Turkey: Manoeuvring Against Israel Over Palestine

Last Friday, Istanbul hosted the International Conference on Palestinian Solidarity. Amongst those present were the International Union for Muslim Scholars run by Yusuf Al-Kardavi, many members of Parliament and the Turkish Assembly, and the Palestine Friendship Group.

Journalists who focused on the separate seating of men and women at the meeting missed these important developments:

One of the MPs of the ruling Justice and Development Party, Zeyid Arslan, who is also the Chairman of the TBMM-Palestine Friendship Group, said, ‘As long as Hamas, which came to power through its people, is not seen as the representative of its people but as a terrorist group, solution of the Palestinian question is impossible.’ Indeed, he went further and accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians: “Everyone who is silent over Israel’s committing genocide is going to pay the price before history.”

So three years after the leader of the JDP, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met Hamas political director, Khalied Meshaal, this is important because after Erdogan-Mashal meeting in 2006 and four months after Erdogan’s walk-out on Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos summit, the Justice and Development Party is still standing against Israel's line on Palestine and Hamas..

Other political leaders joined in. Yusuf Al-Kardavi called on Muslims to boycott American and Israeli goods. Raid Salah, head of the Islamic Movement, said: “We are going to maintain our struggle until we form the Palestinian state and declare Jerusalem as its capital.” Emanuel Musellem, head of the Catholic Church in Palestine, joined via teleconference to blame Israel for pressing of Muslims and Christians into a "Jewish" existence.

Thus, the political dance --- hastened by Israel's invasion --- continues. Is Turkey, led by Erdogan, prepared to step away from Israel or, given its long-term strategic links, will it continue to discreetly hold Tel Aviv's hand?

May Plan C on the Israeli-Arab Peace Process Work?

My colleague Scott Lucas wondered for weeks whether the Obama Administration has a Plan A for the Middle East before, last Friday, he finally wrote of an American "grand design".

With respect, I differ. The President and his advisors not only have a Plan A. They are ready with a Plan B and a Plan C.

Obama put Plan A for a two-state Israel-Palestine outcome and general Arab-Islamic agreements to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israelis made clear, and let the press know they had made clear, that this was not acceptable. So Plan B is working groups with the Israelis while encouraging regional leaders, such as Jordan's King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to maintain the call for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Then there is Plan C. The Associated Press reported last week that the Obama Administration may set a deadline of the end of 2009 on talks with Iran if they are not producing result.

The immediate reading was that Washington might be siding with Tel Aviv on the need for an eventual showdown with Iran. The reality could be more nuanced: the Obama Administration may use Tehran’s uncompromising position to pull Arabs and Israelis together for a regional process including Israel-Palestine.

Although some claim that this Plan C will never work, since Arabs and Israelis have different fears with regards to Iran’s policies, others argue that it is the best path. "The administration has to find the best path," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Is this the best path? Given the opportunities, yes. They may not produce success but they offer the best alternative available."

The key to full Arab participation may be Syria, which has recently been in talks with Iran on a possible common approach. Here George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy and a legendary negotiator, comes into play. Washington's ploy may be for Mitchell talks in Damascus to open the doors both to a diminishing of Iran’s influence and Israeli-Syrian talks.

Because Israel wants to see the Iranian threat "dealt with" before any peace deals with the Arabs, this subtle move by the Obama Administration could bring success. Instead of Israel’s insistence on clearing Tehran's nuclear facilities, Washington can change the context of the Tehran issue by adding the more political yet still forthright policies of Arab states into a broad-based coalition against Tehran. This approach may be enough to allay Tel Aviv’s concerns.

Shifting Alliances: The Israel-Turkey-Syria Triangle

Two weeks ago, Turkey and Syria held, for the first time in history, joint military drills. The exercises were a clear sign of the increasingly close ties between the two states as they co-operate on wider agendas.  At the same time, they raise the question: what happens to other relationship, notably the long-standing ties between Ankara and Tel Aviv?

When Turkey felt isolated by its neighbors in 1995, the first door it knocked on was Israel's. The Turks had one eye on recent manoeuvres by Greece: the Greco-Syrian military training agreement in 1995 followed a similar arrangement between Israel and Greece in December 1994. On the economic front, the volume of trade between Israel and Greece reached $350 million, double that of 1989. Meanwhile, Syria was causing problems with the border dispute over Hatay, arguments over water, and Hafez al Assad's support to the PKK, the Kurdish "terrorist" organization.

Turkey's nightmare was wider cooperation between Syria and Israel, meaning that Tel Aviv would be tied to long-standing rivals both in Damascus and in Athens. So Ankara countered with a full alignment with Israel. Military, economic and technological agreements were reached in 1996, and a trilateral operation in the Eastern Mediterranean by Israel, Turkey and the US was conducted in January 1998.

More than a decade later, it is Tel Aviv which is concerned about "isolation" as other countries establish alliances. Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the Turkish-Syrian exercise "a worrisome situation" and the Israeli press featured the issue after the head of the Turkish military, Ilker Basbug said Turkey was not interested in Israel's reaction. The Jerusalem Post tried to limit the exercise's significance, with the claim of Professor Efraim Inbar that he had spoken to Turkish army officers: "The Turkish military does not like Syria, and views it as a problematic state." The newspaper also highlighted tensions between the army and Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party.

The Israeli criticisms are evidence that the fallout from the rhetorical war between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israel's leaders has not dissipated. The revenge for Erdogan's attack on Israel at the Davos summit is the wearing down of his Justice and Development Party. Thus the hostility to the Turkish-Syrian exercises is in part a message to Turkey's military: keep your Prime Minister under control.

As for the regional politics, the Israeli response is another signal that  any peace will have to start with Israeli-Syrian talks rather than alignments beyond Tel Aviv. Yet the Israeli-Syrian discussions have been sidelined with the Netanyahu Government's focus on Iran, set against the US insistence on a two-state solution with Palestine.

So the Israeli media fills the political vacuum while trying to keep both Turkey and Syria off-balance. The question arises: is this also the aim of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, or are they also trying to figure out how to reconcile Israel's relationship with its immediate crises with its wider but now suspect "alliances" in the region?