Weathering the coming storm
By Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Israel is endangered today as it has never been before. The Turkish-Hamas flotilla two weeks ago precipitated a number of dangerous developments. Rather than attend to all of them, Israel’s leadership is devoting itself almost exclusively to contending with the least dangerous among them while ignoring the emerging threats with the potential to lead us to great calamities.
Since the Navy’s lethal takeover of the Mavi Marmara, Israel has been stood before an international diplomatic firing squad led by the UN and Europe and supported by the Obama administration. Firmly backed by European and largely unopposed by Washington, the UN is moving swiftly towards setting up a new Goldstone-style anti-Israel kangaroo court. That canned tribunal will rule that Israel has no right to defend itself and attempt to force Israel to end its lawful naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Fearing this outcome, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu bowed to US President Barack Obama’s demand that Israel set up an Israeli inquest of the Mavi Marmara takeover and permit foreigners to oversee its proceedings. Netanyahu also agreed to scale-back Israel’s blockade significantly, and allow international bodies to have a role in its far more lax enforcement. Netanyahu has made these concessions with the full knowledge that they will strengthen Hamas in the hopes that they would weaken the international onslaught against Israel.
Unfortunately, it took no time at all to see that his hopes were misplaced. Even before Netanyahu announced these concessions, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon already announced that they make no difference to him or to his friends in Washington and Brussels. They will move ahead with their plans to appoint a new kangaroo court charged with asserting that Israel has no right to defend itself.
As bad as all of this is, in truth, it is unimportant relative to the other consequences of the flotilla incident. The impact of the diplomatic campaign now being waged against Israel will be felt in the medium and long term. In the immediate term, Israel is facing two threats that dwarf what it faces from the UN.
Recent statements by the leaders of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah make clear that the members of the Iranian axis view the Mavi Marmara episode as a strategic victory in their ongoing campaign against Israel. The international stampede against Israel at the UN, the White House and throughout Europe exposed Israel’s Achilles heel. The Mavi Marmara demonstrated that on the one hand the IDF cannot enforce its blockade of Gaza without the use of force. On the other hands it taught Israel’s enemies that by forcing Israel to use force, Iran, Turkey and their allies incited a UN-EU-US lynch mob against Israel.
Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah are moving rapidly to exploit their new discovery. In the very near future, Israel will face off against Iranian, Lebanese, and Turkish ships complemented by ships full of Israel-hating German Jews and other Jewish and non-Jewish Hamas supporters.
The Mavi Marmara showed Iran and its allies hat they can win strategic victories against Israel by giving the IDF no option other than using force against them. This means that Israel can bank on the prospect that all the ships they are dispatching will be populated by suicide protesters. Indeed the Iranians have openly admitted this. Mohammad Ali Nouraee is one of the regime officials involved in dispatching the Iranian ships to the Gaza coast. In an interview this week with Iran’s official IRNA news agency Nouraee said that the passengers aboard the ships, “are willing to become martyred in this way.”
The Lebanese ships are being organized by Hizbullah-affiliated individuals and the Turkish ships are being organized by the IHH terror group that organized the Mavi Marmara. Hizbullah’s penchant for dispatching suicide squads is of course well known. And the IHH showed its devotion to suicide protests on the Mavi Marmara. So it is fairly clear that the passengers aboard the ships from both countries intend to force the IDF to kill them.
The intensification of the suicide protest campaign against Israel is dangerous for two reasons. First, it is a model that can be and in all likelihood will be replicated on air and land and it can be replicated anywhere. Israel can and should expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Gaza to force Israel to surrender control over its borders. Israel can expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Israeli embassies and other government installations around the world in an attempt to increase its diplomatic isolations.
In the air, Israel can expect charter flights to take off from airports around the world with a few dozen kamikaze protesters who will force the IAF to shoot them down as they approach Israeli airspace.
Iran and its allies have found a weak chink in Israel’s armor. They will use it any way they can. Israel needs to quickly develop tactics and strategies for contending with this.
The second and far more dangerous implication of Israel’s enemies’ aggressive adoption of suicide protests is that by ensuring violence will be used, they increase the chances of war. Indeed, Iran and its allies clearly believe that suicide protests are a vehicle for initiating a full-scale war against Israel on what they view as favorable footing. According to Bahrain’s al Wasat press service, Hussain Amir, Iran’s ambassador to Bahrain threatened this week that, “If the [Zionist] entity dares to direct any aggressive attack [against the Iranian ships] then it is certain that [Israel] will be met by a much stronger and firm blow.”
