Tweet
IsraCast, Israel
Sept 4 2011
Turkey's True Colors?
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Severs Military Ties & Warns Of
Further Sanctions Although Palmer Report Rules That Israel's Naval
Blockade Of Gaza Is Legal Under International Law
Israeli Cabinet Split Over Whether Israel Should Have Apologized To
Turkey Over Deaths of Nine Turks Killed While attacking Israeli
Commandos
IsraCast Assessment: Turkey's Islamist Regime Appears Bent On
Restoring Influence Of Despotic Ottoman Empire After Being Rejected By
European Union
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamist regime is not taking
No for an answer - the Turks have rejected the Palmer Report's finding
that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal. Ankara is now planning
to go to the International Court of Justice in the Hague to contest
the inquiry into the operation by Israeli naval commandos to prevent
the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara and other ships from breaking Israel's
legal blockade.Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has also
declared that Israel will pay by losing Turkey's friendship as well as
suffering Turkish sanctions. Analyst David Essing is of the view the
Mavi Marmara, like pirate ships of the past, sailed under false colors
to Gaza and the affair has now revealed where Turkey is now headed.
Israel is now bearing the brunt of Turkey's fury over being rejected
by the European Union after European leaders finally awakened to the
Islamist threat inside their borders. In response, Turkey's Islamist
regime is now bent on augmenting its power and prestige within the
region. Israel is its scapegoat. It began with Erdogan's unbridled
verbal attack on Israel's President Shimon Peres after the IDF was
sent into Gaza to suppress the relentless Palestinian rocketing of
Israeli civilians in 2008. At their face-to-face showdown in Davos,
Peres retorted: 'What would you do if your civilians were being
rocketed day and night?' Well just ask the Kurds whose villages are
being bombed indiscriminately by Turkish fighter jets. Or just ask the
Greek Cypriots who were brutally expelled from their homes in northern
Cyprus by an invasion of the Turkish army in 1974.
As for the Palmer report, it should not have come as a surprise that
it ruled Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal under international law:
'Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in
Gaza- the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure
in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its
implementation complied with the requirements of international law'.
Under these circumstances, the Turkish flotilla attempt to run the
blockade was found to be 'reckless'. And in this vein: 'There exist
serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the
flotilla organizers particularly IHH (The Turkish aid organization
that is known to support terror groups). In Jerusalem, this part of
the report came as no surprise. Not only Israeli experts but also
prominent international jurists had stated categorically there was no
question about the legality of the blockade in light of the
Palestinian rocketing from Gaza. It is being viewed as a diplomatic
vindication of Israel despite some headlines in the international
media such as the BBC for example: 'Palmer Report Condemns Israel's
Excessive Use of Force!' The Palmer Report did refer to 'Forensic
evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately
accounted for in the material presented by Israel'. The inquiry
recommended that Israel make 'an appropriate statement of regret and
pay compensation', there was no mention of an official apology as
demanded by Ankara.
But it would appear that after exonerating Israel on the legality of
Israel's naval blockade, the Palmer Report had to even the score. The
inquiry found that the Israeli commandos who descended by ropes from a
helicopter on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara faced significant,
organized and violent resistance that included knives, iron bars,
staves and chains and possibly firearms. Two IDF soldiers suffered
gunshot wounds, seven others were wounded by passengers, some
seriously. Three of the soldiers were overpowered as they descended
from the first helicopter and forced down below the deck of the
Marmara. This was documented by the Palmer report that went on to draw
a questionable conclusion from the mayhem that took place on the
Marmara, after some of the peace activists resisted what amounted to a
legal Israeli operation to board the vessel. The inquiry concluded:
'Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot
multiple times, including in the back, or at close range range, has
not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by
Israel'. Therefore, the report found that Israel had used 'excessive
and unreasonable force'.
Consider this: the IDF soldiers who first slid down the 'fast ropes'
were armed with paint guns that were considered sufficient to deter
'peace activists', but when they landed on deck they had to fight for
their lives using live ammunition. Take for example the fact that the
Palmer report said two of the soldiers suffered from gunshot wounds
while several others had been stabbed. If they had actually been
killed would this have persuaded the Palmer investigators that the
Israeli troops had been in a life threatening situation? Or the fact,
that three had been dragged prisoner below deck and had to be rescued
by their comrades, who serious would that be in the eyes of the
security experts. Moreover, video tape reveals there was a bloody,
hand-to-hand battle being waged on deck with some of the activists
indeed being shot at close range. If the Israelis were trigger happy
would they have waited to get within dangerous close range. This also
also explains how in such a donnybrook some of the activists were shot
in the back or suffered multiple wounds. And if the commandos had come
with automatic guns blazing away from the outset is it reasonable to
assume that three of their number would have been kidnapped and only
nine activists killed? And it should be noted that on the other ships
in the flotilla where the activists did not resist there were no
casualties at all.
The fact is that the Turkish government did nothing to prevent the
Turkish vessel from illegally trying to break the legitimate blockade
but then demands that Israel apologize. Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu has expressed 'regret' and agreed to pay compensation as
recommended by the Palmer Report. But the PM and Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberaman and Cabinet Minister Moshe Yaalon, who tried to
negotiate a solution with the Turks, have all said the government
would not apologize for IDF soldiers defending themselves while
carrying out a lawful act. However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and
Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor contended that Israel should swallow her
pride and make the apology, in order to try and salvage her important
ties with Turkey. In light of developments, it appears that Islamist
Turkey, a key ally of Syria until the recent upheaval, and still a
firm friend of Iran has taken a strategic decision to turn a hostile
shoulder to the Jewish state. Step by step, the Islamist regime is
taking off the gloves and Israel must take this into her strategic
planning. The outlook is bleak if Erdogan seeks a return to the
'glory' of the Ottoman Empire.
At this stage, the Turkish PM and his officials, are posing as the new
moralists of the Middle East, while adamantly refusing to acknowledge
Turkey's genocide of the Armenians in 1917. Israeli governments
persistently refused to call upon Ankara to acknowledge their
responsibility in order not to impair relations with Turkey. This is
particularly galling today in light of Turkey's decision to make
Israel her scapegoat in order to enhance her image in the Muslim
world.
The Armenian Genocide
The Armenian genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic
destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire during and just after World War I. It was implemented through
wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting
of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of
the deportees. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is
generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.
The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman
Empire during W.W.I. are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the
organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an
end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide
requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes
genocide the quintessential state crime, as only a government has the
resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian
Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish
government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I. between the years 1915 and
1918.
The Armenian people was subjected to deportation, expropriation,
abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the
Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to
Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of
thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically
massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were
abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people
was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the
end of W.W.I., the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and
the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and
expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before THE UN Genocide
Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the
international community as a crime against humanity.
How many people died in the Armenian Genocide?
It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians perished
between 1915 and 1923. There were an estimated two million Armenians
living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of W.W.I. Well over a million
were deported in 1915. Hundreds of thousands were butchered outright.
Many others died of starvation, exhaustion, and epidemics which
ravaged the concentration camps. Among the Armenians living along the
periphery of the Ottoman Empire many at first escaped the fate of
their countrymen in the central provinces of Turkey. Tens of thousands
in the east fled to the Russian border to lead a precarious existence
as refugees. The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the
capital city, were spared deportation.
In 1918, however, the Young Turk regime took the war into the
Caucasus, where approximately 1,800,000 Armenians lived under Russian
dominion. Ottoman forces advancing through East Armenia and Azerbaijan
here too engaged in systematic massacres. The expulsions and massacres
carried by the Nationalist Turks between 1920 and 1922 added tens of
thousands of more victims. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor
and historic West Armenia had been expunged of its Armenian
population. The destruction of the Armenian communities in this part
of the world was total.
Who was responsible for the Armenian Genocide?
The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was
made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was
the Committee of Union and Progress , popularly known as the Young
Turks. Three figures from the CUP controlled the government; Mehmet
Talaat, Minister of the Interior in 1915 and Grand Vizier (Prime
Minister) in 1917; Ismail Enver, Minister of War; Ahmed Jemal,
Minister of the Marine and Military Governor of Syria. This Young Turk
triumvirate relied on other members of the CUP appointed to high
government posts and assigned to military commands to carry out the
Armenian Genocide. In addition to the Ministry of War and the Ministry
of the Interior, the Young Turks also relied on a newly-created secret
outfit which they manned with convicts and irregular troops, called
the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa). Its primary function
was the carrying out of the mass slaughter of the deported Armenians.
In charge of the Special Organization was Behaeddin Shakir, a medical
doctor. Moreover, ideologists such as Zia Gokalp propagandized through
the media on behalf of the CUP by promoting Pan-Turanism, the creation
of a new empire stretching from Anatolia into Central Asia whose
population would be exclusively Turkic. These concepts justified and
popularized the secret CUP plans to liquidate the Armenians of the
Ottoman Empire.
The Young Turk conspirators, other leading figures of the wartime
Ottoman government, members of the CUP Central Committee, and many
provincial administrators responsible for atrocities against the
Armenians were indicted for their crimes at the end of the war. The
main culprits evaded justice by fleeing the country. Even so, they
were tried in absentia and found guilty of capital crimes. The
massacres, expulsions, and further mistreatment of the Armenians
between 1920 and 1923 were carried by the Turkish Nationalists, who
represented a new political movement opposed to the Young Turks, but
who shared a common ideology of ethnic exclusivity.
David Essing
http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=1307&t=TURKEY'S-TRUE-COLORS
Sept 4 2011
Turkey's True Colors?
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Severs Military Ties & Warns Of
Further Sanctions Although Palmer Report Rules That Israel's Naval
Blockade Of Gaza Is Legal Under International Law
Israeli Cabinet Split Over Whether Israel Should Have Apologized To
Turkey Over Deaths of Nine Turks Killed While attacking Israeli
Commandos
IsraCast Assessment: Turkey's Islamist Regime Appears Bent On
Restoring Influence Of Despotic Ottoman Empire After Being Rejected By
European Union
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamist regime is not taking
No for an answer - the Turks have rejected the Palmer Report's finding
that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal. Ankara is now planning
to go to the International Court of Justice in the Hague to contest
the inquiry into the operation by Israeli naval commandos to prevent
the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara and other ships from breaking Israel's
legal blockade.Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has also
declared that Israel will pay by losing Turkey's friendship as well as
suffering Turkish sanctions. Analyst David Essing is of the view the
Mavi Marmara, like pirate ships of the past, sailed under false colors
to Gaza and the affair has now revealed where Turkey is now headed.
Israel is now bearing the brunt of Turkey's fury over being rejected
by the European Union after European leaders finally awakened to the
Islamist threat inside their borders. In response, Turkey's Islamist
regime is now bent on augmenting its power and prestige within the
region. Israel is its scapegoat. It began with Erdogan's unbridled
verbal attack on Israel's President Shimon Peres after the IDF was
sent into Gaza to suppress the relentless Palestinian rocketing of
Israeli civilians in 2008. At their face-to-face showdown in Davos,
Peres retorted: 'What would you do if your civilians were being
rocketed day and night?' Well just ask the Kurds whose villages are
being bombed indiscriminately by Turkish fighter jets. Or just ask the
Greek Cypriots who were brutally expelled from their homes in northern
Cyprus by an invasion of the Turkish army in 1974.
As for the Palmer report, it should not have come as a surprise that
it ruled Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal under international law:
'Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in
Gaza- the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure
in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its
implementation complied with the requirements of international law'.
Under these circumstances, the Turkish flotilla attempt to run the
blockade was found to be 'reckless'. And in this vein: 'There exist
serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the
flotilla organizers particularly IHH (The Turkish aid organization
that is known to support terror groups). In Jerusalem, this part of
the report came as no surprise. Not only Israeli experts but also
prominent international jurists had stated categorically there was no
question about the legality of the blockade in light of the
Palestinian rocketing from Gaza. It is being viewed as a diplomatic
vindication of Israel despite some headlines in the international
media such as the BBC for example: 'Palmer Report Condemns Israel's
Excessive Use of Force!' The Palmer Report did refer to 'Forensic
evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately
accounted for in the material presented by Israel'. The inquiry
recommended that Israel make 'an appropriate statement of regret and
pay compensation', there was no mention of an official apology as
demanded by Ankara.
But it would appear that after exonerating Israel on the legality of
Israel's naval blockade, the Palmer Report had to even the score. The
inquiry found that the Israeli commandos who descended by ropes from a
helicopter on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara faced significant,
organized and violent resistance that included knives, iron bars,
staves and chains and possibly firearms. Two IDF soldiers suffered
gunshot wounds, seven others were wounded by passengers, some
seriously. Three of the soldiers were overpowered as they descended
from the first helicopter and forced down below the deck of the
Marmara. This was documented by the Palmer report that went on to draw
a questionable conclusion from the mayhem that took place on the
Marmara, after some of the peace activists resisted what amounted to a
legal Israeli operation to board the vessel. The inquiry concluded:
'Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot
multiple times, including in the back, or at close range range, has
not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by
Israel'. Therefore, the report found that Israel had used 'excessive
and unreasonable force'.
Consider this: the IDF soldiers who first slid down the 'fast ropes'
were armed with paint guns that were considered sufficient to deter
'peace activists', but when they landed on deck they had to fight for
their lives using live ammunition. Take for example the fact that the
Palmer report said two of the soldiers suffered from gunshot wounds
while several others had been stabbed. If they had actually been
killed would this have persuaded the Palmer investigators that the
Israeli troops had been in a life threatening situation? Or the fact,
that three had been dragged prisoner below deck and had to be rescued
by their comrades, who serious would that be in the eyes of the
security experts. Moreover, video tape reveals there was a bloody,
hand-to-hand battle being waged on deck with some of the activists
indeed being shot at close range. If the Israelis were trigger happy
would they have waited to get within dangerous close range. This also
also explains how in such a donnybrook some of the activists were shot
in the back or suffered multiple wounds. And if the commandos had come
with automatic guns blazing away from the outset is it reasonable to
assume that three of their number would have been kidnapped and only
nine activists killed? And it should be noted that on the other ships
in the flotilla where the activists did not resist there were no
casualties at all.
