Rehmat's World
May 14, 2010
It has been reported in both Turkish and Israeli press that Turkey has deployed anti-aircraft batteries along the Syrian border to counter possible future Israeli surprise attacks on Syrian or Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel did use Turkish airspace in 2007 to carry out bombing of the suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Dair AlZour. Both Washington and Tel Aviv called the raid to stop Syrian-N. Korean cooperation in developing a nuclear bomb – which Blake Hounshell called a “deja vu all over again” in Foreign Policy magazine on September 14, 2007.
Israel has decided not to sell its Barak 8 missile interceptor to Turkey – in case it falls into Iranian hands and Iranians copy Barak technology. Barak 8 whose radar provides 360-degree coverage against incoming missiles or air attack. Israel built Barak 8 missile interceptor in partnership with India. The interceptor is a key defensive component for the Israeli missiles and warships patrolling the Persian Gulf opposite Islamic Iran, the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean opposite Syria and Lebanese shores. India is reportedly agrees with Israel because it fears the Barak 8 might end up in Pakistan. In 2009, Israel and India signed a US$1.1 billion for the purchase of interceptor and its installations on most of its warships. The system, complete with launchers, radar and installation sells for US$24 million (from DEBKAfiles).
Since March 1949, when the anti-Islam Kemalist regime recognized the illegal European Jewish occupation of Palestine – the relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv have been a love-and-hate affair. The love reached its peak in March 1996, when Turkish President Suleyman Demirel visited Tel Aviv and signed several agreements involving military and economic cooperation, free trade and joint investment. Everything was going as usual even under the so-called “Islamist government of AKP” until in late 2008, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan felt being betrayed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert by invading Gazzah Strip while he was mediating peace negotiation with Damascus on behalf Tel Aviv on Ehud Olmert’s personal request. Erdogan stopped the mediation talks and later found an international forum (Davos) to vent his frustrations at the Zionist regime by telling Israel’s President Shimon Peres: “You’re killing innocent people”. As tit for tat – the Zionist-regime showed its typical anti-Muslim feeling by insulting Turkish Ambassador in Israel which was astonishing both in its stupidity.
Recently, being the only Muslim member-state of NATO, Turkey has been showing its lack of interest in NATO joint military excercises that involve the Zionist entity. This is projected by the Jewish lobbyists as “Turkey won’t help NATO if NATO helps Israel”, which is ridiculous because Israel has always conceived Muslims being its greatest enemies. With all this hot air blowing between Ankara and Tel Aviv – Erdogan has not broken diplomatic relation with Israel or quit NATO alliance – something which the great majority of AKP supporters want him to do.
Seyfeddin Kara writing in Crescent Magazine (May 2010) under heading Crisis in Turkish-Israeli relations: rhetoric or reality?, said:
These crises did not occur because of Turkey’s concerns for the rights of the Palestinians or international law. The dominant power in the formulation of Turkish foreign policy, since the creation of the Turkish Republic, has been the Kemalist elites who were obsessed with maintaining their totalitarian regime. Due to lack of popular support, the Kemalist elites believed that the only way to remain in power was to steer clear of any military conflict with neighbouring countries. This was formulated in the words of Mustafa Kemal as “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”. This formula shaped the principle of Turkish foreign policy. Kemalist elites felt threatened by the belligerent nature of Israel and therefore preferred to have stable relations with Arab neighbours.
However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical landscape of the region changed dramatically. Turkey had the second largest army of NATO members and was considered crucial for the defence of Europe. The Kemalist elites were concerned that Turkey’s importance to the Western alliance would diminish as there was no Soviet threat anymore. The policy makers knew well that it would be difficult to maintain the Kemalist regime without external support, especially at a time when the regime was facing two imminent “threats”: Kurdish rebellion and “Islamic radicalism”.
