Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘Iran’

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

Yiddish was the everyday language of most Jews in Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and parts of Hungary and Czechoslovakia) for 1,000 years. The term “Yiddish” is derived from the German word for “Jewish.” The most accepted (but not the only) theory of the origin of Yiddish is that it began to take shape by the 10th century as Jews from France and Italy migrated to the Rhine Valley. They developed a language that included elements of Hebrew, and French, Italian, and German dialects. In the late middle Ages, when Jews settled in Eastern Europe, Slavic elements were incorporated into Yiddish.

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without intentional study or special effort. As for: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum (partially and asymmetrically and also for: German and Yiddish. Yiddish language is clearly was made by the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews in Germany in the same way which they produced.

The Judeo-Spanish language is commonly referred to as Ladino. Ladino is a language derived from medieval Spanish, with influences from other languages such as Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Catalan, Galician-Portuguese, and Mozarabic. Ladino also has vocabulary from Ottoman Turkish, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, French, Italian, Greek, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. The Turkish government promoted Turkish language and suppressed the Kurdish language. Ladino was not suppressed, but according to scholars, the community itself helped to suppress it.

The Sephardim Are Also Turkic Just Like the Ashkenazim. Sephardim Jews, also known as Sephardic Jews or simply Sephardim “The Jews of Spain”, are a Jewish ethnic division whose ethno-genesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews coalesced in the Iberian Peninsula around the start of the 2nd millennium (i.e., about the year 1000).

The Sephardim established communities throughout Spain and Portugal, where they traditionally resided; evolving what would become their distinctive characteristics and diasporic identity. Their millennial residence as an open and organized Jewish community in Iberia was brought to an end starting with the Alhambra Decree by Spain’s Catholic Monarchs in the late 15th century, which resulted in a combination of internal and external migrations, mass conversions and executions.

3333333To find out the true origin of the Sephardim

It is necessary first to answer the following crucial questions:
1- When the Sephardim appeared in world history? The answer: immediately after the Turkic invasion and enslavement of North Africa under their false flags of Islam, and Arab imperialism.
2- From where the Sephardim came to the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: from Turkey and other Turkic colonies via North Africa.
3- To where the Sephardim went after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: mainly to Turkey and North Africa; and some went to Western Europe.
4- Who helped the Sephardim most after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: only the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
5- How the Sephardim lived in before, during and after their stay in the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: in Turkic invasions, occupation and slavery, money, prostitution businesses in Iberia and all Africa.
6- How their language, Ladino, is related to other languages? The answer: many borrowings from Turkish and to a lesser extent from Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and French.
7- What are the results of the Genetic studies of the Sephardim? The answer: The Turks are all over the world and their genetic are heavily mixed like no other nation despite the claims of Jewish marriage rules; but still they resemble other Turkic groups.

This is yet strong evidence that almost all Jews in the World are not Semitic at all; and they are originally from central Asia and not the Levant. The creation of the State of Israel is the work of Turkic peoples under the leadership of Turkey and the Turkic ruling elites in the Gulf Arab states.

New Genetic Research Confirms Koestler’s “Khazar” Theory! Ashkenazi Jews Are Not The Jews of The Bible! In 2012, a major genetic study of Ashkenazim was led by Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Israeli-Elhaik. It concentrates on the compelling genetic evidence that eastern European Jewry’s roots are not just in the Mid-East but, perhaps even more so, in the Caucasus, the mountainous heartland of ancient Khazaria. (See “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses“).

pan-tu13Research Article “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” by Eran Israeli-Elhaik, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21208. McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21208.

Conclusions: We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian-European-Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogate to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis depicting a large Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions.

We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.  Download the report from here

So it is clear that there is no political difference between Israel and Turkey. But only that Israel is the place for elite Turks. The Turks are all over the region and especially in elite families in the Gulf Arab oil states and in North Africa. Israel is a very small part of the Turkic picture only. They have mutual gains with the governments in USA and Europe and that is why they are allies.

The Russian Empire at one time hosted the largest population of Jews in the world. Within these territories the primarily Ashkenazi Jewish communities of many different areas flourished and developed many of modern Judaism’s most distinctive theological and cultural traditions
is this another proof that the Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites and they are Asian Turkic? If so then Anti-Semitism is actually Anti-Turkism.

It is getting clearer by the day that secret societies are actually representing just only one group of people with different nationalities and religions. All of them have Turkic Khazar blood. These people are the elite families in the Gulf Arab Muslim oil-doms, Zionist non-Semite Jewish Israelis, ruling Turks in Islamist Turkey, and the big Ashkenazim and Sephardim bankers and main corporations in the Christian and secular US and Europe.

The elite families in the Gulf Arab oil-doms they are not Arabs and were not made by Arabs. Turkey and Israel are two faces for the same coin that is the Turkic peoples. It is convincing and very important to understand that the Jewish problem is actually a bad misrepresentation of the Turkic problem.

This old misconception is not only damaging Iran, Russia, Germany but also all Europe and even the true Israelite and the whole world without exception. The Turkic Khazars split into both Ashkenazim and Sephardim and other smaller groups.

Hitler and the Nazi were against the Khazar Ashkenazi m in Germany and in the Slavic Eastern Europe. It is impossible to tell if Hitler knew that they are not Semites and definitely not Israelite, but only new Asian pretentious converts. So Hitler was actually not Anti-Semitic or Anti Slavic but Anti Turkic, even if it was apparent to him; because those Jews of Germany and Europe and the USA are not Semitic but Turkic.

Once the world identifies their origin and history it would be much easier to consolidate the lines and strengthen the international support from the Americas up to Russia and Japan including Africa and Asia. The acts of the Turks and Ottomans are well known in Anatolia, Caucasus, Greece, the Balkan, North Africa, the rest of Africa, Arab countries, and even India and China. Telling the truth shall not be labeled anti-Semitic. Those known as capitalists or communists who claim to be Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Israel, Arabia, Anatolia, Europe and USA are barricading behind fake religions, history and ideologies. It is necessary to dismantle their covers first.

This is to explain that, after decades of media brainwash, it is difficult to discover that the devastation of Communism, Capitalism, and fabricated religions. Such degenerating ideas were threatening the Germans, and that is why they created Nazism to avoid the terrible fate of Russia and of all Europe. They worked hard to protect themselves and Europe from the Turkic people who called themselves Jews.

The original Semitic Israeli nation was shocked and was terrified and the Turkic Khazar Jews manipulated this situation for their interests. Calling Hitler’s and Nazi’s actions against Turkic Khazar Jews as Anti-Semitism is ironic since the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites at all. The Ashkenazim as well as the Sephardim are systematically trying to deny that their true origin and the origin of their Yiddish and Ladino Languages are from Turkic Khazar. They both claim that their Zionist ambitions and businesses are legitimate, nationalistic and religious.

pan-Turanianism

pan-Turanianism

A Short Introduction to Pan-Turanism By: Dr Kaveh Farrokh
What is pan-Turanianism? Simply put, pan-Turanianism is an ideology that aims at creating a Turkic super state stretching from the Balkans in Europe, eastwards across Turkey, Iran (Persia), the Caucasus, Central Asia up to and including northwest China. The logic behind this is that all people who speak Turkish must be incorporated into this Turkic super state.

Hungarian pan-Turanianist activists go even further. They have proposed that the entire Eurasian landmass between Hungary and Norway in Europe to Japan and Korea was once an empire known as “Turania”. Apart from non-scholastic websites, no linguistic, anthropological and archeological evidence for such an empire exists.

Pan-Turanian racialists and historians would beg to differ. They are impervious to logical explanations even in the face of hard evidence. Such is the case of all who are infected with the virulent virus of racialism.

Pan-Turanianism, like Nazi “racial sciences”, or Stalinist “History”, has failed to convince the majority of western scholarship to its cause, and has been as equally unsuccessful in Eastern Europe, with the exception of Hungary and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

12744598_10207255420156607_8157750503597975473_nMuch of pan-Turanian ideology is similar to pan-Germanic racism and Nazism; philosophies from which the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues have drawn much of their inspiration (see Parts III & IV). Like the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, the pan Turanian Turks envision their Turan super-state (like the Nazi “Germania”), in terms of “lebensraum” (German for “living space”) for all Turkic speaking peoples. The late president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Abulfazl Elchibey (1938-2000), a Grey Wolf sympathizer himself (see Part II, item 4), is reputed to have stated that “…the road to Turkistan runs through Tabriz”. Tabriz has been an integral part of Persia for thousands of years.

Pan-Turanianism is perhaps one of the last racialist movements that first began in the 19th century. Traditional history cites its early origins amongst Ottoman officers and intelligentsia studying and residing in 1870s Imperial Germany. The fact that many Ottoman Turkish officials were becoming aware of their sense of “Turkishness” is beyond doubt of course, and the role of subsequent nationalists, such as Ziya Gokalp (see Part II, item 7a) is fully established historically.

the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues

the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues

Pan-Turanian ideologues have placed a very high priority on re-inventing past history. Much of this is based on the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (1881-1938) (see photo below), who stated that: “Writing history is as important as making history”

Turkic History in 6-minute video

History of the Jews in Spain
Origins and History of Sephardic Jewry

http://kehillatisrael.net

07-0100Roman_Empire_Jews

18-0600Jewish_world

How Arabs Are Mentioned in the Holy Quran

How Arabs Are Mentioned in the Holy Quran

How Arabs Are Mentioned in the Holy Quran

The word Arabs [pronounced as al-a’Arab] is mentioned 10 times in the Koran and in many works translated incorrectly as [Bedouins];
***9. Surah At-Taubah (The Repentance)
90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allah and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.
97. The bedouins are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits (Allah’s Commandments and His Legal Laws, etc.) which Allah has revealed to His Messenger. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.
98. And of the bedouins there are some who look upon what they spend (in Allah’s Cause) as a fine and watch for calamities for you, on them be the calamity of evil. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
99. And of the bedouins there are some who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look upon what they spend in Allah’s Cause as approaches to Allah, and a cause of receiving the Messenger’s invocations. Indeed these (spendings in Allah’s Cause) are an approach for them. Allah will admit them to His Mercy. Certainly Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
101. And among the bedouins round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah, they exaggerate and persist in hypocrisy, you (O Muhammad ) know them not, We know them. We shall punish them twice, and thereafter they shall be brought back to a great (horrible) torment.
120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad when fighting in Allah’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun
***33. Surah Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)
20. They think that Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) have not yet withdrawn, and if Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) should come (again), they would wish they were in the deserts (wandering) among the bedouins, seeking news about you (from a far place); and if they (happen) to be among you, they would not fight but little.
(more…)

The History of the Jewish Khazars

The History of the Jewish Khazars, book written by D. M. Dunlop.

The History of the Jewish Khazars, book written by D. M. Dunlop.

The History of the Jewish Khazars, book written by D. M. Dunlop.
published in 1967, Princeton University Press. 292 pp.

Judaized Turks

For the sober historian speculation about what might have been is a frivolous distraction, but for those of us with less responsibility it has its charms. What would have happened if Xerxes’ invasion had been successful, or if Charles Martel had not driven the Moslems back behind the Pyrenees, or if the Russians had adopted the Christianity of Rome rather than of Byzantium? With these questions we are familiar. We are less familiar with the questions that the Khazars suggest. What would have happened if the Khazars had not kept the Moslems from breaking out north of the Caucasus, or if they had been able to maintain their state, or if their kin the Turks, Bulgars, and Magyars and their neighbors the Russians had followed the example of their rulers and aristocracy and adopted Judaism?

These are idle questions, of course, but they are not fantastic. The Khazars were not a myth invented by Judah ha-Levi in the 12th century as a convenient narrative vehicle for his theology. They are not even an invention of the Arab League, which would have it that modern Jews are descended from them rather than from Palestinian ancestors; or of American anti-Semites, of whom some now refer to “Khazars” as they once referred to “Eskimos,” for coy concealment, and others try to invest the name with an uncanny and sinister quality. From the 7th century until some hundreds of years later the Khazars were a power where Asia Minor meets Europe. Mr. Dunlop, citing Constantine Porphyrogenitus, reminds us that in the 10th century letters to their ruler from the Byzantine court, for which ceremony was no trivial matter, “bore a more handsome gold seal than that judged necessary for correspondence with the Pope of Rome or the successor of Charlemagne.” Khazar princesses were wives and mothers of emperors in Constantinople, and more than one Caesar of the Eastern Roman empire was enthroned with Khazar support. The Khazars ruled in the area more or less clearly defined on the west, south, and east by the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Caspian Sea, and vaguely on the north by the Volga and Don Rivers. It was they who defeated the repeated attempts of Islam at its most virile and expansive to push into Eastern Europe. Poor as our reliable information about them is, we can be sure of their importance before the destruction of their state, probably in the second half of the 10th century, by the Russians, or at the latest in the 13th century by the Mongols.

(more…)

Will Zionism and Pan-Turkism Use Terrorism to Replace Russia?

Will Zionism and Pan-Turkism Use Terrorism to Replace Russia

Will Zionism and Pan-Turkism Use Terrorism to Replace Russia

There is serious conflict between the supports of Yiddish, who see the future of Jews as being in Russia, whereas the Zionists see the Jewish future is in the Jewish homeland of Eretz Yisrael and the Jewish intelligentsia is split over this aspect of Jewish ideology. Zionism cannot operate just in Israel but it must have a wider living space like in Russia.

Wayne MADSEN wrote on 26.11.2013 at Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal
The CIA’s plan for «Pan-Turania» to Replace the USSR,

Held for decades deep within the Central Intelligence Agency’s Top Secret Archives and Records Center was a plan, co-opted from an unnamed German Turkish expert, known as a «Turcologist», that would have seen a victorious Nazi Germany carve the Soviet Union into a group of puppet states based on Turanian nationalism. This «Pan Turania Idea» report, not declassified by the CIA until Christmas Eve of 2005, was, in fact, adopted by the CIA during the early days of the Cold War as a means to dissolve much of the USSR and replace it with a Pan-Turanian federation.

«Pan-Turanianism» was a concept originally developed by the British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston as a way to destroy the Russian empire and replace it with Turkic and Mongol vassal states that would answer to the Ottoman sultan and ultimately, to the British crown. Pan-Turanianism influenced the «Young Turks» movement of Kemal Ataturk and was conceived, along with «pan-Arabism» that would eventually destroy the Ottoman Empire, by Wilfred Blunt, a British intelligence officer who headed the Secret Intelligence Service’s Cairo office.

…………

Read the full article here

Turkey, as a NATO country near Russia’s border, developed a powerful “deep state” where intelligence operatives, terrorists and gangsters crossed paths and shared political alliances, a grim reality that author Martin A. Lee explored in 1997 and a dark legacy that reaches to the present.

……….
Read the full article here

Damage Assessment of Israel’s ‘Clean Break’ Plan

Damage Assessment of Israel’s 'Clean Break' Plan

Damage Assessment of Israel’s ‘Clean Break’ Plan

Neocon Middle East Policy: The ‘Clean Break’ Plan Damage Assessment” is a 112 pages book, Written by Adam Shapiro and E. Faye Williams ; Published by : Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, Inc. (IRmep) (March 1, 2005)

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a definitive Middle East strategy authored and implemented by operatives in the highest levels of the US government. There is just one problem. The plan was a strategy for Israel, not the United States of America.

The book reviews strategies and consequences of the “Clean Break” plan authored by Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith in 1996. It analyzes the core assumptions of the policy, cost of tactics that have already been implemented and discusses the likelihood others will be executed in the future.

Neocon Middle East Policy then turns to the most difficult questions of all, “Can a policy crafted for a foreign government and presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu serve as a blueprint for US regional policy? At what cost in credibility, blood, treasure and American integrity? At what cost to Israel?” Neocon Middle East Policy is a must-read for anyone concerned about the convergence of US and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.
Contributors: Adam Shapiro, Dr. E. Faye Williams, Khaled Dawoud, Mohammed Kaddam. Edited by Grant F. Smith, Publication Date: April, 2005 ISBN # 0-9764437-3-2 Cover Price $9.95 Shipping Weight 9 Ounces, Paperback: 112 pages, Publisher: Institute for Research (March 1, 2005), ISBN-10: 0976443732, ISBN-13: 978-0976443735

IT SAYS:
The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) Policy Initiatives (Source: Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, IRMEP 2003)
Increase U.S. Congressional Support
1. “Electrify and find support” of key U.S. congressional members
2. Strategic cooperation with U.S. on missile defense
3. Gain more support among members of Congress with little knowledge of Israel
4. Harness support to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv
5. Identify Israel with the U.S. and “western values”
6. Utilize Cold War rhetoric to make Israel’s case to the American people
“Peace for Peace” Palestinian Solution
1. Eliminate movements toward a “comprehensive peace” and substitute with the “Peace for Peace” strategy
2. Stress “balance of power” as sole test of legitimacy, enforce agreements
3. Nurture alternatives to Arafat
4. Seek legitimization of “hot pursuit” of Palestinian militants
5. Eliminate “land for peace” concept, use negotiations only as a forum for communicating resolve
6. Establish a joint monitoring committee with the U.S. for measuring Palestinian compliance
7. Withhold U.S. aid to Palestinians
8. Promote Human Rights among Arabs to isolate Palestinians in Arab Constituencies
9. Legitimize 2000 year old historical land claim
10. Foment Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for peace
Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers
1. Challenge Arab countries as “police states” lacking in legitimacy.
2. Fortify regional alliances. Work with Turkey and Jordan to insert hostile Arab tribes into Syria
Syria
1. Publicly question Syrian legitimacy, assume treaties with Damascus are in bad faith
2. Contain Syria, strike select targets
3. Reject “land for peace” concept on the Golan Heights
Iraq
1. Install a Hashemite monarchy in Iraq
2. Isolate and surround Syria with a friendly regime in Iraq
Lebanon
1. Engage Syria, Iran and Iraq in Lebanon
2. “Wean” Lebanese Shiites from Iraq toward Jordan
Economic Reform
1. Eliminate Social Zionism from the economy.
2. Reform the overall economy, cut taxes
3. Show maturity and economic self reliance from the United States
4. Eliminate need for defense by U.S. military forces
5. Remove U.S. aid leverage over Israel
6. Relegislate a free trade zone, sell off public lands and enterprises
Zionism
1. Rebuild Zionism, rejuvenate the national ideal
2. “Shape the regional environment” in favor of Israel, “transcend foes” rather than contain them
3. Pre-emption as the preferred national defense strategy
Although ACB readers can identify nearly 34 distinct and actionable goals eloquently stated within the document, they may be summarized in five overarching policy goals:
1. Increase U.S. Congressional Support
2. “Peace for Peace” Palestinian Strategy
3. Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers
4. Economic Reform
5. Rejuvenation of Zionism

In this paper, we evaluate the level of implementation of these five summary goals, and their effect on the interests of the United States. However, no set of policies ever come to fruition without an active and vocal distribution and implementation network. ACB’s legions of American shock troops are many. At its core, key operatives working within the Bush Administration (called the Neocons), policy research “think tanks”, specialty press, and opinion columns have achieved amazing success at seasoning and baking ACB policy agenda items into a tenuous mold as “vital interests” of the United States itself.
The need for “crime scene” levels of evidence linking ACB followers’ complicity in the actions of the U.S. Government at Israel’s behest is unnecessary. Many U.S. actions are simply so inexplicable that consideration of their chief benefactor, Israel, is the only reasonable explanation. And as Americans dismiss Arab government charges that Israel is attacking them by proxy across the region, the evidence shows that the Arabs are correct. “A Clean Break” is, at heart, an Israeli proclamation of “Dirty War”.

Read the full Executive Summary of Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., on The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) at this link

The Turkification of Anatolia

Anatolia

Anatolia

Anatolia (called Turkey since only 1923) has been inhabited since the paleolithic age, including various ancient Anatolian civilizations, Aeolian, Dorian and Ionian Greeks, Thracians, Armenians and Persians. After Alexander the Great’s conquest, the area was Hellenized, a process which continued under the Roman Empire and its transition into the Byzantine Empire.

The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification, which was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

The Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm ruled Anatolia until the Mongol invasion in 1243, upon which it disintegrated into several small Turkish beyliks.
Starting from the late 13th century, the Ottomans united Anatolia and created an empire encompassing much of Southeastern Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, becoming a major power in Eurasia and Africa during the early modern period. The empire reached the peak of its power between the 15th and 17th centuries, especially during the 1520–66 reign of Suleiman the Magnificent.

After the second Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683 and the end of the Great Turkish War in 1699, the Ottoman Empire entered a long period of decline. The Tanzimat reforms of the 19th century, which aimed to modernize the Ottoman state, proved to be inadequate in most fields, and failed to stop the dissolution of the empire.

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I (1914–18) on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens. Following the war, the huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.

Mustafa Kemal Ali Rıza (Atatürk)

Mustafa Kemal Ali Rıza (Atatürk)

The” Turkish” War of Independence (1919–22), initiated by Mustafa Kemal Ali Rıza (Atatürk) and his colleagues in Anatolia, resulted in the establishment of the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923, with Atatürk as its first president. Since that time te rule of Turks over all other indigenous Anatolians peoples became enforced by the new state of the Turks, who became considered and treated as minorities.

Only during the past century Turkey has been “Turkified” by state power. This was done by the removal of the non-Muslim elements, first, and then by the assimilation of the non-Turkish Muslims into “Turkishness”.

To Be Part of the Global “WE”? Sell The Arabs! (Turkey’s Policy)

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

This is the very definition of Erdogan’s, and Davutoglu’s, ambitions.

In the recent batch of State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks, one scholar was quoted as anointing the Turkish foreign minister “Turkey’s Kissinger,” while in 2004 a secondhand source was quoted as calling him “exceptionally dangerous.” But his abilities, and his worldview, matter because of the country whose diplomacy he drives: an Islamic democracy, a developing nation with a booming economy, a member of NATO with one foot in Europe and the other in Asia. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a canny, forward-thinking populist who has drastically altered Turkish politics. Erdogan and Davutoglu share a grand vision: a renascent Turkey, expanding to fill a bygone Ottoman imperial space.

Davutoglu is seen as a champion of Turkish greatness.

Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at Lehigh University, pronounces his book “Strategic Depth” as“mumbo jumbo,” adding that Davutoglu “thinks of himself as God”.

Foreign Policy magazine ranked him No. 7 in its recent list of “100 Global Thinkers,” writing that under his leadership, “Turkey has assumed an international role not matched since a sultan sat in Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace.”

Davutoğlu is generally linked to the notion of Turkish neo-Ottomanism, which favours a commonwealth with its neighbours and old Ottoman connections. Although his foreign policies have been regarded as neo-Ottomanist by Western and especially U.S. media, Davutoğlu does not accept such a characterization.

One of Davutoglu’s greatest diplomatic achievements was the creation of a visa-free zone linking Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, thus reconstituting part of the old Ottoman space.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The victory of the moderate Islamist AK party in the 2002 parliamentary elections was a seismic event in Turkey, culturally as well as politically. Turkey had been an aggressively secular republic since its establishment in 1923; Turkey’s Westernized intellectuals, living in the coastal cities, especially Istanbul, looked upon the Islamists as bumpkins from the Anatolian hinterland. “These people came out of nowhere,” as Candar puts it.

On the flight home from Brussels, where he conferred privately with Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and met with his European counterparts, Davutoglu was in an ebullient mood. He feels the wind of history filling his sails. Turkey, the crossroads of civilizations, the land where East and West, North and South, converge, is pointing the way to the world’s future. “Turkey is the litmus test of globalization,” he told me. “Success for Turkey will mean the success of globalization.” The world, as Davutoglu likes to say, expects great things from Turkey.

Obama and Erdogan of Turkey; Oddly Effective Couple in a New Arab World

Obama and Erdogan of Turkey Oddly Effective Couple in a New Arab World

Obama and Erdogan of Turkey Oddly Effective Couple in a New Arab World

Excerpts from two articles one from Washington and the other from Istanbul speak volumes and explain the roles of the Islamist government of Turkey in the US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Alyson Neel wrote in Today’s Zaman on 16 October 2011 an article titled: “Erdoğan and Obama’s phone chats reveal Turkey’s ascent

Excerpts:
[International relations experts agree the United States and Turkey’s well-established alliance and Turkey’s ascent in the international arena explain why President Barack Obama has chatted with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan more than almost any other world leader despite fissures in a number of policy areas and differences between the two leaders’ governing styles.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Obama has placed more calls to Erdoğan than to any other world leader this year next to British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“It is remarkable to hear how often they speak,” former New York Times bureau chief in İstanbul Stephen Kinzer told Sunday’s Zaman in an exclusive interview. “I think that it’s due above all not to a personal relationship between the two but to Obama’s realization of the role that Turkey has come to play in the region and in the wider world. He understands what Turkey has become, and I think he understands Turkey’s potential to project into other Muslim countries ideals the West would like to see projected but cannot do itself,” Kinzer explained.

Center for Strategic Research (SAM) Chairman Bülent Aras said the frequent communication between the two leaders makes perfect sense. “If you look at the US, it is one of the most involved nations in world politics, but the Atlantic is a literal gulf between the Western nation and Eurasia. Turkey, on the other hand, is very active in this region because of its location. In this age of global economic and political crises, it makes sense that Turkey is a perfect ally for the US. In fact, they are now more in need of each other. That’s why there is such a high level of political dialogue.”

Even Henry Kissinger, who served as national security advisor and then secretary of state for both the Nixon and Ford administrations, noted Turkey’s expanding role in the international arena last Thursday during a conference in İstanbul. “Turkey’s influence is growing at a time that the US is withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, plus Libya is opening up — so Turkey can play a significant role,” The Wall Street Journal reported Kissinger as commenting.

Obama and Erdoğan: ‘the odd couple’

International relations experts agreed that the two world leaders’ well-founded relationship is interesting considering their clear differences on the surface.]

And David Ignatius wrote in The Washington Post on December 6, 2011 an article titled: “U.S. and Turkey find a relationship that works

Excerpts:
[If you’re looking for factors that can keep the Arab Awakening from turning into a nightmare, this American-Turkish partnership is mildly reassuring. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have worked closely to manage events in Egypt, Libya, Syria and, increasingly, Iran.

They have talked by phone 13 times this year, according to the White House. The two didn’t start off as friends, but became so after a blunt conversation last year in Toronto. The relationship that emerged exemplifies Obama’s basic formulation of “mutual respect and mutual interest.”

For an administration that wants to influence Arab turmoil but also stay in the background, Erdogan has been the perfect cut-out: He has high credibility on the Arab Street, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties empowered by the Arab revolutions. And he has a foreign minister with Kissingerian ambitions, Ahmet Davutoglu.

Erdogan embodies the “Turkish model” — a strong Islamist governing party that is committed to the free market and backed by a solid, pro-American military — which many administration officials see as the best hope for Egypt and its neighbors. But critics caution that Erdogan has narrowed the scope of democracy in Turkey by reducing the independence of the media, the judiciary and the army. In that sense, the Turkish model has dangers, as well as benefits.
…………..
…………………………….
…………
As examples of “really close cooperation,” the official cites Turkish help in forming an Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; joint efforts against terrorist groups, including the Kurdish PKK; partnership on Afghanistan; and shared strategy during the Arab Spring.
……………….
………………….
The most delicate piece of Turkish-American business is trying to organize a peaceful transfer of power in Syria. Erdogan, once the closest foreign ally of President Bashar al-Assad, is now a bitter foe. As often with Erdogan, it’s personal: He feels Assad backed out on a reform promise he made several months ago. When Assad reneged, after Erdogan had told Obama he would have a deal within 72 hours, the Turkish prime minister was embarrassed and angry. That anger continues, and it’s driving the Turks to take a tough stance.

Washington and Ankara are planning an escalating pressure campaign against Assad, which will include economic sanctions, secret activities to support the opposition and perhaps a safe haven along the Turkish border and a humanitarian corridor inside Syria.

And what about Turkish relations with Iran, the ticking time bomb on its border? Administration officials note that Erdogan recently agreed to deploy a forward-based radar system that’s part of a NATO missile defense plan aimed chiefly at Iran. ]

All these were known well before and their plans are in action regardless of any positive development in Syria and Iran or any other country in the Middle East.

Are these plans about democracy and security? or Are they international campaign of state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism?

The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times

The Age of Deception by Mohamed ElBaradei

The author of this book is the Nobel Prize laureate, Egyptian law scholar and diplomat, and the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for three successive terms from 1997 to 2009, Mohamed ElBaradei. He declined to avail his services  for a further fourth term in the IAEA; and the IAEA Board of Governors was split in its decision regarding the next director general. After several rounds of voting, on July 3, 2009, Mr. Yukiya Amano, Japanese ambassador to the IAEA, was elected as the next IAEA director general.

The following book review was written by George Perkovich, Director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and co-editor of “Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate.” The book review was posted on The Washington Post on 21 April 2011.

This book was published by Metropolitan Books (in 352 pages),
(April 26, 2011).

George Perkovich said in his review:
[Mohamed ElBaradei fought the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, blocked it from attacking Iran, and for his efforts received harassment from American hardliners and, eventually, the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, having retired from the International Atomic Energy Agency, he plans to run for president of Egypt. He has interesting stories to tell, and he tells them with verve.

Like other presidential aspirants, ElBaradei places himself in a flattering light and takes the popular side of issues voters care about. But “The Age of Deception” is more than a campaign biography: Written before the recent Egyptian upheaval, it reaches far beyond the politics of Cairo. The struggles ElBaradei waged in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Libya to shape the international management of nuclear technology represent a central dynamic of the 21st century.

