Diplomacy between Turkey and Israel

Mehmet Kalyoncu *

“Constructive ambiguity” is probably the most useful diplomatic tool that enables the states to move forward in their relationships with their counterparts, no matter what kind of crisis they may have experienced.

But it looks like it has long been kicked out of the Turkish diplomatic lexicon. Technically, the constructive ambiguity is defined as a deliberate vagueness in one's statements or position in negotiations with a view to expand the realm of maneuvering in order to advance particular political objectives.

Optimistically, the constructive ambiguity can be interpreted, as an assurance given by the parties prior or during the crisis that they are willing to revise their respective positions in order to overcome the crisis situation without losing face before their own constituencies or the international community. Both Turkish and Israeli governments have spoken with vivid clarity, however, with respect to their respective positions on the Mavi Marmara incident, where Israeli soldiers killed eight Turkish citizens and one American.

Ankara has insisted that Turkish-Israeli relations would never go back to normal unless Israel apologizes from Turkey, pays compensations to the families of the victims, and lifts the unlawful Israeli blockade on Gaza. In response, Turkey has stressed that Israel would never apologize from Turkey for what Israeli soldiers did aboard the Mavi Marmara. In a way, Turkey and Israel have locked themselves up into a non-solution. After all, once announcing not only to Israel, but also to the whole world its conditions for normalization so clearly, how can the AK Party government possibly seem to be settling for anything less, or compromising to advance Turkey’s long-term interests? As for the Netanyahu government; it should apologize, but hardly would do so, because doing so would be tantamount to the admission of guilt, and create a precedent, which would oblige Israel not only to apologize for its countless crimes past, present and future, but also to meet its concomitant legal obligations. Moreover, given the addition, as a third condition, of the lifting of the Gaza blockade, which is not immediately related to the Turkish-Israeli relations, the skeptics may suggest that the AK Party government is not interested in a rapid normalization anyway.

At the end of the day, the present stalemate in the Turkish-Israeli relations is a result of the political decisions made by both the AK Party government and the Netanyahu government throughout a tumultuous process, which was caused by an irresponsible act of an NGO based in İstanbul, as well as by even more irresponsible act of the Israeli armed forces. Nor this type of downgrading of the two states’ relations is something abnormal. It has happened before, it may happen in the future, and as such, it is something normal.

However, the ramifications of the ensuing crisis are not confined to the diplomatic, political and economic relations between the two states only. The continued hostility between the Turkish and Israeli governments, coupled with the provocations by the zealots on both sides, are likely to instigate the emotions even further, thereby leading to irreparable damages. Therefore, the stakeholders other than the two governments such as the Turkish and Israeli peoples as well as their respective diasporas, especially in the United States, should work together to contain the potential damages of the crisis. In so doing, the onus is more on the shoulders of the American Jewish community who prioritizes the well being of the State of Israel, because relatively speaking it has far greater capability, compared to the other three, to make things much more complicated.

Spill over effect

The heat in Turkish-Israeli relations continues to increase due to the two governments’ exchange of warnings and threats of sanctions. PM Erdogan announced that the Turkish warships would more frequently appear in the Eastern Mediterranean in order to ensure the safety of navigation, which Israel interpreted as a measure against the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman uttered that Israel would implement four faceted sanctions against Turkey, which includes a comprehensive travel boycott, cooperation with the Armenian diaspora, support to the terrorist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), and portrayal of Turkey in the international fora as an oppressor of its minorities. Not surprisingly, what two prominent American political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt described as the Israel Lobby has rushed to mobilize each and every resource available to it within the American polity as well with the hope of punishing Turkey for going harsh on Israel. Recently, seven US senators penned a joined letter to President Barack Obama, asking the latter to ‘mount a diplomatic offensive’ against Turkey. Similarly, Daniel Pipes and the right-wing extremist pundits alike have begun to propagate the false image of Turkey being the most dangerous country in the Middle East along with Iran. In line with this reflex, the black propaganda of the Israel Lobby against Turkey is likely to intensify in the months to come, especially during that time of the year when the US Congress is traditionally hijacked with allegations of the so-called Armenian genocide.

However, it seems like the anti-AK Party network in the US has recently diversified its targets, and now attacking Fethullah Gülen and the educational-cultural initiatives he has inspired as well. As Michael Shank of George Mason University reminds in his Huffington Post article titled “Islamophobia Network Targets Top Performing American Schools”, the Center for American Progress (CAP)’s recently published an Islamophobia report that reveals the extend of such a defamation campaign.  The CAP report, which is titled “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America”, demonstrates that the Eagle Forum, a so-called pro-family movement, and other members of the Islamophobia network have deliberately propagated an alleged Turkish threat to America: the so-called Muslim Gülen schools, which would allegedly "educate American children through the lens of Islam and teach them to hate Americans”. Moreover, beside many blogosphere commentaries suffering from intellectual deficit but equally adamant in trying to defame Gülen, a recent Newsweek piece titled “Erdoğan 1, Ataturk 0” referred to Gülen as “Erdogan’s friend and mentor” and to the civil society movement he has inspired as the “AKP’s own ‘deep state’ ally, a wealthy and powerful Islamist movement directed from luxurious self-exile in the US”.

Given such allegations, one is compelled to infer that the anti-AK Party network in the US is targeting Gülen and the people involved with the civil society initiatives he has inspired, probably because its members assume that Gülen is the real force behind the AK Party government, and hence can be utilized to tone down its stance towards Israel. While such an assumption lacks credible evidence and remain as a mere speculation, it fails to recognize the fact that it was Gülen himself who criticized the so-called Freedom Flotilla project, which lies at the heart of the unfolding crisis between Turkey and Israel. In his interview to the Wall Street Journal during the days following the infamous Mavi Marmara incident, and when the entire Turkey was overwhelmed with heightened nationalistic sentiments after the Israeli murder of eightTurks and one Turkish American citizen, Gülen expressed his doubts about the true intentions behind the flotilla project, and remarked that the organizers should have consulted with the authorities if the purpose was to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. One can hardly argue that Gülen is a source of inspiration for the AK Party government, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Track II diplomacy

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the current political crisis between Turkey and Israel bears negative implications on the non-political and totally unrelated civil society and educational initiatives. Therefore, it may be prudent to explore ways in order to prevent its further exacerbation, and contain its ramifications in form of creating anti-Turkish sentiments, or at least making the atmosphere conducive for the proliferation of such negative sentiments. In this context, the Track II diplomacy figures as a viable tool to compensate for the absence of optimistically utilized-constructive ambiguity in the Turkish-Israeli relations. Defined as a kind of informal diplomacy undertaken through exchanges between non-officials such as scholars, public intellectuals, journalists, retired officials, public figures or social activists, the Track II diplomacy is a foreign policy tool used in order to prevent further escalation of tensions, and better yet to help the parties resolve their conflict. In this regard, the non-official interactions between the Turks and the Israelis as well as between their respective diasporas in the joint initiatives such as conferences, workshops, mutual delegation visits, public declarations, and sportive or art events can be useful to increase popular demand for solution, overcome the impasse and move forward in a more constructive way.

Turks should not perceive such a civic engagement with Israelis as an acceptance of defeat in the face of the Netanyahu government’s resistance to apologize from Turkey, or as a sell out of the victims of the Israeli assault on the Mavi Marmara. Similarly, Israelis or their fellow Jews in the diaspora should not consider Turks’ willingness to engage with them despite the continuing political crisis as a concession out of despair, but as an indication of their inherent constructivism. The opposite is to continue the business as usual. In that case, Turkey and Turkish-Americans would continue to be demonized. It may not be that bad after all to be demonized by such right-wing groups and fundamentalist figures as Daniel Pipes, David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Steven Emerson, Bridgette Gabriel, and Rachel Sharon-Krespin as the vast majority of Americans already know who they are, and why they do what they do. However, the situation may not be so positive for the Jewish-Americans, if the demonization of the Turks is to continue. In an America, where the criticism of Israel and the Israel Lobby reaches an unprecedented level, where high-ranking officials publicly describe Israel as an ungrateful ally and strategic liability for the US, and where according to the Anti-Defamation League figures the anti-Semitism is rampant, it is the Jewish-Americans who should be trying to avoid any action that would perpetuate or escalade the crisis between Turkey and Israel, let alone attacking those Turks who could be their only ally if the anti-Semitism gets out of control.

Finally, those Turks who do not look at the crisis between Turkey and Israel from an eschatological perspective, and hence are not beguiled with the dreams of righting all wrongs overnight with lofty speeches backed only by mediocre power would wish that the problem between the two was solved without prolonging and spilling over. Similarly, looking towards future, they may wonder if Ankara’s intent to take the issue of Israeli blockade on Gaza to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is strategically wise one. There is no doubt that Turkey has every moral right to do so. However, there is a risk associated with this move. Technically, the ICJ can consider and rule on the case only if both Turkey and Israel agree to refer it to the ICJ. Otherwise it can deliver a non-binding advisory opinion if the UN General Assembly’s simple majority votes for such referral. It is clear that the first condition would never materialize. In the latter case, the advisory opinion would just add to many other UN resolutions and reports manifesting unlawful practices of Israel, but hardly have any enforcement effect. Even if in the ideal circumstance, the ICJ considers the case, and convicts Israel, which is in reality unlikely to happen; then the Security Council’s permanent members have right to stop the enforcement of the ICJ verdict. It is all too obvious which permanent member that would be.

Besides, given the black propaganda power of Turkey’s opponents, which does not necessarily refer to the Netanyahu government and the right-wing extremist members of the Israel Lobby only, Turkey’s such a legitimate endeavor can be portrayed as an attempt to steal leadership role from those Arab countries, who have traditionally appeared as the advocates of the Palestine cause. Worse, Turkey in general, and Turkish foreign minister in particular may be unfairly accused of embarking on yet another foreign policy objective, which is to bring Israel to justice, and leaving it unfulfilled. As such, Turkey may all of a sudden come to face the limits of its power both soft and hard in front of the international community. As Hans Morgenthau suggested, "the prestige of a nation is its reputation for power. That reputation, the reflection of the reality of power in the minds of the observers, can be as important as the reality of power itself". By the same token, an abrupt exposure of the limits of its power can ruin a nation's prestige.  Of course, the policy makers in Ankara would know the best, but it may be better to not stretch further thinner, and instead just remember that some meals taste best when served cold. Turkey would be better off if it allocates its energy and resources to strengthen its democracy and economy inside, and continue to forge new partnerships outside, in line with its “zero problem with neighbors” policy. After all, only powerful Turkey can have zero problems with its neighbors, and can help the ones having problems solve theirs.

*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an independent political analyst.

Published on Sunday's Zaman, 02 October 2011, Sunday