President Barack Obama, left, listens to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu during their visit to the Children's Memorial at the Yad
Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, Friday, March 22, 2013
(Photo: AP)
Amid increased regional fluidity, Israel yearns to reestablish
Turkish support in regional affairs; hence the rationale beyond its apology for
the Mavi Marmara incident
Bassem Aly , Sunday 28 Apr 2013
Last month, Israel
finally presented a formal apology for the attack on the Mavi Marmara aid ship
to Gaza that
left nine Turkish activists dead in 2010.
The timing of the step raises questions, especially that Israel had
incessantly repeated its refusal to apologise.
Three days ago, Ankara and Tel Aviv started
talks on compensation for the families of victims, which reflects Israel's keenness on ending the three-year
diplomatic spat with Turkey
and paving the way to cooperation in other regional matters.
Washington’s
active diplomacy
Israel and Turkey had long
been close regional, military and economic partners. The break in their
relations, thus, constituted a shock to other parters, particularly the United States.
In March, US
President Barack Obama succeeded in sponsoring the vital phone conversation
conducted between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Turkish
counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Obama’s efforts came amid his Middle East tour that encompassed Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority
in Ramallah, four months after his re-election for a second term.
“While it is clear that there was pressure placed on Netanyahu, it had
seemed for sometime that the Israeli government was going to apologise,” Louis
Fisherman, a Turkey-based analyst and assistant professor in the Department of
History at Brooklyn College,
New York, told Ahram Online.
“With Foreign Minister [Avigdor] Lieberman resigning, and placing his
position on hold in the new government, Netanyahu was able to move forward with
the apology.”
The United States urged
the two sides earlier this month to improve coordination and contain the
spillover from the Syrian civil war and face the challenge of Iran’s nuclear
programme, Reuters reported.
“Influential Israeli politicians had reached a conclusion that it was in Israel's vital interests to make up with Turkey. This
point was recognised by Turkey
also, therefore there was no reason for them to relinquish their demand,"
Fisherman concluded.
Comes the Iranian factor
Israel seeks to use a
Turkish airbase for military drills in the midst of a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear sites, Israel’s The Jerusalem Post
revealed in a report published 21 April.
The report, denied by Turkey, pointed out that Israeli officials will offer
to sell Turkey “advanced missile and surveillance technology” in exchange for
reviving the 1996 agreement between them that allowed Israel to train in
Turkish airspace and use the Akinci airbase.
“Among the advanced systems [National Security Adviser Yaakov] Amidror will
offer the Turks are the Arrow anti-ballistic missiles defence system, a visual
intelligence system developed by Israeli defence company Elop that can create a
precise image at a range of 60 miles during day or night and under any weather
condition, and an advanced electronic warfare system made by Elta," the
report noted.
“I doubt that it is true,” Aaron Stein, manager of the non-proliferation
programme at the Istanbul-based Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy
Studies, said.
Stein believes that Ankara, despite its tense
ties with the Islamic Republic, is opposed to outside military intervention in Iran due to
concerns on its own national security. It aims to maintain diplomacy as the
main tool in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue.
NATO deployed Patriot missiles in January to “protect against spillover”
from the civil war in neighbouring Syria. But Syria's allies, mainly Iran and Russia, opposed the deployment,
fearing that it could spark regional conflict.
Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the non-proliferation and disarmament
programme at London’s International Institute
for Strategic Studies (IISS) said that Turkey's
relations with Iran have
steadily worsened, mostly because of differences over Syria.
“Disagreements also were raised because of other issues, such as Turkey's introduction of anti-missile radar, Iran's hard line in nuclear negotiations, and
issues concerning Iraq.
Israel and Turkey are thus increasingly on the same side
vis-à-vis Iran,”
Fitzpatrick argued.
However, Borzou Daragahi, The Financial Times’ Middle East
correspondent, claimed that Turkey would not welcome participating in any
Israeli or US war against Iran, which Ankara is “very suspicious” of, in part
due to its “regional ambitions.”
“Despite its mistrust of the Iranian regime, Turkey is also wary of any more
instability on its borders. It has already suffered the consequences of wars in
Iraq, Syria and the Caucasus,"
Daragahi asserted.
Gaza
involved?
With no clear or declared cause, US Secretary of State John Kerry
asked Erdogan to delay a visit to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip scheduled for next
month.
According to AFP, Kerry told reporters in Istanbul that it would be better to delay.
"We thought the timing is really critical," Kerry added, without
further elaboration.
Erdogan, arguably a supporter of the Palestinian cause, announced last week
that he would visit the Palestinian Strip after his visit to Washington 16 May to assist the process
of ending the Israeli embargo.
Hamas accused Kerry, along with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (as both
met in Istanbul this month), of “collusion in a
bid to maintain the Israeli blockade on Gaza."
Fitzpatrick believes Iran
will be pleased if Erdogan disregards the request of Kerry.
Israel formalised its
blockade on Gaza
in 2006 after Hamas won legislative elections against Fatah. It was extended
following the Hamas takeover of Gaza
in 2007.
The blockade, lessened to an extent by the international outcry over the
killing of the Turkish activists, has never been completely abandoned.
“The Gaza visit is a minor issue, but in
accordance with a zero-sum game mentality, Iran
sees an embarrassment for Israel
as a gain for itself," Fitzpatrick mentioned.


No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker