The Israeli recipe for dealing
with the world: “If force does not work, use more force.”
Turkey is the Key
By Israel Shamir
Bombs go off in Turkey -- a great spree
of terrorist bombings and attacks. Practically every day Turkish soldiers and
civilians are being killed. The killings are done ostensibly by the Kurd
terrorists of the PKK, but in reality it is a new step in Israel’s warfare
against Turkish independence. Encouraged by Israel, the PKK has extended its
operations to the Aegean and the Black Sea resorts all the way to Izmir.
Israelis have armed, supplied and
trained Kurdish terrorists for many years; they have turned Iraqi Kurdistan into
their own territory, with
many Israeli businessmen going about their affairs while waiting for
Kirkuk oil to flow to Haifa as it did in the days of
colonial British rule. The Kurds have remained a hidden tool of Israel in the
region for many years; their activation now shows that Israel still wants to
teach the Turks a lesson.

The main neocon
magazine in the US, frontpagemag.com, has openly
called for
the Kurds to retaliate for Turkey’s support of Palestine. Another Jewish
right-wing think-tank
speaks of
mobilising the US Congress to condemn the one-hundred-year-old Armenian tragedy
as a means of undermining Turkey. After many years of siding with Turkey, the
Jewish Lobby has now decided to switch sides and support the Armenian claims. So
Turkey is now under attack from all sides. This was to be expected, for the
popular Israeli slogan says: “If force does not work, use more force.”
This is the explanation of the Flotilla
Massacre on May 31, 2010. The Mavi
Marmara attack was intended to be a short,
sharp shock to the increasingly independent Turks. The Israelis intended to
terrify and frighten them into obedience; this is why they ordered a blood bath
on board the Mavi
Marmara. As we now know, the Israeli commandos began shooting well
before encountering any resistance. They were not there to play softball;
submission was what they were after. Murder was not a result of being surprised
or of miscalculation: it was an open attack on Turkey.
Israel’s conflict with Turkey was not an
unfortunate result of the murderous raid. The confrontation between them became
acute two weeks before the massacre, on May 17, 2010. Together with Brazil,
Turkey had arranged and signed the Tehran Declaration -- a nuclear fuel swap
deal with beleaguered Iran. This declaration could have derailed the US-Israeli
plans of sanctioning Iran to death prior to bombing it.
Israel wants Iran destroyed; as much as
she wanted Iraq demolished, Gaza starved and the rest cowed. The swap agreement
undermined all the logic behind the sanctions. All the plotting of Israeli
lobbyists in the US and Europe was wiped out in an instant. Indeed, as the
Muslims say: they plot, but Allah plots better.
Israel received the news of the
Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreement as a heavy blow. “We were defeated by the crafty
Turks and Iranians,” read the headlines of Israeli newspapers. Not so fast! The
US State Department minimized the damage, effectively
asking:
“Who cares what these lowlifes agree about? If we have decided to bomb somebody,
bomb we shall. We shall never allow the facts to confuse us.” Thomas Friedman in
the NYT was
disappointed
that “a Holocaust-denying thug” was being allowed to live.
Brazenly disregarding the agreement, the
UN Security Council approved the sanctions on June, 9. Moscow and Beijing were
bribed or blackmailed to agree. China preferred to play ball in order to avoid
confrontation over North Korea. The story of the sunken South Korean ship had
provided a pretext for an attack on North Korea, and such an attack could cause
much damage to China. The Chinese are also vulnerable to Western meddling in
Xinjiang and Tibet.
The Russians have received some precious
gifts: the Ukraine was returned to Russia’s fold, Georgia was marginalised, the
new nuclear arms treaty was better for Russia than anything they could have
expected. At the same time, Moscow suffered a severe terrorist attack, reminding
the Russians of their enemies’ ability to seed trouble. Notwithstanding, Turkey
voted against the sanctions, proving its new regional role as a reliable new
pivot for the Middle East.
The conflict between Turkey and Israel
did not start with the Iran swap: it began earlier, in January 2010, when the
Israeli deputy Foreign Minister Dani
Ayalon invited the Turkish ambassador and publicly
humiliated him.
In Oriental fashion, Ambassador
Chelikkol was offered a seat
on a sofa lower the Ayalon’s
armchair. Ayalon
refused to shake hands with the ambassador and told journalists in Hebrew while
the cameras were rolling: “We would like to show that he takes a lower seat and
there is only the Israeli flag on the table”.
Or perhaps the
conflict began
a year earlier,
in January 2009, when the Prime Minister of Turkey,
Recep
Erdogan,
walked off the stage at
the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Erdogan was annoyed by the attempt of a Western
moderator to cut off his angry response to Israeli president Shimon Peres, who
had justified the mass killings in Gaza.
Or perhaps it started in September 2007
when Israeli planes flew over Turkey to bomb Syria without as much as ‘by your
leave’.
Perhaps it was even earlier, when Turkey
began to assert its independence by discarding its century-old, shop-worn
ideology of Kemalism. The secular nationalism of
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
was a trap for the former Empire. Brutish Kemalist
Turkey was necessarily a member of NATO, an enemy to Arabs and Iranians, a
docile client of the US, a loyal ally of Israel and a persecutor of the Kurds.
Now is the time to thank the Europeans
for doing their bit to reform Turkey. In endless negotiations with Turkey, the
European Union demanded a release of the Army’s iron grip on power. Without this
gentle prompting from Europe, Turkey would still be ruled by a Zionist general
or by a Zionist generals’ appointee. With their people freed from military rule,
the Turks ended their violent secularism and regained peace with Islam and with
their neighbours.
I visited Turkey last Christmas, and met
with the activists who were about to depart for Gaza. Turkey is doing well: no
economic crisis, steady growth, peace with the Kurds, a brave attempt to make
peace with Armenians, and a perfect balance of religion and freedom. Whoever
wishes to may go to a beautifully restored Ottoman mosque and pray, or to a café
and drink very good Turkish wine. Girls are forced neither to shed their scarves
nor to cover their arms.
“We lost Turkey”,
said
Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defence, and blamed the European Union for
refusing to accept Turkey. But we have to thank the Europeans for this refusal.
We do not want Turkey in the EU; we need Turkey for ourselves, for the region.
There is a great new plan for creating
an Eastern Union as a regional equivalent of the European Union. This is the
right place for Turkey, at the head of this new formation. In a way, it will be
restoration of the Ottoman Empire -- to the same extent that the European Union
is a restoration of Charlemagne’s empire. The difference is that Europe was
fragmented for centuries, while our region was united until 1917. Even if full
political union is a distant prospect, this is good start on the way to this
worthy goal.
There are already free-trade treaties
between Turkey and its Arab neighbours; the spiritual dimension is there, for
Istanbul was the last seat of the Caliphate and the see of Constantinople
Patriarchate. Now Turkey may establish a regional International Court to deal
with regional problems -- among others, with Zionist excesses. Europe is still
not free from Zionist control and that is why the International Court of Justice
and International Criminal Court in The Hague are unsuitable places to try
Zionist criminals. Moreover, their present location recalls the Eurocentric
world of yesterday. A regional court may also convincingly deal with war
criminals in occupied Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. Great lawyers
like Richard Falk and Judge Goldstone could be invited to sit in it.
The establishment of the International
Court (East) would be a serious and realistic step towards further
decolonization of the region and its future unification in an Eastern Union.
However, the Eastern Union will be as
different from the Ottoman Empire as the European Union differs from the Third
Reich, that previous attempt to unite Europe. It will be a voluntary union of
sovereign states, where they all will preserve their unique cultures and
traditions, a good neighbour to united Europe, to Russia, Iran and China.
Looking beyond the Middle East
The Union could peacefully spread well
beyond the Middle East as well, reuniting its natural territories from Gibraltar
to Danube. This natural territory was formed a long time ago, in the fourth
century, when the mighty Roman Empire was divided into the Western Empire with
its capital in Rome, and the Eastern Empire, or Byzantium, with its capital in
Constantinople, as Istanbul was then called. The Byzantine Empire became the
Ottoman Empire in 1456. Still, it is the same ‘great space’, the same united
large civilisation of Muslims and Eastern Christians. People of Turkey and
Greece, Serbia and Egypt have the same attitudes, they share their common
values, they are more religious than their Western brethren, they object to the
Western colonisation, American imperialism and Israeli Zionism.
The rising West could not vanquish the
united East; so in order to colonise its lands, the West has tempted the nations
with a futile dream of independence. This mirage of independence was but a trap:
the new “liberated independent” countries became subjects of Western rule. We
may compare that with a human body: if our arms and legs will become independent
of our mind, they won’t manage well. Indeed all members of the single body, the
Ottoman Empire, do not function well after the amputation, or independence,
forced upon them.
That was the case with the Arabs during
World War I. The Arab Revolt was brought forth by Lawrence of Arabia, a great
agent of British intelligence. The Arab lands became much more dependent than
they ever were, and now they are ruled by a plethora of sheiks, stooges and
dictators. The only democratic regime in the whole Arab world is unhappy,
besieged Gaza.
However, the Arabs were not the only
victims of these Western policies. The British intrigues had caused Greece’s
independence in early 19th century, and afterwards rivers of blood
and transfers had made this separation complete. But Greece is not at home in
the EU, just as Greece of old was not at home in the Empire ruled from Rome. The
recent financial crisis has proven it again: Greece’s roots and destiny are in
the East.
No sane person would suggest that Greece
should be incorporated in Turkey. Equally, none would suggest France be
incorporated in Germany. However, France joined Germany to form the EU, and
Greece may join Turkey to create the Eastern Union, eventually to embrace other
Muslim and Orthodox Balkan provinces of the Byzantines, namely Albania and
Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro, even Romania and Georgia. All these countries
may find the Eastern Union more suitable than the European one.
The Eastern Union may reach other
countries and former provinces that were torn away and colonised by the
Europeans in the 19th century. Algeria is a country that needs this
reconnection most of all, as this oil-rich land is run by a bunch of secular
anti-religious and pro-Western generals just like Turkey was until ten years
ago. Morocco with its outdated and unsuccessful monarchy that combines
systematic torture of dissidents with abject Zionism, maverick Libya and fragile
Tunis also need a broader framework which would not cancel out but instead
reinforce their sovereignty.
The Eastern Union could also establish
an area of joint interests with the Russians over the Caucasus. Russians have a
problem over there: separation of these Russian provinces is too dangerous as it
is likely to bring the hostile forces of NATO into Russia’s backyard. Keeping
them against the population’s will is an expensive and unpopular policy. A
Russian attempt to grant independence in all but name to Chechnya misfired as
the small country immediately turned its territory into a base of armed raids
into Russia proper. The Eastern Union could put paid to these insurgencies and
bring peace and stability to the turbulent Caucasus. In return, the Union may
recognise Russian interests in the Christian Orthodox sites.
Palestine will become a crown jewel of
the Eastern Union. Demise of colonialism will end Zionism as well, for after
all, Zionism would never win ground without European imperialist support. The
Christians, Jews and Muslims of Palestine will have equal rights and duties in
the Holy Land, forever free from political ambitions and ethnic rivalry.