Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Why the apology?

Ottomans and Zionists explains why Israel apologized to Turkey.
Because it is – in my view – Turkey that changed its mind on reconciling, I focused on the Turkish side of things in the FA piece, so I thought I’d now write a little bit about the Israeli side. From Israel’s perspective, making up with Turkey has made sense for awhile now, and the reasons to do so only grew stronger with each passing day. First, there is the regional dynamic in the Middle East, which is hardly trending in Israel’s favor post-Arab Spring. While I do not think that Israel has anything to fear from new governments in the region, the upheaval has opened up power vacuums in the Sinai and Syria that allow hostile non-state actors to operate with impunity. Add to this the existing threats from Hamas and Hizballah and the distinct possibility that the Jordanian government falls, and Israel desperately needs any friend who will have her. Making up with Turkey means that at least Israel is not entirely alone in the region, and being able to coordinate with Turkey and with Jordan (so long as King Abdullah remains in power) will be extremely helpful in containing the spillover threat from Syria. While I highlighted the urgency for Turkey in my FA piece, Israel’s biggest concern with regard to the Syrian civil war has always been the transfer of chemical weapons to hostile non-state actors, and now that the chatter around chemical weapons has increased, apologizing to Turkey took on an urgency for Jerusalem that was absent before.
Second, Turkey has successfully blocked Israel from NATO military activities and summits, and the ability to get back in the game has always been important to the Israeli government. While the Noble Dina naval exercises with Greece and the U.S. that Israel began doing in 2011 are nice, they are a poor substitute for Israel being able to use the vast Turkish airspace for aerial training or being able to participate in NATO military exercises. Israel has attempted to ramp up its military relations with Greece and Cyprus in response to the freeze in relations with Turkey but this has always been a suboptimal solution, and Israel has felt this acutely as the government has become increasingly preoccupied with possible threats from Iran. Furthermore, Israel’s defense industry has had billions of dollars in contracts with Turkey suspended by Ankara, and being able to resume sales to Turkey should provide a nice jolt to the Israeli economy.
Nobody should expect Israel and Turkey to go back to where they once were. Turkey does not feel as alone in the region as it once did, there is still a benefit from having cool relations with Israel, and too much has taken place between the two, from Davos to the Mavi Marmara to the “Zionism is equal to fascism” kerfuffle of a month ago. It is unfortunately not surprising to already see Erdoğan backing away from his commitment to normalize relations, although it will happen sooner rather than later since this is only Erdoğan playing politics in response to some hardline domestic criticism over the deal with Israel. Exchanging ambassadors and resuming limited military and intelligence cooperation does not negate the fact that bashing Israel will remain a potent element in Erdoğan’s box of tricks, and I expect to see issues big and small arise between the two countries, particularly as things remain static on the Israeli-Palestinian front and settlement building in the West Bank continues. Nevertheless, this restoring of formal ties is good for both sides, and I hope that both countries can get over their past issues and begin work on developing a healthier relationship.
Caroline Glick disagrees
Given the situation, the main questions that arise from Israel’s apology to Turkey are as follows: Is it truly a declaration with little intrinsic meaning, as Peres intimated? Should it simply be viewed as a means of overcoming a technical block to renewing Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey? In other words, will the apology facilitate Turkish cooperation in stemming the rise of jihadist forces in Syria, and blocking the transfer of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles to such actors? Finally, what does Obama’s central role in producing Israel’s apology say about his relationship with the Jewish state and the consequences of his visit on Israel’s alliance with the US and its position in the region? And finally, what steps should Israel consider in light of these consequences?
On Saturday, the Arab League convened in Doha, Qatar and discussed Israel’s apology to Turkey and its ramifications for pan-Arab policy. The Arab League member states considered the prospect of demanding similar apologies for its military operations in Lebanon, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The Arab League’s discussions point to the true ramifications of the apology for Israel. By apologizing for responding lawfully to unlawful aggression against the State of Israel and its armed forces, Israel did two things. First, Israel humiliated itself and its soldiers, and so projected an image of profound weakness. Due to this projected image, Israel has opened itself up to further demands for it to apologize for its other responses to acts of unlawful war and aggression against the state, its territory and its citizens from other aggressors. The Arab League like most of its member nations is in an official state of war with Israel. The Arabs wish to see Israel destroyed. Kicking a nation when it is down is a perfectly rational way for states that wish other states ill to behave. And so the Arab League’s action was eminently predictable.
As for the future of Israel-Turkish cooperation on Syria, two things must be borne in mind. First, on Saturday Erdogan claimed that Netanyahu’s apology was insufficient to restore Turkish-Israel relations. He claimed that before he could take any concrete actions to restore relations, Israel would first have to compensate the families of the passengers from the Mavi Marmara killed while assaulting IDF soldiers with deadly force.
Beyond that, it is far from clear that Turkey shares Israel’s interests in preventing the rise of a jihadist regime in Syria allied with al-Qaeda. More than any other actor, Erdogan has played a central role in enabling the early jihadist penetration and domination of the ranks of the US-supported Syrian opposition forces. It is far from clear that the man who enabled these jihadists to rise to power shares Israel’s interest in preventing them from seizing Syria’s weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, if Turkey does share Israel’s interest in preventing the Syrian opposition from taking control over the said arsenals, it would cooperate with Israel in accomplishing this goal with or without an Israeli apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara.
I think the apology was a mistake. Netanyahu, who is notoriously pliable, came under pressure from Obama and could not resist. 

I don't believe Israel will reap any benefits from the apology. If we're really lucky, maybe it won't come back to haunt us.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

3 Comments:

At 4:19 AM, Blogger Eliana said...

Well, I don't think Netanyahu was pliable about this. I think too many people on our side hold the view that undermining and insulting Netanyahu for a decade and a half (almost) is a good idea for Israel.

Netanyahu stood up to Obama about the full Abbas preconditions (full permanent freeze and pre-67 cease fire lines) for four years. If this isn't enough to convince some on our political side that he's got some backbone, then I think we should ask ourselves what we hope to gain by making his job more complicated than it is already.

It doesn't help Israel, in my opinion.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger Me said...

I believe we did it for the money that would come from the LNG pipeline set to run from Israel through Turkey and up into the EU. This has been on hold for a while.

My post needs to be updated but you can read it here: http://oilsnotwell.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/israels-apology-to-turkey-is-linked-to-natural-gas-not-the-syrian-civil-war/

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger HaDaR said...

Unfortunately, חֲנֻפָּה, that is licking-up, with galut has become a national habit instead of something one should even be killed rather than practicing... see Rabbenu Yonah: בספר שערי תשובה (שער ג אות קפח) כתב בעניין מעשה דאגריפס וז"ל, חייב האדם למסור עצמו לסכנה, ואל ישיא את נפשו עוון אשמה כזאת. ואמרו רז"ל על עניין אגריפס שהיה קורא בתורה. וכשהגיע לפסוק זה, חנפו לו לאגריפס. אף כי היושב על המשפט -- אין לו לפחד מאנוש ימות. ויש בחלקי כת החנפים אשר בם החנף נספה ואובד בעוון החנופה לבד

והואמר לרע טוב נקרא "חנף", דאמר רבי אלעזר (סוטה דף מא ע"ב): כל אדם שיש בו חנופה -- אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן מקללין אותו, שנאמר: אומר לרשע צדיק אתה
(יקבונהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים (משלי כד כד

Netanyahu is just that: חנפן, an adulator, a suckup, a brown-nose. the usual unprincipled zig-zag-yahoo.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google