How Netanyahu committed political suicide

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

By Alon Ben-Meir

PRIME Minister Netanyahu’s insistence on passing a bill that will define Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is as disgraceful as his denial that Israel is not an occupying power. If the bill were to pass now or in the future, it would blow up what’s left of Israel’s democracy and destroy rather than save the Jews’ last haven for which they have yearned for centuries.

The collapse of Netanyahu’s government is indicative of how divisive this bill was. The more cogent question, however, is why Netanyahu, who is supposed to be politically savvy, pressed on with such a bill at a time when Israel is under intense international pressure to end the occupation and is soundly criticised for discriminating against its significant Arab minority?

Netanyahu is motivated by a narrow religious conviction that bequeaths the “Land of Israel” in perpetuity to the Jewish people, which requires no evidence to prove its correctness, and his upbringing as a zealous ideologue reinforced by his father, which blurs his vision and prevents him from seeing the changing reality on the ground.

Netanyahu really believes that he has been ordained to pursue this ‘sacred mission’ to shape Israel’s destiny regardless of any domestic or international opposition. He feels ‘obliged’ to do whatever it takes to enshrine the exclusive right of the Jews in their homeland, including the West Bank.

Even before he dismissed his government, Netanyahu had already begun to negotiate with the religious political parties to join him in a new government, promising generous financial appropriations to run their ministries as long as they stand behind him and support his misadventures.

It is hard to believe how Netanyahu has lost complete sight as to why Israel was created in the first place. The purpose behind Zionism was not the creation of a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinians by pushing them out of their place of birth, building settlements on their land, and discriminating against the country’s own Arab citizens. Israel was created to provide a home for the Jewish people as a democratic and just nation so that the Jews would cease to be the bastards of humanity and instead, offer hospitality like any other nation and live with security and peace.

What Netanyahu and his misguided ministers—Lieberman, Bennett, Ya’alon and company—have done is the precise opposite: making Israel an isolated pariah state, poking its finger in the eyes of the international community and portraying the Jews as uncompromising and arrogant who can defy their critics—be they friends or foes—with impunity.

Netanyahu and his cohorts not only give rise to anti-Semitism but give anti-Semites all the ammunition they need to justify their anti-Israeli sentiments and acts of violence against Jews nearly everywhere.

If he seized the premiership again, Israel’s very existence would be in jeopardy, not because the Palestinians are bent on Israel’s destruction or because Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons, but because by his own actions he is chipping away Israel’s right to exist.

A multitude of current and former Israeli officials, including President Rivlin, former President Peres, scores of scholars and security professionals, millions of Israelis, and all of Israel’s allies see no rhyme or reason to suggest that such a bill will make Israel more secure or more Jewish than it is today.

The 1947 UN partition plan called for the establishment of a Jewish state, and every symbol of the country attests to its Jewishness: it has a Jewish majority, a Jewish national identity, Jewish symbols, and a national anthem that invokes the Jews’ yearning “to be a free people in our land.”

For a country that presumably honours the freedom and rights of every citizen, this bill will trash every principle of democracy and freedom. The Israelis will never be free and at peace as long as the Israeli Arabs are discriminated against and the occupation persists.

No bill or legislation or recognition by the Palestinians as a Jewish state will guarantee Israel’s Jewish identity other than a sustainable Jewish majority. Netanyahu has lost tremendous political ground; it may not manifest itself today but it will eventually sink into the Israelis’ minds what this travesty was all about.

Instead of making peace with the Palestinians and upholding the democratic principles of the country to attract Jews to immigrate to Israel, he is alienating hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who are fed up with the never-ending conflict with the Palestinians and opting to leave Israel.

By merely introducing such a bill, Netanyahu has already rendered the greatest damage to Israel’s international image and standing and evoked an outcry from hundreds of thousands of loyal Israeli Arab citizens who now feel betrayed and estranged from their fellow Israeli Jews.

Furthermore, Netanyahu’s bill does nothing but pronounce Israel’s Arab citizens as undesirable and unworthy of Israeli citizenship; they basically have no future in their country of birth. In fact, Netanyahu is waging psychological terrorism against a significant segment of the Israeli population while sending a clear message to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that the two-state solution is a thing of the past.

To be sure, the bill that Netanyahu wants to pass is like the explosives a suicide bomber has strapped on his chest, with his finger on the trigger. Whether or not Netanyahu releases the trigger, he has already demonstrated how far he will go to satisfy his blind self-proclaimed mission that will rain havoc on Israelis and Palestinians alike. Netanyahu must never be given another chance to present such a vile bill again.

Only the people of Israel can send Netanyahu to a permanent retirement and save the Jews’ millennium-long dream to
live as free people with their Arab neighbours with dignity, security and peace.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Centre for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies

Read more http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/12/06/how-netanyahu-committed-political-suicide/

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

The Turkey-Hamas terror axis

Salah al-Aruri, a senior Hamas operative, operates out of Istanbul • Recently, al-Aruri and the Turkish branch of Hamas were involved in a series of attempts to carry out vicious terrorist attacks against Israel.

Nadav Shragai

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal during a 2012 meeting  |  Photo credit: Reuters

<< 1 2 >>

Salah al-Aruri, a senior Hamas operative, once granted an interview to Gal Berger, Israel Radio's Palestinian affairs correspondent. In eloquent Hebrew, al-Aruri said that the value of human life as seen through the eyes of Israeli society is a source of its strength. As the enemy, al-Aruri would prefer to see Israeli society divorce itself from this value even at the price of refusing to release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a captive Israeli soldier.

Read more 

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=22075

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Israel eyes pipeline to export natural gas to southern Europe

VILNIUS, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Israel's foreign minister said on Wednesday the preferred way to export its recently discovered natural gas reserves to Europe would be via a pipeline to southern Europe.

Israel initially looked to export most of its reserves in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) but after potential Australian investor Woodside Petroleum, an LNG specialist, bailed out of a joint development deal with Israel's Delek and U.S. Noble Energy earlier this year, its LNG export outlook diminished.

Another potential export route, via a pipeline to Turkey, has also been dealt a blow because of a deepening political rift over Israel's Gaza offensive.

"What looks ... possible to carry out is a pipeline to our neighbours in the EU, like Cyprus and Greece, and from Greece to all southern Europe, to Italy, maybe other countries," Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told journalists during a visit to Lithuania, where the government has been considering the potential of future Israeli LNG imports.

The Israeli minister said the planned pipeline was estimated to cost $20-$30 billion.

"It's a huge project, and we are only in the beginning. But (the) first impression is that the right way to export this gas to Europe is through Cyprus and Greece," he added.

Israel has also been negotiating a deal to supply natural gas from its vast Leviathan field to its Arab neighbour Jordan under a 15-year, $15 billion agreement.

The Leviathan field, expected to come online by 2018, is estimated to have enough gas to meet Europe's needs for a year.

Despite Lieberman's preference for a pipeline to southern Europe, LNG is not fully off the table yet.

EU member Cyprus has also found gas offshore and proposed to export its reserves with Israel via a joint LNG export terminal on its shores. Cyprus has so far not discovered enough gas to warrant an LNG export terminal using only its own reserves.

There are also talks to pump Israeli gas to Egypt, from where it could be liquefied and exported as LNG via existing infrastructure. (Reporting by Andrius Sytas; Writing by Nerijus Adomaitis; Editing by Henning Gloystein and David Evans)

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Does Turkey's relationship with Hamas hurt Gaza?

The Middle East geography sorely misses some element. But the most vital deficiency is a principled and constructive role that a secular and fully democratic Turkey can play. The victims of Gaza, Iraq and Syria are paying for it.

The statistics of losses on both sides in the Gaza humanitarian crisis show how asymmetrical the conflict is, and how brutal and merciless the Israeli war machine can be.

Last weekend’s cease-fire talks in Paris also failed. Where is Turkey in this process? Are our efforts to stop the bloodshed useful? Can we contribute to a temporary truce or to a lasting peace? Apart from our rhetoric calling for an end to the Gaza blockade, did we make a concrete contribution?

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/08/turkey-foreign-policy-rgain-influence-gaza.html##ixzz39iz9WIrS

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

With Israel, the world is blaming the victims

By Richard Cohen Opinion writer July 28 

Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s anti- Semitism is getting the better of him. Once again, the Turkish prime minister has trotted out the Hitler analogy in relation to Israel and what it has done in Gaza. “They curse Hitler morning and night,” he said of the Israelis. “However, now their barbarism has surpassed even Hitler’s.”

Erdogan’s Hitler fetish is both revolting and inaccurate. Hitler murdered an estimated 6 million Jews, not to mention millions of Poles, Russians, Gypsies and, as a group, homosexuals; the Israelis have killed in the current Gaza operation more than 1,000 Palestinians. The difference between murdered and killed — the former on purpose, the latter mostly what’s called “collateral damage” — ought to be clear to anyone whose mind is not addled by anti-Semitism.

Read more 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-with-israel-the-world-is-blaming-the-victims/2014/07/28/104bcc4c-1680-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Israel and the Armenian Genocide

Simone Zoppellaro | Yerevan

Next year the centennial of the Armenian genocide will be remembered. In the international debate on recognition, a special position is that of Israel

For a long time the issue of the Armenian Genocide has been considered taboo by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. Over the years, attempts to obtain its public recognition have been vetoed by different governments, worried that the move would jeopardize relations with the main strategic ally of Israel in the region at that time, Turkey. And this regardless of the fact that, since the very first years following the events, several in the Jewish world and in the Zionist movement itself raised voices of sympathy and condolence for a tragedy that in many ways heralded the horrors of the Holocaust.

Mavi Marmara

Things started to move only in the aftermath of the Freedom Flotilla incident on May 31, 2010, when six ships of activists flying American, Swedish, Turkish and Greek flags attempted to break the Gaza Strip blockade imposed by Israel to bring humanitarian aid to the civilian population. On that occasion, the largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, was stormed by Israeli special forces, with an operation that cost life to nine Turkish activists and caused the suspension of diplomatic relations between the two countries. A crisis that, despite the American mediation, hasn’t been mended yet.

Less than a year after the events, in May 2011, the Knesset addressed the issue of the Armenian genocide for the first time in a public session, following the proposal of Zehava Gal-On, an MP from the leftist Meretz. For years, proposals like the one of Gal-On had been scuppered by successive governments, with the idea that the issue should be addressed “through an open debate based on data and facts, and not on political decisions or declarations,” according to the words used in 2009 by Likud Minister Gilad Erdan. Or, to put it in a nutshell: outside of the parliament. However, this time no veto came, and the issue was discussed openly.

