web analytics
January 17, 2017 / 19 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘erdogen’

Has Netanyahu’s Apology Opened a Pandora’s Box for Israel?

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu recently called Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayipp Erdogan to apologize for the infamous Turkish flotilla incident that occurred back in May 2010. The reason that Mr. Netanyahu apologized?  His naval commandos, after repeated physical assaults, decided to defend themselves.  What began as Erdogan-instigated aggression against Israel’s legitimate naval blockade against Gaza led the rather conservative Netanyahu to issue an odious apology to Erdogan in a desperate attempt to mend the deluded “Turkish-Israeli alliance” that ceased to exist years ago. Yet the apology may have only opened up a Pandora’s Box for Israel, ominously endangering her security, and showing how Israel’s vigilance has declined over the decades.

In May of 2010, the Islamist IHH — with Turkey’s consent and aid — launched a flotilla to traverse Israeli waters in an attempt to aid the “oppressed Palestinians” living In Hamas-Occupied Gaza. Israel had instituted a blockade against Gaza in 2009 due to illegal weapons being smuggled into the territory.

When the  self-proclaimed “activists” (“aggressors” might be a better term) aboard the Mavi Marmara came close to Israel’s territorial waters, Israel warned them to turn back. After being ignored, Israeli naval commandos boarded the ship. They first used paintball guns to defend themselves from the  well-armed group.  Finally, when that met with violent resistance and attack, the Israelis responded as any normal military under physical assault would. They used live ammunition, and in the ensuing struggle, nine Turkish nationals were killed.

One can know just what the “activists” had in mind, by listening  to them sing the “Khaybar Song” (sometimes spelled “Khaibar”). In Arabic, this witty ditty rhymes like a charm. But when translated, it shows just what Jihadis have in store, not just for Israel in general, but for Jews in particular. In English, this song states: “Khaibar, Khaibar, Oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return!”  If one is not versed in the tragic history of how Muhammad exterminated the Jews of Arabia, read about Khaybar and the atrocities that the Muslim Arabs committed against the defenseless Jews.

After Israel’s defensive actions, Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan went on a veritable verbal tirade.  Erdogan warned that more flotillas would be accompanied by Turkish warships. Turkey recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and relations between what has become the neo-Ottoman Empire and Israel deteriorated to its lowest levels since Turkey first recognized Israel in 1949. Erdogan’s saber rattling made it appear that a Turko-Israeli war might break out imminently.

Thus it stood, until Barack Obama deigned to step on the soil of the Holy Land in March. According to sources, it was Obama — creator, author, and master of the “apology tour” to the Muslim world — who pressured Netanyahu to call Erdogan and apologize.  After the Israeli leader issued his mea culpa to Erdogan, the Turkish P.M. first said that he would restore   “full diplomatic relations” with Israel. But as a true Islamic fundamentalist, what he said was not what he meant. Soon, Erdogan stated that re-establishing full relations with Israel “would not take place” and that Israel would have to do more.  Erdogan demanded that compensation be given to the families of the “victims” of the Israelis. This is currently being worked on between Israel and Turkey.

The Turkish delight that Netanyahu presented on a golden platter to Erdogan only fueled Turkey’s sense of invincibility against the dhimmi Yahudi. Not only Erdogan, but Turkey’s press, were ecstatic over Israel’s apologiaBillboards appeared in Istanbul boasting of Israel’s supine behavior. Ironically, Turkey’s opposition secularist party, the CHP issued a statement voicing concern over Israel’s apology, even blaming Obama for it.

For realists, and not fantasists, Netanyahu’s Hebraic version of Obama’s “apology tour” is nothing short of a political and diplomatic disaster. Former Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called the apology in a Jerusalem Post article a “serious mistake.” And despite his tough talk over the years — and being lambasted internationally — this is not the first time that Benjamin Netanyahu has retreated from his nationalist views.

Quite disturbing is the timing of his non sequitur apology.  Only in late February did Erdogan call Zionism a “crime against humanity.” Erdogan even went further by defending  his sinister remarks less than a month later. Indeed, Erdogan could rightly be considered a Jew-hater based on previous remarks dating back to the 1990’s. For Israel, it should be axiomatic that a country with a modicum of pride would have told Erdogan a long time ago to take a dive in the Bosporus.

Perhaps the worst part of this affair is that Netanyahu’s apology can be viewed by her enemies as basically apologizing for Israel’s very existence, and undermining Israel’s military. Many Israeli commandos involved in the incident felt betrayed by Netanyahu’s apology. Bewildering is the fact  that Netanyahu  himself was a commando of Israel’s elite Sayeret Matkal, in which he took part in liberating Israeli hostages from PLO terrorists in the skyjacking of a Sabena plane back in 1972.

It is quite telling and sad that a warrior like Netanyahu can revert to dhimmi status before Erdogan, who has declared himself a “servant of Sharia.” Netanyahu’s apology is akin to a crime victim apologizing to the criminal for attacking him. Indeed, many Israelis believe that it is Erdogan who should be brought up on charges as a result of the Mavi Marmara incident.

Apologizing to Erdogan for the events of May 31, 2010 is as ridiculous as if Israel had apologized for a military operation that occurred on July 4, 1976. On that day, Israeli commandos landed in Idi Amin’s Uganda to free over 100 Israeli hostages taken by Arab and German terrorists. In the firefight, the terrorists and some Ugandan soldiers were killed. Several of the hostages were also killed in the crossfire. Israel lost its leading soldier in “Operation Thunderbolt.” His name was Jonathan Netanyahu, the brother of Benjamin Netanyahu. Can one imagine the uproar in Israel if then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had called and apologized to Amin, as well as offering “compensation” to the Ugandan soldiers killed? It would have been unthinkable. Yet, ironically, Benjamin Netanyahu has practically done this for Erdogan and his Islamist government.

In the near future, Netanyahu’s apology will in all likelihood usher in dire consequences for Israel. Already, Erdogan is planning to visit Gaza. Israel’s transnational Muslim enemies will see these incidents as more signs of weakness on the part of Israel and its will to survive. Israel, always under an international microscope, may very well have opened up a Pandora’s Box with Netanyahu’s apology. Indeed, if one apologizes for defending his right to live, is Israel’s very existence now imperiled more than ever before?

Originally published at the American Thinker.

Steven Simpson

What if They Mean What They Say?

Monday, March 11th, 2013

The U.S. generally makes allowance for verbal excesses from foreign governments, but if expressions of hatred and incitement to violence are actually harbingers of behavior, destruction and murderousness cannot be far behind.

At the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations [sic], Turkey’s Prime Minister equated Zionism with crimes against humanity. The American response was swift; speaking for himself and the administration, Kerry called the remark “objectionable.” But after expressing dismay, he called for nicer play.

“That said,” he commented, “Turkey and Israel are both vital allies. We want to see them work together to go beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to change their relationship.” A State Department official concurred, saying the comment was “particularly offensive” and “complicates our ability to do all the things we want to do together.”

But what if Ergodan doesn’t want what the U.S. wants him to want — that is to say, he doesn’t want a changed relationship with Israel? What if harsh rhetoric and open political and financial support for Hamas — a U.S. designated terrorist organization — are part of Turkey’s regional Sunni Islamic ambition, which does not include Israel? What if Turkey’s prior cooperation was a phase to allow it to acquire political and military benefits?

In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, a North Korean diplomat told the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, “As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea’s erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction.” He added, “If the U.S. takes a hostile approach toward North Korea to the last, rendering the situation complicated, [we] will be left with no option but to take the second and third stronger steps in succession.” A North Korean general warned of the “miserable destruction” of the United States.

The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament called the comments “profoundly disturbing,” and the Spanish ambassador said he was “stupefied.” Why?

Beginning with President Carter, American administrations have treated North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear capability as defensive: designed to keep South Korea and the U.S. from overthrowing the cultish regime of the North. The U.S. tells itself that since it harbors no plans for any such invasion, it can reassure North Korea on that point and thus lessen its determination to have nuclear capability – hence the U.S. offers food, fuel and a light water reactor, thinking those “gifts” will reassure North Korea of America’s benign intentions.

But what if North Korea is not defensive, but rather Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, believes that the unification of the peninsula should happen under governance of the North? How then should we understand the diplomat and the general? And how should we understand North Korea’s latest nuclear test?

The British ambassador said of the North Korean diplomat’s remarks, “It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of U.N. member states.” That is, of course, patently untrue. The U.N. tolerates and sometimes applauds Iranian representatives who have called not for the “possible” destruction of a U.N. member state, Israel, but for its outright annihilation.

“The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. “The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land… In the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists… Cancer must be eliminated from a body (the region).” For Qods Day last year Ahmadinejad told the Iranians, “Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world.”

The P5+1, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany who are negotiating with Iran, still seem to presume that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability for some reason other than to use it, and that it can, therefore, be dissuaded from developing it. But what if “annihilation of the Zionist regime” really is topmost in the minds of the Mullahs? What if they believe Israel has to disappear and they can make it happen? What will happen, then, when they get nuclear weapons, if they still really believe that?

Shoshana Bryen

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/what-if-they-mean-what-they-say/2013/03/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: