If it is remembered, we have underlined "Israel's Iron Dome Missile Shield" in January 2010.
deniz tansi international, "Israel's iron dome missile shield", January 7, 2010.
http://dtansi-international.blogspot.com/2010/01/israels-iron-dome-missile-shield.html
Israeli media emphasized that, "Iron dome tested succesfully".
Associated Press, "Iron dome passes final tests", Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181936
And according to the sources, it will be active in November 2010.
What does it mean? As it is known, there are some expectations for further wars around Israel.
One of them is related Lebanon's Hizballah. And it is called as "III. Lebanon War". Or any scenarios are considered about Gaza which is stated as III. Intifada.
Israel is preparing a missile shield against Iran's proxy forces. Hamas-Hizballah line is so motivated for "wiping Israel off the map". It can be seen a provocative story.
However, Iran's possible "nuclear power" targets to change regions' balances fundamentally.
Hamas-Hizballah activities are part of these efforts.
Israeli defense ministry explained that, first Iron dome batteries would be deployed in November.
Iron Dome is unique for her kind.
Katyushas and Al Quassam's will be useless?
It can be an another question for the Middle Eastern clashes...
19 Temmuz 2010 Pazartesi
29 Haziran 2010 Salı
OBAMA PLAYS A GAMBLE ON TURKISH-ISRAELI RELATIONS
Obama administration plays some gambles in the Middle East. After Obama's presidency, new government planned a new version of "Arab peace plan". And Jordan's king Abdullah was promoted by new US president. Revised plan could not have concluded. Especially, Netenyahu's government disturbed Obama's policies why new Israeli cabinet included radical parties. For instance Lieberman became new foreign minister of Israel.
Israeli cabinet rejected many offers from Obama. Even Netenyahu's administration planned new settlements and did not approach to new peace plans.
Obama did not prefer to clash with Israel directly. So pro islamic AKP government seemed very attractive for "Democratic government"s policies. Erdogan started with "one minutes" event for anti Israeli discourse.
In 2009 there were many crisis between Turkey and Israel.
(drill crisis, serie crisis, in 2010 lower sofa crisis and so on..)
And at last Turkey and Israel clashed in the Eastern Mediterranean on date of May 31, 2010.
According to Obama's mind, an NATO ally's attempt to break Israel's Gaza blockade could be effective.
However these approaches only legitimized political Islam in Turkey and in the region.
Recently Erdogan and Obama met in Canada.
After the meeting, Erdogan declared to Charlie Rose from PBS TV, "Turkey still friend to Israel".. However, he challenged to Israeli government and told that, "Netenyahu government is the biggest barrier to peace". He added that, there must be an opportunity to Hamas why it won the elections.
ynet, "Erdogan: Turkey still friend to Israel", June 29, 2010. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3912596,00.html
Obama's trend facilitated AKP's pro islamic utopias. Erdogan projected Turkish FM Prof.Davutoglu's "problem solver" and "founding order" policies.
"Changing Israeli government" and "to become Hamas as full Palestine's government" is the new mission of AKP.
Erdogan's approach welcomes a new adventure....
There are new missions to AKP government from Obama administration. But Obama's style is very problematic. Turkish-Israeli relations reached a very risky point and Obama administration's policies built it. Obama plays a gamble. He uses pro islamic AKP to press Israeli government. And new environment encourages Erdogan to challenge in the Middle East. That's why I underline the adventure.
Obama's gamble could damage pro western axis in the Middle East and Iran's approach would gain from US appeasement policies.
Israel's cabinet can be critiziced or US policies can try to compress her strategic ally. But using AKP government for changing Israeli government is a gamble. Cabinets can change but Turkish-Israeli relations' long term vision is effected from Obama's gamble.
Israeli cabinet rejected many offers from Obama. Even Netenyahu's administration planned new settlements and did not approach to new peace plans.
Obama did not prefer to clash with Israel directly. So pro islamic AKP government seemed very attractive for "Democratic government"s policies. Erdogan started with "one minutes" event for anti Israeli discourse.
In 2009 there were many crisis between Turkey and Israel.
(drill crisis, serie crisis, in 2010 lower sofa crisis and so on..)
And at last Turkey and Israel clashed in the Eastern Mediterranean on date of May 31, 2010.
According to Obama's mind, an NATO ally's attempt to break Israel's Gaza blockade could be effective.
However these approaches only legitimized political Islam in Turkey and in the region.
Recently Erdogan and Obama met in Canada.
After the meeting, Erdogan declared to Charlie Rose from PBS TV, "Turkey still friend to Israel".. However, he challenged to Israeli government and told that, "Netenyahu government is the biggest barrier to peace". He added that, there must be an opportunity to Hamas why it won the elections.
ynet, "Erdogan: Turkey still friend to Israel", June 29, 2010. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3912596,00.html
Obama's trend facilitated AKP's pro islamic utopias. Erdogan projected Turkish FM Prof.Davutoglu's "problem solver" and "founding order" policies.
"Changing Israeli government" and "to become Hamas as full Palestine's government" is the new mission of AKP.
Erdogan's approach welcomes a new adventure....
There are new missions to AKP government from Obama administration. But Obama's style is very problematic. Turkish-Israeli relations reached a very risky point and Obama administration's policies built it. Obama plays a gamble. He uses pro islamic AKP to press Israeli government. And new environment encourages Erdogan to challenge in the Middle East. That's why I underline the adventure.
Obama's gamble could damage pro western axis in the Middle East and Iran's approach would gain from US appeasement policies.
Israel's cabinet can be critiziced or US policies can try to compress her strategic ally. But using AKP government for changing Israeli government is a gamble. Cabinets can change but Turkish-Israeli relations' long term vision is effected from Obama's gamble.
9 Haziran 2010 Çarşamba
TURKEY'S VOTE IN UN SECURITY COUNCIL...
Turkey voted against sanctions on Iran's "uranium enrichemt program". The behaviour is the indicator of Turkish cabinet's approach to Iran. As it is remembered, Turkey and Brazil cooperate with Iran to prevent probabl sanctions from UN. The three countries prepared a "trilateral declaration" and "swap of uranium deal" in May 17.
Turkey's vote was expected why Turkey kept her position with Brazil about uranium swapping and declaration.
Recently, Turkey lived a crisis with Israel and her 9 citizens were killed in "Gaza flotilla". Israel is criticized harshly however, sending flotilla to Gaza is considered. Iran supported AKP's discourse.
Turkish-Iranian relations is very problematic for Western countries. AKP's efforts for breaking pressures on Iran failed.
For Turkey, has a sympathy to Hamas in Palestine and has a sympathy to Hizballah in Lebanon, have also contradictions with Arab regimes.
The all policies from AKP show to support Iran and Iran's periphery.
China and Russia urge countries to obey sanctions against Iran.
AKP's foreign policy reach to a dead end. Pro Iranian approach has no provision for Turkey's foreign policy.
AKP's behaviour is not only against US policies but also Russia and China. It means a conflict with "international order".
Can it be commented as a second "March 1" crisis? It can be harder why obeying sanctions would be absolutely expected from Turkey.
Turkey's vote was expected why Turkey kept her position with Brazil about uranium swapping and declaration.
Recently, Turkey lived a crisis with Israel and her 9 citizens were killed in "Gaza flotilla". Israel is criticized harshly however, sending flotilla to Gaza is considered. Iran supported AKP's discourse.
Turkish-Iranian relations is very problematic for Western countries. AKP's efforts for breaking pressures on Iran failed.
For Turkey, has a sympathy to Hamas in Palestine and has a sympathy to Hizballah in Lebanon, have also contradictions with Arab regimes.
The all policies from AKP show to support Iran and Iran's periphery.
China and Russia urge countries to obey sanctions against Iran.
AKP's foreign policy reach to a dead end. Pro Iranian approach has no provision for Turkey's foreign policy.
AKP's behaviour is not only against US policies but also Russia and China. It means a conflict with "international order".
Can it be commented as a second "March 1" crisis? It can be harder why obeying sanctions would be absolutely expected from Turkey.
6 Haziran 2010 Pazar
ERDOGAN'S STRATEGY TOWARDS A MIDDLE EASTERN ANXIETY...
Turkish PM Erdogan's Konya speech was very significant.(June 4, 2010) He has declared that, "Hamas is not a terror organization". This declaration was a challenge to Western axis especially US. In the same day, Fethullah Gülen (Turkish cleric and called as Turkish imam) who has a worlwide social network and also has a hegemony on Turkish politics and bureaucracy, urged AKP government indirectly. He has reminded that, before Gaza flotilla's moving fom Turkish coasts, there must have been a permission from Israeli authorities. Gülen told, IHH's show can be commented as political targets. Fethullah Gülen's explanations indicated that, these aids can be realized with Israeli cooperation and could be silent.
Hizballah held a meeting in Beirut and supported Erdogan government. Hasan Nasrallah who is General secretary of Hizballah criticized Arab leaders and praised Erdogan. Erdogan was praised by Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus too.
Erdogan cabinet's tendency to Iranian nuclear studies is known. AKP's targets reach to Hizballah and Hamas which are proxy forces of Iran in the Middle East. However Erdogan's approach clash with Arab leaders. AKP makes its political investments to Hamas. But what about Fatah?
Hamas blames Egypt and lauds Erdogan's administration.
Washington Post reminds that, Turkey is NATO member and US ally. In the article, AKP-IHH relation is questioned and IHH-Hamas ties are considered.
Washington Post, "Turkey's Erdogan bears responsibility in flotilla fiasco", June 5, 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404806.html
NY Times urges that "Turkey's rhetoric go way so far".
NY Times, "Turkey's Fury", June 4, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05sat2.html?scp=1&sq=Turkey+is+understandably+furious+about+Israel%E2%80%99s+disastrous+attack+on+the+Turkish-flagged+aid+ship%2C%22&st=cse
Turkey can behave with Iran until to which date.. In each day, rhetoric's content creates an anxiety to Western countries.
Obama administration failed on the Middle East. Is US losing Turkey? Also EU's demands legitimated AKP's policies...
According to Al-Mustaqbal newspaper Erdogan would go Gaza with a flotilla and Turkish navy?
Being a "new Nassir" requires some costs... The cost is not only related with Turkey but also Western axis in the Middle East.
Hizballah held a meeting in Beirut and supported Erdogan government. Hasan Nasrallah who is General secretary of Hizballah criticized Arab leaders and praised Erdogan. Erdogan was praised by Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus too.
Erdogan cabinet's tendency to Iranian nuclear studies is known. AKP's targets reach to Hizballah and Hamas which are proxy forces of Iran in the Middle East. However Erdogan's approach clash with Arab leaders. AKP makes its political investments to Hamas. But what about Fatah?
Hamas blames Egypt and lauds Erdogan's administration.
Washington Post reminds that, Turkey is NATO member and US ally. In the article, AKP-IHH relation is questioned and IHH-Hamas ties are considered.
Washington Post, "Turkey's Erdogan bears responsibility in flotilla fiasco", June 5, 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404806.html
NY Times urges that "Turkey's rhetoric go way so far".
NY Times, "Turkey's Fury", June 4, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05sat2.html?scp=1&sq=Turkey+is+understandably+furious+about+Israel%E2%80%99s+disastrous+attack+on+the+Turkish-flagged+aid+ship%2C%22&st=cse
Turkey can behave with Iran until to which date.. In each day, rhetoric's content creates an anxiety to Western countries.
Obama administration failed on the Middle East. Is US losing Turkey? Also EU's demands legitimated AKP's policies...
According to Al-Mustaqbal newspaper Erdogan would go Gaza with a flotilla and Turkish navy?
Being a "new Nassir" requires some costs... The cost is not only related with Turkey but also Western axis in the Middle East.
31 Mayıs 2010 Pazartesi
AT LAST, ERDOGAN ACHIEVED TO CLASH WITH ISRAEL....
Recent events about Turkey seem very pesimistic. One of them occurred in Iskenderun. Iskenderun naval base was striked by PKK terror organization. Unfortunately, 7 Turkish soldiers were killed by rockets.
On the other hand, international aid flotilla to Gaza, was intervened by Israeli commandos. 16 activist were killed -at least according to international news agencies-. And among the dead activist, Turkish citizens exist. And the ship which was intervened belong to Turkey.
In order to understand current situation of bilateral relations, we must analyze some developments.
As it is known, Turkish PM, used an anti-Israeli discourse since January 2009 which was called -one minute polemic.-
Drill crisis, serie crisis, lower sofa crisis were lived in the year of 2009. And at last "flotilla crisis" has come in May 2010.
First time, blood was considered for bilateral relations.
Israeli intervention caused killings. However, "flotilla route" was scheduled clearly and announced to world's public opinion. Expectation converted to a reality.
To destroy Israeli blockade on Gaza, was very attractive.
But the score is a great problem.
We are questioning the Turkish Foreign Policy "...to shift away from the Western axis." for a long time.
Israeli intervention must be critiziced hardly. But on the other hand, AKP government is reaching a target, -to break relations with Israel-.
Turkish attitude in UN Security Council about Iran and to support only Hamas in Palestine and to exclude Fatah is significant.
We wonder the next step from Erdogan...
On the other hand, international aid flotilla to Gaza, was intervened by Israeli commandos. 16 activist were killed -at least according to international news agencies-. And among the dead activist, Turkish citizens exist. And the ship which was intervened belong to Turkey.
In order to understand current situation of bilateral relations, we must analyze some developments.