The Kemalist elites needed the support of the only remaining “superpower”, the US, and they believed that Israel was the key to securing such support. Hence, they put emphasis on the “threat” from the “Islamists” as it had particular significance for the new approach in their foreign policy. This would place Turkey on the anti-Iranian axis along with the US and Israel, thus securing their support.
The US lent strong support to Turkish-Israeli rapprochement. The strong relations between the two were crucial for the new US Middle East order as well as world hegemony. Turkey and Israel, two powerful countries in the region, could be useful for containing the “Iranian threat” and controlling Arab countries.
The relationship reached its acme when Necmettin Erbakan’s Refah (Welfare) Party gained the majority of seats in the National Assembly in 1996. As the worst nightmares of the Kemalist elites came true, they felt more insecure and intensified their efforts to strengthen ties between Turkey and Israel. With the support of Israel and the US, the Turkish army removed in 1997 the coalition government led by Erbakan in a post-modern military coup d’état.
The situation ostensibly changed in 2002 when AKP, the Islamic-rooted party, came to power in Turkey. Although there was no immediate change in relations, the first blow came in 2004. Erdogan was outraged at the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and called it a “terrorist act”. He also described the Israeli policy in the Gaza Strip as “state-sponsored terrorism”.
This dynamic was clearly demonstrated in 2006 when Erdogan sharpened his criticism of Israel and refused to meet some Israeli officials. In turn, US President George Bush refused to meet Erdogan until he had visited Israel. Thus, the US reminded Erdogan that if Turkey wished to receive continued US support, he needed to keep its relations with Israel intact.
Since then Erdogan has not dared to cross the red lines that the US drew for Turkey’s foreign policy. Despite the popular demand of the Turkish public, he did not break or even downgrade Turkey’s relations with Israel. His harsh rhetoric was rather a careful move to satisfy the demands of the Turkish public who have strong sympathy for the Palestinians. At best it could be said that Erdogan’s Islamist roots have somewhat emotionally attached him to the Palestinian cause.
Taking advantage of the current lukewarm relations between the Obama administration and the present Israeli government, Erdogan finds it easier to criticize Israel than he might otherwise do. However, until the Turkish government is ready to confront the US, a dramatic change in Turkey’s approach to Israeli relations or the Palestinian issue cannot be expected. Unfortunately, such a confrontation is far beyond the horizons of Turkish politics at present.
Israel has decided not to sell its Barak 8 missile interceptor to Turkey – in case it falls into Iranian hands and Iranians copy Barak technology. Barak 8 whose radar provides 360-degree coverage against incoming missiles or air attack. Israel built Barak 8 missile interceptor in partnership with India. The interceptor is a key defensive component for the Israeli missiles and warships patrolling the Persian Gulf opposite Islamic Iran, the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean opposite Syria and Lebanese shores. India is reportedly agrees with Israel because it fears the Barak 8 might end up in Pakistan. In 2009, Israel and India signed a US$1.1 billion for the purchase of interceptor and its installations on most of its warships. The system, complete with launchers, radar and installation sells for US$24 million (from DEBKAfiles).
Since March 1949, when the anti-Islam Kemalist regime recognized the illegal European Jewish occupation of Palestine – the relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv have been a love-and-hate affair. The love reached its peak in March 1996, when Turkish President Suleyman Demirel visited Tel Aviv and signed several agreements involving military and economic cooperation, free trade and joint investment. Everything was going as usual even under the so-called “Islamist government of AKP” until in late 2008, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan felt being betrayed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert by invading Gazzah Strip while he was mediating peace negotiation with Damascus on behalf Tel Aviv on Ehud Olmert’s personal request. Erdogan stopped the mediation talks and later found an international forum (Davos) to vent his frustrations at the Zionist regime by telling Israel’s President Shimon Peres: “You’re killing innocent people”. As tit for tat – the Zionist-regime showed its typical anti-Muslim feeling by insulting Turkish Ambassador in Israel which was astonishing both in its stupidity.
Recently, being the only Muslim member-state of NATO, Turkey has been showing its lack of interest in NATO joint military excercises that involve the Zionist entity. This is projected by the Jewish lobbyists as “Turkey won’t help NATO if NATO helps Israel”, which is ridiculous because Israel has always conceived Muslims being its greatest enemies. With all this hot air blowing between Ankara and Tel Aviv – Erdogan has not broken diplomatic relation with Israel or quit NATO alliance – something which the great majority of AKP supporters want him to do.
Seyfeddin Kara writing in Crescent Magazine (May 2010) under heading Crisis in Turkish-Israeli relations: rhetoric or reality?, said:
These crises did not occur because of Turkey’s concerns for the rights of the Palestinians or international law. The dominant power in the formulation of Turkish foreign policy, since the creation of the Turkish Republic, has been the Kemalist elites who were obsessed with maintaining their totalitarian regime. Due to lack of popular support, the Kemalist elites believed that the only way to remain in power was to steer clear of any military conflict with neighbouring countries. This was formulated in the words of Mustafa Kemal as “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”. This formula shaped the principle of Turkish foreign policy. Kemalist elites felt threatened by the belligerent nature of Israel and therefore preferred to have stable relations with Arab neighbours.
However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical landscape of the region changed dramatically. Turkey had the second largest army of NATO members and was considered crucial for the defence of Europe. The Kemalist elites were concerned that Turkey’s importance to the Western alliance would diminish as there was no Soviet threat anymore. The policy makers knew well that it would be difficult to maintain the Kemalist regime without external support, especially at a time when the regime was facing two imminent “threats”: Kurdish rebellion and “Islamic radicalism”.
The Kemalist elites needed the support of the only remaining “superpower”, the US, and they believed that Israel was the key to securing such support. Hence, they put emphasis on the “threat” from the “Islamists” as it had particular significance for the new approach in their foreign policy. This would place Turkey on the anti-Iranian axis along with the US and Israel, thus securing their support.
The US lent strong support to Turkish-Israeli rapprochement. The strong relations between the two were crucial for the new US Middle East order as well as world hegemony. Turkey and Israel, two powerful countries in the region, could be useful for containing the “Iranian threat” and controlling Arab countries.
The relationship reached its acme when Necmettin Erbakan’s Refah (Welfare) Party gained the majority of seats in the National Assembly in 1996. As the worst nightmares of the Kemalist elites came true, they felt more insecure and intensified their efforts to strengthen ties between Turkey and Israel. With the support of Israel and the US, the Turkish army removed in 1997 the coalition government led by Erbakan in a post-modern military coup d’état.
The situation ostensibly changed in 2002 when AKP, the Islamic-rooted party, came to power in Turkey. Although there was no immediate change in relations, the first blow came in 2004. Erdogan was outraged at the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and called it a “terrorist act”. He also described the Israeli policy in the Gaza Strip as “state-sponsored terrorism”.
This dynamic was clearly demonstrated in 2006 when Erdogan sharpened his criticism of Israel and refused to meet some Israeli officials. In turn, US President George Bush refused to meet Erdogan until he had visited Israel. Thus, the US reminded Erdogan that if Turkey wished to receive continued US support, he needed to keep its relations with Israel intact.
Since then Erdogan has not dared to cross the red lines that the US drew for Turkey’s foreign policy. Despite the popular demand of the Turkish public, he did not break or even downgrade Turkey’s relations with Israel. His harsh rhetoric was rather a careful move to satisfy the demands of the Turkish public who have strong sympathy for the Palestinians. At best it could be said that Erdogan’s Islamist roots have somewhat emotionally attached him to the Palestinian cause.
Taking advantage of the current lukewarm relations between the Obama administration and the present Israeli government, Erdogan finds it easier to criticize Israel than he might otherwise do. However, until the Turkish government is ready to confront the US, a dramatic change in Turkey’s approach to Israeli relations or the Palestinian issue cannot be expected. Unfortunately, such a confrontation is far beyond the horizons of Turkish politics at present.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment