New Report: HuffPost engaged in ‘Antisemitic Incitement’ Aimed at Helping Obama ‘Sell Iran Deal’

The New York newsroom of the Huffington Post. Photo: Wikipedia.

That the Huffington Post engaged in a “jihad of lies” against critics of the Iran deal, with special emphasis on Jews and Israel, is documented in a new report.

“The Rhodes To HuffPost,” whose release on Sunday came three days after the one-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), details a series of egregious violations of journalistic ethics on the part of the major media online outlet. In particular, it asserts, the HuffPost engaged in a concerted campaign to help US President Barack Obama get elected, and subsequently to assist him to push through the JCPOA by purposely deceiving the public about its true nature.

To this end, according to the report – compiled by Jon Sutz of the New York-based website SavetheWest.com – the HuffPost,

also published editorials and “news” stories that continued its long-standing pattern of inciting hate against Israel and Jews, using classic anti-Semitic libels and stereotypes, while whitewashing and even legitimizing Islamist terrorists, who’ve sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Examples include:

Falsely claiming that Netanyahu blindsided Obama in his speech to Congress: In the lead-up to Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March 2015, HuffPost published an incendiary splash headline that perpetuated the lie that he had insulted the Obama administration, and upset White House protocol, by accepting Congress’s invitation to speak, before Obama had been notified. It also inserted a false quote from him into its headline: “No disrespect, Barry.” HuffPost did this despite the fact that one month earlier, the New York Times admitted that the Obama administration had been notified in advance, and that its original story (sourced from the White House) was incorrect.

Falsely claiming that Netanyahu said nothing of value to Congress – while consistently quoting Iran’s rulers verbatim: After Netanyahu’s speech, HuffPost used a Yiddish slur to claim, in a “news” story headline, that he said nothing of importance to Congress about the Iran deal. Yet at the same time, and for years prior, it quoted Iran’s rulers accurately, whitewashed their overt threats against Israel, and engaged in de facto PR for the terror state.

Selectively publishing editorials that advanced anti-Semitic libels: In early 2015, HuffPost gave prominent space on its front page to a variety of anti-Semitic editorials, against both Mr. Netanyahu and Israel, and in support of the Iran deal. Yet when Elie Wiesel, the revered Holocaust survivor and world-renowned human rights activist authored an open letter to Obama and Congress, urging them to oppose the Iran deal, and took out full-page ads to promote it in the New York Times and the Washington Post, HuffPost completely ignored him.

Ignoring Iran’s funding of Hamas’s preparations to attack Israel: In August 2015, just before the final climax of the debate over the Iran deal, HuffPost ignored substantive reports that Iran was funding Hamas’s preparations to instigate a new war against Israel… [W]hen Hamas-led terrorists began engaging in near-daily attacks on Israeli Jews in the coming weeks, HuffPost all but ignored the victims — yet whitewashed and even legitimized the terrorists’ narrative.

The report — whose title is a reference to the scandal surrounding Obama’s JCPOA adviser Ben Rhodes’ admission of deceit in relation to the deal — says that the HuffPostboasts 130 million readers per month, calling itself the “largest news site in the US.” In addition, according to one internet traffic analysis source, the outlet is now the most popular political website in the world.

The report quotes the HuffPost’s claim that it “has in place rigorous editorial policies and standards…to ensure that we maintain the highest level of journalistic integrity…Too many reporters have forgotten that the highest calling of journalists is to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned…There is an objective reality, and it is the media’s job to present it unequivocally.”

The stated purpose of the report is to provide the facts to Americans who are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the Iran deal, and the way it was portrayed in the media. “Without this knowledge,” it says,”one cannot truly grasp the magnitude or implications of what HuffPost did, and failed to do.”

The reformation of a Reform Jew

by Andrew D. Lappin  Jewish Journal of Los Angeles   7-13-16

In an open letter to Donald Trump, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, derided the Trump campaign for questioning the wisdom of a two-state solution, arguing that “a two-state solution is our best hope for securing a Jewish and democratic future for the State of Israel."

Fortunately, outside of the URJ and the European Union, the rush of the previous decade to a hastily jury-rigged two-state solution has all but fully imploded. Most notably, the nations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait have quietly moved their once prominent “Palestinian agenda” off to the side. They have done so not because of any newly found love for Israel or for the Jewish people. Rather, since the Arab Spring began in 2010, these nations have witnessed not liberation and regeneration of a long oppressed Arab citizenry, but rather a barbaric displacement of these victims under the banner of radical Islam. The reality that more Muslims have been massacred under the dictates of radical Islam than by any other race, religion, or creed, coupled with the fear of a nuclear Iranian hegemony, has jolted these once ardent foes of Israel into a discreetly coalesced cooperative. In the last 12 months, all of these nations have been meeting with Israel, unrelated to the Palestinian issue.

For Israel’s part, its withdrawal from Gaza led not to a budding Palestinian fresh start but rather a totalitarian terrorist state.  “Gazastan” now directly threatens the stability of Egypt and serves as a regional export depot for terror attack materials. Earmarked for infrastructure to improve the quality of life for average Palestinians, billions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid has instead ended up in Palestinian leaders’ private Swiss bank accounts.

As a result of incitement by PA president Mahmoud Abbas and the indoctrination of Palestinians from early childhood, the vast majority of Palestinians support murdering Jewish men, women and children – en masse via suicide bomber, or individually, whether on the street or asleep in their bed.  The irony is that compared to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, Israel takes better care of the Palestinians than either of them.

 As for that Jewish-Israel versus democratic-Israel thing, the burgeoning Jewish population of Judea and Samaria is living proof that the “demographic time bomb” is nothing but a myth.

So with almost everybody else agreeing that a Palestinian state would benefit absolutely no one (least of all, the Palestinians themselves because they could have had a state several times over by now if that’s really what they wanted), what is it that Rabbi Jacobs and his band of Reform movement cheerleaders fail to comprehend?  All of the above, apparently.

As a Reform Jew who has devoted a great deal of time and financial resources to the goal of enhancing Jewish continuity, I now affirm these truths: Diaspora Jews need Israel (whether they realize it or not); Israel’s Arab neighbors need Israel (whether they admit it or not); enhancing Jewish continuity means ensuring Israel’s survival from strength to strength—and that means never relinquishing Judea, Samaria, or any part of Israel’s eternal and undivided capital, Jerusalem.   I am reformed!

Andrew Lappin is a Chicago-based redeveloper and contributor to the Haym Salomon Center, a news and public policy group. Lappin serves on the board of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

To The US State Department Building Houses [and/or adding bathrooms] Matters Much More Than  Murdered Jews

POSTING NOTE:  Your administration  fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal because he was honest to you and to the American public about the situation in Afghanistan and what it would take to ensure that a stable, non-terrorist Afghanistan regime survives. [Instead you encouraged the Taliban through announcing a fixed date for withdrawal and that your  preferred policy was negotiating with the Taliban.]

Your administration fired Gen. Michael T. Flynn because he was honest to you and to the American public about those nations (including Iran) who are supporting terrorism against US forces and US interests. [instead you encouraged the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps to take an emboldened role in Syria and South America. And now you are encouraging $25 billion of direct sales to an "civilian" company that is actually  run by the IRGC to give them the capability of massive resupply to the Syrian Armed Forces, Hezbollah , Hamas, etc.]

Your and administration has fired more military officers on political grounds than has any previous administration in US history.

As Christians and military officers sworn to defend the  United States of America, we call out to you to take a moral stance and cease  your strong-arm  delusional and counterproductive attacks on the state of Israel.

While we did not write this statement……we endorse it.

The US State Department this week issued an unusually harsh statement against ‎Israel. In it, the Obama Administration accused Israel of “systematically seizing Palestinian land,” with State ‎Department spokesman John Kirby claiming that “settlement expansions and legalization of ‎outposts is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.”

The timing of the United States’ condemnation of Israel could not possibly be more bizarre. After two ‎heinous terrorist attacks last week, in which a 13-year-old girl (who, incidentally, held dual Israeli-US ‎citizenship) was stabbed to death in her sleep and a father of 10 was murdered, the US chose to focus its outrage on the building of Jewish houses, not the murder of Jewish children ‎and fathers. ‎

As hard as this may be to fathom for the US, the EU and the UN, Jewish houses do not block ‎the much fabled, nonexistent peace process; the Palestinian Authority’s official policies of ‎encouraging, inciting, rewarding and publicly celebrating lethal terrorism against Israelis of all ages does. This terrorism is the proverbial elephant in the room, which the US, the EU and ‎the UN all choose to ignore in what can only be seen as the most irresponsible choice of policy ‎toward the Jews since the Allies refused to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz.‎

By making the PA the second-largest recipient per capita of foreign aid in the world, the US and the EU have made themselves complicit in the murders of Israelis. This remains the truth, no matter how ‎much and how often they seek to distract world attention from it by throwing hissy fits about the perceived outrageousness of building houses for Jews in Judea and Samaria. How ‎morally twisted and depraved the world is when the official sanctioning of the murder of ‎sleeping children elicits barely any outrage, but the building of houses does.‎

There was no outrage over the fact that the PA paid for the mourning tent of the family whose son ‎murdered the Israeli girl in her bedroom, nor over the visit by a Palestinian Authority official closely ‎associated with President Mahmoud Abbas to the mourning tent to pay his respects to the family of ‎the murderer. ‎

Nor did the US show any outrage at the fact that the funeral procession for father of 10 Rabbi ‎Michael Mark was hit by rocks thrown by Arabs who were apparently not satisfied that the victim was already ‎dead.‎

Nor was there any outrage at the attempted rekindling of medieval European blood libels by Abbas in the ‎European Parliament, when he claimed that Israelis were poisoning Arab wells. When AP reporter Matt ‎Lee tried to get Kirby, the same State Department spokesman who threw a temper tantrum over ‎Jewish building in Judea and Samaria, to condemn Abbas’ statements, Kirby ‎could not make himself utter the words. Pressed by Lee, he made himself say, “We have long ‎said what we want is for both sides to ratchet down not just the violence but the rhetoric, which can ‎inflame some of the violence. And we just don’t find that sort of rhetoric helpful.”

What a pitiful ‎statement. Especially given that all the inflammatory rhetoric and the ensuing terrorism ‎is coming from the PA, not from Israel. It has always been this way and the State Department is ‎perfectly aware of this. There is no moral equivalence and no “cycle of violence.” It is all very one-‎sided, but by consciously making statements such as this, the State Department legitimizes the false ‎narrative of the conflict and ensures that it continues at full speed. Essentially, it tells the PA to just continue ‎its dirty business, because no matter what it does, there will be no consequences politically or, ‎even more importantly, financially. Just like the EU, the US treats the PA as an unruly toddler who can do ‎no wrong and must be indulged in all its whims. That, too, is a racism of low expectations, coming from ‎the country that has recently elevated political correctness into something of a second US Constitution. ‎

We know that for the US administration, in particular the State Department, the building of houses ‎matters. The question that remains is this: Does the administration also believe that Jewish lives ‎matter?‎

Elie Wiesel: Should the people of Israel remain "Jews of Silence" ?

The legacy of Elie Wiesel.

David Bedein 5-7-16

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19147

Elie Wiesel has passed away.

Fifty years ago, Elie Wiesel, a little known Israeli news correspondent in the US. wrote a book that shook the soul of a generation: The Jews of Silence.  Wiesel described two kinds of  Jews of silence:  Jews in the Diaspora who remained silent about the fate of their brethren in the USSR... and those who were silenced in the USSR.

At Akiba, the high school I attended in Philadelphia, our student council asked Wiesel to speak at the commencement ceremony in 1967, the year before I graduated.  Wiesel indeed spoke - on June 6, 1967 on what turned out to be the 2nd night of the Six Day War, following a three week blockade siege of Israel which had traumatized Israel and the Jewish world, during which time the Arab states and the PLO dominated the air waves with daily tirades on how they planned to exterminate the Jews of Israel.

Now, all bets are off.  The PA does not mask its genocidal purpose, to kill the Jews of Israel and to replace the Jewish state with an Arab Palestine. 

Wiesel announced from the dais that he would toss out his prepared text which focused exclusively on the isolation and threat to Soviet Jewry, and instead addressed “an Israel that stood alone” throughout May 1967. “Where was France, Israel's only ally”? Wiesel asked. Wiesel said that moments of trepidation in May 1967 brought him back to eerie days during and before World War II, when Jews stood alone, while the fate of his family was doomed to the crematoria. No one seemed to care and few spoke out when it counted

Wiesel's message that night was that Jews stand alone, and they cannot remain silent, even in the face of overwhelming odds... . Listening to Wiesel, I was also tuned into my transistor radio, to hear Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban plead for an isolated Jewish State at the UN, broadcast live on KYW, the popular Philadelphia news station.

Fast forward 50 years: A nascent entity has emerged on Israel's frontiers, carved out of the PLO - the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was founded by the Arab League in 1964 to galvanize local Arabs to liberate all of Palestine, under their claim to "right of return" - by force of arms.

22 years ago, negotiations began with the PLO, which spawned the Palestinian Authority, the PA, whose consistent message has hardly been one of peace. Yet the people of Israel hope for the best, and believe in the promise of a peace process.

Now, all bets are off.  The PA does not mask its genocidal purpose, to kill the Jews of Israel and to replace the Jewish state with an Arab Palestine. 

Watch PA TV, listen to PA radio, read PA newspapers peruse PA school books and witness pronouncements of the PA. Most Jews, in Israel and abroad, prefer not to see the PA for what it is, even when PBC, the Voice of Palestine, rejoices over the murder of a 13 year old Jewish girl in her sleep.  

The people of Israel listen to news anchors who still speak about a peace process and about the PA as a peace partner. And news correspondents report from IDF sources that Hamas- whose funds come by and large from the PA, does not really want war.  

On the festive days of Purim and Passover, Jews are commanded by God to cope with the reality that in each generation, there are those who really want to exterminate Jews... It would seem that many Jews, even when they are sober, cannot tell the difference between Mordecai and Haman. Perhaps that is the reason why Purim and Passover remain obligatory Jewish holidays.

To paraphrase Wiesel, God does not want the people of Israel to become "Jews of Silence"- Jews who are silent, or Jews who are silenced.  May Elie Wiesel and his message to the Jewish people always be remembered.

On First Anniversary of Iran Nuclear Deal, American Credibility in Middle East Destroyed, Says Former US Ambassador to Iraq, Turkey

Lea Speyer   7-6-16

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/07/06/on-first-anniversary-of-iran-nuclear-deal-american-credibility-in-middle-east-destroyed-says-former-us-ambassador-to-iraq-turkey/

.

America’s credibility in the Middle East has been destroyed since the signing of the Iran nuclear deal a year ago, a former US ambassador to Iraq and Turkey asserted on Tuesday.

In his analysis, titled, “The JCPOA’s Regional Impact: Sinking Confidence in the U.S. Balancing Role,” James F. Jeffrey — the Philip Solondz Distinguished Fellow at the DC-based think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — wrote that the nuclear deal has emboldened Tehran and “even enabled Iran’s hegemonic quest.” As a result, he claimed, regional powers — such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel — now perceive US leadership as “weak,” posing heightened risks of “descent into greater chaos.”

Middle Eastern powers initially welcomed the nuclear agreement, Jeffrey wrote, but many did so with reservations. Arab populations were split in their support, worrying about “the agreement’s potential to facilitate Iranian mischief-making.”

Ahead of next week’s one-year anniversary of the JCPOA — signed on July 14, 2015 — and “with the wind in Iran’s sails conjured by the deal,” the US’s ability to challenge the Islamic Republic has become almost nonexistent, Jeffrey maintained, adding:

First, the deal has given Iran the means to expand its regional heft through diplomacy, money, surrogates, and violence, namely by allowing the regime to profit from the release of many tens of billions of dollars of previously blocked oil earnings and renewed oil exports, to leave the negotiating table flush with arguable “victories” (i.e., maintaining the right to enrich uranium and avoiding a confession about its weaponization program), and to become newly attractive as a global trading partner.

Second, the Obama administration, bereft of diplomatic successes elsewhere, has become so indebted to Iran for the agreement that it has avoided challenging Iran and, worse, seems to view the agreement as a transformative moment with Tehran, a “Havana in the sand.”

Nevertheless, in a September 2015 letter responding to calls by more than 100 former US ambassadors warning against the dangers of the deal, US Secretary of State John Kerry wrote:

We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Asad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel. We have no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the JCPOA.

Yet, Jeffrey wrote, in implementing the JCPOA, actions and comments “from the president on down” have undermined America’s ability to maintain its own power in the region.

“Administration responses to crises generated by Iran since the JCPOA have been mixed, but certainly fall short of what it would take to persuade skeptical regional states that Washington is following through,” he wrote.

As a result, he said, Middle Eastern countries have taken matters into their own hands where dealing with Iran’s aggressive behavior is concerned:

Absent a White House that is willing to “lead from the front,” regional players have acted individually. Saudi Arabia has been the strongest in opposing Iran…The United Arab Emirates and in some respects Qatar have followed similar strategies. Oman and Kuwait are on the sidelines. Jordan is worried about Iran but has more pressing threats. Egypt remains largely absent from the regional stage. Turkey supported a past Iranian nuclear deal…but it now sees Iran as a both a regional rival and trading partner…As for Israel, many top figures, including leading military officials, recognize that the JCPOA has temporarily restrained Iran’s nuclear quest, though Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself has not conceded this point. Israel has simultaneously courted Moscow, remained generally neutral on Assad, and reacted to the Iran-Hezbollah alliance with fairly frequent military strikes in Syria.

Jeffrey concluded:

The administration mainly appears interested in preserving the accord and its new channels with Tehran while running its still-limited campaign against the Islamic State. Left to their own devices and faced with an Iran on the march, regional states are responding in an incoherent and dangerous fashion…To the extent the JCPOA enabled this, it has degraded Middle East security.

The stated aim of the JCPOA was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite repeated denials from Tehran that its nuclear program is peaceful, top Iranian officials — such as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — have vowed that nothing will stop the country from becoming a nuclear power.

1.      Sources to CNN: “Hillary Likely Won't Face Prosecution”; 2.More Information on Hillary Clinton’s Servers 

1.      Sources to CNN: “Hillary Likely Won't Face Prosecution”

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton likely will not be prosecuted on charges related to her use of a private email server, unnamed sources told CNN over the weekend, and following Saturday's FBI interrogation, the investigation into the scandal is 1. coming to an end, a former Department of Justice spokesman said Monday. 

"I think this was really the last step in the FBI's investigation, typically in a long investigation like this," former DOJ spokesman Matt Miller, who endorses Clinton's campaign, told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Monday, noting that the key person in an investigation is typically interviewed last.  

Over the weekend, Edward Mejia Davis, CNN's senior producer, posted on Twitter that there would likely be "no charges" against ClintonSources familiar with the investigation told CNN that within the next two weeks or so, there will likely be an announcement that no charges will be brought against Clinton, as long as there is no evidence coming from her interview on Saturday with the FBI. 

CNN reported previously that there would likely be no charges as investigators had not found enough evidence to warrant charges, according to law enforcement officials. 

On Saturday, a Democrat close to Clinton said the FBI will likely announce its decision before the Democratic National Convention later this month. 

2.More Information on Hillary Clinton’s Servers 

The Hillary Clinton campaign staff is undertaking a massive campaign to shape the media perception of the alleged Hillary Clinton security violations.

The most current example is Brian Fallon, Clinton’s national press secretary, interview with NBC News. In that interview he stated the following points:

1.“We have received no indication from any government agency to support these claims, 

2. nor are they reflected in the range of charges that Guccifer already faces and that prompted his extradition in the first place,” 

Fallon said. 3. “And it has been reported that security logs from Secretary Clinton’s email server do not show any evidence of foreign hacking.”

The Fallon statements are an example of "Clinton speak". This means that while the statement is "technically correct" it is misleading. The following points apply:

1. No government agency would communicate to Hillary Clinton and/or to her campaign and/or personal staff any information at all concerning these claims and/or the investigation of these claims. Thus, Fallon is dating an obvious truth: the campaign has received no indication from any government agency… Of anything supporting and/or denying this allegation by a hacker who successfully hacked into Hillary Clinton's secret emails.

2. additional charges might be levied against Marcel Lehel Lazar As Brian Fallon fully understands at this stage of the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her staff any charges against Lazar would jeopardize the investigation.

3. Current evidence shows that sources in Russia and China have hacked into the servers. It is also believed that the Iranians did also hack into the servers. In addition to the classified information and the disclosure of sources and methods, the unclassified materials gave a clear picture of actions and intentions. So that damage is not only the classified material but also giving adversaries advanced tips as to US positions in US fallback positions.

General David Petraeus made his classified notebooks to his biographer,Paula Broadwell. Ms.Broadwell held the required security clearances for this information… However she did not have the need to know. She did not utilize any of this information in her writings nor did she transmit this information to any third party either directly or indirectly.

Thus, Mrs. Clinton by making this information available to her staff who did not have a need to know and in many cases did not have the required level of clearance for the information is much more guilty of a serious transgression than was General Petraeus .

The recently announced reconciliation accord—or rather “deal” between Israel and Turkey—is utterly unconscionable—and incomprehensible.

By: Dr. Martin Sherman

Published: July 3rd, 2016

The real reason for the rupture of relations with Turkey is not because of anything Israel has (or has not) done. It is a result of what Turkey has become.

Israelis have no conscience, no honor, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism. – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (7/19/2014)

National honor is not just something people talk of on the street...It has strategic significance - Moshe (Bogey) Yaalon, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, (8/17/2011).

The recently announced reconciliation accord—or rather “deal” between Israel and Turkey—is utterly unconscionable—and incomprehensible. From an Israeli point of view, it is devoid of any logic on every imaginable level—national, ethical, security and even commercial—except perhaps in the immediate short-term.

Resounding rejection

For this “deal’ to produce any beneficial results for Israel, beyond those that would accrue to it anyway without it, would be extremely implausible, defying all probability, evidence and common sense – a stunning victory for unfounded optimism over sober assessment of prevailing realities.

Just how detrimental the “deal” would be for Israel is underscored by its overwhelming rejection by the Israeli public, reflected in opinion polls conducted just after news of its impending conclusion broke. According to Channel 10, a majority of almost 2 to 1 in the overall population opposed the “deal”. In the Jewish population, the ratio of opponents to proponents rose to almost 3 to 1. By contrast, in the Arab sector, the numbers supporting the “deal” was nearly five times higher than those opposing it!

This is an interesting statistic in assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the “deal”. After all, unless one ascribes to the (largely non-Zionist) Arab population a more astute grasp of the national interest of the Jewish nation-state than one ascribes to the (largely pro-Zionist) Jewish population, the significance of this finding is crystal clear—for anyone with the moral courage and intellectual integrity to acknowledge it.

The Zoabi index

But perhaps the most reliable measure of the detriments of the “deal” was the undisguised display of joy and satisfaction with which it was received by Arab Knesset member of the anti-Zionist Balad faction, Hanin Zoabi, a de jure Israeli citizen, with full civil rights, who has spent years denigrating her country and consorting with its enemies. Much of Zoabi’s approving glee

was due to what is perhaps the most infuriating and disturbing aspect of this ill-conceived deal: Israel’s agreement to pay compensation of $20 million to the families of the homicidal thugs (whom Zoabi accompanied), killed while attempting to disembowel IDF naval commandoes, after they rappelled onto a Turkish vessel in 2010, to prevent it breaching the legal quarantine of the Hamas-ruled terrorist enclave of Gaza.

Flushed with victory at the macabre precedent of compensation being paid for the consequences of the attempted lynch of IDF combatants, she crowed: “The agreement by Israel to transfer the compensation to Turkey constitutes an admission of guilt to the murder of nine human beings…This shows that they were not terrorists but victims of [unprovoked] violence”.

Regrettably, but inevitably, many will believe her.

All Israel’s denials and explanations that this ill-considered “gesture” does not constitute acknowledgement of wrongdoing on its part will be of no avail. Few will be convinced that, if truly blameless, Israel would consent to pay multi-million dollar compensation, merely to allow its Turkish detractors to establish relations with it, relations which Turkey desires no less (and probably more) than Israel does. Perilous permit

Not less alarming and ominous is the fact that according to the terms of the “deal” Israel will allow Turkey to build infrastructure projects in Gaza, such as a hospital, power station and desalination plant; and to transfer unlimited (!!) humanitarian aid and equipment to Gaza, as long as it goes through the Israeli port of Ashdod.

It is difficult to conceive of a permit more perilous than this. After all, it is clear that with the initiation of these “projects”, huge (indeed, “unlimited”) amounts of dual purpose materials – such as cement, metals and chemicals—will flow into Gaza. Inspections in Ashdod will be of little value—since after any materials enter Gaza, Israel will have little control over what their final destination—or who their end-users—will be.

Furthermore, if the construction of Turkish projects involves the presence of Turkish workers and/or experts in Gaza, another—no less worrying—scenario is likely to arise: If Israel is (again) compelled to use force against the terrorist organizations deployed throughout the area, there is a tangible risk of Turkish civilians—perhaps even Turkish security personnel—being hit, especially if these organizations operate from within (or from underneath) the projects’ perimeters. Clearly, it is not difficult to identify the potential for a dangerous deterioration in the relationship between the two countries. Indeed, even the specter of possible armed clashes (something Erdogan himself has threatened) cannot be discounted.

At minimum, the presence of Turkish citizens and assets in Gaza is liable to constitute a serious constraint, inhibiting Israel’s freedom of action—both political and military—against the terrorist forces that operate in, and out of, Gaza.

Gas as an excuse?

The question of finding export markets has been cited as a major driving force for the “deal” with Turkey, which is robustly seeking to reduce its dependency on Russia, the source of over half its gas requirements.

However, on closer consideration, the matter of gas seems more an excuse than a substantive reason justifying the “deal”. Indeed, it is hard to identify the prudence in a policy, which creates massive dependency on a single customer (that costly construction of conveyance infrastructure would entails), thus mortgaging much of the future of the gas export trade to the vagaries of an inherently inimical, petulant and unpredictable leader. Indeed, with Erdogan at the helm, every crisis or dispute over a range of topics, on which Israel and Turkey may disagree, is liable to bring about a threat to discontinue Turkish purchases.

Energy expert, Professor Brenda Shaffer, cautions against falling prey to the notion that supplying gas can act as an impetus for improved bilateral relations. She writes (The Marker, (12/ 28/2015): “To date there is not a single case where the lure of supplying gas or oil contributed significantly to resolving conflict…Energy trade does not cause peaceful relations; it reflects peaceful relations”.

She warns: “The trade of gas rarely, if ever, creates dependency [of the importer]...Indeed the trade can in fact produce dependency of the exporter [on the importer]”.

Israel would do well to heed this warning.

The impact on others

The crisis in Turco-Israeli relations led to a blossoming of ties with several other countries, all of whom have some degree of tension in their relationships with Ankara, such as Russia, Greece and Cyprus.

It is highly unlikely that any “deal” that benefits Erdogan will not have some negative impact on the budding bonds with these countries, and the amount of trust they feel can they place in Israel as an ally. Moreover, there can be little doubt that, as Erdogan is a fervent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, any bolstering of his standing in Gaza will cause rancor and resentment in Cairo, where the amenable Sisi government is under constant threat from the Turkish ruler’s Islamist protégés.

I differ with newly appointed Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman on a range of topics, but I find it difficult to disagree with his critical assessment of the impending entente, expressed several months ago, prior to his joining the coalition: “Erdogan leads a radical Islamic regime, the Turks… are at odds with Russia…We have made considerable efforts in recent years to establish ties with Greece and Cyprus and have reached important agreements with them... [The agreement with Turkey] will harm them…It will also harm our ties with Egypt…”

Impact (cont)

Indeed, in an analysis of the Turco-Israeli “deal”, entitled “After the Israel-Turkey Agreement, Turkey and Hamas Will Still Collaborate”, Yoni Ben Menachem former Director General of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, now a senior Middle East analyst for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote: “Although so far Egypt is keeping mum, in the past it expressed great displeasure at the possibility of Israel giving Turkey any sort of foothold in Gaza.”

There is little reason to believe that Egyptian displeasure with the current deal will be in any way diminished.

Moreover, on Monday (6/28), the Israeli business daily, Globes, warned “Russia, from which Turkey imports 55%-60% of its natural gas, will do everything in its power to prevent this project [Israeli supplying gas to Turkey] from getting off the ground.”

The paper also noted: “The proposed pipeline between Israel and Turkey would pass through Cypriot economic waters–requiring the country’s approval. But relations between Cyprus and Turkey have been frosty [for decades]…A Cypriot energy executive was furious at the deal between Israel and Turkey [saying] ‘a gas export deal between Israel and Turkey is a point of no return for Israeli-Cypriot ties’”. According to the deputy Ambassador of Cyprus to Israel “his country would not authorize the construction of a pipeline…” Quoting a former senior Israeli diplomat, Globes reported that: “The deal with Turkey will hurt relations with Greece and likely Cyprus.” Referring to an agreement, signed in January between Cyprus, Israel and Greece, calling for strengthening trilateral ties, he remarked: “Israel gave Cyprus and Greece the illusion that it was onboard; signing a deal with Turkey is a sort of betrayal.”

Superfluous surrender Even commercially, there seems little point in the “deal”. While political ties between governments may have soured, relations between the two business communities have strengthened considerably.

Thus, despite the breakdown of diplomatic ties, business between the two countries has increased almost five-fold since the pre-Erdogan 1990s, and roughly doubled since 2009 (the year before the Gaza flotilla incident)—reaching almost $5.5 billion in 2014.

But beyond this, if Erdogan has truly undertaken a fundamental reassessment of Turkish interests, and rapprochement with Israel is now perceived as an important national goal, would he really be prepared to sacrifice it for a paltry $20 million dollars compensation or the dubious privilege of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza? There are only two possibilities: Either he would; or he wouldn’t.

If he would, this demonstrates how little store he places in renewed ties with Israel, and should be expected to disrupt them for a myriad of less-than-weighty pretexts in the future. Hence Israel should eschew any concessions to attain such ties.

If he wouldn’t, there is no need for Israel to make any concessions for renewed ties with Turkey, since Ankara would be compelled to establish them anyway—whether the $20 million dollars or the provision of aid to Gaza was forthcoming, or not. Simple logic, isn’t it?

Real reason for rupture

The loss of Turkey as a strategic ally is a huge blow.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that the real reason for the rupture of relations was not because of what Israel has – or has not – done. It is a result of what Turkey has become. Indeed, it would be foolish to believe otherwise, for virtually the only thing unchanged in Turkey since the ascent of Erdogan’s party to power is its geographic location. Today, Turkey is a very different country from what it was in the 1990s, the heydays of the bond between the two countries, when it was a constitutionally decreed secular nation, pro-Western and largely detached from its geographical environment in terms of its aspirations, affiliations and desired future development.

Since then, Turkey has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis in its socio-cultural and political “DNA” –and until it undergoes a comparable “counter-revolution”, the chances of any genuine repair are slim indeed.

However, as long as the principle author of the country’s current Islamist revolution (Erdogan himself) remains in power, the odds on any counter-revolution taking place are negligible.

Accordingly, the most plausible way to promote conditions likely to induce an authentic, durable enhancement of Israeli-Turkish relations, is to undermine Erdogan, let him wallow in the morass of problems his own arrogance and bluster have created for him, so that his domestic adversaries can grow stronger and eventually replace him.

Regrettably, the current “deal” does precisely the opposite! It allows him to boast of achievements and helps extricate himself—even if temporarily—from his current self-made difficulties. As such it serves to bolster his standing and this, necessarily, weakens his opponents, who strive to replace him. Beyond official “spin”

Accordingly, beyond the official “spin” extolling the far-reaching benefits that will allegedly accrue to Israel as a result of this unfortunate and unnecessary “deal”, it is difficult to grasp how it will advance Israel’s interests in any meaningful way. Sadly, it is far more likely that quite the reverse will prove true. 

About the Author: Dr. Martin Sherman served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment. He was a ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir's government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He holds several university degrees: a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), an MBA (Finance), and a PhD in political science and international relations. He was the first academic director of the internationally renowned Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He was born in South Africa and has lived in Israel since 1971. Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org)