One of the usual suspects, long time suspect in my opinion, who has been steadily massaging perceptions with regard to Turkey was recently at at again. Turkey is and has been targeted in the remake the region agenda. That’s been long obvious to some of us. Obfuscated by too many others, including, yet again, Moon of Alabama. A brief aside- many years ago when this blog started others warned me about Moon of Alabama. I should have heeded those warnings at that time, but, get it now.
Factoid: The "Alabama Song/Whiskey Bar" is sung by Jenny and the other prostitutes in the play.
The Alabama Song related to the character of Jenny and her fellow prostitutes and was always performed in English, even when the rest of the opera was arranged in its original German.
Well, show me the way
To the next pretty boy
Oh, don't ask why
Oh, don't ask why
Show me the way
To the next pretty boy
Oh, don't ask why
Oh, don't ask why
What's Jenny, I mean b, singing about at the bar?
Let’s take a look at the loaded, misleading language and statements contained in MoA’s report starting with the headline, of course “The Turkish Intervention In Libya Might Lead To A War With Egypt”
Turkey's actions can't really be characterized as intervention in the way that word is commonly used. Like a US intervention/destabilization/covert ops = loaded with negative connotations. Libya and Turkey made a trade deal, that's what they did. Characterizing there deal as an "intervention" suggests an intention, from behind the bar, to frame the narrative in a specific manner.
As for interventions.. Egypt has been long intervening in Syria, for example, backing the SDF. Egypt played a role in the attempt to overthrow Erdogan. That's the more common use of intervention. The fact is Egypt has been intervening in Turkish affairs, not trade deals, but covert ops.
As you read the quoted excerpts do Keep in mind that language creates the perception of reality.
b: “The Turkish President Erdogan continues to create enemies for Turkey.”
Is that what he’s doing? I swear that sentence or one very much like it could have starred in Israeli media. Undoubtedly something very similar already has. Is Erdogan really creating enemies for Turkey as b claims? Perhaps he’s making new friends and allies?
Yah, new friends and allies would be the right way to go when the old allies are nothing but duplicitous destabilizing /coup plotting betrayers right?
Yet, b, opts to demonize or present negatively against Turkey. Why? Why does b gloss over the reality of erstwhile allies and choose instead to demonize Turkey's leadership?
b “ He has displeased NATO and the U.S. by installing Russian air defenses”
This is true, but, what are the reasons for this? Of course there are many!
Does b address them? No.
Is Turkey's sole reason for existing to explicitly please the US or NATO? No.
NATO and the US have both displeased and betrayed Turkey. Is that considered in b's diatribe? No
Since NATO is a questionable bunch at the best of times and Turkey understands they can't be counted on... aren't new allegiances in order?
b: “Erdogan then claimed that Turkey has the sole right to economically explore the Mediterranean Sea north of the red and yellow line”
Did Erdogan make that claim? Let's check B’s reference. The headline of the article b links to states “Turkey’s Erdoğan: Libya agreement to allow joint energy exploration in east Med” makes clear this is a Turkish/Libyan agreement- so no sole right (only/solo/lone) was claimed right to explore
Statement attributed to Erdogan:
“With this new agreement between Turkey and Libya, we can hold joint exploration operations in these exclusive economic zones that we determined. There is no problem,” Erdoğan said on Turkey’s state broadcaster TRT.
“Other international actors cannot carry out exploration operations in these areas Turkey drew (up) with this accord without getting permission. Greek Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Israel cannot establish a gas transmission line without first getting permission from Turkey,” he said.Libya and Turkey have this agreement, jointly, together nothing solo about it. So, why did b claim otherwise?
b “ The military part of Erdogan's deal is the real danger:”
Except there is no military deal right now. Again from b's link
"As well as allowing Turkey to search for gas off Libya with the government’s permission, the agreements signed with Tripoli could see Turkey deploying troops in the country, Erdoğan said"And b's other link
"The deal offers Turkish support for the establishment of a Quick Reaction Force for police and military in Libya, as well as enhanced cooperation in intelligence and in the defense industry. Following the military cooperation deal, Erdoğan said Ankara might consider sending troops to Libya if the Libyan government requested military assistance."Another article on the deal that doesn't appear to exist presently, though it could happen/or not at some point in time.
Could see/might consider, is not a deal. It's a possibility of a deal.
Yet b presents this as a done deal. Why?
b: “ Egypt will not tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood led Libya as its neighbor.”
Hilarious. I mean laugh out loud hilarious! Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood go way back. (Link Muslim Brotherhood, Arabic al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn, religiopolitical organization founded in 1928 at Ismailia, Egypt, by Ḥasan al-Bannāʾ) Muslim Brotherhood having it's inception in Egypt with a great deal of British assistance, of course.
After el Sisi overthrew the elected leader of Egypt the media decided to pretend that el Sisi was some sorta brave anti Islamist/anti brotherhood fighter. That’s laughable.
It's simple perception management. As was written here way back in 2013
The coup was presented as the only option. A false paradigm for a contrived dilemma. There is always more then one way. Often there are hundreds of option. Limited only by a failure of imagination.
b glosses over the myriad of issues in this region affecting Turkey since 2012. The fact that Greece, Cyprus. Egypt and Israel have been making deals excluding Turkey from natural resources accessible in the eastern Mediterranean.Either military theocratic tyranny or run of the mill theocratic tyranny.
And dammit you will believe the media when they tell you that nothing lies between those two extremes.
b: There have already been intense spats between Cyprus, Israel and Turkey over Turkish drill ships which, accompanied by the Turkish Navy, intruded into Cyprus' exclusive economic zone.
A situation that's not as simplistic as b presents in his piece, but, does serve to frame Turkey as the hostile actor. Failing to mention the Greek role in the attempted overthrow of Erdogan. So many inconvenient facts that make b's narrative problematic The link to Forbes, providing by the singing prostitute of the whiskey bar is in the same vein as b's piece. No different in presentation then the US/EU or Israel's narrative. However the situation in that region is complex and competitive to say the least. And blaming Turkey for it entirely is a very Usrael friendly narrative.
A couple of recent related posts
But until now, political instability has hindered its exploitation, with Israeli and Cypriot claims to overlapping gas fields contested by Lebanon and Turkey, respectively.
In 2012, Israel, Cyprus and Greece signed a deal to promote exports of their gas to the EU through an eastern Mediterranean corridor.
The eastern Mediterranean is expected to witness the first conflict of 2018, as developments at the end of 2017 are signaling worsening relationships between Turkey and the Greek Cypriot-Greece-Israel-Egypt bloc.The omission of information enables a very one sided presentation, framing Turkey, and just Turkey in a negative light. Why? Are other parties without fault?
Why is an alleged anti imperial /alt media site promoting the empire's agenda? Having done so many times over a number of years. Another unsung bar song is that interference that has occurred between Egypt and Turkey is essentially yet another battle with the US. Since Egypt is the second largest beneficiary of US military largesse.
We must also consider the interesting 'coincidence' that very much like b at Moon of Alabama, the EU and NATO and Israel are ‘negative’ on Turkey. Since Turkey has put a road block up on the regional remake plan. Coincidental? I've not thought that for a long, long time.