The fact is that the Turkish government did nothing to prevent the
Turkish vessel from illegally trying to break the legitimate blockade
but then demands that Israel apologize. Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu has expressed 'regret' and agreed to pay compensation as
recommended by the Palmer Report. But the PM and Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberaman and Cabinet Minister Moshe Yaalon, who tried to
negotiate a solution with the Turks, have all said the government
would not apologize for IDF soldiers defending themselves while
carrying out a lawful act. However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and
Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor contended that Israel should swallow her
pride and make the apology, in order to try and salvage her important
ties with Turkey. In light of developments, it appears that Islamist
Turkey, a key ally of Syria until the recent upheaval, and still a
firm friend of Iran has taken a strategic decision to turn a hostile
shoulder to the Jewish state. Step by step, the Islamist regime is
taking off the gloves and Israel must take this into her strategic
planning. The outlook is bleak if Erdogan seeks a return to the
'glory' of the Ottoman Empire.
At this stage, the Turkish PM and his officials, are posing as the new
moralists of the Middle East, while adamantly refusing to acknowledge
Turkey's genocide of the Armenians in 1917. Israeli governments
persistently refused to call upon Ankara to acknowledge their
responsibility in order not to impair relations with Turkey. This is
particularly galling today in light of Turkey's decision to make
Israel her scapegoat in order to enhance her image in the Muslim
world.
The Armenian Genocide
The Armenian genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic
destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire during and just after World War I. It was implemented through
wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting
of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of
the deportees. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is
generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.
The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman
Empire during W.W.I. are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the
organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an
end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide
requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes
genocide the quintessential state crime, as only a government has the
resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian
Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish
government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I. between the years 1915 and
1918.
The Armenian people was subjected to deportation, expropriation,
abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the
Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to
Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of
thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically
massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were
abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people
was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the
end of W.W.I., the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and
the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and
expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before THE UN Genocide
Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the
international community as a crime against humanity.
How many people died in the Armenian Genocide?
It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians perished
between 1915 and 1923. There were an estimated two million Armenians
living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of W.W.I. Well over a million
were deported in 1915. Hundreds of thousands were butchered outright.
Many others died of starvation, exhaustion, and epidemics which
ravaged the concentration camps. Among the Armenians living along the
periphery of the Ottoman Empire many at first escaped the fate of
their countrymen in the central provinces of Turkey. Tens of thousands
in the east fled to the Russian border to lead a precarious existence
as refugees. The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the
capital city, were spared deportation.
In 1918, however, the Young Turk regime took the war into the
Caucasus, where approximately 1,800,000 Armenians lived under Russian
dominion. Ottoman forces advancing through East Armenia and Azerbaijan
here too engaged in systematic massacres. The expulsions and massacres
carried by the Nationalist Turks between 1920 and 1922 added tens of
thousands of more victims. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor
and historic West Armenia had been expunged of its Armenian
population. The destruction of the Armenian communities in this part
of the world was total.
Who was responsible for the Armenian Genocide?
The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was
made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was
the Committee of Union and Progress , popularly known as the Young
Turks. Three figures from the CUP controlled the government; Mehmet
Talaat, Minister of the Interior in 1915 and Grand Vizier (Prime
Minister) in 1917; Ismail Enver, Minister of War; Ahmed Jemal,
Minister of the Marine and Military Governor of Syria. This Young Turk
triumvirate relied on other members of the CUP appointed to high
government posts and assigned to military commands to carry out the
Armenian Genocide. In addition to the Ministry of War and the Ministry
of the Interior, the Young Turks also relied on a newly-created secret
outfit which they manned with convicts and irregular troops, called
the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa). Its primary function
was the carrying out of the mass slaughter of the deported Armenians.
In charge of the Special Organization was Behaeddin Shakir, a medical
doctor. Moreover, ideologists such as Zia Gokalp propagandized through
the media on behalf of the CUP by promoting Pan-Turanism, the creation
of a new empire stretching from Anatolia into Central Asia whose
population would be exclusively Turkic. These concepts justified and
popularized the secret CUP plans to liquidate the Armenians of the
Ottoman Empire.
The Young Turk conspirators, other leading figures of the wartime
Ottoman government, members of the CUP Central Committee, and many
provincial administrators responsible for atrocities against the
Armenians were indicted for their crimes at the end of the war. The
main culprits evaded justice by fleeing the country. Even so, they
were tried in absentia and found guilty of capital crimes. The
massacres, expulsions, and further mistreatment of the Armenians
between 1920 and 1923 were carried by the Turkish Nationalists, who
represented a new political movement opposed to the Young Turks, but
who shared a common ideology of ethnic exclusivity.
David Essing
http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?ID=1307&t=TURKEY'S-TRUE-COLORS