Diplomatic tension sign of major shift in Turkish-Israeli relations

The long-time allies in the Middle East have been at odds far more often in the last 15 months than any other time since the Jewish state’s declaration of independence in 1948. The exchange of strongly worded statements between the countries’ leaders has almost become the medium of diplomacy since Israel’s 22-day Gaza onslaught started on Dec. 27, 2008.

Turkey was the first to react against Israel for the atrocities committed during Operation Cast Lead, and in return, it received accusations from Israel that it has been trying to boost relations with the Muslim world at the expense of ties with Israel.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s walkout from a panel discussion at last year’s World Economic Forum in Davos shortly after accusing Israeli President Shimon Peres of knowing “well how to kill” is still fresh in people’s memories. Israel’s war crimes during the offensive were long talked about by Muslims and were confirmed by the UN’s Goldstone report, which was released on Sept. 15 last year. According to the Palestine Center for Human Rights, Israel’s reckless 22-day operation left 1,434 dead and 5,303 others injured. Some 960 of the dead were civilians, and more than 400 of them were women and children.

Erdoğan shows no sign of softening his widely lauded stance against Israel’s endeavors in warfare, either. Speaking to reporters in Paris on Wednesday, he said that if the country exercises disproportionate force and wields phosphorus bombs in Gaza, then Turkey cannot say “bravo” to them and will call them to account. “The main threat to regional peace is Israel,” Erdoğan added. Ankara says Turkey’s criticism will continue if Israel does not cease activities that damage peace in the region.

Israel’s hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on the other hand, accused Erdoğan of damaging decades of “excellent” ties and “slowly turning into [Muammar] Gaddafi or Hugo Chavez,” a reference to the leaders of Libya and Venezuela, respectively. Erdoğan’s response was dismissive. He found it sufficient to say, “That guy is not my interlocutor.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry also dismissed Lieberman’s statements as “inappropriate and impertinent remarks which bear no truth” and called on Israel to “trade its meaningless and unacceptable attitude for common sense.” Turkish analysts described Lieberman’s remarks as unreasonable.

Fundamental differences between Israel, Turkey on stage

Speaking to Sunday’s Zaman, experts described the tension between the countries not as temporary frays but as signs of a major change in the course of their bilateral relations. “Those occurrences happened because of the differences in these two states’ priorities over regional issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iran’s nuclear program. To be honest, I am very pessimistic about the future of relations between the two,” said Professor Özlem Tür of Ankara’s Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ). “There was bickering in the past, too, but we never expected any change in the states’ policies toward each other in general” she said, adding that she believed Israel will probably use any chance to attack Iran, which would further exacerbate Turkish-Israeli tension. Turkey, a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council, thus lacking veto power, does not approve of sanctions being imposed on Iran, let alone an attack.

Professor Serhat Erkmen, who is affiliated with the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM), sees fundamental differences between Turkey and Israel with regard to their approaches to some issues in the region. “For certain policies, there are structural differences between the two, unlike their mode of relations in the past” he said. Professor Türel Yılmaz from Gazi University in Ankara agrees with Tür that the diplomatic uproar that has gone on for over a year is different from previous incidents. “I simply glossed over them in the past because Turkish-Israeli relations had their own ups and downs back then, too.” She dismissed Lieberman’s claims that Turkey is taking steps with the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “Turkey is simply following a multidimensional foreign policy pursuing its interests. That’s all,” she concluded.

What’s more is that public opinion in Turkey does not consider the country’s ties with Israel important, either. Some 58 percent of respondents in a recent survey conducted in 31 Turkish provinces by the MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center said they did not attach importance to Turkish-Israeli relations remaining at the level of close allies. More interesting is the fact that the supporters of all the opposition parties, be they left-wing, right-wing or pro-Kurdish, are even less inclined to see Israel as an important ally than those who voted for Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in the last local elections, held in 2009.

Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu exacerbates the tension

Another point experts agree on is the adverse impact of Lieberman’s far-right Yisrael Beiteinu on bilateral relations.

“The main problem here is the fact that Israel sees every bilateral matter as intrinsic to the issue of survival and national security. In that sense, Israel’s foreign policy cannot be considered similar to that of any other state. Lieberman’s party is certainly exacerbating that,” Professor Hür said. Türel noted that Israel was alone in the region and “based its entire strategy on national security.” Erkmen drew attention to the same issue as well. “We should not forget that Israel has had recent problems not only with Turkey but also with the US. The role of the hawkish wing of the Israeli government needs to be underlined here,” he said. Israel-US relations suffered heavily over the former’s recent decision to construct new settlements in East Jerusalem, announced last month while US Vice President Joe Biden was on a visit to the country to push for peace talks between Israel and Palestine.