Turkey and Egypt?

The Financial Times writes today that Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a passionate speech in Cairo yesterday has said the “Israel must pay a price for its aggression and crimes”. They also write that this has alarmed Israel and that it worries the US. Erdogan also calls for the acceptance of Palestine as a state via the UN.

Turkey has now permanented its policy shift with this tough stance against Israel where it also tried to work up an aggression among other states in the area. Erdogan has also said that he will bring a Turkish naval escort to a new Ship to Gaza flotilla at the same time as he says the Mavi Marmara incident was an act of war.

In the mean time rioters attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Israel brought home some 80 embassy personnel but has since said that they will try to restore the for them important mission in Egypt. After all, Egypt is one of two countries in the Middle East that has a diplomatic relationship with Israel. The other one is Jordan. The Turkish diplomatic relationship is on hold as is the earlier close military collaboration. Turkey has, though, agreed under the flag of NATO to harbor radars for missiles from Iran on their territory. It seems like Erdogan is forcing the US and NATO to choose him or Israel.

Erdogan is currently on a trip to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya hopefully as a model for Arab modernization. It would be of great concern if the trip in reality turns out to be forging a coalition against Israel in these fledgling states. The problem at hand is that Erdogan is not acting favorably to a fellow democratic nation but rather walks the religious line.

The Climate is Worsening Around Israel

The new type of martyrship that the Turkish activists that sacrificed their lives while attacking the Israeli commandoes in the Ship to Gaza incident were revealed in a report by the UN that vindicated Israel against these marauders. Egypt was also aggressive recently after a terrorist attack against Israelis close to Eilat. However, due to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the event has worsened the relationship between Turkey and Israel to the point of retracting their ambassadors, since Erdogan demand of an Israeli apology has not been met. 

Who is this Erdogan? Well, according to Ian Bremmer in his book The J curve, he was educated in religious schools as a devout Muslim. As a teenager, he was forced off a soccer team for refusing to shave his beard he considered it his religious duty to grow. Elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994, Erdogan declared himself the city’s “imam” and opened his first city council meeting by chanting from the Koran. After reading an Islamist poem at a 1998 rally, Erdogan was convicted of using religion to provoke disorder and sent to jail for four months. The poem read in part, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets/The minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers. The jail sentence apparently made him more Kemalistically secular but how much of a religious soldier is he still while being a very popular prime minister?

Erdogan’s life witnesses the tense relationship between the democratic government and the military which characterizes Turkey and which makes it less suitable to join the EU. Erdogan has, according to Der Spiegel held a rally in Germany to 15,000 Turkish immigrants where he suggested they should not integrate into the German society. Thus supporting Turkish enclaves in Germany, his Turkey is less suitable for EU membership. At least if the current ever closer union represents the future path of development.

The question is then what path Turkey is going to find for themself in the appearing Middle East and North Africa environment at the same time as they are alienating themselves from Israel? They are playing an important part in supporting the NTC of Libya and have issued warning to Syria for their human rights violations. Will they evolve as a democratic model for the rest or will they rather become like the rest to blend in? Turkey being the most democratic Muslim country is an important phenomenon with a rather unique history to match. It does not seem likely that we will find a leader of Kemal Atatürk’s type in the area with such a will to emulate the West.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel strategy

Propaganda war latest: Tehran 3 Israel 0 Amir Taheri - Times Online: "This message is pumped out through Iranian satellite television stations, such as the Arab language al-Alam News Network. Tehran also publishes scores of magazines and books that are freely distributed throughout the Muslim world. Muslim opinion-formers are regularly invited to Iran for seminars on the pan-Islamic campaign to accelerate “the inevitable end of Israel”, a phrase repeatedly used by Iran’s official media. Mr Ahmadinejad has visited more than two dozen Muslim countries to propagate this new anti-Israel strategy."

If George Friedman at Stratfor sets Israel in a more peaceful environment, if not for Hamas, Iran's proxy, Amir Taheri brings to the fore the propaganda war of a more and more assertive Iran that seems indifferent to the sanctions just enacted by the UN.

Friedman made room for problems in the future for Israel, the state, Ahmadinejad is apparently not out to destroy the Jews. Only the Zionist state Israel. The good news is perhaps that it does not seem like he is going to do this with an atom bomb but rather by means of propaganda wise make it impossible for Israel to function in the area. Unless he is mad enough to think that he can enrage Muslims to the degree that he gets away with a bomb?

Lexington at The Economist gave a reference to what he called a "truly alarmist" article by Joshua Teitelbaum in The Guardian. He means that Turkey is actively plotting to shift to a jihad towards Israel in line with Iran's strategy. The EUobserver.com is today saying that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, blames EU for not letting Turkey in and thus causing them to go Muslim. EU does not agree and Turkey is saying that they want a no trouble with anyone neighbor foreign policy.

I don't know what it is but I have problems understanding why an area destined to progress into the future is not keen on taking advantage of Israel's prowess. Obama made his first trip to a Muslim country to Turkey and thus showed that he valued their friendship. His administration is now trying to restore the relationship between Turkey and Israel to make their policy work. But Obama's pro-Muslim quest has other troubles. He has cancelled Indonesia for the second time and he arranged the sanction deal against Turkey friend Iran, Turkey and Brazil voting no, and Lebanon abstaining probably because of Hizbollah's wish. What Taheri says is perhaps that Iran has global aspirations, Israel is just the first step.

Like other foreign policy hawks in the US, Teitelbaum says that Obama's new policy is giving space for other actors like Erdogan and Ahmadinejad. The row after the flotilla raid was much larger than warranted and it is therefore easy to state that it is probably used as a propaganda stunt. The organizers managed to raise the temperature higher than after operation Cast Lead and the carrying theme was the same--excessive violence by Israel. As these things go, it might be a justification for what the Iranians officially claims "the inevitable end to Israel". An Iranian flotilla is apparently in the making!?

Israel's safety is unsustainable?

Obama is abandoning Israel--John Bolton - NYPOST.com: "the White House is plainly leaning heavily on Israel to weaken the blockade in potentially fatal ways. Indeed, on Friday, a White House press person said the 'current arrangements' were 'unsustainable,' a very poorly disguised threat to Israel."

Israel is sensing pressure right now for removing the blockade of Gaza for items that might create destructive power against Israel. Statements like "we have to save Israel from itself" are not uncommon. Nearly all people so far, even former Israel friends, have said that the violence displayed by Israel against the Turkish flotilla have been excessive. I don't agree! The IDF must have seemingly used as little power as they could while maintaining their own lives.

When people back hundreds of millions Muslims arrayed against 6m Jews, something must be wrong. Add to that 500m Europeans. I have earlier concluded that people in Europe draw conclusions about matters in Israel as if they lived in peace and harmony down there as they do in Europe. I wonder what would happen if the US also turned downright against Israel? This is what the PR war aims at.

It apparently boils down to the question of winning wars in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or keeping Israel as a friend. According to arguments being made it does not seem like you can have this cake and eat it? In that respect it might be wise to suggest that a bird in the hand is better than ten in the forest.

Last time I commented on the flotilla debacle I brought up Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rhetoric. A very well argumented and balanced article in The Christian Science Monitor brings up this question of language usage. The article begins with the words: "Even considering the shock and sorrow over the tragic deaths of 8 Turks and a Turkish-American aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish vessels, the rhetorical response from Turkish officials has been over the top". Especially noting that the Turks created the debacle by breaking a military blockade in a war zone where International Law does not really apply.

There was talk about Israel having painted themself into a corner but I believe that it is rather Turkey that has made this mistake. We need to see a Turkey that returns to normal ways and not a country that is fuelling lynch mobs with fierce rhetoric. A Turkey that can be friends with Europe, without being a member of the EU, and at the same time a friend to Israel and to the Arabs and Persians.

Miklagård is in vogue again?

I think Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, overdid it a little today when he tries to use an economical argument for biasing the Turkey/Israel balance of favors in his blog. I now understand why there was not, according to the Swedish government, a genocide in Armenia 1915--it is because Turkey is going to be the world's ten most affluent nation in a decade.

There seems to be preparations for another genocide unfortunately. The intifadas were not effective so when Ariel Sharon gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they responded by electing a terrorist organization as their leader, some called this a democratic election, Israel blockaded Gaza. Hamas responded with a new kind of irritant, sending rockets into Israel, as part of a new strategy--defamate Israel internationally.

Finally Israel had to retaliate in the only way they could and this led to an international outrage. Now phase two in this new type of warfare has been launched--a Turkish flotilla where lots of people have been fooled to participate in a "peaceful" demonstration by a Turkish terror linked group I.H.H. Some peace, when the Israelian commandos were brutally attacked on the Turkish lead ship Mavi Marmara. I agree with Niklas Wykman, the youth leader of the Moderate Party, when he stated that people had been fooled into a hate attack on Israel. I wonder, however, how innocent these people in actuality were.

Michael Oren, the Israelian Ambassador to the US, writes an informative article in The New York Times. He verifies that Israelian commandos suffered gun shot wounds. What is most worrying was the extreme anti-Israelian hate that became displayed in the media response. It is interesting to compare the attack with the recent attack on the Red Shirts in Bangkok which was received with a mere whisper in comparison although generating almost ten times the amount of casualties.

Michael Oren says that Israel also want a Gaza free of brutal Hamas rule and a situation where there are no threats to Israel as the international discussion has turned in the direction of removing the Gaza blockade. It is of course obvious to the Israelis, as for others, that Gaza has turned into a liability. However, it seems beyond reasonable doubts that Israel must avoid the build up of rocket capabilities like those of Hizbollah up north for the safety of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In the mean time no one is starving in Gaza even if life could be better. Hamas, from their part, still shoots rockets--as if they wanted to sacrifice another 1,000 Palestinians to create yet another international outrage against Israel.

The effect the international outcry has is to move the theater beyond the two state solution. Erdogan, the Turkish PM, has called Israel a "festering boil" in the Middle East. This is as close to Iran and Hamas speak you can get from this prospective EU member state. Partly this talk is a reaction to the Turks giving up on Europe, I guess, but it is not surprising. We do not, at least not yet, se Europeans stand and scream "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".

What was the motive?

Our World: Ending Israel's losing streak: "The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds."

If you don't have time to read Caroline Glick's article in full it might at least be useful to ponder, like Mankell would have suggested?, who had the motive for generating death for the media headlines? It was the difference between a completely meaningless flotilla attempt, that was planned during one and one half years, and crushing headlines. It seems highly likely that people are ready to die for such strategic profits.

Memorial Day

A day like this when suicide bomb types have caused a major and tragic debacle in the sea outside Gaza, it might sound excentric to celebrate Memorial Day. As I earlier discussed, however, I am grateful to the service men and women that have helped secure this thus rather peaceful corner of the Earth and I'm proud of the Swedish soldiers that help out in Afghanistan.

Showing empathy for the Israelis a day like this when we clearly see what a hostile environment they are immersed in, stresses how fortunate we are in Sweden and how grateful we should be. Sometimes I wonder if the hate displayed against Israel is not partly anti-Americanism in disguise?

Turkey seemingly is becoming a problem in the region. People there made a run on an Israeli consulate. Despite being a NATO member, the Turkish people do not look favorably on the US according to a recent Gallup poll. Their problem with Israel has also increased lately. I wondered a while ago which way power went between the friends Iran and Turkey. It seems unfortunately like Turkey is copying the proxy mode of fighting Israel that Iran has used via Hamas and Hizbollah.

Turkey as a relay between the West and Iran?

The Region: Meanwhile, in the ME...: "The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image and power behind in order to escape... The [American] government has no influence [to stop]... the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties and Iran-Turkey ties – God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.”"

Barry Rubin at The Jerusalem Post uses this citation from Ahmadinejad of Iran to illustrate what he calls the real problem of the Middle East rather than the Israel-Palestine question in general and the Jerusalem development in particular. Israel is apparently split on the relative importance of Iran (right) or Palestine (left). For Sweden this means that if Ahmadinejad is the boss rather than Erdogan of Turkey, we can become party of the wrong side if a strong Turkey, Irak friendliness is cultivated.

However, Turkey is of course a more cultivated society than that of Iran at this point--democratic as it is. It could therefore be argued that, there would be more influence flowing from Turkey to Iran than vice versa. This could be positive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has however given signs of "revolutionary" tendencies by claiming that assimilation of Turks in Europe is a crime against humanity, thus fueling irritation and fear of a development of a Eurabia.

If the hawks in the US are correct, Iran's tendency to regime change is more likely that their giving up nuclear ambitions, such which can give them the impression that they are leading Turkey along. It seems unlikely that a NATO member such as Turkey would get too subservient with Iran though, unless they become less revolutionary, although people claim they have been distancing themselves from Europe recently. The two countries Iran and Turkey have about the same GDP being on rank 17 and 18, respectively in the world with about the same size populations, 66m and 76m, respectively, which makes Iran a little wealthier per capita.

According to General Petraeus, Iran is more and more intent on fighting the US in the area and it is therefore more and more difficult seeing them as possible to integrate in the international community which is the prerequisite for diplomacy to work. They might simply be too wild. As Rubin points out, this is a bad development. Israel has a GDP of $205bn whereas Iran and Turkey each have approximately $850bn.

Turkey thus seems to have become a relay station for a tug of war between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In all probability this is one of the reasons for Sweden and the US to hesitate in calling Turkish history for what it is. As I have said earlier, I think this is wrong. Not heeding what the US Congress and the Swedish Parliament is arguing concerning the recognition of the 1915 genocide is giving in to dark forces and thus helping those in Turkey that obscur history and prevent reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey in the long run.

The recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature (2006) and the German Booksellers Prize (2005), Orhan Pamuk spoke up for the recognition of the genocide. He was apparently saved from prison, after having being charged for non-Turkishness, by the upcoming discussion of EU enlargment. It matters to Turkey what Europeans think, apparently. At least as far back as 2006, when this happened.

The Genocide of 1915

There seems to be two important arguments in the debate between Alliansen and the Red-Greens. Politicizing history and the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia.

From reading around, and from what I have heard earlier in my life, it seems like there is overwhelming support for the idea that we are talking about a genocide. This means that historic research is fact, as hard as it gets, which in turn means that the Red-Greens have voted and so has a few from The Alliansen but is seems like there are in fact more conscientious dissident voices. Fredrik Reinfeldt has apparently changed his opinion from 2006.

Our minister of the environment, Andreas Carlgren, said that he wants results from the research on the environment from scientists to be able to make decisions on political matters. Is this politicizing meteorological research? Most people would say that it is not.

There is also an argument put forward from Alliansen, which Hilary Clinton also used in the recent American debate on the same issue, that the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia would be disturbed. As Mona Sahlin said during her interview on the radio yesterday, there will be a temporary disturbance. However, in the long run reconciliation will never be possible between Turkey and Armenia if Turkey does not conform with the brunt of international knowledge on this matter and goes through the process of acceptance of this fact.

On October 12, 2006 France passed a bill making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide of 1915. This was not popular in Turkey either but it demonstrates how important this issue is and that Turkey's aggressive overreactions seem typical of a collective bad conscience, if anything. I don't know about Alliansen but if prefer to be on the same page as twelve European nations than with Turkey on this issue.

It is the Swedish government that politicizes the history of the 1915 genocide

”Turkiets reaktion överdriven” - DN.se: "Carl Bildt tycks inte ha en tanke på att göra riksdagens beslut till svensk utrikespolitik. Den sköts i detalj av regeringen och Bildt vill nog skjuta den här frågan framför sig – utan att överväga någon åtgärd, säger Ove Bring, professor i folkrätt vid Försvarshögskolan."

Well, Carl Bildt claims in his blog that the government will not change its direction on Turkey politics. The reason apparently, to not heed a parliamentary result, is that it is wrong to politicize history. However, claiming that a historically verified genocide is not a genocide is in fact to politicize history. The reverse, which the majority of the Parliament voted for, is following the result of historic research.

I must say that I feel proud over Sweden's position as depicted by the Parliament but I ashamed over the recalcitrant position of the government. There has been some discussion lately about the Parliament being full of so called "voting cattle" but yesterday's vote proved that there still exists independently thinking MPs.

Professor Ove Bring is correct in the immature response by Turkey, a country mired with internal strife and lack of understanding of even their own history. If Germany had not recognized the fact that they had performed a genocide they would not have been where they are today. I believe that Turkey's reaction clearly proves that they have far to go before an EU membership could be considered.

The 19% Job Approval US Congress flexes its Human Rights Muscle?

Armenian Genocide Resolution Advances Despite Obama Push - WSJ.com: "The House panel's resolution, approved on a 23-22 vote, faces an uncertain future in Congress. But it nonetheless could damage U.S. relations with Turkey, a vital ally in the Middle East and Central Asia. Within minutes of the vote, Ankara said it was recalling its ambassador from Washington for consultations. Turkey took the same step in 2007, when the committee passed a similar resolution."

President Obama's administration tried to derail this decision, partly because of concerns from the Weapon Industry, and Hilary Clinton warned that it could derange the sensitive negotiations between Turkey and Armenia. The decision means that the US is closing in on the 20 nations so far claiming that Turkey committed a genocide. The NGO? European Parliament also does. The 20 countries are: Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lituania, Lebanon, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City, and Venezuela.

Genocide scholars generally think it was a genocide and it would be interesting to know why Obama hesitates. He claimed genocide during his campaign. Maybe he has to please people to get his Healthcare bill through? The House Committee on Foreign Affairs did the right thing though. There will never be any meaningful discussion with Turkey if such a historic facts is not visible on the table. This is even more important when Turkey is a NATO ally. Procuring help from Turkey with Iran and Afghanistan also benefits from this clarity.

One wonders why Israel and the UK does not use the word "genocide" to describe what happened in 1915. In 2007 Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates wrote an open letter to Congress where they warned for increased risks for US troops in the field if Turkey was antagonized. WSJ.com also writes that there will now be a probable increase of anti-Americanism in Turkey, something that is a problem already. DN.se writes that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish premier, also have written on the official Turkish web site that the incident might damage the American-Turkish relations and jeopardize the negotiations with Armenia.

Can Turkey become more important for the US than Israel?

RealClearWorld - Dissecting Israel-Turkey Diplomatic Row: "Washington has observed this, too, and so regards Turkey as a key part of its strategy to draw down the U.S. presence in Iraq. Turkey does not want to see massive instability in Iraq any more than the Americans do. Similarly, in any confrontation with Iran, Turkey is both a communications channel and a potential ally. Further afield, Turkey is contributing to the Western war effort in Afghanistan, and has substantial influence in the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia".

Turkey is already more important for the EU than is Israel from the point of view as a potential member of the union. From this point of view it might be unfortunate for Israel to challenge Turkey diplomatically as it has done first on the Davos conference and now in Israel. It forces both the EU and the US to take sides.

In Davos Israel was viewed as conspiring with the US in humiliating Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turish Prime Minister, by not letting him respond after Shimon Peres, the Israeli President, had spoken at a session. Erdogan was particularly incensed by the Gaza attack where many Palestinians died. Due to the strong Western response against the Gaza attack Erdogan was able to take a point against Israel given this opportunity.

Now recently Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon summoned the Turkish Ambassador to Israel Ahmet Oguz Celikkol to protest for the appearance of a soap-opera aired in Turkey that depicted Israeli agents kidnapping Palestinian children. It was the way the meeting was staged that was the problem. The incident reminds me of a newspaper article written in Sweden that claimed that the IDF where stealing organs from Palestinians. My feeling from this incident was that Israel lost the public relations battle in Sweden and that it might therefore lose also in Turkey. Apparently Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is planning to expel ambassadors from countries that has criticized Israel unfairly.

It is fair to ask if these incidences are any of my business. However, Israel's position as a country with the potential of launching a nuclear war with Iran is I guess in everyone's business.

Should Iran be bombed?

There is an ongoing Debate in The Economist about the notion that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed.

Economist Debates: Iran: Guest: "The question posed by the house captures perfectly the problem with the debate on Iran in the West. It embodies a decade-old approach to Iran that reduces this major country into a single variable problem, Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Every non-nuclear development is either viewed from the prism of the nuclear programme, or is simply ignored."

I recently commented on the idea of Trita Parsi that the Obama Doctrine might have caused the post-election Green Uprising in Iran. Today he weighs in on the issue of whether or not Iran should be bombed, an opinion advocated by The Economist, although 68% of people voting on the debate think this is not the way to go.

I agree with Parsi, bombing Iran would put an end to the democracy movement of Iran for good. It is of course interesting that a highly initiated crowd reading The Economist are reasonable on Iran despite the indoctrination of "The House". Parsi is, however, not proposing, like I do, that further approachment of Iran by removing sanctions should be tried. President Obama is, however, grateful to the Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan for keeping a door open to Tehran.

There is today also information that Turkey would possibly be able to negotiate with the Taliban for an "Afghanization" of the situation there. Recent words in the press on the membership deal between Turkey and the EU have indicated that Turkey is becoming distanced to this development. It would of course be interesting if an axis of European influence on these trouble spots could be mediated by Turkey. In this case Turkey would have found an important role for itself that would be highly appreciated by both sides.

Israel and Turkey in EU?

10 frågor för 2010 - Anna Dahlberg - Expressen.se: "En av det gångna årets största besvikelser var när Obama retirerade från kravet på Israel att stoppa bosättningsexpansionen på ockuperad mark. Samme Obama som kritiserat Bush för att inte ha engagerat sig tillräckligt i den israelisk-palestinska konflikten framstod själv som både passiv och tafatt."

According to The Jerusalem Post, Israel is in love with Europe, a love that is not reciprocal. 30% of Europeans believed Jews created the financial crisis. However, many argue for adding Turkey to the EU despite animosities against Muslims in Europe as viewed recently with the anti-minaret vote in Switzerland. The time period discussed to peace between Israel and Palestine varies from 2 years to 15 years.

Dahlberg wants Obama to act but why do we not act ourselves. David Brooks, a Op-Ed writer of The New York Times, wrote that Israel is in reality a Middle Eastern country rather than an outpost of the West in the Middle East. However, if you compare with allowing the entry of 80m Muslims that also are Middle Eastern, adding 7m Israelis is not much to argue about. I don't know why I have never seen this issue discussed in the press but the 1.3m Jewish diaspora in Europe would not mind, I guess. Israel is participating in the European Song Contest after all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians depend on the security aspect of the Israelis to a great extent. Military control over the West Bank is necessary to protect the Israelian heartland. Obviously the security of Israel would be significantly improved if it would become an EU member. Being 7m Jews among 300m angry Muslims is one thing but being part of a 500m EU block is quite another. The constitutional state of Israel should not cause the same problems as does that of Turkey. The discussion of a one-state or two-state solution becomes much less important if one or both countries merge into something greater.

The membership of both Israel and Turkey in the EU would greatly balance anti-semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. If we really are interested in peace in the Middle East, why don't we get involved seriously. Just adding Turkey to the EU would greatly increase anti-semitism in Europe to perhaps intolerable levels.

Tolerance??

Spinoza was born 1632 in Amsterdam by Jewish parents that had fled from the Iberian penisula being so called marranos, ie, Jews that publicly were Christian but in the dark retained their Jewish faith. However, due to Spinoza's free thinking he was demoted from his Jewish congregation 1656 with the words: "He'd be damned during the day, and during the night. Damned when he is asleep, damned when awake. Damned would his entry be and his exit. May the Lord never forgive him".

It still matters where you live on Earth but things have improved. I respect people of faith, but, like the Humanists, I have little understanding for the cumbersome dogmatics that one encounters in the standard Abrahamitic religions. It is a wonderful literary heritage but my adoration stops there. As the first posts in my blog "etiketted" "scriptures" clearly show, religion have been countering the development of science and prosperity by reason over the 350 years from Spinoza's departure from the established religion of the day. My faith of today is similar to that of Spinoza. It is a faith free of interference to scientific and philosophical thinking. Perhaps it will be possible for me to write about my faith today. It wasn't for Spinoza.

In the program 'Konflikt' on the radio P1 yesterday the prospective joining of Turkey with the EU was discussed. It seemed that a person speaking for Turkey's entry used arguments of islamophobia rather than recognizing distinctive differences in the freedom of the press and the democratic set-up as the reason for the unlikely entry of Turkey any time soon. I don't think the religion Islam is a problem in Europe as long as it is not political Islam. Faith should be private. It should not be a state matter. It is the responsibility of the Muslims to keep it private.

The decision of Switzerland to ban the minaretes is similar to the de-veiling of Muslim women. There are situations where a veil is not recommended, like in the upbringing of other people's children, but other than that the liberal stance of allowing for Islam and its attributes should encouraged. The sounding of church bells could be as annoying as the howling of a muezzin.

Carl Bildt was interviewed in the radio program. Being a strong proponent for early entry of Turkey into the EU, he argued for the increased safety for Europe in having open doors for Turkey in this direction rather than Turkey opening doors in the other direction. However, it seems to me that Turkey might be able to improve Iran by example, a feat that the West is completely unable to do. There are signals in the literature lately that Turkey already in principle have given up membership in the EU and instead is directing its attention elsewhere. If they really believe in democracy they can influence others, otherwise they will fail. It is a good test. A failed democratic state the size of Turkey in the EU would be a disaster.

Turkey and the EU and US?

Obama Gets High Marks in Europe, but U.S. Foreign Policy Is Less Popular - WSJ.com: "Turkey seems increasingly distanced from both the EU and U.S., despite Mr. Obama's trip to the country in April. Only 3% of Turks say the U.S. should be their country's 'major international partner.'"

Turkey's relationship with Iran is good, however. And the seaways for Russia out of the Black Sea are more secure than ever. Turkey then has to be called the most rebellious NATO country? The Turkish military might still be in NATO but the Turkish public seems to have left it.

41% of Americans think that the joining of Turkey with EU would be "a good thing" but only 12% of French and 16% of Germans do. The Europeans think of the problems of integrating Muslims in Europe which is not a problem for the Americans who mainly think of security.

Well, of Obama personally is popular but the war in Afghanistan is not, this might mean that Europeans still hope the US will retreat from Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai has just faked himself passed the 50% level and won the election to little ovations. There is no legitimacy for him as a leader for Afghans. Obama faced his nation tonight with his speech to the Congress but did not bring up the Afghanistan problem. What a scoop for everyone, and for ObamaCare, if he just decided to leave Afghanistan.

One country's terrorists is another country's honorable citizens

Anger China or defend Uighurs? Turkey walks fine line. csmonitor.com: "'Turks originally came from that part of Asia to Anatolia, and the language that Uighurs use is much closer to the language that Turkey speaks than others in Central Asia,' he continues".

I wonder if this brings Turkey closer to EU or not? Recep Tayyip Erdogan has apparently called the Uighur problem a "genocide" performed by the Chinese. China wants him to take this back. Some people would bring up Turkey's own problem with the genocide of Armenians. However, that was then, this is now and therefore a very different matter. If China today is racist against Uighurs, Turks may think they are racist against Turks.

The fact that al-Qaeda has attacked Chinese in Algeria and that China's crack-down on the Uighurs, as well as its secular stance, alienates one billion muslims makes this issue difficult to deal with for the West.