TSK chief as well as the commanders of the land, air and naval forces collectively resigned. The move by the top brass was designed to try and counter the growing influence of the AKP government over the Turkish armed forces, which has weakened as a political power over the past four years. However, the resignations have only further swung the pendulum in favor of the civilians - to the point where the decades-old military dominance over the civilians seems to have been reversed.
The AKP is definitely pleased to have paved the way to a moment where the TSK would begrudgingly accept a civilian government, even one led by its historic ideological rivals. Erdogan's government has the power to appoint the military's leaders (as opposed to rubber-stamping the top generals' decisions).
However, this privilege is just the first step in the AKPs vision for the military. The AKP would like to capitalize on this nascent civilian supremacy over the military as quickly as possible. It would like to reconfigure the military to serve the Erdogan administrations assertive foreign policy agenda.
Yet reshaping the armed forces to serve as an instrument of foreign-policy projection seems a far loftier goal. Subordinating the military under civilian authority seems much simpler when compared to the ambitious goal of reshaping the armed forces into an instrument of foreign policy power projection. Put differently, it will be a long time before the Turkish military will be able to serve in such a manner. Even where civilian-military imbalance of power is not an issue, a state needs years (if not decades) to transform the military into an entity that can project power far beyond its borders.
In Ankara's case the challenge is even greater - many prerequisites still need to be achieved. The first step entails installing a cadre of commanders who are beholden to the AKP for their positions. Next, a culture must be ingrained within the officers and soldiery that moves the military away from seeing itself as a praetorian force that is the sole guardian of the Republic's Kemalist ideals to one that is the defender of the constitution (which another mainstay that will also need to be altered in its own time).
Promotions and appointments are usually unveiled in these YSK meetings. Three days before this years session, the TSK chief as well as the commanders of the land, air and naval forces collectively resigned. The move by the top brass was designed to try and counter the growing influence of the AKP government over the Turkish armed forces, which has weakened as a political power over the past four years. However, the resignations have only further swung the pendulum in favor of the civilians - to the point where the decades-old military dominance over the civilians seems to have been reversed.
The AKP is definitely pleased to have paved the way to a moment where the TSK would begrudgingly accept a civilian government, even one led by its historic ideological rivals. Erdogan's government has the power to appoint the military's leaders (as opposed to rubber-stamping the top generals' decisions).
However, this privilege is just the first step in the AKPs vision for the military. The AKP would like to capitalize on this nascent civilian supremacy over the military as quickly as possible. It would like to reconfigure the military to serve the Erdogan administrations assertive foreign policy agenda.
Yet reshaping the armed forces to serve as an instrument of foreign-policy projection seems a far loftier goal. Subordinating the military under civilian authority seems much simpler when compared to the ambitious goal of reshaping the armed forces into an instrument of foreign policy power projection. Put differently, it will be a long time before the Turkish military will be able to serve in such a manner. Even where civilian-military imbalance of power is not an issue, a state needs years (if not decades) to transform the military into an entity that can project power far beyond its borders.
In Ankara's case the challenge is even greater - many prerequisites still need to be achieved. The first step entails installing a cadre of commanders who are beholden to the AKP for their positions. Next, a culture must be ingrained within the officers and soldiery that moves the military away from seeing itself as a praetorian force that is the sole guardian of the Republic's Kemalist ideals to one that is the defender of the constitution (which another mainstay that will also need to be altered in its own time).
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Bulgaria Becomes the Latest Ally to Get the Obama Treatment
From: Commentary Magazine
In what’s becoming something of a pattern for the Obama administration, the way we’re conducting relations with Bulgaria is increasingly indefensible. Sofia is a NATO ally, an EU member state and has contributed troops to our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But–like so many other allies who made a point of supporting us in the early years of the Global War on Terror–treatment at the hands of U.S. Ambassador James Warlick has fallen somewhere between condescending neglect and active alienation.
Frustration with Warlick spans the the political spectrum. Things got so bad a few months ago that someone started a new media initiative calling for “A Day Without Warlick.” When asked about the campaign, the ambassador “laughed and pointed out it was part of democracy, which is a marvelous thing.” The dripping paternalism was about as well-received as you’d expect.
Last April, Warlick blasted the independent Bulgarian judiciary for dishonesty and corruption, adding in the process that Prime Minister Boyko Borisov’s center-right coalition needed to “pay special attention” to their own laws. When asked to walk back his attack, Warlick very pointedly declined, insisting he had just been trying to “provoke a discussion.”
Sometimes there’s a purpose behind the Obama administration’s diplomatic offensives against democratically-elected allied governments. There are times when the White House prefers dealing with a country’s opposition and tries to unseat ruling coalitions. But Warlick has not limited himself to attacking the sitting GERB party.
He’s also engaged in extended feuds with Bulgaria’s powerful center-left Socialist opposition — the Socialist former Interior Minister recently lashed out at him as “trash” and demanded his recall with the leader of the hard-right Ataka party. He recently took a meeting with breakaway opposition MPs from across the political spectrum and was reported to have “expressed his admiration of the independent MPs for the bravery to part ways” with their parties.
That accounts for Bulgaria’s right, center and left — an alienation hat trick that would be difficult to pull off even if you were trying — plus the top figures of the Bulgarian Supreme Court and Parliament.
That’s a problem. If regional dynamics continue unfolding the way they’re going to continue unfolding, Bulgaria is set to become a literal front line in a realigned geopolitical order. Sofia’s support for the West has already made it a target for jihadist incitement, with IslamOnline accusing Bulgarians of assisting in “many episodes of ethnic cleansing by the crusaders.” A Wikileaks cable concluded that “Bulgaria’s participation in U.S.-led action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased its profile as a potential target for Islamic terrorist groups” and that “Islamic extremism in Bulgaria is a very real concern.” Last year, national security forces raided and broke up extremist groups involved in the financing of more than 150 mosques. And so on.
The more pressing geopolitical issue is how the region will respond to the increasingly open neo-Ottoman ambitions of AKP-dominated Turkey. Ankara has indicated it considers the presence of Bulgarian-Turkish Muslims on Bulgarian soil to be a justification for interfering in Bulgaria’s internal affairs. That population is a leftover from the blood-soaked Ottoman occupation that included some of the 19th century’s worst atrocities, from the the Batak massacre of 5,000 civilians to a broader campaign of mass slaughter the New York Times identified as the horror of the century. Instead of showing circumspection about the near-genocidal colonization of parts of Bulgaria, earlier this year, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister committed Ankara to supporting Bulgarian Turks in “preserving [their] ethnic roots.”
Turkey’s regional ambitions are unlikely to erupt into armed hostility even in the medium term – although the Cyprus situation counsels caution – but it’s easy to imagine a scenario where Ankara triggers a diplomatic crisis by backing border villages that suddenly announce strong inclinations toward “self-determination.”
Even if a flashpoint never emerges between Bulgaria and Turkey, the tide of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in Turkey will force us to look to Bulgaria as a key regional ally. Sofia is already offering to host NATO missile defense assets that Turkey seems set to reject, something we suddenly need as we try to build a missile defense architecture in Eastern Europe. As our alliances in the Middle East crumble, Bulgaria might be as close to that critical part of the world as we can get our bases and some of our assets.
Frustration with Warlick spans the the political spectrum. Things got so bad a few months ago that someone started a new media initiative calling for “A Day Without Warlick.” When asked about the campaign, the ambassador “laughed and pointed out it was part of democracy, which is a marvelous thing.” The dripping paternalism was about as well-received as you’d expect.
Last April, Warlick blasted the independent Bulgarian judiciary for dishonesty and corruption, adding in the process that Prime Minister Boyko Borisov’s center-right coalition needed to “pay special attention” to their own laws. When asked to walk back his attack, Warlick very pointedly declined, insisting he had just been trying to “provoke a discussion.”
Sometimes there’s a purpose behind the Obama administration’s diplomatic offensives against democratically-elected allied governments. There are times when the White House prefers dealing with a country’s opposition and tries to unseat ruling coalitions. But Warlick has not limited himself to attacking the sitting GERB party.
He’s also engaged in extended feuds with Bulgaria’s powerful center-left Socialist opposition — the Socialist former Interior Minister recently lashed out at him as “trash” and demanded his recall with the leader of the hard-right Ataka party. He recently took a meeting with breakaway opposition MPs from across the political spectrum and was reported to have “expressed his admiration of the independent MPs for the bravery to part ways” with their parties.
That accounts for Bulgaria’s right, center and left — an alienation hat trick that would be difficult to pull off even if you were trying — plus the top figures of the Bulgarian Supreme Court and Parliament.
That’s a problem. If regional dynamics continue unfolding the way they’re going to continue unfolding, Bulgaria is set to become a literal front line in a realigned geopolitical order. Sofia’s support for the West has already made it a target for jihadist incitement, with IslamOnline accusing Bulgarians of assisting in “many episodes of ethnic cleansing by the crusaders.” A Wikileaks cable concluded that “Bulgaria’s participation in U.S.-led action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased its profile as a potential target for Islamic terrorist groups” and that “Islamic extremism in Bulgaria is a very real concern.” Last year, national security forces raided and broke up extremist groups involved in the financing of more than 150 mosques. And so on.
The more pressing geopolitical issue is how the region will respond to the increasingly open neo-Ottoman ambitions of AKP-dominated Turkey. Ankara has indicated it considers the presence of Bulgarian-Turkish Muslims on Bulgarian soil to be a justification for interfering in Bulgaria’s internal affairs. That population is a leftover from the blood-soaked Ottoman occupation that included some of the 19th century’s worst atrocities, from the the Batak massacre of 5,000 civilians to a broader campaign of mass slaughter the New York Times identified as the horror of the century. Instead of showing circumspection about the near-genocidal colonization of parts of Bulgaria, earlier this year, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister committed Ankara to supporting Bulgarian Turks in “preserving [their] ethnic roots.”
Turkey’s regional ambitions are unlikely to erupt into armed hostility even in the medium term – although the Cyprus situation counsels caution – but it’s easy to imagine a scenario where Ankara triggers a diplomatic crisis by backing border villages that suddenly announce strong inclinations toward “self-determination.”
Even if a flashpoint never emerges between Bulgaria and Turkey, the tide of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in Turkey will force us to look to Bulgaria as a key regional ally. Sofia is already offering to host NATO missile defense assets that Turkey seems set to reject, something we suddenly need as we try to build a missile defense architecture in Eastern Europe. As our alliances in the Middle East crumble, Bulgaria might be as close to that critical part of the world as we can get our bases and some of our assets.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Obama's Missile Defense Concession
From: Washington Times
The Obama administration is about to make another concession to Russia on missile defense by concluding an agreement with Turkey to base a radar there that would monitor Iranian missile launches.
The deal is raising questions about whether the administration gave in to a Turkish demand that no missile-tracking data from the radar be shared with Israel or other non-NATO members. The demand was based on the Turkish government’s increasing Islamist and pro-Iranian policies.
The TPY-2 radar deal has been under discussion for the past year and goes against a plan by the George W. Bush administration to place a radar in one of two former Soviet republics, Georgia or Azerbaijan.
Moscow opposed putting the radar in those states, claiming it would threaten Russia’s nuclear missile forces.
Earlier concessions by the Obama administration included canceling plans to deploy 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland in favor of its less-capable “phased adaptive approach” that relies on untested missile defense systems, specifically a future long-range version of the Navy’s SM-3 interceptor.
A senior U.S. national security official said the Turkish agreement for the radar is expected to be completed in the next week.
“It’s yet another concession to the Russians,” the official said. A second official said conclusion of deal was imminent.
Also, placing the radar in Turkey will provide less capability against a future Iranian long-range missile targeted against the United States, the first official said.
The Obama administration is about to make another concession to Russia on missile defense by concluding an agreement with Turkey to base a radar there that would monitor Iranian missile launches.
The deal is raising questions about whether the administration gave in to a Turkish demand that no missile-tracking data from the radar be shared with Israel or other non-NATO members. The demand was based on the Turkish government’s increasing Islamist and pro-Iranian policies.
The TPY-2 radar deal has been under discussion for the past year and goes against a plan by the George W. Bush administration to place a radar in one of two former Soviet republics, Georgia or Azerbaijan.
