Turkey Reincarnating Itself as a Neo-Ottoman Empire

The threat from Turkey is deeply historio-ideological and religious.

How do I know?

Read on:

August 25, 2025

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

The eight-day Gaza Conference's fourth day continued Monday on Democracy and Freedom Island in Istanbul, with a series of workshops on the protection of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the historical lessons of the medieval Crusades, and strategies to strengthen unity across the Muslim world.

In the morning session, participants split into groups to discuss “the value of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the threats it faces and what must be done for its protection,” while another group examined “the duties of Muslims toward Al-Aqsa.”

The discussions underscored the centrality of Jerusalem to the Islamic faith and the shared responsibility of safeguarding its sanctity.

The afternoon program turned to historical and political questions, with one group analyzing “the causes that initiated the Crusader occupation” and another reflecting on “the reasons that would bring it to an end.”

...On the role of religious leaders, he stressed the need for spiritual revival: “If the Muslims are close to Allah, then Palestine will be close to their hearts. But if the Muslims are far away from Allah, Palestine won’t be.”

He recalled how an Israeli prime minister once remarked that “as long as the Muslims are not (performing) fajr (dawn prayers) in the masjid, they are still safe.”

For Gabriels, this reflected the urgent responsibility of scholars “to bring the Muslims closer to Allah and closer to their Deen (religion) and closer to the Quran.”

He emphasized that the Palestinian issue is not only political but moral and universal: “The issue of Gaza, the issue of Palestine, the issue of Al-Aqsa, it’s not a Palestinian issue. It is an issue of humanity and more so an issue of Muslims.”

MEMRI's report relates to the resolutions:

"A call for all countries, especially the Islamic ones, to immediately sever all their relations with the occupying Zionist entity and with anyone who supports it – including political, economic and military [ties] – in accordance with the principles of the Islamic shari'a and international law, which enjoin [us] to battle tyranny and restrain the occupation and its ongoing violations.

"The shari'a forbids maintaining commercial ties, or anything resembling them, with the occupying Zionists, or to allow their ships to traverse the waterways of the Islamic countries. This ruling applies to individuals, companies and governments.

"A call on Muslim scholars to urge mass demonstrations and protest strikes, and on governments to respect the civil rights of their peoples and remove all restrictions on public liberties – especially on freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully and express support for Gaza and opposition to the continuation of the war – as required by international charters of human rights.

"The decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court must be implemented, and the international justice system must commence proceedings against the perpetrators of the crimes of extermination, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza… We demand that the Islamic countries and the free countries establish criminal tribunals in their territory to prosecute the war criminals…

"The IUMS contends that the countries likely to be harmed by the 'Greater Israel' plan [i.e. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria] bear the responsibility of dealing with  the enemy's plans and initiating tangible and pragmatic measures to deter it and confront it…"[10]

And most recently, this analysis from November last month:

Turkey’s return to great power status   November 6, 2025

Sumantra Maitra

A resurgent Turkey is returning to its Ottoman roots as an essential and influential pivot in the Eurasian balance of power.

Vigilance is required.

^

Judea, Samaria and...Tahpanhes, Egypt

In a recent academic archaeological article you can read of Judean Jews who are soldiers arriving in Egypt. The article is "Judeans and Samarians at Tahpanhes: Speculating on the Identity of the King in Papyrus Amherst 63" by Marshall A. Cunningham in Advances in Ancient, Biblical, and Near Eastern Research  4, no. 1 (Spring, 2024).

Cunningham highlights similarities between the story in the Papyrus record and the story of  the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight to Egypt in Jeremiah 40–44.  Finally, he suggests that the two accounts are similar enough to use the Jeremianic version.

He thereby provides another ex-Biblical source that could possibly confirm the truth of Biblical history. He identifies the unnamed king as Apries, the fourth pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and the royal outpost of  Tahpanhes as the site where he receives the Judean and  Samarian caravan.

Excerpts:

Papyrus Amherst 63, a scroll featuring a collection of Aramaic compo-sitions written in Demotic script, features a short narrative concerning the arrival of a group of Judean and Samarian refugees to an unnamed royal outpost. At this outpost, they are received by an  unnamed king who welcomes them into his kingdom with an offer to sustain them...The narrative of the Judean and Samarian caravan occurs in col. xvii of P. Amh. 632...the text opens with narration in the first person...When asked their place of origin, a spokesman for the caravan answers:ʾ[n(h)] ⸢mn⸣-[y]hwd ’t(h) [I] come from [Y]ehud. ’ḥy mn-šmry⸢n⸣ m{m}y⸢t⸣(y) My brother is brought from Samaria. pkʿt ʾdm ⸢m⸣sq ’ḥty myrwšl{l}m And now a man is bringing my sister up from Jerusalem.

...In a recent article on when the Judean garrison at Yeb was established, Kahn (2022, 154)  has  connected this scene with the description of the Elamite jackal causing chaos in Rash’s temples in the preceding column, suggesting Rash as the caravan’s point of origin...

...While the details surrounding the scene are vague, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Judean and Samarian caravan is to be understood as a group of refugees: displaced soldiers and their families fleeing war and seeking shelter. First of all, the narrator identifies the band of Samarians as a gys, [גיס] a “troop” (l. 1).

... a comparison with a similar account of migration to Egypt may allow us to fill in some of  the omitted details. Jeremiah 40–44 narrates the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight from Judah in the aftermath of a political assassination of the Babylonian-appointed governor, Gedaliah, and his supporters. While the traveling party in that narrative is primarily composed of Judeans fleeing  Babylonian reprisal, it does include a group of Samarians that had been taken captive by the rebel Ishmael outside Mizpah. Notably, the group includes men of fighting age alongside their families (41:16; 44). Finally, according to Jeremiah 43:7–9, the Judeans and Samarians in  Jeremiah’s  caravan made their first stop at the Egyptian city of  Tahpanhes (תחפנחס). Once there, the prophet received an oracle that began by identifying the city as the site of a royal palace  (בית פרעה) before performing a sign-act and announcing Pharaoh’s (and the caravan’s) impending devastation at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army (43:8–12)...

Impressive.

And another study there, posits that the Damascus Document, in existence before its earliest copy 4Q266 was produced in the first half of the first century BCE, employs a rhetorical use of  the terms “Israel,” “Ephraim,” and “Judah”.

^ 

Raz Segal: A "Liar-for-his-Cause"?

One Raz Segal, an Assoc Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Stockton Univ, writing in the UK Guardian, once a very pro-Zionist newspaper in Manchester before it moved down to London, among other things describes Israel thus:

"a self-proclaimed exclusionary settler state – what Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism, described in his well-known essay from 1923 as a settler colonial project that can only work with an “Iron Wall.”

As readers of my blog know (and others can use the search engine), Jabotinsky did not advance an "exclusionary" character for the Jewish state or the idea of "racial supremacy". Moreover, the usage of "Jewish" indicates a nationality just like all other countries. Jabotinsky, a liberal democrat, envisioned full civic equality for all resident citizens of the future Jewish state. His last testament on the matter is his 1940 "The War and the Jew".

One can read the book here.

Here's p. 215:

216

217

218

Any fair reader would necessarily come to the conclusion that Segal is either an ignoramus, or unintelligent or, most likely, a liar-for-his-cause.

The idea of an "Iron Wall" was simply an expression of a firm, impenetrable defense system, not a physical structure, that would not allow the repeat of the 1920 and 1921 Arab murderous riots against Jews in Jerusalem and Jaffa. His idea was replacing unreliable British forces with Jewish soldiers and police. And as we saw on October 7, 2023, that wall was still necessary and continues to be.

UPDATE

Although Raz mentions the "Iron Wall" essay, he leaves out the opening lines that contradict his charaterization of Jabotinsky, who wrote:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations –

polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of

all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will

always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we

shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall

never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a

peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to

Zionism. 

^

Peter Beinart: Before and After

 Peter Beinart tweeted:

Tonight, I’m going to speak at Tel Aviv University. I know many people who I respect will think this was the wrong decision given that Israel—as widely recognized by experts on international law—practices not only apartheid but genocide. I support full equality for Israel’s Palestinian citizens, an end to the occupation and the right of Palestinian refugees to return. I support many forms of boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel and Israeli institutions. I have repeatedly advocated implementing the Leahy Law, which would radically restrict—if not end—US arms sales to Israel. I support the European Union ending its free trade agreement with Israel. I support ending Israeli participation in sports and cultural arenas like FIFA and Eurovision. I support these things because I don’t believe that Israel will end its oppression of the Palestinian people and move towards equality under the law and historical justice without outside pressure. But I believe there is value in speaking to Israelis about Israel’s crimes. I have spent much of my adult life speaking to Jews about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In that effort, I have conducted public discussions with many people whose views I consider immoral and spoken at many institutions that are based on principles with which I profoundly disagree. These include institutions like Tel Aviv University that are in various ways complicit in Israeli oppression. I do so because I want to reach Jews who disagree with me—because I believe that by trying to convince Jews to rethink their support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, I can contribute, in some very small way, to the struggle for freedom and justice. I don’t have many opportunities to speak to Israelis. As it is, right-wing Israeli organizations have pressured Tel Aviv University to cancel my talk. I felt I should take advantage of this opportunity to say in Israel what I’ve been saying elsewhere for the last two years. I know many people I admire will disagree with this logic. But it stems from my desire to challenge Jewish supremacy and see the end of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

and then tweeted:

