Tag: Mavi Marmara

  • Terra Incognita: The Turkish enigma

    Terra Incognita: The Turkish enigma

    By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
    06/28/2011 22:31

    The cancellation of the participation of the ‘Mavi Marmara’ in the Gaza flotilla and the mystery of what Turkey’s political elite is thinking.

    Photo by: Reuters/Emrah Dalkaya
    Photo by: Reuters/Emrah Dalkaya

    Sometime this week, some 1,000 activists on one or two large Turkish ships accompanied by 15 other craft were to be making their way to Gaza. But they are nowhere on the horizon, although Israel has been preparing to prevent their breaking the blockade.

    So what happened? Just a month ago, various “Free Gaza” blogs were ablaze with hopes for the latest flotilla. Gaza TV News and Freedomflotilla.eu both reported that the Turks were going to send not only the Mavi Marmara( the ship Israel boarded on May 31, 2010), but also another “1,000-ton-capacity aid ship.”

    This phantom ship was supposed to set sail on May 31, 2011 to commemorate the fate of the first flotilla, in which nine Turkish activists were killed. Accompanying photos of the ghost ship showed a type of freighter. Alas, it seems the story was smoke and mirrors; if there was a ship, it never sailed.

    One man who posted on a freedom flotilla blog noted: “We hope that the Turkish people who have always extended their helping hand to Gazans will also help the loading of this ship with their donations.”

    Reliance on the Turks to provide the shipping capacity and spearhead the aid convoy has become a failing portion of the overall architecture of the Free Gaza Movement.

    Specifically, it is the reliance on the financial muscle and political influence of Insani Yardim Vakfi (Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief-IHH).

    The IHH, founded in 1995 to support Bosnian Muslims, is an Islamic (probably Islamist) charity. In 2010 it purchased the Mavi Marmara and loaded it with 600 activists to sail to Gaza. The motives for its sudden interest in Gaza were never entirely clear. Its connections to the governing party of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, were never entirely understood either. What is clear is that Ergodan reacted with extreme anger when nine activists died aboard the Marmara. In a June 2, 2010 speech before the Turkish parliament he raged “in an absolutely illegal way did they [Israel] attack, spilling the blood of innocent humans.”

    Later he reportedly referred to the dead as martyrs, and seemed to infer that the flotilla’s actions had the consent of the Turkish government.

    The IHH talked tough in the waning days of 2010 and through May 2011. Then it revealed that it would postpone sending any ships until after Turkey’s June 12 elections.

    This intimated that it needed the approval of the ruling party, and also feared that sending its ships before the election could create a provocation that would harm Erdogan.

    The decision to not send the ships came after two interesting occurrences on June 7.

    First it was reported that Kemal Kılıçdarolu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party, had criticized the government for not thinking of the consequences of the Gaza flotilla’s actions. Then Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister (who was also standing for election), said: “The aid flotilla should wait to see what happens with the Rafah border crossing being opened, and to see how Israel perceives the new [Palestinian unity] government.”

    Erdogan’s party handily won the June elections.

    Then on June 17 the IHH’s leader, Fehmi Bulent Yildirim, noted that the flotilla would not depart because of technical difficulties; “the exact reason has nothing to do with the government or the state… the Israelis, unbelievably, damaged our vessel.”

    Really? The ship was released by Israel and returned to Turkey in August 2010. Presumably if it had technical difficulties, the IHH would not have claimed so often that it would be sailing. When the IHH was asked why a smaller freighter it had purchased was not going to be joining the other freedom-flotilla craft, Yildirim claimed that this smaller ship had to accompany the Marmara, as if they were one package.

    Indeed they are one Turkish package. The pathetic little fleet of sloops, yawls, dinghys, ketches and catboats that Western pro-Gaza groupies have arranged has neither the muscle, capacity nor headline-generating images needed to break the blockade or create any sort of international incidents. It is as if Admiral Nelson had been forced to bring only rowboats to Trafalgar to face French ships of the line.

    But the real question remains: how to decipher this Turkish enigma? Already commentators have come to understand that the IHH’s actions are closely linked to the governing party, because the two organizations share a similar, Islamic-inspired political ideology.

