The new Turkish Jihad against Israel and the West
So, the Muslim country whose rulers perpetrated the first genocide of the 20th century (against the Christian Armenians) is now reverting to old form in its ideological leanings and its hegemonic ambitions. As with all forms of political Islam, the variety espoused by Turkey’s current leadership has inevitably matured into a self-consciously anti-Western and anti-Israeli (anti-Semitic — see quotes below) movement.
In a brilliant deconstruction of where Turkey is now headed, Joshua Teitelbaum — a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and, inter alia, principal research associate in the Lauder School at the IDC — paints a depressing picture in today’s Guardian.
Noting that support for Turkey is at an all time high in the Arab world after it championed the terror flotilla to Gaza last week, Teitelbaum says:
“Israel’s relations with Ankara – military, economic, and tourist (Israelis once flocked to Turkey) – have been sacrificed on the altar of Turkey’s retrograde aspiration to lead the Islamic world and establish itself along with Iran as an alternative to American power. Turkey is once again turning eastwards.”
He also outlines the hysterical tones in which Israel is now being talked about by the Turkish leadership in the wake of the flotilla incident:
“… the gall of [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan and his foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu knows no bounds. Erdogan’s bellicose exhortations were beyond belief. “The heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history,” he cried. “Bloody massacre” … “spilling the blood of innocent humans” … “in the history of humanity this has been recorded as a major shame” … “a despicably cowardly and vicious act.” Turkey, unlike Israel, bellowed Erdogan, is not an “adolescent, rootless state”. “As precious as Turkey’s partnership is, so harsh will be her hostility.” He concluded, no less: “Today is a turning point in history … Nothing will ever be the same again.”
This is called incitement, and given the direction that Islamist movements take their incitement against Israel it should give all of us pause for thought. The author also points out the sheer irresponsibility of the increasingly dangerous Obama administration as it abandons old allies to the wolves:
“It is difficult to imagine that Turkey would be engaging in this kind of behaviour were the US demonstrating world leadership and not abandoning the field to the likes of Erdogan. While the administration works to assure Israel’s security with co-operation on missile defence, it has yet emboldened Israel’s enemies by publicly pressuring Jerusalem at every turn, not taking decisive action against Iran, and caving to Egypt by singling out Israel – to the exclusion of Iran – at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference last month.”
We are going to be hearing a lot more about Turkey in the coming months and years. It’s time to get with the new realities.
Poststcript: Note that at today’s UN vote on (watered down and, in fact, almost pointless) sanctions against Iran, Turkey voted against).
Tags: Israel
June 9th, 2010 at 11:27 am
The present drift to an unstable world, leading to some miscalculation, and thus war, has to be laid at the door of the White House. Now a leading MSM in the US begins to see the light
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Many tea partiers immediately saw that Obama had Muslim sympathies, but they were reviled. Now that is being revealed in his appointments, and their thoughts- they can not even mention ‘Jihad’ without having a seizure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575294231631318728.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Some apt comments here
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016702.html
June 9th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I am reading George Friedman’s “The Next Hundred Years” where he posits that Turkey will emerge as a major global player due to its geopolitical situation and its desire to lead the Moslem world to recreate its empire. We are seeing the first act. One major difference facing the Turks in today’s world that Turkey will have to take into account is America’s ability to destroy its ambitions economically.
The irony, of course, is that the EU has only at the last moment remembered the gates of Vienna and suddenly started pulling back from the idea of admitting Turkey as a member state. The next step will be to remove them from NATO.
In addition, the Europeans have been successful in the past at pushing the Moslems back out of Europe when they felt the threat was too great. They may well decide to do it again, specially with American backing.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
unfortunately the west will abandon israel, in a token of appeasement to islam. it has already surrendered.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I couldn’t disagree MORE with Joshua Teitelbaum. Couldn’t disagree more. Well, not actually what he wrote. There’s no problem with that. At all. What is problematic is *where* he wrote it. And I happen to think that if from this moment on (preferably it would have been 10 years before or days ago when Teitelbaum sent his piece to London) no, not one serious and reasonable writer, comentator, essayist, expert you name it, completely and totally ceased to send articles to the Guardian (and the Independent) then at least there would be a chance, a small chance of eventual delegitimisation of that (those) newspaper. Which doesn’t deserve the name “newspaper”. This is what I think.
Robin Shepherd says: Gabor, I respectfully disagree. Taking the fight to the Guardian readership is important, and Teitelbaum is doing everyone a service by doing so.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Excellent piece by Tony Badran at Now Lebanon regarding the drivers behind Erdogan’s “humanitarian” cause and the sick irony of Turkey acting as a benefactor to Arabs:
Erdogan makes turkeys of the Arabs
Tony Badran , June 8, 2010
Populism in the Arab world is second nature and despite its disastrous track record, it never seems to go out of fashion. Non-Arab regional players like Iran have understood this and have cynically used populism to their advantage. And so, when Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared recently that Gaza “is a historical cause for us,” one could be forgiven for snickering.
Since its rise to power in 2002, the AKP has steadily and systematically sought to marginalize its domestic opponents and secure total control over all power centers in Turkey. Just before the flotilla fiasco, a poll was released showing that the AKP had lost ground to its rival, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Erdogan exaggerated when he described Gaza as a “historical cause,” but he calculated that the confrontation there would be a perfect instrument to whip up Islamic and nationalist fervor to his party’s benefit.
Turkey is going through an identity crisis. Erdogan has all but demolished the legitimacy of the Kemalist state. And yet the state’s remaining secularist framework makes it very difficult to locate that legitimacy in Islam, the public and political uses of which are constrained by the constitution. Erdogan has had to walk a fine line in redefining Turkish frames of reference and political identity.
The AKP seeks to restore as much of a pan-Islamic framework as possible, and foreign policy offers ways of bypassing domestic constraints. It is perhaps in that light that Erdogan’s peculiar emphasis that Turkey is not a “nation of tribes” and not a “rootless adolescent country” should be read. What was outwardly a crisis with Israel may in fact be a domestic Turkish affair through and through.
If Turkey is in an identity crisis, the predicament of the Arabs is no less flagrant and fundamental. What the flotilla episode reaffirmed was the ease with which the Arabs can be used as instruments for the projection of power by the region’s non-Arab powers and traditional centers of regional influence, such as Turkey and Iran.
There was something deliciously ironic in seeing two pillars of Arab nationalism sinking off the shores of Gaza. At the heart of the romantic Arab nationalist narrative was the notion that the Arabs – united by an Arab identity – were burning with a desire to emancipate themselves from the Turkish yoke. Palestine later became the center of this Arab tale. The struggle against the Turks was featured in history books, and for years Arab popular culture highlighted Turkish brutality in television series and the like. Now, effortlessly, the Turks have become champions of the Arabs and of their mythical “central cause.”
This not only has highlighted the shallowness of the Arab nationalist narrative, it also, at least conceptually, has appeared to restore what for centuries was the natural order of politics in the region, which Arab nationalism was supposed to alter but did not. Take Syria for example. The Syrians are giddy at the prospect of being drafted back into a resurgent Turkish realm. Little wonder. Syria’s historical role is to function as a buffer state for powers to the north, east and south.
Read it all:
http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=175387
June 10th, 2010 at 7:08 am
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/27978
Colonel Gaddafi on the Turkish Trojan Horse.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
As my mother use to say: The fish smells from the head. The US appears to have lost the plot. Even with the rhetoric about BP to pay back every cent , as if they would not compensate easily is sounding hollow. The UK that paid back every cent to the US for its assistance in WWll, the UK that commits its trrops with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, to be shown such contempt is a disgrace
June 10th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
To Robin: I sincirely believe it all depends on one factor, namely: the composition of the Guardian’s readership. Can you actually say that how much is the proportion of the readership that is “sane” i.e.: convincable by reasonable arguments? IF it is less than 10 per cent (I am doubtful) then it’s all worthless, what’s more contrapoductive in terms of providing it with undue legitimacy. Don’t you agree that there are NO such readers among their consumers???
June 11th, 2010 at 6:12 am
Robin, it remains highly contentious to refer to the deaths of so many Armenians, many of whom were murdered, as a “genocide”, along the lines as one uses such a term to describe what happened to Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, during WWll.
Both Professor Bernard Lewis and Professor Norman Stone make the clear distinction, whilst not playing down the tragedy or its significance and therefore, if they are right to make the distinction and the distinction is right, I think one should remain circumspect when using this term in connection with some of the very recent disturbing statements and actions by Turkey. This is one key issue that has been used by countries like France to keep Turkey out of the EU and which may be one factor in driving Turkey eastwards, or at least gives it an undeserved pretext to do so.
Here is Bernard Lewis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
And here, Norman Stone:
http://www.turkishcoalition.org/media/stone.pdf
June 11th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Hello Gabor. I always read your comments with interest. With regard to the Guardian, I share your concerns and indeed it seems nearly virtually all of the time that this particular newspaper carries forward a hateful message towards Israel and thus fuels hatred towards Jewish people, or more to the point, to those Jews who have sympathy towards Israel, which of course is a large majority. Were its policy to change, the Guardian could lose a sizeable part of its readership. Not a bad thing perhaps, but if we cannot have that then it is a small mercy and always welcome when that paper chooses to open up in a less confrontational way and tries instead to restore some balance. It’s the balance that we want to see restored to the news, not a bias of such unacceptable levels.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Another Joshua and others:
I understand you are British judging by your above comment on the BP-case. Pardon me, perhaps this response won’t see the light of day and I’ll be thrown out here.
Let me be please try to offer my own perspective without the radical voice that sometimes, not often, but sometimes pops out behind my comments.
Loving something or someone is often an irrational concept/act based on impressions and deep emotions.
I deeply dislike and distrust Obama and his cohorts/gang.
I object to ALL particles of his basic instincts and his ideology, barred one.
You may well know what this particular particle might be. Just let me tell you one thing: when I was 13 years old I got a book on “Europe”, a geopolitical album presenting all European states one by one. By the margins of the page showing Britain, and concretely a pic of Canterbury Cathedral this early teenage boy wrote the follwing: “The conservative miracle in an unmistakable British favour” – sycophantic fawning about England, expressing my unconditional love about it in childish and lofty words. That was then. More than twice that age now, I know better.
I blame myself secretly since irrationality (hatred?) is not a good guiding principle for one’s life and I am in a deep dilemma, cause it’s a bit hard to blame the hate Israel-brigade with a vengence without looking a bit hypocritical. Still, I think Britain’s existance is not in danger as things stand today. The same cannot be told about Israel, so comparing myself to my “fellow” haters is inaccurate. Still, and that’s why I may carry a price to say, I couldn’t have been happier when me and my father conversed about this issue. It’s a torturing moral dilemma for me as I said, if it’s just or moral to “wish” the pensions of perfectly honest and kind millions of (old) men and women to suffer the consequences. From this perspective I am ashamed of it. From the perspective of *BRITAIN’s*, and more closely ENGLAND’s, I turn a 180 degree.
This is mainly about history – mostly – but partly about the present too. I couldn’t be more glad if this company went under with all its consequences. Partly yes, because of the immense and outrageous damage it caused, partly because of other reasons. I very much love the US, but this is not the object of comparison here. England is antisemitic as it is. It’s an antisemitic nation. Perhaps more so than the Scottish and the other hapless Celtic looked down upon (by me) riff raff. Of course one cannot/should not generalize but still this is what I think. In comparison I’d never – - or to be more precise not likely – - ever wish an economical damage to two peoples, the Italianas and the Dutch. As I told you at the beginning “love” is a strange concept and often impossible to consciously direct or contain it, ’cause it’s instinctive and comes from very deep inside.
In general, I love the Italians and I like the Dutch and their countries (in spite of this latter being – as stereotypes, which are risky business, – never!!! as kind or even friendly as the few English people I met, being the perception about the Dutch as grumpy, stingy, greedy and unfriendly Stereotypes go a long way…).
I don’t like England. Read betwen the lines Joshua.
I understand if this will be problematic to publish and won’t be.
I am sorry. I cannot help it.
June 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Is Obama a Manchurian President?
Worth reading.
The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists
http://www.amazon.com/Manchurian-President-Communists-Socialists-Anti-American/dp/1935071874/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276260018&sr=1-1
And the media complicity in covering up the past of Obama.
The Pathology of Media Denial
Jun 11
Written by: Diana West
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1433/The-Pathology-of-Media-Denial.aspx
June 12th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Gabor, I think you have articulated the human condition beautifully if I may say, in your short autobiographical point. I take the point of irrational hatred which you so vehemently condemn and at the same time and with the internal conflict this creates, of recognizing it in oneself and the distress that this creates. I am grateful to you for your honesty and sharing your thoughts and feelings.
June 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
When I wrote about BP, I was not defending or attacking it, I was commenting over the way Obama has attacked yet another trusted ally, Israel being the other, when it really needs as much support as it can get , especially with regard to dealing with Iran.
June 15th, 2010 at 5:48 am
Am I *obligated* to love the English, Joshua?