Author: Andres-Papazian

ISRAELI GOV’T OFFICIALS CONVINCE ACTIVISTS TO CANCEL CYPRUS FLOTILLA

Today’s Zaman
June 17 2010
Turkey

A group of Israeli left-wing activists who were upset over the Turkish
clash with Israeli soldiers aboard the Mavi Marmara two weeks ago
decided on Monday to cancel the flotilla that they were planning for
Cyprus to protest, what they call, the Turkish “occupation” of the
island’s northern half.

The Jerusalem Post reported on June 5 about the planned flotilla, which
was to be led by Alex Goldfarb, former member of Knesset, and Modi’in
Meretz activist Pinhas Har-Zahav. According to spiked-online.com,
as many as 400 Israeli yacht owners volunteered their yachts for the
reverse flotilla. As the story made headlines in Turkey, Cyprus and
Greece, as well as other countries in Europe and some 800 supporters
of the flotilla joined its Facebook group.

The Cyprus Mail reported on June 16 that the Israeli flotilla could
play into Turkey’s hands.

“As Egemen BagıÅ~_, Turkey’s chief negotiator to the EU, pointed out,
the flotilla would effectively break what Turkey deems an embargo of
the Republic of Cyprus. He said, ‘They will pay the fees, they use
their ports and on the other hand they will lift the embargo imposed
by the Greek Cypriot sector’,” it stated.

Meanwhile, Israeli government officials persuaded the activists to
cancel the voyage because they were worried that the attention would
remind the international media of the Gaza flotilla when most of the
world’s attention has shifted to other issues, such as the BP oil
spill and the World Cup, wrote The Jerusalem Post on June 16.

The flotilla was to include 23 yachts of six people each. The yachts
were donated to the cause by their owners.

The Mavi Marmara, carrying 500 supporters and $20 million in
humanitarian aid, began its journey from Ä°stanbul to Gaza on May
22 in a show of solidarity with the Palestinian people and in a bid
to break Israel’s years-long blockade of the Gaza Strip. However,
the ship was stormed by Israeli forces in the early morning of May
31, 2010, with marines boarding from dinghies and rappelling from
helicopters. At least nine peace activists were killed and dozens
were injured during the attack.

There is another group of Israeli students who were planning to go to
Turkey to remind the world about the Armenian “genocide” and what they
labeled the ongoing Turkish oppression of the Kurdish minority. They
may also cancel their plans.

From: A. Papazian

AGOS LAWYER SAYS OBSTRUCTIONS MAY DERAIL CO-PLAINTIFF MISSION

Today’s Zaman
June 17 2010
Turkey

Fethiye Cetin, a lawyer for the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos,
is happy to have been granted co-plaintiff status in the trial
of the Cage Operation Action Plan, but added that obstructions by
third parties could make the lawyers for the weekly fail in their
co-plaintiff mission.

On Tuesday the Ä°stanbul 12th High Criminal Court accepted a request
from the Agos lawyers for co-plaintiff status in the trial of the
Cage plan, an alleged Naval Forces Command plan to overthrow the
government through the assassinations of prominent non-Muslims.

Co-plaintiff status grants a person, or their legal representatives,
the right to take part in an ongoing legal action along with the
prosecution.

“Some judges objected to our demand for co-plaintiff status. But
what was important was the decision to give us that status. We will
work to fulfill our duty as a co-plaintiff in the trial. However, if
we face obstructions, we may fail in our mission. The circumstances
must be right for us to succeed,” she remarked.

The Cage plot mentions a subversive plan to undermine the Justice and
Development Party (AK Party) by assassinating prominent non-Muslim
figures in Turkey and putting the blame for the killings on the AK
Party. The plan aimed to intimidate the country’s non-Muslim groups,
which was expected to increase internal and external pressure on the
ruling party. Weakening public support for the party was intended to
eventually lead to a military takeover.

Hrant Dink, once the editor-in-chief of Agos, was shot dead in 2007
by an ultranationalist Turkish adolescent. The Cage plot calls the
killing of Dink an “operation.” The murder is believed by many to be
the work of a clandestine terrorist organization known as Ergenekon.

Dozens of Ergenekon members are currently in jail pending trial on
charges of working to overthrow the government.

Agos Editor-in-Chief Etyen Mahcupyan said time will reveal whether his
weekly’s lawyers will accomplish their mission as co-plaintiffs in the
Cage plot trial. What makes him think this way is the accusatory and
insulting stance of defendants in the trial against the Agos lawyers.

Tuesday’s trial was held in a rather tense atmosphere. The defendants
verbally attacked the Agos lawyers.

“Even if the case is covered up, there are people who will continue
to pursue it. There are journalists and lawyers in this sense,”
stated Mahcupyan, and added that Turkey’s non-Muslims prefer to
ignore the plot because they know very well that plans against them
will not succeed.

“They will be less scared as of today because they know exactly what
plans were made against them,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

SOUTH CAUCASUS LACKS ‘REGIONAL IDENTITY’

news.az
June 17 2010
Azerbaijan

Kornely K. Kakachia News.Az interviews Kornely K. Kakachia, visiting
fellow on the Black Sea Security Program at Harvard University’s
Kennedy School of Government.

What are the main threats to security and development in the Southern
Caucasus region?

Regional unity and the unresolved ‘frozen and unfrozen conflicts’
remain the biggest hurdle to fully developing regional security
architecture in the South Caucasus. In order to survive, each state
has chosen to align itself with external powers and these powers
sometimes misuse regional states for their own geopolitical interests.

But the biggest challenge to regional development and the region itself
is the absence of ‘regional identity’. With its ill-defined borders,
weak economic links and lack of the ‘us’ feeling of a shared identity,
the South Caucasus could not yet be called a coherent region. In
this sense, the ‘region’ exists only for outside players which to
some degree undermines regional development and security.

Do you think that Turkish peacemaking activity in the South Caucasus
can bring positive results?

The August 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia struck a nerve in Ankara
and catalysed Turkey’s further expansion in the South Caucasus. As it
seems now, Turkey has a new vision of becoming an independent regional
soft power with zero problems with its neighbours. In particular,
Turkey, is struggling to balance its strategic interest in forging
ties with Armenia with its loyalties to historic ally Azerbaijan.

However, it remains to be seen how Ankara can manage to proceed with
rapprochement with Armenia without ‘sacrificing’ Azerbaijani interest.

Regional states, including Georgia, carefully observe how Turkey
is dealing with its main strategic allies in the region. In order
to be considered a ‘legitimate’ conflict manager in the Caucasus,
Turkish foreign policy must be tuned with that of the US and EU which
is not quite the case at present. Provided strong western backing,
Turkish diplomacy can have some success in peacemaking activities in
the region.

Do you believe that Tbilisi can restore its control over Abkhazia
and South Ossetia, and what would this require?

After the war, Russian diplomacy is trying to create a ‘new reality’
in which two ‘sovereign’ states should become independent and Georgia
should put up with it, beginning its relations with Russia from
scratch. However, the Kremlin knows that this mission is impossible
in the foreseeable future, as the international community will
not accept forcible changes of borders based on ethnic cleansing
and a unilateral declaration of cessation. Moreover, neither the
Georgian people nor any Georgian leader will agree to recognize the
‘independence’ of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or engage in talks related
to dismemberment of the country. In addition, the status quo based on
‘injustice’ cannot be maintained for a long period. I think in the
short term it will be difficult, but in the long term Georgia could
be able to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of the Abkhaz and Ossetians,
provided it continues to develop democracy and economic reform at
home. There are also some signs that Moscow realized that it is not
in its interest to support the ‘Balkanization’ of the Caucasus, as
it has its own stake in the region. So all these factors in the long
run may change the dynamics of these conflicts.

What is the likelihood of a new war in Georgia over these secessionist
regions?

Critical analysis of Russian-Georgian interstate relations over the
last two decades suggests that there has never been an independent
Georgian government that was acceptable to Russia, and it is unlikely
that there will be one any time soon. So taking this fact into account,
one must never exclude a new Russian military adventure in Georgia,
as Russia’s rulers probably see a good deal of unfinished business
there. Moreover, Russia has failed to achieve the desired outcome in
regard to Georgia’s NATO membership. Although the prospect of Georgia’s
membership might seem more distant now than it would have been without
the Russian military aggression, it is not at all taken by NATO’s
enlargement agenda. However, for the time being Georgia’s highest
priority is to settle these conflicts peacefully, using direct dialogue
with local populations and impartial mediation by the international
community and it is unlikely that there will be any conflict.

How likely is a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Karabakh,
because the Azerbaijani authorities say that it could be the only
way to solve the occupation problem if the negotiations fail?

I think that notwithstanding the increasingly harsh military rhetoric,
both the Azerbaijani and Armenian leadership realize that war is the
last resort. As the Russian-Georgian conflict highlighted, escalation
of conflict may not change much on the ground. While seeking mutual
concession, both sides should be aware of the pressure exerted by
IDPs and refugees on political decision makers that may spark a new,
undesirable confrontation. I am convinced that a new conflict would
not have a winner; only external powers would benefit from it.

Can Azerbaijan and Georgia’s membership of NATO or establishment of
NATO bases in their territories enhance regional security?

NATO membership, if granted to Azerbaijan and Georgia in the future,
may straighten the position of these countries in the region. However,
as of today, it looks that neither NATO nor its member states are
ready to take the risks associated with their involvement in frozen
conflicts in the South Caucasus. So while NATO is trying to redefine
its new global priorities, it is important to realize that peace and
economic prosperity in the South Caucasus are possible only when one
country of the region starts regarding the threat to its neighbour as
a threat to itself and protects the interests of its neighbours as it
would protect its own. Sadly enough, this sort of security perception
is lacking at the moment.

Kornely K. Kakachia is the Associate Professor of Political Science
Department at Tbilisi State University and Visiting fellow of the
Black Sea Security Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School
of Government..

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN-JEWISH COALITION PETITION GETS 12,000 SIGNATURES FOR GENOCIDE
Armen Hareyan

HULIQ.com
June 17 2010
SC

Nearly 12,000 people have signed under the petition organized by
Armenian-Jewish Coalition of Boston area communities asking the U.S.
Congress and president Barack Obama to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

As a response to Anti-Defamation League’s lobbying for the Turkish
Government against recognition of the Armenian Genocide the dialogue
between the Armenian and Jewish communities in Boston area has created
the Recognize the Armenian Genocide project. However, the group will
now have more supporters from the Jewish and neo-con circles as the
recent actions of Turkey have made many of its friends in Washington
to switch sides.

The multitude of those who have signed the petition shows that
Americans across the country demand that the government takes action
and calls the events of 1915 in Turkey as the genocide of the Armenian
nation. This shows that the issue of the Armenian Genocide has grown
from being just an Armenian concern to a an issue that according
to Americans should relate to the U.S. foreign policy. This is an
issue of human rights and international justice, Laura Poghosian,
who heads the Armenian-Jewish coalition, has said.

Currently the goal is to reach 15,000 signatures. The petition is at
Change.org. More than 20 countries in the world and 43 U.S. states have
recognized the Armenian genocide. It is safe to say that the majority
of the United States has already recognized the Armenian Genocide,
but the federal government has not called it a genocide yet because
of the fear that it will hurt ties with Turkey.

However, now it seems that Turkey is loosing many friends in Washington
D.C. and in Tel Aviv, which has many friends in the United States. The
balance may shift and president Obama next year may already be under
pressure from the Anti-Defamation League and the AIPAC to call the
1915 events as genocide.

The petition is currently being signed at Tell Congress To Recognize
The Armenian Genocide section of Change.org.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee recognized the Armenian genocide
on March 4 despite heavy pressure from Turkey. At this time there is
no set date to bring the resolution before the full House.

From: A. Papazian

TURKEY SUCCEEDS WHERE THE EU HAS CONSISTENTLY FAILED
Toby Vogel

EuropeanVoice.com

June 17 2010

Engagement in the western Balkans shows that Turkey is not turning
towards a more Islamic agenda.

Future historians of reconciliation in the western Balkans could do
worse than focus their narrative on 24 April 2010, a day on which
Boris Tadic, Serbia’s president, and Haris Silajdžic, the Muslim
representative on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s three-member presidency,
met Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, at Istanbul’s Ciragan Palace.

The summit was the result of months of intense diplomacy between
Ankara, Sarajevo and Belgrade, diplomacy that ran in parallel to
Turkish mediation between Croatia and Serbia.

In a matter of months, Turkey has helped take the three biggest
countries to emerge from Yugoslavia closer to a normalisation of
their relations than the EU had in the 15 years since the Dayton peace
accords ended Serbia’s wars in Croatia and Bosnia. A profound shift
in the diplomatic landscape of the western Balkans has occurred –
but few officials and diplomats in the EU appear to have taken note.

The tentative normalisation in relations between Bosnia, Croatia and
Serbia has been made possible by Serbian moves – albeit hesitant
and belated – to come to terms with Belgrade’s role in the bloody
dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991 and in the wars that ensued. Tadic,
with Turkish encouragement, has agreed that on 11 July he will attend
a ceremony near Srebrenica to commemorate the eastern Bosnian town’s
capture by Bosnian Serb forces, backed by the Serbian army, and the
subsequent systematic killing of some 8,000 Muslim men, a massacre
recognised as genocide by the International Court of Justice.

Equally significant was a declaration last month by Serbia’s parliament
– again encouraged, discreetly, by Turkish diplomats – condemning
the massacre. The declaration recognised, in a roundabout way, that
a genocide had taken place. However imperfect it may have been, the
declaration could serve as a first step for Serbia as it grapples
with its past.

It is ironic that such a process has been set in motion by Turkey. The
Istanbul summit took place in a former imperial palace built in
the 1860s by an Armenian architect, on the date – 24 April – when
Armenians around the world commemorate the beginning in 1915 of the
genocide against their people by the Ottoman empire. To this day,
the Turkish Republic refuses to recognise the slaughter as genocide.

Turkey’s ability to act as an honest broker in the western Balkans is
all the more remarkable given its history of imperial domination of
the region. Resistance against the Turks – and Muslims more generally –
is a powerful historical ingredient of Serbia’s national identity.

Nonetheless, Serbia and Turkey today maintain cordial relations,
both politically and commercially.

Much has been made in recent months of Turkey’s alleged turn towards
the Middle East and a more Islamic agenda guiding its foreign policy.

Robert Gates, the United States secretary of defence, said in London
last week (9 June) that Turkey may have been “pushed by some in Europe”
to turn “eastward”.

But, as Turkey’s engagement in the Balkans shows, worries about
an eastward turn by Turkey are misplaced. So too is the emphasis
on Islamism. The real story is that Turkey has found its role as a
regional power and is relaxed about pursuing its national interests
in its backyard.

This new-found confidence was evident last week (9 June), when Ankara
defied its most powerful ally, the US, in voting against additional
sanctions on Iran. It was evident too a week earlier, when, using
vicious terms, it denounced Israel – until a few years ago its main
ally in the Middle East – for its bloody operation to halt the Free
Gaza Flotilla, in which nine Turkish nationals were killed.

Turkey’s confidence in the Balkans stands in stark contrast to the
EU’s position. For years, the Union has been at a loss over what to
do about the two biggest problems in the region, Kosovo and Bosnia,
and has lacked a political strategy for its engagement with individual
countries and the western Balkans as a whole. Its substitute for proper
engagement has been enlargement: the prospect of one day joining the
Union would, the thinking went, entice local elites to undertake the
reforms required to get there.

But this soft power of persuasion has failed to work its magic on
Bosnia’s nationalist politicians, whose overriding goal is to stay
in power and milk the system for what it is worth.

It has also failed in Kosovo, which is not recognised by five
member states of the EU and therefore does not have a proper
‘European perspective’. A gathering in Sarajevo early last month,
initially billed as a summit between the EU and the countries of
the western Balkans, descended into farce when it was downgraded
to a ‘high-level meeting’ at which participants spoke in a personal
capacity to circumvent the problem of Kosovo being represented as an
independent country. Most EU foreign ministers skipped the event and
Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, left early to attend
to more substantial business back in Brussels.

Little wonder that the governments of the region look to Ankara,
not Brussels, when they need proper mediation.

From: A. Papazian

U.S. LAWMAKERS RAP TURKEY FOR ITS STANCE ON ISRAEL

Reuters
June 17 2010

(Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers warned Turkey on Wednesday that its ties
with Washington would suffer if it continued on what they considered
an anti-Israel path.

“There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of
growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel,”
Representative Mike Pence, the No. 3 Republican in the U.S. House of
Representatives, said.

At a news conference, Republicans and Democrats denounced NATO ally
Turkey for supporting an aid convoy of ships that recently tried to
run the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

The lawmakers also criticized Turkey’s opposition to a recent U.N.
Security Council resolution extending punitive sanctions on Iran for
its secretive nuclear program. The U.N. resolution was strongly backed
by Washington, which suspects Iran of trying to develop atomic bombs.

Democratic Representative Eliot Engel called Turkey’s actions
“disgraceful,” adding that although Ankara was a member of NATO,
it had stopped looking westward.

As for the cost Turkey might pay for its stance, Pence said he was
ready to reevaluate his past reluctance to support a congressional
resolution denouncing as genocide the World War I-era killings of
Armenians by Ottoman forces.

The largely symbolic resolution passed a House committee in March,
but amid protests from Ankara, the House Democratic leadership never
brought it to the chamber’s floor for a vote.

The lawmakers said on Wednesday that 126 members of the House of
Representatives had signed a letter urging President Obama to oppose
international condemnation of Israel over its role in seizing the
aid ships last month and forcing them to dock in Israeli ports.

Nine people were killed aboard one vessel, the Turkish-registered Mavi
Mara, provoking an international outcry. Israel says its commandos
acted in self-defense.

One pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, J Street, took a different
view, suggesting some lawmakers’ statements about the Gaza flotilla
were “drafted primarily for domestic political consumption” instead
of advancing Middle East peace.

The group’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami urged U.S. lawmakers to express
“more nuanced views of the situation that might emphasize the urgency
of American leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through
two states.”

From: A. Papazian

THE CRITIC OF MY FRIEND IS MY ENEMY

Sabbah.biz

June 17 2010

Turkey and the Neocons

It couldn’t be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were
strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent
neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and
groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged
Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what
happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World
War I a “genocide.” (The “Armenian lobby” is no slouch, but it’s no
match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that
the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge
of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that
political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations
between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however — fueled primarily
by Turkish anger over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians — the
ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders
of Israel began switching sides, too.

Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service,
detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being
strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the
Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story
better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.

First, if this doesn’t convince you that virtually all neoconservatives
are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly
a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support
for Israel was a “key tenet” of neoconservatism.

But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by
the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy,
and therefore they support Israel simply because it is “the only
democracy in the Middle East.”

But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it
is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally
of the United States. Of course,Turkey’s democracy isn’t perfect, but
show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey
to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish
government has been openly critical of Israel’s conduct toward the
Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after
the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the
lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a
flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey,
and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.

Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the
neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not.

So if you’re still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked
overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq — even though Osama bin
Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan — and why they are now pushing
for war with Iran, well, there’s your answer.

As I’ve said repeatedly, there’s nothing wrong with any American
feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it
in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and
provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused
of some sort of bigotry. The neocons’ recent volte-face over Turkey is
important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular
clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.

One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and
Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is
good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This
claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it
also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel’s
interests over America’s. After all, if the interests of the two
states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be
no conflict of interest, which means that the “dual loyalty” issue
(a term I still don’t like) doesn’t arise.

I hold the opposite view. I believe that the “special relationship” has
become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship
would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts
the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region
and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions — yes,
billions — of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues,
such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use
our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President
Obama’s failures on this front — despite his repeated pledges to
do better-make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual
relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased
its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes
it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of
criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts
about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the
wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.

Although the United States and Israel do share certain common
interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests
are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a
tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what
is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly)
will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to
beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal
track record and their underlying motivations.

* Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of
international relations at Harvard University.

From: A. Papazian

US BLACKMAILING TURKEY WITH “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” AGAIN

news.az
June 17 2010
Azerbaijan

If Turkey does not change its anti-Israeli policy, this will affect
the relations between Ankara and Washington.

Kursor agency reports that the due statement came from official
representatives of the US Congress.

In particular, one of the leaders of Republicans in the Congress said
that “Turkey will pay a high price for the rapprochement with Iran
and the hostile attitude to Israel”.

A group of congressmen from both the republican and democratic
parties spoke at a special news conference sharply criticizing
the Turkish policy. In particular, the congressmen said they will
consider possible support of the resolution on “Armenian genocide”,
while 125 congressmen have already signed a petition to President
Obama demanding to stop condemning Israel while investigating the
circumstances of clashes with the flotilla.

From: A. Papazian

ISRAEL RAPPELLE A LA TURQUIE LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN
Stephane

armenews
jeudi17 juin 2010
ISRAEL

De grandes manifestations ont eu lieu devant l’ambassade Turque a
Tel-Aviv. Les manifestants ont exprime leur appui aux actions de
l’armee israelienne sur la flottille de la Liberte et quelques-unes
des bannières indiquaient ” se rappeller du genocide armenien “.

Deja quelques voix apparaissent en Israël et meme en Turquie affirmant
qu’Israël emploiera le genocide armenien comme une de ses armes pour
se battre avec la propagande turque. Israël s’etait jusqu’ici abstenu
de reconnaître le genocide armenien et selon quelques rapports avait
soutenu le lobby Turc a Washington afin dd’empecher le Congrès des
Etats-Unis de reconnaître les evenements de 1915 comme un genocide.

Maintenant tout peut changer car la Turquie fait pression sur Israël
et Israël repond essentiellement a la Turquie ” Pourquoi regardez-vous
la tache qui est dans l’oeil de votre frère, mais ne remarquer pas
le rondin qui est dans votre propre oeil ? “.

Mehmet Ali Birand de CNN Turk a affirme qu’Israël employera
probablement le genocide armenien comme une arme de vengeance possible
contre la Turquie.

Birand a dit que la Turquie doit etre prete a se battre avec un nombre
croissant de pays reconnaissant le genocide armenien. Selon lui Israël
reconnaîtra le genocide et fera pression pour que les Etats-Unis
reconnaîssent les evenements comme un genocide. Birand a dit qu’il
serait utile que la Turquie se prepare pour cela très rapidement.

Dans un autre article le docteur Arash Irandoost a publie sur internet
une histoire très interessante sur les relations turco-israeliennes
dans une Lettre Ouverte a la Turquie. Il a fait des references a la
question armenienne et la question des minorites en Turquie.

Voici quelques citations de la lettre ouverte du docteur Irandoost.

“Et quand un pays qui persecute ses citoyens Kurdes, Assyriens et
Armeniens, traite les refugies iraniens comme des citoyens de 3ème
de classe (..) et travaille inlassablement pour apaiser un regime
criminel, il doit se rappeler que nous n’oublierons pas ses erreurs “.

Dans un autre paragraphe le docteur Rash fait echo a M. Birand sur
l’examen minutieux que la Turquie doit maintenant etre prete a subir
pour le genocide armenien. ” Vous dites que vous voulez une enquete
internationale sur l’incursion de la flottille ? Bien sûr. Juste
après que vous permettiez une enquete internationale sur cette
question mineure de genocide armenien que vous avez esquive assez
longtemps. En se battant pour de nouveaux “standards “dans le combat
pour les droits de l’homme, je suis sûr que vous reconnaîtrez que
(…)la Turquie doit subir le meme examen minutieux qu’il exige
d’autres pays ” ecrit Irandoost.

Alors Irandoost continue et blâme la Turquie disant son territoire
entier a ete vole aux armeniens et autres minorites. ” Vous parlez
de la terre volee, quand votre pays entier est une terre volee, de
Chypre a Istanbul. Votre regime est une entite raciste illegitime
basee sur l’oppression des Kurdes, des armeniens, des Assyriens,
des iraniens et de nombreux autres ” ecrit-il.

En parlant du blocus unilateral de la Bande de Gaza, Irandoost lève
la qestion du blocus unilateral de la Turquie vis-a-vis de l’Armenie.

Depuis 16 ans la Turquie a bloque la frontière armenienne dans
son appui a l’Azerbaïdjan. La Turquie n’a pas meme respecte les
protocoles qu’elle a signes avec l’Armenie il y a un an a Zurich
visant a normaliser les relations avec son voisin du Nord Oriental. ”
Mais bien sûr nous savons comment combien vous vous sentez fort de
ce blocus.

Vous avez bloque l’Armenie pendant seize ans. Très bien alors. Si
vous insistez pour l’envoi de navires portant le drapeau Turc pour
aider le Hamas, peut-etre qu’Israël doit commencer a envoyer des tanks
portant le drapeau israelien pour aider le PKK ” conclu Irandoost.

From: A. Papazian

ARTAK SHAKARYAN : LA CONFERENCE D’ISTANBUL EST UN EQUIVALENT DU G8 POUR LES PAYS ASIATIQUES
Stephane

armenews
jeudi17 juin 2010
ARMENIE

Le politologue Yervand Bozoyan et le Turcologue Artak Shakaryan ont
parle des evenements regionaux et de la Conference d’Istanbul. Selon
Artak Shakaryan, la Conference d’Istanbul est un equivalent du G8
pour les pays asiatiques. L’analyste est sur que pendant la conference
la Turquie emploiera chaque occasion pour assumer un rôle primordial
dans la region et parmi les pays Islamiques.

Yervan Bozoyan ne doute pas, non plus, que la Turquie emploiera
la Conference d’Istanbul afin de rendre concret ses aspirations a
devenir un leader. Il a dit que la moindre tentative de la Turquie
d’intensifier son activite dans la region cree un danger pour
l’Armenie.

S’exprimant sur l’interet americain en ce qui concerne l’Azerbaïdjan,
Yervan Bozoyan a dit : ” les Etats-Unis n’ont jamais cache leurs
interets en Azerbaïdjan, prenant en consideration que l’emplacement
geographique du pays et le facteur petrolier. L’Azerbaïdjan est un
pays de transit important pour l’envoi de troupes en Afghanistan. ”

Selon Bozoyan, dans une etape plus active du processus Armeno-turc les
Etats-Unis ont demontre une attitude plus neutre, mais maintenant les
Etats-Unis ne sont pas plus contraints par les relations armeno-turques
et sont libres de rendre leurs interets apparents.

From: A. Papazian