Syrian President Bashar Assad told the BBC Wednesday that the region is moving towards war. And the Turkish government is continuing to escalate its assaults on Israel. On Thursday Turkey threatened to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel if Israel does not issue a formal apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara and pay restitution to the families of the terrorists killed on board the ship.
Obviously the most disturbing aspect of the war threats is the specter of Turkish naval vessels attacking the Israeli navy. If Turkey — a NATO member — participates in a war against Israel, the repercussions for Israel’s relations with NATO member states, including the US, as well as the EU are liable to be unprecedented.
While going to war against Israel would be a major gamble for Turkey, in recent years it has not shied away from high stakes challenges to its NATO allies. Indeed, one of Turkey’s ruling AKP party’s first actions upon taking power in 2003 was to deny the US military the right to invade Iraq from its territory. The deleterious impact of Turkey’s refusal to come to the aid of its NATO ally at the time has been felt by US forces in Iraq ever since.
In the days and weeks to come, Israel’s political and military leaders must move resolutely to prepare to withstand these new threats that arisen in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara episode. To meet the expected deluge of suicide protesters on sea, land and air, Israel must immediately acquire non-lethal means to disperse these protests. This involves purchasing and producing tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and other non-lethal weaponry. These non-lethal weapons must be rapidly distributed to IDF units deployed along the frontier with Gaza and to the Navy. They must also be supplied to Israeli security teams tasked with protecting government installations worldwide. Forces must undergo intense and immediate training in crowd control and mob dispersal to be ready to meet what is clearly on the way.
Diplomatically, Israel needs to hold its new line on the Gaza blockade. Netanyahu’s buckling to US-EU-UN pressure has encouraged them to redouble their assault on Israel. The new line must be held at all costs. Otherwise, Israel will have no diplomatic line of defense as the approaching threats become reality.
Strategically, our leaders need to consider what our aims will be in the coming war. For instance, as far as Turkey is concerned, Israel’s aim will be to end the war as quickly as possible. Here the tools of diplomacy with NATO members and public diplomacy with the American people will be crucial to convincing Turkey to stand down. They must be aggressively and energetically utilized without delay.
From a military perspective, evasion is preferable to confrontation. This understanding must guide naval operations towards Turkish forces.
As for Iran, Israel’s aim must be to prolong the war as long as necessary to secure its strategic objective of denying Iran nuclear weapons. Moreover, it is important to use both kinetic and non-kinetic means to change the relative power balance between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. While in all likelihood today the Iranian opposition green movement is unable to overthrow the regime, if Iran initiates a war against Israel, Israel must use the opportunity the war affords to change that balance of power.
Once Israel’s political and military leaders determine the strategic goals of a regional war, they must move swiftly to outfit and train the IDF to fight it. This war will certainly be different from its predecessors and Israel’s strategic goals — and the clear strategic and tactical preferences of its enemies — dictate the training that the IDF must initiate immediately.
The longer term lesson of the Mavi Marmara incident, and the threats that emerged in its wake is that war is too serious a subject to leave to generals. The IDF and the Defense Ministry clearly misunderstood the nature of the threat posed by the Turkish-Hamas flotilla. Indeed, recent reports that until the Mavi Marmara Israel wasn’t even collecting intelligence on Turkey despite its obvious, multiyear transformation from ally to enemy underlines the fact that the IDF is woefully incapable of assessing, understanding and preparing for the threats Israel faces.
In light of the IDF’s failure to understand Turkey’s transformation from ally to enemy in a timely manner, its incompetent planning for the Mavi Marmara takeover and its problematic performance in both Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War, Netanyahu must create an external body empowered to assess and dictate the means for preparing for emerging threats. This body can either be a new department in the Prime Minister’s Bureau or the National Security Council can be empowered to perform this function. While this is not the most urgent matter on the national agenda, the establishment of such a body should be a central mission of the government.
The Iranian ships are already en route, and the ships from Lebanon could appear at any moment. The mass demonstrations against Israel throughout the world and the threatened violence from the Hamas-supporting Israeli Arab leadership indicate that mobs of suicide protesters could appear anywhere with no prior warning.
Time is of the essence. No, Israel does not want another Goldstone kangaroo court. But right now, kangaroo courts are not our biggest problem.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Israel was the first victim but won’t be the last (National Post, Canada)
By Asaf Romirowsky and Nicole Brackman
Since 2007, Israel has maintained a legal maritime blockade around Gaza. Gaza is a territory ruled by a known terrorist organization — Hamas — whose explicitly stated goal is the elimination of Israel through violence. Past experience has proven that Hamas keeps its promises of terror, cravenly using its own citizens as civilian shields in order to launch attacks on Israelis.
Preventing this terror has been a full-time occupation for Israel, and the goal of the maritime blockade has been the protection of Israeli citizens. Keeping rockets and other weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while simultaneously letting food and other humanitarian aid in, is a constant exercise in measured risk. World media outlets have bought into the widespread Palestinian propaganda that the Gaza blockade is a humanitarian crisis — going so far as to conflate the situation in Gaza with a “holocaust” and comparing the Israelis to “Nazis” for failing to allow basic human services to reach Gazans.
This inflammatory language does get attention. It also effectively masks the reality on the ground — the fact that it is Hamas itself which blocks humanitarian aid from reaching its citizens, diverting funds and materiel instead to building arms caches. In what has become a brilliant public relations ploy, the Hamas leadership has managed again to use its civilians to shield its true intentions and actions.
Nearly half a decade ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to disengage from that territory and create a chance for peace. Hamas (a recognized terror organization by both the United States and Israel) took advantage of internecine Palestinian fighting and took control of Gaza. The putative “government” of Gaza is not one which values human life (at least not that of its citizens, much less Israelis); the civilian infrastructure in Gaza Strip has been exploited by Hamas to launch attacks — inviting Israeli response (which is then condemned as targeting civilians). By using hospitals, mosques and offices of international aid groups to conduct terrorist activity against Israel, Hamas is swaying public opinion in its favour.
Hamas found a willing and able partner in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was UNRWA’s director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, who was quoted in The New York Times in early 2009 as saying that Israel’s blockade was choking off basic humanitarian supplies like medicine, clothing and blankets, as well as food supplies. Moreover, it was Ging who called upon the international community “to shoulder its responsibility on this issue” by “sending ships to break the siege.”
In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper in early May, Ging reportedly urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza. He added, “We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible.”
This was a leading official of a United Nations NGO acting in the capacity of his position. He was urging other non-governmental actors to engage in what is clearly an act of international war–invading the territorial waters of a United Nations member state and sovereign nation.
Israel seems to have been the only state to recognize this and, as was reported by Middle East Monitor, will make an official request to the United Nations for clarification of how an official representative of the United Nations could call for European countries to send ships to Gaza without authorization and prior co-ordination with Israel.
Though it is not surprising that this aspect of the issue went unreported in the world media, it is an extremely dangerous and discomfitingprecedent. UNRWAhaslongbeen a co-opted (and corrupted) actor on the Gaza scene; but as UNRWA is still under United Nations auspices, it retains the responsibility of at least pretending to act in a fair and objective manner. Ging’s actions belie any facade of accountability and teeter on the edge of outright incitement.
During the latest flotilla saga, Mr. Ging has continued to defend Hamas when questioned about the terror organization’s credibility regarding the allegations that they might misuse aid. According to Ging, Hamas does not steal and any aid delivered via UNRWA and the UN is respected by Hamas. As such, had the flotilla reached Gaza it would have alleviated the mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages which left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid — i.e. UNRWA facilities. Such a view is not only overly optimistic, but downright disingenuous. The boats’ cargo contained weapons as well as foodstuffs — and it was clear from the outset that the flotilla was meant as a provocation and a media stunt designed to challenge Israel and open a new route for weapons smuggling.
In inciting the flotilla, John Ging has dishonoured UNRWA and the United Nations. UNRWA itself should long ago have been absorbed into the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Now the matter is more urgent than ever.
Moreover, the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets not only embarrasses Israel (an imperfect, yet law-abiding democracy); itactivelyencouragesHamas and other terror organizations. It is long past time for the media to examine its own role in sponsoring and promoting acts of violence against civilians, and in creating an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of said violence are rewarded by vast media coverage and heralded as “militants” rather than called out for their murderous actions.
