By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

On September 22, Reuters headlined the news, saying:

"UN Experts Condemn Israel Attack on Gaza Flotilla"

It explained that the UN Human Rights Council's (HRC) "panel of international experts" concluded what was obvious on day one - that Israel's international water attack "was unlawful and resulted in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law...."

A one paragraph AP report said the same thing. America's leading paper, The New York Times (always pro-Israeli), published the above two accounts, not its own, ducking its responsibility to do in detail.

In contrast, Israeli papers covered it prominently, including Haaretz headlining, "UN Human Rights Council: Israel flotilla raid broke international law," saying:

"The UN Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory was unlawful because of the humanitarian crisis there, and described the military raid on the flotilla as brutal and disproportionate."

Israel's response was unsurprising, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ygal Palmor saying:

"Israel is a democratic and law abiding country that carefully observes international law and, when need be, knows how to investigate itself."

True on the last point, but it never does nor will it. False on the others. As honest observers know, Israel is a lawless, undemocratic, pariah state believing in Jewish exclusivity above all other religions. As a result, its 1,548,000 Israeli Arabs (as of spring 2010) have no rights. In addition, the four million + in Gaza and the West Bank (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics mid-2010 figures) have been persecuted under military occupation for over 43 years, living in constant terror.

Balad Party MK Hanin Zuabi, on board the Mavi Marmara mother ship, praised the HRC's report, saying "the criminals who ordered and carried out the raid should be brought to justice." More on Israeli retribution against her below.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said "Now it's required to be a mechanism in order to translate this report into action and to bring occupation commanders to trial for the crimes they committed." Indeed so, but no measures whatever have been proposed or implemented.

Information on the Flotilla Massacre

Seven earlier articles covered it in detail, accessed through the following links:

http://sabbah.in/9cxHLf

http://sabbah.in/bvT5mH

http://sabbah.in/bvi0pz

http://sabbah.in/aRkIcm

http://sabbah.in/baxit7

http://sabbah.in/abTOsc

http://sabbah.in/aP3T66

The Human Rights Council (HRC) Report

On May 31, 2010, Israeli commandos attacked unarmed, nonviolent civilians attempting to deliver vitally needed humanitarian aid to 1.5 million Gazans, trapped under siege for three years at the time. At least nine were murdered in cold blood, over 50 wounded, some seriously. They and the others were arrested, detained, and treated harshly until let out of the country to go home.

Released on September 22, the HRC (called the Mission below) report detailed serious Israeli crimes of war and against humanity, based on 112 witness testimonies in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman as well as other information, including forensic evidence, video footage, and other photographic material. As a result, the HRC:

"concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

The Mission thanked the Turkish and Jordanian governments for cooperation. Also OCHA, UNRWA, UNSCO and others for their help. Israel refused, saying its position was "one of non-recognition of and non-cooperation with the Mission."

Under international law, Israel's blockade is illegal. It caused a grave humanitarian crisis affecting 1.5 million Gazans, mostly civilians. Aid is vitally needed. Attacking anyone trying to deliver it is a clear crime against humanity, especially in international waters.

A "vessel on the high seas (posing no threat) is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of its flag State."

Under the laws of armed conflict, "a blockade is illegal if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade."

In other words, no blockade is permitted it it inflicts disproportionate harm to civilians. Israel has done it grievously for over three years, suffocating 1.5 million Gazans illegally.

Among other international law provisions, Fourth Geneva's Article 33 states:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism, are prohibited."

The Mission called Israel's blockade disproportionate and illegal, and the attack on the Flotilla unjustified and criminal.

International law regarding occupying powers is clear and unequivocal, enumerating explicit responsibilities. Israel is a serial violator. Gazans are protected persons. So were Flotilla passengers. Israel was prohibited from intercepting and attacking them. Under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 6, paragraph 1:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

The Mission said "This right is non-derogable." The Flotilla interdiction was lawless "since there was no legal basis for the Israeli forces to conduct an assault and interception in international waters. Moreover," in doing so, Israel was "obligated" under international law and its own "international human rights obligations."

Under Article 2 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement:

"in the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons."

Article 3 states:

"Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty."

Israel, of course, used commandos, heavily armed trained killers, acting as law enforcers, instead of the Coast Guard or other protective forces. Clearly their mission was well-defined - to interdict, attack and murder designated targets, their names and photos provided in advance. Evidence uncovered proved it.

The Mission concluded that force used "was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers."

It determined that at least six of the dead were killed by "extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions," some shot multiple times in the head at close range. In addition, passengers detained weren't told why or informed of their rights, in violation ICCPR's Article 9, paragraph 2 stating:

"Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him."

It wasn't done, "and in some instances passenger requests for such information were met with verbal abuse or physical violence."

On board the vessels and in detention, Israel treated them cruelly and inhumanely in clear violation of international law. As a result, injuries resulted or were exacerbated. For all onboard, willful pain and suffering were inflicted. For some, it amounted to torture, an Israeli specialty.

From the moment of interdiction until release and departure, their entire experience was shocking, excessive, disproportionate, and criminal, in violation of numerous international and Israeli laws.

In addition, Israel made "a deliberate attempt....to suppress or destroy evidence" besides fabricating its version of events, including fake videos and other falsified materials.

Another offense also deserves mention. Haneen Zouabi, an Israeli MK was on board the Mavi Marmara. She wasn't detained, but was extensively and abusively interrogated. Because of her participation, the Knesset voted on June 7 to deny her three parliamentary privileges:

• to travel abroad;
• retain her diplomatic passport; and
• have her legal fees paid if losing her parliamentary immunity results in criminal prosecution.

In addition, during Knesset discussions of her participation, racist, sexist, and physically threatening remarks were made. Some MKs also wanted her criminally prosecuted and removed from the Knesset. Further, Israel's Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, accused her of treason and requested authorization from the Attorney General to revoke her citizenship. So far, no action has been taken, but Zouabi continues to receive death threats.

Final Comments

The Mission concluded that Israel caused "a humanitarian crisis (on) May 31, 2010," the day of the attack. "The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is far too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion." Israel's justification on "security grounds" is entirely baseless. Moreover, "prosecutions" are clearly warranted under Fourth Geneva's Article 147, covering:

• willful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment; and
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

Remedial action should be guaranteed all victims. Those responsible should be held criminally culpable. Their crimes shouldn't go unpunished. Those aboard are left with "deep psychological scars....The Mission is not alone in" condemning Israel for its actions, nor about Gaza's "deplorable (and lawless) situation."

So far, passengers have been denied justice, and culpable Israeli officials remain unaccountable, unpunished, and free to keep rampaging, what happens daily in Occupied Palestine while so-called "peace talks" continue, a charade by any standard.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Though this affair was domestic, it provided a jumping off point for Ha'aretz to go on and examine the larger international boycott of Israel which is indeed "gaining speed". It noted that Chile had recently pledged to boycott products from the Israeli settlements and Norway's state pension plan had divested itself of companies involved in construction in the occupied territories. The Ha'aretz article pointed out that these incidents (and there are others that can be named in such countries as Ireland and Venezuela) are signs that the boycott movement - so long the province civil society - is now finding resonance at the level of national governments. The Israeli paper declared that "the world is changing before our eyes. Five years ago the anti-Israel movement may have been marginal. Now it is growing into an economic problem."

The article puts forth two explanations for this turn of events one of which is problematic, and the other incomplete. Let's take a look at them.

1. "Until now boycott organizers had been on the far left. [Now] they have a new ally: Islamic organizations... The red side has a name for championing human rights, while the green side [the Islamic side] has money." I have some personal knowledge of the boycott movement and I find some of these particulars to be, at best, exaggerations. The term "far left" must be based on some arbitrary Zionist definition of the political spectrum. Worldwide community support for the growing boycott movement has gone beyond political alignments. Today, it is a reflection of real united front seeking the promotion of Palestinian human rights (in this Haaretz is on the mark). As for the "green side", there is certainly an understandable affinity here. Muslims too are concerned about the human rights of Palestinians (including the Christians ones). However, the claim of any significant flow of cash is, as far as I know, another exaggeration. The Ha'aretz piece cites the example of the aid flotilla to Gaza, with its link to Turkey. But this is just one case in a worldwide movement. And, there was nothing illegitimate (despite Israeli propaganda) about the involvement of Turkish charities. It might come as a surprise to the Israelis, but you can run a boycott movement without heavy outside funding - as was the case of the boycott against South Africa.

2. Ha'aretz continues: "but then came the occupation, which turned us into the evil Goliath, the cruel oppressor, a darkness on the nations". The article suggests that this is such a contrast with the righteous stand that helped convince the West to support the original formation of Israel that many have turned away from Israel in disappointment. "And now we are paying the price of presenting ourselves as righteous and causing disappointment: boycott." No doubt there is much disappointment. The horrors of Israeli expansionism and occupation are such that they draw worldwide attention. And rightly so. But, they are symptoms of some deeper cause. What might it be? The state of Israel was founded on an ideological programme called Zionism. That programme called for the establishment of a state designed to serve the exclusive interests of one religiously identified group. While the Zionists felt this aim was justified by the centuries of persecution suffered by European Jews, it actually carried within it the seeds of its own corruption. The simple truth is that you cannot successfully design a state for one group only unless you found it on some desert island. If you put it down in a place that is occupied by others who are not of your group, what is the most likely next step? You turn into racists, ethnic cleansers or worse. The Zionist adherence to their ideology and its programme is the cause of their turning into "cruel oppressors". The means dictated by their end made it so.

The Ha'aretz article does not go beyond these points, but there is plenty more to say. Those who wonder whether they should support the boycott should certainly consider the horrors of the Israeli occupation and its ghettoizing of the people of Gaza. They might also consider the following:

1. The non-Jewish population of Israel proper, that is Israel within the 1967 borders (the "Green Line") are subject to segregation and economic and social discrimination that is both de jure and de facto. Their overall standards of living are lower than the Israeli Jews, their educational facilities inferior and their economic prospects poorer. This is to be expected. If you are running your state based on a racist principle, by definition discrimination must infuse the home front. This fact does not appear to fit with the often heard claim that the Israelis are "just like us" Americans. However, in a rather anachronistic way they are "like us" - that is like the United States prior to our civil rights legislation. In other words, Israel is like, say, Georgia or Alabama circa the 1920s.

2. The second factor worthy of consideration is the negative international impact of Zionist ideology, for the harm of Zionism is not confined to either Israel or its occupied territories. The fact is that Zionist influence spreads far beyond Israel's area of dominion and now influences many of the policy-making institutions of Western governments, and particularly those of the United States. This influence is corruptive if only because it distorts both official and popular notions of national interests in the Middle East. When you have a powerful and single-minded lobby that is able to manipulate your government in such a fashion that it pours its national treasure into a racist state, arms it and protects it to the point of becoming an accomplice to its crimes, and by doing so wilfully alienates 22 per cent of the world's population, you know that your notion of national interest has been seriously mangled. This harmful influence makes it imperative that Israel's oppressive behaviour be singled out as a high priority case from among the many other oppressive regimes that may be candidates for boycott.

So no one in Israel, the US or anywhere else should be surprised that the boycott against Israel, in its many manifestations, is "gaining speed." If you are not yet a supporter you should become one. To join the boycott is good for the world's future in general. It is certainly good for the Palestinians, and yes, it is good for the Jews too.

For more information on how to join the boycott Israel campaign, visit the websites of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement website and the Boycott Israeli Goods campaign.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Armenian Genocide Map

By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The hypocrisy of the American legislators has never stopped to amaze me. On Thursday March 4^th The House Foreign Affairs Committee had approved, by 23 to 22 votes, a non-binding resolution to condemn WWI-era massacre of Armenians on the hands of the Ottoman troops that began in 1915 as an act of planned genocide.

Acknowledging, recognizing, and condemning genocides, ethnic cleansings, massacres, and even killing of one human is the duty of all countries of the world. Yet ignoring or recognizing genocide for political gains is a very shameful hypocrisy.

This was not the first time the Committee had voted on this issue, but the resolutions were blocked from moving to the House floor for full voting. The American administration feared adverse effects on the diplomatic relationship, especially the military cooperation, between the US and Turkey that might have devastating effects on the American interests in the region including its alleged war on terror, its occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the Iranian alleged nuclear threat.

First in 2000 the House Committee had approved a resolution to recognize the Armenian massacre as genocide. President Clinton, at the time, succeeded in persuading the Republican speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, to withdraw the measure before the full House could vote on it.  In October 2007, the Committee, again, passed a similar resolution by 27 to 21 votes. The American administration, then, was still relying heavily on Turkish military bases for quick delivery of supplies to its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, noted that about 70% of all air cargo sent to Iraq passed through or came from Turkey, as did 30% of fuel, and virtually all the new armored vehicles designed to withstand mines and bombs. Avoiding the use of the world genocide, President Bush danced around the subject saying: "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915, but this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

So what motivated members of Committee to pass the resolution for the third time although Representative Dan Burton reminded them that "We have troops in the field, and we run the risk of losing a base of operation in Turkey" ?

Turkey, as any observer can notice, had lately shifted its foreign policies. Although a Middle Eastern country Turkey longed to become a member of the EU, but unfortunately transferring your eastern roots to the west seemed to be a difficult matter. After so many years of applying for membership to EU, and adopting all the imposed harsh conditions to become a member besides serving NATO for 58 years, Turkey finally recognized that the EU will not accept Turkey especially after admitting many of the old Warsaw countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia among others) so easily.  It seems that Turkey, finally, contented to remain Middle Eastern and decided to re-establish its position in the region.

The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, focused on internal economic and social improvements. The public debt as percentage of annual gross domestic product declined from 74% in 2002 to 39% in 2009. Turkey has become the seventeenth strongest economical power in the world. In April 2006 the government announced a social security reform package including free medical services for everyone under the age of 18 regardless of whether they pay premiums to any social security organization or not. This is an improvement the US, the richest country in the whole world, has not yet implemented for its citizens.

Erdogan improved Turkish political relations with its old adversaries and its neighbors. Through an aggressive plan of allowing use of Kurdish language and reverting original Kurdish names to their cities Erdogan ended the quarter-century-long conflict with the Kurds. He also improved relationships with Greece, Armenia, and Iraq. Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish head of state to visit Armenia and first to visit Iraq in 33 years. Last August 31^st Turkey and Armenia signed a protocol in Zurich to improve relations between the two countries. In Iraq Turkey signed 48 trade agreements.

Erdogan had significantly improved Turkish diplomatic relations with Syria. Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, travelled to Turkey for the first official visit by a Syrian President in 57 years. In late 2004 Erdogan signed a free trade agreement with Syria, and in 2009 visa restrictions between the two countries have been lifted. Erdogan had also functioned, although for a brief period, as a mediator in indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria.

Asserting its position in the Middle East Turkey decided to play a more active role in the political affairs of the region. Erdogan has established a trilateral pact with Iran and Syria. He also expressed political support for Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance of Israeli occupation. He faced Israeli president, Shimon Perez, in Davos conference January 2009 and severely criticized Israel's December 2009 onslaught against Palestinian civilians in Gaza before walking out in protest over Perez's lies. This stand gained Erdogan huge popularity in the Arab and Moslem population.

Turkey had a change of heart, and decided to walk the path of freedom from Western influence. Turkey decided to become an independent and a major player in the Middle East in solidarity with its Arab neighbors. Turkey had committed the ultimate sin, in the eyes of the West and Israel, when it sided with Syria and Iran, and especially when it opposed and criticized Israel something many leaders, especially the Arabs, did not dare to do.

It was decided that Erdogan's government has to go before it becomes any stronger!!!

The Turkish "Zaman" newspaper reported on Jan. 3^rd 2009 that Israel plans to overthrow Erdogan's government because of his support for the Palestinian cause. It revealed that Israel provides support for opposition Turkish forces to topple the government. This was confirmed when the government arrested 49 military officers planning a coup. The newspaper confirmed that Israel helped in 1997 the Turkish neo-conservative to topple the then coalition government headed by Necmettin Erbakan. The Israeli war ministry leaked to the media in 2007 a report stressing the need to oust Erdogan's government through a similar plan.

Zionist conspiracies against Turkey started way back in June of 1896 when Sultan Abdel Hamid refused to sell Palestine to Zionist Herzl. Since then, and up to the present, Zionists schemed to embarrass and to weaken successive Turkish governments. This started with the Armenian genocide in 1915.

After WWI the Allied forces occupied large parts of the Ottoman Empire. Financing and arming Anatolia Armenian French Zionists incited the Armenians to revolt against the Empire to establish an independent Armenian state. The Armenians attacked The Turks, destroyed their cities and killed their women and children. Yet their revolt was brutally crushed by the "Young Turks Revolution", who also toppled Abdul Hamid's empire. It was revealed later that the "Young Turk Revolution" was actually a Jewish takeover (Jewish Young Turks) that was financed and armed by the Zionist Israelite Community of Salonika to topple the Ottoman Empire and to get rid of influential rich Armenians. This was revealed through letters to "The London Times" between June and August of 1911 under the title of "Jews and the situation in Albania". See also "The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians" by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.

Although the reports of Lieutenants Emory Noles and Arthur Sutherland, who were sent by the American administration to investigate the situation in Turkish Anatolia, reported massacres on both sides, only the Turkish massacres of Armenians were publicized.

Another chapter of the Zionist war against Turkey is being played. Israel tried to belittle Turkey when Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon publicly humiliated Turkey's ambassador in front of press cameras. The extremist Zionist Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman was sent to Greece, to Cypress and to Azerbaijan to inflame old hostilities against Turkey. A Turkish military coup attempt had failed and its planners, 49 military officers, were imprisoned.  Ignoring real historical events American Foreign Affair Committee, under the influence of AIPAC, passed its resolutions notably by very narrow margins, to condemn what was termed Armenian Genocide.

The question that begs itself here is what moral grounds this Committee has earned to pass such resolution? On what ethical basis do they condemn one genocide and not others? What about the genocide of 40 million American Indians to establish the US?  What about the nuclear genocide of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the killing fields of Vietnam and Korea, the aerial bombing of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the present genocides of millions of Moslems in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq?

Jews, and AIPAC in specific, should remember the genocide of 110 million Africans, victims of 113 years of slave industry, by Jewish slave traders, the genocide of 35 million Kulaks by Russian Jewish Cheka agents in 1932, the genocide of 100 million Christians including their priests between 1920-1940 by the Jewish Bolshevik Commisars under the leadership of Jewish Kaganovich, Stalin's brother-in-law, the Zionist expulsion and genocide of 16 million ethnic Germans from Silesia and the Volga at the end of WWII, and the still ongoing 62 years Zionist Israeli genocide of Palestinians.  More Zionist Jewish genocides can be found here.

The term Armenian Genocide refers to the total of 1.5 million Armenians killed in an alleged systematic campaign by the Ottoman Empire. Turkey acknowledges that hundreds of thousands of Armenians, as well as Turks and other nationalities, were killed during WWII, but denies that it was a planned genocide.

This is so much fuss about past historical events that could not be changed. Yet one hopes that we would learn from them to prevent any further future genocidal crimes. Today the whole world is faced with an ongoing four years old audacious, premeditated, deliberate, and systematic genocide of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Zionists and Israeli leaders meet annually in what they call Herzliya Conference to strategize more effective genocidal methods against Palestinians. Would these Hippocratic leaders do anything about this genocide?

* Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the "Nakba" of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the "Nakseh" of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

By Sami Moubayed* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

After the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in Ankara, many in the West referred to a new Turkish foreign policy called "neo-Ottomanism", suggesting a revival of the intellectual, political and social influence of the Ottoman Empire, which departed the scene 92 years ago.

That policy was attributed to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his advisor, now foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. Quickly, however, the term "Ottomanism" began to fade, given that it was difficult to market in countries formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire, due to continued indoctrination against Ottomanism by the Arabs over nince decades.

Some, however, continued to stand by the term, including Cuneyt Zapsu, an advisor to the Turkish prime minister, who said: "A new, positive role for Turkey in the world requires a reconciliation with its own past, the overcoming of societal taboos, and a positive new concept of Turkish identity. We are the Ottomans' successors and should not be ashamed of this."

Decision-makers in Turkey had once tried to hide their Ottoman past, ashamed of it during the heyday of Kemal Ataturk, because it looked backward and was too Islamic for the secular state that was being carefully erected in Turkey. That is now a thing of the past thanks to the steady policy of the AKP, which has been opening up to countries such as Syria and, more recently, Lebanon.

Many wrongly interpreted Erdogan's policy towards the Arab world, now entering its seventh year, as purely a Syrian-Turkish alliance. By nature of his new orientation, Erdogan is striving to restore Turkey to its rightful place amongst Arab and Muslim nations, and that by no means stops at the gates of Damascus. It is a policy that embraces Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

During the past few years, Turkey has sponsored indirect talks between Syria and Israel, tried to hammer out solutions between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine, and worked on mending broken fences between Damascus and Baghdad after relations soured last August.

Turkey has permanently stood as a mediator between Iran and the Arab world and has worked hard to help embrace non-state players like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, whose leadership it received in Ankara in 2004, despite public outcry from the United States.

Additionally, it has tried to flex its muscle within the complex world of Iraqi politics, calling on Sunni leaders to take part in the political process that was started after the 2003 downfall of Saddam Hussein. Big brother Turkey, after all, had mediated in similar waters at the turn of the 20th century, and apparently still knows the region, its people and their plight only too well, and still feels best suited to solve existing conflict within it.

Last month, Erdogan received Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri in a groundbreaking visit to Turkey, adding yet another link to the long chain of alliances that Erdogan is carefully creating for the Turkish republic.

Among other things, the two countries agreed to increase technical and scientific cooperation in military affairs and lift visa requirements between Lebanon and Turkey. At first glance, this will boost tourism and people-to-people contact between Beirut and Ankara.

According to official numbers, 50,794 Lebanese tourists went to Turkey in 2008 - an increase of 18,000 from 2007 and large when compared with the number, not more than a few hundred, of Turkish tourists who streamed into Beirut.

It will certainly affect bilateral trade, which stood at US$225 million in 2002 and now stands at $900 million. It also means that Turkey has now lifted visa requirements with six Arab countries, the others being Libya, Morocco, Tunis, Jordan and Syria.

Erdogan best explained it by saying that a "regional Schengen" system, similar to the agreement signed between European countries in Luxemburg in 1985, has now gone into effect in the region, removing systematic border control between these countries - making them closer to how they had been under the Ottoman Empire. When Iraq normalizes, he added, it, too, could join the regional "Schengen" system.

Clearly from all the optimism shown by Erdogan for the Hariri visit, cooperation between Turkey and Lebanon will not end there. The Turkish premier, after all, has visited Beirut twice, in 2007 and in 2008, and was the most senior foreign guest attending the inauguration of Lebanese President Michel Suleiman.

During the Israeli war of 2006, he firmly stood by the Lebanese, and in its immediate aftermath, sent 600 Turkish troops to take part in peacekeeping on the Lebanese-Israeli border by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Erdogan saw to it that $50 million worth of aid was given to reconstruct southern Lebanon, along with building 41 schools, five parks and a rehabilitation center worth $20 million.

Politically, Lebanon and Turkey are now colleagues in rotating positions at the UN Security Council, and this is where real political cooperation will materialize in the months to come. Turkey's heavyweight influence will come in handy as Lebanon tries to waiver Security Council resolution 1559, which called on the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon and stipulates the disarmament of non-state players, including Hezbollah.

In as much as the Hariri team once called for implementing 1559 in 2005-2009, they would now prefer that it disappears, given that, far from being an adversary, Hezbollah is now a Hariri ally, strongly represented in both parliament and the Hariri cabinet.

The Lebanese government recently claimed that the resolution should be canceled, saying that all of its clauses had been fulfilled, noting that Hezbollah was a part of the Lebanese state and defense system and not merely a non-state player or a militia, as many in the West claim it to be.

That argument, which saves both Hezbollah and Hariri the burden of having to deal with 1559, was put forth last December by Hariri's new Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami, an appointee of the Hezbollah-led team in the Hariri cabinet.

When speaking at a press conference with Erdogan, Hariri noted that not a single day passed where the Israeli Defense Forces did not infringe on Lebanese waters or airspace, claiming that this was a legal breach of UN resolution 1701, which was passed after the war of 2006.

Erdogan nodded, saying that Israel had breached "no less than 100" resolutions in recent years, adding: "This requires serious reforms at the United Nations. We do not support Israel's position and will not remain silent."

Having Turkey on Lebanon's side will be a great boost for Hezbollah, which is preparing for a possible new round of confrontation with Israel in summer this year. From Ankara, Hariri came to Hezbollah's defense, telling reporters, "Terrorism is not when one defends one's land - the opposite is correct," thus supporting Hezbollah's war against Israel until the Sheba Farms are liberated from Israeli occupation.

This fits in nicely with the barrage of criticism that Erdogan has been firing against Israel for the past year, started in January 2009 when, speaking at Davos right after the Gaza war, he told Israeli President Shimon Peres: "President Peres, you are old, and your voice is loud out of a guilty conscience. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches."

Best mirroring Erdogan's new policy is that, despite the new and firm relationship with the Arabs, he has not wasted his country's historical relationship with Israel. Although critical, his embassy remains open in Tel Aviv, and he is preparing to receive Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Ankara in late January.

Only by being able to talk to all parties will the Turks achieve the security and normalcy they aspire to in the Middle East. While Israel is not pleased with Erdogan's new policy, claiming that he has clearly taken sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arabs are thrilled that the Turkish giant has emerged and, unlike the case since 1918, is now clearly on their side in the battlefront.

He has reminded the Arabs that despite a very rough period in bilateral relations during World War I, the Ottoman legacy in the Arab world was not all bad, and not all autocratic. Why? Because by defending Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, Erdogan feels that he is also defending Turkey, seeing all four countries as one, given their geographic, historical, social, religious and cultural proximity.

Many of the finest buildings in Damascus and Beirut, after all, were constructed during the Ottoman era. So were many of the codes, laws of commerce and aspects of civil administration, which lasted well into the 20th century. The Ottoman influence on Arab language, heritage, music, heritage and cuisine, cannot be ignored, despite years of trying to write off anything Ottoman as being destructive to Arab culture.

Although the Ottomans struck with an iron fist at the Arabs working with Great Britain against them during the Great War, they also - very symbolically - refused to sell land in Ottoman Palestine to the Zionists during the reign of Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II. He even refused to meet the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow when, in 1901, he offered to pay off the empire's debts and build it a navy in exchange for the right to build colonies and buy Arab land in Palestine. Abdul Hamid told one of his aides, "Tell those impolite Jews that I am not going to carry the historical shame for selling holy land to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people."

It is that part of Ottoman history that Erdogan wants the Arabs to remember, not the hangman's noose that was erected by the Ottoman governor of Syria, Jamal Pasha, in the central squares in Beirut and Damascus in 1915-1916.

When the republics were young in Lebanon, Turkey and Syria, Turkish and Arab nationalism stood in the way of a clear appreciation of history, leading to nothing but bad blood between Arabs and Turks. That era is now hopefully gone - never to return - thanks to the efforts of Erdogan, referred to, very symbolically, by Hariri as "Big Brother" during his Ankara visit.

* Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria. This article appeared in Asia Times on January 13, 2010 entitled, 'Turkey embraces role as Arab 'big brother.'

By Ramzy Baroud* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Uri Avnery's assessment of the recent Israeli-Turkish diplomatic and political row – that "the relationship between Turkey and Israel will probably return to normal, if not to its former degree of warmth" – seems sensible and daring. In my view, however, it is also inaccurate.

Simply put, there is just no going back.

In a recent article entitled "Israel Must Get Used to the New Turkey," Suat Kiniklioğlu, Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote, "Israel appears to be yearning for the golden 1990s, which were the product of a very specific situation in the region. Those days are over and are unlikely to come back even if the Justice and Development Party (AKP) ends up no longer being in government."

This assessment seems more consistent with reality.

One would agree with Avnery's optimistic reading of events if the recent row was caused by just a couple of isolated incidents; for example, the gutsy public exchange over Gaza between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Israel's President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in late January 2009, or the recent premeditated humiliation of Oguz Celikkol, Turkish Ambassador to Israel, by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

However, these incidents are anything but isolated. They reflect a clear and probably irreversible shift in Turkish foreign policy towards Israel, the US and the Middle East as a whole.

For decades Turkey was torn between its historical ties to Muslim and Arab countries on the one hand, and the unstoppable drive towards Westernization on the other. The latter seemed much more influential in forming the new Turkish identity in its individual, collective, and thus foreign policy manifestation and outlook.

But even during the push and pull, Turkey grew in import as a political and economic player. It also grew into a nation with a decisive sense of sovereignty, a growing sense of pride and a daring capacity for asserting itself as a regional power.

In the 1970s, when 'political Islam' was on the rise throughout the region, Turkey was experiencing its own rethink, and various politicians and groups began grappling with the idea of taking political Islam to a whole new level.

In fact, it was Dr. Necmettin Erbakan, the Prime Minister of Turkey between 1996 and 1997 who began pushing against the conventional notion of Turkey as a second-class NATO member desperate to identify with everything Western.

In the late 1980s Erbakan's Rafah Party (the Welfare Party) took Turkey by storm. The party was hardly apologetic about its Islamic roots and attitude. Its rise to power as a result of the 1995 general elections raised alarm, as the securely 'pro-Western' Turkey was deviating from the very the rigid script that wrote off the country's regional role as that of a "lackey of NATO." According to Salama A Salama, who coined the phrase in a recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly, Turkey is no longer this 'lackey'. And according to Kiniklioğlu, that's something "Israel must get used to".

The days of Erbakan might be long gone. But the man's legacy registered something that never departed Turkish national consciousness. He pushed the boundary, dared to champion pro-Palestinian policies, defied Western dictates and even pressed for economic repositioning of his country with the creation of the Developing Eight (D-8), uniting the most politically significant Arab and Muslim countries. When Erbakan was forced to step down in a 'postmodernist' military coup, it was understood as the end of short-lived political experiment which ended up proving that even a benign form of political Islam was not to be tolerated in Turkey. The army emerged, once again, all powerful.

But things have changed drastically since then. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) was elected to power in 2002. The AK Party leadership was composed of savvy, yet principled politicians who aimed for change and even a geopolitical shift in their country's regional political outlook.

The AK Party began to lead a self-assertive Turkey which was neither pleading for European acceptance nor American validation. By rejecting the use of Turkish territories as a launchpad of a US strike against Iraq in 2003, Turkey was acquiring a voice, and a strong one at that – with wide democratic representation and growing popular support.

The trend continued, and in recent years Turkey dared translate its political power and prowess into action, without immediately severing the political and military balances that took years to build. So, for example, while it continued to honor past military deals with Israel, it also made many successful overtures to Syria and Iran. And, in being willing to be seen as a unifier in the age of Muslim and Arab disunity, it refused to take part in the conveniently set up camps of 'moderates' and 'extremists'. Instead it maintained good ties with all its neighbors, and its Arab allies.

Starting in 2007, the US began seeing the emergence of the "New Turkey". US President Barack Obama's visit to the country soon after his inauguration was one of many signs that the West was taking notice of Turkey's 'special' status. Turkey is not to be bullied, threatened, or intimidated. Even Israel, which has for long defied the norms of diplomacy, is now becoming more aware of its limits, thanks to Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Following Israel's belligerent insult of the Turkish Ambassador, he said, "Unless there is a formal apology from Israel, we're going to put Celikkol on the first plane back to Ankara." Israel, of course, apologized, and humbly so.

It took Turkey many years to reach this level of confidence and the country is hardly eager to be anyone's 'lackey' now. More, Turkey's united and constant stance in support of Gaza, and its outspokenness against the threats against Lebanon, Iran and Syria show clearly that the old days of "warmth" are well behind us.

Turkey, of course, will find a very receptive audience among Arabs and Muslims all over the world who are desperate for a powerful and sensible leadership to defend and champion their causes. Needless to say, for the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, Erdogan is becoming a household name, a folk hero, a new Nasser in fact. The same sentiment is shared throughout the region.

* Ramzy Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. He is author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle and his latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.

November 01, 2009, American Conservative.

By Sibel Edmonds* and Philip Giraldi** | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general's report called Edmonds's allegations "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, "If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it."

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let's start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as "Susurluk" by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while "most wanted" by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He's rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for "Turkish interests"-both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual's phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money...

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It's also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as "agents of influence."

EDMONDS: Yes, that's correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, "We've got this and this, let's sit down and talk." And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI-Pakistani intelligence-has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman's assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn't start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target's intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD's and DVD's. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it's a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, "We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names."

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger's group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker's group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client's conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You've previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn't confined to the State Department and the Pentagon-it infected Congress as well. You've named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn't have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky's mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky's townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don't know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information-in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11...

EDMONDS: I don't know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli's group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word "al-Qaeda." It was always "mujahideen," always "bin Laden" and, in fact, not "bin Laden" but "bin Ladens" plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama's presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of "change" being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama's record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA's wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It's an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing-in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama's change: his administration seems to think it doesn't even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama's choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity's operation centered on Chicago.

* Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

** Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative's Deep Background columnist.

Source: The American Conservative

WARNING: Blood and Violence

Spread the video! Embed code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/3y%2BBp_8VAA%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="500" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

Israel's increasingly troubled relations with its main ally in the Muslim world took a turn two days ago when it formally protested to Turkey over the "incitement" generated by a television series featuring fictional scenes of barbaric acts by Israeli soldiers.

The airing of the series, on Turkish state television, coincides with tensions triggered by a decision last week by Ankara to exclude Israel - which it has severely criticised over last winter's war in Gaza - from a planned Nato air exercise.

The acting Turkish ambassador, Ceylan Ozen, was summoned yesterday to the Israeli foreign ministry in protest at the drama series Ayrilik which shows soldiers brutalising Palestinians. In one abbreviated sequence shown on YouTube, a soldier is seen gratuitously shooting a girl at close range, killing her. In another, Palestinians are apparently about to be executed by a firing squad. (Source: Donald Macintyre, The Independent)

The question is: Will our Arabic TV channels pick this Turkish TV Drama that focus on Palestine and the Israeli occupation like they did with other dramas' like Noor [Complete TV Series (Arabic DVD)] or Mirna and Khalil, etc...

I doubt it, but let's watch and see!

Israel says the Turkish show portrayed men dressed as Israeli soldiers killing children

The move is the latest twist in worsening relations between the two countries which have traditionally had close defence ties.

An Israeli foreign ministry statement quoted Lieberman as saying that the programme, screened by Turkish state television, constituted incitement against Israel "at the most grave level".

Israeli television screened a clip on Wednesday that it said was from the series, showing an actor dressed as an Israeli soldier taking aim at a smiling young girl and shooting her in the chest from point-blank range.

'Deteriorating relations'

Israeli army radio said the show, about the tribulations of a Palestinian family, was aired on Tuesday on Turkey's TRT One channel and also depicted troops killing a Palestinian newborn baby delivered after its mother went into labour at an Israeli roadblock.

"A series like this, which has not the slightest connection with reality, which presents Israeli soldiers as the murderers of innocent children, would not be appropriate for broadcast even in an enemy country and certainly not in a state which maintains diplomatic relations with Israel," Lieberman said in the statement.

Turkey's ties with Israel have continued to deteriorate since Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter, which left hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead.

Last week, Turkey banned Israel from an international air exercise in protest against its actions in Gaza.

Public opinion

Speaking on Thursday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, defended the decision and said he had to take account of public opinion on Israel.

"Anyone who exercises political power has to take account of public opinion ... I can't just put the calls from the public to one side, it's a question of sincerity," Erdogan said.

The prime minister said Turkey had proposed that the joint exercise, which was also meant to involve the United States' air force, be either postponed or held without Israel but would not bow to interference when making decisions.

He said: "I want people to know that Turkey is a powerful country which takes its own decisions. We don't take orders from anyone."

Israeli officials have expressed concern over Ankara's decision to cancel the aerial manoeuvres which were to have taken place from October 12-23 in central Turkey.

The international section of the Anatolian Eagle air exercises has been carried out annually since 2001.

The US called the Turkish decision "inappropriate".

'Strategic relationship'

Turkey has been Israel's chief regional ally since the two signed a military co-operation deal in 1996, but its criticism of Israel has mounted since Erdogan's Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002.

Speaking on Wednesday, Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, downplayed the increase in tensions with Turkey despite Ankara's decision to call off the joint military exercise.

He said: "I think that basically there are ups and downs for all different reasons in relations.

"But our relationship with Turkey is long-standing, important and strategic in nature."

Source: Aljazeera

Recep Tayyip Erdogan - Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey

By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine

The recent Turkish decision to exclude Israel from an aerial military exercise over Turkish territory is another indication that Turkey will not allow itself to be blackmailed by criminal international Zionism.

Following the decision, Zionist officials and media sought to mitigate its impact on the increasingly troubled relations with Turkey by claiming that it had little to do with the genocidal blitz which the Israeli army carried out in winter against the Gaza Strip.

However, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, and other Turkish officials have made it amply clear that the cancellation of the military drill is consistent with the feelings of the vast bulk of the Turkish masses vis-à-vis the Nazi-like atrocities in the Gaza Strip.

This week, Erdogan once again invoked the mass killings by the Israeli army of hundreds of Palestinian children, using white phosphorus shells and other weapons of death.

The Turkish premier argued convincingly that Turkey has an influential public opinion and that it was the government's duty to take it into consideration.

His remarks have effectively silenced Zionist pretensions and attempts at self-assurance that Turkey would budge to Zionist pressure.

To be sure, Israel is unlikely to succumb to the new reality of Turkish-Israeli relations, namely that the quasi-Islamic leadership of Turkish republic will not just play deaf and dumb and look the other way if the Zionist regime keeps up its genocidal crimes against the helpless and innocent civilians in occupied Palestine.

Zionist circles, incensed by their inability to intimidate or bully the Turkish leadership, are likely to be devising ways and means of retributions against Turkey.

These might include instigating the Jewish-controlled American congress to declare the anti-Armenian campaign of 1915 a "genocide" or even a "holocaust." More importantly, Israel and its Zionist circles are likely to step up efforts to incite the traditionally secular Turkish military establishment to topple the democratically-elected government.

Israel has had a reputation of inciting the Turkish military against civilian governments that dared deviate from the Zionist line.

A classical example was the Zionist-envisaged coup against the first Islamic Prime Minister of modern Turkey, Necmittin Erbakan in 1997.

Moreover, Israel could still manipulate a vast network of Freemason agents to destabilize the Turkish government.

Zionism played a pivotal role in effecting the downfall of the Ottoman state after Sultan Abdul Hamid II adamantly refused repeated Jewish solicitations for a national Jewish home in Palestine.

Nevertheless, Israel would have to be extremely cautious about any provocative interference in internal Turkish affairs since this could boomerang badly on Israel and cause irreparable damage to Israeli-Turkish relations.

Also, the increasingly stable relations between the Turkish government and the military establishment are likely to make any Zionist-inspired conspiracies against the stability of Turkey more difficult than ever before.

The exclusion of Israel from the Anatolian Eagle exercise seems to be a popular measure for most Turks who are disquieted by recurrent efforts by government-backed Jewish extremists to arrogate a foothold at the Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sanctuaries.

In addition, the decision is manifestly morally right. After all, which country, let alone an Islamic country, would host warplanes that only a few months ago were raining death on helpless and unprotected children throughout the Gaza Strip, killing, maiming and incinerating thousands of innocent people, and utterly destroying thousands of homes, mosques and other civilian buildings?

The Zionists will always try to defend or cover up their evil crimes, now exposed by the Goldstone report, with obscene lies.

They would claim, as the former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni did this week, that the virtual genocide in Gaza was not an anti-Palestinian act but rather an "anti-terrorist act."

But such claims are nothing short of a fornication with language.

After all, it is well-established that the vast majority of the victims of the Gaza blitz were innocent civilians. This fact is readily recognized by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and even Israel's own B'tselem group which monitors Israeli army crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.

So could it be that the entire world is wrong about what happened in Gaza while the Judeo-Nazi thugs in Tel Aviv are right?

The Turkish leadership should therefore be applauded for its moral commitment toward the helpless Palestinians, many of whom have Turkish ancestry, who are languishing under an unmitigated Nazi-like military occupation.

This Turkish approach to Israel, an entity whose very existence constitutes a gigantic war crime, or a crime against humanity, is the least any Muslim country can do to prevent a possible genocide against the Palestinians.

This is why, other Muslim (and non-Muslim) countries with diplomatic ties with the Israeli regime ought to learn a moral lesson from Turkey and stop having "business as usual" with the Nazis of our time.

I am saying this because it is a Nazi act par excellence to employ the most advanced technology of death to exterminate innocent civilians who are even denied access to food and fuel as well as some of the basic amenities of life, on the ground that a few Israeli settlers were killed and injured by primitive projectiles fired by desperate Palestinian resistance fighters who found themselves very much in a situation resembling that which faced the anti-Nazi resistance fighters in Europe during the Second World War.

I am sure that conscientious people around the world, including many Jews, know in the depth of their hearts that what Israel did in Gaza ten months ago, and what it has been doing to the Palestinians for decades, belongs to the same moral category under which Nazi atrocities are listed.

This is why it is a moral obligation of the highest order upon all people of conscience and honesty, irrespective of religion and race, to condemn, expose and isolate this nefarious regime that is trying to consolidate the law of the jungle in place of international law.

Failing to do so, God forbid, means that the law of the jungle will prevail.

* Khalid Amayreh is a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura.

Turkey's prime minister has stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos after a heated debate on Gaza with Israel's terrorist president.

Mr Tayyip Erdogan clashed with terrorist Shimon Peres, whose voice had risen as he made an "impassioned" defence of Israel's war crimes, jabbing his finger.

Mr Erdogan said Shimon Peres had spoken so loudly to conceal his "guilt".

He accused the moderator of not allowing him to speak and said he did not think he would return to Davos.

The Turkish PM stressed later that he had left the debate not because of his disagreements with Peres but because he had been given much less time to speak than the Israeli leader.

In the debate, Mr Erdogan was cut off as he attempted to reply to Peres.

When the audience applauded Peres, Mr Erdogan said: "I find it very sad that people applaud what you said. You killed people. And I think that it is very wrong."

The moderator, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, had given him a minute to reply, then asked him to finish, saying that people needed to go to dinner.

"I do not think I will be coming back to Davos after this because you do not let me speak," Mr Erdogan shouted before marching off the stage in front of Peres, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mossa and an elite audience of ministers and international officials.

On his return from Davos, Turkish PM has received a hero's welcome in Istanbul and gave press conference.

Here are the selected highlights of the press conference:

- We started the session. I wrote down the minutes of the speech duration. Ban Ki-Moon was the person who used this time. Mr. Amr Moussa was warned by the moderator in his 12th or 13th minute and ended his speech at the 15th minute. My speech lasted 15 minutes.

- When it came to Mr. Peres. He spoke for 23 minutes without taking any notice or warning. During his speech he used a very surprising rhetoric and used insulting terms.

- His manner was unacceptable.

- I don't speak the same language with the retired diplomats. I come from politics not diplomacy. I have to protect the dignity of my people.

- I told them that I don't raise my voice but I have to answer some criticism.

- Whoever stands there, my people would have expected the same attitude. And when we asked the floor from the moderator to respond these words, he denied it.

- The issue is not personal. It is about my country's reputation and dignity. I cannot allow anybody to harm my country's dignity and honor.

QUESTION: What will be the possible impacts of this incident on Turkish-Israeli relations?

ANSWER: When we get on the plane, I was informed that Mr. Peres called. I decided to hear it and we recorded it. During the speech, he said that he respects us and he is very sorry for this incident. Peres said they told me that they couldn't hear me that's way he raised my voice. We gave him the necessary responses and I will give the further details tomorrow. We do not make decisions or act in anger. Our criticism is not towards the Israeli people or Jews but towards the Israeli administration. The Israeli government misleads our criticism. I would like underline that the sole target of our criticism is the Israeli government.

QUESTION: Will you go to future Davos meetings?

ANSWER: No, I don't think so for now.