The recent lightning sequence of events between Israel and Turkey highlights the complexity of the relationship between the two countries.
The truly unfortunate decision by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, one of Israel's most skilled diplomats, to publicly humiliate Turkey's ambassador to Israel apparently set things in motion.
I say apparently because the very fact that Ayalon, together with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, believed it important to protest the strongly anti-Israel statements by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and for another vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic television program really goes to the root of the problem.
Yet, only days later, Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a scheduled visit to Turkey. Reports circulated of positive meetings with Turkey's defense and foreign ministers and of recommitments to the strategic relationship between the two nations.
What will now be different in the relationship? Will it continue to be a two-track affair with each existing as if the other did not? Will this dichotomy be able to be sustained? Is this, should this, be acceptable to Israel?
The two tracks are strategic and diplomatic. On the strategic track, despite the disheartening Turkish decision several months ago to cancel Israel's participation in a US-Turkey military training exercise, signs are that Turkey and Israel both recognize how vital the relationship is to each. Turkey benefits from arms deals with highly sophisticated Israeli defense industries as well as strengthening its relationship with the U.S. through ties with Israel.
Israel benefits from having a Muslim majority nation as an ally and strategic partner for training, coordination, water access and intercession in the Arab world. The recent events, despite the highly inflamed emotions on both sides, point out that neither side is so quick as to give up those benefits. That's a good thing.
However, if the second track, the diplomatic front, continues as it is going, it could lead to other contretemps that could threaten that strategic relationship. Let's be frank about this. It's all coming from Turkey. Israel seeks the continuation of the best of diplomatic relations.
It is the Turkish government, in a host of statements and actions, many by the prime minister, that has been treating Israel not like an ally but more like an enemy. Erdogan's tirade against Israel during the Gaza war, his continuation last year at Davos which forced Israeli President Shimon Peres to react, his unstinting support of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes, and his support of Iran in the nuclear standoff, are impossible for Israel to ignore.
It is not merely a matter of national pride, not an insignificant thing, nor is it only a matter of mutual respect in a relationship, also not insignificant. It speaks to Israel's need to challenge growing efforts around the world to delegitimize the Jewish State. To have a longtime ally like Turkey leading international criticism plays into Israel's enemies and must be countered.
For Israel, the lesson of the Ayalon incident will be to maintain proper diplomatic decorum at all times but not to allow it to inhibit it from calling out inappropriate Turkish behavior. Turkey may be doing this to win favor in the radical Islamic world but Israel must make clear it cannot be at Israel's expense, nor at the expense of Turkey's Jewish community, which is feeling exposed. Unfortunately, future brawls may be inevitable.
Despite some comments that U.S. influence on Turkey may be limited, I'm a believer that the U.S.-Turkish relationship matters to both sides. I will be urging the Obama administration to continue to monitor this situation very closely and to continually urge Erdogan to exercise restraint in his comments about Israel.
I am not one who believes that Erdogan has made a strategic decision to move from the West into the Islamic camp. He is trying, for now, to have his cake and eat it. The U.S. message should be, however, that Turkey could easily slide into the Islamic camp without ever fully deciding upon it if it continues this massive ant-Israel campaign. This would be a disaster for the modern state of Turkey.
Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.
With regards to America, the "expiration date" should have been reached long ago on this blind, one sided, disastrous albatross around the neck policy of Israel first.
American statesmen like George Marshall, James Forrestall, and even Eisenhower in the last years of his administration, knew what this would entail for the U.S. in the future, and were quite frank about it.
But of what importance is the national interest when most members of congress can be bought and sold, campaign coffers replenished, and elections can be won or lost on this very issue?
The ways of Washington, D.C. are the polar opposite of the words of Washington the man, who presciently warned American posterity against entangling alliances.
The vast majority of Turks heartily approve of their government's stance re Israel, as does the majority of humankind:
According to a worldwide survey known as the National Brands Index conducted in November 2006, “...Israel is suffering from the worst public image among all countries of the world.” The study “shows that Israel is at the bottom of the list by a considerable margin in the public’s perception of its image.... The Index surveyed 25,903 online consumers across 35 countries about their perceptions of those countries across six areas of national competence: Investment and Immigration, Exports, Culture and Heritage, People, Governance and Tourism. The NBI is the first analytical ranking of the world's nation brands. ‘Israel's brand is by a considerable margin the most negative we have ever measured in the NBI, and comes at the bottom of the ranking on almost every question,’ states report author Simon Anholt.... The survey also indicated that Israel came last in each area by a long margin, including the fact that of the 36 countries ranked, there is nowhere that respondents would like to visit less than Israel. "
Israel's image has continued to deteriorate since this survey was taken.
prove one statement which was not in right direction even diplomatically....do you want turkish pm to act like US reps who do what a.ipac command them to do so?
Or perhaps publicly funding TV programs that depict Israelis as child kidnappers?
this was a brave and much needed step to show is.raeli govt their slaughter of civilians was not going unnoticed thanks to diverse media reporting (not US msm which reports only 1% of the idf's misadventures)....
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
Your right. How dare any country, let alone a Muslim one, criticize the war crimes of Israel.
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm
try reading the entire article....
Fair cirticism, Alysheba, is one thing. Propaganda, even if done by Islamic countries, or any other country, with a specific Agenda, is something else altogether. That, it appears to me, applies to individuals as well.
Are there *war crimes* between Turkey and Israel? I may have missed it. Is it right for Turkey to be , let us say, undiplomatic in allowing certain propaganda to be put out? May be so. Was it called for and prudent for Danny Ayalon to create a performance? No, it was not. That, it appears to me, is all that is discussed here.