On the CPAC thread, RJ responded to my pleas for less US-partisan-bickering with...

Ray Jay wrote:So here's something interesting from today's news: Obama brokered a smoothing over between Israel and Turkey. Netanyahu sort of apologized for the 2010 flotilla event, and Erdogan accepted. Turkey and Israel have now restored normal relations and not let that disagreement get in the way of both of their real politic interest.

What do you think Netanyahu got in exchange for offering the apology? Was it Obama's support vis-a-vis Iran, or simply Netanyahu offering goodwill over a relatively successful visit? Or perhaps this is really about events in Syria and the on the ground need for Israel and Turkey to coordinate for their mutual benefit.

I think it remains to be seen. A rapprochement between Israel and Turkey (who were pretty friendly until quite recently, and had far better relations than between Israel and any other Islamic nation) is a welcome thing for both nations.

I don't believe that Israel wants to be isolated in the region, and good relations with Turkey are valuable in themselves. Syria must be a real pressing concern to Israel, and we already know that Turkey has been dragged into it.

I am not minded to think it's about Iran, though. I get the impression Obama wants to try and reduce tension in the region, and if anything would be more likely to be asking Netanyahu to turn the rhetoric down a notch.

Iran has something to do with this no doubt but more likely it's Syria. Both have very real concerns about Syrian war spilling over into their borders and they have a common interest best served working closely together. Both being major allies of the US doesn't hurt and having Israel side with yet another NATO power is only in Israel's best interests as well. It simply makes good sense for these two get closer and common sense seems to have prevailed. Good job by Obama bringing them back together, they needed the push and he seems to have given it!?

I agree that it makes geopolitical sense for Turkey and Israel to have good relations, but I still think there's more here than meets the eye. Here's why.

I believe that the Israeli's operated appropriately during the 2010 incident. We don't have to relitigate that issue, but it's reasonable to assume that Netanyahu shares my view. If that's the case, then apologizing is a big deal. There are two wars going on between Israel and its neighbors. There's the geopolitical war, but there's also an ideological war. Israel's conflicts with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are about ideology and sympathies because they aren't about land. Israel and Iran are at war but they don't have any territorial conflicts. It's very weird.

The ideological conflict is not just among the players in the middle east (and their internal politics), but it's also taking place in other parts of the world: the U.S. (where Israel is winning), Europe (where Israel is losing) and elsewhere (India, etc.). In ideological conflicts right and wrong is very important. Israel has begrugingly indicated that it was sort of wrong. Turkey has not. I'm guessing that Israel got something from Obama for that. It could be about Syria, but the reality is that Israel is helping the U.S. (and Turkey and Jordan) as it relates to Syria by providing critical information. So, I'm guessing it is something else.

What did Turkey do wrong? While the Israeli state acted in the flotilla affair, the Turkish state did not - it was an enterprise undertaken by individual Turks, but that's not the same.

You know I disagree on the appropriateness of Israel's actions then, so I see an apology as pretty fair. They had the right to block the boats, but boarding them as they did was heavy handed (and also counter-productive in terms of the 'geopolitical war' you describe).

While Israel may be helping the US on Syria (and vice-versa), I suspect that Turkey and Israel were not working well together, and given that they are both direct neighbours who the Syrian regime is hostile to, while the US is a continent and an ocean away, it's of immediate and pertinent worth that they do make up.

Of course there are other possible outcomes, but I really doubt that the US (or anyone else) has changed policy over Iran as a result.

Yes, we disagree on the Israeli appropriateness, but let's just posit that it is more likely that Netanyahu shares my view. (The militants on the boats had fashioned arms and attacked the Israeli soldiers who had not choice but to defend themselves from mob attack.) By acceding to the Turkish view, Netanyahu gave something, and I have no doubt that he got something in return. That something may be as simple as Obama saying that the Palestinians should return to negotiations even though the Israelis have continued their settlement policy. Or it may be something more than that. I'm not suggesting a major change to Iran policy, but there may be incremental steps.

I just think these things are very carefully negotiated with quid pro quos along the way.

Well, Netanyahu may well agree with you, although he may also have had advice from within his state that suggests it wasn't a 100% fine thing to do.

Well, all negotiations are about trade of some kind. It could, however, be a negative rather than a positive thing. What if it was not 'getting' something so much as not losing something?

It is also complex, and while there are a lot of things going on there could be all kinds of 'trades'. Still, I suspect that Israel would welcome Turkish support regarding Syria on it's own, which would be more forthcoming now they have normalised relations.

Apologizing to Turkey is admission that Israel was wrong. If not in the act of intervention certainly in the bungled tactics That's a big deal. Especially for the hard line Israelis that are Netanyahu's base.

Both Turkey and Israel are dealing directly with the consequences of the Syrian conflict, and having a working relationship, akin to the cooperation that used to be in place between the two is very desirable.

If Obama had anything to do with this, its admirable. But I doubt he had to bribe the Israelis into the apology. You apologize to friends when you've wronged them. If you don't you don't have friends. They need friends in the region.

Obama entire trip was a reflection of a changed world. He went because he needed to demonstrate to Israel, and to the American Israelis lobby that the US positions as back stop hasn't changed. That he also clearly enunciated the nature of the inherently unjust occupation was important. And that he chided the Palestinians for allowing the Israelis to stop talks and therefore have an out to avoiding dealing with the settlement issue head on, Palestinian intransigence , was important.
Most importantly he demonstrated that he has learned the lessons of Iraq. There are limitations to power. The US does not control what happens in the Middle East. only influences. And that influence is not particularly strong compared to the country who truly controls the solution to Israel/Palestine.... And that is Israel.
Israel was also 100% in control of their relationship with Turkey.... If Obama gets credit for talking sense to Netanyahu ... fine. But not too much.
The question to ask, is, what took so long?

You know what? I didn't read much about this other than the headlines and RJ's post - I spent more time this past few days looking at stuff relating to the UK Budget.

But there are some aspects that I think should be borne in mind : source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma ... lla-deaths

1) Whatever RJ's opinion, or Netanyahu's, the apology was not for the blockade, or even for boarding the ship, but for mistakes made in the operation:

It [a statement from Netanyahu's office] added:"The prime minister made it clear that the tragic results regarding the Mavi Marmara were unintentional, and that Israel expresses regret over injuries and loss of life. In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors, Netanyahu apologised to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation."

As I had suggested, but this was mere guesswork on my part so I take no credit or kudos, the Israeli government itself investigated the incident and identified failings. So the apology is not Netanyahu coming around to Erdogan's view, it's him expressing the already established Israeli view.

2) This wasn't just about Israel making an apology (and paying compensation), it was about the Turkish President's reaction afterwards:

Reconciliation talks ran into trouble recently when Erdogan called Zionism a "crime against humanity" and compared it to fascism. But on Friday, a senior US official, briefing journalists on the flight from Tel Aviv to Amman, said brokering the deal become possible after Erdogan backtracked on those comments.

In an interview with a Danish paper this week, Erdogan did not retract his words but said they had been misinterpreted.

Netanyahu told Erdogan "he had seen his interview in a Danish newspaper and that he, Netanyahu, appreciated those comments", the US official said.

Perhaps what Obama did was not so much get Netanyahu to apologise in return for unspecified credit from the US, but got Erdogan to mollify his tone to allow Israel to apologise with some face.

Does Israel need to apologize for blockading it's sovereign waters, and boarding a vessel attempting to violate it's sovereignty? Yes, the PM should apologize for the mistakes in the boarding. Beyond that, Israel did nothing requiring an apology.

bbauska

Does Israel need to apologize for blockading it's sovereign waters, and boarding a vessel attempting to violate it's sovereignty? Yes, the PM should apologize for the mistakes in the boarding. Beyond that, Israel did nothing requiring an apology

Israel is not blockading its sovereign waters, and the vessel would not have violated israels sovereign waters...
And other than the Palmer report, international experts on International Law consider the blockade illegal.
Other than that, you're absolutely right.

bbauska wrote:Does Israel need to apologize for blockading it's sovereign waters, and boarding a vessel attempting to violate it's sovereignty? Yes, the PM should apologize for the mistakes in the boarding. Beyond that, Israel did nothing requiring an apology.

Is the shore off Gaza part of Israel's sovereign waters? Israel has always maintained that it does not claim Gaza as part of its territory and has no ambitions to take it over. Indeed, they pulled out of Gaza years ago.

Israel does indeed control the sea off Gaza, and the airspace above Gaza and the sea. But that is not recognised as being their 'sovereign' waters.

The legal justification for the blockade is not dependent on sovereignty. As it is legal, Israel did have the right to board the ship, but the means that were employed were excessive.

The Lindenstrauss report was very critical of Netanyahu's dealings on the preparations and strategy during the lead up to the events - Comptroller slams PM in flotilla report

It should have been anticipated (and indeed then-IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi did anticipate) that an attempt to board as they did would be met by resistance:

Over two weeks prior to the raid, Ashkenazi warned that a flotilla debacle won't be over quickly and advised Netanyahu to choose a course of action that would prevent the flotilla from embarking on its journey.

"I have no doubt that force will be used," he said. "The people will confront us. We would be deluded to think that if 20 people parachute onto a ship of 400 passengers, they will get applause. The (passengers) will fight."

It seems appropriate for Netanyahu to apologise for the mistakes, and that's what he did. What I'm not sure of is that it's all that big a deal that he did it, or what kind of thing he should expect 'in return' for admitting error.

It would have been a bigger deal, and far more productive, if the apologies had come immediately after the events, instead of grudgingly years later...

RickyP, I agree; an apology should have come more quickly.

At the time of the incident Danivon says the boarding was legal. Since we agree there, and that the means were excessive... I see no conflict.

Israel maintains sea control around Gaza, not the land. Again we agree...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/201332154848685422.html

Show me an apology...

bbauska - maintaining control of sea around an occupied territory is not the same as having 'sovereign waters'. I think that's where ricky and I were disagreeing with you.

Is your last post an admission that they were not defending their sovereign waters?

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters

No, it is not. Care to correct you position?

I do know a little about maritime borders...