The Azeri factor

Still, a new strategic factor of Israeli foreign policy derailed once more the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Knesset: the increasingly close relationship – in political, economic and military terms – between Israel and Azerbaijan. A relationship, quoting the words of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev made public by Wikileaks, which is like an iceberg: “nine-tenths of it is below the surface.”

The Azerbaijani government, opposed to Armenia cause of the unresolved issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, claimed by Baku as part of its national territory, adverses any international recognition of the Armenian genocide. For this purpose, it uses lobbying and diplomatic pressure against countries willing to do so. In the case of Israel, Azerbaijan found a great ally in the far-right nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu.

The following are the words pronounced on May 18, 2011 by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and member of Yisrael Beiteinu, Danny Ayalon: “There is no chance that the Knesset would recognize the Armenian Genocide. It is impossible. We cannot afford ourselves to deface relations with our main strategic partner in the Muslim world – Azerbaijan – for some vexed historical questions concerning events that took place hundred years ago.” Thus, also in 2011 the question of genocide was archived.

The Erdoğan speech

However, a more significant change of course occurred in recent months, when the issue of the Israeli recognition of the Armenian genocide came back into the international limelight, raising new hopes in Yerevan and among the Armenian diaspora. A decisive contribution, according to what reported by the Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar in Al-Monitor, was given by the speech delivered by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the eve of the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, on April 23.

The speech, though far from recognizing a genocidal will in the massacres that took place in the Ottoman Empire starting from 1915, represented a significant – and in many ways unexpected – step forward in the issue. For the first time, in fact, a Turkish Prime Minister addressed his condolences to “our Armenian citizens and all Armenians around the world”.

This, apparently, would have produced a certain embarrassment in Tel Aviv, in a political establishment still torn between the desire not to jeopardize relations with the old and new allies mentioned above, and the need to take a stand on an issue that becomes more and more hardly avoidable. This, in particular, with the centenary celebration of the Armenian genocide just round the corner, in 2015.

Some steps taken recently by the influential American Jewish community were of great importance in the direction of a change. Thus, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman, after years of denial, finally admitted last May that what happened at the expense of the Armenians during WWI can be defined as genocide. Or, just a few days before, the publication of a “tribute to memories of the victims of the Metz Yeghern” signed by the American Jewish Committee, which has provoked a strong protest from the Turkish Ambassador in Washington, Serdar Kılıç.

Reuven Rivlin

But, most of all, what arouse significant hopes was the election to Presidency of Republic of Reuven Rivlin, on June 10. Greeted with jubilation by the representatives of the ancient Armenian community of Israel and by the Armenian press in general, the fact raised great expectations as Rivlin has proven, over the years, to be one of the politicians in Israel more involved in the recognition of the Armenian genocide.

Important, in this regard, was the declaration issued last month by the same Rivlin. Words that seem to echo the famous statement that, according to Louis Lochner of the Associated Press, Adolph Hiltler would have pronounced in 1939 (“Who speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?”): “Whoever thought of the Final Solution got the impression that, when the day comes, the world will be silent, like it was about the Armenians. It is hard for me to forgive other nations for ignoring our tragedy and we cannot ignore another nation’s tragedy. That is our moral obligation as people and Jews.”

Over the last few days, there was a visit to Yerevan by a delegation of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry for a series of consultations having as objective to expand the cooperation between the two countries in the economic and political spheres. On the occasion, the delegation visited the Memorial of the Armenian Genocide.

Hard to say if, in the end, conciliatory positions like that of Rivlin will prevail, or instead those of the ones who think “offensive, and even blasphemous” (thus Yosef Shagal of Yisrael Beiteinu, in 2008) to compare the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust of the Jews. Certainly, what remains is the unease towards those willing to sacrifice the memory of thousands of victims on the altar of political interest.

Read more http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Armenia/Israel-and-the-Armenian-Genocide-153540

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Can Turkey and Israel Mend Relations?

By Bayram Balci 

In an interview with Charlie Rose last week, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, announced an imminent normalization of the relations between his country and Israel. This is not the first time that an overture towards reconciliation has been raised.  During President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel in March 2013, he persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call Erdoğan in order to begin to improve relations between the two countries, two valuable U.S. allies in the Middle East. However, due to domestic and regional reasons, there is more of an incentive to normalize relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv. Undoubtedly the Syrian crisis, security concerns, and economic growth are pushing Erdoğan to open a new chapter in Turkish-Israeli relations.

In order to better understand the current uneasy relationship between Turkey and Israel, it is important to understand how and why they have deteriorated under Erdoğan. In 1948, Turkey was among the first “Islamic” nations to recognize the state of Israel. For a long time afterwards, Ankara continued to be among the rare Muslim countries to have good relations with Tel Aviv. When the AKP came to power in 2002, it continued to cultivate good relations with Israel. However, for ideological as well as pragmatic reasons, Turkish diplomacy, parallel with its growing self confidence in the Middle East aided by good economic development and an impressive growing soft power, started to take a more critical stance on Israel and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.

