A Union debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict almost collapsed on Tuesday after President Luke Tryl retracted an invitation to controversial writer Norman Finklestein, alleging that he was pressured into withdrawing it.
A panel of prestigious academics and politicians was due to debate the motion, “This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict,” but the withdrawal of Finklestein’s invitation prompted every other celebrity speaker to also pull out.
Finkelstein, a former historian at DePaul University in the United States, claims that he was no longer welcome at the event after Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote to Tryl, objecting to his forthcoming appearance.
Finkelstein and Dershowitz have been sworn enemies since 2005 when Finkelstein published Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Misuse of History, which was strongly critical of Dershowitz’s 2003 book The case for Israel.      
Tryl originally claimed that he retracted Finkelstein’s invitation due to an anti-Israel bias among the speakers, but in a private email to Finkelstein he said, “Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced…I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me.
“I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an OpEd attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale,” Tryl claimed.
Professor Dershowitz said, “What was the Oxford Union thinking?  Why would it select five debaters – on both sides of a debate about the one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict – who were virulently anti-Israel, along with one who is kind of neutral?
“They asked me to be part of the two-state solution team, but when I saw the line-up and the topic, I smelled a rat and declined. So then they asked Norman Finkelstein to replace me on the pro-Israel side.”
Dr Finkelstein responded, saying that in his opinion, “Professor Dershowitz has sought to banish me from public life because I exposed him as a hoaxer. It seems that his successful campaign to deny me tenure in the US did not satiate him. Now he is hounding me in the UK. It is regrettable that the Oxford Union capitulated to his bullying tactics.”
Tryl said, “I think it’s a shame that both of them sought to use the Union and this debate as a vehicle to further their own disputes. Both men are welcome to come to the Union and debate head-to-head, and I hope that they’ll do this in front of our members rather than tit-for-tat behind-the-scenes manoeuvring in the press.”
In protest at the retraction, both Green Party human rights activist and Peter Tatchell and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble pulled out.
Tatchell said, “I know of nothing that [Finkelstein] has said to justify his invitation being withdrawn. The attempt to ban him goes against the principles of free speech that the Oxford Union claims to defend.”
He added, “I was astonished that the Oxford Union was prepared to host Nick Griffin and David Irving in the name of free speech but not Norman Finkelstein.”
Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi, who are all academics, opposed the removal of Finkelstein on the grounds that his views were being suppressed.
Luke Tryl rejected accusations that he acted against the interests of free speech. “Dr Finkelstein was not dropped because of his views or because of any attempt to censor him,” he said. “The issue was that with Pappe, Karmi and Shlaim on one side and Finkelstein on the other the debate was imbalanced and had too much of an anti-Israeli bent.
“I took representation from various groups within the University, who felt uncomfortable with the debate being imbalanced. We suggested therefore that Dr Finkelstein might not be best suited to this debate.”
Paul Usiskin from the organisation Peace Now UK, who spoke at the replacement student debate, supported Tryl’s decision. Asked why he thought Finkelstein had been removed, he said, “He is on record as an opponent of Israel, of denying the right of Israel to exist.”
He added, “[The other speakers] clearly thought they would have a clear field for victory. They were faced with Lord Trimble, who does not have a very good track record on the issue, and Peter Tatchell who has, and they clearly thought they had it sewn up.
“I believe they’re desperate for another arena in which to delegitimise Israel, after the failure to begin the academic boycott of Israel, in which all three were key. What they expected was a clear field for a one-state solution as the start of creating that new arena. Those of us who believe in Israel and support a two-state solution remained steadfast and denied them their victory.”
The events come in the wake of international controversy surrounding Luke Tryl’s decision to invite historian David Irving and British National Party leader Nick Griffin to take part in a free speech forum. Last week, East Oxford MP Andrew Smith wrote a letter to Tryl urging him to retract his invitation to Irving and Griffin, and Dennis MacShane MP pulled out of a debate scheduled for next month.

JCR presidents are calling for a University-wide referendum on OUSU’s no-platform policy, claiming that “all members of OUSU should have a say in such a controversial but important policy”.
An email being circulated between college JCR presidents calls OUSU’s policy “highly controversial” and “heavily criticised”, and asks them to have their JCRs consider passing motions to hold a referendum.
Both St Hugh’s and St Catherine’s JCRs have already passed a motion in support, and several other common rooms are expected to follow suit. At least ten motions passed by common rooms are required to force OUSU to hold a referendum on the issue.
OUSU President Martin McCluskey claims that holding a referendum would have no effect on OUSU’s current position regarding the Oxford Union’s decision to invite David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak. “OUSU has a set of beliefs extending back thirty odd years, which are enshrined in the no-platform policy, but which are separate from the no-platform policy itself,” he said. “If, hypothetically, a referendum were to take place, it would be separate from the Irving and Griffin issue.”
OUSU Council has already formally condemned the Union’s decision to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving to address a free speech forum in 8th Week. One speaker has already been forced to pull out as a result of pressure from the Foreign Office and a government-imposed travel ban.
St Hugh’s JCR President Alistair Wrench brought the motion to the attention of JCR presidents and wrote in an email, “It would be nice if all common rooms decided whether this was something that should be decided by individual members of OUSU.”
Wrench has echoed comments made by other JCR Presidents by refuting suggestions that the motion is intended to criticise OUSU’s current policy. “The document has been deliberately worded to be entirely neutral. The aim is not to show support or otherwise of OUSU’s position, but rather to open up the issue to the wider student community,” he said.
The motion to be put to JCRs states that “there is a strong difference of opinion about OUSU’s policy”, and that “all members of OUSU should have a say in such a controversial but important policy”.
Wrench confirmed that St Hugh’s JCR passed the motion with “only two or three people” not voting in favour of it. St John’s, Brasenose and Hertford JCRs have also confirmed that a motion will be brought to their next meetings.
Tom Lowe, Hertford JCR President, said, “Opening up Council decisions to common rooms and to popular referenda is good for OUSU and should be supported by everyone. There has been no central organisation in putting together the motion, but a number of us want to find out what our common room thinks on this issue.”
Oxford Union President Luke Tryl is seeking to reassure members that the forum will still go ahead in 8th Week as planned. Tryl has previously stated that he does not agree with OUSU’s perceived attempts to interfere in Union issues, adding that he supported JCRs for challenging OUSU’s “dangerous” policy.
McCluskey has responded by pointing out that around 75 per cent of OUSU’s members are also members of the Oxford Union, and therefore the issue is directly relevant to OUSU.
He stated that the no-platform policy renewed by OUSU in 2005, and not in 2007 as stated in the motion, was a “completely different issue” from OUSU’s stance towards Griffin and Irving. “If the referendum were to go ahead, the result would have no bearing on OUSU’s decision to oppose the invitations,” McCluskey said. “Our no-platform policy is designed to stop people taking advantage of OUSU’s resources in order to spread their extremist views.”

Catz 3 – 51 Keble THE  reigning champions Keble virtually secured their crown for the third successive season, touching down seven tries on their way to a comprehensive victory over St. Catherine’s, who went into the game with genuine hopes of causing an upset. After the previous week’s defeat of Teddy Hall, Keble have only the misfiring St. Peter’s and Magdalen left to play – games that should be a walk in the park after this performance.
Catz entered the game on the back of a hard-earned win over Hall on Saturday, but the effects of playing three games in a week were clear for all to see after half-time as the home side made hay while the sun shone in the second period. Time and again Catz’s efforts would see them penetrate the Keble defences, only for an error to allow the champions to switch play to the other end of the field.
Chief scourge of St. Catz was Keble wing Alex Fox, who exploited the visitors’ sometime lack of defensive organisation to score four tries, one of which was the culmination of a breathtaking solo run.
The game began an even affair, with Catz backs and forwards alike unafraid of taking the game to their more esteemed opponents. With what would become a familiar pattern, however, the visitors lost possession allowing Keble to claim first a Peter Bolton penalty kick, and five minutes later a try in the corner from a driven lineout.
Despite losing fly-half Henry Haslam to injury, Catz then had their best period of the game, with fast forward play allowing the backs plenty of space to run with the ball. Keble looked rattled but managed to survive with only a penalty goal against them, winning a penalty of their own on the try line to escape relatively unscathed from their opponents’ spell of pressure.
Keble immediately showed why they hold such a grip on college rugby by striking back with two quick tries from Fox, exploiting a Catz backline that had been rearranged due to injuries. Coupled with their dominance at the lineout, the home side’s advantage out wide would be a constant threat as Catz threw caution to the wind and attempted to run everything in the second half.
The Manor Road outfit kept trying to break Keble down, and could not be faulted for lack of effort; but the more expansive game they tried to play, the easier it was for the Cuppers champions to hit back on the break.
Fox completed his hat-trick before adding a fourth score for himself. Two more tries completed the rout, leaving a result for the record books that doesn’t reflect the tough time Catz gave Keble throughout the game.

Everything’s going to be alright. Sort of. This is the message of John Simpson’s new book, Not Quite World’s End. Bombs may be falling, the ice caps may be melting, but the human race is set to endure for a while yet. We may hardly exist in peace and harmony, but we’ll still muddle through. As Simpson himself puts it, “Although we’re stupid as a species, we’ve also kind of got a low, rat-like cunning which makes it possible for us to avoid the very traps that we’ve set for ourselves. That’s why I’ve got a certain kind of optimism that we’ll get through this.”

Perhaps this stoic optimism, if you can call it that, is hardly surprising in someone who’s survived the Cold War, the terrorist activities of the IRA and the current War on Terror, not to mention all he’s experienced in the line of duty for the BBC. If we can hobble this far, why shouldn’t we eventually make it over the finish line? Certainly Simpson admits we are struggling, but we’re also improving. As he sees it, “The world is objectively a better place than it was when I started as a journalist, it’s a damn sight better place than it was in the inter-war years and unthinkably better than in the Victorian period. Although we managed to smash and wreck everything along the way I think we are progressing as well.”

And he has a point. When Simpson started as a journalist for the BBC in 1966 the majority of countries were dictatorships of one form or another, now this number has dramatically fallen. Likewise, there are far fewer wars now than 40 years ago and, as Simpson writes, “There were some really nasty wars going on then.” This is no naive or rose-tinted statement. Certainly wars persist, nasty ones, and many of those countries which are no longer dictatorships in name remain ones in practice, but it is pleasant and relieving to be reminded that in general things have got better.

Of course, Simpson’s experiences have not all been of the type which would encourage this optimistic world view. He begins his new book with an account of a bombing he experienced in Iraq in which his translator was killed. The consummate professional, a bleeding Simpson broadcast the event moments later to BBC News 24 via a telephone. This is hardly his first near-death experience. He has served in 36 war zones, including Kosovo and Afghanistan, consistently putting his life on the line for the BBC. His adventures are countless and range from cowering in a gutter with bullets zipping over his head in Tiiananmen Square (which apparently doesn’t afford much cover) to dressing as a women to be smuggled into Khabul. It may make a good story, but the dangers Simpson face are very real.

Yet despite all the risk involved, he tells me he has only once ever thought of quitting. “The last time I thought that was when I was in a cemetery in Northern Ireland and I was mistaken because of my own stupidity by the IRA as a British army spy, and I was very lucky to escape being killed. That evening I sort of sat there and thought, I’m not this kind of person; I’m too sensitive for this sort of work.” So what convinced him to continue putting his life in danger? His reply is quick and simple. “My general insensitivity and brutality of nature, I ordered a steak on room service and had a nice glass of wine.”

But to assume that Simpson’s aptitude for concentrating in difficult situations comes from an ability to desensitize himself is to misunderstand him. He is passionate about his work and deeply affected by the things he has seen. He still has nightmares about being bombed in Iraq and agonizes over mistakes he has made, claiming to remember every single one. They are invariably the subject of his worst memories. He recalls one time when he named the wrong person as President of Lebanon. It is a black irony that the actual president was killed in an explosion two weeks later and the man Simpson originally named took his place.

So if his bravado is just that, why does Simpson really continue putting his life in danger? The answer is a deep commitment to inform. “That’s what people like me exist to do, it’s just to tell people. I don’t put it any higher than that – we’re not going to save civilization.” This is not to undermine the importance Simpson places on his work. He believes it very important to know what is going on in the world and is constantly disappointed by the fall in viewing figures the BBC has experienced in recent years.

For Simpson this symptomatic of a growing crisis, not just in the BBC but in news journalism in general. As more and more people become technologically literate, pictures taken by phone cameras are superceding those taken by professional cameramen merely because individuals with this kind of simple technology are more likely to be in the right place to get the footage. Think of the recordings of 9/11: the most poignant and gritty filming was missed by the professionals, who did not arrive until after the event. Similarly, people are turning in increasing numbers to blogs rather than broadsheets to get their news. Nowadays opinion matters more than fact. For Simpson this turn of events, which he sees as a regression, is a constant puzzle. “It amazes me actually.” He muses, “I would have thought that people would want to watch pictures. I’ve spent pretty much a lifetime trying to find and present the best most striking most interesting most valuable pictures and putting words to them. And it’s very strange to go back to an almost newspaper-like existence.”

Despite his bleak outlook, Simpson certainly still feels there is a place for his brand of film journalism, if only because a picture is so much better at transmitting the reality of a situation than words. He is very aware of the difficulties of explaining what the situation in a country is to an audience halfway round the globe. “If you live in a nice comfortable society, for instance, being in Baghdad in the height of summer, perhaps 54 degrees, 55 degrees, no water, certainly no electricity for air conditioning or anything like that, it’s quite hard to tell people what life must be like.” He himself often struggles when trying to relate to people appearing in his reports. The nature of his job often forces him to discuss delicate subjects and tragedies people have experienced. How is it possible to relate to someone who has just had their family killed? Simpson says he simply tries to be as sensitive as possible. “There are times when I lie awake at night groaning at the thoughtless and irreflective way I’ve talked to people”, he admits. “I just try and be polite, try and be pleasant, and not to treat people as an exhibit.”

There’s no denying that Simpson has lived through shocking times. He has seen a degree of tragedy and horror that the majority of us, sitting comfortably in our college rooms, can barely imagine. But he has also been privileged with amazing experiences, and it is this which motivates him to go back in front of the camera even after witnessing something horrific. When asked what his best moment has been, he tells me, “Seeing captive peoples win back their freedom is something that you’ll never forget, and I’ve seen this now several times. The best of the lot was seeing the end of apartheid. That was a wonderful, wonderful moment and I’ll never forget it.” When you listen to Simpson talk about this and other memories, it becomes clear how he maintains his optimistic world view despite all the anguish he has experienced. But for once in this journalist’s life, the sensation is difficult to express. He remains convinced that we’re going to make it, just don’t ask him how.

An Oxford University Careers Service advisor has claimed that students undertaking summer internships feel drained and unfit to continue their final year of study.
Alison Bird told the Financial Times, “You look at the salaries and think it seems a ridiculously high amount but they work very long hours. If they are on the trading floor they will be in at 6 in the morning and some of our students in mergers and acquisitions are working until 10 or 11 at night, which is pretty grim,” she said.
Referring to a group of Oxford interns at a bank in Canary Wharf she visited last August, Bird said, “They were working very long hours and living on takeaways, and I was worried about the health of some of them. When I asked them if the hours had put them off they said they hadn’t because the money was so good.”
John Kirwan, acting Careers Service director, said, “Some of my colleague’s comments seem to have been misinterpreted, so that the views of the Careers Service were misrepresented.”
He said that the Careers Service was fully committed to internships because they were useful in preparing students for full-time work.
“We are very positive about the value of appropriate work experience, including internships, for students,” he said. “As part of broadening their experience and employment prospects, the Careers Service encourages all Oxford University students to gain relevant and realistic work experience suited to their career aspirations.”
Kirwan acknowledged that the placements might have a detrimental effect on academic work, but maintained that they were highly beneficial when students came to apply for jobs.
“The Careers Service actively promotes the publicising of internships and other work experience opportunities, from a wide range of sectors, while recognising that students also need to take into account college regulations and the potential impact of such activities on their academic studies.”
Internships continue to be a popular choice for many students, with the most popular placements being at investment banking firms Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

BOTH Catz and Keble were relegated from last season’s premier division and each side was eager to demonstrate their wish to return to the top flight in this hotly contested affair on the Woodstock Road.
It became apparent early on in the game that this would be a very close encounter, with both sides enjoying a fair share of the ball and creating numerous opportunities. For St. Catz, midfielder Gerrard Cole was inflicting most of the damage, his mazy runs down the left flank causing all manner of trouble for the Keble defence.
It was one such run and rolled ball across the box that found striker MacNaughton bearing down on goal. Unfortunately he did not have a finish to match Cole’s run and the shot was scuffed wide. 
Keble relied heavily on midfielders Askham and Singh to pose their threat and despite his diminutive stature, the sheer determination of Askham gave him that extra couple of inches to dominate the aerial battle. Several balls were floated in from Keble’s left flank, but each agonisingly eluded right winger Eckersley.
It was a frantic and frenzied five minute period midway through the first half however, where all the goals were scored. Another driving run from Cole freed up striker Taylor, whose cross come shot was parried over superbly by keeper Unwin.
Taylor then returned the favour by delivering a low flighted cross which Cole pounced upon at the near post to give Catz the lead.
Keble barely had time to assess their defensive error when an overlapping run from assured left back Ekhase forced another corner for Catz. Again Keble failed to deal with the danger and it was a towering leap from defender O’Keefe-O’Donovan that gave Catz their second.
Keble rallied well and amidst some Catz back-slapping, hit back immediately. Captain Singh led the charge and found himself with just the keeper to beat. He made no mistake as he coolly slotted into the bottom right corner.
The second half again saw numerous chances for both sides. Catz’ best efforts however, were comfortably dealt with by rock-solid centre back Orpin-Massey who hardly put a foot wrong all game. Keble pressed tirelessly for the equaliser with lofty forward Gajdus turning even the most hopeful long ball into something dangerous.
On 75 minutes Keble believed they had got their reward when a delightful ball in from Collins was flicked past the keeper by substitute Parry. Wild scenes of jubilation were cut short however, when the Catz linesman ruled an apparent offside. No amount of protest from the Keble ranks could change the ref’s decision and the goal was disallowed. This decision seemed to extinguish the Keble challenge as the game petered to a finish.
Keble captain Singh was frustrated by the result, “We certainly felt it was a goal and are gutted to come away with nothing.”

On first impressions, I could never have guessed what a disappointment Qumin’s would be. The waiters were friendly, the surroundings were modern yet cosy and intimate, and the chairs were comfortable enough to relax into. My hopes were further raised by the menu, which offered less choice than many Indian restaurants, but which featured a number of unusual dishes. Several were available with a choice of either salmon, tuna, king prawns or squid, a refreshing variant on the typical Indian restaurant’s prawn curry. The first suggestion that service might be inefficient came when a waiter approached our table, asked if we wanted to order poppadoms, and then vanished before we could ask to order drinks. This lapse was adequately compensated for by the quality of the poppadoms, which were perfectly light and crunchy, accompanied by fine dips. The mango chutney was chunky and sweet without being cloying, a far cry from the jam-like slop served at many comparable establishments, while the raita was just right: minty enough to be refreshing, and not too thick.

Drinks, when they arrived, sharply contrasted. My companion enjoyed his mango lassi, which he assured me was suitably cold and had just the right consistency. My glass of house white, on the other hand, deserves no recommendation. Insipid, bland, and nauseatingly saccharine, its taste made me feel like a doctor in days of old, diagnosing diabetes by tasting the urine to gauge its sugar content. If my glass of wine had been a urine sample, my patient would have been severely hyperglycaemic.

When our food arrived – reasonably promptly – it was attractively presented on the plate. We had ordered one side dish, and started with that. The mutter paneer, a curry of peas and cottage cheese, was delicious; the cheese had a beautiful consistency and richness, complemented by a sauce that was neither too spicy nor too bland, accentuated by the naan bread I dipped into it. We had ordered two portions of rice, and first shared the special vegetable rice, which was not particularly flavoursome, but which, like the naan, did its job as an accompaniment well. The second portion of rice – lemon – had a more assertive taste, but I enjoyed it. It was the curries themselves which we found disappointing. The motali curry, which I asked for with king prawns, was bitter, hot and sour without tasting of very much. It contained large chunks of chilli, which if eaten whole delivered an unpleasantly intense kick. My companion’s Goan curry, on the other hand, was mild and creamy, but again didn’t taste of very much.

Qumin’s delivers some excellent dishes. Indeed, we enjoyed everything but the curries we ordered as our main course – and therein lies the problem. Both curries were over £10, with rice not included. Our bill, with one drink each and no dessert, came to a scandalous £44, which might have felt fair if our mains matched the quality of the starter and side dish, but in the circumstances I acutely resented. When my gallant date offered to pay, I didn’t even attempt to suggest going halves, because quite frankly I couldn’t afford to. That’s Qumin’s 1, feminism 0, then. While I would unreservedly recommend individual dishes on this menu, the poor quality of  its curries is so lacking that I simply cannot recommend Qumin’s as a dining destination. But if you do end up eating here, do order the mutter paneer. And do prepare to grovel to your bank manager.

By Phil Aherne 
Why do a different version of the show at the Burton-Taylor?
Ben: It was mainly to give a better idea of what the Playhouse show would be. But there are other important reasons.
Emily: Because the show was set for Hilary we knew we had Michaelmas to develop the script and thought it would be a useful exercise to try out a couple of extracts with real actors and a real audience. As this is the first time that a piece devised entirely by students will be staged at the Playhouse we wanted to generate as much interest as possible in the project by showing how the adaptation process works. It was conceived as a two fold project. Firstly, it’s a marketing tool to generate interest for the larger production. We wanted to show people the style of the piece, and give them a taste of the tone, to try and get them excited about what we are trying to do. Secondly, there’s a far more practical purpose in allowing myself the room to see how my interpretation of the text would work with actors; to test out the viability.
Why do this production? Where did the inspiration come from?
E: It comes from my personal interest in taking texts that are completely elastic and free from theatrical convention, and then bringing them to life. I think the text is fantastic, and I didn’t need a script. By using a chorus, I could utilise their traditional function as both commentators on the action and illustrators of the internal thoughts.
How did you handle the absurd nature of the narrative?
E: The absurdity is centred on the mental thoughts, and is thus inherent and inescapable. It illustrates contradictions, things that jar. Alice is like any other girl, but she is also a walking sponge – her thoughts are twisted, mixed and tangled and then they pop out of her head in a physical dream world where everything is turned back on itself. It leaves the audience disconcerted and disorientated.  The world comes from Alice, but she is the only one exclude from it.
So you’re saying that the narrative is fundamentally paradoxical?
E: The play is the experience childhood in an unobstructed manner. It makes the audience into blank slates for new perspectives to be projected on to. Most of the characters are adult, but they talk in a sensible nonsense. Alice feels ignorant, but the reader recognises her as the only sensible person.
How are you going to realise her world on stage?
E: Strip the stage back to it’s bare skeleton and fill it with colour and tone, so that the world is
moulded into the stage – it definitely is not Brechtian. The feel is mechanical, synthetic, man-made. The will be a wealth of electronic sounds to convey texture. The chorus will build up a connection with the audience. There will be spectacle through lyrical poems performed by the chorus.
How is the show at the BT different from the impending Playhouse production?
E: It will take the audience through the different elements of the show, and then combine them all in ss and progression of our piece. Ultimately, it will trace the path from reading the book to seeing it on the stage. It will illustrate the centrality of the music. It incorporates  the audience, not least because it is in the round. The BT show was created to give an insight into the rehearsal and script development process behind the Playhouse show. Technicalities aside, the concept and design can loosely be separated into three parts – music, movement and words. We want to take the audience through each of these elements, separately at first, then all at once.

THE TURKISH Prime Minister told members of the Oxford Union on Monday night that he believed military action against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq was “inevitable”.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit prompted a massive but successful security operation.
In his speech, Edrogan said that Turkey was planning to launch a military offensive in Iraqi territory in the next few days if the US and Iraq fail to rein in the militant Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).
“PKK is using Northern Iraq as a base to organise attacks against Turkey. That she will be using her right of self-defence is inevitable…but Turkey is not attacking Iraq or its government,” he said.
Erdogan also criticised the American and Iraqi governments, claiming they had been slow to help Turkey put down the PKK which is fighting for greater Kurdish independence in Turkey.
“We have come to the end of our patience. Even if Turkey does not get the cooperation she wants she will continue to fight against terrorism. We have told the US and Iraq that we will do what is necessary to protect our interests if within a few days those developments that we expect do not take place,” he said.
Erdogan has come under renewed pressure to begin a military assault on Kurdish militants after 12 soldiers were killed and eight went missing following border clashes that began two day ago.
In his talk at the Union, Erdogan also spoke of his continued frustration at Turkey’s slow progress in acquiring membership of the European Union. He accused European states of preventing his country from modernising, and argued that its membership was vital.
“Some EU states are trying to prevent [Turkey’s development]. They believe that we are too culturally different to become a member. This makes us very sad.
“The EU must think bigger. It must not lose sight of it global vision. Turkish membership will allow the EU to realize its full potential,” he continued.
He added that Turkey would not bow to international pressure to deter it from seeking an alliance that benefited its economy.
“We are aware that Iran is developing a nuclear capability. We too are considering nuclear energy to help us overcome our energy needs.
“Iran supplies us with half the natural gas that comes from Russia. Are we not to get natural gas because someone else is hurt by this? When we came to government our goal was to make friends not enemies. We do not have hostility; our aim is to continue in a friendly environment,” he stated.
The talk was given as part of the Turkish Prime Minister’s two-day visit to Britain, during which he discussed Turkey’s role in the Middle East with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.