Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The price of occupation
If you ever questioned whether Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was bad for the United States and for Israel too, you ought to ponder Turkey's decision to suspend a multinational air-force exercise last weekend. Why? Because it's a prime example of how pursuing the goal of "greater Israel" -- which means retaining control of the West Bank and Gaza and preventing a true two-state solution -- is undermining U.S. and Israeli interests.
Here's the background: For the past decade or more, Turkey has been Israel's closest ally in the Muslim world. It has bought a lot of weapons from Israeli defense manufacturers, permitted the Israeli Air Force to conduct military exercises over Turkish airspace (which is especially valuable given Israel's small size), and been an effective mediator between Israel and some of its adversaries. It was by all accounts a very valuable relationship.
Unfortunately, Israel's assault on Gaza back in December and January appalled many Turks and embarrassed the Turkish government, which had been helping facilitate back-channel negotiations between Israel, Syria, and Hamas. Turkish anger at Israel's behavior led to the infamous spat between Prime Minister Recip Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos in January, and opposition to the proposed air exercise -- which would have involved U.S., Israeli, Turkish, and other NATO forces -- had been growing in recent months. In particular, critics argued that Turkey's armed forces should not be collaborating with the same air force that had pummeled the defenseless Gazans last winter.
Last weekend, Turkey announced that it would not permit Israel to participate in the planned exercise, with the Foreign Ministry explicitly invoking the situation in Gaza as justification. (There's a story in Ha'aretz today suggesting it was really a dispute over arms shipments, but that's frankly pretty hard to believe). The announcement led Israel's ever-compliant U.S. patron to declare that it would not participate either, which in turn led other NATO states to withdraw too. So the exercise was "postponed," and it remains to be seen whether the dispute will be resolved and the maneuvers rescheduled. Meanwhile, Turkey and Syria held a successful diplomatic meeting earlier this week and announced a wide-ranging series of agreements, publicly pledging to "build a common future." Ha'aretz reports that the two countries will conduct military exercises in the near future as well.
Now step back and consider how we got here. A good relationship with Turkey has been a major asset for Israel and strong Israeli-Turkish relations are good for the United States (which is an ally of both countries). The United States, Turkey, Israel, and other NATO countries benefit from joint military exercises. But because Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and refuses to allow the Palestinians to have a state of their own, it faces continued resistance from groups like Hamas, including the firing of rockets at Israeli towns. And because Israel's leaders believe that disproportionate force is the only way to deal with that resistance, the result is Operation Cast Lead, where the IDF lays waste to Gaza and kills a lot of innocent civilians. And this inflames public opinion in Turkey (and elsewhere), thereby placing a valuable strategic relationship at risk.
Israel's defenders often claim that it is a major strategic asset for the United States, but Israel's pariah status within the region reduces its strategic value significantly. It explains why Israel could not participate in the 1991 or 2003 wars with Iraq, and why it is difficult for Arab governments who share Israel's concerns about Iran to openly collaborate with Israel or United States to address that issue. And make no mistake: The occupation is now the main barrier to Israel's full acceptance within the region, as the 2007 Arab League peace plan makes clear. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were resolved and Israel had normal relations with the Arab world, then the United States would not pay a diplomatic price for backing Israel so strongly and Israel could join forces with us (and with other regional powers) when common challenges arose. Ending the occupation would also safeguard Israel's relations with countries like Turkey, instead of undermining them. In addition to its obvious human costs, in short, the occupation is a strategic liability for Israel and the United States.
Barack Obama spoke the truth when he said that a "two-state solution is in Israel's interest, the Palestinians' interest, America's interest, and the world's interest." Unfortunately, the U.S. president's actions to date have not brought that goal any closer. In the meantime, those who continue to oppose any effort to use U.S. leverage to bring about a two-state solution are unwittingly harming the two countries they care about most.
ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
I don't think that it would
I don't think that it would change much, but an Islamist party is in control of the Turkish government right now. They may be even more constrained than a secular party.
It's not the Islamist party
It's not the Islamist party that's in control of Turkey, its Islamic rot that is installed in the Turkish brain. Kemalism is on the decline, and Turkey thinks it can punch above its weight with dreams of dominating the Middle East.
Wrong it is.
When will the U.S. learn?
When the state of Israel starts marginalizing the relationship with its strongest Muslim ally (a.k.a. Turkey), one would think that the United States has the will to publicly denounce Israel's unhelpful behavior in the region. At this pivotal moment in history- when President Obama is trying to get his vision for the Middle East off the ground- the last thing the White House needs is a belligerent nation that is deliberately stalling the prospects for a basic (yet essential) peace.
When are American policymakers on the Hill going to learn that a close alliance with an extreme right-wing government is detrimental to the national interest? Perhaps more pragmatically...what benefits has Washington received through decades of unconditional support for the Israelis? Certainly, widespread public hostility to America in general would not be included in this list.
Yet, this is the only product that is associated with the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Arabs of all nationalities, whether Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, or Iraqi, commonly perceive the United States as a hegemonic and intrusive power that caters to the whims of the "Zionist" regime in Jerusalem. Even with a new president in office, this sentiment continues to dominate the mainstream discourse of Arab public opinion.
Of course, this sounds like a typical anti-Israeli rant. This, however, could not be further from the truth (I am actually a supporter of Israel in general, minus the whole "Greater Israel" plan). What I am trying to convey is a sense of realism to the debate; the United States is not getting anything from the Israelis in return for its staunch support (both diplomatically and militarily). If Israel was a true friend in international relations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would stop treating Washington like a whiny little-brother who does not understand the situation. Surely, an unwillingness to cooperate is not what one thinks of when friendship comes to mind.
All in all, one thing is rather clear: as long as Israel continues to stonewall negotiations for a two-state solution, they should come to expect an Arab coalition against their ambitions. In their eyes, Israel is nothing more than a artificial entity that possesses a totalitarian agenda (this is certainly not mending any fences between the Israelis and the Arabs in relation to Iran's nuclear aspirations).
What is more, as long as Israel uses indiscriminate force to combat the terrorist threat- thereby killing innocent Palestinians in the process- Washington should not be surprised when Obama's peace-doctrine is jeopardized in a consistent way.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Nothing more to say
You don't support the whole "Greater Israel" plan? You're an anti-Semite.
The Price is Right
Professor Walt titles his post, "The Price of Occupation."
If the price of massively retaliating against a guerilla force lobbing rockets into your territory is the cancellation of military exercises with a nation that is increasingly belligerent, it seems like a pretty small price to pay to me.
Presumably Professor Walt isn't suggesting that the cancellation of these exercises represents any cost at all to the United States. It strains credulity to suggest that they represent anything but a good-will gesture on the part of the American military to the other nations that planned to participate.
The mantra of Professor Walt and his fellow "realists" is that a two-state solution is in the American interest and that the costs of American support for Israel are at least as great (if not greater) than the benefits to the United States.
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether the cost-benefit analysis recommended by "realists" is anything other than a quaint anachronism, Professor Walt is very sparing when he tells us how the U.S. relationship with Israel detracts from American interests.
Is this the best he can do is to reference a cancelled training exercise with Turkey and that other great military power, the Netherlands?
While he's at it, why doesn't Professor Walt pen a post on the fact that the U.S.-Israel relationship has cost the United States access to Iranian caviar or Syrian figs (which are supposed to be delicious). Combine these costs with the cancelled military exercise and the costs of supporting Israel really add up.
Right Professor?
Actually, while some of
Actually, while some of Walt’s views are debatable, his point that Israel is not a strategic asset to the United States has been quite obvious for some time. Israel is in fact a considerable strategic liability, which hinders our freedom of action. This begs the question, is there a higher more principled reason for the United States to actually sacrifice its interests for the sake of what Israel construes as her interests?
GREAT POINT!
This is exactly the point I was trying to bring up in my earlier post. What exactly does the United States receive from its extensive relationship with the Israelis, other than anamosity from mainstream Arab populations?
As far as I am concerned, U.S and Israeli interests only converge on one key issue: international terrorism. Washington funnels a tremendous amount of military resources in its fight against Al'Qaeda, whereas Israel exercises its military might against the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip when Jerusalem's security is at stake(as last December and January prove). Both countries view Islamic terrorism, whether Sunni or Shia in origin, as one of the most dangerous elements of today's global system. This should be undebateble.
However, as far as other interests are concerned, Washington and Jerusalem possess completely different agendas. While both suspect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability, Israel is intent on striking the Islamic Republic in a premeditated way while President Obama is sticking to the traditional diplomatic "stick-and-carrot" approach.
With respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, U.S. and Arab desires for a two-state solution are routinely bypassed by Netanyahu and his right-wing party. Israel is still heavily interested in achieving its notion of a "Greater Israel," while the United States amply refuses to endorse it.
Even economically, Israel and the United States appear to be residing in separate camps. The free-market system that Washington and Europe take-for-granted implies that Israel should abolish its trade embargo on the Gaza Strip; for doing so would not only provide Palestinians with much-needed jobs, but also give the Palestinian population the revenue required for a semi-functioning state.
The idea that Washington's interests coincide with Jerusalem on multiple fronts is an argument riddled with falsities. Terrorism is the name of the game, and as long as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al'Qaeda continue to dominate the foreign-policy agenda's of both states, the U.S.-Israel alliance will remain firmly entrenched.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Time warp
The US-Israel alliance has "remained firmly entrenched" since the 1960s, when there was no Hamas, Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda.
What planet are you on?
Good point on Hammas
The only freely elected by our own western standards democraticly elected goverment in the Arab world and yes the election was observed as free of your usual Cheating like Afganistan Iraq Egypt most of the rest dont even get to vote ...... Yes they were at one time a terrorist orginization like a lot of others at the start but have a look today in the worlds largest out door prision called gaza you may be surprised to find an arab goverment with no support no money and no training running this place and this scares the Isrealis and Americans more than allowing clowns to run countries like KSA Iraq Afganistan Egypt Lybia Syria and a few dozen more
Yes Hamaas won the Gaza war people have no homes and the status is still same less a lot of rockets being fired for attention they dont need rockets anymore they have been heard and yes Isreal looks dumb with thier over bearing crush on a people that can only throw rocks and shoot rockets with no guidance systems just a pray that they land some where to get notice.
But now the world has stopped beliving the American Isreali position of they are all just terrorists let then starve in this open air prosion we built now that we have knocked down 30 % of thier homes we will not allow food or cement or steel into rebuild them or feed the ones that survived
Yes Isreal screwed up with Gaza as well at Davos and yes they have screwed up with the USA this time when the UN gets this araound to the big boys...... Obama will have the stick he needs to get these non arab Jews like leiberman to follow the path the world wants
question is will he use the stick or keep on looking out of place like old Abu Mazan the leader of the west bank.
Always remebmber George Washington was a terroisist as well in some ones eyes. History calls a spade a spade
Of course it's
Of course it's debatable.
It's quite easy to see Israel's immense strategic importance not only to us, but to the Arab states, as well.
Consider: Israel serves as the prime object of hate, which allows corrupt despotic Arab rulers to keep their people in virtual slavery and deflect their anger away from themselves. And who would they then deflect their slaves' anger, if not to Israel? To us, of course. After all, we're the ones keeping these corrupt Arab despots in power through our money and guns, a situation that has been of immense value to is. Israel allows us to not be the primary vehicle for hatred in the propaganda of corrupt Arab despots.
In return, we get to buy their oil, while they never have to diversify their economies or give their people anything close to freedom, and they can, in turn, buy our weapons and keep the dollar strong.
Is it any coincidence that this relationship has started to break down now with Obama as president?
HAHAHA
Really Mr. Blue you are killing me here, this is funny. Forget the fact you have no proof for such a conspiracy, yes it is a conspiracy. Just because those MIGHT BE SOME OF THE OUTCOMES YOU SEE ON THE GROUND doesn't mean they are tied together, nor does it mean one led to the other. Also, Mr. Blue, the reality on the ground is very different than you state. The arabs have diversified, ie nuclear power, MENA region average GDP growth at 6 percent for quite a while, and so on and so on. At least a long time ago Israel would confront the reality and change it (ie going to the desert and making it arable), now they refuse to acknowledge reality in any form (Palestinian/Israeli demographic trends, switching of international opinion, awkwardness of friends and allies, and the growth of Israel's enemies). Maybe Israel wiill soon find itself left behind. as Always mr. Blue, ask me and i will cite my info, and it would be great if you can do the same as well.
Strategic Asset.
I don't think Israel has ever been a strategic asset to the USA; especially if we consider "strategic" to mean war and conflict. The US had always been capable of doing that on its own.
khairi janbek.paris/france
How about increased terrorism and hindered M.E. realtionships?
I think it is just not professor Walt who has stated that the settlements have a damaging effect of US security.
1) the Iraq study group found that little else that we do in the middle east will result in greater US or regional security until the Israeli Palestinian conflict (read ending all the settlements and occupation) is fairly and equitably ended.
2) Tony Blair, Speaking to the US congress after 9/11, said that there will NEVER be and end to the war on terror until there is a fair and equitable end to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
3) Bill Clinton, on a charlie rose interview, after 9/11, called the Israeli Palestinian conflict the "philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment.
4) members of the 9/11 commission concur.
5) the head of the CIAs Bin laden unit has spoken and written extensively about the damage that the US connection to the Israelis, as they run the worlds ONLY violently enforced colonial settler movement has done to US security regarding terrorism.
5) of course, Jimmy Carter concurs
6) surprisingly, Bush senior concurs, as HE tried to cut off all Funding to Israel until they ended the settlements, because, as former head of the CIA, he understood that damage that they do to US security in the region, (and as he would find out later, here at home)
The settlements and the occupation that they solely necessitate do NOTHING for Israeli security either, and in fact inspire needless terror and the deaths that they cause.
But, because of the radical nature of settler leaders, they could really care less how many other Israelis, Americans, or Palestinians die as the result of their internationally condemned actions.
There's a story in Ha'aretz
It may be partially true, although I have no doubt that pressure over Gaza played a role in it as well. Keep in mind that when Erdogan came back for a hero's welcome, he then rather pointedly refused to break any meaningful commercial or political ties with Israel after his spat with Peres. These things run deeper than the surface.
True Price of Occupation
Here as elsewhere, Professor Walt is certainly not alone in treating "the Jewish state" like just any other state, which it is not. The problem with the so-called "two-state" solution is that the land taken from the Palestinians in 1948, which act was made official by the West and the USSR at that time, is still occupied territory. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees sitting in camps all over the Middle East because of it. Professor Walt never seems to talk about that, or suggest what is supposed to happen to them. I don't blame him. For the gentlemen in Tel Aviv, those refugees are non-persons and it is a taboo to suggest that they be repatriated to their own land and villages inside "the Jewish state".
The 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem constitutes simply an extension of the original 1948 occupation by predominately east European and now American Jews. It is all occupied territory and illegitimate. Perhaps something can be worked out, but it seems doubtful when "realists" are prevented by the fait accompli of Zionism's success to take into account the stark injustice of the current setup. The true "price of occupation" is not the "undermining of U.S. and Israeli interests" (whatever they are) but rather the acceptance by default of an Orwellian world where wrong equals right. It has led America down the road to perpetual wars for perpetual peace. It is bankrupting the country.
Germanicus
There are hundreds of
It sucks to be them, but after a certain point I don't consider their land claim valid anymore. Particularly with regards to those who are the descendants of the refugees as opposed to the actual refugees, meaning that they've never lived in Israel proper and would be immigrants if they ever came to live there.
There's a saying - "Possession is Nine-Tenth's of the Law". Or squatters' rights, as you can call. After a certain point, we don't consider those who lost the land to have a valid claim anymore. They can keep trying to press it, but they won't get any sympathy from me.
Why should they be "re-patriated" (and I use that in the most generous sense possible, seeing as how most of them never lived in Israel) when the Arab states will never re-patriate the sephardic Jews whose property was confiscated after their expulsions post-1949?
Most of the population of Israel actually consists of those of sephardic descent. You know, the group of Jews expelled after 1949, who lost most or all of their property in the process.
Yet they've largely assimilated, and don't continually make demands for their land and property back. Pardon me if I'm playing the world's smallest violin over a bunch of refugees who keep insisting on a futile hope 60 years after the fact instead of aggressively trying to assimilate into the neighboring countries.
Oh, boo hoo. Half the bloody states in existence were founded on "injustice" and blood to some degree. Great Britain exists as a result of repeated invasions and conquest, China from the northern Chinese around Beijing conquering everyone else hundreds of years ago, Russia from the Muscovites conquering successive stretches of territory, Saudi Arabia from conquering a bunch of tribesmen, and of course America from conquest of native American lands. Yet no one is seriously disputing these states' claim to legitimacy, or crying "stark injustice!" except as a historical lesson (meaning not as a political movement). Hell, people give more legitimacy to the state of Jordan, even though it was founded as a consolation prize to a British client who lost against the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.
As for the Palestinians, they could have taken the 1947 Partition Plan, unjust as it was, and subverted it more subtly. After all, they constituted virtually all of the population of what would be Palestine, and more than half of what was to become "Israel". They could have insisted on democracy, then used their majority power to dominate any state and turn it into whatever they wanted.
But instead, they decided to fight the whole thing, violently if necessary, and turned the low-level conflict up to that point into an open war involving several of the neighboring states. They rolled the dice by starting up armed conflict, and they lost. Tough shit - if you're not ready to deal with the consequences of a conflict you start, then don't start, or seek other means.*
That said, those Palestinians who remain in the West Bank and Gaza are suffering, and suffering dispossession right now. They deserve justice, and a state of their own is the best way to remedy that, seeing as how Israel will never simply annex the whole thing and turn them all into citizens.
*Before anyone jumps on my back, I think the Palestinians are certainly within their rights to try and change the situation back to a Palestinian state, by fighting if necessary - just as the Israelis were to fight and re-establish their state. Of course, like I said, if they choose to fight, they have to deal with the consequences - in Hamas' case, that meant the December War.
The price of *ending* occupation
I agree with Walt that alliance with Turkey is a great asset to the US and to Israel.
However, it requires tortured logic to make the leap that a) Israel pursuing a "Greater Israel" has caused b) Turkey to cancel military exercises because they are exercised about Operation Cast Lead. It's not even clear why this post needs to be framed this way. It's sloppy, the contradiction is obvious, and the point could have been made better without it.
Operation Cast Lead came about as a result of Israel leaving Gaza. It is very likely that if they stayed, it wouldn't have been necessary. And nothing like this (cancelled military exercises) is happening because of events in the still occupied West Bank. It is happening because of events in the unoccupied territories.
The exact same can be said of the territory from which Israel withdrew in Lebanon.
Good point
I'm no fan of Israel's stupidity, but the NYT article referenced above makes shuady claims, at best.
Unless some senior level Turkish official makes a comment ON THE RECORD stating, without equivocation, that the exclusion of Israel's airforce is a direct result of Turkey's objection to Israel's handling of Gaza, it's probably prudent to err on the side of 'technical disagreements' and not call into question a strategic partnership that has endured through much bigger crises for decades.
You misunderstand me. I am
You misunderstand me. I am not claiming that Gaza didn't play a part in this. IMO it must have to some extent, lesser or greater.
What I was pointing out is the silliness of Walt trying to use this event as a springboard to rail against the occupation. EVEN IF you accept the premise that the exercise was cancelled because of Operation Cast Lead, the fact still remains that Operation Cast Lead came about because Israel ended an occupation.
It is the exact opposite of what Walt is trying to say. But he would NEVER concede the danger that Israel faces when it gives away territory, or the repercussions that come about because of it. The cancelled military exercises and downgraded relations with Arab countries are the least of it. It also turns the opinion of the US public against Israel, turns European governments more stridently anti-Israel, and allows Israel's enemies to exploit international "lawfare" (see: Goldstone) to open up new fronts against Israel. When Netanyanu says they will not be able to take more risks for peace if Goldstone progresses, he is thinking about this whole dynamic, of which Goldstone is only one part.
Just so you are clear that
Just so you are clear that the cause of this is due to the turkish governments response to the feelings of its people about Gaza, let me provide a posrtion of this Rueters story;
ISTANBUL, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Turkey barred Israel from participating in a NATO war exercise this week because of its public's concerns over Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip this year, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said.
"There are diplomatic sensitivities in the region which we had to take into consideration... and we took into consideration the conscience of our people ... because our people did not want Israel's participation," he told Al Arabiya television.
Turkey, a secular state with a Muslim population, has been a key ally of Israel, but relations have cooled over Erdogan's outspoken criticism of Israel's three-week offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in December and January."
So, happy to be of help to clear that one up!
Furthermore, since the PM said that he is responding to the people feelings on this, I would put it to you that what they are ABSOLUTLELY shooting for is and end to all settlements and occupation, because their solidarity with the palestinians does not stop at the borders of Gaza.
But, Please don't take my word for it.
"This crisis began with the operation in Gaza and the collapse of (Israel's) talks with Syria, and it has been ongoing since then. Relations are simply frozen," said Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Ankara and one of the Israeli team that formulated the 1993 Oslo Accords between the Israelis and Palestinians."
Later in the same Article, he says;
"in terms of renewing ties between Israel and Turkey, only one thing will satisfy the Turks and that is Israel's return to peace talks with the Palestinians, he said."
So, happy to clear that all up for you.
It IS the entire palestinian situation, including all settlements and occupation, that are on the table with the turkish people here, and their government is simply following the wishes of the people.
I assume the words of the Turkish PM himself and Mr. Liel's views are sufficient to convincingly bolster Professors Walt's obviously correct stance, unless you have some juicy (and dubious) tidbits to slander their credibility with as well.
Reading comprehension is a
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
David in DC, in post immediately previous:
However, that said, I would not necessarily take the words of a populist politician at face value. My opinion is based on the fact that the souring of the relationship (at least, the public aspect of it) seemed to coincide with Operation Cast Lead.
David in DC, No comprehension
David in DC,
No comprehension problems here. The person who replied to you was very confused, and you were only somewhat confused, as you still claimed this was related to some "greater or lesser" extent with cast lead, and had also implied in your earlier post that it had little or nothing to do with the rest of the occupied territories. You also spent a lot of time castigating Walt for making this obviously true connection.
Therefore, I made it clear to both of you that a) the PM had CLEARLY stated his position. He in fact has been SCREAMING in disgust at Israel about for quite some time starting at Davos, and b) according a former Israeli diplomat, the problem is ALL ABOUT the over all occupation and settlements, and, as the quote I chose clearly states, will not end until the Israelis make peace (ie, get rid of all settlements and the occupation)
Your original post is really quite funny. You CAN"T deny that this is related to Gaza, but you would have the rest of us believe that the Turkish people and their government are REALLY ANGRY about Gaza, but somehow perfectly fine with the rest of the brutal treatment of the palestinians at the handsof the occupation and the fanatical and racist settlers.
So here is Mr' Liel's quote again, just so that YOU can fully comprehend my rather clear reply above;
"in terms of renewing ties between Israel and Turkey, only one thing will satisfy the Turks and that is Israel's return to peace talks with the Palestinians, he said."
See how that clearly states that, as Professor Walt implies,
This is really about the entire conflict and NOT just Gaza?
...but you would have the
"Perfectly fine with" is you putting words in my mouth.
My comment was with regard to relations between the countries. Clearly the occupation didn't impact relations all that much, because the relationship was fine and had improved, even while "the rest of the brutal treatment of the palestinians at the handsof the occupation" was going on. This after decades of the occupation. It was the Gaza event that marked the start of downgrading of relations.
I also strongly believe that the arms shipments played a role in the decision to cancel the exercise. Walt pooh-poohs the idea, but quite obviously it was discussed. The military guy who said it didn't make it up out of whole cloth, and the military was clearly involved in the decision making process.
Interestingly, when I click through to the article Walt linked, it doesn't say what he said it did. But it does say this:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121000.html
Dave, THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE
Dave,
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE after the quote you selected annihilates all of you claims. This is, as Walt suggests, a case of the Gaza straw that broke the camels back.
Your selective reading and quoting of just about every article that you have ever referred to here is STUNNINGLY uniform in its obfuscation of the actual point of the article.
"Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Tuesday repeated Ankara's position that it had not singled out Israel as a political punishment but had decided to call off the international stage of the military exercises, which would have also included the United States, Italy and NATO.
But he told reporters in Aleppo: "Our sensitivity on Gaza, East Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa mosque are there. If these sensitivities are taken into consideration the peace process would resume in the region.""
We were talking about why the
We were talking about why the exercise was cancelled.
The Turkish FM made a very specific statement about the causes of that, saying it was not political.
Then he made a general statement about Turkey's "sensitivities".
Perhaps you and Walt want to read into that (I think you would be justified, I would), but you don't get to take the FM literally at his word when it suits you (as Walt did in his reply below) but try to read between the lines when it doesn't.
Presumptions
I was simply stating that your point was well made. The specific comment was...
"Turkey's objection to Israel's HANDLING of Gaza..."
I never stated that I didn't understand your point about Hamas' rocketeering being caused by a lack of Israel's presence, not because of it.
As for the 'Balanced View' - you're right. The statement and facts you quote from Erdogan DO seem to be the very statements I was referring to.
Apparently this story is a lot more interesting than at first glance.
Thanks!
Well, once again Professor
Well, once again Professor Walt shows his lack of research skills. Doing a follow up news search is always a good idea.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121022.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108674§ionid=351020204
I don't expect a retraction.
Zaman reference
In case anyone wanted to read the Zaman article to corroborate Dave's citation:
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-189838-delay-in-delivery-of-herons-behind-drill-crisis-not-politics.html
Why retract? I cited the
Why retract? I cited the same article in my original post. And why should this one article quoting an anonymous Air Force official should take precedence over the Turkish Foreign Minister's explicit and on-the-record statement that concerns about Gaza were behind Turkey's decision?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/11/turkey.israel.nato.drill/index.html
Thank You Dr. Walt
Thank you Dr. Walt for bringing some logic and common-sense to the argument. It appears that a whole host of people on your blog are in denial, making excuses for Israel's behavior as if the Jewish state is clean in all aspects of the conflict. This is even more interesting when one considers the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. And, thanks to extensive work done by academics, policymakers, and analysts, the evidence is quite clear: Israel frequently sabotages the peace process through an indiscriminate use of force.
I severely doubt that a delay in arms-shipment deliveries would prompt such a harsh response by a "key" Israeli ally. Arms shipments deal with the issue of commerce, and there is no reason to believe that Turkish officials would carry deliberately blow-up a trade spat that is relatively minor. Certainly, carrying this hostility towards the country's foreign-policy seems rather rash and inconceivable.
Perhaps the Air Force official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he knew his statement would be lambasted by Turkey's official position. After all, as a major Muslim power, it is not necessarily a controversial decision to oppose Israel's military action against the Palestinian population.
On another note, would the international community- especially the United States- accept the arms-shipment argument as a legitimate Turkish excuse to terminate joint-military exercises with Israel? Or would Washington be better persuaded by a reason that is actually rational (such as the Gaza Strip justification)? Chances are the latter would be a more thoughtful justification.
Any person with a right mind can sift through the political B.S. and discover the true origins of the cancellation; this is Turkey's way of protesting Israel's military campaign last December and January. Blaming a common trade-dispute for such a graphic development is downright naive...even for the staunchest Israeli puppet.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
And why should this one
This is because...foreign ministries always tell the truth, right?
This has always been a problem with your work on this topic, Walt - you uncritically accept statements that support your worldview and with a wave of your hand dismiss those that don't. It is the reason your book got panned by allies and enemies of Israel alike.
I also point out that you choose to address the low hanging fruit here (I tend to believe that Gaza did play some part, just not necessarily on their FM's say-so), but ignore the criticisms of the less defensible portions of your post.
For instance, you use this incident as an rationale to make yet one more post decrying the occupation, but on examination it just doesn't hold up. One can logically make the case that the cause of this is an overreaction by Israel in response to the rockets launched by Hamas, but clearly this came about as a result of Israel trying to end an occupation, not continue it.
If Hamas hadn't started with the rockets (and, it is important to note, the rockets preceded the blockade and, as a matter of fact, any action against Gaza by Israel) there would be a lot more internal pressure on Israel to cede additional territory. As it is, the Israelis see what happens when they give territory over to the Palestinians and are less supportive of ceding territory. They understand what you do not.
you really got walt there.
you really got walt there. because a senior air force official trumps the Foreign Minster any day of the week. Boo ya foreign ministry, no one cares about your opinion, because it speaks for the government; we got the airforce, which speaks for the airforce. Im sure Peppy le pew has something to say about this, and he speaks for all the cartoon characters.
'What's that Peppy Dave123 is logically challenged. No peppy i think he is a very nice and thoughtful man, but im Just speaking for myself, and you are speaking for all cartoon characters.' i wonder who he will listen to?
Dave123, I think you have to
Dave123, I think you have to separate a diplomatic ‘excuse’ from a diplomatic ‘reason’. Turkey, may have wanted to send a message to Israel and found the UAV issue a convenient way to express its displeasure. States in their relations with one another often relay two messages on a single issue, one to the public (late UAV deliveries) and one to the other state (the Gaza offensive).
1. You have absolutely no
1. You have absolutely no evidence for that.
2. If Israel Turkey relations are strained it is because of the Islamist government being elected in Turkey. How can it be the "occupation" or "the settlements" when those have existed for 30 years? Turkey had a great relationship with Israel for decades until the Islamists were elected.
3. As a previous poster stated.he Gaza war was the result of Israel ending the occupation of Gaza again showing that Hamas not the "occupation" or the "settlements" is the real obstacle to peace.
This is true I don’t have any
This is true I don’t have any hard evidence to support such assertion, merely an understanding how states have historically communicated differences of opinion when they still prefer to maintain normal diplomatic relations.
Should Israel Continue to Sell Arms to Turkey?
Regardless of whether the delay in the delivery of Israeli arms shipments to Turkey was the proximate cause of the cancellation of the military exercises or not; the delay in the delivery is interesting in and of itself.
It raises the question of whether Israel should continue to sell armaments to a Muslim-majority nation that is becoming increasingly focused on religion and increasingly belligerent to Israel.
If the Europeans don't think the Turks can be trusted to join the European Union, exactly how wise is it for Israel to be shipping them sophisticated weaponry?
Turkey does have the second largest military in NATO after the United States, but as many have pointed out, NATO is little more than a relic of the Cold War and Turkey's admission into NATO was motivated by a desire to keep it out of the Soviet sphere.
Turkey is not immune from the pathologies currently afflicting the entire Muslim world although so far at least, those pathologies are somewhat more in check in Turkey than in other majority Muslim nations.
The idea that Turkey could become another Iran while remote is not completely far fetched. Israel needs to reflect on whether Erdogan and Gul can be trusted with sophisticated weaponry. After all, the idea that the Turkish military doesn't take orders from the civilian government no longer appears to be true.
The other thing Israel should continue to do is ramp up its already considerable military and economic cooperation with the Iraqi Kurds. It is widely known that the Mossad and the Peshmerga work closely together although Israel has kept this cooperation somewhat quiet out of respect for Turkish sentiments.
Perhaps the time has come for Israel to expand its relationship with the Iraqi Kurds and make this increasingly important relationship much more public.
In addition, it might be wise for American supporters of Israel to start aggressively promoting the Kurdish cause or even the creation of an independent Kurdistan.
In the newspaper today, both the Syrians and Turks have mentioned the upcoming joint military exercises they are planning to hold; it seems to me that two can easily play at that game.
Enhanced cooperation with the Kurds might be the perfect Israeli response.
BAD idea
Obviously early on as a result of the chaos resulting from Saddam's fall it may have been possible to get away with arming the Peshmerga. But all they'd do with the Israeli arms and money is pass it on to the PKK.
If there's one group of people in the Middle East that's more closely monitored and oppressed by all players alike, it's the Kurds.
They ARE the red-headed step-child of the Middle East. And we all know what happens to the red-headed step-child when it gets too out-of-line.
Are you trying to get those poor bastards slaughtered? They've suffered enough!
Peace comes from intersections
Netanyahu guesses wrong that the only relevant intersection between Israel and Turkey or Saudi Arabia for example, are common responses to incremental military threats from Iran. (Even if they would only use it in provoked retaliations, not "first strike").
Somehow constructing peace on the basis of mutual humanization, and mutually healthy states, is not on his palette.
Its a tragedy, an opportunity to firm up international recognition of Israel, thereby making Zionism permanent.
Turkey doesn't fit the Realist mold...
...if it has started to sacrifice its own interests and alliances for the sake of foreign populations.
Either Turkey's leaders are terrible strategists, or the statements of the Chief of General Staff are what they are. Namely that kicking Israel out of the joint exercises are just a prelude to show how serious they are about a wider military sanctions regime if Israel doesn't pony up the UAVs according to the agreed upon delivery schedule.
"Israel's defenders often
"Israel's defenders often claim that it is a major strategic asset for the United States..."
Exactly. I have never heard the answer to this question:
"What has Israel done for the U.S., lately?"
(Fighting the terrorism created in large part because of our support of Israel does not count as a valid answer, for obvious reasons.)
What is the "special relationship"?
I mean I understand how it benefits Israel's right-wing polity, but what does it do for the US? What?
Prime Minister's words
I am a Turkish speaker and here is what Prime Minister Erdogan said (the link to the Turkish national newspaper is below):
"We listened to the public; we voiced the conscience of our nation. The public did not want Israel to participate and that is why we postponed the international component of the military exercise".
http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetay&ArticleID=959197&Date=15.10.2009&CategoryID=78
to clarify
In case it was not clear from the short quotation above Erdogan clearly meant that the Turkish public was upset about Israel's attacks against Gaza and that is the reason for the postponement. He says that the public opinion is also why he had that rift with Peres in Davos. The article does not mention any delayed arms shipments.
Give it a rest already
I can't speak for the Professor, but I'm sure he has moments where he's frustrated by the bickering about 'the dwindling moral case' and the weak case for Israel's 'strategic' importance to the US.
Getting elected to public office is strategic case enough. Keeping your seat is THE imperative in politics.
If your constituency is comprised of a small but extremely vocal, active and resourceful minority, you do what comes naturally. Even if the majority has a bad view of Israel's aggression, they tend to compromise that stance in favor of concerns that are higher up on their list of voting issues.
If you want the answer to why stupid American decision-makers can't see the light on Israel, just look at their campaign donor lists.
Then considering opening your wallet and donating on the sole issue of their stance on Israel.
Your question will be answered.
Occupation is the direct result of Arab aggression
Walt writes "...because Israel...refuses to allow the Palestinians to have a state." Once again Walt has no use for facts as they would just get in the way.
It wasn't Israel that rejected a Palestinian state in 1948, Israel accepted it!
It wasn't Israel That walked away from Camp David and Taba and chose a strategy of violence, aka 2nd intifada.
The occupation is the direct result of Arab aggression and hostility. The occupation will end when the hostility and aggression end.
The pertinent UN resolution 242 is land for peace. No peace no land!
Not Netanyahu or any other politician can stop a peace agreement if it is serious. So far the Palestinians have not been serious. Just last week I saw Saeb Erekat explicitly reject acceptance of Israel on PA TV, the same as Abbas did some 6 months prior....so don't f*^$ing tell me Israel is the problem.
One-sided argument
Your right, it was not Israel that walked away from the Camp David Accords...it was the Palestinian leadership thanks to an Israeli refusal to compromise on the key issues of the conflict.
Like any negotiation, if one party is given a choice between two terrible alternatives, walking away in a sign of protest is often the best outcome possible. This is exactly what happened to the Palestinians during the Camp David Summit during the Clinton years, as well as the Oslo process nine years earlier. In that situation, refusing to accept the terms of a one-sided agreement seems pretty logical.
And of course the Palestinians would reject the 1948 solution for a state. Why wouldn't the Palestinians do this? You have to understand what the 1948 agreement entailed; the establishment of Israel at the expense of Palestinian territory. Wouldn't you do the same? The move is quite similar to a man who is pressured into accepting development on the land he owns.
In 1948, as in the 1970's and 1990's, the peace process has been severely one-sided. With help from the United States (although this may change under President Obama), Israel has been able to negotiate on its own terms, regardless of Palestinian grievances and concerns.
As far as Abbas unwilling to negotiate with the Israelis, this is a completely falsified statement. Why did he reject direct talks? BECAUSE ISRAEL IS CONTINUING TO BUILD SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK THAT ARE DEEMED ILLEGAL BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. Sure, the Palestinian leadership is part of the problem (as his Hamas in the Gaza Strip). But the Israelis have not been angels either.
How is this Arab aggression?
http://depetris.wordpress.com
The Price of occupation
I agree with Professor Walt assessment of the current situation in the ME. It seems to me that Turkey is the only European/ME country that can stand up to Israel hegemonic ambition. The Israelis should pay attention to Turkey's position in regard to their action in the ME especially after the senseless campaign of last December against Gaza. Policy makers in Israel should do their utmost effort to avoid friction between Israel and Turkey. If Israel lost Turkey as a valuable ally in the region, all bets are off. The survival of Israel as a Jewish state will be in jeopardy. The Israeli intransigence causes a rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, which is detrimental to Israel. I may be wrong it seems to me that there is a consensus between the great powers to let Israel go.
"Israel's defenders often
"Israel's defenders often claim that it is a major strategic asset for the United States..."
What has Israel done for the U.S., such that we send Israel 13.6 million dollars every DAY?
So Turkey's leaders are
So Turkey's leaders are representing their voters?
Great.
Would that the motherf*'s in DC also listen to their voters instead of the 1% of US population who are rightwing militant zionists with $$$$$$$$$$$$ who buy influence.
Um, Israel withdrew from Gaza
Israel does not "occupy" Gaza.
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza.
In return, the Palestinians did not make use of the buildings and greenhouses and schools Israel left behind. Instead they burned them down.
And then they proceeded to launch thousands of rockets into impoverished Israeli border towns, hitting playgrounds, schools and homes.
I know. I was in Sederot when a missile hit.
Sorry, no other country in the world would allow its women and children to be hit with missiles day after day, week after week.
But apparently that what we Jews are supposed to do. Be attacked and take it. Any self defense on our part are termed war crimes.
Lets face it, the world only sympathizes with Jews when we are being gassed by the millions.
Well, since the war against Hamas there have been almost no rocket attacks from Gaza.
Professor Walt, why don't you ask the mothers in Sederot and Askelon whether they prefer better relations with Turkey or letting their kids go to the playground without fear of being hit by a Qassam rocket.
Yes, your right. So, what
Yes, your right. So, what would you say if during the period in question, that Israel had shot more than 14,000 mortars into Gaza, each of which is dramatically more accurate and destructive, and killed HUNDREDS (mostly civilians) BEFORE cast lead? What would you say if they send assassination squads into gaza with similarly high civilian casualty rates?
What would you say if I told you that while ding this, Israel still controls almost all aspects of life in Gaza through the seige that they have been running since they pulled out?
Who indeed would tolerate such behavior?