    It has also transpired that there are deep divisions in Turkish political circles over how wise it is to harm relations with Israel, particularly the secular opposition and the nationalist (i.e non-Islamist) daily Hurriyet have shown a willingness to challenge the Erdogan narrative. Davutoglu, who has always gained accolades for his deft handling of Turkish foreign policy, has revealed himself to be very pragmatic on the Gaza issue, realizing that the opening of Rafah negates the flotilla’s raison d’etre. But if all this pragmatism has suddenly come to the surface, what sort of judgment prevailed a year ago that allowed a cruise ship full of radical activists to depart for Gaza? What were the activists going to do if they actually got to Gaza? Rumors abound that Turkey wishes to be the mature leader of an Arab democratic awakening, and sees the Gaza issue as a side-show. Others speak of secret backroom talks between Israel and Turkey.

    Nuh Yilmaz and Kilic Bugra, ham-handedly writing in Foreign Policy on June 21, claim “Turkey will continue to extend and deepen its ties with different political actors and the people of the Middle East.”

    Such insight.

    What’s going on in Turkey is a mystery, and that enigma should raise many eyebrows in Israel.

    The writer has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.

  • Apologizing to Turkey is in Israel’s interest

    Apologizing to Turkey is in Israel’s interest

    The Middle Eastern kaleidoscope has once again made a 180-degree turn, revealing a new picture. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan congratulating him for his party’s sweeping victory in the elections is only one aspect.

    In the past year, and with greater intensity in recent weeks, people of goodwill from Israel and Turkey have been trying to rehabilitate relations between the two countries. The events in Syria have helped them out, significantly cooling relations between Turkey and Syria and sparking a reappraisal in the Turkish Foreign Ministry and Erdogan’s office of Turkey’s policy in the region.

    Turkey took another significant step when it “recommended” to the IHH, the Turkish humanitarian relief organization, that it cancel its participation in the new aid flotilla to Gaza, mainly to prevent the flotilla from diverting attention from events in Syria. Erdogan has stopped calling Syrian President Bashar Assad “my good friend,” and he describes the brutal suppression of demonstrators in Syria as “barbarity.” And even if he is not demanding Assad’s ouster, he believes that the Syrian regime is finished. “Syria is turning into a threat not only against Turkey,” a senior Turkish official told Haaretz. “If Syria decides to attack the Kurdish minority too, we might have a serious problem.”

    Iran, which has developed extensive economic ties with Turkey in the past two years, is also described in the Turkish media as an active partner in the killing of Syrians, and Turkey is quickly discovering that its desire to implement a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbors has failed. If Turkey wanted to establish a strategic axis with Iran, Iraq and Syria, an axis that could promote a new Middle Eastern policy, it is discovering that these partners are a disappointment. The Iraqi government is on the verge of disintegrating, a political battle in Iran is being waged between the president and his opponents, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Syria has crudely rejected Erdogan’s attempts to end the crisis, and on Thursday the Turkish flag was lowered on the Syrian side of the border, from which Syrian citizens are fleeing to Turkey.

    All Ankara has left of the great plans for a better Middle East is a bit of the internal Palestinian conflict. On Wednesday Turkey hosted Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and the next day Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but there is no certainty Turkey will bridge the gap between the groups and help establish a new Palestinian government. Plenty of people in the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office are rubbing their hands with glee in light of Turkey’s situation. I heard a senior Foreign Ministry official say that “Erdogan may have won the elections, but he has crashed in the world.” A real reason for rejoicing.

    But Turkey is not a burst bubble. If conducting foreign policy is a test of success, then its failure is no greater than that of the United States, which has been unable to solve crises in the Middle East and is now about to leave chaos behind in Afghanistan as well. Israel, which is being battered against one rock after another on the slope of its deteriorating global status, is certainly the last to judge other countries on how they conduct foreign policy. Turkey at least takes initiatives.

    And if not for Israel’s unsuccessful policy in Gaza, and its tragic handling of the last flotilla to Gaza, Israel could at least have boasted of good relations with Turkey, even when Turkey is conducting relations with Iran. Turkey, it should be recalled, did not let any country pressure it to sever its relations with Israel. Even now it knows how to read the kaleidoscope and is placing itself on the right side.

    This is exactly the right time to initiate a move – not put out feelers – vis-a-vis Turkey, and to pick up the shards. It would not be disastrous for Israel to apologize for killing Turkish citizens. An apology is not an admission of blame – all the more so when even in Israel there are differences of opinion on the wisdom of that military operation.

    In about two weeks the joint UN commission for investigating the events of the Mavi Marmara flotilla will publish its report. Turkish representative Ozdem Sanberk and Israeli Yosef Ciechanover are making every effort to put out a fair and flexible report that will enable the two countries to reconnect. It’s not necessary to wait for that report. It’s possible and advisable to anticipate it with a public Israeli declaration. The blame can be discussed later.

    via Apologizing to Turkey is in Israel’s interest – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

  • Turkey turning back to the West?

    Turkey turning back to the West?

    mavi marmaraAll kinds of excuses have been given for the cancellation of the Mavi Marmara’s participation in the upcoming flotilla of fools. But this Turkish analyst believes that what’s really going on is something much bigger – a redirection of Turkey toward the West out of fear of the consequences of the recent events in Syria.

    However political analysts have now widely dismissed the IHH explanations. Following the wave of unrest affecting the region, especially with Syrian refugees who have ties with the Kurdish communities crossing the borders, the government, the government, fearing a clash back, has decided it should recalibrate its foreign policy to fall more in step with Western allies and pro-democracy movements.

    “Of course the IHH will put forth some excuse … because they cannot come out and say ‘the government told us to’,” said Ilter Turan, professor of political science at Istanbul’s Bilgi University.

    “Unpredictability in the Middle East is making Turkey feel the need to get closer to the [Western] allies, as it has done in Libya and now in Syria. So I would not be surprised if Turkey tones down its conflict with Israel.” he added.

    Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu apparently agrees. On Tuesday evening, Netanyahu issued a call to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to improve relations.

    Government sources on Tuesday confirmed that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sent his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan a letter calling for a restoration of friendship between the two countries.

    Netanyahu sent the letter after the Turkish elections, as is common practice.

    In excerpts of the letter published by the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman, Netanyahu wrote, “My government will be happy to work with the new Turkish government on finding a resolution to all outstanding issues between our countries, in the hope of re-establishing our cooperation and renewing the spirit of friendship which has characterized the relations between our peoples for many generations.”

    The letter is seen in Jerusalem as a signal of efforts to try and improve relations between Turkey and Israel.

    Government sources have said that Israel’s position is that it regrets the deterioration in its relations with Turkey, and believes that a positive bilateral relationship between Jerusalem and Ankara serves both countries.

    The government official said that Israel hopes it will be possible to “turn this thing around,” and “create positive momentum in the relationship.”

    via Israel Matzav: Turkey turning back to the West?.

  • Israel, Turkey hold secret talks

    Israel, Turkey hold secret talks

    Israeli and Turkish officials have been holding US-backed secret direct talks to ease tensions between the Zionist Israeli regime and Turkish People, an Israeli official has said.

    The Gaza Freedom Flotilla

    A source in the Turkish Foreign Ministry and a US official confirmed that direct talks are being held between an Israeli official on behalf of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu, Ha’aretz reported on Tuesday.

    The talks are reportedly being held between the Israeli representative to the UN inquiry committee on last year’s Gaza flotilla, Yosef Ciechanover, and Turkey’s representative on the committee, Ozdem Sanberk.

    The relations between Tel Aviv and Turkish People have been strained after Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010 attacked the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters to prevent the convoy from breaking the blockade in the Gaza Strip.

    In the assault, lots of Turkish nationals, including a teenager with Turkish-US dual citizenship, were killed and dozens were injured.

    via Israel, Turkey hold secret talks | İslâmi Davet – Islamic Invitation.

  • Turkish boat drops out of Gaza flotilla

    Turkish boat drops out of Gaza flotilla

    ISTANBUL — A Turkish boat that became an international symbol of anti-Israeli activism has dropped out of a Gaza-bound flotilla that plans to set sail for the Palestinian territory at the end of this month, organizers said yesterday.

    539w

    The withdrawal of the Mavi Marmara ferry from the convoy — which aims to break Israel’s sea blockade of the Gaza Strip — removes a potential flashpoint for confrontation.

    Last year, nine activists died in a botched Israeli commando operation on the Turkish ship in a similar flotilla, with each side accusing the other of starting the violence.

    Israel has warned that it will not allow any more ships to break its naval blockade and said without providing details that security forces have adopted new tactics since last year’s raid in an effort to limit casualties.

    IHH, the Islamic aid group in Turkey that refitted the Mavi Marmara after Israel returned it following the raid, said technical problems prevented it from joining 10 other ships that will head for Gaza from European ports on June 25. The original plan was to sail around the first anniversary of the Israeli raid before dawn on May 31, 2010.

    “We did not want the flotilla to be postponed again,’’ IHH president Bulent Yildirim said. “When we fix the Mavi Marmara, our journey will continue. I hope it will not take a long time.’’

    Organizers said their decision to exclude the Turkish boat was not a response to appeals from any government.

    © Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

    via Turkish boat drops out of Gaza flotilla – The Boston Globe.

  • The end of the media’s Israel fixation?

    The end of the media’s Israel fixation?

    The end of the media’s Israel fixation?

    Since the uprisings in the Middle East, the media’s balance and scrutiny has been more proportionate

    Carmel Gould

    The Guardian, Wednesday 8 June 2011

    Mavi Marmara

    The Mavi Marmara, carrying pro-Palestinian peace activists, leaves Istanbul on its fateful voyage to Gaza. Photograph: Reuters
    The Mavi Marmara, carrying pro-Palestinian peace activists, leaves Istanbul on its fateful voyage to Gaza. Photograph: Reuters

    The Arab spring has had a remarkable effect on the media’s appetite for Middle East news which doesn’t revolve around Israel. Over the first three months of this year, correspondents usually engaged full time in counting Israeli bricks going down in the West Bank were dispatched to Tahrir Square and Tripoli, because something even bigger was happening.

    A recent report by Just Journalism documents how in 2010, when the stirrings of mass discontent were surely detectable across the region, Middle East coverage by the British broadsheets and the BBC News website was disproportionately focused on Israel. Across all outlets and in news, comment and editorial categories, Israel was by far the most discussed country. In the case of the BBC, coverage of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined and doubled still amounted to less than was produced about Israel.

    Recently, Greg Philo of Glasgow University Media Unit complained on these pages that having pored over 4,000 lines of text from main UK broadcast bulletins during the 2008/9 Gaza war, not enough was said about Palestinians killed by Israel prior to the events being reported. Nothing could better illustrate the media obsession with Israel than the presence of such quantities of material for Philo to wade through. It is highly doubtful that 4,000 lines of text from main UK broadcast bulletins exist in relation to the closing weeks of the Sri Lanka war, also in 2009, in which up to 40 times more civilians died than in Gaza.

    It’s also worth noting that for all the dozens of headlines last month about Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s “defiance” and “refusals” regarding taking the necessary steps for peace, the fresh proclamations by Hamas about how they have zero intention of ever accepting the existence of Israel attracted virtually no coverage.

    The battle for control over the narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led to accusations that Zionists control the media. This is hard to believe, given the daily offerings of Jerusalem correspondents about settlement expansion, the Gaza blockade, loyalty oaths, racist rabbis, demolitions, checkpoints etc. If anyone is leaning on these reporters it plainly has no effect. It’s a different story in Gaza where Hamas thugs recently beat a Reuters journalist with a metal pole and threatened another with being thrown out of a tall building.

    In reality, what detractors of Israel refer to disparagingly as the “Israeli PR machine” usually consists of defensive appearances on TV and radio by government officials, who are grilled by newscasters about whatever Israeli behaviour is being fixated upon that day. The themes are always familiar: why is Israel so obstructive to peace? Why does it breach humanitarian law? Why is its use of force so disproportionate? Mark Regev is one such representative and a particular focal point for venomous attack, generating headlines such as, “Mark Regev, Israel’s master of public relations” with the attendant accusations of being “horribly compelling”. Or inconveniently plausible.

    Last year, however, something relatively unprecedented happened. In the midst of yet another Israel-centred media storm, after the deaths of nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara during a violent confrontation on the high seas, Israel released clear footage, backing up its contention that its forces were attacked by a baying mob on board the boat.

    Regev was around but this time his smooth talking was less important. The news-viewing public had seen for themselves Israeli commandos descending one by one on ropes on to the deck and being set upon by peace activists with sticks and poles, while their comrades could be seen carrying chairs and other objects for use against the brutal invaders at the bottom of the scrum.

    The media response to this vindicating Israeli evidence is instructive on the issue of the British narrative on Israel-Palestine. A stalwart of the Palestinian PR machine, Sarah Colborne of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who was on board the boat, was generally given free rein across the media to accuse Israel of inexplicable mendacity. However, it was only when subjected to a rare grilling on the BBC’s Today programme that she came unstuck. Sarah Montague’s questioning about who started the violence and the presence on board of wannabe martyrs, left her implausible tale of innocence seriously compromised.

    The latent journalistic interest in previously unreported swaths of the Middle East landscape has revealed the horrors of Syrian torture chambers from which dead children are returned to their parents without their genitals, and endless other gruesome realities, previously concealed from British media consumers. Hopefully, in light of these major events, a more balanced and proportionate approach to reporting from a complex region will emerge and remain.

    via The end of the media’s Israel fixation? | Carmel Gould | Comment is free | The Guardian.