Moscow opposed putting the radar in those states, claiming it would threaten Russia’s nuclear missile forces.
Earlier concessions by the Obama administration included canceling plans to deploy 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland in favor of its less-capable “phased adaptive approach” that relies on untested missile defense systems, specifically a future long-range version of the Navy’s SM-3 interceptor.
A senior U.S. national security official said the Turkish agreement for the radar is expected to be completed in the next week.
“It’s yet another concession to the Russians,” the official said. A second official said conclusion of deal was imminent.
Also, placing the radar in Turkey will provide less capability against a future Iranian long-range missile targeted against the United States, the first official said.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Turkey's Inevitable Problems With Neighbors
From: Stratfor
Syrian President Bashar al Assad delivered a long and uneventful speech Monday, during which he basically divided Syria's protest society into three categories: the good, the criminal and the Salafi. Assad claimed that instability caused by the latter two was to blame for the delay in implementing reforms. Rather than promising concrete reforms that have been strongly urged by the Turks, the Syrian president emphasized that security had to come first, while trying to present himself as a neutral mediator between the population and security forces. Not surprisingly, the speech fell on deaf ears throughout Syria, but also in Ankara, where the government let its growing impatience show and told the Syrian president once again that he isn't doing enough to satisfy the demands of his people.
With more than 10,000 Syrian refugees spilling across the Turkish border to escape the army's siege, the situation in Syria is undoubtedly growing desperate. However, we have not yet seen the red flags that would indicate the al Assad regime is in imminent danger of collapse. The reasons are fairly straightforward. The al Assad clan belongs to Syria's Alawite minority, who only 40 years ago were living under the thumb of the country's majority Sunni population. Four decades in power is not a long time, and vengeance is a powerful force in this part of the world. The Alawites understand that they face an existential crisis, and if they allow their grip over the Baath-dominated political system - and most importantly the military - to loosen even slightly, they will likely become the prime targets of a Sunni vendetta campaign aiming to return the Alawites to their subservient status. This may explain why al Assad felt the need to stress in his speech that his minority government would not take "revenge" against those who stand down from their protests.
Turkey is understandably nervous about what is happening next door in Syria. Ankara would prefer a Syria ruled by a stable Sunni regime, especially one that would look to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for political guidance. However, the Turks can see that Alawite leadership will not leave power without a long and bloody fight. Recreating a sphere of Turkish-modeled Sunni influence in the Levant may be a long-term goal for Ankara, but the Turkish government is certainly not prepared to pay the near-term cost of civil strife in Syria spilling across Turkish borders.
Turkey has so far addressed this dilemma mainly through rhetoric, issuing angry speeches against Syrian leadership, while floating the idea of a military buffer zone for Syrian refugees. For awhile, assuming the role of regional disciplinarian played well to an AKP public-relations strategy that portrayed Turkey as the model for the Arab Spring and the go-to mediator for the Mideast's problems. But the more Syria destabilizes - and with each time it ignores Ankara's demands - the more Turkey risks appearing impotent.
The crisis in Syria will likely lead to a recalibration of Turkish foreign policy. The architect of Turkey's foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, coined the phrase "zero problems with neighbors" to describe the guiding principle of Turkey's interactions with surrounding regimes. Turkey obviously has a problem with Syria's leadership, and not a small one. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Turkey may not yet have what it takes to deal with Syria, beyond issuing rhetorical censures. Establishing a military buffer zone as a safe haven for Syrian refugees not only would call for an international mandate, but would entail Turkish troops occupying foreign land - which would likely set off alarm bells among Arabs who already suspect Turkey of harboring a so-called neo-Ottoman agenda. Turkey's ardent support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi and public backing for Syrian opposition forces have already unnerved Arab monarchist regimes that are trying to undermine the effects of the Arab Spring and are growing distrustful of Turkish intentions.
Moreover, any move construed as Turkey trying to facilitate the downfall of the al Assad regime would undoubtedly create problems with Iran, a neighbor Turkey has taken great care to avoid aggravating. Iran relies heavily on the Alawite regime in Syria to maintain a foothold in the Levant through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the return of Syria to Sunni control would unravel a key pillar of Iranian deterrent strategy, we can expect that Iran is doing everything possible to undermine the very Syrian opposition forces looking to Ankara for support. Turkey has avoided confrontation with Iran thus far while working quietly to build a Sunni counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shia in Iraq in the face of an impending U.S. withdrawal. A power vacuum in Syria filled by Turkish-backed Sunnis would reinforce a nascent confrontation between Iran and Turkey with deep geopolitical underpinnings.
Nations do not have friends; they have interests. And Turkey, an historically influential country sitting on one of the most geopolitically complex pieces of real estate in the world, is now finding that a foreign policy built on avoiding problems with neighbors grinds against reality. In STRATFOR's view, this was inevitable, which is why we took interest in Monday's issue of Today's Zaman, an English-language outlet loyal to the movement of Fethullah Gulen and strongly supportive of the ruling AKP. Two editorials in Monday's publication held that the Syrian crisis has exposed the coming demise of Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy.
With more than 10,000 Syrian refugees spilling across the Turkish border to escape the army's siege, the situation in Syria is undoubtedly growing desperate. However, we have not yet seen the red flags that would indicate the al Assad regime is in imminent danger of collapse. The reasons are fairly straightforward. The al Assad clan belongs to Syria's Alawite minority, who only 40 years ago were living under the thumb of the country's majority Sunni population. Four decades in power is not a long time, and vengeance is a powerful force in this part of the world. The Alawites understand that they face an existential crisis, and if they allow their grip over the Baath-dominated political system - and most importantly the military - to loosen even slightly, they will likely become the prime targets of a Sunni vendetta campaign aiming to return the Alawites to their subservient status. This may explain why al Assad felt the need to stress in his speech that his minority government would not take "revenge" against those who stand down from their protests.
Turkey is understandably nervous about what is happening next door in Syria. Ankara would prefer a Syria ruled by a stable Sunni regime, especially one that would look to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for political guidance. However, the Turks can see that Alawite leadership will not leave power without a long and bloody fight. Recreating a sphere of Turkish-modeled Sunni influence in the Levant may be a long-term goal for Ankara, but the Turkish government is certainly not prepared to pay the near-term cost of civil strife in Syria spilling across Turkish borders.
Turkey has so far addressed this dilemma mainly through rhetoric, issuing angry speeches against Syrian leadership, while floating the idea of a military buffer zone for Syrian refugees. For awhile, assuming the role of regional disciplinarian played well to an AKP public-relations strategy that portrayed Turkey as the model for the Arab Spring and the go-to mediator for the Mideast's problems. But the more Syria destabilizes - and with each time it ignores Ankara's demands - the more Turkey risks appearing impotent.
The crisis in Syria will likely lead to a recalibration of Turkish foreign policy. The architect of Turkey's foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, coined the phrase "zero problems with neighbors" to describe the guiding principle of Turkey's interactions with surrounding regimes. Turkey obviously has a problem with Syria's leadership, and not a small one. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Turkey may not yet have what it takes to deal with Syria, beyond issuing rhetorical censures. Establishing a military buffer zone as a safe haven for Syrian refugees not only would call for an international mandate, but would entail Turkish troops occupying foreign land - which would likely set off alarm bells among Arabs who already suspect Turkey of harboring a so-called neo-Ottoman agenda. Turkey's ardent support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi and public backing for Syrian opposition forces have already unnerved Arab monarchist regimes that are trying to undermine the effects of the Arab Spring and are growing distrustful of Turkish intentions.
Moreover, any move construed as Turkey trying to facilitate the downfall of the al Assad regime would undoubtedly create problems with Iran, a neighbor Turkey has taken great care to avoid aggravating. Iran relies heavily on the Alawite regime in Syria to maintain a foothold in the Levant through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the return of Syria to Sunni control would unravel a key pillar of Iranian deterrent strategy, we can expect that Iran is doing everything possible to undermine the very Syrian opposition forces looking to Ankara for support. Turkey has avoided confrontation with Iran thus far while working quietly to build a Sunni counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shia in Iraq in the face of an impending U.S. withdrawal. A power vacuum in Syria filled by Turkish-backed Sunnis would reinforce a nascent confrontation between Iran and Turkey with deep geopolitical underpinnings.
Nations do not have friends; they have interests. And Turkey, an historically influential country sitting on one of the most geopolitically complex pieces of real estate in the world, is now finding that a foreign policy built on avoiding problems with neighbors grinds against reality. In STRATFOR's view, this was inevitable, which is why we took interest in Monday's issue of Today's Zaman, an English-language outlet loyal to the movement of Fethullah Gulen and strongly supportive of the ruling AKP. Two editorials in Monday's publication held that the Syrian crisis has exposed the coming demise of Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Turkey’s Ruling Party Wins Third Term, But Not Overwhelmingly
FROM: CNSnews.com
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), whose foreign policies have troubled some Western officials, sailed to a third term victor in elections Sunday, as expected.
But voters did not hand Erdogan the majority he sought to push ahead with plans for a new constitution without the support of opposition parties. The Islamist-leaning AKP’s 49.9 percent of the vote translates into 325 seats in the 550-seat parliament, down from 331 in the last parliament.
That result is well short of the two-thirds needed to replace the constitution without consulting other parties or Turkish citizens in a referendum.
Erdogan’s plans include moving Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential system, prompting some concerns that he may – emulating Russia’s Vladimir Putin – use the change as a vehicle to extend his rule beyond 2015, when his third and last term as prime minister is set to end.
In another setback for Erdogan on Sunday, the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) achieved its best result in three decades (25.9 percent). Kurdish-backed candidates increased their share of seats in parliament by a third, underlining the growing importance of the issue following an election campaign that saw Erdogan adopt a more nationalistic tone with regard to the large Kurdish minority.
Erdogan in a optimistic, conciliatory statement hailed the outcome as “a victory for democracy, for stability, for peace” and promised to work with opposition parties.
The Obama administration, like its predecessor, points to Turkey’s mix of Islam, democracy and economic reforms as a “model” and example for other countries in the Muslim world to follow.
But Erdogan has drawn criticism for authoritarian tendencies at home, and for a evolving foreign policy that has seen Turkey, a NATO member, side with Iran both in the councils of the transatlantic alliance as well as at the U.N.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), whose foreign policies have troubled some Western officials, sailed to a third term victor in elections Sunday, as expected.
But voters did not hand Erdogan the majority he sought to push ahead with plans for a new constitution without the support of opposition parties. The Islamist-leaning AKP’s 49.9 percent of the vote translates into 325 seats in the 550-seat parliament, down from 331 in the last parliament.
That result is well short of the two-thirds needed to replace the constitution without consulting other parties or Turkish citizens in a referendum.
Erdogan’s plans include moving Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential system, prompting some concerns that he may – emulating Russia’s Vladimir Putin – use the change as a vehicle to extend his rule beyond 2015, when his third and last term as prime minister is set to end.
In another setback for Erdogan on Sunday, the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) achieved its best result in three decades (25.9 percent). Kurdish-backed candidates increased their share of seats in parliament by a third, underlining the growing importance of the issue following an election campaign that saw Erdogan adopt a more nationalistic tone with regard to the large Kurdish minority.
Erdogan in a optimistic, conciliatory statement hailed the outcome as “a victory for democracy, for stability, for peace” and promised to work with opposition parties.
The Obama administration, like its predecessor, points to Turkey’s mix of Islam, democracy and economic reforms as a “model” and example for other countries in the Muslim world to follow.
But Erdogan has drawn criticism for authoritarian tendencies at home, and for a evolving foreign policy that has seen Turkey, a NATO member, side with Iran both in the councils of the transatlantic alliance as well as at the U.N.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Turkey vs. Israel
FROM: Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
The organizers of the Gaza flotilla, a Turkish Islamist charity with dubious United Nation recognition, the İHH, have pledged to send a second flotilla later this month after the first one faced a deadly Israeli commando attack last year. Although the opening, and brief closure, of the Rafah crossing into Gaza has apparently made any aid flotilla meaningless, İHH’s president, Bülent Yıldırım, said the new mission is not aid but “justice.” But which justice?
The day after the Israeli raid that killed nine people aboard the Mavi Marmara, Mr Yıldırım explained his understanding of justice: “Last night everything in the world changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam. Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine, his throne will be toppled.”
And in response to U.N., American and Israeli calls, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said governments cannot stop their citizens launching another flotilla to Gaza, and Ankara would not prevent private challenges to an illegal blockade.
Wisdom would ask Mr Davutoğlu to perhaps encourage the İHH to send a flotilla to Latakia to break the blockade on protestors and stop the Syrian police killing them. The Syrian death count is already over 1,000, or 111 times bigger than the death toll on the Mavi Marmara, excluding over 10,000 missing or detained for torture and future death.
Alternatively, if the foreign minister is so keen on the idea of freedom flotillas against illegal blockades, he can think of Varosha in Cyprus, which has remained a ghost town after the Turkish army fenced it off in 1974. But Mr Davutoğlu has other, preferred, responsibilities.
For example, the foreign minister often talks about his dream to “pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Palestinian [Muslim] Jerusalem.” He does not hide his ambition to see Jerusalem as the capital of a free Palestinian state.
The organizers of the Gaza flotilla, a Turkish Islamist charity with dubious United Nation recognition, the İHH, have pledged to send a second flotilla later this month after the first one faced a deadly Israeli commando attack last year. Although the opening, and brief closure, of the Rafah crossing into Gaza has apparently made any aid flotilla meaningless, İHH’s president, Bülent Yıldırım, said the new mission is not aid but “justice.” But which justice?
The day after the Israeli raid that killed nine people aboard the Mavi Marmara, Mr Yıldırım explained his understanding of justice: “Last night everything in the world changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam. Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine, his throne will be toppled.”
And in response to U.N., American and Israeli calls, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said governments cannot stop their citizens launching another flotilla to Gaza, and Ankara would not prevent private challenges to an illegal blockade.
Wisdom would ask Mr Davutoğlu to perhaps encourage the İHH to send a flotilla to Latakia to break the blockade on protestors and stop the Syrian police killing them. The Syrian death count is already over 1,000, or 111 times bigger than the death toll on the Mavi Marmara, excluding over 10,000 missing or detained for torture and future death.
Alternatively, if the foreign minister is so keen on the idea of freedom flotillas against illegal blockades, he can think of Varosha in Cyprus, which has remained a ghost town after the Turkish army fenced it off in 1974. But Mr Davutoğlu has other, preferred, responsibilities.
For example, the foreign minister often talks about his dream to “pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Palestinian [Muslim] Jerusalem.” He does not hide his ambition to see Jerusalem as the capital of a free Palestinian state.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Pay Attention To Turkey Elections
From: The Economist
MOST Turks are understandably grateful to the ruling Justice and Development (AK) party, and especially to their prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured). Since AK first came into single-party government in November 2002, the economy has done exceptionally well. Turkey has reformed itself enough to secure the opening of membership negotiations with the European Union. It has pursued a more vigorous foreign policy in its neighbourhood. And a politically intrusive army has been firmly returned to its barracks.
Thanks to these achievements, Turkey has become an economic and political power, both in its region and in the world. Although its relations with Israel and America have soured, in the Islamic world it stands out as a thriving Muslim democracy—an inspiration to the Arab awakening. This is in striking contrast to the mess that the AK party inherited: an economic meltdown, a bust banking system, weak coalition governments that came and went with dizzying rapidity, and the ever-present threat of military intervention.
That Turkish voters are poised to return Mr Erdogan to power in the general election on June 12th is thus not surprising. It is, however, worrying. Mr Erdogan is riding sufficiently high in the polls to get quite close to the two-thirds parliamentary majority that he craves because it would allow him unilaterally to rewrite the constitution (see article). That would be bad for Turkey.
This judgment is not based on the canard that a theocracy is being built. Nine years ago Istanbul’s secular establishment fretted about AK’s Islamist roots—and some early squabbles over religious schools and allowing women to wear the Muslim headscarf at university were indeed troubling. But since then the pious Mr Erdogan and his party have been pragmatic. No matter what the army and too many Israelis (and Americans) whisper, there is scant evidence that AK is trying to turn a broadly tolerant Turkey into the next intolerant Iran.
The real worry about the AK party’s untrammelled rule concerns democracy, not religion. Ever since Mr Erdogan won his battles with the army and the judiciary, he has faced few checks or balances. That has freed him to indulge his natural intolerance of criticism and fed his autocratic instincts. Corruption seems to be on the rise. Press freedom is under attack: more journalists are in jail in Turkey than in China. And a worrying number of Mr Erdogan’s critics and enemies, including a hatful of former army officers, are under investigation, in some cases on overblown conspiracy charges.
On top of this, on the campaign trail Mr Erdogan has begun to take a more stridently nationalist tone: he and his party are no longer making serious overtures to the Kurds, Turkey’s biggest and most disgruntled minority.
Mr Erdogan has hinted that if he wins a two-thirds majority next week, he will change the constitution to create a powerful French-style presidency, presumably to be occupied by himself. In a country that is already excessively centralised, that would be a mistake.
MOST Turks are understandably grateful to the ruling Justice and Development (AK) party, and especially to their prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured). Since AK first came into single-party government in November 2002, the economy has done exceptionally well. Turkey has reformed itself enough to secure the opening of membership negotiations with the European Union. It has pursued a more vigorous foreign policy in its neighbourhood. And a politically intrusive army has been firmly returned to its barracks.
Thanks to these achievements, Turkey has become an economic and political power, both in its region and in the world. Although its relations with Israel and America have soured, in the Islamic world it stands out as a thriving Muslim democracy—an inspiration to the Arab awakening. This is in striking contrast to the mess that the AK party inherited: an economic meltdown, a bust banking system, weak coalition governments that came and went with dizzying rapidity, and the ever-present threat of military intervention.
That Turkish voters are poised to return Mr Erdogan to power in the general election on June 12th is thus not surprising. It is, however, worrying. Mr Erdogan is riding sufficiently high in the polls to get quite close to the two-thirds parliamentary majority that he craves because it would allow him unilaterally to rewrite the constitution (see article). That would be bad for Turkey.