The international community is also guilty. While rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and China (to mention just a few) wantonly engage in human rights abuses and abhorrent violence against civilians, it is Israel that brings the UN Security Council together for more commissions and inquiries than any other nation.
Of course, the stark contrast is nothing new. It’s much easier to target Israel than it is to address the entrenched violence and inhumanity perpetrated in so many other United Nations member states. And, more recently, focusing on Israeli “sins” diverts attention from the real threat — a nuclear Iran. Iran’s recent announcement that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs was completely obscured by the media frenzy surrounding the Gaza flotilla
Israel may be the first country to have been directly challenged by an open act of war in this flotilla episode. But if other nations think they are exempt or immune, they are wrong. Terrorists and those who sponsor them have taken notice of the world’s response. And they are nothing if not emboldened.
Since 2007, Israel has maintained a legal maritime blockade around Gaza. Gaza is a territory ruled by a known terrorist organization — Hamas — whose explicitly stated goal is the elimination of Israel through violence. Past experience has proven that Hamas keeps its promises of terror, cravenly using its own citizens as civilian shields in order to launch attacks on Israelis.
Preventing this terror has been a full-time occupation for Israel, and the goal of the maritime blockade has been the protection of Israeli citizens. Keeping rockets and other weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while simultaneously letting food and other humanitarian aid in, is a constant exercise in measured risk. World media outlets have bought into the widespread Palestinian propaganda that the Gaza blockade is a humanitarian crisis — going so far as to conflate the situation in Gaza with a “holocaust” and comparing the Israelis to “Nazis” for failing to allow basic human services to reach Gazans.
This inflammatory language does get attention. It also effectively masks the reality on the ground — the fact that it is Hamas itself which blocks humanitarian aid from reaching its citizens, diverting funds and materiel instead to building arms caches. In what has become a brilliant public relations ploy, the Hamas leadership has managed again to use its civilians to shield its true intentions and actions.
Nearly half a decade ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to disengage from that territory and create a chance for peace. Hamas (a recognized terror organization by both the United States and Israel) took advantage of internecine Palestinian fighting and took control of Gaza. The putative “government” of Gaza is not one which values human life (at least not that of its citizens, much less Israelis); the civilian infrastructure in Gaza Strip has been exploited by Hamas to launch attacks — inviting Israeli response (which is then condemned as targeting civilians). By using hospitals, mosques and offices of international aid groups to conduct terrorist activity against Israel, Hamas is swaying public opinion in its favour.
Hamas found a willing and able partner in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was UNRWA’s director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, who was quoted in The New York Times in early 2009 as saying that Israel’s blockade was choking off basic humanitarian supplies like medicine, clothing and blankets, as well as food supplies. Moreover, it was Ging who called upon the international community “to shoulder its responsibility on this issue” by “sending ships to break the siege.”
In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper in early May, Ging reportedly urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza. He added, “We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible.”
This was a leading official of a United Nations NGO acting in the capacity of his position. He was urging other non-governmental actors to engage in what is clearly an act of international war–invading the territorial waters of a United Nations member state and sovereign nation.
Israel seems to have been the only state to recognize this and, as was reported by Middle East Monitor, will make an official request to the United Nations for clarification of how an official representative of the United Nations could call for European countries to send ships to Gaza without authorization and prior co-ordination with Israel.
Though it is not surprising that this aspect of the issue went unreported in the world media, it is an extremely dangerous and discomfitingprecedent. UNRWAhaslongbeen a co-opted (and corrupted) actor on the Gaza scene; but as UNRWA is still under United Nations auspices, it retains the responsibility of at least pretending to act in a fair and objective manner. Ging’s actions belie any facade of accountability and teeter on the edge of outright incitement.
During the latest flotilla saga, Mr. Ging has continued to defend Hamas when questioned about the terror organization’s credibility regarding the allegations that they might misuse aid. According to Ging, Hamas does not steal and any aid delivered via UNRWA and the UN is respected by Hamas. As such, had the flotilla reached Gaza it would have alleviated the mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages which left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid — i.e. UNRWA facilities. Such a view is not only overly optimistic, but downright disingenuous. The boats’ cargo contained weapons as well as foodstuffs — and it was clear from the outset that the flotilla was meant as a provocation and a media stunt designed to challenge Israel and open a new route for weapons smuggling.
In inciting the flotilla, John Ging has dishonoured UNRWA and the United Nations. UNRWA itself should long ago have been absorbed into the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Now the matter is more urgent than ever.
Moreover, the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets not only embarrasses Israel (an imperfect, yet law-abiding democracy); itactivelyencouragesHamas and other terror organizations. It is long past time for the media to examine its own role in sponsoring and promoting acts of violence against civilians, and in creating an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of said violence are rewarded by vast media coverage and heralded as “militants” rather than called out for their murderous actions.
The international community is also guilty. While rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and China (to mention just a few) wantonly engage in human rights abuses and abhorrent violence against civilians, it is Israel that brings the UN Security Council together for more commissions and inquiries than any other nation.
Of course, the stark contrast is nothing new. It’s much easier to target Israel than it is to address the entrenched violence and inhumanity perpetrated in so many other United Nations member states. And, more recently, focusing on Israeli “sins” diverts attention from the real threat — a nuclear Iran. Iran’s recent announcement that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs was completely obscured by the media frenzy surrounding the Gaza flotilla
Israel may be the first country to have been directly challenged by an open act of war in this flotilla episode. But if other nations think they are exempt or immune, they are wrong. Terrorists and those who sponsor them have taken notice of the world’s response. And they are nothing if not emboldened.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Canadian TV Blasted for Fake Gaza Mortality Rate
Media watchdog groups have criticized Canada's CBC for wrongly implying that Israel's policy vis-a-vis Gaza has led to unusually high infant mortality. In a June 1 report, CBC correspondent Peter Mansbridge spoke of the closure of Israel's Gaza borders and stated that Gaza currently has “an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world.”
Not only is Gaza's infant mortality rate not among the highest in the world, it's actually lower than that of many Middle Eastern countries, political commentor Barry Rubin noted in his blog. Infant mortality is significantly lower in Gaza (17.71 per 1,000 live births) than in Iran (34.7), Turkey (24.8), Libya (20.87), Iraq (43.16), and Egypt (26.2), and only slightly higher than that of Jordan (17.03), Syria (16.14), and Lebanon (16.4).
Accurate information on mortality in Gaza and elsewhere is easily available from the CIA World Factbook, published online, Rubin noted.
In response to an inquiry from the watchdog group Honest Reporting, a CBC editor said Mansbridge's statement was “an error.” The station rejected charges that the statement reflected anti-Israel bias.
A CBS anchor later read a correction, which stated that Gaza's infant mortality rate is actually ranked 109 out of 224 countries and regions worldwide.
Honest Reporting expressed satisfaction with the correction, but at the same time, was concerned by what CBC did not say. “There was no indication given about how this error had occurred... what was the source of this original erroneous information?” the organization asked on its blog. The group also wished to know why the CBC referred to Gaza, Judea and Samaria as “Palestine” despite the fact that no such country exists.
Not only is Gaza's infant mortality rate not among the highest in the world, it's actually lower than that of many Middle Eastern countries, political commentor Barry Rubin noted in his blog. Infant mortality is significantly lower in Gaza (17.71 per 1,000 live births) than in Iran (34.7), Turkey (24.8), Libya (20.87), Iraq (43.16), and Egypt (26.2), and only slightly higher than that of Jordan (17.03), Syria (16.14), and Lebanon (16.4).
Accurate information on mortality in Gaza and elsewhere is easily available from the CIA World Factbook, published online, Rubin noted.
In response to an inquiry from the watchdog group Honest Reporting, a CBC editor said Mansbridge's statement was “an error.” The station rejected charges that the statement reflected anti-Israel bias.
A CBS anchor later read a correction, which stated that Gaza's infant mortality rate is actually ranked 109 out of 224 countries and regions worldwide.
Honest Reporting expressed satisfaction with the correction, but at the same time, was concerned by what CBC did not say. “There was no indication given about how this error had occurred... what was the source of this original erroneous information?” the organization asked on its blog. The group also wished to know why the CBC referred to Gaza, Judea and Samaria as “Palestine” despite the fact that no such country exists.
Turkey closes airspace to Israel Air Force, Jerusalem declares IHH terrorists
Turkey launched a plan Wednesday night (June 16) to campaign on all fronts for a worldwide boycott of Israel and decided to introduce sanctions leading to the severance of bilateral relations. Its pretext was the absence of a formal apology from Jerusalem for the naval commando raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara ("Blue Marmara"), which left 8 activists dead, and its rejection of an international inquiry of the incident.
In Washington, early Thursday morning (June 17), Democratic and Republican members of Congress announced at a press conference that there would be price to pay if Ankara continued its hate campaign against Israel and tight ties with Tehran.
Rep. Mike Pence, the third-highest ranking Republican, said: "There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel." Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel called Turkey's actions "disgraceful."
DEBKAfile's sources in Washington note that while the House and the Senate are getting ready for an active response against Turkey for its deteriorating relations with Israel, the Obama administration is standing still, possibly tied down by friendship with the two contestants in Jerusalem and Ankara. The president may also be influenced by some of his closest aides, who are sympathetic to the policies pursued by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and support his aspirations in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.
The most prominent member of the pro-Erdogan faction ion the White House is the president's personal adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who does not share the conviction that the Turkish aid society, the IHH, is in fact a terrorist organization, as Israel declared Thursday, June 17 - although more than one European terrorist expert is of that opinion.
The way this declaration was aired by the Netanyahu government was harshly criticized by Israel's security and intelligence sources as too hesitant and uncertain to attract notice, DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem report. It was not sourced to any defense ministry official and only appeared in a low spot on a local Channel 2 TV news bulletin.
"If Israel accuses an organization of terrorism, it should do so loud and clear," they said. "We must offer the kind of proof that reverberates strongly around the world. Instead, the information was released almost by stealth and therefore ignored by the international media."
In fact, DEBKAfile's intelligence and counter-terror sources stress the inconspicuous news item was pretty sensational. By listing as terrorists the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a key component of Erdogan's pro-Islamic AKK government's support system, Israel henceforth defines the group as a target for Israel's covert and military operations and exposes its leaders to retaliation for continuing violence against Israel and its interests.
IHH activists were responsible for the violence aboard the Turkish ship leading the blockade-busting flotilla on May 31. Wednesday, IHH headquarters in Istanbul scheduled the launch of an even bigger flotilla for Gaza some time in July. Its new designation empowers Israel's covert agencies and navy to go for its members and ships - at sea and in Turkish ports.
Still hesitant, Israel has started hitting back at Turkey by escalating its military and intelligence responses to Erdogan's provocations.
The day before, the level of confrontation was ramped up by several notches in Ankara, when the Turkish Defense Industry Implementation Committee – SSIK, in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Erdogan, decided to freeze 16 security and military agreements signed with Israel.
They include permission for Israel warplanes to use Turkish airspace and apply to intelligence-sharing arrangements and cooperation in combating terrorism and suspend the longstanding, close military and intelligence cooperation between Turkey and Israel.
The two erstwhile allies are left glaring at each other as antagonists, just one step short of declared enemies.
Ankara nonetheless left a narrow opening - whether to appease the military for its loss of a valued strategic partner or to tempt Israeli leaders to continue to delude themselves that Turkey is not a write-off.
Thursday morning, in a briefing to Turkish journalists, sources close to the Turkish prime minister and the SSK exhibited a very long list of the Israeli and Turkish military projects they had cancelled, including the purchase of advanced Israeli Arrow anti-missile missiles. However, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul commented: "Despite the fact that the decision on the shelving of military agreements had been left to the command of the Foreign Ministry, it would not be proper for the ruling administration to decide on the actions of military companies in both countries."
By this remark, the Turkish defense minister left a small gap for the Turkish government to review each contract separately and to decide whether to implement or revoke it depending on the needs of the Turkish army.
In Washington, early Thursday morning (June 17), Democratic and Republican members of Congress announced at a press conference that there would be price to pay if Ankara continued its hate campaign against Israel and tight ties with Tehran.
Rep. Mike Pence, the third-highest ranking Republican, said: "There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel." Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel called Turkey's actions "disgraceful."
DEBKAfile's sources in Washington note that while the House and the Senate are getting ready for an active response against Turkey for its deteriorating relations with Israel, the Obama administration is standing still, possibly tied down by friendship with the two contestants in Jerusalem and Ankara. The president may also be influenced by some of his closest aides, who are sympathetic to the policies pursued by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and support his aspirations in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.
The most prominent member of the pro-Erdogan faction ion the White House is the president's personal adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who does not share the conviction that the Turkish aid society, the IHH, is in fact a terrorist organization, as Israel declared Thursday, June 17 - although more than one European terrorist expert is of that opinion.
The way this declaration was aired by the Netanyahu government was harshly criticized by Israel's security and intelligence sources as too hesitant and uncertain to attract notice, DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem report. It was not sourced to any defense ministry official and only appeared in a low spot on a local Channel 2 TV news bulletin.
"If Israel accuses an organization of terrorism, it should do so loud and clear," they said. "We must offer the kind of proof that reverberates strongly around the world. Instead, the information was released almost by stealth and therefore ignored by the international media."
In fact, DEBKAfile's intelligence and counter-terror sources stress the inconspicuous news item was pretty sensational. By listing as terrorists the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a key component of Erdogan's pro-Islamic AKK government's support system, Israel henceforth defines the group as a target for Israel's covert and military operations and exposes its leaders to retaliation for continuing violence against Israel and its interests.
IHH activists were responsible for the violence aboard the Turkish ship leading the blockade-busting flotilla on May 31. Wednesday, IHH headquarters in Istanbul scheduled the launch of an even bigger flotilla for Gaza some time in July. Its new designation empowers Israel's covert agencies and navy to go for its members and ships - at sea and in Turkish ports.
Still hesitant, Israel has started hitting back at Turkey by escalating its military and intelligence responses to Erdogan's provocations.
The day before, the level of confrontation was ramped up by several notches in Ankara, when the Turkish Defense Industry Implementation Committee – SSIK, in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Erdogan, decided to freeze 16 security and military agreements signed with Israel.
They include permission for Israel warplanes to use Turkish airspace and apply to intelligence-sharing arrangements and cooperation in combating terrorism and suspend the longstanding, close military and intelligence cooperation between Turkey and Israel.
The two erstwhile allies are left glaring at each other as antagonists, just one step short of declared enemies.
Ankara nonetheless left a narrow opening - whether to appease the military for its loss of a valued strategic partner or to tempt Israeli leaders to continue to delude themselves that Turkey is not a write-off.
Thursday morning, in a briefing to Turkish journalists, sources close to the Turkish prime minister and the SSK exhibited a very long list of the Israeli and Turkish military projects they had cancelled, including the purchase of advanced Israeli Arrow anti-missile missiles. However, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul commented: "Despite the fact that the decision on the shelving of military agreements had been left to the command of the Foreign Ministry, it would not be proper for the ruling administration to decide on the actions of military companies in both countries."
By this remark, the Turkish defense minister left a small gap for the Turkish government to review each contract separately and to decide whether to implement or revoke it depending on the needs of the Turkish army.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Iranian threats over Gaza keep USS Truman carrier in Mediterranean
The USS Harry S. Truman carrier, complete with its strike group of 60 warplanes and 6,000 seamen, has been ordered to turn course from the Persian Gulf and deploy with the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean for the time being, debkafile's military and Washington sources report. The administration's decision was prompted by incoming intelligence attesting to heightened marine and military tensions between Israel, Turkey and Iran, in the wake of the Turkish premier Recep Erdogan's determination to give his screws on Israel another turn - or two.
He was solidly backed up from Tehran Wednesday, June 16, by parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, who threatened military retaliation against Persian Gulf and Mediterranean shipping for any interference with the vessels Iran was sending to the Gaza Strip. He did not specify what kind they were.
In Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserted that Israel would no longer respect these vessels as promoted by aid agencies because they were obviously dispatched by outright enemies with hostile intent thinly disguised as humanitarian efforts.
Erdogan is planning more provocative sea convoys for Gaza and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Ankara has set its face implacably toward a full rupture and is determined to breach Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip by force, regardless of the relaxations on the siege restrictions ceded by Israel in consultation with Washington.
Israeli ministers met Wednesday, June 16, to approve these relaxations. The broke for lunch without a decision. Some ministers maintained Israel's ambassador from Ankara should be recalled forthwith without waiting for the Erdogan government to break off ties.
-DEBKA FILE
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)