Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Hey FDD: Israelis are Treating Jihadis, Too

While the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies has lambasted Turkey for treating al-Qaeda affiliated fighters in its hospitals, it has turned a blind eye to Israeli medical support of the same militants.

LobeLog

The hard-line neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has been campaigning against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP government for many years now. FDD has particularly targeted Erdogan since Israel’s Cast Lead Operation against Gaza in 2008-09, which essentially scuttled Ankara’s once-promising mediation effort between Israel and Syria and infuriated the Turkish leader.

The campaign intensified following the Israeli raid against the 2010 Mavi Marmara in which attacking commandos killed nine Turkish activists, including one with U.S. citizenship. FDD has since jumped on every opportunity—and Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism at home has provided plenty of them—to expand its attacks. Indeed, next to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and sometimes even the Palestinian Authority itself, Turkey has jumped close to the top of FDD’s Enemies List (just type “Erdogan” in the search box on FDD’s website to see how high).

This week in the Huffington Post, FDD’s Vice President for Research Jonathan Schanzer, writing with Merve Tahiroglu, published the latest blast against Turkey under Erdogan entitled “Jihadi General Hospital.” To make a moderately long story short, the article cites evidence that Ankara is either turning a blind eye to or actively supporting medical treatment for jihadis wounded in Syria—from groups including the Islamic State (IS) and the Nusra Front—in its own public hospitals and in makeshift medical centers on Turkish territory. The story concludes:

It is no secret that Turkey has oriented its foreign policy toward Islamist regimes and Muslim Brotherhood movements in recent years. However, Turkey’s new role as jihadi general hospital should be a warning. Ankara’s socialized medicine for extremists is yet another dangerous indicator for a regime that has helped Iran evade sanctions, granted permission to Hamas to establish a headquarters in Turkey, and allowed the Islamic State to run rampant.

Although I don’t doubt the accounts given in Schanzer’s article, it seemed that the timing was a bit unfortunate. It came just two days before the veteran Wall Street Journal reporter and regional specialist Yaroslav Trofimov published a column entitled “Al Qaeda a Lesser Evil? Syria War Pulls U.S., Israel Apart.” Datelined the Golan Heights, the story notes:

To the south of this overlook, which the United Nations and Israeli officers observe the fighting, are the positions of the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda that the U.S. has targeted with airstrikes. Nusra Front, however, hasn’t bothered Israel since seizing the border area last summer – and some if its severely wounded fighters are regularly taken across the frontier fence to receive treatment in Israeli hospitals.[Emphasis added]

The column goes on to note that, in contrast to its help to al-Nusra (read: al-Qaeda, as Schanzer reminds us), Israel has attacked pro-government Hezbollah forces and Iranian advisers, a reference to the January 18 air strikes against a Hezbollah column that killed five Hezbollah fighters and one high-ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer.

As readers of this blog know, this story is not new. We reported it late last month in an article (“Israel Working With Al-Qaeda?”, Feb 28) and suggested raising this question of Netanyahu when he came to speak to Congress the following week. (It wasn’t.) Ironically, that post was prompted by a Weekly Standard article (“Friend and Foe in Syria”) by Lee Smith. More irony: the article quoted another FDD analyst, Tony Badran, as asserting that Israel was not only providing medical treatment to fighters, but also “[i]t’s a channel of communication ….they’re talking to them and likely sharing intelligence in the full knowledge that these rebel units cooperate with Nusra against the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and the IRGC.”[Emphasis added]

So, the question for FDD and Schanzer is: how is what Turkey is doing in providing medical assistance to jihadis, including al-Nusra militants, on its territory any different from what Israel is doing in providing medical assistance to jihadis, including Al Nusra, on its territory (or at least on the Golan Heights, which, according to most of the world, is Syrian territory occupied by Israel)? Does its help not qualify it as a “jihadi general hospital” in the same or similar way as Turkish medical support?

Note: Aurelie Daher, the French-Lebanese expert on Hezbollah who has contributed two posts on this subject (here and here), informs me that I left out one important detail in reporting my February 28 story. The Israelis are not charging their jihadi patients a flat $1,000 for treatment as I reported, but rather $1,000 per day of treatment. I have made the correction in the original.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.


Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.


Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


RightWeb
share