By speaking earlier this week at Tel Aviv University, I made a serious mistake. In the past, when formulating my views about Israel-Palestine, I’ve sought out Palestinian friends and interlocutors and listened carefully to their views. In this case, I did not. I really wanted to speak to Israelis. In the US, I’ve cultivated conversations with Jews with whom I strongly disagree, both to listen and in hopes of changing their minds. Over the horrifying last two years, I’ve hoped for more conversations with Israelis, to explain why I believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and why I believe Jewish supremacy is fundamentally wrong. My motivation for giving the talk wasn’t financial; I didn’t receive an honorarium. I wanted to say certain things to an Israeli audience. Speaking at Tel Aviv University seemed to offer that chance. I let my desire for that conversation override my solidarity with Palestinians, who in the face of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide have asked the world boycott Israeli institutions that are complicit in their oppression. As Noura Erakat and others have pointed out, there are ways for me to talk to Israelis without violating BDS guidelines and undermining a collective effort against oppression. I could have had the exchange I desired while respecting a non-violent movement based on human rights and international law. Had I listened more to Palestinians, I would have realized that earlier. It’s embarrassing to admit such a serious mistake. I dearly wish I had not made this one, which has caused particular harm because international pressure is crucial to ensuring Palestinian freedom. This was a failure of judgment. I am sorry.

That reminded me of a Soviet show trial confession

^

UPDATE:

Read this blog post.

And this one.

^

The Jewish/Israel Left in the Eyes of Efraim Kishon

"The overt and joyful instinct for self-destruction is the national trait that has accompanied the conflicted Jewish tribe since its exodus from Egypt. The tradition of self-hatred has been woven like as a thread throughout Jewish history with its horrific consequences, as if it were a pathological curse passed down from father to son and son to grandson until the end of time. These days, this Jewish tendency is expressed in the fashionable, overt and covert skepticism regarding our right to resettle in the Land of Israel. Many people ask themselves whether the Palestinians are not entitled to demand our departure from here, and those with a conscience are tormented by the injustice we did to the refugees at the end of the Arab war of extermination that turned into a Jewish war of liberation. The Russians have no scruples about having conquered vast territories after their last war, which never belonged to them or their ancestors, and they have no scruples about tormenting the Czech people for the organized deportation of three million Sudeten people. The Poles also have no noticeable pangs of conscience about their cheerful annexations, the Turks have no scruples about wholesale 'population transfers', the Greeks have none, the Bulgarians have none, the Indians have none, the Pakistanis have none, and the Americans have none. Only the Israelis possess them.

The intellectual of conscience among us sees the expulsion of the million Jews from Arab countries as a historical process that cannot be reversed, while the flight of the Arabs, due to their campaign of killing along the lines of the Gush Etzion bloc, he sees as a terrible crime. The conscientious man believes that the twelve million square kilometers of Arab countries, an area larger than that of Europe, are not enough to absorb the refugees. The conscientious man finds that the residents of Bir'am and Ikrit were uprooted from their homes and transferred to another place in stealth and deceit, while the Jews of Hebron were massacred in a brutal manner, and therefore the people of Bir'am must be returned, but the residents of Hebron are forbidden. 

The Israeli-with-a-conscience understands the spirit of Yasser Arafat; is remarkably matter-of-fact and realistic about the national motives of this mass murderer; about our cruel and vile enemy and he is impressed by the legitimate right of the Palestinian liberation movements to chop off the heads of our children in schools with axes...

The Israeli-with-a-conscience is full of universal understanding. He hates only one thing: hate.

The Israeli-with-a-conscience is mentally ill."

From "A Smile Amidst a Drought", 1978

^

The Beinart/Nerdeen conversation

Within Our Lifetime/Palestine Nerdeen Kiswani tweeted, reacting to Zohran Mamdani's condemnation of the swastika daubings:

There’s no “scourge of antisemitism” in NYC. Acts like these, while reprehensible, are often weaponized to justify Zionist narratives and repression of Palestine solidarity. Many past “antisemitic” scares turned out to be fake, like the Israeli Jewish teenager who made hundreds of bomb threats to U.S. synagogues in 2017. Norman Finkelstein has spoken about how “antisemitism” in the U.S. is largely a political tool, not a real social phenomenon. Mamdani shouldn’t be validating this framing.

Peter Beinart responded:

Your response to a swastika at a yeshiva is to condemn the mayor for condemning it? Because that might imply that antisemitism is a "real social phenomenon?" Yes, like other bigotries, it's a "real social phenomenon." If you don't believe me, ask the 1 million people who follow Nick Fuentes on this platform

Nerdeen reacted:

Antisemitism is not a systemic structural issue in the U.S. everyone knows this except for professional victims. There is a nazi problem in the U.S. and sadly many of these Nazis are Jewish people. In fact many Jewish people proudly proclaim that 95% of Jews are Nazis (zionists) which even I said was a bit much. If you want to truly fight against the nazi problem, I suggest you start with your own community. 

 

Nerdeen continued:

You really have some nerve, grifting and writing books about “after” the genocide of my people as it’s still ongoing, to completely reframe what I was saying. I never condemned his condemnation of the graffiti, I explicitly called it reprehensible myself. I took issue with the implication that there’s an antisemitism problem in NYC and cited Norman Finkelstein on the idea that it’s not a social phenomenon. He talks about it in the context of the US, I referenced NYC.
There’s no structural disadvantage to being Jewish like there is to being Palestinian, and you know that. You’re being purposely obtuse. You can pander to the anti genocide line but you’re still a liberal zionist.

Nerdeen adds:

For those who are new here, especially the self-proclaimed anti- or “non-Zionists” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), antisemitism is not a structural issue in the United States. Jews are positioned as white in America, holding access to power, wealth, and protection under the same systems that oppress Black, brown, and Indigenous people. That doesn’t mean antisemitism doesn’t exist in individual attitudes, but it isn’t systemic in the way anti-Blackness or Islamophobia are. It’s not upheld by the state or capital, it’s weaponized by them to silence criticism of Israel and uphold Zionism.  

It may be still going on.

P.S.  Nerdeen's core belief:

For those that are new here, saying “Israel has a right to exist, just not as a Jewish state” isn’t anti-Zionism, it’s liberal Zionism. The question isn’t what kind of Israel, it’s how Israel came to exist, which is through genocide. Anti-Zionism necessitates decolonization.

P.P.S.   But is she really that bad? Here:

^

What Is Meant by Zionists by the term 'Colonization'?

 Anti-Zionists and the pro-Palestine propagandist point to the use by Zionist leaders of the term "colonization" as an indication they were, well, colonizing.

Here's a Ze'ev Jabotinsky quotation:

That's from 1922, his first visit to America at the head of a delegation of the Keren HaYesod. As an extra "bonues", he compares what is to be done in the Mandate territory to what was done to America's native population.

As can be readily comprehended, by the use of the term, Jabotinsky is referring not to a process whereby a country that does not belong to you is taken over and subjugated - militarly, economically or otherwise and its popualtion is done away with, physically or socially - but simply the various forms of rebuilding a country through agriculture and industry. It is the mechanics of how it is done not an imperial design to transfer a population from another part of the world into a territory you have no connection with as England, Holland, Belgium, Germany yand other Europeans countries did. And Arabs were involved in sharing this economic resurgence of the country even within the Histadrut but eventaully, their political opposition overroad their good sense.

^

^

Who was a "Palestinian Arab"?

Aside from the argument whether the Arabs resident in the area of historic Palestine (there was never a geopolitical country of 'Palestine') conisdered themselves as "Palestinian" or "Syrian" or "Southern Syrian", or "El-Shamites" or whether others viewed them as such, I have found a 1940 reference to the term.

Interstingly enough, it comes within the framework of the application of apartheid - whether Jews could purchase land in various Zones following the adoption of the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfers Regulations.

Article 9 reads:

For the purposes of these regulations :-

"Palestinian Arab" shall be deemed to be an Arab who is ordinarily resident in Palestine. In case of any dispute as to whether a person is an Arab or whether he is ordinarily resident in Palestine, the question shall be referred to the High Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final;

Residency is the defining feature of identity. Not nationality, not culture, not identification, not langauge, history or religion.

As we know, it was only in 1925 that a Palestine Nationality Law was enacted for the Mandate.

By the way, on March 6, 1940, MP Noel-Baker (Derby) moved a motion in the British Parliament: 

That this House regrets that, disregarding the expressed opinion of the Permanent Mandates Commission that the policy contained in the White Paper on Palestine was inconsistent wtih the terms of the Mandate, and without the authority of the Council of the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government have authorised the issue of regulations controlling the transfer of land which discriminate unjustly against one section of the inhabitants of Palestine...

It would seem logical that if residency was the defining term, Jews were also Palestinians, at least at that time. So, was their nationality "Palestinian"?