As it is known, Turkish PM, used an anti-Israeli discourse since January 2009 which was called -one minute polemic.-
Drill crisis, serie crisis, lower sofa crisis were lived in the year of 2009. And at last "flotilla crisis" has come in May 2010.
First time, blood was considered for bilateral relations.
Israeli intervention caused killings. However, "flotilla route" was scheduled clearly and announced to world's public opinion. Expectation converted to a reality.
To destroy Israeli blockade on Gaza, was very attractive.
But the score is a great problem.
We are questioning the Turkish Foreign Policy "...to shift away from the Western axis." for a long time.
Israeli intervention must be critiziced hardly. But on the other hand, AKP government is reaching a target, -to break relations with Israel-.
Turkish attitude in UN Security Council about Iran and to support only Hamas in Palestine and to exclude Fatah is significant.
We wonder the next step from Erdogan...
13 Mayıs 2010 Perşembe
US IS FIGHTHING WITH ANTI SANCTIONS APPROACH TO IRAN...
What an interesting situation..
US seems to persuade Russia and China for applying sanctions into Iran about nuclear facilities. Both of them are permanent members of UN Security Council like US.
On the other hand, some temporary members of Security Council attempt to blockade sanctions on Iran.
Brazil and Turkey are significant..
But especially Turkey why she is ally of US, member of NATO and in EU accession process.
US Secretary of State telling to Turkish FM Davutoğlu that "Iran is not serious about accepting international demands to prove its nuclear program peaceful. She said Tehran must face fresh penalties unless it does a quick about-face and complies."
Matthew Lee, "US tries to blunt Iran anti-sanctions push", Associated Press Writer, Tulsa World, May 13, 2010. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_IRAN_SANCTIONS?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Turkish Foreign Policy has some suspicions on herself why there is a perception that she is shifting away from the West. Turkish approach to Iran is very problematic.
It is just like an "appeasement policy" on Iran's nuclear efforts.
What will Turkey do to a potential sanction resolution draft in Security Council?
Turkey's aim to be a facilitator or mediator between Iran and US? It is not realistic.
Turkish anti Israeli discourse has an ideological content. It targets to draw a spectacle periphery but includes contradictons. Arab countries and Iran has not a common axis. Anti Israeli propaganda can create an attraction on Turkish PM.
However, Arab regimes and Iran do not have a similar approach. Iran's nuclear efforts also distur Arabs.
So what is the construction of AKP's foreign policy..
To sustain relations with US, to appease Iran, to develop relations with Russia and to be leader of Arabs in spite of pro Iranian approach..
This is a dead end.
And has not a tangible future..
US seems to persuade Russia and China for applying sanctions into Iran about nuclear facilities. Both of them are permanent members of UN Security Council like US.
On the other hand, some temporary members of Security Council attempt to blockade sanctions on Iran.
Brazil and Turkey are significant..
But especially Turkey why she is ally of US, member of NATO and in EU accession process.
US Secretary of State telling to Turkish FM Davutoğlu that "Iran is not serious about accepting international demands to prove its nuclear program peaceful. She said Tehran must face fresh penalties unless it does a quick about-face and complies."
Matthew Lee, "US tries to blunt Iran anti-sanctions push", Associated Press Writer, Tulsa World, May 13, 2010. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_IRAN_SANCTIONS?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Turkish Foreign Policy has some suspicions on herself why there is a perception that she is shifting away from the West. Turkish approach to Iran is very problematic.
It is just like an "appeasement policy" on Iran's nuclear efforts.
What will Turkey do to a potential sanction resolution draft in Security Council?
Turkey's aim to be a facilitator or mediator between Iran and US? It is not realistic.
Turkish anti Israeli discourse has an ideological content. It targets to draw a spectacle periphery but includes contradictons. Arab countries and Iran has not a common axis. Anti Israeli propaganda can create an attraction on Turkish PM.
However, Arab regimes and Iran do not have a similar approach. Iran's nuclear efforts also distur Arabs.
So what is the construction of AKP's foreign policy..
To sustain relations with US, to appease Iran, to develop relations with Russia and to be leader of Arabs in spite of pro Iranian approach..
This is a dead end.
And has not a tangible future..
7 Nisan 2010 Çarşamba
ERDOGAN: "MAIN THREAT IS ISRAEL"
In Paris, there was an interesting meeting. Turkish PM Erdogan visited French president Sarkozy. After his meeting with Sarkozy, Erdogan made some comments about Turkish-French relations. Meanwhile, Sarkozy accepted to come to Turkey as an official visiting.
But the significant point of Turkish PM's to the media was related Israel. He has blamed Israel about Operation Cast Lead again and he repeated his condemnation. Erdogan insisted that "Israel's reasons are not valid" like his previous declarations.
Recently, he had a polemic with Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman why Lieberman told "Erdogan behaves like Gaddafi". He responded that "Lieberman (that man) is not my counterpart."
Erdogan's most intensive and radical challenge occurred in Paris.
He allegated that, "Israel is main threat to Midddle East Peace." As it is known, there is a campaign against Israel about Middle East Peace Process. US president Obama lived a high tension with Israeli PM Netenyahu. US has urged Israel to conform new Middle East Peace Process. Israel was especially concerned to make new settlements in West Bank and Jerusalem.
Also Jordan King Abdullah who is the one of Obama's good friend declared his approach to Israel. According to him, Israel can not be trusted for new attempts which target to reach Peace Process in the Middle East.
However Turkish PM's prospect to Israel becomes more radical in each step. Turkey's status quo in the Western axis contradicts with Erdogan's aspects.
Turkey and Israel are allies of US. Both of the countries has relations since 1949 with each other. Turkey is the first country recognized Israel in 1949 which has a Muslim majority population and was unique until 1978. Why Turkey took place in Western bloc and constructively secular.
Currently there are problems in the Middle East. Israel's cabinet has paradoxes in the Peace Process and Palestine problem. Extremist elements in Israeli cabinet also create problems for Israel's foreign policy.
On the other hand, Turkish PM's two different statements reflect his real aims. He told recently "my dear friend Ahmedinejad" in one of his speech and the last declaration he challenged "Israel is the main threat in the region."
Turkey as it is known-NATO member and US ally country- and her PM prefers Iran in the Middle East and stated Israel as a "main threat." Beside US, EU has an appeasement policy on Iran.Pro islamic cabinet in Turkey uses the process.
If it is calculated, "more conservative Turkey" would clash with the Western axis in the long term. Erdogan also praises Hamas and Hizballah in the region.
Now, EU accession process is used to eleminate secular republic in Turkey. AKP's aim to support Iran ironically shows EU's political investments in Turkey. Also Obama's administration would not get Turkey's vote in UN Security Council.
Western countries can think now.
"Turkey Quo Vadis"
But the significant point of Turkish PM's to the media was related Israel. He has blamed Israel about Operation Cast Lead again and he repeated his condemnation. Erdogan insisted that "Israel's reasons are not valid" like his previous declarations.
Recently, he had a polemic with Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman why Lieberman told "Erdogan behaves like Gaddafi". He responded that "Lieberman (that man) is not my counterpart."
Erdogan's most intensive and radical challenge occurred in Paris.
He allegated that, "Israel is main threat to Midddle East Peace." As it is known, there is a campaign against Israel about Middle East Peace Process. US president Obama lived a high tension with Israeli PM Netenyahu. US has urged Israel to conform new Middle East Peace Process. Israel was especially concerned to make new settlements in West Bank and Jerusalem.
Also Jordan King Abdullah who is the one of Obama's good friend declared his approach to Israel. According to him, Israel can not be trusted for new attempts which target to reach Peace Process in the Middle East.
However Turkish PM's prospect to Israel becomes more radical in each step. Turkey's status quo in the Western axis contradicts with Erdogan's aspects.
Turkey and Israel are allies of US. Both of the countries has relations since 1949 with each other. Turkey is the first country recognized Israel in 1949 which has a Muslim majority population and was unique until 1978. Why Turkey took place in Western bloc and constructively secular.
Currently there are problems in the Middle East. Israel's cabinet has paradoxes in the Peace Process and Palestine problem. Extremist elements in Israeli cabinet also create problems for Israel's foreign policy.
On the other hand, Turkish PM's two different statements reflect his real aims. He told recently "my dear friend Ahmedinejad" in one of his speech and the last declaration he challenged "Israel is the main threat in the region."
Turkey as it is known-NATO member and US ally country- and her PM prefers Iran in the Middle East and stated Israel as a "main threat." Beside US, EU has an appeasement policy on Iran.Pro islamic cabinet in Turkey uses the process.
If it is calculated, "more conservative Turkey" would clash with the Western axis in the long term. Erdogan also praises Hamas and Hizballah in the region.
Now, EU accession process is used to eleminate secular republic in Turkey. AKP's aim to support Iran ironically shows EU's political investments in Turkey. Also Obama's administration would not get Turkey's vote in UN Security Council.
Western countries can think now.
"Turkey Quo Vadis"
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