This judgment is not based on the canard that a theocracy is being built. Nine years ago Istanbul’s secular establishment fretted about AK’s Islamist roots—and some early squabbles over religious schools and allowing women to wear the Muslim headscarf at university were indeed troubling. But since then the pious Mr Erdogan and his party have been pragmatic. No matter what the army and too many Israelis (and Americans) whisper, there is scant evidence that AK is trying to turn a broadly tolerant Turkey into the next intolerant Iran.
The real worry about the AK party’s untrammelled rule concerns democracy, not religion. Ever since Mr Erdogan won his battles with the army and the judiciary, he has faced few checks or balances. That has freed him to indulge his natural intolerance of criticism and fed his autocratic instincts. Corruption seems to be on the rise. Press freedom is under attack: more journalists are in jail in Turkey than in China. And a worrying number of Mr Erdogan’s critics and enemies, including a hatful of former army officers, are under investigation, in some cases on overblown conspiracy charges.
On top of this, on the campaign trail Mr Erdogan has begun to take a more stridently nationalist tone: he and his party are no longer making serious overtures to the Kurds, Turkey’s biggest and most disgruntled minority.
Mr Erdogan has hinted that if he wins a two-thirds majority next week, he will change the constitution to create a powerful French-style presidency, presumably to be occupied by himself. In a country that is already excessively centralised, that would be a mistake.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Turkey Warns It Will Respond If Flotilla Impeded
This is very bad news. The Turkish government is setting itself up as the potential defenders of the Palestinians in efforts to break the blockade of GAZA. Look out. It also will have political benefits at home as more Turks could rally to a radical Turkish government.
From: Jerusalem Post
Turkey issued a warning to Israel on Saturday "not to repeat the human tragedy it caused last year" during the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a television interview, "It should be known that Turkey will give the necessary response to any repeated act of provocation by Israel on the high seas," AFP reported.
Asked about his government's efforts to prevent the flotilla from taking place, Davutoglu repeated a statement he made last week, asserting that while Ankara has "never encouraged any convoy," it "cannot give instructions to civil society" not to embark on the attempt to bust Israel's blockade, according to the report.
"We have shared our views about the safety of our citizens with all related parties," he said. "That was the case last year and it is not any different this time."
The Turkish foreign minister also addressed the recently-announced Palestinian reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas, urging the West to back the deal. "If the division of the Palestinian authorities is healed, the conditions that serve Israel's justification for the blockade will be eradicated ... and there will be no need for an aid convoy," AFP reported.
From: Jerusalem Post
Turkey issued a warning to Israel on Saturday "not to repeat the human tragedy it caused last year" during the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a television interview, "It should be known that Turkey will give the necessary response to any repeated act of provocation by Israel on the high seas," AFP reported.
Asked about his government's efforts to prevent the flotilla from taking place, Davutoglu repeated a statement he made last week, asserting that while Ankara has "never encouraged any convoy," it "cannot give instructions to civil society" not to embark on the attempt to bust Israel's blockade, according to the report.
"We have shared our views about the safety of our citizens with all related parties," he said. "That was the case last year and it is not any different this time."
The Turkish foreign minister also addressed the recently-announced Palestinian reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas, urging the West to back the deal. "If the division of the Palestinian authorities is healed, the conditions that serve Israel's justification for the blockade will be eradicated ... and there will be no need for an aid convoy," AFP reported.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Ambitious Turkey
From: National Review Online
Such ambition is new for Ankara. In the 1990s, it contentedly fulfilled its NATO obligations and followed Washington’s lead. Starting about 1996, relations with Israel blossomed. In all, Turkish policy offered an attractive exception to the tyrannical, Islamist, and conspiracist mentality generally dominating Muslim peoples. That the country’s political leaders were corrupt and fumbling seemed of little consequence.
Those faults, however, proved extremely consequential, leading to the repudiation of long-established political parties and the victory of an Islamist party, Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP), in the elections of November 2002. By March 2003, in advance of the coming war in Iraq, the new government signaled that a new era had begun by refusing to permit American troops to traverse Turkish territory.
Over the next eight years, Turkish foreign policy became increasingly hostile to the West in general, and to the United States, France, and Israel in particular, as it warmed to governments in Syria, Iran, and Libya. This shift became particularly evident in May 2010, when Ankara both helped Tehran avoid sanctions for its nuclear program and injured Israel’s reputation with the Mavi Marmara–led flotilla.
But the full extent of Ankara’s Middle East ambitions emerged in early 2011, concurrent with the region’s far-reaching upheavals. Suddenly, Turks were ubiquitous. Their recent activities include:
Providing a model: Gül holds that Turkey can have a “great and unbelievable positive effect” on the Middle East — and he has some takers. For example, Rached Ghannouchi, leader of Tunisia’s newly legalized Ennahda movement, has stated: “We are learning from the experience of Turkey, especially the peace that has been reached in the country between Islam and modernity.”
A few days ago, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, grandiloquently proclaimed that “if the world is on fire, Turkey is the firefighter. Turkey is assuming the leading role for stability in the Middle East.”
Those faults, however, proved extremely consequential, leading to the repudiation of long-established political parties and the victory of an Islamist party, Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP), in the elections of November 2002. By March 2003, in advance of the coming war in Iraq, the new government signaled that a new era had begun by refusing to permit American troops to traverse Turkish territory.
Over the next eight years, Turkish foreign policy became increasingly hostile to the West in general, and to the United States, France, and Israel in particular, as it warmed to governments in Syria, Iran, and Libya. This shift became particularly evident in May 2010, when Ankara both helped Tehran avoid sanctions for its nuclear program and injured Israel’s reputation with the Mavi Marmara–led flotilla.
But the full extent of Ankara’s Middle East ambitions emerged in early 2011, concurrent with the region’s far-reaching upheavals. Suddenly, Turks were ubiquitous. Their recent activities include:
Providing a model: Gül holds that Turkey can have a “great and unbelievable positive effect” on the Middle East — and he has some takers. For example, Rached Ghannouchi, leader of Tunisia’s newly legalized Ennahda movement, has stated: “We are learning from the experience of Turkey, especially the peace that has been reached in the country between Islam and modernity.”
Monday, April 04, 2011
Turkey: This is justice and development?
From: Israel News
Last November, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Tripoli to receive the annual Al-Gadhafi International Prize for Human Rights. For over two decades, the blood-soaked dictator has awarded the honor to a collection of rogues, blameless victims and genuine (though, as their acceptance of the prize indicates, morally fickle) do-gooders. Past recipients include Fidel Castro, “the victim children of Bosnia & Herzegovina” and Nelson Mandela.
Given Erdogan’s campaign to simultaneously rile the West and endear himself to the Arab “street” − something that the tyrant of Tripoli obviously appreciated − the Turkish prime minister was the obvious choice for 2010. Eruptions like Erdogan’s 2009 blow-up at Davos (“When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill,” he snapped at Shimon Peres) and his obscene exploitation of the May 2010 Mavi Marmara incident have boosted his popularity throughout the Arab and Muslim world, which seems to be a crucial component of his Justice and Development (AKP) Party’s Eastern-focused foreign policy.
Erdogan never hesitates to moralize about the policies of Europe, the United States or Israel, the constant theme being that these powers are hypocritical. “Those who are chanting for global nuclear disarmament should first start in their own countries,” he has said about Western pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear program. Yet Erdogan is selective in his outrage. He was noticeably silent when his friend Gadhafi pledged to “cleanse Libya house by house.” Indeed, turning a blind eye to mass killing has become de rigueur for the Turkish premier. In 2009 he defended Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, by stating that “a Muslim cannot commit genocide.” Tell that to the Armenians.
Last November, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Tripoli to receive the annual Al-Gadhafi International Prize for Human Rights. For over two decades, the blood-soaked dictator has awarded the honor to a collection of rogues, blameless victims and genuine (though, as their acceptance of the prize indicates, morally fickle) do-gooders. Past recipients include Fidel Castro, “the victim children of Bosnia & Herzegovina” and Nelson Mandela.
Given Erdogan’s campaign to simultaneously rile the West and endear himself to the Arab “street” − something that the tyrant of Tripoli obviously appreciated − the Turkish prime minister was the obvious choice for 2010. Eruptions like Erdogan’s 2009 blow-up at Davos (“When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill,” he snapped at Shimon Peres) and his obscene exploitation of the May 2010 Mavi Marmara incident have boosted his popularity throughout the Arab and Muslim world, which seems to be a crucial component of his Justice and Development (AKP) Party’s Eastern-focused foreign policy.
Erdogan never hesitates to moralize about the policies of Europe, the United States or Israel, the constant theme being that these powers are hypocritical. “Those who are chanting for global nuclear disarmament should first start in their own countries,” he has said about Western pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear program. Yet Erdogan is selective in his outrage. He was noticeably silent when his friend Gadhafi pledged to “cleanse Libya house by house.” Indeed, turning a blind eye to mass killing has become de rigueur for the Turkish premier. In 2009 he defended Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, by stating that “a Muslim cannot commit genocide.” Tell that to the Armenians.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Calls for Airstrikes on Israel
Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Calls for Airstrikes on Israel: "pAfter assuring both Libyans and Turks that Turkey was not involved in airstrikes on Libya, Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç, of Turkey, said, “We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions.” While Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador [...]/p"
Thursday, March 17, 2011
China, Turkey, and a Waiting World: Armed and Active
From: Commentary
Americans need less of a reminder today than we did a year ago that the world waiting beyond U.S. power and international consensus is not a gentle, stable one. But the reminders are accelerating. Two cropped up this week on opposite ends of Asia.
In Taiwan, Tsai Der-Sheng, the director of the National Security Bureau, briefed a legislative committee on China’s deployment across the strait of what he characterized as an entirely new type of ballistic missile. According to Tsai, the new missile’s destructive capacity is beyond anything previously deployed with the Chinese forces. The range of the missile, which he called the “Dongfeng-16,” would allow China to target U.S. facilities in Guam and Okinawa as well as Taiwan.
One Western analyst suggests that the new missile may be an upgraded version of the Dongfeng-15 (or DF-15), a tactical ballistic missile in service for some time with the Chinese army. That may be clarified in the coming days; what is more significant about this situation is that there has been no notice from foreign intelligence agencies that China was developing either a wholly new DF-16 or an upgrade like this one to the DF-15. The implication of that is that China’s missile-development cycle has been — at least in this case — considerably shorter than in the past, when Chinese development efforts were recognized and tracked for years before weapons were fielded with the operating forces.
At the other end of Asia, Greece has lodged a complaint with Turkey for sending a warship to interfere with an Italian cable-tending ship operating in an international strait in the Aegean Sea. The Italian ship has Greece’s approval for its activities, which involve entering Greek waters. The delineation of territorial waters is a particularly sticky problem in the Aegean; it is not self-evident which competing interpretation — Turkey’s or Greece’s — is “correct.” But the ascendancy of NATO and U.S. maritime power has held this and other such disputes in check for decades.
Not surprisingly, the cable-laying operation in question is related to an agreement between Italy and Israel to install an undersea communications cable linking the two countries. Industry analysts suggest that the cable will position Israel as the region’s most attractive high-speed communications hub. It’s becoming a pattern for a weapon system to pop up where economic activity is expected to benefit Israel — but the broader perspective on this trend is equally worrisome.
In the past 40 years, the Mediterranean has been almost entirely free of the kind of maritime intimidation regularly attempted by China against its neighbors. A Turkish warship harassing one of Italy’s civilian cable ships, as it operates under contract to Alcatel-Lucent, is the kind of threat China has used against third parties’ marine assets in its economic disputes with Vietnam. No particular armed vigilance has been required to discourage such power moves in the Mediterranean — as long as the U.S. and other NATO leaders were perceived to have the will to counter them. Small incidents like this one in the Aegean are early indicators that that perception has changed.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
As Turkey Embraces Islamism, Turkish Women’s Staggering Inequality Grows
From: Commentary:
Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to the U.S. and the chief spin artist for the Islamist and anti-Semitic government in Ankara, tweets first that “In Turkey, women’s suffrage was first recognized in 1930, earlier than many other European countries such as France, Spain and Belgium,” and second that “In Turkey, women make up 39% of academicians, 44% of undergraduate and 46.8 of postgraduate students are women.”
Alas, Tan forgot many more recent statistics:
- The murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent under the current government.
- Only two of Turkey’s 26 ministers are women; those two cover education and women’s affairs.
- None of the ruling party’s undersecretaries are women.
- Only 3.5 percent of deputy undersecretaries are women.
- Less than 6 percent of director-generals are women.
- Less than 0.5 percent of regional directors are women.
- Just over 2 percent of provincial directors are women.
- None of the top finance officials are women.
- None of the top Justice Ministry officials are women.
- The UN Development Program ranked Turkey 101 out of 109 in women’s empowerment.
- Turkey boasts 26 women’s shelters; not good for a country of more than 70 million.
- 37 percent of Turkish marriages involve child brides.
Women were once equal in Turkey, but Prime Minister Recep Tayyip “I am the Imam of Istanbul” Erdoğan has reversed course. Tan may promote Turkey’s progressive past as a public-relations strategy, but this is dishonest. When it comes to the present, the situation of women in Turkey is comparable not to that in Europe but rather to that in Iran or Egypt.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Cypriot president pays first visit in over a decade
From: Jerusalem Post
Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias arrived on Sunday night for the first visit by a Cypriot head of state in 11 years, reflecting ties that have improved proportionate to the degree to which Israel’s relations with Turkey have deteriorated.
Ties with Cyprus and Greece have improved markedly over the past two years, as a frigid wind has blown through ties between Jerusalem and Ankara. At the beginning of the last decade Greece and Cyprus were widely considered among the most – if not the most – unfriendly countries toward Israel in Europe.
Along with a marked warming trend with Cyprus and Greece, there has also been a strengthening of relations in recent years with Romania and Bulgaria, two other historic rivals of Turkey.
The improvement of the ties with Cyprus was manifest in Cyprus’ position regarding protest flotillas setting sail for Gaza. Cyprus has consistently refused to let these ships set sail from its ports.
The relationship between the two countries is even more interesting considering that the left-wing Christofias is Cyprus’s first, and the EU’s first and only, communist leader – by no means a natural fit for Israeli’s Likud-led government.
Christofias will be in the country for two days, accompanied by his Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou, his Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Antonis Paschalides, and a large business delegation that will host a seminar in Tel Aviv.
Cypriot officials, while acknowledging that the deterioration of Israel-Turkish ties have played an important role in Israel and Cyprus getting closer together, said that other elements were also involved, including a business relationship that the officials said has “exploded” over the last several years.
While Israel’s exports to Cyprus is primarily in the hitech field, Cyprus provides Israeli businesses with a number of financial services, with numerous Israeli companies registered in Cyprus to enable them to do business with the Arab world.
Security and defense-related cooperation has also increase significantly, Cypriot officials said, without providing details.
The officials said that the improved attitude toward Israel is also attributed in some part to the fact that thousands of Cypriots have come to Israel over the last 15 years, a good number of them for medical reasons. The officials said 20-30 Cypriots receive treatment at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer and Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem at any given time. Likewise, the official said, a number of Cypriot doctors receive their training in Israel.
In advance of the visit, the Cypriot Embassy issued a communiqué saying that “for thousands of Israelis and Cypriots, the burgeoning of relations between the two states represents an official acknowledgment of something which started many years ago on a people to people level. Jewish communities flourished in Cyprus during ancient times, and over the past two millennia, Jews often found refuge in Cyprus.
In more recent history, many Jewish immigrants remember the support and warmth of the Cypriot people during their incarceration on the island by British forces, and with independence in 1948, many Israelis have become regular visitors to Cyprus, or have transformed Cyprus into their second home.”
Christofias is scheduled to meet with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias arrived on Sunday night for the first visit by a Cypriot head of state in 11 years, reflecting ties that have improved proportionate to the degree to which Israel’s relations with Turkey have deteriorated.
Ties with Cyprus and Greece have improved markedly over the past two years, as a frigid wind has blown through ties between Jerusalem and Ankara. At the beginning of the last decade Greece and Cyprus were widely considered among the most – if not the most – unfriendly countries toward Israel in Europe.
Along with a marked warming trend with Cyprus and Greece, there has also been a strengthening of relations in recent years with Romania and Bulgaria, two other historic rivals of Turkey.
The improvement of the ties with Cyprus was manifest in Cyprus’ position regarding protest flotillas setting sail for Gaza. Cyprus has consistently refused to let these ships set sail from its ports.
The relationship between the two countries is even more interesting considering that the left-wing Christofias is Cyprus’s first, and the EU’s first and only, communist leader – by no means a natural fit for Israeli’s Likud-led government.
Christofias will be in the country for two days, accompanied by his Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou, his Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Antonis Paschalides, and a large business delegation that will host a seminar in Tel Aviv.
Cypriot officials, while acknowledging that the deterioration of Israel-Turkish ties have played an important role in Israel and Cyprus getting closer together, said that other elements were also involved, including a business relationship that the officials said has “exploded” over the last several years.
While Israel’s exports to Cyprus is primarily in the hitech field, Cyprus provides Israeli businesses with a number of financial services, with numerous Israeli companies registered in Cyprus to enable them to do business with the Arab world.
Security and defense-related cooperation has also increase significantly, Cypriot officials said, without providing details.
The officials said that the improved attitude toward Israel is also attributed in some part to the fact that thousands of Cypriots have come to Israel over the last 15 years, a good number of them for medical reasons. The officials said 20-30 Cypriots receive treatment at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer and Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem at any given time. Likewise, the official said, a number of Cypriot doctors receive their training in Israel.
In advance of the visit, the Cypriot Embassy issued a communiqué saying that “for thousands of Israelis and Cypriots, the burgeoning of relations between the two states represents an official acknowledgment of something which started many years ago on a people to people level. Jewish communities flourished in Cyprus during ancient times, and over the past two millennia, Jews often found refuge in Cyprus.
In more recent history, many Jewish immigrants remember the support and warmth of the Cypriot people during their incarceration on the island by British forces, and with independence in 1948, many Israelis have become regular visitors to Cyprus, or have transformed Cyprus into their second home.”
Christofias is scheduled to meet with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