With relations already strained, tensions grew when in May 2010 the Marmara flotilla, a Turkish humanitarian convoy, sent by an NGO close to the AKP government, wanted to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The convoy was blocked by the Israeli military, and resulted in the deaths of nine Turkishcitizens. After the incident, diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel were severed. In order to re-establish bilateral relations, Turkey imposed the following three conditions: one, Israel should offer an official apology, two, compensate the families of the victims, and three, lift the blockade of Gaza.  

Regardless of past appearances and official support by Turkish officials, this new hostile attitude, after the events with the Marmara flotilla, towards Israel was beneficial to the AKP whose voters sympathized with the Palestinian cause. In terms of regional policy, Erdoğan’s anti-Israeli rhetoric helped him and his country earn prestige among Middle Eastern elites and public opinion. However things have gradually begun to change, and, for both domestic and regional reasons, it has become strategically beneficial for the Turkish Prime Minister to show a more conciliatory attitude towards Israel. Back in March 2013 when President Obama made a considerable effort to reconcile his two allies Turkey was receptive. Despite Obama’s urging, relations between Turkey and Israel have little improved. Erdoğan’s interview last week, however, may be a sign that Israel and Turkey are ready to return to full diplomatic relations. One reason for this renewed interest in a rapprochement is the crisis in Syria, which is affecting both Israel and Turkey.

Prior to 2011 and the Arab Spring, improvements between Syria, a longtime adversary due to their support of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and Turkey was the most successful achievement of Turkish policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” The Bashar al-Assad regime became Erdoğan’s best ally in the region.

Immediatley after the Arab Spring, in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, parties akin to the AKP came to power.  This gave the impression that the Turkish AKP was serving as a model for these new governments. When protests broke out in Syria, Turkey, in their newfound role as a model country for the rest of the Arab world, tried to persuade al-Assad to reform. However, due to al-Assad’s stance, Turkey shifted policies and began to support the opposition. This shift hindered its image as a country at “peace with its neighbors.”  Turkey’s position on Syria has endangered its relationships to countries that support the al-Assad regime such as Iran, Russia, Iraq, and Egypt (after the downfall of Mohammad Morsi). Without the support of former allies, Turkey is becoming increasingly isolated which could hurt its economic growth.  Restoring relations with Israel would prevent this from happening.  

Additionally, with the rise of radical jihadi groups, Turkey is in a precarious state with regards to their own security. Due to their difficult situation, it is apparent that Turkey needs to cooperate with Israel when it comes to intelligence and military collaboration.

Furthermore, Turkey should cooperate with Israel when it comes to business and trade. Due to increased violence, Turkey lost a trade route through Syria that connected it to other Arab countries. Israeli ports, however, can help Turkish companies restore trade in that region. Moreover, Erdoğan is motivated to make peace with Israel due to the discovery of an important gas field, called Leviathan, in Israel’s territorial waters. Considering Turkey’s huge appetite for natural gas, and the potential natural gas European market that could be taped there is a greater incentive for a rapprochement between Turkey and Israel.  Erdoğan should realize that by partnering with Israel on this gas opportunity, it would not only fuel Turkey’s economy but also reduce its dependency on Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and the KRG, Turkey’s traditional energy suppliers.

After harming his international prestige as well as Turkey’s image because of authoritarian domestic and arrogant foreign policy; Erdoğan needs historical initiatives, such as the peace truce with the Kurdish PKK in March 2013, and, the expression to condolences for the descendants of Armenians who were murdered by Ottomans in 1915, in order to better his chances in the upcoming presidential elections, and the re-establishment of relations with Israel. Although the crisis in Syria is a key factor in reconciliation, security, and economic concerns are also fueling an Israeli-Turkish rapprochement.

*****

*****

Bayram Balci is a visiting scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where his research focuses on Turkey and Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.

[Photo by Ra'ed Qutena]

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/05/15/can-turkey-and-israel-mend-relations

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Israel in talks with Egypt, Turkey on major gas export deals

Israel's drive to export its new-found natural gas could help to rebuild strained ties with old regional allies Egypt and Turkey, but could deprive Europe of a precious alternative to Russian gas.

Israel has in recent months already signed energy deals with Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, though relations with the Palestinians are at a low ebb, and now needs to expand its export horizons to cash in on its huge energy discoveries.

If all goes well, the latest developments could see first pipelines being laid between Israel and Turkey as soon as 2015, and gas cooperation between Israel and Egypt is also emerging, which would allow export access to Asia's major markets.

Read more http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/israel-in-talks-with-egypt-turkey-on-major-gas-export-deals.aspx?pageID=238&nID=65015&NewsCatID=348

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Are These Gas Fields Israel’s Next Warzone?

Rumors of war could become the reality as Israel vies with the other nations of the Levant for control of the huge riches beneath the sea.

When Israel looks at the greatest threat to its long-term hopes for the future, these days it’s looking out to sea. The old issues are on the table, of course: Iran’s nukes, the Palestinians, the Syrian slaughterhouse next door and growing regional instability. But if there’s a place where a sudden, out-of-control war is likely to erupt, it’s probably not going to be called the Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria). It’s going to be called Leviathan, Dalit or Karish—the vast fields of natural gas and oil discovered in the deep waters between Israel and Cyprus over the last five years.

Who controls that wealth is likely to dominate the economic future of the region for generations to come. The Israelis know it. So do their allies, their rivals and their enemies. And tensions are mounting by the day.

 “All the elements of danger are there,” says Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry weekly Petrostrategies: there is competition for huge resources, there are disputed borders, and, not to put too fine a point on it, “this is a region where resorting to violent action is not something unusual.”

The United States government is watching warily, trying to broker diplomatic settlements and, so far, failing. No longer inclined to be the region’s policeman on land or in the air, much less at sea, Washington is scaling back its presence in the Middle East while just about everyone else is increasing theirs.

Israel is rushing to create “the most technologically advanced fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean,” according to a report in Tablet Magazine. Turkey is flexing its maritime muscles with plans to spend as much as a billion dollars on a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that will give its fleet blue water capabilities like never before. The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, meanwhile, is known to have naval missiles, and has used them in the past, sinking a cargo vessel and holing an Israeli warship during the Lebanon war of 2006. Russia isexpanding both its naval and commercial presence in Syrian waters, despite the Syrian civil war. It inked a $90 million, 25-year exploration deal with Damascus last Christmas Day.

The area in question was roughly defined in 2010 by the U.S. Geological Survey. It estimated that in an area of the Eastern Mediterranean dubbed the Levant Basin Province (PDF) there are some 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of oil—and possibly twice that much.  The basin runs from near the Syrian port of Tartus (which is also where the Russians have their naval base), down the entire coast of Lebanon, Israel and Gaza, and out toward Cyprus.

Read more http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/are-these-gas-fields-israel-s-next-warzone.html

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

Turkey-Cyprus Clash Shows Israel 'Defender of NATO'

Turkey forces Norwegian ship out of Cypriot waters. Analyst says 'Israel is now heart of NATO's southeastern flank.'

A recent altercation in Cyprus has raised questions about NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) member Turkey. On Saturday, a Norwegian ship exploring for gas in the southern part of Cyprus was forced to leave the area by a Turkish warship.

The Norwegian vessel, MV Princess, was conducting itssearch for oil and gas on behalf of internationally-recognized Greek Cyprus, located in the southern part of the island. Turkey has refused to recognize Cyprus, forbidding it to search for oil and gas in waters that it claims belong to Turkish Cyprus, which is located in the north of the island and is only recognized by Turkey.

On Saturday evening, Turkey claimed the MV Princess entered a Turkish naval zone, where it was warned by the Turkish warship TCG Giresun and then forced out of the area, reports the Turkish news source Today's Zaman.

Cyprus refused to deterred, announcing on Monday its intentions to complain to the UN over the incident. "This provocative behavior by Ankara in no way affects plans to exploit the hydrocarbons of our country," declared a Cypriot government spokesman.

'Israel is now the heart and soul of NATO's southeastern flank'

Back in 2011, analyst Mark Langfan commented on the threats by Turkey against Cypriot exploration of natural resources, following a joint meeting between Israel, Greece and Cyprus.

At the time, Langfan remarked "people are now acknowledging energy issues in this region of the world with the gravitas that they deserve." Langfan released a set of maps that can be seen here showing that Israel is NATO's only line of defense from Islamic terrorism, as Cyprus and Greece are the nearest NATO-members.

"Without Israel’s order of battle and very existence, it would be impossible for NATO to defend Greece, let alone Cyprus, from a Turkish/MuslimBrotherhood tidal wave which would lay waste to everything in the eastern Mediterreanean," argued Langfan. "Whether NATO likes it or not,Israel is now the heart and soul of NATO’s southeastern flank."

The assessment comes just as Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has suggested that NATO should be left in chargeof a future "Palestinian state," replacing IDF control of Judea and Samaria.

Concerns about Turkey have been highlighted recently as the country replaced Iran as the leading sponsor of the terrorist organization Hamas, and has made steps towards an alliance with Iran.

Nevertheless, Israel has offered to pay $20 million in "compensation"to the families of Turkish citizens killed during the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla, which tried to illegally break the IDF blockade on the terror group Hamas in Gaza. Nine Turkish Islamists were killed as they violently attacked IDF soldiers who boarded their ship.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177069#.UvT1FmKSwbx

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

A Southern Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean

The U.S., Israel, Greece, and Cyprus can enhance cooperation. The U.S. should leverage its growing and warming military ties with both Israel and Greece to repel Russia’s growing influence in the littoral states.

From George Papadopoulos

Non-Muslim countries in the region, Cyprus, Israel, Syria, and Egypt, are seeking out greater ties with Russia to safeguard their national interests.
The Old Testament tells mankind that at the beginning of times all was “tohu wabohu,” chaos and tumult. When examining the present day shifting geopolitics in the eastern Mediterranean, the Old Testament’s holy words seem to presage the continuous turmoil and conflict that would beset the eastern Mediterranean for the next three thousand years.
The region has witnessed relative calm only once in its long and violent history. Under wise statecraft, the U.S. designed the Truman Doctrine at the onset of the Cold War to orient both Greece and Turkey within the U.S.’s sphere of influence for the duration of hostilities with the Soviet Union. Through economic incentives, and arms sales, to Greece and Turkey, the U.S. contained the Soviet Fleet. Consequently, these strategic moves paid great dividends by diminishing Moscow’s projected naval capacity into either the east or western Mediterranean Sea at maximum output, thus expediting its eventual demise.
The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a new era for the eastern Mediterranean. One not of the utopia of the ‘end of history’ some analysts predicted, but an epoch where the bi polar framework ceases to exist, robust energy findings have been found, old and new powers seek to carve out their own sphere of influence, and the rise of non state actors such as warring jihadist groups vying to establish their version of sharia law in fragile states along sectarian fault lines, has dominated the political landscape in the eastern Mediterranean.
Under these circumstances, politics and alliances are shifting to reflect these changes. The military relationship between the U.S., Israel, and Greece has now become the most important lever the U.S. possesses in its arsenal in the complex game of power politics in the eastern Mediterranean.
Old stalwart allies of the Cold War that helped to maintain a semblance of stability in the eastern Mediterranean such as Turkey have turned their back on the west. Turkey’s policies have also enflamed the situation on the ground in the region and have invited an insidious reality to enter. The United States’ longstanding policy of accommodating Turkey’s rise was based on the principle that Turkey would emerge as a “moderate Islamist” state that would successfully entwine both Islam and democracy under the banner of moderate governance, become a model to other predominantly Muslim states, while maintaining strategic relations with Israel.
The rise of the AKP, and its diverging ambitions and profound ideological cleavages, fractured this foundation upon which U.S. policy rested in the eastern Mediterranean since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The AKP’s foreign policies have deviated from the U.S.’s since its inception, and have negatively affected stalwart allies and U.S. interests in the region by inviting radical groups to operate freely and create a vacuum large enough for the return of Russia as a great power unseen since the end of the Cold War.
As the U.S. was designing ground war plans for the Iraq War, the U.S. made a request to Turkey to allow American forces to traverse Turkish territory to invade Iraq from a northern route. Consequently, the American 4th Infantry Division was denied access to Turkish territory, which resulted in the abandonment of a land attack from the north and increased casualties and wear on U.S. hardware. Turkey’s logic behind the decision was that the $26 billion offered by the U.S. to allow a northern attack was not enough. Turkey would only accept $32 billion to allow the U.S. to access its territory[1].
Since the fray in relations between the U.S. and AKP, Turkey has shown a proclivity to support rogue leaders, and jihadist forces, while lambasting Israel, a key pillar of stability that U.S. policy depended on. While condemning Israel, and removing the Turkish ambassador from Tel Aviv, for Israel’s defense against the hostile attempt by Turkish Islamists to break the blockade on Hamas-led Gaza in 2010, Erdogan initially opposed the NATO intervention in Libya, by describing the idea as “absurd.” It was only after France and Britain’s initial attacks on Libyan air defenses that Turkey belatedly backed NATO’s plans to create a no-fly zone[2].
The “Arab Spring” has presented the United States with a new paradox; it had drifted closer with Turkey in order to promote democracy and security in the region, but Turkey acted against those very interests. The ill-advised imprimatur of the U.S. to Turkey to stabilize the eastern Mediterranean as the U.S. sought to “pivot” to Asia has enflamed tensions on the ground, and has invited Moscow to reemerge as a regional power for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Turkey did not believe that the anti-Semitic, radical Islamist, and master violator of religious rights, the Muslim Brotherhood, had to alter its values to remain in power in the Arab world’s most populated and influential state. For Turkey shared the Muslim Brotherhood’s values and interests in the emergence of a political arch of unity from Ankara to Cairo under the banner of Sunni-Islamism, where religious minorities were perceived as threats, and Islamism would become an ideology that united the predominantly Sunni countries against the western ideals of reason, liberalism, and democracy.
On September 13, 2011, in Cairo, among an enthralled crowd waving both Turkish and Egyptian flags, Erdogan noted that a “Turkish-Egyptian alliance would form a force of 150 million people strong. We are substantially surrounding the Mediterranean.” The incipient blossoming relationship began to bear fruit when members of the Muslim Brotherhood called for the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and exclusive economic zone agreement between Egypt and Cyprus, to be abrogated. If ratified, these changes in Egyptian policy would have in effect placed a halt on Cyprus’ newly found oil and natural gas production, and destabilized Israel’s immediate frontiers.
This ideal was short lived. In the summer of 2013, after millions poured into the streets of Egypt calling for the Muslim Brotherhood to be removed, Egypt’s military crushed the party, and has rightfully labeled it a terrorist organization for inciting violence. If Turkey was able to alter the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood, and truly channel the idea that Islamism and democracy can be intimately entwined, the intervention by the Egyptian military to overthrow the entrenched Muslim Brothers may have never occurred. This event has massive policy implications for Russia’s growing influence in the region.
The Egyptian military’s intervention has resulted in a collapse in U.S.-Egyptian military relations. Russia now has leverage in Egypt unseen since the Soviet Union financed the Aswan Dam in the 1950s once the U.S. reneged on its promise to.  Egypt has now sought out more reliable partners such as Russia for both financing and military hardware, including a recent $2 billion military deal between Cairo and Moscow. 
With the Turkish public becoming increasingly hostile to the West, the AKP’s domestic corruption scandals, and foreign policy blunders in Syria, Turkey will no longer be the reliable partner it once was. A plurality of Turks consider Turkey’s neighbors in the Middle East as more important to the country’s economic interests (43%) and security interests (42%) than countries of the EU (33%). Turkey is the NATO member with the lowest support for NATO, with only (37%) saying that NATO is essential.[3] The hostile public opinion, and Turkey’s ill-fated attempt to support jihadist groups to overthrow Russia’s ally, Syria, may also be the reason for Turkey seeking to improve relations with Iran as a way to accommodate Russia’s resurgence.
Turkish officials still plan on improving trade deals with Iran.  Turkey aims to boost trade with Iran from approximately $15 billion to $30 billion a year by 2015, and plan a high-level prime minister exchange in January 2014. Turkey’s miscalculation of its own influence within Syria, and unwarranted belief that supporting radical Sunni jihadist groups would result in the overthrowing of the Assad  regime quickly, has now resulted in over 600,000 Syrian refugees on Turkish territory, myriad jihadist groups operating on Turkish soil, and the non-Islamist, and non-Muslim countries in the region, Cyprus, Israel, Syria, and Egypt, seeking out greater ties with Russia to safeguard their national interests.

As the Obama administration dithered between attacking Syria for its inhumane chemical attack, Russia’s last minute negotiated deal to remove chemical stockpiles from Syria without an attack going forward, has now allowed Russia to achieve its desired objective of becoming essential to all seemingly intractable conflicts in the eastern Mediterranean from Tehran to Cairo. As Russia’s leverage has increased in both Egypt and Syria, Russia has politically outmaneuvered the U.S. once again by sealing an interim agreement for Iran’s nuclear program, paralyzing Israel from even considering an attack on Iran, fearing a fall out from Russia, and its newly formed alliances in Syria and Egypt.  
 As the U.S.’s willful retraction of influence in the region continues, and the Obama administration lacks a coherent strategy, the architects of U.S. foreign policy will now have to rely even more on the U.S. military relationship with Israel and Greece to project the force necessary to shape events in the region moving forward. The U.S. should leverage its growing and warming military ties with both Israel and Greece to repel Russia’s growing influence in the littoral states. There is increasing cooperation in both defense and security, including intelligence between Washington, Athens and Jerusalem since 2010.
The discovery of massive natural gas and oil deposits within Israel’s and Cyprus’ exclusive economic zones, as well as Greece’s hopes for confirming its own deposits south of its island, Crete, creates a natural nexus for an integrated energy zone between Jerusalem, Nicosia, and Athens that the U.S., under wise statecraft can develop as a foundation for a military pact.
The U.S. should not only encourage the strengthening relationship between Israel, Greece, and Cyprus, but become the principle actor driving the relationship forward. Given that the U.S. already has strong and strategic relations with the three countries, it would behoove U.S. statesmen to seek a greater U.S. principal role that advances and upgrades the tripartite foundation that Greece, Israel, and Cyprus have established.
A start would be to upgrade in both scope and capabilities the annual “Noble Dina” naval exercise the U.S. Sixth Fleet holds with both the Greek and Israeli navies, and join the Israeli and Greek forces in special ops training, and long-distance aerial drills spanning Souda Bay, Crete to Haifa. Discussions with the Cypriot military establishment to host U.S. jets for trilateral air exercises with Greek and Israeli pilots would also show a mantle of force and deterrence.
Politically, a quadrilateral strategic dialogue ministerial which focuses on working groups in security, energy, counter-terrorism, economics, and finance will underscore the sustained quadrilateral relationship in the sectors of importance. The Strategic Dialogue will report on progress achieved over the past year between the countries, and identify opportunities for increased partnership.
Both U.S. allies and foes have shaped their behavior around the expectations that will emerge if the U.S. does not return as a stabilizing presence.  Unfortunately for the U.S., for littoral countries such as Syria, and Egypt, it is recognized that the Russian bear is the lesser of the evils between it and the uncontrollable jihadist forces in the region that Turkey unleashed when it comes to safeguarding their own national interests.
Israel and Greece’s robust military relations have redrawn the political map of the region. The U.S. would be wise to shift its policies, and resources, towards improving relations at all levels with its stalwart allies in the region, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus, to contain the newly emergent Russian fleet, and malignant jihadist forces operating around Israel’s borders.
Restoring its preeminent position of military power with its allies would once again send the right message to the world that peace comes through strength, not appeasement.

 

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/international/europe/19TURK.html

[2] http://www.economist.com/node/18530682

[3] http://trends.gmfus.org/

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...

India-Israel Defense Cooperation

By Alvite Singh Ningthoujam

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 236

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Defense relations between India and Israel are flourishing. 2013 saw a few minor setbacks, but overall the bilateral arms trade between New Delhi and Jerusalem will continue to be strong.

Defense relations between India and Israel have come a long way, against all odds. Israel has emerged as India’s second-largest arms supplier, behind only Russia, with bilateral arms trade over the last decade estimated at $10 billion. 2013 witnessed major developments in India-Israel defense cooperation, most of which involved enhancing arms trade and furthering joint projects. There were certain constraints as well, none of which curbed ties.

Security Developments in 2013

Israel has carved its niche in India by supplying some of the most sought-after weapons systems, with the exception of bigger platforms, such as aircraft. The January 2013 visit to Israel by India’s former air force commander, Air Marshal N. A. K. Browne, further bolstered ties. Military officials from both countries discussed upgrading cooperation, specifically in the area of drones. Browne also expressed India’s desire to acquire Israeli-made air-to-air missiles, along with other precision-guided munitions. India also pushed for additional joint missile projects, despite Israel’s delay in the development of its own joint medium-range surface-to-air missile project.

In mid-2013, India considered buying Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defense systems. While at first Indian officials were hesitant to commit to Iron Dome, on the grounds that it would be ineffective for India’s long borders and congested air space, it has since been believed that Israel’s willingness to share the sophisticated technology behind the system may alter India’s decision. If these deals go through, they will not only benefit Israel, whose military industries and defense R&D largely depend upon arms sales, but will also enhance India’s air defense capabilities against her adversaries.

Constraints on the Defense Relationship

The US as a competitor in India-Israel arms trade surfaced in 2013. The US has long tried tapping into the Indian defense market, but its reservations over technology transfers remain a roadblock. However, efforts for such agreements are underway. The latest example is the US proposal to forge a joint venture partnership with India for the development of next-generation Javelin anti-tank missiles. This deal almost caused India to reverse its decision to purchase Israeli-made Spike anti-tank guided missiles. However, no major breakthrough has yet been reported, and the Spike was back on the Indian Army’s acquisition agenda in November 2013.

Another concern was the November 2013 interim nuclear deal between the US and Iran. With the thawing of US-Iran ties, certain doubts were raised about the impact of the deal on India-Israel defense cooperation, specifically because of past defense cooperation between India and Iran. Israel watched these ties cautiously, concerned that India might transfer Israeli-based military technology or training to Iran. However, with an agreement for a nuclear deal between India and the US in 2005, Israel’s worries over Indo-Iranian defense ties gradually dissipated. The initiative would see India place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The US agreed, recognizing India’s non-proliferation record despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. With certain preconditions from the US, India scaled down its defense ties with Iran, which have since remained almost non-existent.

India’s increasing focus on Iran has brought the possibility of a resumption of military ties. In July 2013, the Iranian Ambassador to India expressed interest in enhancing defense ties with India, a sentiment that was reciprocated by Indian Defense Minister A. K. Antony. Discussions were held to initiate more bilateral defense exchanges between the two countries. In December, two Iranian warships and a submarine paid a “goodwill” visit to Mumbai, and naval officials from both countries called for close naval cooperation. In addition, the need for a “framework for joint cooperation and security for vessels in India’s western waters to the Persian Gulf” was suggested.

If New Delhi and Tehran succeed in furthering their now-dormant defense ties, the latter would lure Indian defense planners with its military equipment such as ground surveillance radar systems, personnel carriers, drones, destroyers, submarines, and missile-launching frigates. Only time will tell how the military-security relations between India and Iran unfold.

India and Israel have had a few hiccups in their defense cooperation. India expressed its displeasure over Israel’s prolonged delay in delivering weapons systems, as well as a few unsettled cost issues. The disagreements were mainly over the joint venture between India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Israeli Aerospace Industry (IAI) for the development of long and medium-range surface-to-air missiles. In November 2013, DRDO officials blamed the lack of progress on an Israeli “lack of transparency and non-transfer of technology.” However, the Israeli media reported that the long-range missiles project for the Indian Navy is slated for completion by December 2015, while the medium-range missiles will be ready for the Indian Air Force in August 2016.

A Positive End to the Year

The November visit to India by Israeli Chief of the Ground Forces Command, Maj. Gen. Guy Zur, opened more prospects in defense cooperation. Discussions were held not only on joint military training and exchanges, R&D projects, and arms deals, but also on the security situation in South Asia and the Middle East. Combating terrorism, a common problem of both countries, was discussed intensively.

The visit coincided with India’s decision to reconsider buying Spike missiles and transfer technology. Furthermore, India and Israel reportedly agreed to collaborate in the production of high-tech systems for Indian troops at an estimated cost of $3 billion. For this venture, Israel would team up with DRDO to produce systems related to command and control, battlefield management, sensors, and weapons. There is also an additional joint development program for an advanced mobile observation system designed for infantry soldiers.

Two major events invigorated India-Israel defense ties. The first was the closure of the seven-year-old Barak missile kickback case. The original deal for Barak-1 missiles, at the high cost of nearly $180 million, was inked during the BJP-led NDA government in 2000. Due to this controversy, leftist parties demanded that the government refuse all deals with IAI, which was under investigation for alleged corruption. However, neither IAI nor Rafael was blacklisted and have instead become two of the most important Israeli defense firms operating in India.

The Indian defense minister recently closed a deal for the procurement of 262 Barak-1 missiles, at an estimated cost of $143 million. This came as a great relief for the Indian Navy and its fast-depleting stock of anti-ballistic missiles for its frontline battleships. All that remains for the deal to go through is an approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

The second major event that helped boost Indo-Israeli ties was the CCS approval of the procurement of nearly 15 Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from Israel, which will likely enhance reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities of Indian armed forces along the borders of Pakistan and China. Currently, the Indian Air Force uses both Israeli-made Searcher II and Heron UAVs, with about 100 deployed along the borders.

Conclusion

It is evident that defense ties between India and Israel are robust, and the countries would not like to be undermined by a third party. However, they should be cognizant of the changing reality of the arms business, where other potential vendors are queuing up to sell their products. Israel’s credibility as a reliable arms supplier with limited political implications should be preserved. The countries should seek utter transparency to allow the bilateral relationship to continue to flourish. India and Israel share national security challenges and are thus natural security partners. 2013 was an overall successful year in relations for the two nations, and the future holds many more potential positive developments.

Alvite Singh Ningthoujam is a doctoral researcher at the School of International Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. He also served as a fellow at the BESA Center (2010-2011).

Διαβάστε περισσότερα...