Turkish PM says Israel the “principal threat to peace” in Middle East, objects to new Iran sanctions
More on Turkey’s race to abandon secularism and adopt Sharia (and, of course, its attendant Jew-hatred): “Turkish PM raises misgivings with ongoing criticism,” fromÂ Agence France-Presse, April 12 (thanks to JW):
ANKARA — With bruising criticism of Israel and defense of Iran, and onslaughts against Turkey’s military and secularists, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan has stoked questions on where he is steering his country.During a visit to Paris last week, ErdoÄŸan branded Israel — once Turkey’s top regional ally — “the principal threat to peace” in the Middle East, and objected to fresh sanctions against Iran — a newfound friend — over its nuclear activities.
Such outbursts have become an ErdoÄŸan hallmark since Israel’s devastating war on the Gaza Strip last year, feeding doubts — both at home and abroad — on what vision he is nourishing for Turkey, NATO’s only mainly Muslim member and a candidate to join the European Union.
The rupture in ties with Israel has been accompanied by an unprecedented drive by ErdoÄŸan’s government for closer links with the Arab world, notably Syria.
Much to the bewilderment of Western allies, ErdoÄŸan has also jumped to the defense of Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, indicted for war crimes in Darfur, arguing that “no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide.”
Is ErdoÄŸan turning his back on the West?…
As the great philosopher once said to me, “Well, duh.”
The purges against the military continue. Erdogan removes the last hindrances to the Islamic state:
Protecting Turkey’s march toward Sharia and abandonment of Kemalist secularism. “Turkey: Coup Foiled, Gov’t-Armed Forces War Continues,” fromÂ ANSAmed,
Ever since he came to power, Erdogan has been using the “requirements” imposed by the E.U. — requirements that have little relevance to a large Muslim country, which owes whatever recent advances it has made, on Kemalism — that is, the systematic constraints placed on Islam as a political and social force, by Ataturk, in the 1920s and early 1930s,and that are in the end guaranteed by force or the threat of force on the part of the Turkish military.
The one-quarter of the Turkish population that consists of the secular beneficiaries of Kemalism made a mistake in thinking that they had only to rely on the army, and had no responsibility to continue to work to constrain Islam, and to use the examples nearby — the most obvious one being the hideous experience of the Islamic Republic of Iran — of what a country taking Islam to heart ends up looking like.
And it should have been foreseen, and understood, that the desire for E.U. membership could be, and would be, cunningly exploited by Erdogan, to weaken the army, all in the guise of “meeting the demands” of a modern, progressive country suitable for admission to the E.U.
Meanwhile, European bureaucrats looked on, without caring, apparently, what was happening or, in some cases, still worse, in registering their “approval” of the measures Erdogn was taking, not really to make Turkey fit for admission to the E.U. (he’s given up on that), but on making sure that Turkey descends again into the condition of a Muslim people in a Muslim polity, with no Kemalist nonsense about it. The secular class must do whatever it can to suppress this revolt from below, for if it does not, the descent of Turkey into something like what one sees in the Arab states, or in the Islamic Republic of Iran, is the likely end result. And that, for anyone in Turkey who thinks, who has been able to become, under the previous conditions, a full-fledged Western man, would be an intolerable state of affairs.
Previously posted at JW:
Fitzgerald: Why is Turkey in NATO?
Quaere: Why is Turkey in NATO? Is Turkish membership of any value, or is it a danger to the effectiveness of NATO as that organization must necessarily turn its attention away from Russia to the threat from Islam worldwide, and especially to the threat, foreign and domestic, that Muslims who take Islam seriously pose to the West and to the West’s most important military alliance, NATO?
Of what conceivable good, of what possible benefit, is Turkish membership in NATO to the other members of NATO? And why should Turkey be a member, and not instead a country that is of far greater value militarily and morally to that very West that NATO was originally established to protect — that is, Israel?
Some still choose to describe Turkey, quite backdatedly (it’s not the 1950s or the 1960s anymore) as “our NATO ally Turkey.” Turkey is indeed a member of NATO. But the main reason for NATO’s existence in the past was the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Turkey, which was happy to collaborate in efforts to contain its ancient enemy Russia, was a good ally. The Soviet Union was for the Turks their hereditary enemy, Russia, under a slightly different guise, and Turkey could and did offer troops (for the Korean War), and listening posts and airbases.
But who could imagine Recep Tayyip Erdogan offering bases today, or any kind of military aid, that would be part of an Infidel coalition against what would be understood to be representatives of Islam? Turkey today is in the control of a regime that is intent on undoing Kemalism and determined to make Turkey firmly part of the Muslim world — even if, at the same time, the regime of Erdogan is outraged by any attempts by Europeans to keep Turkey out of the E.U.
How good an ally can Turkey be, with Islam in the ascendant and Kemalism under constant siege, if the main purpose of NATO is now or soon will be to protect Western Europe and preserve the Western alliance from those who, within Europe, are either Muslims or collaborators with Muslims? It makes no sense for the members of NATO to commit themselves to treating an attack on Turkey as an attack on themselves, when the Cold War is over, and a re-islamizing Turkey makes friends with Iran and Syria. Do the other members of NATO think that the Turkish military would come to their aid if any Infidel nation-state in NATO were attacked, from within or without, by Muslim forces? But NATO members are already under attack by the Muslims in their midst, who now constitute a grave national security risk, one at least as great as that posed by domestic sympathizers with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And they are under attack by Muslim forces, too, in Afghanistan.
Turkey is part of the very Camp of Islam that is the most dangerous threat to the West today, and to what is the Western military alliance, NATO. It makes no sense to keep this Turkey in NATO. It is no longer the Turkey that once was a fit member of NATO under different circumstances, with a different enemy.
It is especially maddening that Turkey, but not Israel, is a member of NATO. Israel is not merely an unshakable part of the West, but the Western world is, as all educated people used to know, not conceivable without the inheritance from Israel as from Greece and Rome. And now that Israel was re-established, after nearly 2000 years, in the ancient Jewish homeland, its disappearance would whet Arab and Muslim appetites, and would a deal a great blow — understood by so few — to the morale and to the continued existence of the advanced West, which is the world’s best hope for a semi-decent model of existence.
As long as Erdogan and his associates, and those who effectively support them — including Fethulen Gulen, spreading Islam through his “educational” efforts around the globe from the safety of suburban Virginia — are intent on removing the constraints on Islam that Ataturk (intent on saving Turkey from Islam and the effects of Islam) so carefully and systematically placed on it, there is no point in thinking of Turkey as more than part, a non-Arab part, a partly-secularised part, but still a part, of the Camp of Islam. It should be treated most warily.
[Posted by Hugh on October 18, 2009]
If you go to the original article, a number of long comments — including some from secular Turks who feel I have “insulted” them, and my replies to various posters, further dilate upon the theme.