Turkey's Challenge and the Syrian Negotiation

By Reva Bhalla
Vice President of Global Affairs

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zubi harshly criticized the Turkish government early last week over Ankara's proposal that an interim government succeed the al Assad regime, saying that "Turkey isn't the Ottoman Sultanate; the Turkish Foreign Ministry doesn't name custodians in Damascus, Mecca, Cairo and Jerusalem." Being the spokesman for a pariah regime requires a mastery of propaganda. Al-Zubi has not disappointed in this regard, mounting a strong rhetorical offensive against Syria's powerful northern neighbor.

While his latest rebuke of Turkey will not save the al Assad regime (much less his own career), he is tapping into a powerful narrative in the region, one that will have stronger and stronger resonance in the Arab world as Turkey is forced to play a more assertive role in the region.

Great Expectations in Ankara

As Ankara is discovering, the resurgence of a nation can be an awkward and rocky process. Things were simpler for Turkey in the early part of the past decade when the regional climate allowed Turkey to re-emerge cautiously, with a white flag in hand and phrases like "zero problems with neighbors" on its lips. The region has since become far more unforgiving, with violent political transformations nipping at Anatolia's borders, Iran putting up stiff competition for regional influence, Russia's resurgence proceeding apace and the United States increasingly losing interest in the role of global policeman. The region is pushing Turkey into action regardless of whether Ankara is ready to take on the responsibility.

Visit our Syria page for related analysis, videos, situation reports and maps.

The past week offered several glimpses into Turkey's growing pains. Turkish and Syrian border troops shelled each other after Syrian mortar fire killed five Turkish civilians. Turkish fighter jets scrambled after the Syrian air force attacked a town along the Syrian side of the border. Turkish-Russian tensions also flared when Turkey intercepted a Syria-bound plane from Moscow allegedly carrying radar equipment. And a nervous Ankara watched as a coalition of Kurdish groups from Syria, northern Iraq, Iran and Turkey gathered in Paris to brainstorm ways to exploit the shifting regional landscape and propel a campaign for Kurdish statehood.

The Basis for a Negotiation

The conflict in Syria offers both a threat and an opportunity for Ankara. Turkey took a risk when it became the most ardent and visible backer of the Syrian rebellion. Now, tens of thousands of refugees are flowing across the border into Turkey. The threat of sectarian warfare spreading past Syria's borders looms. And the exposure of Turkey's regional competition with Iran has elevated the Kurdish militant threat from a domestic sore point to a weakness that regional competitors like Iran can exploit.

Turkey is also closely monitoring a critical force that has begun to shape the region: the rise of Islamist movements and the discrediting of Arab secularist police states. The transition from secular autocracy will be tumultuous, but the more leverage Turkey has with this Pan-Arab Islamist movement, the better prepared it will be to manage its neighborhood. An opportunity is thus developing for Turkey in which it can assert its Islamist credentials alongside its ability to compete effectively with Iran and to deal with the West. Turkey is uniquely positioned to steer the Islamist movement while the Arab street still requires a regional backer in its challenge to the old regimes and to keep Iran at bay. But Arab attitudes toward Turkey will shift with time as Turkey's expectations of a growing sphere of influence in the Arab world inevitably clash with the Muslim Brotherhood's vision of a Pan-Arab Islamist movement following its own course, as opposed to one set by Ankara.

Turkey has several immediate challenges. First, it is attempting to prevent a power vacuum from expanding in Syria that would fuel Kurdish separatism. Second, it is trying to push back the Iranian sphere of influence while expanding its own into the Arab world. Third, it wants to be taken seriously as a regional leader. Heavily constrained as it is, Ankara appears to have chosen to tackle this array of issues primarily through dialogue.

Turkey wants to avoid regime change in Syria, and it is not alone. Neither the states trying to retain influence in Syria, like Iran and Russia, nor the states trying to force a political transformation in the Levant, like Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia, France and Qatar, are prepared to weather the consequences of debaathification, which would dismantle the state machinery, sideline the Alawite minority and plunge the country more deeply into civil war. A growing consensus centered on removing the al Assads while largely maintaining the regime has created an opportunity for dialogue between the United States and Turkey on one side and Russia and Iran on the other. Tehran and Moscow have used the monthslong stalemate in the Syrian conflict to edge their way into discussions over a post-al Assad government. The Russians and Iranians have positioned themselves for a possible agreement that facilitates an exit for the al Assads while requiring a prominent space for the Alawites in a new government, something that would preserve Russian and Iranian influence in Syria.

The urgency to negotiate the Syrian transition is escalating just as one of the key pillars Stratfor identified from the start of the conflict, the cohesion of the Alawites, appears to be breaking down. Recently, clashes have erupted between Alawite clans in the coastal Alawite strongholds of Latakia and Qardaha, the birthplace of former President Hafiz al Assad. Evidence also has emerged supporting claims that a handful of Alawite military officers have recently defected from the regime. Critical Alawite defections could accelerate in the coming weeks as fewer Alawites see the survival of the al Assads as necessary to their own survival.

As the al Assad clan continues to weaken, Turkey has sought to stitch together negotiations already fraught with complications. One look at the participants in the discussion over a post-al Assad Syria explains the difficulty.

The U.S.-Iranian Dynamic

The first major dialogue for Turkey to mediate is between the United States and Iran. The United States has no interest in initiating a military intervention in Syria, though it is preparing for the possibility that U.S. intelligence assets and special operations forces will have to secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles in the event of a regime meltdown. The United States also does not want to engage in a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Washington thus has elected a strategy whereby Turkey does the bulk of the work on Syria while Washington focuses on weakening Iran through sanctions pressure, covert operations and building up a credible military threat in the Persian Gulf. Washington hopes to coerce Iran into negotiations where it can extract hefty concessions from Tehran on issues ranging from Syria to the Iranian nuclear program.

Read more: Turkey's Challenge and the Syrian Negotiation | Stratfor 

Israel Convinced It's Electing The American President. Mitt Backs Israel's Decision Against Iran.

Mitt Romney backs Israel against nuclear-armed Iran - video

On a trip to Jerusalem's Old City, US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declares solidarity with Israel against threats from Iran. Romney says the US under his presidency would 'not look away' in the face of an existential challenge against the Jewish state and says the US must prevent Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons

read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jul/30/mitt-romney-israel-nuclear-iran-video

Israel elects a president

Israel convinced that it is the one electing the American president - that the decision on who will lead the United States, and the world, rests in its hands.

By Zvi Bar'el | Aug.01, 2012 | 3:13 AM

American Presidential Candidate Syndrome is a disease that has afflicted every Israeli government, as well as Israeli society as a whole. The symptoms of this syndrome are well known, and like a chronic ulcer, they recur every four years.

The most prominent symptom is that for a moment, Israel becomes convinced that it is the one electing the American president - that the decision on who will lead the United States, and the world, rests in its hands. But since it is impossible to confine an entire country to a facility for the mentally impaired, there's nothing to do but recognize this syndrome as if it were true as true can be. That's what happens when a nation is Napoleonic, in the clinical sense of the word.

After all, eight million Israelis can't be wrong. Thus, Israel is dreaming of electing the American president, and Mitt Romney is its preferred candidate. Some things don't need to be said explicitly to be understood. Love is like that.

Romney also knows that Israel's enthusiasm carries a price: It comes with a checklist dictating a list of conditions that the presidential candidate must satisfy if he wishes to earn the Israeli public's support. So far, Romney has met them all.

A trip to Israel? Check. Contempt for the Palestinians? Check. A pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem? Check. Admiration for Jewish genes? Check. Nary a word about the occupation? Check. Support for an attack on Iran? Absolutely.

This, therefore, is the man who ought to replace the Muslim president now sitting in the White House. Barack Hussein Obama - who prevented recognition of a Palestinian state, who caved in when faced with the Wild West outposts in the territories (after a pathetic attempt to freeze construction in the settlements ), who is bestowing all the most advanced equipment on Israel, who has mobilized the world against Iran, and above all, who has understood that you can't spank the rebellious Israeli child, but can only mutter "I don't approve" - is no longer suitable for Israel.

In effect, he was unsuitable from the very first moment, when he told leaders of the American Jewish community that Israel must engage in some soul-searching with regard to its peace policy. Just imagine: An American president who received nearly 80 percent of the Jewish vote telling Israel to do some soul-searching.

This is the root of the loathing and anger that the current government and the man who heads it feel toward Obama. One could overlook an American president embarking on a campaign of reconciliation with the Muslim world. One could turn a blind eye to "misunderstandings" and uncomfortable rhetoric, to chilly receptions and angry phone calls - like the one Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2010, after Israel announced the construction of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden.

Messianic Israel knows that not everyone has yet adopted the true faith. But it is convinced that in the end, everyone will find enlightenment. Therefore, it doesn't get insulted when an American president criticizes its policy, and especially not when the president in question is a "Muslim" like Obama or a "leftist" like Bill Clinton. Like the Israeli left, they, too, have forgotten what it means to be Jewish.

But it is unforgivable for an American president to tell Israel to engage in soul-searching.

Soul-searching is something that Israel, and only Israel, is entitled to demand of others. Someone who urges Israel to engage in soul-searching is challenging absolute justice, even divinity itself. Such a demand casts doubt on Israel's raison d'etre - not as a state of refuge for Jews, but as the realization of a divine promise.

For there is more than enough room between Gedera and Hadera to serve as a refuge for Jews, and even a bit more north of the Kishon River. A refuge doesn't have to be located in the stony hillsides of Samaria. The Promised Land, in contrast, is a matter between the government and its Creator. No president, whether American or Malaysian, has the right to thrust himself between them.

Romney understands this idea: He has adopted it and is marketing it to all and sundry. He won't demand any soul-searching of Israel, or any "reconsideration" of its policies. Romney is well-suited to us, and we to him.

In the best-case scenario, he knows that this is a crazy country, so one can't tell the truth to its face. In the more realistic scenario, he is afflicted with that same syndrome, which drove him to come to Israel to touch holiness.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-elects-a-president-1.455088

‘STANDING OVATION’: HERE‘S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MITT ROMNEY’S TRIP TO ISRAEL

Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:47pm by  Erica Ritz

(Photo: Getty Images)

Standing on Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state and said the United States has “a solemn duty and a moral imperative” to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.

“Make no mistake, the ayatollahs in Iran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way,” he said. “We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel.”

The Old City formed a made-for-television backdrop behind Romney, while some of his campaign donors listened in the audience.

Here are clips from the speech on Iran:

Romney‘s declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital follows an awkward exchange last week where White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to say where exactly the White House believes the capital of Israel to be.

And Romney’s remarks drew a standing ovation from his audience, according to the Associated Press.

But the presidential candidate’s embrace of Israel was on display all day, as he met with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and other leaders.  The Israeli press, normally somewhat left-leaning, was more curious about Romney and his relationship with Netanyahu than critical, according to reports.

The Washington correspondent for the Israeli site Haaretz explained: “I don’t think they know [Romney] that deep — but they are suspicious enough of President Obama to express some hopes for Romney as possible leader of the free world.”

(Photo: Getty Images)

Today’s Haaretz headline reads: “In Jerusalem speech it was Romney‘s voice but Netanyahu’s words: Netanyahu embraces Romney as no prime minister has ever embraced a candidate running against an incumbent U.S. president.”

Politico sums it up: “Given Obama’s frosty relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Romney’s relationship with ‘Bibi’ — which dates back to their time as colleagues at Boston Consulting Group in the 1970s — formed a cornerstone of Israeli press coverage over the weekend.”

Romney also visited the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, and held a meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Romney steered clear of overt criticism of the president during his remarks, but made it clear that he doesn‘t buy Obama’s narrative.

“It is sometimes said that those who are the most committed to stopping the Iranian regime from security nuclear weapons are reckless and provocative and inviting war…The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers,” Romney said.

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney meets with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Jerusalem. (Photo: AP)

Israel is the second of three stops on an international trip for Romney in the weeks before he claims the Republican nomination at his party’s national convention in Tampa, Fla.

Robert Gibbs said on ABC’s “This Week” that the administration has delayed Iran’s nuclear program through its various diplomatic initiatives, but Netanyahu countered before Romney’s speech that “all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota.”

read more here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/standing-ovation-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-mitt-romneys-trip-to-israel/

Hamas, Fatah, Israel, and the United Nations.

By now, I am sure you are aware of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. But, do you know who Hamas is, other than "the bad guy" in this conflict?

The name "Hamas" is an acronym for the "Islamic Resistance Movement". That says a lot on its own, however, let's look further into Hamas.

Hamas "is a Palestinian Sunni paramilitary organization and political party which holds a majority of seats in the elected legislative council of the Palestinian National Authority." Hamas was created in 1987 and has become popular in Palestinian society by establishing services such as hospitals, libraries, and others throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. "Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip". Note: source -- Wikipedia

The issues in the Palestinian government run deep and have a seemingly unending timeline. More recently, "The Palestinian National Authority was formed in 1994, pursuant to the Oslo Accords between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the government of Israel, as a 5-year interim body during which final status negotiations between the two parties were to take place but never did. According to the Accords, the Palestinian Authority was designated to have control over both security-related and civilian issues in Palestinian urban areas (referred to


as "Area A"), and only civilian control over Palestinian rural areas ("Area B"). The remainder of the territories, including Israeli settlements, the Jordan Valley region, and bypass roads between Palestinian communities, were to remain under exclusive Israeli control ("Area C"). East Jerusalem was excluded from the Accords." So, what needs to happen here, in addition to many other things, is that the negotiations need to be mandated and oversight by the United Nations must be in place as a peace making middle-man. Additionally, the Israeli settlements should currently remain theirs, according to the Oslo Accords. "The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP) was a milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was the first direct, face-to-face agreement between Israel and political representatives of Palestinians. It was the first time that some Palestinian factions publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist."

On an international basis, the U.N. should use their power to intervene and uphold this agreement (the Oslo Accords), inclusive of the violence from Hamas and Hamas' power as a result of their victory in parliamentary elections. This is not a U.S. fight, although we are in need of standing up for our allies, which include Israel. However, this is a disturbance that the U.N. needs to pursue as an international peace keeping mission.

"The PA maintains an official uniformed armed service which various sources estimate to include anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 recruits employing some armored cars, and a limited number carry automatic weapons. Officially termed a "police force", it violates the Oslo Accords which limit the force to 30,000 recruits."

Fatah is also a major political player in the Palastinian government. President Mahmoud Abbas a major player in the Fatah party. In the mid-1950's Abbas "became heavily involved in underground Palestinian politics, joining a number of exiled Palestinians in Qatar, where he was Director of Personnel in the emirate's Civil Service. While there, he recruited a number of people who would become key figures in the Palestine Liberation Organization, and was one of the founding members of Fatah in 1957. Yasser Arafat was among other key members...He (Abbas) is credited with initiating secretive contacts with left-wing and pacifist Jewish groups during the 1970s and 80s, and is considered by many to be a major architect of the 1993 Oslo peace accords (evidenced in part by the fact that he travelled with Arafat to the White House to sign the accords)."

The Palestinian terrorist organization called "Black September", responsible for the Munich massacre was assumed to be an operational cover for Arafat's Fatah group. "Abbas came into conflict with Palestinian militant groups, notably Islamic Jihad and Hamas; his pragmatic policies were opposed to their hard-line approach. However, he made it perfectly clear that he was forced to abandon, for the moment, the use of arms against Israeli civilians inside the green line due to its ineffectiveness; the Abbas doctrine allowed for selective terrorism."

"On December 16, 2006 Abbas called for new legislative elections, to bring an end to the parliamentary stalemate between Fatah and Hamas in forming a national unity government.

On March 17, 2007 a Palestinian unity government was formed incorporating members of both Hamas and Fatah, with Ismail Haniyeh as Prime Minister and independent politicians taking many key portfolios."

"... Ismail Haniyeh the Hamas prime minister has continued to operate in Gaza, and be recognized as by a large number of Palestinians as the legitimate caretaker prime minister. Anis al-Qasem, the Palestinian constitutional lawyer who drafted the Basic Law, is among those who publicly declared Abbas' appointment of Fayyad to be illegal."

You can infer from these statements that there is a power struggle that continues in the Palastinian government that does not have a simple answer. When there are two opposing terrorist-type groups, which is the lesser evil? When you have a choice between Hamas and Fatah groups, who do you want in charge? A message to the United Nations...it's pass time to intervene.