A new era as Turks and Kurds learn to co-operate

By David Phillips

Iraqis have stepped back from the brink by agreeing on a law that will allow elections to go forward in January. While this averts postponement of the ballot, which would have required the US to recalibrate its withdrawal from Iraq, the contentious process is a harbinger of difficulties to come. Once elections are held, Iraqis still have to establish a coalition government and overcome deep divisions on issues such as hydrocarbons, revenue-sharing and the status of Kirkuk, a city claimed by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. Given these flashpoints, Iraqi Kurds are placing as much importance on relations with Ankara as with Baghdad. Turkey is also hedging her bets in case Iraq’s elections trigger sustained violence that polarises Iraqis and destabilises the region.

It was only in February last year that Turkey massed 100,000 troops for a major cross-border operation to root out the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK) from its hide-out in the Qandil Mountains of northern Iraq. In a dramatic reversal, Ahmet Davudoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, made a historic visit to Iraqi Kurdistan just two weeks ago to sign landmark deals opening a Turkish consulate in Erbil and border-crossings for travel and trade. Both sides have made the strategic decision that their interests are better served through co-operation than confrontation.

The rapprochement is born from pragmatism and geographic necessity. Kurds know that their future lies to the west, not as a landlocked rump state in the Middle East. Their access to Europe goes through Turkey. Conversely, Iraqi Kurdistan is Turkey’s gate to Iraq and lucrative relations with the Gulf states. Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan are natural economic partners. Their annual trade has jumped to $5bn (€3.3bn, £3bn) since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It will rise to $10bn this year and $20bn in 2010. There are 1,200 foreign companies in Iraqi Kurdistan, half of which are Turkish; 90 per cent of goods sold in Iraqi Kurdistan are made in Turkey.

In addition, Iraqi Kurdistan has 45bn barrels in estimated oil reserves and huge natural gas fields that Turkey needs to fuel its economy and to fill the Nabucco pipeline with supplies for Europe. A Turkish energy company, Genel Enerjy, has signed production-sharing agreements for the Tak Tak and Tawke oilfields in Iraqi Kurdistan that will produce 1m barrels per day – more than 20 times Turkey’s current domestic production.

There is an old adage that, “Kurds have no friends but the mountains”. Yet they increasingly see Turkey as a prudent power and protector. They recall it was a haven to almost a million Iraqi Kurds who fled to the mountains after the Gulf war in 1991. However, they know Turkey will not act out of the goodness of her heart. It will guarantee security in Iraqi Kurdistan because it enables her to influence the balance of power in Iraq.

Turkey’s security establishment is obsessed with Iraq’s territorial integrity. It fears the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan would inspire Kurds in Turkey to seek greater self-rule. Recent statements by Masoud Barzani, Iraqi Kurdistan’s president, have helped calm Turkish anxieties; Mr Barzani affirms that Iraqi Kurds accept their fate as part of a democratic, federal republic of Iraq in which political power and control of natural resources are decentralised.

In the 1990s, Ankara denied the very existence of Turkish Kurds, calling them “mountain Turks”. It declared a state of emergency and launched a scorched earth policy that devastated the country’s south-east where Kurds reside. Recently, however, it has taken a more conciliatory approach.

While maintaining security, the government of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expanded cultural rights and invested heavily in social services and infrastructure in Kurdish areas. Building on Turkey’s repentance law, it is also beginning to explore some kind of PKK amnesty. It has turned to the Kurdish Regional Government to accelerate the PKK’s demobilisation by more vigorously disrupting cash flow, weapons supplies and the organisation’s logistics.

The interests of Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan currently converge, but co-operation could founder unless both sides accommodate the core interests of the other. Without progress on Turkey’s PKK problem, neither side will realise the full scope of benefits from today’s positive trends.

Iran Seeks to Close Door on Further Protests

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
CAIRO — Police officers and militia forces crowded the streets of Tehran on Tuesday, setting up checkpoints and making clear that the government had zero tolerance for any further public expressions of defiance to the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a day after Iran’s powerful Guardian Council certified his landslide victory.

The government made a series of official moves to close the book on weeks of protest that represented the strongest challenge to its control since the Islamic republic was founded in 1979. Parliament issued a statement expressing broad gratitude over the June 12 vote and thanking the police and the Basij militia for maintaining security. Mr. Ahmadinejad visited the Ministry of Intelligence, where he gave a speech to employees.

The government crushed the vast protests following the vote, dispatching armed militia and police officers and leaving an estimated 17 people dead and hundreds injured. The authorities continued to detain hundreds of journalists, former government officials, political activists and even independent researchers, in the quest to prevent any further demonstrations.

There seemed little prospect of any chance for organized and sustained action against the government’s version of events, political analysts said, in part because the arrests had starved the opposition of leadership, foot soldiers and an effective means to communicate.

One of the most recent arrests, of Bijan Khajehpour, an independent political economist, sent a chill deeper yet into Iran’s civil society because he had not been involved in the opposition demonstrations, political analysts said.

Mr. Khajehpour had been detained at the airport coming into the country from Britain, and like many others, has disappeared into the notorious Evin prison, raising concerns over the scope of the crackdown and the prospect of a political purge, the analysts said.

“Bijan was perhaps the last independent-minded analyst living in Tehran who continued to travel to Europe and the U.S. and give open lectures about Iran,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “He always believed that if he was totally transparent, the government would understand he was not doing anything wrong.”

The government has also, over the past several days, fired high-ranking officials who had supported Mir Hussein Moussavi, the president’s main challenger, according to Iranian news reports.

Human rights groups said arrests had taken place around the nation, but there were particular fears that those held at Evin were in physical danger.

Amnesty International said in a statement that it was “gravely concerned that several opposition leaders detained in the wake of the 12 June elections may be facing torture, possibly to force them to make televised ‘confessions’ as a prelude to unfair trials in which they could face the death penalty.”

Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom organization, said that the concern extended beyond opposition leaders. “Several witness accounts makes us fear that torture and ill treatment are being systematically inflicted on prisoners who have demonstrated against the regime,” the group said in a statement. “Several journalists and bloggers were brutally treated by the guards and by men employed by the state prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi.”

The Guardian Council’s validation of the election on Monday followed days of promises that a committee would be formed to review the election and that a partial recount would occur. But the committee was never seated, nor was the review process established.

The recount involved what officials said was a random 10 percent of ballots in Tehran’s 22 electoral districts and in some provinces. The officials concluded that in some areas, Mr. Ahmadinejad had won even more votes than initially stated.

With the vote now officially over, the government pressed forward with its efforts to rewrite a narrative of events that had been cast first by the millions who took to the streets, and then through independent and citizen journalism. The government has made reporting inside the country impossible, forcing foreign journalists to leave, while arresting and threatening Iranians who challenge the government’s position.

The government maintains that Western agents, primarily Britons, have been responsible for the unrest. On Monday, the government sought to recast blame for the deaths of about 17 protesters.

The commander of Iran’s Basij militia, Hossein Taeb, said that impostors wearing Basij uniforms had been responsible for infiltrating crowds attacking unarmed citizens. He also suggested that a Basij impostor had been responsible for killing Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman who became an international symbol when video of her shot and dying in the street went on the Internet and was seen around the world.

Iran at a turning point

By Roula Khalaf, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Anna Fifield

They are outraged and they are desperate for change. But look at the faces of many of Iran’s protesters, and they appear cheerful. Despite the deaths of the past week, the arrests and the beatings, they have kept a smile on their faces as they raise their hands in a victory sign.

As the crisis over the disputed presidential election result has unfolded – posing the biggest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979 and taking the world by storm – hopes for a move towards a more reformist, tolerant Islamic regime have rested on the hundreds of thousands who have taken to the streets. Many of them are young and ambitious for their country, demanding above all that they be respected.

In a country not known for displays of happiness – it was a novelty in the late 1990s to have a president (the reformist Mohammad Khatami) who smiled – the outcome of the election eight days ago, which declared hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad the winner, is seen as one affront too many by those who voted for Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the reformist candidate. “They took us for fools,” is a common refrain.

For a youthful, educated population, it appears a wall of fear has been shattered, releasing them from years of bottled-up frustration. Mohsen Rezaei, a conservative candidate in the presidential election, has spoken of a “phenomenon” in this election. “People valued their votes so much as if it was their honour,” he says.

No one doubts the crisis is a turning point. The country, says Gary Sick, an expert on Iran from Columbia University, has entered “an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history”. The one characteristic that has always distinguished it from other authoritarian regimes of the Middle East, he says, “was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear”.

But the shift will be tumultuous. The regime has no intention of giving in to demands for a new vote and no appetite for compromise. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader, made clear in an address on Friday that the election result would not be altered and protests would not be tolerated.

“Even if this fire is extinguished, the government will lack a popular base and people will obstruct its policies,” warns one political activist in the country.

The real size of Mr Moussavi’s support is impossible to gauge, and the president retains popularity – particularly among religious radicals, the poor and the rural population, whom he has assiduously courted with his populist policies. But the divisions in society so starkly illustrated this week will not go away, and they have been mirrored within the regime itself.

Mr Moussavi is no secular politician. He was an active participant in the 1979 revolution. His candidacy had attracted backing from Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the powerful former president, and other conservatives, including segments of the clerical establishment. Strongly behind him, too, was the reformist camp, which believes that in order for the revolution to survive, its system – part theocracy and part democracy – must re-engage with society, giving it wider freedom and accountability.

Some commentators have described the election as a palace coup, engineered by the hardline wing of the regime, represented by the military establishment that backs Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, and supported by the supreme leader, who is the ultimate authority in the country. The aim, say these commentators, was to destroy the reform movement and either control and manage any opening up to the US, now that President Barack Obama is seeking engagement with Iran, or thwart it altogether.

The passionate protests, and their style, have conjured up images of 1979, but their outcome need not be the same. The silent, solemn marches; the cries of Allahu Akbar (“God is Great”) from rooftops at night, used in 1979 to notify the authorities that no one is above God and symbolically reminding today’s regime of that time; and the lashing out of the authorities – all remind Iranians of the revolution. The organisation of rallies, too, has gone back to the primitive ways of the revolution, amid unprecedented restrictions on high-technology media such as Twitter, the social networking service. “We’ve been sending motorcycles to the streets to tell people about the rallies, we have to transfer information face to face,” says one person involved in the protests.

But whether the crisis will provoke a larger protest movement that shakes the power structure more deeply, or a total consolidation of power by hardliners, as Mr Khamenei hinted on Friday , is difficult to judge.

Just as there are similarities with the revolution, there are also stark differences – not least that the western world is cheering not for the shah but for the demonstrators.

As the political activist who took part in the revolution says, it was led by a charismatic religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had an extraordinary ability to mobilise segments of a fractured society while in exile. He was relentless in both method and ambition for an overthrow of the shah. “But now there is no leader,” says the activist, “and Moussavi wants to lead protests peacefully.”

. . .

Mr Moussavi, out of the political establishment since he served as prime minister in the 1980s, has been surprisingly bold in his statements in the past week. So far he has appeared to be led by the street, which has mobilised for protests even when he issues a statement postponing a rally. At least some support, moreover, is less for him than against Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, seen by large parts of the educated middle class as having destroyed both the foundation of the economy, provoking rampant inflation, and its image abroad.

The main target of protesters this week has been Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who has a popular support base and is not, in any case, the real decision-maker in the country. Although few doubt that the authority of the supreme leader remains solid, some analysts say that even he may not be in full control of his troops, not least the powerful Revolutionary Guard. Clearly taken by surprise by the intensity of the unrest, which spread to other parts of the country, the regime has been scrambling for ways to damp the protests, lashing out with arrests, beatings and attacks.

During much of the day Tehran has looked normal, with residents going about their daily business. But it has been gripped by rally fever in late afternoons. Most evenings, particularly in the north of the city, home to the elite who turn out in force, the tensions have been at their highest.

Plain-clothes Basiji, members of the feared Islamic militia, holding shields, and wielding batons, deploy in the streets, sometimes setting up checkpoints. Their task seems to have been to chase and punish protesters as they dispersed from rallies and return home. The government says eight people have died in the past week; Amnesty International puts the death toll at 15.

The regime has been working hard to ensure that the rallies will peter out, as fear of violence and retribution spread. Friday’s speech by the supreme leader, warning people to stop their protests and portraying any domestic unrest as playing into the hands of the enemy, was the most dramatic move to silence the streets.

Analysts and diplomats, however, say that, unlike the unrest of 1999, the last serious crisis in Iran that involved a student uprising, tougher repression today carries a much higher cost, as it would have to target so many segments of the population, all of which have relatives in the security forces.

The stance of Mr Moussavi, torn between his supporters’ demands and the consequences of widespread repression, will be crucial.

“Will Moussavi end up standing with the regime and deciding to end this, or will he follow his troops and stay with them? Will he become more radical and challenge the regime even more?” asks a western diplomat.

The fear in Tehran is that the regime’s actions will turn the peaceful demonstrators, now still focused on a demand for a rerun of the vote and reform of the system, into a more radicalised opposition that wants an end to the Islamic system itself. With society divided, part of it deeply wounded by the election, and the regime under strain, the country could face a prolonged period of unrest. The dispute over the election could bode ill for western governments hoping to curb the fast-progressing nuclear programme, and at least delay US intentions to engage.

“With his speech, the leader has put himself against the people,” says one young Iranian who has participated in daily protests. “The regime does not understand that this wave is driven by people, not by politicians.”

“The regime has taken a big hit,” notes the western diplomat. “But the hardliners also think any concession would be the beginning of their end.”

Iran’s Children of Tomorrow

By ROGER COHEN
TEHRAN — They are known mockingly as the “Joojeh Basiji” — the “chicken Basiji.” These are the militia scarcely old enough to manage more than a feeble beard. Teenagers, brainwashed from early childhood, they have been ferried into the capital in large numbers, given a club and a shield and a helmet and told to go to work.

I saw them throughout downtown Tehran on Sunday, seated in the back of grey pick-ups. I saw them, sporting sleeveless camouflage vests, in clusters on corners, leaning on trees, even lolling shoeless on the grass in the central island of Revolution Square.

They were far from alone in a city in military lockdown. Elite riot police with thigh-length black leg guards, helmeted Revolutionary Guards in green uniforms and rifle-touting snipers composed a panoply of menace. The message to protesters was clear: Gather at your peril.

That threat had already been rammed home Saturday evening, when a student named Neda Agha Soltan was killed by a single shot. Her last moments were captured on video that has gone global. Martyrdom is a powerful force in the world of Shia Islam. Mourning on the 3rd and 7th and 40th days after a death form a galvanizing cycle.

Neda is already another name for the anger smoldering here, whose expression, in my experience, has been bravest, deepest and most vivid among women. She could become Iran’s Marianne.

Tehran, cradled in its mountainous amphitheater, is holding its breath. Sunday was quiet and Monday dawned quiet but between them the defiant cries of “Death to the dictator” and “Allah-u-Akbar” reverberated between high-rises once again.

In this pregnant lull, I keep hearing three questions: Will Mir Hussein Moussavi lead? How powerful are the internal divisions of the revolutionary establishment? And what is the ultimate goal of the uprising? On the answer to them will hinge the outcome of this latest fervid expression of Iran’s centennial quest for pluralistic freedom.

After the shootings Saturday that took several lives, Moussavi seemed absent. The bespectacled revolutionary leader thrust now into defiance was silent. People risking their lives craved guidance. Disappointed in 1999 and 2003 by the legalistic kowtowing of the reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, they feared resignation redux.

Then, early Monday, Moussavi spoke. “Protesting to lies and fraud is your right,” he said, referring to the preposterous manipulation of the June 12 election and laying down the gauntlet again to the once sacrosanct pronouncements of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader invested by the Islamic Revolution with an authority close to the Prophet’s. Last Friday, Khamenei said: “I want everyone to end this sort of action.”

Khamenei also said, “Trust in the Islamic Republic became evident in these elections.”

In fact I believe the loss of trust by millions of Iranians who’d been prepared to tolerate a system they disliked, provided they had a small margin of freedom, constitutes the core political earthquake in Iran. Moderates who once worked the angles are now muttering about making Molotov cocktails and screaming their lungs out after dusk.

Moussavi is trying to calm their rage and coax the multiple security forces to his side. Restraint was the core appeal of his Monday statement. He urged his followers to avoid violence and adopt parental forbearance before the “misbehavior” of security forces — an appropriate reference given all the teenage thugs out there.

I think Moussavi is right to avoid extreme positions even as Khamenei has deliberately radicalized the conflict. He’s right because his moderation fans internal divisions that seem rampant. Any counterrevolutionary stance, at least at this point, would have the opposite effect.

Which brings me to the fight within. On Sunday, I saw Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, the son of the establishment’s embittered éminence grise, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He told me his father, who despises President Mahmoud Adhmadinejad, is fighting a furious rearguard action to have the election annulled by the Guardian Council, the 12-member oversight body that will pronounce this week on the election’s legality.

The ruling had seemed a formality, given Khamenei’s summary dismissal of a recount and the loyalist composition of the body, but the Council is now talking about irregularities in 50 cities and discrepancies that could affect 3 million votes. Out of a total of 40 million votes, that’s a significant number.

There are rumblings from the influential parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, who is close to Khamenei but not Ahmadinejad. With Rafsanjani, Khatami and the defeated conservative former Revolutionary Guard leader, Mohsen Rezai, the dissenting front has breadth. Rezai, who officially won 680,000 votes, says more than 900,000 voters have written to him with their ID numbers saying they cast their ballot for him.

The third question — the strategic goal of the uprising — is increasingly fraught. Khamenei said, “The dispute is not between the revolution and the counterrevolution,” and that all four electoral candidates “belong to the system.” He was right, if his words had been spoken the day after the vote.

Ten days on, however, the brutal use of force and his own polarizing speech have drawn many more Iranians toward an absolutist stance. Having wanted their votes counted, they now want wholesale change. If Moussavi wants to prevail, he must keep his followers tactically focused on securing a new election. That’s essential because it’s the one position the opposition within the clerical establishment will go along with.

Whatever happens now, all is changed utterly in Iran. Opacity, a force of the Islamic Republic, has yielded to a riveting transparency in which one side confronts another. The online youth of Iran will not be reconciled to a regime that touts global “ethics” and “justice” while trampling on them at home.

I received this from an anonymous Iranian student: “I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to be killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow!”

And she concludes: “I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so that they know we were not just emotional under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mogols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children.”

I bow my head to the youth of Iran, the youth that is open-eyed, bold and far stronger and more numerous than the near-beardless vigilantes.

Text of Obama’s speech at Cairo University

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, ”The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ”Out of many, one.”

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

Obama reaches out to Muslim world

President Barack Obama has said the "cycle of suspicion and discord" between the United States and the Muslim world must end.

In a keynote speech in Cairo, Mr Obama called for a "new beginning" in ties.

He admitted there had been "years of distrust" and said both sides needed to make a "sustained effort... to respect one another and seek common ground".

Mr Obama said the US bond with Israel was unbreakable but described the Palestinians' plight as "intolerable".

The president made a number of references to the Koran and called on all faiths to live together in peace.

He received a standing ovation at the end of his speech at Cairo University.

White House officials had said the speech was intended to start a process to "re-energise the dialogue with the Muslim world".

'Not so unique'

Mr Obama said: "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect."

He said "violent extremists" had bred fear and that this "cycle of suspicion and discord must end".

Mr Obama accepted that "no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust" but urged both sides to "say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors".

He cited the Koran as saying: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."

Mr Obama said Islam had "always been a part of America's story".

He added that much had been made of the fact an African-American named Barack Hussein Obama had become US president, but he insisted his personal story was "not so unique".

"The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims."

'Intolerable'

The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.

"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."

Mr Obama said America was not at war with Islam, but would confront violent extremists who threatened its security.

On the key issues of Iraq and Afghanistan, the president said the US sought no permanent bases in either country.

He said: "We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Mr Obama said the bond with Israel was "unbreakable".

He said: "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong."

But he also said the "situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable".

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Mr Obama said.

On the key issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Mr Obama said "there can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction".

Israel is resisting calls to freeze building activity but Palestinian leaders have said there can be no progress towards peace without a halt.

After the speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned ministers to a special meeting and ordered aides and officials not to comment until a government statement was released.

The statement said the Israeli government hoped the speech "will indeed lead to a new era of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel".

BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says Mr Obama was tough on both sides - perhaps tougher on Israel than we are used to hearing from an American president.

Our correspondent says Mr Obama made it clear there was no justification for Holocaust denial but he seemed to associate the state of the Palestinians with that of slaves in America.

A spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said the speech was a "good start and an important step towards a new American policy".

The AFP news agency quoted Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, as saying the speech showed "tangible change" but also contained contradictions.

On the Iranian nuclear issue, Mr Obama said: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons" and said Iran had the right to peaceful nuclear power.

But he said there should be no nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Before Mr Obama spoke, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had
saying the US was still "deeply hated" in the Middle East.

On democracy, Mr Obama said that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone".

"No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

The president also touched on women's rights, saying: "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons."

Mr Obama arrived in Egypt from a visit to Saudi Arabia.

Later on Thursday he visited the pyramids before leaving for Germany and France.

Walkout at Iran leader's speech

Diplomats have walked out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by the Iranian president in which he described Israel as "totally racist".

Dozens of delegates got up and left, moments after two protesters wearing coloured wigs disrupted the start of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech.

Diplomats who remained applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.

France said it was a "hate speech" and the US called it "vile". Some countries had boycotted the meeting altogether.

The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

UN dismay

The walkout by delegates from at least 30 countries happened within minutes of the start of the speech.

Most officials planned to return later to participate in the rest of the conference, although the Czech delegation announced it would join the boycott.

One of the two protesters escorted out of the conference hall managed to throw a red clown's nose at the Iranian president, as they yelled "racist, racist" as he stood at the podium.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".

He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room," the Associated Press news agency reported.

British Ambassador Peter Gooderham, also among those who left, said "such inflammatory rhetoric has no place whatsoever in a United Nations conference addressing the whole issue of racism and how to address it."

Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's PM programme, he said of the Iranian leader's accusation of Israeli racism: "That is a charge we unreservedly condemn and so we had no hesitation at that point in leaving the conference hall."

The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference being held in Geneva, in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance.

His comments were described as "an absolute disgrace" by Israeli President Shimon Peres, attending a Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Jerusalem.

Israel had earlier recalled its ambassador to Switzerland.

Mr Ahmadinejad told a press conference after his speech that the countries boycotting the forum were showing "arrogance and selfishness".

The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said the speech was "inaccurate", as well as showing disregard towards the UN, and "does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people".

Speaking at UN headquarters in New York, he said: "We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech."

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had warned that French delegates would walk out if the forum was used as a platform to attack Israel. The whole point of these meetings is to represent the views of your nation and challenge the views of others Gavin, Brussels

Speaking after the walkout, he said: "The defence of human rights and the fight against all types of racism are too important for the United Nations not to unite against all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message.

"Faced with attitudes like that which the Iranian president has just adopted, no compromise is possible."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed dismay at the boycotts and the speech, saying Mr Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite".

Obama pledge on Mideast solution

By Edward Luce and Delphine Strauss in Ankara and Roula Khalaf in London

Barack Obama on Monday offered his clearest pledge since taking office to pursue a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, as he took his message of remaking US relations with the Muslim world to Turkey.

President Obama urged Israel and the Palestinians to “live up to the commitments they have made”, in what is likely to be seen as a rebuke to Israel’s new rightwing government, whose foreign minister last week distanced himself from a 2007 US-backed process to create a Palestinian state.

The Palestinian Authority last night welcomed Mr Obama’s statement, while Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, issued a brief statement saying: “Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and to the pursuit of peace.” He did not mention the two-state solution.

In an address to the Turkish parliament, the US president also carefully prodded his hosts to make progress on talks with neighbouring Armenia and restated the US’s support for Turkey to join the European Union.

His remarks came on the closing leg of an eight-day tour of Europe, in which he made Turkey the last stop, in part to deliver a symbolic statement about bridging the divide between east and west after the “mistrust” created by the presidency of George W. Bush.

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam,” he said. “I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground.”

Mr Obama has sought to reach out to Muslims by quickly appointing a Middle East envoy; giving an Arabic television station his first interview with a foreign broadcaster; and making clear that he wants engagement with Iran. He took his message on Monday to the heart of a Muslim capital and insisted that he saw engagement with the Muslim world as a dialogue based on mutual respect.

Reactions to the US president in the Muslim world have been both hopeful and cautious, with many people appreciating the new tone, but also waiting to see concrete changes in US policies.

While reaction in the Muslim world has been cautiously hopeful, many are also waiting to see concrete changes in US policy.

Abdelaziz al-Qassim, a Saudi analyst, said Mr Obama was creating a new mood in the region and was clearly “a man of initiative, of values”. But he said there were still questions about “what he will do”.

In the Arab world, the biggest question is how far the new president will go in putting pressure on Israel to pursue negotiations on a Palestinian state.

Mr Obama’s US president, who concludes his tour today in Istanbul with a “town hall” event, where he will take questions from ordinary Muslims, also sought Turkey’s help in pursuing a two-state solution and in brokering successful talks between Israel and Syria.

Although Mr Obama did not offer any radical new policies on the issue, his language was studiously even-handed.

“Let me be clear: Regarding negotiations On a Palestinian state, he said: “The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”

Israel has choice on peace, says Assad

By Anna Fifield in Beirut

Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, has suggested he would sign a peace settlement with Israel even without a resolution to the Palestinian conflict, but warned that any such deal would be largely symbolic.

Mr Assad is laying down a challenge to Israel’s incoming prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by making it clear that a comprehensive peace deal will require significant concessions on the Israeli side.

Nevertheless, his offer comes amid a tentative rapprochement with the US, Israel’s strongest backer, which is eager to see progress towards a peace treaty.

“We give [the Israelis] the choice between comprehensive peace and a peace agreement which does not have any real value on the ground,” Mr Assad told the United Arab Emirates newspaper al-Khaleej.

“There is a difference between a peace agreement and peace itself. A peace agreement is a piece of paper you sign. This does not mean trade and normal relations, or borders, or otherwise,” the newspaper quoted the president as saying.

Mr Assad’s father, former president Hafez al-Assad, had suggested that peace could be struck if Israel returned the Golan Heights, occupied in 1967. However, the current Syrian president is now suggesting that the Golan Heights would have to be returned as a precursor to a comprehensive treaty, which could not be forged without a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Our people will not accept that, especially since there are half a million Palestinians in our country whose position remains unresolved. It is impossible under these terms to have peace in the natural sense,” Mr Assad said.

Mr Netanyahu promised immediately before his election that he would not return the occupied Golan Heights to Syria.

Analysts said that Mr Assad’s comments underlined the challenges in negotiating with Syria, which many policymakers in the US consider an easier problem to resolve than the Palestinian conflict.

“Assad is very clearly saying here that they have to return the Golan to get a cold peace, but that there will not be anything more than a cold peace unless they deal with the Palestinian issue,” said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“The Syrian track is actually very complicated because it does not involve just the Golan but it involves distancing itself from Iran, and that is going to be very hard,” Mr Tabler said.

Still, the president’s statement is significant for signalling that Syria would resume peace talks with Israel despite the continued tension in the Gaza Strip.

Damascus had been participating in indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, but they were suspended when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip in late December.

US officials held the highest-level bilateral talks in four years with their counterparts in Damascus at the weekend, saying that they “found a lot of common ground”.

Nuclear Iran? Decision time is here

Barack Obama’s foreign policy team knew that sooner or later they would face a crisis over Iran. Unfortunately for the new US president, the crisis is already upon them.

On Friday, the Financial Times reported that “Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb”. That same day, Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to form Israel’s next government.

Mr Netanyahu thinks that the Iranian government is “preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state”. He has said: “It is 1938 and Iran is Germany.” Mr Netanyahu said this in 2006, so logically it is now 1941 – but the intervening years have not calmed him down. He thinks that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a mortal threat to Israel.

As for President Obama, he has promised to “do everything in my power” to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. But how can he stop them?

A huge clue to the administration’s approach was given by Gary Samore in a speech in Israel on December 18. Shortly afterwards, it emerged that Mr Samore would handle the non-proliferation job in the Obama White House. His words carry weight.

Mr Samore said there was “a growing sense in the region and more broadly that Iran’s nuclear effort is unstoppable”. But he gave three reasons why an Obama diplomatic initiative might just work. The most important is the collapse in world oil prices, which makes Iran more vulnerable to economic sanctions. The second is that Mr Obama can make a credible offer of much better relations with the US. And third, Mr Obama’s popularity overseas will make it easier for him to line up international support for sanctions.

But Mr Samore was far from sanguine that this would be enough. He noted that “Moscow and Beijing basically don’t share our concern about Iran’s nuclear programme”, and that Iran’s leadership “probably value the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability much more than better relations with the US”. He said: “We have to be realistic, and stopping Iran at this point is going to be a very difficult challenge.” The Iranians, he predicted, would attempt to “drag out negotiations ... while they continue to build up their enrichment capability”. So the US should set a deadline for the suspension of enrichment. The initial deal should trade suspension of enrichment for suspension of sanctions.

The Obama administration will do its utmost. But if the diplomatic effort fails, Mr Samore thinks that the US will be left with “two unappetising choices of either trying to manage Iran with a bomb or bombing Iran”.

Iran’s nuclear progress means that the US may have to face this “unappetising choice” rather sooner than the Obama team anticipated. The latest news from Iran suggests that the Iranians could produce material for a single bomb within months – although that would require a very public and detectable reconfiguration of their nuclear facilities.

So what should the Americans do? Mr Netanyahu will tell them that there is only one choice – bomb. His argument is based on the assumption that the Iranian government is run by genocidal maniacs, who would actively welcome Armageddon. Given the religious rhetoric of the Iranian regime, this possibility cannot be entirely dismissed. But most strategic experts – even in Israel – do not think that Iran is bent on nuking Israel.

Ephraim Kam, of the Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, is fairly typical in arguing that a combination of Israeli and US nuclear deterrence would mean that “Iran will not use nuclear weapons, not against us and not against any other country.”

In common with many strategic thinkers across the Middle East, Mr Kam’s biggest fear is not that Iran will become a fundamentalist suicide-bomber state. He and others worry instead about a resurgent Persian empire, bent on regional domination.

An Iran with nuclear weapons could destabilise the region in numerous ways. It could back radical Islamist movements such as Hizbollah and Hamas with more energy and less fear of reprisals. It could threaten and intimidate the oil states of the Gulf. It could frighten more of the educated and mobile Israeli middle class into emigrating. And it could precipitate a destabilising arms race across the region – as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf States and Turkey all rushed to go nuclear.

All of those developments would be deeply unappealing. But is it worth going to war to stop them? That question, in turn, breaks down into a number of subsidiary questions. Would a military attack work – or would Iran be able to rebuild swiftly? Would Iranian retaliation lead to a broader military conflict across the Gulf region – the home of US military bases and much of the world’s oil? Would Israel attack if Washington held back?

The US would have a much better chance than Israel of really setting back Iran’s nuclear programme, because – unlike the Israelis – the US could mount a sustained bombing campaign. But such a campaign would also be much more likely to broaden into a wider regional war. At that point, the war would have brought about the result it was launched to prevent – the destabilisation of the entire Middle East.

The world has already had to learn to live with a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea. If it comes to it, we will have to live with a nuclear Iran. But nobody can be casual about that prospect. It is time for the Obama administration to launch a last big push to head off the Iranian bomb – and for the rest of the world to line up in support of that effort.

Peres taps Netanyahu to form Israel's new government

By Ethan Bronner and Alan Cowell

Friday, February 20, 2009
JERUSALEM: President Shimon Peres invited Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud Party, to form the next Israeli government Friday following inconclusive elections 10 days ago.

Almost immediately, Netanyahu launched an appeal to adversaries to overcome their differences and form a government of national unity to meet "huge challenges" including what he termed Iran's development of nuclear weapons and its sponsorship of "terrorism" in Lebanon and Gaza.

Netanyahu will have six weeks for try to put together a government.

Israel's elections last week ended with the Kadima Party led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni edging past Likud to the top spot with 28 seats, compared with 27 for Likud and 15 for Avigdor Lieberman's far-right Yisrael Beiteinu Party, out of 120 seats in Parliament.

A stable government needs a commitment of at least 61 seats. In negotiations before Peres' announcement, Netanyahu secured a promised total of 65 seats from supporters including Lieberman's party, the ultra-Orthodox Sephardic party Shas, with 11 seats, and several smaller religious parties.

At a brief appearance with Peres on Friday, Netanyahu appealed directly to Livni and to Ehud Barak, leader of the smaller Labor Party, to meet him for discussions on forming a national unity government.

"Let us work together for the state of Israel," he said.

Livni has signalled that she is uninterested in joining any government that she does not head, and told supporters on Thursday that Kadima would probably go into the opposition.

Peres met on Friday with both Netanyahu and Livni, who hinted that her position had not changed, Reuters reported. "A large government has no value if it does not have a path," she said. Asked if she was ready to go into opposition she said: "If necessary, certainly," Reuters reported.

On Thursday, Livni said: "Today, the foundation was laid for an extreme right-wing government led by Netanyahu. This is not our way, and there is nothing for us in such a government."

She added that she "would not serve as a fig leaf for a government of paralysis."

Kadima favors continuing the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority that Livni has been leading, while Netanyahu believes that the talks have been largely fruitless and that emphasis should be placed on building the Palestinians' institutions and economy.

Lieberman's anti-Arab stands, including a demand that all Arab citizens sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish state, have alienated many in Livni's party. It is widely felt that a government with Netanyahu and Lieberman in charge would be narrowly based and unstable and would find little favor in Washington, leading to another election before long.

Netanyahu, widely known as "Bibi," is a politician of long standing in Israel. He served as Israel's delegate to the United Nations and went on to become deputy foreign minister.

After Likud's defeat in the 1993 election, he seized the party leadership and was prime minister from 1996 to 1999. When he lost the elections in 1999, he resigned his seat in Parliament and his leadership of Likud. He returned to the leadership to suffer a humiliating defeat in elections in 2006.

Week before Gaza op, Israel and Syria were ready for direct talks

By Zvi Barel

Erdogan had invited Olmert to his official residence after he met Turkey's president. He suggested calling Assad and drafting a joint announcement about a direct discussion between the Israeli and Syrian delegations.

The source said Erdogan called Assad, told him that Olmert was at his residence and asked whether he would accept Erdogan's mediation. Assad agreed and the two began drafting the statement.

Every few minutes Erdogan's assistant brought Olmert, who was in another room, notes from Erdogan's talk with Assad and asked for his comments. Erdogan passed Olmert's comments on to Assad and took down his responses, which he then passed on to Olmert.

The source said the three-way conversation continued for more than four hours, until about 1 A.M. Olmert told Erdogan he must return to Israel. Erdogan said he would continue talking to Assad and call Olmert the next day for his comments.

"The joint Syrian-Israeli statement was nearly finished and needed only a few corrected words to be completed," the Turkish source said.

"After making the statement, the parties were to announce that they were ready to start direct negotiations and Erdogan was convinced that he had an agreed-on draft," the source said.

The statement had been expected to include an agreement to adhere to the understanding reached with Yitzhak Rabin.

This stipulated that Israel would be prepared to withdraw from the entire Golan in exchange for permanent peace and security arrangements, as well as agreement on what the term normalization would mean for future peaceful relations.

But a week later, Israel launched the offensive in Gaza. When Erdogan heard of the attack he said that Olmert had stabbed him in the back and that Israel must pay for it, one of his aides said.

'Netanyahu Is Not Prepared to Compromise'

It still isn't clear who will be asked to form Israel's next government. But if Netanyahu gets the nod, German commentators fear the peace process will suffer.

Israel is set to announce the final tally from Tuesday's parliamentary vote on Thursday. But even before the official numbers are in, Likud party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu has started a major push to form a coalition government as quickly as possible, even though early results had him running (just barely) behind his rival, Tzipi Livni.

According to the Israeli paper Haaretz on Thursday, Netanyahu was planning to offer Avigdor Lieberman, from the ultra-nationalist Israel Beitenu party, the Finance Ministry in an effort to quickly bind him in a new government. The paper also reported that "Bibi," as Netanyahu is known to both friends and foes alike, will then invite his rivals from the Kadima party, chaired by Livni, to take on the foreign and defense portfolios.

It is unclear whether the gambit will work. Preliminary results show that Netanyahu's party won 27 seats in parliament, against 28 for Kadima. But because the right side of the political spectrum -- boosted by 15 seats won by Israel Beitenu -- trounced the left, overall, it appears difficult for Livni to form a stable coalition. Still, Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, a member of Kadima, said the party would not join an extreme right-wing government under Netanyahu's leadership.

"We will join a Netanyahu government only if it is (not extreme)," he said, according to Haaretz. "We are not afraid to sit in the opposition."

There is still some time before President Shimon Peres has to decide who to ask to form a government. Results will become official next week. If Peres opts for Netanyahu, it will be the first time in Israel's history that the strongest party was passed over to lead a government.

Outside Israel, many are viewing developments with some concern. The hawkish tone from Likud and other parties on the right has raised fears that the Middle East peace process might stall under Netanyahu. Lieberman's participation in any Netanyahu-led government is particularly worrying for many. His platform has been profoundly anti-Arab -- in fact Lieberman proposed that all Arab Israelis should sign a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish state.

German commentators on Thursday also voiced their concerns.

The left-leaning Die Taggeszeitung writes:

"Israel has voted for the right and, in doing so, reacted to the radicalization of the Palestinians. Three years after the electoral victory of Hamas, Israel's left-leaning parties no longer have a chance at winning a majority. Every missile that was shot at Israel from the Gaza Strip strengthened the position of those Israeli politicians who aren't willing to compromise."

"Hamas aided Israel's right-leaning politicians in gaining power -- and now the right may even be able to secure a stabile, long-term coalition."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"Even if Jerusalem ends up with a coalition that is prepared to work towards peace, the battle is still far from over. As long as Hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel, creating a two-state solution will remain nearly impossible, as a separate peace with Fatah cannot exist. It's also difficult to imagine progress in the Middle East unless Syria and Iran stop supporting Hamas and fueling the conflict."

"If US President Barack Obama wants his 'aggressive' peace initiative to have a chance, it won't be enough to sit around hoping that Israel's new government will work on a peace agreement. It also won't be enough to put pressure on Jerusalem if, in the end, hardliners there have all the say."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung focuses on the need for a new political system in Israel:

"Only with Ms. Livni is there a real chance (for peace) because the foreign minister campaigned on a platform of one day living peacefully next to a Palestinian state and returning the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace. Benjamin Netanyahu is not prepared to accept any of these compromises and would, at best, aid Palestinians in making economic progress."

"In order to undertake painful compromises with the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, Israel needs a stable governing majority.... Israel desperately needs to overhaul its political system because whoever wins power will have to commit a large portion of his or her time to building a shaky coalition and then keeping it together -- more time than for important issues that require full commitment. That means, not only finding a peaceful solution to the conflict with Palestinians, but also addressing the international financial crisis that is currently hitting Israel with full force and has already cost countless Israelis their jobs."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Netanyahu's win has created a dilemma for Obama. The US president needs to make progress in the peace process in order to move toward reconciliation with the Arab world. Netanyahu will be an uncompromising ruler, and his promised toughness and politics of fear helped win a parliamentary majority for the right. He opposes peace talks like the ones Livni held with moderate Palestinians in the West Bank.... He doesn't want to discuss borders, refugees and Jerusalem with Palestinians but rather to stick with the politics of containment. At best, he could assist in creating industry parks."

"It would be courageous to aid Palestinians in creating a state, as the US government is currently doing on a small scale by training Palestinian security forces in the West Bank. It would furthermore be courageous to reform the Israeli election system. Twelve parties are represented in the new Knesset and they will, as always, be a hindrance to one another. The 2 percent rule hinders every step toward parliamentary progress. It also keeps courageous politicians like Livni from breaking the vicious cycle of Israel's internal politics."

-- Caroline Winter, 2:45 p.m. CET

Bad new vibrations

Jan 29th 2009 | ISTANBUL
From The Economist print edition

WIDESPREAD outrage over Israel’s assault on Gaza has sharply soured the tone of Turkey’s people and government towards the Jewish state. The prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, castigated it for hammering the Palestinians. So far he has resisted a clamour in Turkey to loosen or even sever his country’s close ties with Israel. But some advocates of the strategic friendship between the two countries fear it may be at risk.

Behind the scenes, Turkish policymakers, especially military ones, still cherish their ties with Israel. Speaking this week in Switzerland, Mr Erdogan seemed keen to draw a line under the row. He explained that he was incensed by the war in Gaza particularly because his tireless mediation had brought Israel and Syria close to a deal over the Golan Heights. He said he had also been trying to fix a deal with Hamas over a prisoner exchange, including freedom for a kidnapped Israeli corporal.

Similar rows have occurred before. In 2004 he annoyed Israel by calling it a terrorist state after it assassinated Hamas’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, as he left a mosque in Gaza. Mr Erdogan then invited Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’s present leader, to visit Turkey. But Israeli-Turkish relations were mended after prodding by the United States. Military co-operation went on. Israel has invariably chosen to turn a deaf ear to Turkey’s occasionally fierce rhetoric for the sake of that strategic liaison. In a bid to soothe the anger of Jews and Israelis, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ali Babacan, urged Hamas to decide “whether it wants to be an armed group or a political movement”.

But this time Mr Erdogan had been a lot angrier. Israel, he railed, was “committing a crime against humanity…The world must not turn a blind eye to Israel’s savagery…How can such a country, which totally ignores and does not implement the UN Security Council’s resolutions be let through the gates of the UN?”

An education ministry circular particularly annoyed Israel by telling Turkish schoolchildren to observe a minute’s silence in solidarity with Palestinian children. In the event, the Israelis persuaded the Turks to cancel a proposed essay and drawing contest for schoolchildren to air their feelings of hatred towards Israel. Israeli officials were apparently poised to respond by proposing a programme in Israeli schools for discussing the genocide of Armenians by Turks in the first world war.

In any case, anti-Israeli anger on Turkey’s streets rose during the assault on Gaza. In rallies across the country demonstrators chanted “Killer Israel! Nazi Israel! Turkish armies, march on Jerusalem!” Calls to boycott Israeli goods and scrap military co-operation grew louder.

Not for the first time, anti-Semitism reared its head. In the western city of Eskisehir, members of a nationalist group brandished placards that read, “Only dogs can enter: no Armenians or Jews!” An outcry from Turkey’s 25,000-strong Jewish community, plus pressure from the foreign ministry, shamed a local prosecutor into launching a probe. Turkey’s Jewish community issued a rare statement saying that “we Turkish Jews, an inseparable part of the Turkish Republic, feel deep sorrow for the comments appearing in recent days in certain media outlets that belittle and insult our religion and present us as targets.”

An ancient alliance
Turks deny accusations of anti-Semitism, noting that the Ottoman Sultans opened their doors over 500 years ago to Jews fleeing from Christian persecution in Spain. In 1948, Turkey was among the first countries to recognise Israel. Under a military co-operation deal in 1996, Israeli pilots have been training in Turkish skies. In 2007, bilateral trade rose to $2.7 billion. Between 2006 and 2007, the number of Israelis visiting Turkey went up from 362,000 to 511,400—more than 7% of Israel’s population. Turkey has also earned praise from the Americans for its recent mediation between Syria and Israel.

But anti-Semitism is often part of a general anti-Christian and anti-Western feeling. “Jew” and “Armenian” are both often used as slurs. Last year a Pew Global Attitudes Survey found that anti-Jewish sentiment in Turkey had risen: 76% said they had negative views towards Jews, whereas only 7% said they looked kindly on them.

Anti-Semitism was also blatant during a campaign against an Israeli financier, Sammy Ofer, who had planned to invest with a Turkish partner in rehabilitating Istanbul’s historic Galata district and its port near the Golden Horn. The tender was cancelled amid widespread claims that the deal was crooked and that “Jewish capital” was trying to take over the country.

Radical Turkish Islamists have long tried to stir up anti-Semitism. Their long-standing jibe against the secular Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder, was that he was “really a Jew”. In recent years assorted leftists and Kemalists have joined an anti-Jewish chorus that frequently accompanies hostility to America, which is often accused of plotting with Israel to set up an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq that will eventually take large chunks out of south-eastern Turkey.

Behind-the-scenes lobbying by Turkish, American and European Union diplomats may have persuaded Mr Erdogan to tone down his language. He recently told Turkey’s parliament, “As a leader, I have said that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity.” But if anti-Israeli rhetoric in Turkey persists, the Israeli lobby in the United states could hit back by backing a congressional resolution to call the mass killings by Turks of some 1m Armenians “genocide”. Hitherto, Israel’s influential lobby in America has repeatedly helped block such a resolution, though Barack Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, have both referred to genocide in the past and have pledged to back the bill.

Secret talks between Turkey and Armenia to open diplomatic ties and reopen their borders are hotly opposed by some in the Armenian diaspora’s lobby in America. American Jews have long felt queasy about defending Turkey over the massacre of Armenians. Hitherto, pragmatism has prevailed and they have sided with the Turks. But if Mr Erdogan keeps on lambasting Israel, they may change their mind.