Palmer Report, seizure of Gaza and Turkish Israeli diplomacy
by Abdullah al-Ahsan*

Earlier publication of the statement was delayed on Israel’s request. Whenever publication of any official enquiry report on such events is delayed, one will find suspicious manipulation. It contradicts earlier assertions by the world body.

Although the UN General Assembly and the Geneva-based Human Rights Council earlier acknowledged that the siege of Gaza was illegitimate, the Palmer Report found it justifiable. The report, however, recorded that Israel had used disproportionate force and recommended that it issue an “appropriate statement of regret” and pay compensation to victims of the massacre.

The authors of the report seem to have tried to balance between the two parties, but did they succeed? Hardly. Even before the report’s publication, Israel was issuing conflicting statements, sometimes saying that, although it would not officially apologize to Turkey, it would express regret for the act and compensate the victims’ families, while other times rejecting all responsibility. On the other hand, Turkey has consistently demanded an official apology and compensation for victims.

After the publication of the report, Turkey not only rejected the Palmer Report’s stance on the legitimacy of the Gaza siege, it decided to take the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), suspend all military agreements and downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reportedly stated: “Israel has always acted like a spoiled child in the face of all UN decisions that concern it. It assumed that it could continue to act like a spoiled child and will get away with it.”

Threatening military aid to PKK

Israel, on the other hand, welcomed the report, calling it “a professional, serious and comprehensive document.” But it has found the Turkish response problematic. A top Israeli diplomat, Avigdor Lieberman, has threatened to provide military aid to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). He also expressed his interest in harming Turkish interests in the US through its lobby groups. As a result, the two countries have entered into a collision course. Should the international community be totally unconcerned with the rise of tension in a region already infected with so many other conflicts?

If one looks at Israel’s behavior toward the world body, one finds a common pattern of manipulation, exploitation and sometimes even intimidation. In fact, Israel came into existence through such acts by supporters of Israel, as the British Mandate in Palestine and its lobby groups have been engaged in such manipulation and misrepresentation of facts, particularly in Western countries, since 1948. Israel has even justified the murder of Count Bernadotte, the first UN mediator in its conflict with the Palestinians. In fact, one of the assassins later became prime minister of Israel.

As for the current situation in Gaza, many international agencies, including the UN General Assembly, have categorically identified the siege of Gaza as illegitimate, yet the report has now come up with the idea that it is legal. Richard Falk, professor of international law, has already highlighted its weaknesses, starting from the very formation of the panel (Middle East Monitor, Sept. 9). Neither Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister of New Zealand, nor Alvaro Uribe, the former president of Colombia, were qualified for the job. Then, the delay in the publication of the report and its leaking to the press were also problematic. Under these circumstances, Turkey has made the right move in taking the case to the ICJ.

The Israeli foreign minister’s threat to deliver arms to the PKK is a dangerous proposition. In fact, Israel might already be involved in such activities in many Muslim countries. However, in theory, no UN member country allows another member country to interfere in its internal affairs.

Interestingly, according to Israeli newspaper reports, the prime minister’s office has distanced itself from the foreign minister’s proposition. Is this diplomacy? Well, at this juncture, one may recall Israel’s behavior toward Egypt. Late last August, Israel murdered six members of the Egyptian security forces in their pursuit of “Palestinian terrorists.” The Egyptian authorities condemned Israel’s actions and demanded an apology, not compensation, in response, but received only regrets from the Israeli defense minister, who also wanted to officially investigate the matter.

Post-revolutionary Egyptians do not seem satisfied with the government’s handling of the matter. While some Egyptians continue to demand for compensation for the victims, others demand totally severing diplomatic ties with Israel. Some overenthusiastic activists, however, took the law into their own hands and ransacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Israel reacted sharply by calling the event a “grave violation of diplomatic norms.”

Undiplomatic behavior

How diplomatic is Turkey’s behavior? We have already noted the Israeli foreign minister’s statement on Turkey’s response to the Palmer Report. This is not the first time that Israeli leaders have demonstrated undiplomatic behavior. Early last year the Israeli deputy foreign minister summoned Turkish Ambassador Ahmet Oğuz Çelikkol to protest one Turkish television channel which had aired a drama that, according to the Israeli government, depicted Israelis negatively. During the meeting, the Turkish envoy was forced to sit on a lower chair without a Turkish flag. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “At the Turkish envoy meeting on Monday, Danny Ayalon told the cameramen in Hebrew: ‘Pay attention that he is sitting in a lower chair … that there is the beginning of the conversation with only an Israeli flag on the table and that we are not smiling’.”

Turkey did not break diplomatic relations in response and it did not even reduce the relationship, it only demanded an apology from the Israeli government. The Turkish Foreign Ministry also issued a statement saying, “We hope the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which has assumed an undiplomatic attitude in its statements, will comply with diplomatic courtesy rules.” The apology came, but only under extreme pressure from its own president. The Turks were gracious to take the relationship to a normal level.

In connection with the Mavi Marmara incident, however, the Turkish government has demanded not only an apology but also compensation for its caring and hospitable citizens who had taken the noble initiative to demonstrate their concern for the distressed people of Gaza.

The Turkish leadership has already demonstrated evidence of patience and fortitude in seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but Israel continues to behave like a spoiled child, as noted by Erdoğan. This approach by the prime minister could be compared with that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s “The Israeli Lobby,” which is a civilized and reasonable analysis of supporters of Israel in the US. Unfortunately, however, Israel and its supporters have so far failed to appreciate this. But for the sake of international peace and security the international community must keep trying to bring Israel back to a civilized manner. This is important, particularly at this time of the year, when Sept. 17, the day Count Bernadotte was assassinated, approaches.