Will rule of law trump unilateralism? Can a progressive international order be built when states differ over which rules should be strengthened and how they should be enforced, and when rulers in North Korea, Burma, Syria and Iran reject norms that others respect? ElBaradei’s vivid narrative brings these and other big questions to life.

“I am totally against wars,” a 12-year-old Spanish girl named Alicia wrote to ElBaradei after he received the Nobel Prize in 2005. “I thank you very much for your efforts to try to avoid the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that your strategy, based on dialogue, was absolutely not to the liking of the USA, you knew how to stay firm and you showed that there were not nuclear weapons in Iraq, even while gaining the hate of the most powerful country.”

Alicia sums up“The Age of Deception” in many ways. ElBaradei repeatedly describes the nuclear infractions of North Korea, Iran, Libya and other nations and then insinuates that the United States should be blamed for scaring them into misbehaving or impeding him from working out fair-minded solutions with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For example: The Iranians “were busily undermining the very solution they had worked so hard to achieve,” he writes after learning in 2006 that officials of former president Mohammad Khatami’s administration planned to attack the new president Ahmadinejad politically if he agreed to a deal with Washington. “I sighed. Tehran had been spending way too much time watching D.C. politics, I thought.” And: North Korea is “isolated, impoverished, feeling deeply threatened by the United States but nonetheless defiant.”

Libya had in the 1990s secretly bought uranium enrichment equipment and a blueprint for a nuclear weapon from the infamous network of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan. This had not been detected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but by British and American intelligence. ElBaradei was briefed before the story broke in December 2003. “I was told,” he writes, “that the genesis of the Libyan nuclear weapon program — and Gaddafi’s other WMD programs — was in retaliation for the April 1986 U.S. bombing raids during which Gaddafi’s adopted daughter, Hannah, was killed.” One is left to wonder whether he thought the Libyan terrorist attacks weeks earlier that killed Americans on TWA flight 840 and in the La Belle disco in Berlin were irrelevant, for he does not mention them. He does describe meeting Gaddafi who “spoke earnestly of his desire to develop Libya.”

Young Alicia tapped into ElBaradei’s wishful credo in another portion of her letter. “I hope that in the conflict with Iran you are luckier and that things get solved by using dialogue and not through arms,” she wrote. “And that the politicians of the USA accept the opinion of the UN.” But the world is not as nice as 12-year-old girls wish. Some states are ruled through violent repression, and even if their leaders are willing to compromise on some things, they may not accept peaceably the enforcement of international rules they violate, including resolutions of the U.N. Security Council.

Iran’s leadership is portrayed as fearful of the United States and very difficult to deal with. Still, ElBaradei insisted that Tehran would significantly constrain nuclear activities that could be used for military purposes if only Washington would take “yes” for an answer. ElBaradei makes no mention of the Iranian strategy revealed by the Khatami government’s chief negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, in a July 2005 interview. Rowhani, an urbane cleric since displaced by President Ahmadinejad, declared, “wherever we accepted suspension” of a nuclear activity, “we thought about another activity.” When Tehran suspended work on uranium enrichment at Natanz, it “put all of [its] efforts” into uranium conversion at Esfahan. This stall-and-advance, bait-and-switch approach continues today.

ElBaradei offers no insight into what can and should be done when unaccountable leaders refuse to accede to the requirements of the IAEA or the U.N. Nor does he address the possibility that despotic regimes cling to nuclear-weapons capability to protect their rule against domestic and foreign pressures for change.

The high-minded dialogue ElBaradei repeatedly calls for is not always sufficient, leaving the reader to wonder what then? Certainly, the United States should be more committed and supple in its diplomacy. Washington needs to realize that the states it fears are even more fearful of its power and judgment. But that is far from sufficient to solve the tough nuclear cases. President Obama, despite his Nobel credentials, has been unable to resolve the nuclear impasse in North Korea and Iran, or to persuade France, Russia, China, Pakistan and others to join him in moving towards a world without nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei displays an enmity toward Western nuclear-armed states that is sometimes overt and sometimes subtle, sometimes deserved and sometimes unfair. A fascinating mix of emotions and calculations seems to animate his analysis. Anyone wishing to glimpse some of the central tensions in 21st-century international diplomacy should read “The Age of Deception.”]