Like in “Mini-Israel,” the park where there is everything, but smaller, Israel embarked yesterday on a mini Operation Cast Lead. Like its larger, losing predecessor, this operation had it all: the usual false claim that is was they who had started it – and not the landing of commandos from helicopters on a ship in open sea, away from Israeli territorial waters. There was the claim that the first act of violence came not from the soldiers, but the rioting activists on Mavi Marmara; that the blockade on Gaza is legal and that the flotilla to its shores is against the law – God knows which law.
Again came the claim of self defense, that “they lynched us” and that all the dead are on their side. Once more the use of violence and excessive and lethal force was in play and once more civilians wound up dead.
This action also featured the pathetic focus on “public relations,” as if there is something to explain, and again the sick question was asked: Why didn’t the soldiers use more force.
Again Israel will pay a heavy diplomatic price, once which had not been considered ahead of time. Again, the Israeli propaganda machine has managed to convince only brainwashed Israelis, and once more no one asked the question: What was it for? Why were our soldiers thrown into this trap of pipes and ball bearings? What did we get out of it?
If Cast Lead was a turning point in the attitude of the world toward us, this operation is the second horror film of the apparently ongoing series. Israel proved yesterday that it learned nothing from the first movie.
Yesterday’s fiasco could and should have been prevented. This flotilla should have been allowed to pass and the blockade should be brought to an end.
This should have happened a long time ago. In four years Hamas has not weakened and Gilad Shalit was not released. There was not even a sign of a gain.
And what have we instead? A country that is quickly becoming completely isolated. This is a place that turns away intellectuals, shoots peace activists, cuts off Gaza and now finds itself in an international blockade. Once more yesterday it seemed, and not for the first time, that Israel is increasingly breaking away from the mother ship, and losing touch with the world – which does not accept its actions and does not understand its motives.
Yesterday there was no one on the planet, not a newsman or analyst, except for its conscripted chorus, who could say a good word about the lethal takeover.
The Israel Defense Forces too came out looking bad again. The magic evaporated long ago, the most moral army in the world, that was once the best army in the world, failed again. More and more there is the impression that nearly everything it touches causes harm to Israel.
The Israeli Naval Commando had prior knowledge of who was on the Turkish ship including where passengers were residing in terms of cabin layout. According to Swedish author Henning Mankell, who was on board the Marmara , “the Israeli forces attacked sleeping civilians.”
These were targeted assassinations. Specific individuals were targeted. Journalists were targeted with a view to confiscating their audio and video recording equipment and tapes.
“We were witnesses to premeditated murders,” said historian Mattias Gardell who was on the Mavi Marmara.
“…Asked about why activists on the Turkish ship had attacked the Israeli soldiers, Gardell stressed “it is not as if Israel is a police officer whom no human being has the legitimate right to defend him or herself against”:
“If you are attacked by commando troops you of course must have the right to defend yourself … Many people on this ship thought they were going to kill everyone. They were very frightened … It’s strange if people think one should not defend oneself. Should you just sit there and say: ‘Kill me’?” he said.” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,Detailed Compiled Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Cold-Blooded Murder and Executions by Israeli Military, Global Research, June 1, 2010)
“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot,” (quoted by Press TV)
The Israeli Commando had an explicit order to kill.
What was the role of the United States?
The raids on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, bear the mark of previous Israeli operations directed against unarmed civilians. It is a well established modus operandi of Israeli military-intelligence operations, which is tacitly supported by the US administration.
The killing of civilians is intended to trigger a response by Palestinian resistance forces, which in turn justifies Israeli retaliation (on “humanitarian” grounds) as well as a process of military escalation. The logic of this process was contained in Ariel Sharon`s “Operation Justified Vengeance” initiated at the outset the Sharon government in 2001. This Operation was intent upon destroying the Palestinian Authority and transforming Gaza into an urban prison. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: Israeli Strike on Freedom Flotilla to Gaza is Part of a Broader Military Agenda, Global Research, June 1, 2010).
The Israeli attack of the Flotilla bears the fingerprints of a military intelligence operation coordinated by the IDF and Mossad, which is headed by Meir Dagan. It is worth recalling that as a young Coronel, Dagan worked closely with then defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on the Palestinian settlements of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut in 1982.
There are indications that the US was consulted at the highest levels regarding the nature of this military operation. Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, both the US and the UK have unequivocally reaffirmed their support to Israel.
There are longstanding and ongoing military and intelligence relations between the US and Israel including close working ties between various agencies of government: Pentagon, National Intelligence Council, State Department, Homeland Security and their respective Israeli counterparts.
These various agencies of government are involved in routine liaison and consultations, usually directly as well as through the US Embassy in Israel, involving frequent shuttles of officials between Washington and Tel Aviv as well as exchange of personnel. Moreover, the US as well as Canada have public security cooperation agreements with Israel pertaining to the policing of international borders, including maritime borders. (See Israel-USA Homeland Security Cooperation, See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement, Global Research, 2 April 2008)
The Role of Rahm Emmanuel
Several high level US-Israel meetings were held in the months prior to the May 31st attacks.
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s White House chief of Staff was in Tel Aviv a week prior to the attacks. Confirmed by press reports, he had meetings behind closed doors with Prime Minister Netanyahu (May 26) as well as a private visit with President Shimon Peres on May 27.
May 26 meeting between Rahm Emmanuel and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
Official statements do not indicate whether other officials including cabinet ministers or IDF and Mossad officials were present at the Rahm Emmanuel-Netanyahu meeting. The Israeli press confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel had a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose Ministry was responsible for overseeing the Commando attack on the Flotilla. (Rahm Emanuel visits Israel to celebrate son’s bar mitzvah – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News, 23 May 2010). The White House also confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel was to meet other high-ranking Israeli officials, without providing further details. (Rahm Emanuel in Israel for Son’s Bar Mitzvah, May Meet With Officials)
“Our Man in the White House”
While born in the US, Rahm Emmanuel also holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military during the First Gulf War (1991).
Rahm is also known for his connections to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. The Israeli newspaper Maariv calls him “Our Man in the White House” (quoted in Irish Times, March 13, 2010). Rahm Emmanuel gave his support to Obama in the November 2008 presidential elections following Obama`s address to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.
At the time of Rahm Emmanuel’s confirmation as White House chief of staff, there were reports in the Middle East media of Rahm Emanuel’s connections to Israeli intelligence.
The exact nature of Rahm Emmanuel’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus, however, is not the main issue. What we are dealing with is a broad process of bilateral coordination and decision-making between the two governments in the areas of foreign policy, intelligence and military planning, which has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In this regard, Israel, although exercising a certain degree of autonomy in military and strategic decisions, will not act unilaterally, without receiving the “green light” from Washington. Rahm Emmanuel`s meetings with the prime minister and Israeli officials are part of this ongoing process.
Rahm Emmanuel’s meetings in Tel Aviv on May 26 were a routine follow-up to visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu in March and by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak in late April. In these various bilateral US-Israel encounters at the White House, the state Department and the Pentagon, Rahm Emmanuel invariably plays a key role.
While the pro-Israeli lobby in the US influences party politics in America, Washington also influences the direction of Israeli politics. There have been reports to the effect that Rahm Emmanuel would “lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the Defense Minister Ehud Barak” against Netanyahu in the next Israeli election. (Ira Glunts, Could Rahm Emanuel Help Barak Unseat Netanyahu? Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2010)
The April 27 meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak pertained to “a range of important defense issues” directly or indirectly related to the status of the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation:
“As President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.
For years, the United States and Israel have worked together to prepare our armed forces to meet these and other challenges, a recent major example being the Juniper Cobra joint exercise held last October. Our work together on missile-defense technology is ongoing, and the United States will continue to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.” (Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Barak, April 2010 – Council on Foreign Relations April 27, 2010)
These consultations pertained to ongoing military preparations regarding Iran. Both Israel and the US have recently announced that a pre-emptive attack against Iran has been contemplated.
Washington views Israel as being “‘integrated into America’s military architecture,’ especially in the missile defense sphere.” (quoted in Emanuel to rabbis: US ‘screwed up’ Jerusalem Post, statement of Dennis Ross, who is in charge of the US administration’s Iran policy in the White House, May 16, 2010).
Targeting Iran
The attack on the Freedom Flotilla, might appear as a separate and distinct humanitiarian issue, unrelated to US-Israeli war plans. But from the standpoint of both Tel Aviv and Washington, it is part of the broader military agenda. It is intended to create conditions favoring an atmosphere of confrontation and escalation in the Middle East war theater;
“All the signs are that Israel has been stepping up its provocations to engineer a casus belli for a war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tel Aviv sees as unfinished business its inconclusive wars: the first in Lebanon in 2006, and the second in Gaza in 2008-09.” (Jean Shaoul Washington Comes to the Aid of Israel over Gaza Convoy Massacre, Global Research, June 4, 2010)
Following Israel’s illegal assault in international waters, Netanyahu stated emphatically “Israel will continue to exercise its right to self defence. We will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza,” suggesting that the Gaza blockade was part of the pre-emptive war agenda directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. (Israeli forces board Gaza aid ship the Rachel Corrie – Telegraph, June 5, 2010, emphasis added) .
Moreover, the raid on the Flotilla coincided with NATO-Israel war games directed against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, “three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.” (Israel Deploys Three Nuclear Cruise Missile-Armed Subs Along Iranian Coastline).
While Israeli naval deployments were underway in the Persian Gulf, Israel was also involved in war games in the Mediterranean. The war game codenamed “MINOAS 2010” was carried out at a Greek air base in Souda Bay, on the island of Crete. Earlier in February, The Israeli air force “practiced simulated strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities using airspace of two Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, which are close territorially with the Islamic republic and cooperate with Israel on this issue.” Ria Novosti,War Games: Israel gets ready to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites,, March 29, 2010)
Also, in the wake of the final resolution of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation directed against Israel’s nuclear weapons program, the White House has reaffirmed its endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Washington’s statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to unbending US support to “Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities”, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:
“a senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities.
According to the source, “Obama gave [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu unequivocal guarantees that include a substantial upgrade in Israel-U.S. relations.”
Obama promised that no decision taken during the recent 189-nation conference to review and strengthen the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty “would be allowed to harm Israel’s vital interests,” the sources said. Obama promised to bolster Israel’s strategic capabilities, Jerusalem officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper)
Robert Gates and Israel's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, Press Conference, April 27, 2010
The Turkey-Israel Relationship in Jeopardy?
The actions of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla have important ramifications. Israel’s criminal actions in international waters has contributed to weakening the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.
The bilateral Israel-Turkey alliance in military, intelligence, joint military production is potentially in jeopardy. Ankara has already announced that three planned military exercises with Israel have been cancelled.“The government announced it was considering reducing its relations with Israel to a minimum.”
It should be understood that Israel and Turkey are partners and major actors in the US-NATO planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in the pipeline since mid-2005. The rift between Turkey and Israel has a direct bearing on NATO as a military alliance. Turkey is one of the more powerful NATO member states with regard to its conventional forces. The rift with Israel breaks a consensus within the Atlantic Alliance. It also undermines ongoing US-NATO-Israel pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran, which until recently were endorsed by the Turkish military.
From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance was directed against Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq. (For details see See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, 2006)
In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched “A Strategic Dialogue” involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).
During the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which in practice is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.
Starting in 2005, Israel has become a de facto member of NATO. The triple alliance was coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon).
The Issue of Territorial Waters
Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in large part motivated by the broader issue of control of Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain significant reserves of natural gas.What is at stake is the confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral de facto declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas. If the blockade were to be broken, Israel’s de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves would be jeopardy. (See Michel Chossudovsky,War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields, Global Research, January 8, 2009. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
The decades-old conflict between Israel and Gaza became a little too localized this week for Earlham College economics professor Mehrene Larudee.
As news of the Monday Israeli attack on the Free Gaza Movement’s flotilla spread, Larudee learned her brother, Paul Larudee, had been aboard one of the ships. Every hour seemed to pass by a little slower as she waited on news of him.
The flotilla of ships had been carrying aid and hundreds of activists from different countries, a number of them from countries allied with Israel, to the blockaded Gaza strip.
Paul, a 64-year-old from El Cerrito, Calif., was one such activist involved with the Free Gaza Movement, which backed the flotilla transport.
Paul was not on the boat that received the brunt of the attack, the Miva Marmara, but some passengers on his vessel, the Svendoni, were injured, and all were detained. Several in the flotilla were reported dead and at least six were seriously wounded.
Until Tuesday night, Mehrene was unaware whether her brother was one of those victims.
Paul was reported by the Consulate to have resisted arrest. He remained silent and unresponsive when Israeli soldiers ordered him to move. He was reportedly beaten by the soldiers, receiving a black eye, various bruises and twisted joints.
Paul Larudee is the only detainee not to have gone through the deportation process, family related to Mehrene said Tuesday. “It’s unnerving. Now that’s he’s the only one left there, it’s easy for people to forget about him,” she said.
Though the exact nature of the deportation documents is not known, she said she was advised it required a signature that released the Israeli government from all responsibility in terms of the deported person, who is required to admit he came into Israel illegally.
“He never even set foot in Israel until they brought him there,” said Mehrene Larudee, referring to the fact that the flotillas had been outside Israeli waters. His American attorney has been trying to reach him, but has been unable to make contact as far as his family knows.
Israel is claiming that its actions were in self-defense. Israel patrols the borders to prevent weapon smuggling into Gaza, and the soldiers involved say they were attacked as they neared the flotilla. After their release, however, passengers are telling a different story. Mehrene thinks a little differently as well. “The movement backing the flotilla was committed to nonviolence,” she said.
Mehrene attended Thursday’s town hall meeting with Rep. Mike Pence and participated in the discussion concerning Gaza and Israel. After noting Gaza’s desperate need for aid in its time of rebuilding, she called out Pence for focusing too much on Israel’s side of things, and not on what the rest of the world has to say. Pence countered that humanitarian relief reaches Gaza daily through Israel and, he said, Israel has every right to protect itself against the movement of arms into the Gaza area, which he said it is doing.
Mehrene Larudee has lived in Richmond just less than a year, working as a visiting associate professor of economics. She came here from Massachusetts and is currently under a one-year contract.
Turkey continued its regional diplomacy, following the historic visit by Russian President Medvedev to Ankara (EDM, May 20). Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan paid back-to-back trips to Greece, Iran and Azerbaijan, which underscored Turkey’s rising activism in its neighborhood, as well as highlighting divergence with the United States.
The most controversial development was the deal Turkey brokered jointly with Brazil regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. Building on the groundwork laid by their foreign ministers, Turkish and Brazilian leaders convinced their Iranian counterpart to agree on a proposal made earlier by the international community, under which it would swap its low-enriched uranium with enriched rods for a medical research reactor. The exchange will take place in Turkey.
Turkey portrayed the agreement as a historic achievement that would end the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program, and bring peace to the Middle East, emphasizing that Iran agreed to sign a document stipulating concrete obligations (www.cnnturk.com, May 17). However, the reactions to the deal from the United States and Western powers put Turkey in a rather controversial position rather than to earn the sort of praise it was anticipating. Since the deal came amidst news that the United States succeeded in getting other permanent members of the UN Security Council agree on new sanctions, this development increasingly pit Ankara and Washington against each other.
From an American perspective, the deal was not satisfactory because Iran agreed to the conditions proposed back in October 2009 while it did not commit to end its nuclear program. In particular it is emphasized that while the amount of fuel Iran agrees to return, 1,200 kilograms, was significant at the time it was first proposed, since then Iran is likely to have expanded its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is not under inspection. Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, remained defiant. Arguing that the United States was kept informed about the negotiations with Iran, Davutoglu contended that Iran’s promises were satisfactory and should be the basis of efforts to solve the diplomatic standoff (Today’s Zaman, May 20). Meanwhile, a recent development somehow adds credibility to Turkey’s arguments. Reportedly, Obama sent a letter to Brazilian President in April wherein he urged him to pursue the efforts to convince Iran to accept the exchange the 1,200 kilograms of uranium on Turkish territory, though noting that the US would also pursue the sanctions path (letter available at:www.politicaexterna.com/archives/11023.
Amid statements coming from the United States and other powers that concerns over Iran’s nuclear program did not disappear, Erdogan sought to mobilize the international community behind the deal with Iran. He telephoned President Barack Obama, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and many other leaders, as well as sending letters to many others, asking them to prevent sanctions against Iran and give diplomacy a chance. Although Obama appreciated Turkish efforts, he underlined that they would expect to see Iran’s interpretation of the deal, and kept the option for sanctions open (Anadolu Ajansi, May 20, May 22).
Iran sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Monday explaining the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in detail. As anticipated, while the United States did not find Iran’s commitments satisfactory, Turkey insisted on its earlier position. Meanwhile, Erdogan started his historic tour of South America. Speaking in Brazil, he reiterated in strong words that the deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey was a historical breakthrough, and they would continue to work toward a nuclear free world (www.haberturk.com, May 28).
The challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear program are unlikely to subdue, as Iran remains committed to continue with its program. Turkey’s policy so far demonstrates that it is increasingly self-confident in undertaking foreign policy initiatives in its region and toward that end it could even risk confrontation with the United States. Especially the fact that Turkey went ahead with these efforts despite the news about a new draft UN Security Council being prepared is worth mentioning here. Turkey has made clear on many occasions that it would not approve tougher measures against Iran considering the negative repercussions of such a move (EDM, March 20). Reiterating this position on several regional and international platforms, Davutoglu invested much of his time on this issue over the last couple of months, as he and his team held numerous meetings with their Iranian counterparts to find a negotiated solution. Therefore, Turkish leaders would not like to see all their efforts go in vain as a result of a new round of sanctions, which would pose a serious blow to their credibility in the region and at home.
Overall, the Turkish leaders seem to assume good will on Iran’s part and do not seriously consider the possibility that Iran might be manipulating their willingness to mediate in this crisis to undermine the quasi-coalition the United States has delicately managed to form. Given Iran’s track record, the United States is increasingly concerned that Iran might not be acting in good faith and is using such last-minute deals to avoid tougher reactions (Today’s Zaman, May 24). Given these conflict interpretations of Iran’s nuclear program, we might observe growing divergence of opinions between Ankara and Washington.
Erdogan also paid a visit to Baku and Tbilisi, following his trip to Tehran, which also underscored another dimension of Ankara’s regional policies, conducted independently of Washington’s priorities. After the normalization with Armenia, which was promoted by Washington, hit an apparent deadlock, Erdogan’s trip to Baku served as yet another affirmation of Ankara’s determination to keep Baku at the center of its Caucasus policy. Erdogan reiterated support for the Azeri position on Karabakh, which seemed to go a long way toward repairing the damage caused by Turkey’s efforts to achieve a rapprochement with Armenia.
As a concrete indication of such a thaw, it is expected that Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev will visit Turkey in early June. Aliyev had avoided visiting Turkey in apparent protest of Turkish-Armenian normalization and Turkey’s position on the natural gas negotiations (EDM, October 21, 2009). A deal recently reached between the two countries would bring an end to the negotiations concerning the price for Turkey’s purchases from Azerbaijan and conditions for the passage of Azeri gas to Europe through Turkish territory. Although the agreement was expected to be signed during Erdogan’s visit, it is postponed for Aliyev’s visit by which time the two parties will also finalize the remaining details. While saying that they “will crown the agreement during Mr. President’s visit,” Erdogan perhaps expressed how much he attaches significance to Aliyev’s upcoming trip (Hurriyet, May 17).
Israel’s attack on a Gaza aid flotilla, killing nine, has earned near-universal condemnation, with even sympathetic observers terming it the act of a bully, tone deaf, staggeringly stupid, tactically incompetent, a major tactical blunder, a moral victory for Hamas, and an unqualified disaster for Israel’s reputation. But Israel is rather accustomed to international scorn and has every right to chart its own course. However, this latest incidence has potentially grave consequences for United States and its transatlantic allies.
Turkey, a founding member of the NATO alliance and heretofore Israel’s only friend in the region, is apoplectic.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu proclaimed Tuesday morning, ““Psychologically, this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey.” As idiotic as that may seem — there were 9 deaths, not 3000, and the incident involved provocateurs flouting a naval blockage, not innocents in the Turkish homeland — the actions of his government indicate that the sentiment is genuine.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of “state terrorism” and he told his parliament the Israeli assault violated “international law, the conscience of humanity and world peace.” Erdogan proclaimed the incident “a turning point in history. Nothing will be the same again.” Serkan Demirtas, writing in Hurriyet, sees “a long-term diplomatic war between Turkey and Israel” as “unavoidable.” Similar statements have been made by Turkish pundits and analysts, including those considered moderates.
Erdogan, noting what seems to be the end of the Turkish-Israeli alliance for the foreseeable future, proclaimed, “Turkey’s hostility is as strong as its friendship is valuable.” And veteran columnist Sami Kohen proclaims, “Turkey now is one of the sides in the Middle East conflict. It is quite clearly opposed to Israel.”
Erdogan also raised the specter of Article 5: “Citizens of member states were attacked by a country that was not a member of NATO,” he said. “We think that should be discussed in NATO.” Again, this is overblown. Whatever one thinks of the Israeli action, it was decidedly not an attack on Turkey “in Europe or North America.” And, while Article 6 makes provisions for extending the umbrella of protection to “forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Party” operating in the Mediterranean Sea, it rather clearly is intended to apply to the defense of colonial territories.
But security analysts Steve Hynd and Robert Mackey think this irrelevant and that if Turkey invokes the Charter, the U.S. will face a dire choice, indeed. As Mackey puts it:
Because if Turkey invokes the NATO charter and the US doesn’t react, then NATO is GONE. GONE and DEAD. Why? Because when the US was attacked on 9/11, the NATO charter was invoked–and that is why NATO troops are in Afghanistan today. 9/11 was proof that NATO was not just an ‘anti-Russian’ pact–that it applied anywhere. If the US doesn’t go along with a Turkish response…it will reveal NATO as being a “US pact”–that the entire alliance exists only to help the US. Oh, there will still be mutual defense treaties with the UK and maybe Germany. But that is just about it. And the US will have to go on its own in Afghanistan.
Legally, this strikes me as over-reach. But politically? At very least, Turkey’s continued membership in the alliance would be in question. They’ve already moved to distance themselves from the West in recent years. And, goodness knows, the European allies would be happy for any excuse at all to get out of Afghanistan.
All the major European powers have criticized Israel’s actions, with Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and David Cameron all issuing stern statements. More interestingly, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has weighed in with uncharacteristically stern words:
I offer sincere condolences to the families of all victims and condemn the acts which have led to this tragedy. I add my voice to the calls by the United Nations and the European Union for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the incident.
As a matter of urgency, I also request the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel.
While tame by op-ed standards, diplomats don’t use words like “victims” and “condemn” lightly.
National Interest senior editor Jacob Heilbrunn asks the right question: “Where does this leave Israel and America?”
Thus far, the Obama administration is keeping its powder dry, issuing a cautious statementexpressing “deep regret at the loss of life in [the] incident, and concern for the wounded” while also stressing “the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning’s tragic events as soon as possible.” That’s exactly the right position for the world’s superpower—and perhaps Israel’s only remaining friend—to take at the outset. But the facts are quickly coming in and it will be time to make tough calls.
In the meantime, stalling for time isn’t going to please anyone. Certainly not the Turks, who have already declared themselves “deeply unsatisfied” with the response.
Does it matter? American administrations have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel and against the international community dozens of times in the past. But the stakes are higher now.
Writing in this space, journalist and author Barbara Slavin declared, “Israel has scored an own-goal, shifting the narrative from Iran and its nuclear and human rights transgressions to Israel’s lack of regard for pro-Palestinian lives.” Former National Interest editor and current Naval War College professor Nick Gvosdev agrees, noting that the “argument that Iran is violating its international commitments and so should be sanctioned may be much harder to make.” And, as the Financial Times’s Gideon Rachman notes,
. . . a sanctions package against Iran is arguably as much in the interests of Israel, as in the interests of the US itself. The US may now feel that it has to go along with a UN condemnation of Israel to preserve the chances of getting its Iran resolution through. It would be a classic Israeli own goal, if their assault on the Gaza ships sank the choices of a new resolution on Iran.
Apparently, the impending World Cup has analysts thinking of soccer.
But Iran isn’t the only issue at stake. Turkey is a pivotal state bridging East and West, Christendom and Islam. The Christian Science Monitor’s Yigal Schleifer:
Ankara’s shift complicates a historic alliance between Turkey and the US, which has become more important in recent years. An air base in southern Turkey is one of the most important transit bases for ferrying troops and supplies to Afghanistan. Turkish mediation, meanwhile, had gotten Israel and Syria back to the peace table until that effort was aborted when the Gaza war broke out.
Increased tension between Turkey and Israel clouds one of the few sunny spots the US had previously enjoyed in the region.
The deterioration in the once-close relationship between Turkey and Israel has been mirrored by an equally precipitous rise in Turkey’s visibility and involvement in the Middle East, an area that it had kept at arm’s length for decades because of historical enmity and mutual suspicion.
Switching sports, the ball is now in Obama’s court. Will he handle this according to the national-security interests of the United States? Or will he continue a bipartisan tradition of subordinating our interests to Israel’s? My bet, alas, is on the latter.
James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. This essay was originally published by The National Interest. Photo credit: Getty Images.
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter planes and motor torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and a civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship. At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 29.3 mi northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.
Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries into the incident, and issued reports, which concluded that the attack was a mistake, due to Israeli confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty. Some U.S. diplomats, veterans and intelligence officials involved in the incident continue to dispute these official findings, saying the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not a mistake, and it remains the only major maritime incident in U.S. history not investigated by the U.S. Congress.
In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the U.S. claim of $7,644,146 for material damage to the Liberty itself.
The ship, a $40-million dollar state-of-the-art signals intelligence platform, was later declared unsalvageable and sold for scrap.
On December 17, 1987, the issue was officially closed by the two governments through an exchange of diplomatic notes.
Like in “Mini-Israel,” the park where there is everything, but smaller, Israel embarked yesterday on a mini Operation Cast Lead. Like its larger, losing predecessor, this operation had it all: the usual false claim that is was they who had started it – and not the landing of commandos from helicopters on a ship in open sea, away from Israeli territorial waters. There was the claim that the first act of violence came not from the soldiers, but the rioting activists on Mavi Marmara; that the blockade on Gaza is legal and that the flotilla to its shores is against the law – God knows which law.
