GAZA WAR STILL STRAINS ISRAEL TIES WITH TURKEY
The Jewish Week
10/13/2009
"Supporting the war on terror is not an anti-Palestinian act," says
former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, left. Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu implied that Israel’s military action in
Gaza last year led toa cancellation of NATO exercises.
by Stewart Ain Staff Writer
One of Israel’s best regional friends, Turkey, is apparently having
second thoughts about their relationship.
Just days before the two countries were to participate in a NATO
military exercise this week, Turkish officials informed Israel that
it would not be allowed to participate. The U.S., the Netherlands
and Italy then withdrew in protest and the exercise was canceled.
Turkey, one of the few Muslim nations to have diplomatic relations
with Israel, has had a testy relationship with the Jewish state
since January.
That was when Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, speaking at
the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, publicly criticized Israeli
President Shimon Peres over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza last
winter and then stormed out of the meeting.
Turkish Foreign Minister Values To Heal America Ahmet Davutoglu
implied last weekend that his country barred Israel from the NATO
military exercise in Turkey this week because of the Gaza operation.
"We hope that the situation in Gaza will be improved, that the
situation will be back to the diplomatic track," he said. "And that
will create a new atmosphere in Turkish-Israeli relations as well. But
in the existing situation, of course, we are criticizing this approach,
[the] Israeli approach."
But Anat Lapidot-Firilla, a specialist in Turkish politics and society
who teaches in the Department of International Affairs at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and runs a Turkish forum as a senior research
fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, said the Gaza offensive
was only "used as an excuse" by Turkey.
"You can see a consistent trend in Turkish foreign policy that has
to do with many issues but not with Gaza — Gaza is just an excuse,"
she said. "If you have to pick one event from which problems started,
it was November 2002" when Edrogan and his AK Party were elected.
Lapidot-Firilla pointed out that Erdogan quickly began using Davutoglu
as a foreign policy adviser.
"He ran the show" even before being made foreign minister, she said,
adding that the new foreign policy course he steered for Turkey
collided with that of Israel.
"Israel did not want to allow Turkey to position itself as the regional
broker — the mature parent in the neighborhood," Lapidot-Firilla
explained.
Nevertheless, she said, "Turkey has a very interesting, very aggressive
foreign policy, a very active foreign policy that aims to regain some
kind of strategic cards in a very problematic area that since 2003 has
the United States as a regional player since the occupation of Iraq,"
she said.
"It’s positioning itself as a state that is a moral leader of the
Muslim world and the region," Lapidot-Firilla added, pointing out that
the current administration is "quite secure" after three elections
and a majority of the parliament.
Internal politics has proven a lot more difficult than foreign affairs,
however, and some reforms that were promised were never fulfilled
because of a strong constitution and legal obstacles.
"The only place where they could play with free hands and voice an
Islamic agenda was in foreign policy," she said.
Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni appeared on Turkish television
Monday to urge that there not be a crisis between the two countries
over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
"I am saying to the people of Turkey and their leaders: Supporting the
war on terror is not an anti-Palestinian act; it is an anti-terrorism
act," she said. "Hamas does not represent the national aspirations of
the Palestinians. It is not acting on their behalf or promoting them."
It is no coincidence that the row with Israel occurred just as Turkey
and its longtime nemesis A ent establishing diplomatic relations,
Lapidot-Firilla observed.
"It was more important to sign the agreement with Armenia, but because
of the reaction from inside the country — to block the opposition –
it was easier to voice opposition to Israel and Israeli aircraft and
thus regain the moral ground in internal politics," she said. "This
government wanted to come to an agreement with Armenia for financial
reasons — because of oil and gas and a lot of money. … It is easier
to appease the opposition [parties] by having aggressive rhetoric
towards Israel."
But the reaction of NATO in canceling the exercise took Turkey by
surprise.
"I don’t think they realized what the reaction would be,"
Lapidot-Firilla said.
Asher Susser, a senior fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle
East Affairs at Tel Aviv University, said he believes Turkey’s action
against Israel is emblematic of a "shift taking place in Turkey’s
foreign policy that has far-reaching ramifications."
"Turkey is undergoing an historic change since the 2002 election and
is taking more of an Islamic identity and policy," he said. "All of
this has to do with the rise of an Islamic party [in Turkey], the fact
that Turkey has not been admitted into the European Union and is going
back to the Middle East because it has been pushed out of Europe."
With the Europeans giving Turkey the "cold shoulder," Susser said,
"Turkey is becoming more Islamist in political identity. The Iraq
problem next door and the relative weakness of Arab states gives
Turkey a sense it must play a greater Middle Eastern role, and in so
doing it is shifting its relationship with Israel. The secular country
that had a common cause with Israel is not the Turkey we have today."
He said Israel’s relationship with Turkey is "critically important
for Israel — perhaps more than it is for Turkey — and Israel has
every reason to not let this [tension] escalate. It doesn’t have many
friends in the region and will try to keep things on an e
"Turkey too is trying to calm things down because the U.S. is siding
with Israel. It has no interest in taking this any further. It’s
difficult to say how this will play out."
The Turkish Foreign Ministry released a statement Monday that sought to
play down the NATO exercise, saying it was cancelled in consultation
with other participants and that nothing further should be read
into it.
"Therefore, it is not correct to impose political meanings to Turkey’s
decision to cancel the international part" of the exercise," it said,
adding that Israeli officials "should act with common sense in their
statements and attitudes."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a statement Monday in which
he spoke of Turkey’s importance in the region and added that there is
"no reason to be dragged into words of harsh criticism against it."
And Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon made similar comments,
saying: "Our interest is not to reach a point of friction or crisis
with Turkey. We consider Turkey an important strategic partner of
Israel’s and an anchor of stability."
Susser noted that Turkey has "shown a measure of sympathy with Hamas,
which has caused a crisis with Israel in the past. There is still a
residue of that crisis in the relationship."
He was referring to Turkey’s effort to serve as a mediator between
Hamas and Israel, just as it had served as a mediator between Syria
and Israel. But Israel refused this summer to allow Davutoglu to enter
Gaza from Israel for talks with Hamas officials, and then return for
talks in Jerusalem with Israeli officials.
Turkish officials were visibly steamed by Israel’s decision.
Asked if she believed the friction between Turkey and Israel would soon
ease and if the NATO maneuvers might be rescheduled, Lapidot-Firilla
said that had a lot to do with American pressure.
"I’m pretty sure that with a lot of pressure it will be only a
postponement and nothing else," she said. "It’s a political game and
they’re checking the boundarie ce in a while they discover they have
made the wrong move. So if Israel were to do something politically
correct in their eyes, it would be a good excuse to restore the
exercise."