Diplomacy: The politics of principles
——————————
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 23, 2007
——————————

The political work of the mainstream American Jewish Organizations is, for
the most part, seen in Jerusalem as a valued asset – often as an extra "man"
on the diplomatic playing field. These groups help open important doors and
clear high hurdles in Washington.

In fact, Jerusalem turns to some of these organizations from time to time to
deal quietly with issues that Israel doesn’t formally want to dirty its
hands with – such as protesting anti-Semitic manifestations in various
countries, or dealing with Holocaust restitution issues – due to a concern
about negatively impacting various bilateral relationships.

But every so often the extra "man on the field" not only doesn’t effectively
run interference, he just gets in the way – from an Israeli diplomatic
perspective. The flap this week over the Anti-Defamation League’s reversal
of its policy on whether to characterize Turkish actions against the
Armenians in World War I as genocide is a case in point.

It’s fascinating, actually, how a seemingly local brouhaha in a Boston
suburb called Watertown could conceivably have an impact on Israel’s
relationship with what is arguably its most important strategic ally after
the US – Turkey. The incident sheds light on the relationship between the
Jewish organizations and Israel, and illustrates how their interests
sometimes collide.

Watertown, home to a large Armenian population, withdrew last week from the
ADL’s "No Place for Hate" anti-bigotry program because of the organization’s
long-standing refusal to recognize the massacres of the Armenians as
genocide. The issue snowballed after ADL head Abe Foxman fired the
organization’s regional director, Andrew Tarsy, for saying in a *Boston
Globe* article that he strongly disagreed with the ADL’s position.

Although unpleasant, this was as yet of no great interest to Israel. But the
firing created controversy in the Boston Jewish community, with some
questioning how an organization dedicated to fighting bigotry and
anti-Semitism could refuse to recognize the massacres of Armenians as
genocide. ADL board members quit, others threatened to resign, and there
were calls for Foxman’s head. He then issued a statement reversing ADL
policy.

"We have never negated but have always described the painful events of
1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as
massacres and atrocities," Foxman said in his statement. "On reflection, we
have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. [the US ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire at the time] that the consequences of those actions were
indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they
would have called it genocide… Having said that, we continue to firmly
believe that a congressional resolution on such matters is a
counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks
and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the
important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United
States."

This is when the matter moved from being an internal ADL issue, or an issue
between ADL and Watertown, to becoming an issue with ramifications impacting
heavily on Israel.

DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS in Jerusalem contacted Tuesday night to react to
Foxman’s reversal were stunned by the announcement.

"Unbelievable," one official said, after muttering a curse. Another senior
Foreign Ministry official, who deals daily and intimately with the
Turkish-Israeli relationship, wouldn’t respond because he couldn’t believe
it, doubting the very veracity of the statement.

Well, it was true. And the reason for the stunned response to what an
American Jewish organizational leader had to say about a historical event 90
years ago is because of its ability to cause problems in the Israel-Turkish
alliance.

This is a clear case of principles vs. politics, with the American-Jewish
community having the luxury of opting for principle, and Israel living very
much – too much, some would argue – in the world of real politics.

"I think the ADL should support the congressional bill. As much as I
understand taking into consideration relations between Israel and Turkey,
this is something you have to do even though it is politically difficult,"
Samuel Mendales, director of Hillel Council of New England, was quoted as
saying this week in the *Jerusalem Post*.

Mendales was not alone in saying that this was a clear case of principle
trumping politics. The problem with this, however, is that it is relatively
easy to say this in Massachusetts, bordered by Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. American Jews can take the high moral
ground on issues such as these, because there is no real consequence; they
don’t have to pay any tangible cost.

Not so in Israel, where taking the high moral ground often comes with paying
a real political price. And in the cost-benefit analysis on this issue,
Israel’s position – and that of the key Jewish organizations active in
Washington up until this point – has been that the profit of a close
strategic relationship with Turkey outweighed the benefit of taking what
some argue is the right and principled stand on the issue.

This is why the Knesset, like the US Congress, consistently shoots down
attempts to pass a Congressional resolution on this matter, something that
is a red flag for the Turks.

But just as the American Jews don’t see things through Israel’s realpolitik
prism, Israelis might not fully understand the position of American Jews,
for whom taking the high moral ground is key to their sense of identity – a
deeply ingrained sense that because of Jewish history, they have a
responsibility to take ethical stands on these types of issues.

Someone looking on from the outside could reasonably ask, "Who cares what
Jewish organizations say about this? Why does it matter?"

Which brings us back to the idea of Jewish organizations as an additional
player on Israel’s diplomatic field. It matters because, in the
constellation of Israel’s diplomatic relations with Turkey – as well as in
its relations with some other countries, such as India – the mythical power
of the "Jewish lobby" in Washington is central. This perceived power is not
only fodder for Israel-bashers and anti-Semites, but also an asset in
dealing with foreign governments.

Since the 1990s, Turkey has turned into a key strategic ally. What Israel
gets from Turkey is clear: a friendly Muslim face in a sea of hostility; a
geographical asset; a huge market for military wares and other products; a
nice place to vacation. We are a country that longs for acceptance by our
neighbors, and have found it in Turkey.

And what do the Turks get? Firstly, they benefit from our geography, just as
we do from theirs. Both countries box in Syria for the other, and
Syrian-Turkish relations, put mildly, have known their ups and downs.

Secondly, they buy our arms. Because of Turkey’s conflict with Greece, and
its image in the West as a tentative democracy with the military lurching
menacingly in the background, Ankara has not always been able to find
vendors for state-of-the-art military equipment. While US arms sales to its
NATO ally has often been bogged down in congressional riders and amendments,
Israel could provide the goods with fewer hurdles. Over the last few years
Turkey has undergone an enormous military modernization program, with
Israeli arms playing a substantial role.

Another component of the military relationship is intelligence cooperation.
It is widely believed, for instance, that Israeli intelligence helped lead
to the capture in 1999 of Abdullah Ocalan, head of the Kurdistan Workers’
Party, who led a terror campaign against Turkey in the 1980s and ’90s And
the final thing the Turks "get" from Israel is access to the Jewish lobby in
Washington. Talk candidly to Turkish academics, politicians and journalists
and they will say that one of the reasons Israel is valuable to Turkey is
because of the ADL, the American Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith and similar
organizations. Without a strong lobby of its own in Washington, Turkey looks
to these organizations to put in a good word in Congress or with the
administration when issues of importance to Ankara – such as issues
regarding the Armenians or Cyprus – make their way to those bodies.

The relationship has even grown in importance recently, since Turkish-US
relations have become strained as a result of the war in Iraq.

In addition, the issue is playing itself out at a less than fortuitous time
from Israel’s point of view. The ADL reversal, which played prominently in
the Turkish press, comes as Israel’s best friends in Turkey – the army and
the secular foreign policy bureaucracy – are largely in retreat.

The Islamic-based AKP party is very much on the rise, and its foreign
minister, Abdullah Gul, whose wife wears the traditional Islamic headscarf,
is poised to become Turkey’s president next week – something of huge
symbolic importance in a country that has zealously guarded public trappings
of secularism. An impression that the Jews have reversed course on the
Armenian issue could give ammunition to those voices in Turkey already
calling for a reassessment of ties with Jerusalem, even as Israel’s
staunchest friends there are losing some of their clout.

WHICH EXPLAINS why there is concern in Israel following Foxman’s statement.
Granted, the Jewish groups are just one of the pillars supporting strong
Israeli-Turkish ties, but even when one pillar of a building weakens, action
is taken to strengthen it. In the coming days and weeks, therefore, the aim
will be to reinforce this pillar.

Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, Namik Tan, rushed back here on Thursday,
cutting his vacation short by two weeks, to deal with the matter. He will
speak to Foreign Ministry officials and seek clarifications, and – most
likely – also seek Israel’s help in ensuring that Foxman’s statement remains
just that: a statement, and not one that is used by other Jewish
organizations to change their opposition to a US congressional resolution on
the matter.

Foxman himself said that the ADL would continue to oppose as
"counterproductive" efforts to bring this to Congress. The diplomatic moves
in the coming weeks will likely be aimed at enshrining that as the policy of
all the main US Jewish organizations.

For the Turks, however, this commitment is little consolation. Ilnur Cevik,
a columnist for the English-language *New Anatolian* newspaper, wrote, "The
fact that the ADL said it will continue to oppose the congressional bill
accepting the ‘Armenian genocide’ is little comfort. Because the ADL said it
took the decision to reverse its former position because it consulted
historians and experts and came to the conclusion that what happened was
actually genocide. Now many people in the US Congress who had doubts will
start thinking in a different manner. This is bad news for Turkey."

Israel’s efforts in the coming days will be to ensure that what is "bad
news" for Turkey is not necessarily deleterious to the Israeli-Turkish
relationship.

Source: 145994&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull