Turkish Forum

Tag: Recep Tayyip Erdogan

12th president of Turkey

  • Erdogan charts a new course to the east

    Erdogan charts a new course to the east

    DEBORCHGRAVE: Talking Turkey

    By Arnaud de Borchgrave

    7:25 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2010

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses the lawmakers of his Islamic-rooted party at the parliament in Ankara, Turkey, Tuesday. Dec. 1, 2009. Turkey said late Wednesday that Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan will not be part of any combat operation. Turkey says it is reviewing whether to increase its commitment to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Erdogan will travel to Washington for a Monday meeting with President Barack Obama, who is seeking additional troops from NATO allies in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)
    Geopolitical tectonic plates began grinding menacingly five years ago when Turkey embarked on negotiations for membership in the European Union. But it didn't take long for Ankara to conclude that the EU was playacting. There was little appetite for adding 70 million Turkish Muslims (80 million by the end of a projected 10-year negotiation) to EU's 20 million Muslims (Pakistani Brits, North African French, Turkish Germans). Church attendance in Europe is in steep decline while thousands of mosques are filled to overflowing. It was time for Turkey to move on. In 2003, Turkey already had demonstrated that its close alliance with the United States in particular and the NATO alliance in general could not be taken for granted. As the U.S. 4th Infantry Division was about to disembark in Turkey and transit to Iraq to be part of a pincer movement on Saddam Hussein's regime, Ankara said no, and the pincer collapsed. Adding much expense and replanning, the 4th ID was rerouted around the Arabian Peninsula to Kuwait. Then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a preparatory conference with Turkish leaders, had misread the signals. Turkish leaders, like many others around the world, had a hard time understanding the motives behind President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Saddam, stripped of diplomatic gobbledygook, was the West's best defense against the Iran of the mullahs. They had fought an eight-year war (1980-1988) to a Mexican standoff that had cost one million casualties on both sides. In 1949, Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel. A close military alliance was part of the relationship. The Israeli air force could use Turkish airspace for training. It also was valuable space for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear installations. But all that changed overnight. In short order, Israel and Turkey went from being close friends to antagonists heading for the brink of enmity. The detonator was the Israeli invasion of Gaza in January 2009, which killed 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. The break in Turkish-Israeli relations came when Israeli commandos boarded a flotilla of Turkish vessels bound for Gaza with relief supplies. Israel branded the civilians aboard as activists in the Islamic group Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), on par with al Qaeda. But IHH is also a key supporter of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling party. Mr. Erdogan's warm embrace of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Istanbul as "a dear friend" and his opposition to further sanctions against Iran (voted June 9 by the U.N. Security Council) mark Turkey's new "BlackBerry diplomacy," a break with conventional diplomacy - when major shifts take place in real time above the heads of foreign-policy officials and the diplomats with whom they normally deal. Mr. Erdogan declines to call Hamas a terrorist organization, and he no longer sees Turkey's role in NATO as a priority. And to make sure there was no possibility of the country's military staging what might have been a fifth coup since 1960 to oust a civilian government, Mr. Erdogan ordered the arrest of 52 military commanders in February. Code-named Operation Sledgehammer, the purported plan was to blow up mosques and museums as a signal for the military to overthrow the Islamic-oriented government. Government denials notwithstanding, prosecutors have jailed about 400 people, including soldiers, academics, politicians and journalists. This explains why no one is willing to criticize Mr. Erdogan for the record. Ever since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, an army officer in World War I, abolished the Ottoman Empire's caliphate in 1924, introduced the Roman alphabet to replace Arabic script, gave women the vote and permission to dress in Western clothes, and created modern Turkey, the military have considered themselves guardians of the secular state against Islamist encroachment. The bottom line, as explained off the record by politicians, academics and journalists in Istanbul this week, is that Mr. Erdogan and his cronies have convinced themselves this will not be America's century as was the 20th, that the geopolitical balance of forces is shifting east, and that it is Turkey's role to assume a leadership position in the Middle East that would be designed to bridge the gap between Sunni and Shia Islam. (Turkey is 80 percent Sunni.) Mr. Erdogan also believes he can persuade Iran to suspend its secret nuclear-weapons program just shy of making a bomb or missile warhead. Instead, Iran would follow the examples of Japan and Brazil, countries that have the wherewithal to produce such a weapon in six months. Mr. Erdogan, like most world leaders, had high hopes for President Obama. But now they see he is unable to master a dysfunctional system of government; that he may lose one or even both houses of Congress in November; and that Afghanistan appears to be headed for another debacle comparable to Vietnam circa 1975 (when Congress stripped South Vietnam of military aid, in effect inviting North Vietnam to administer the coup de grace). Turkey still maintains 1,750 soldiers in Afghanistan, albeit in a noncombat role to train Afghan soldiers. One cynical Turkish ex-foreign minister, speculating about the Afghan war, confided, "The way things are going, your Congress will have made Afghanistan secure for China to make a deal with a new Taliban regime to exploit the $3 trillion worth of minerals verified by U.S. intelligence." Turkish officials who see the global balance of power trending eastward also can see over the horizon a great Turkic nation that spans most of Central Asia. For them, this is a more exciting vista than a slow NATO retreat from Afghanistan. Or a European Union, where Turkey's nemesis, Greece, the sick man of Europe, almost collapsed the painfully erected House of Europe. Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor-at-large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. © Copyright 2010 The Washington Times,

  • US Supreme Courts Final Decision on Aiding PKK Terrorism

    US Supreme Courts Final Decision on Aiding PKK Terrorism

    TURKISH FORUM WELLCOMES THE DECISION AND THANKS TO THE US SUPREME COURT

    THE US SUPREME COURT RULES:

    Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton.  HLP sued the United States claiming that providing lobbying, public relations, legal services and other types of assistance to the PKK &LTTE terrorist organizations were freedom of speech protected by the US Constitution.

    With a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed, holding freedom of speech does not include materially assisting a group listed as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State.  The Supreme Court further held that it is not an excuse or defense that a person did not have knowledge of whether a group he/she was assisting is on the Terror List or whether his/her assistance to such group would further the terrorist acts of the group.

    The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

    ==================================================================================

    PKK & Tamil Tiger advocates in U.S. using ‘Freedom of Speech’ right amounts to Aiding Terrorism – US Supreme Court rules

    Tue, 2010-06-22 14:25 — editor
    Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune
    Washington, D.C. 22 June (Asiantribune.com):

    The United States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts delivering the court’s majority decision Monday, June 21 giving a final blow to advocates of terrorism/separatism of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and Turkey’s PKK who use American soil said: “under the material-support statute, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic. They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law. They may advocate before the United Nations.” But they may not coordinate the speech with those groups on the US terrorist list.”

    And drawing a distinction between assisting the group and simply speaking on their behalf, the Chief Justice said, “We in no way suggest that a regulation of independent speech would pass constitutional muster.”

    The First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech under the US Constitution does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of disputes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

    In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as “expert advice or assistance” or “training” intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion upholding the Material Support statute as applied even to peacemakers. He noted that Congress and the executive branch had both concluded that even benign support like this can benefit terrorist organizations by giving them an air of legitimacy, or allowing such organizations to use negotiations to stall while they regroup from previous losses. What’s more, Roberts said, allowing such peaceful advocacy would undermine U.S. relations with allies, like Turkey, which is in a violent struggle with the PKK. It is vital in this context, he said, not to substitute “our own judgment” for that of Congress and the executive branch. The material support statute, he noted, is a “preventive measure — it criminalizes not terrorist attacks themselves but aid that makes the attacks more likely to occur,” and in this context the government “is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its conclusions.”

    The law barring material support was first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks. It was amended again in 2004.

    The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.
    The law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, does not require any proof the defendant intended to further any act of terrorism or violence by the foreign group.

    This litigation concerns 18 U. S. C. §2339B, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” Congress has amended the definition of “material support or resources” periodically, but at present it is defined as follows:

    “The term ‘material support or resources’ means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

    In full, 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1) provides: “Unlawful Conduct.—
    Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowl¬edge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization . . ., that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity . . .,

    Plaintiffs in this litigation are two U. S. citizens and six domestic organizations: the Humanitarian Law Project HLP) (a human rights organization with consultative status to the United Nations); Ralph Fertig (the HLP’s president, and a retired administrative law judge); Nagalingam Jeyalingam (a Tamil physician, born in Sri Lanka and a naturalized U. S. citizen); and five nonprofit groups dedicated to the interests of persons of Tamil descent.

    Plaintiffs claimed that they wished to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of the PKK and the LTTE in the form of monetary contributions, other tangible aid, legal training, and political advocacy, but that they could not do so for fear of prosecution under §2339B.

    As relevant here, plaintiffs claimed that the material support statute was unconstitutional on two grounds:

    First, it violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association under the First Amendment, because it criminalized their provision of material support to the PKK and the LTTE, without requiring the Government to prove that plaintiffs had a specific intent to further the unlawful ends of those organizations. Second, plaintiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
    Both arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court.

    The case is directly connected to Sri Lanka because the Humanitarian Law Project was representing two U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) one of which is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) which claimed during its 26-year armed struggle for a separate independent nation in the north and east of Sri Lanka as the ‘sole representative of the Tamil People’. The outfit was militarily defeated May 2009 within the borders of Sri Lanka eliminating the entire Tamil Tiger leadership but has energized a section of the West-domiciled Tamil Diaspora floating an organization called Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam to diplomatically lobby to achieve ‘self-determination’ for the Sri Lanka Tamil minority (12%), meaning a separate independent state of Eelam.

    A meeting of the World Tamil Forum was held recently in London which advocated an economic blockade of Sri Lanka citing war crimes, human rights abuses, genocide against minority Tamils and other atrocities. It was addressed by British Foreign Secretary Miliband and graced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The inaugural meeting of the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam was held in Philadelphia convened by its provisional held Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran a Sri Lanka-born naturalized US citizen who has a law practice in New York.

    The Government of Sri Lanka and its overseas diplomatic representatives in the West have to figure out how to prevent a ‘Kosovo-type situation’ emerging in the international arena which can gather support for the ‘cause’ the proponents of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam seeking.

    It is in this context that Sri Lanka which is faced with this challenged overseas from the remnants of the Tamil Tigers who are connected to the Humanitarian Law Project which challenged some provisions of the ‘Material Support Law’ which was rejected by the US Supreme Court on Monday.

    Following are salient sections of the Supreme Court ruling:

    (Begin Excerpts) (d) As applied to plaintiffs, the material-support statute does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    (1) Both plaintiffs and the Government take extreme positions on this question. Plaintiffs claim that Congress has banned their pure political speech. That claim is unfounded because, under the material-support statute, they may say anything they wish on any topic. Section 2339B does not prohibit independent advocacy or membership in the PKK and LTTE. Rather, Congress has prohibited “material support,” which most often does not take the form of speech.

    And when it does, the statute is carefully drawn to cover only a narrow category of speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.

    On the other hand, the Government errs in arguing that the only thing actually at issue here is conduct, not speech, and that the correct standard of review is intermediate scrutiny, as set out in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377. That standard is not used to review a content-based regulation of speech, and §2339B regulates plaintiffs’ speech to the PKK and the LTTE on the basis of its content.

    Even if the material-support statute generally functions as a regulation of conduct, as applied to plaintiffs the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message. Thus, the Court “must [apply] a more demanding standard” than the one described in O’Brien. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 403

    (2) The parties agree that the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order, but plaintiffs argue that this objective does not justify prohibiting their speech, which they say will advance only the legitimate activities of the PKK and LTTE. Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. Congress rejected plaintiffs’ position on that question when it enacted §2339B, finding that “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” §301(a), 110 Stat. 1247, note following §2339B.

    The record confirms that Congress was justified in rejecting plaintiffs’ view. The
    PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means.

    Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways. The record shows that designated foreign terrorist organizations do not maintain organizational firewalls between social, political, and terrorist operations, or financial firewalls between funds raised for humanitarian activities and those used to carry out terrorist attacks. Providing material support in any form would also undermine cooperative international efforts to prevent terrorism and strain the United States’ relationships with its allies, including those that are defending themselves against violent insurgencies waged by foreign terrorist groups.

    (3) The Court does not rely exclusively on its own factual inferences drawn from the record evidence, but considers the Executive Branch’s stated view that the experience and analysis of Government agencies charged with combating terrorism strongly support Congress’s finding that all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations—even those for seemingly benign purposes—further those groups’ terrorist activities. That evaluation of the facts, like Congress’s assessment, is entitled to deference, given the sensitive national security and foreign relations interests at stake.

    The Court does not defer to the Government’s reading of the First Amendment. But respect for the Government’s factual conclusions is appropriate in light of the courts’ lack of expertise with respect to national security and foreign affairs, and the reality that efforts to confront terrorist threats occur in an area where information can be difficult to obtain, the impact of certain conduct can be difficult to assess, and conclusions must often be based on informed judgment rather than concrete evidence. The Court also finds it significant that Congress has been conscious of its own responsibility to consider how its actions may implicate constitutional concerns.

    Most importantly, Congress has avoided any restriction on independent advocacy, or indeed any activities not directed to, coordinated with, or controlled by foreign terrorist groups. Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake, the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that prohibiting material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups serves the Government’s interest in preventing terrorism, even if those providing the support mean to promote only the groups’ nonviolent ends.

    It simply holds that §2339B does not violate the freedom of speech as applied to the particular types of support these plaintiffs seek to provide.

    (e) Nor does the material-support statute violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. Plaintiffs argue that the statute criminalizes the mere fact of their associating with the PKK and the LTTE, and thereby runs afoul of this Court’s precedents. The Ninth Circuit correctly rejected this claim because §2339B does not penalize mere association, but prohibits the act of giving foreign terrorist groups material support. Any burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of association caused by preventing them from supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations, but not other groups, is justified for the same reasons the Court rejects their free speech challenge.

    Plaintiffs want to speak to the PKK and the LTTE, and whether they may do so under §2339B depends on what they say. If plaintiffs’ speech to those groups imparts a “specific skill” or communicates advice derived from “specialized knowledge”—for example, training on the use of international law or advice on petitioning the United Nations— then it is barred.

    Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted §2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism.

    One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the PKK and LTTE: “[F]oreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”

    Plaintiffs argue that the reference to “any contribution” in this finding meant only monetary support. There is no reason to read the finding to be so limited, particularly because Congress expressly prohibited so much more than monetary support in §2339B. Congress’s use of the term “contribution” is best read to reflect a determination that any form of material support furnished “to” a foreign terrorist organization should be barred, which is precisely what the material-support statute does. Indeed, when Congress enacted §2339B, Congress simultaneously removed an exception that had existed in §2339A(a) for the provision of material support in the form of “humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in” terrorist activity. That repeal demonstrates that Congress considered and rejected the view that ostensibly peaceful aid would have no harmful effects.

    We are convinced that Congress was justified in rejecting that view. The PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. “The PKK’s insurgency has claimed more than 22,000 lives.” The LTTE has engaged in extensive suicide bombings and political assassinations, including killings of the Sri Lankan President, Security Minister, and Deputy Defense Minister. (End Excerpts)

    The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

    – Asian Tribune –

  • The Death of Turkey’s Democracy

    The Death of Turkey’s Democracy

    “I no longer recognize the country where I was raised.”

    • Article
    • Comments (18)
    more in Opinion »

    BY DANI RODRIK

    I no longer recognize Turkey, the country where I was raised and spend most of my time when I am not teaching in the U.S.

    It wasn’t so long ago that the country seemed to be taking significant strides in the direction of human rights and democracy. During its first term in government, between 2002 and 2007, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) worked hard to bring the country into the European Union, to reform its legal regime, and to relax restrictions on Kurds.

    But more recently, the same government has been responsible for a politics …

    ====================== COMMENTS  =======================

    • i want to correct something:
      below the picture in the article written that AKP supporters holding the banner. it’s a clear lie. the pictures on the banner belong to some people who were put in jail because of the mentioned court cases, which are supported by government. and the people who are against these series of cases claim that erdogan is manipulated by the usa, and this dependence on usa causes turkey loose.
      supporters of erdogan are about 30-40 percent. and the total percentage of the islamists in turkey is at most 50%. but the percentage of dislike against usa is about 80%. it’s obvious that turkish people feel some problem with usa politics.
      maybe some people should give up trying to relate dislike against usa to non-democracy. even the lie i mentioned above in this article shows that some powers in usa can give up ethics and can easily slander others for some interests. maybe this can explain the 80%.
      finally, it’s weird that in such a big newspaper, writers can lie publicly, if they want to.

      2 Recommendations

        • Catherine Dempsey replied:

      • most of the turkish people believe that they will not accept turkey into the union. it was the same before the developments too. and many people don’t want to be included because of the attitude of the eu. although i don’t mind if they accept us or not, like many others, i support advancements in areas like human rights, in particular rights about ideological issues. it seems there is some progress, but relatively slow. but certainly, it does not go backwards, no matter what some people claim.


    • Turkey refuses to grant independence to the Kurdish people. Turkish war planes cross over the border to northern Iraq and bomb Kurdish villages practically every day, killing an maiming thousands of people whose only desire is to have their land, Kurdistan, gain independence.
      Turkey, cannot with a clear conscience, support the Palestinian people and at the same time so brutally refuse to recognize the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people.
      We cannot, we must not forget the genocide committed by Turkey against the Armenian people. Turkey s testing us all now. If we sit idle, Turkey will destroy the Kurds too.

      Recommend

  • Turkey forced Israeli to blink–’freezes’ $56 billion defense deals

    Turkey forced Israeli to blink–’freezes’ $56 billion defense deals

    İlgi cekici bir analiz
    asagida sunulmakta
    Pulat Tacar

    Posted on June 21, 2010 by The Editors
    Turkey has the leverage of financial pressure and it is surely using it on Tel Aviv. Israelis understand the concept of money, and Ankara is pushing all the right buttons, hitting them hard where it matters. The question being asked in diplomatic circles is, will the financial pressure on the military industrial complex of Israel force a change in Mr. Natenyahu’s policy towards the Palestinians? Israel has never had to face this sort of economic pressure in its history. The US and Western Europe cannot make up $56 billion and other ongoing losses. Will it force Tel Aviv to pause and think? The Israeli military is hard pressed to find alternate places to get information on Iran. The fiasco with the Turks is costing them a lot of money at a time when they are facing international approbation.

    • Turkey is reported to have frozen at least 16 arms deals with Israel worth an estimated $56 billion
    • Contracts were suspended after the Israeli government refused to apologize for the May 31 killing of nine Turks
    • Just a matter of time before Ankara officially froze all defense deals with Israel
    • Turkish President Abdullah Gul has warned that Ankara would not rule out breaking off diplomatic ties if three demands — an international probe, a public Israeli apology and lifting the three-year-old blockade on Gaza — are not met.
    • “If the United States cannot be relied upon to pressure Israel on meeting these demands, Ankara will have to find some lever to do so itself,” the U.S.-based global security consultancy Stratfor observed in an analysis Tuesday.
    • “One such lever may be military and intelligence cooperation, which Israel has historically relied upon.

    In all probability, there will be intense pressure on the government of Mr. Natenyahu to crawl back on the steadfast positions that it has taken. Israeli has already loosened the embargo, and if President Obama is to place additional pressure, the military will force Mr. Natenyahu to retreat, apologize, and work it out with the Turks.  The change in two intelligence chiefs within a few weeks have raised eyebrows in Turkey. First the Afghan President removed the Pro-Indian chief of the Afghan Intelligence Services (RAMA), and the Turks appointed the  42 year old Hakan Fidan who has been a close adviser to Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. Hakan Fidan was named chief of the Milli Istihbarat Teskilati, Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, known as MIT. Both are considered the architect of Erdogan’s expansionist policy, for several years. Hakan Fidan is viewed with deep suspicion by Israel for several reasons, one of which is that he was  formulated the uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran proposed in May. Turkey voted against the sanctions on Iran.

    TEL AVIV, Israel, June 18 — Turkey is reported to have frozen at least 16 arms deals with Israel worth an estimated $56 billion, including missile projects and upgrading combat aircraft and tanks, in a major escalation of its confrontation with the Jewish state.

    The Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman reported Friday that the contracts were suspended after the Israeli government refused to apologize for the May 31 killing of nine Turks when Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel carrying humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip.

    There was no official confirmation of the report in either Israel or Turkey. But relations between the two former allies have been crumbling since Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ferociously denounced Israel’s invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip Dec. 27, 2008.

    The Israeli daily Haaretz quoted defense ministry sources as saying it was probably just a matter of time before Ankara officially froze all defense deals with Israel.

    On Monday, state-run Israel Aerospace Industries, flagship of the Jewish state’s defense industry, and Elbit Systems ordered all their engineers, flight instructors and other employees based in Turkey to return home.

    Haaretz said the 16 projects being frozen include a $5 billion contract for 1,000 Merkava Mark III main battle tanks designed by Israel Military Industries — the Israeli army is equipping with Merkava Mark IV models — a $50 million upgrade of Turkey’s M-60 tanks, an $800 million deal for two Israeli patrol aircraft and an Airborne Warning and Control System jet.

    Turkey was also planning a $625.5 million deal for 54 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom strike aircraft to be upgraded to Phantom 2020 standard, and a $75 million program to upgrade 48 of the air force’s 87 Northrop F-5/F-5B fighter-bombers as lead-in trainers.

    Relations nosedived in October 2009 when Turkey canceled Israel’s participation in NATO air exercises. Turkey complained that IAI had delayed delivery of six of 10 Heron long-range unmanned aerial vehicles ordered by the Turkish military in a $185 million 2005 contract.

    Last April, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that the Israel defense ministry froze the sale of advanced military platforms to Turkey because of mounting anti-Israeli rhetoric from Erdogan’s government.

    The ministry’s foreign defense assistance and export procurement department also decided to review all Turkish requests for military equipment on a case-by-case basis.

    Turkey has been a major importer of Israeli military hardware and defense expertise since the two countries signed a military cooperation pact in 1996.

    That landmark alliance between the two major non-Arab military powers in the Middle East dramatically changed the region’s strategic landscape.

    Israeli pilots trained in Turkey and, according to some reports, Israel set up intelligence-gathering stations on Turkey’s borders with Syria and Iran.

    In the past, the Turks had preserved military cooperation with Israel, particularly the arms deals and joint exercises that formed the core of their strategic alliance, even when treatment of the Palestinians stirred widespread anger among Turkey’s overwhelmingly Muslim population.

    But the May 31 killings, and Israel’s dogged refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the bloodletting, has incensed the Turkish nation.

    The Financial Times quoted Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, as saying Ankara could be forced to sever all ties with Israel, although he stressed: “We don’t want this to go to that point.”

    The unraveling of military links, including intelligence-sharing that Israeli leaders valued extremely highly because of Turkey’s proximity to Iran, underlined the seriousness of the current confrontation.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said he does not trust Israel to carry out an impartial review of the May 31 incident, rather than be subjected to an international investigation.

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul has warned that Ankara would not rule out breaking off diplomatic ties if three demands — an international probe, a public Israeli apology and lifting the three-year-old blockade on Gaza — are not met.

    “If the United States cannot be relied upon to pressure Israel on meeting these demands, Ankara will have to find some lever to do so itself,” the U.S.-based global security consultancy Stratfor observed in an analysis Tuesday.

    “One such lever may be military and intelligence cooperation, which Israel has historically relied upon. Turkey has already downgraded cooperation and rumors have surfaced that Israeli intelligence operatives may be expelled from a radar post on Turkish soil near the border with Iran.” (UPI)

    • AS IF anticipating its next capitulation, government spokesmen told the media that in addition to ending economic sanctions on Gaza, Israel is now considering permitting the EU to station inspectors at its land crossings into Gaza.
    • That is, Israel is considering a move that will constitute a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders.
    • According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Jerusalem Post

    The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Tel Aviv has not yet felt the full effect of the Gaza flotilla. According to the newspaper, Israel will soon face more flotillas, even if the departure of ships from Lebanon is being delayed for now as a result of pressure by the U.S. and EU on Beirut.

    The Harretz says that the showdown has forced Israel’s hand. “The cabinet’s decision Sunday to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip means, for the most part, an end to the siege on Hamas’ rule in the territory. And it’s more than a victory on points for Hamas and the Turkish government. It’s a genuine achievement for what is described as the muqawama (the resistance ) – the radical alliance of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and recently also Turkey”.

    Haaretz feels that Israel will face a lot more pressure. “On the strategic level, all the bad effects of the flotilla have not been accounted for yet. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority reversed its decision to hold municipal elections, fearing that the Israeli interdiction of the flotilla would boost Hamas’ popularity. On the border with the Gaza Strip, the Rafah crossing is open most of the time because Egypt did not want to look like it was collaborating with Israel. Hamas, meanwhile, believes that it has found new strategic depth in the form of Turkey; the group’s behavior over the past three years had completely lost it support in Cairo.

    For all these reasons, we must assume that Israel will soon face more flotillas, even if the departure of ships from Lebanon is being delayed for now as a result of pressure by the United States and European Union on Beirut.” Jerusalem Post.

    Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

    • Terror Scare Back in Tel Aviv?

    Filed under: Current Affairs | Tagged: Hakan Fidan, Turkish-Israeli relations

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

    One Response

    Levo, on June 21, 2010 at 11:52 pm Said:

    Turkey may be the only nation capable of rehabilitating the (unofficially) rogue nation of Israel!

    Turkey asserted itself as the new sherriff in town and tiny Israel will have to take notice from now on. It will be far more difficult for Israel to have a free hand in massacering defenseless Palestinian civilia

  • TURKEY DEFENCE: Colorado company pleads guilty in military tech case

    TURKEY DEFENCE: Colorado company pleads guilty in military tech case

    (AP) – 7 hours ago

    DENVER — A Colorado company has pleaded guilty to illegally exporting defense technology to Turkey, South Korea, China and Russia.

    Federal authorities say Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court in Denver to one count of exporting defense technology without a license. The company must forfeit $1 million, which authorities say represents what it made from criminal activities.

    The company was also sentenced to five years of probation, during which it must develop an export control compliance program.

    David Gaouette, U.S. attorney in Colorado, says most of the technology involved is used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

    Authorities say the Lafayette-based company exported such items as prisms and technical data about optics used in military applications between April 1, 2005, and Oct. 11, 2007.

    Related articles

    • Colo. company pleads guilty in military tech case
      The Associated Press – 7 hours ago
    • More coverage (1) »
  • World misses new report on mullahs’ nuclear capability

    World misses new report on mullahs’ nuclear capability

    GABRIEL: Master puppeteers

    World misses new report on mullahs’ nuclear capability

    By Brigitte Gabriel

    6:00 p.m., Friday, June 18, 2010

    Illustration: Free Gaza by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

    While world media and political attention is focused on the Israel-“Freedom Flotilla” incident, Iranian mullahs in Tehran are celebrating their brilliant war strategy in advancing their nuclear program. As world-renowned masters of the game of chess, Iranian mullahs can add “strategic marketing, public relations and media planning” to their resume.

    Iran, anticipating a damning report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealing Iran has more than 2 tons of enriched uranium (two warheads’ worth), had been actively working with Israel’s enemies to divert world attention away from the alarming findings. The IAEA report, released on May 31, the day of the raid, was virtually unreported by the media, as all eyes had turned to Israel and Gaza.

    Iran is manipulating operations in the Middle East and building alliances with like-minded jihadists driven by the same goal. Iran’s strategic operations surrounding Israel include setting up bases of operation and creating controlled and planned conflicts as part of a bigger strategy not only to suffocate Israel but also to distract the world community from its own nuclear development plans.

    Iran began building its base in Lebanon in 1982 with the creation of Hezbollah. By combining nearly 10 Islamic terror groups that shared the same ideology as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran created a proxy Iranian army on Israel’s northern border. After the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Iran seized the opportunity to extend a helping hand to Hamas, a Sunni group that shares the Iranian Shi’ite leadership’s aspiration to wipe Israel off the map.

    As evidenced by weapons and material recovered from the ship MV Francop in November 2009, Iran is not a stranger to using the high seas as a way to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas.

    Iran has been working with North Korea, Syria, China and Russia and is actively courting Turkey to create a counterbalance to American power in the Middle East. A Russian submarine flying an Iranian flag docked in Beirut last month, where what is believed to be chemical weapons were unloaded by people wearing “hazmat” or chemical warfare suits. Syria, working with Iran, has supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles able to reach all of Israel. Iran’s plans for Israel are as clear as the writing on the wall.

    This summer could easily reprise the war of 2006, when Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon opened a two-front confrontation against Israel, sparked by Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The conflict dragged Israel into an all-out war with Lebanon, and Iran and Syria were content to pull the puppet strings.

    As a result of the flotilla incident, a Syrian television show already has called for suicide bombers to attack Israel; the head of the Palestinian Islamic council on Lebanon is calling for the kidnapping of Israelis; the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is calling for withdrawal from the Arab Peace Initiative; and the Muslim Union of Islamic scholars is calling for the cancellation of all peace agreements with Israel.

    And who is talking about the IAEA report of Iran having two nuclear warheads’ worth of enriched uranium? Virtually nobody.

    Score: Iran: 1, Israel/America/IAEA, 0.

    You can hear the laughter all the way from Tehran.

    The flotilla incident is nothing more than a spark in a larger web of explosives set and organized by Iran and is the first step toward accomplishing Iran’s ultimate goals. First, create whatever distraction is necessary, preferably one that inflames world hatred of Israel, to buy time to finish the bomb. Second, attain the bomb and become the Islamic superpower of the world, with the ability to wipe Israel off the map. This will usher in a new era of hegemony in the Middle East.

    The stakes are high, and time is running out. Western governments must stand together against Iran and the new axis of tyrannical power that is developing. While it is Israel that will soon face a nuclear-armed Iran, in the long term, it will be Europe and America facing an Iran capable of projecting its totalitarian ideology across the globe.

    Brigitte Gabriel is author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and 2008). She is the president of ActforAmerica.org.

    © Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

    Comments

    JohnMD1022 says:

    3 days, 15 hours ago

    Mark as offensive

    Don’t expect the Mohammedan in Chief to do anything to upset his brother Musselmen. It’s all OK with him. After all, they have just as much right to possess nuclear weapons as if they were legitimate, civilized nations. It makes no difference what they say. That’s just rhetoric. Under all the brusque talk Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is really a nice fellow and quite moderate. Methinks another round of obescience would be quite in order.

    Grand Mufti Barack Obama, Mohammedan in Chief, United Caliphate of America