Israpundit Digest

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 26,619
  • Last 7 days: 156,984
  • Last 30 days: 553,862
  • Online now: 91
fabricant de lanterneaux

Chit Chat

Recent Comments

Sponsors

.

Sponsor

.

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

Advertisments

.
”souvenirs”

Monthly Archives

December 2014
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

SUPPORT ISRAPUNDIT

 Donate USA  Donate
ISL
 Donate
CAN
  • March 29, 2013

    Bibi should not have offered this deal in the first place

    [The issue is not whether Bibi got the deal that he first offered but whether he should have offered it in the first place.]

    Behind Obama’s Turkey Win
    How Bibi Netanyahu handed the American president a big trophy—and got what Israel wanted all along

    By Lee Smith|March 29, 2013 Tablet Magazine

    The reality is somewhat different than the official administration account. Jerusalem has long been looking to mend relations with its one-time strategic ally in Ankara. Contrary to popular narrative, it was Erdogan who was intransigent—not Netanyahu. Nor was Obama the prime mover here, “prodding” the Israeli prime minister to do his bidding. If anything, it was Netanyahu who used the commander in chief as something like a blunt instrument to force Erdogan to accept the same deal that his government had first put on the table at least 18 months prior: Israel would apologize; it would pay compensation; but it would not, as Erdogan had demanded, end the maritime blockade of the strip.

    From Netanyahu’s perspective, it’s all to the good that Obama is getting the credit for the reconciliation. Bibi got what he wanted from Erdogan and gave Obama a big trophy to put on his shelf. The Turkish premier, despite his bluster, has little choice but to swallow it, and the American president now owes Bibi a favor. Netanyahu—often denigrated as a clumsy politician and preachy ideologue—is in fact a much more adroit statesman than he is typically believed to be.


    ***

    As Israel’s ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told Newsweek’s Eli Lake, Israel and Turkey, “along with the United States had long been working to resolve the dispute.” Israel made overtures as early as the summer of 2011.

    But two years ago there were two problems standing in the way: Erdogan and Avigdor Lieberman, then Israel’s foreign minister. Lieberman didn’t want Israel to apologize,condemning Netanyahu publicly for his inclination to make up with the Turks. That hardline position cost Lieberman little since he knew as well as Erdogan that there was never going to be a deal as long as Ankara demanded that Israel end the naval blockade.

    The contours of the agreement, including some of the specific wording, that was finally struck last week were worked out as early as that same summer. “The broad outlines of the deal,” wrote analyst Efraim Cohen in August 2011, “suggest that Israel would offer a limited apology for ‘operational errors,’ and would pay compensation to the families of those who died.” As for Erdogan’s third demand—that Israel lift the blockade of Gaza—Israel was not going to comply.

    For some 18 months Erdogan continued to reject the deal that he came to accept last week, insisting that Israel meet Turkey’s demands, belittling Israeli envoys as “very weird,” and claiming that any country mediating had to ensure that his three main conditions were met.

    Clearly Erdogan’s three conditions were not met, a disappointment that he apparently came to terms with last month, when Turkish and Israeli negotiators hammered out the exact terms of the deal that came to pass last week. As the Turkish newspaper Radikal explained, Israel would apologize for “operational mistakes,” pay compensation, and Ankara would drop the demand that Israel lift the blockade. Thus, the stage was set for Obama’s entrance as mediator and his exit as peacemaker. In pocketing the deal until Obama’s visit, Netanyahu’s timing was perfect: He handed an American president a truly wonderful souvenir of his all too brief stay in the Holy Land.

    It’s true that Erdogan now seems to be backsliding, claiming that he never accepted a deal without Israel agreeing to end the blockade, though Israeli officials insist that he did. The Turkish prime minister is also now promising to go to Gaza to “monitor” the situation to ensure that Israel fulfills its obligation to lift the blockade. However, this will only make him vulnerable on two fronts.

    First, while Erdogan is reportedly one of the world leaders closest to Obama, the reality is that Bibi comes off as the helpful partner in this case—not Erdogan. Any more noise out of the Turkish prime minister and he may find out what’s like to have chilly relations with an American president, which, as Netanyahu can tell him, is not where you want to be.

    Second, and perhaps more important, Erdogan’s support of Hamas will expose him to criticism from his domestic rivals. Why is the prime minister of Turkey so eager to show his love for an Iranian client in Gaza when his opposition to Iran’s ally in Syria threatens Turkey’s security?

    Indeed, it seems Erdogan’s Syria policy is largely responsible for his turnaround and willingness to accept Israel’s apology. It’s perhaps true, as some analysts argue, that given the situation in Syria, including Assad’s use or potential use of chemical weapons, the Turks’ need for intelligence cooperation with Israel helped change Erdogan’s mind. But there’s a much larger strategic issue at play here as well.

    As I argued earlier this month, Erdogan’s Syria policy has proven unpopular at home and has also demonstrated the limits of Turkish power. Erdogan was not able to stop Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s killing machine, nor was he even able to prevent Assad from launching artillery rounds at Turkish towns across the border or shooting down a Turkish jet.

    As long as Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu believed that Turkey was a rising regional power, Ankara could afford to hold its ground, making ridiculous demands of Israel that no state could possibly agree to. It was only when Assad and Syria shattered the Neo-Ottoman dream that Turkey started to see the wisdom of scaling back its regional ambitions and its demands on Israel.

    What Obama truly deserves credit for—and it’s no small thing—is realizing that an ally in whom he’d invested so much confidence was essentially a blowhard. Moreover, he saw that Israel, with whom he’d had contentious relations, was an ally he could count on. And that’s a very big win in Netanyahu’s column.

    Share Button
  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:29 pm | 10 Comments »

    10 Comments to Bibi should not have offered this deal in the first place

    1. drjb says:

      Here is another “explanation” of Israel’s latest humiliation.
      In the eyes of the author, this was a great victory for Israel and Bibi!!
      There is nothing in this article that I agree with.
      Yuval Steinitz, former Finance Minister from Likud, just said Israel should have apologized 3 yrs ago!!!
      Where are the true Israeli leaders????

    2. Canadian Otter says:

      Unconvincing and convoluted rationalizing of a government apology that was not only unnecessary but deeply harmful to Israel in the short- and long term.

      There seems to be a recurrent theme before and after Israel’s worse decisions: that of invoking some obscure need or benefit to justify the unjustifiable. It’s hard to see how Israel is better off after this humiliating apology.

      The writer is correct in one thing, though. The Israeli govt – unfortunately – was ready from the start to apologize to Turkey. In the aftemath of the Marmara terrorists’ attack on Israeli commandos, Israel was willing to formally apologize but Turkey kept upping its demands to the point where the PM just could no longer justify it to his cabinet.

    3. NormanF says:

      Israel’s elites are busily spinning abject national humiliation overtime like there’s no tomorrow.

    4. Bernard Ross says:

      @ Mladen Andrijasevic:RE your link: although BB was unwilling to offer an apology as demanded, for more than a year this same solution was discussed: an apology for operational errors and no lifting of blockade. There are benefits to the relationship which are considered more important than pride. Also, he gave the credit sponge an “achievement” from the trip. He got a clear reversal of past Obama positions re settlement freeze as a condition for talks(meaning the card will not be played forpressure)and he supported the demand for recognition of a jewish state. A trip for domestic consumption. We do not know if BB will give Obama anything which does not appear to come from pressure.

    5. NormanF says:

      Netanyahu submits to pressure.

      It a question to whom he will give into to get it off his back.

      What he did in the past, he’ll do again in the future.

      Netanyahu has no real principles apart from doing whatever it takes to stay in power.

    6. @ Bernard Ross:

      First see this video

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guQll8FIRHc&feature=youtu.be

      apparently from the above ( if it is true, and Kahlili is more reliable than others) we are not more than 3 months away from an attack , if commandos so not get there first as they have apparently done at Fordo

      It is precisely because Bibi and Bogie are the least ignorant about Islam and know how perception of strength is important in the Islamic world, that they would not commit such a major error in order to give Obama some little triumph.

      The irony is that we will only see what actually happened if my Israel manages to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities in time, and that would probably be facilitated by this deal which you think is non existent.

    7. @ NormanF:

      Let’s assume that you are right and that this sentence of yours is true “Netanyahu has no real principles apart from doing whatever it takes to stay in power.”

      But if Israel does not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons Netanyahu will not have a country to stay in power in. Do read what Bernard Lewis and Matthias Kuntzel have to say:

      Why are Bernard Lewis’s views on MAD ignored?
      http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-are-bernard-lewiss-views-on-mad.html

      Matthias Küntzel – Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice:The Iranian Holy War
      http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/matthias-kuntzel-antisemitism_8.html

      And see this video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guQll8FIRHc&feature=youtu.be
      apparently from the above ( if it is true, and Kahlili is more reliable than others) we are not more than 3 months away from an attack , if commandos so not get there first as they have apparently done at Fordo

      It is precisely because Bibi and Bogie are the least ignorant about Islam and know how perception of strength is important in the Islamic world, that they would not commit such a major error in order to give Obama some little triumph.

      The irony is that we will only see what actually happened if Israel manages to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities in time, and that would probably be facilitated by this deal which you think is non existent.

    8. Bernard Ross says:

      Mladen Andrijasevic Said:

      which you think is non existent.

      I am not disagreeing with you, there may be a quid pro quo regarding Iran. I certainly agree that there is most likely to be a very good reason related to military security and related to the Iran syria issue. I agree that it would not be done for nothing. As to the exact reasons I do not know: there might be a quid pro quo from obama and/or it might be that BB sees the Turkey coordination to be important in the Iran plan, or other things I dont know. What I was saying is that BB had offered the same “apology” before over a year ago. I think we agree that the decision was likely made on the basis of an advantage to Israel in respect to Iran. The past and present DM advised the rapprochement. I am not privy to the exact “deal” or reason.

    9. David Chase says:

      First, if Israel had made this kind of apologetic deal 3 weeks after the incident instead of 3 years or the circumstances surrounding Israel were the same now as 3 years ago, I probably wouldn’t agree with this analysis. The fact is that Netanyahu held his ground on this for three years and you have to believe he got something worthwhile out of it in Israel’s best interest in return. I don’t think anybody would disagree if they found out that Netanyahu got some kind of quid-pro-quo from Obama at this time regarding something with Iran that it wasn’t worth it- especially if the blockade remains in place. Certainly, with the blockade remaining in place there won’t be any more flotillas eminating from Turkey. Maybe if Syria and Iran weren’t in the picture the way they are there would be no ostensible benefit to what Netanyahu did or or maybe he is turning lemons into lemonade. Sometimes the actions and decisions of shrewd leaders, just like that of the tzaddikim, are not clear to the naked eye at first but with time the wisdom and righteousness of what they do becomes apparent. I think time will really tell. I am hopeful.

    Site Membership



    Editor


      Ted Belman

      tbelman3- at- gmail.com

    Search

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    MANTUA BOOKS (recommended)




    Tolerism2

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS


    Iran islam


    apes

    LOVE


    Sharing

    mandate4

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites