Dead in the Water

The world owes a debt of thanks to that anonymous diplomat who leaked the long-delayed U.N. report on the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident -- the ill-fated Israeli commando raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla that resulted in the deaths of nine Turks -- to the New York Times, thus single-handedly ending months of endless speculation and finally putting the floundering Turkey-Israel relationship out of its misery.

The report was issued by a panel headed by Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister of New Zealand, who was aided by Álvaro Uribe, the former president of Colombia, along with one Turkish and one Israeli representative. While concluding that Israel's military takeover of the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable," the report also decided that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was legal and based on legitimate security concerns.

With the report's leak and Israel's continuing refusal to meet Turkey's demand for an apology, Ankara deployed its long-threatened "Plan B" on Friday, Sept. 2 -- expelling the Israeli ambassador and downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending military agreements, and promising to help the families of flotilla victims pursue Israel in international courts. In a Friday news conference, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu warned, somewhat ominously, that Turkey would "take whatever measures it deems necessary in order to ensure the freedom of navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean."

Turkey's moves against Israel cap off what has been a steady deterioration between the two former allies -- one that started not with the Mavi Marmara affair but with Israel's attack on Gaza, which began in December 2008. The most recent steps taken by Ankara are therefore not a blip in Turkey-Israel relations, but represent what is likely to be a long-term freeze, one that could very well lead to further problems between the two countries in the near future.

At the heart of Friday's breakdown of Turkey-Israel relations -- and what makes any rapprochement between the two countries extremely unlikely at present -- is an increasingly divergent view of the Middle East and each country's role in the region. For Turkey, Israel's continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories (particularly Gaza) stand as the primary roadblock toward creating the kind of more harmonious regional order that Ankara envisions. For Israel, Turkey's outreach to Hamas in Gaza, President Bashar al-Assad in Syria (at least before his recent crackdown), and the Iranian regime are all proof that the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government is quickly on its way to joining the regional "axis of resistance" against it.

The U.N. report on the Gaza-bound flotilla incident is just the latest example of how Turkey and Israel now fail to see eye to eye on the region's most important questions. While Israel holds that it is enforcing a legal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, Turkey sees a country that treats the Mediterranean as "a lake of its own," as the Turkish ambassador to Washington tweeted on Friday. Where Turkey sees the Mavi Marmara as a ship rushing desperately needed aid to Gaza, Israel sees a craft filled with violent Hamas supporters.

The response to the report continued along these lines. "The report is a professional, serious, and extensive document," a senior source in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office told the Israeli media. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, on the other hand, declared, "That report is actually null and void for Turkey."

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

COMRADEBILLYBOY

9:46 PM ET

September 2, 2011

Analysis

Thanks for filling in some necessary background analysis to this story. How nice to not have to labor through some overly emotional or clueless narrative. Objective analysis seems to be rare, glad to see its alive and well at FP.

OYNAM

2:00 PM ET

September 6, 2011

I think there are 3th parties

I think there are 3th parties who benefit from turkey - israil conflicts. I am sure somebody has gains at this game. I suspect war industry has involved in.

JOHNBOY4546

9:54 PM ET

Plamer's "logic" for legalizing the blockade is glaringly flawed

He shimmied from saying that:
a) a country can blockade anyone who is launching an "armed attack" against it, and can keep that blockade going for as long as there is an "armed conflict"

to then arguing that:
b) this blockade can be kept in place in order to remove the "threat" of future attacks by Hamas on Israel.

Palmer is perfectly correct in (a), but (b) is a ludicrous proposition.

And it is a ludicrous proposition for a very simple reason i.e. if we accept Palmer-logic(tm) then any country can blockade anyone simply by pointing a finger at them and shrieking "They make be feel threatened!"

And, furthermore, once you have pointed that finger then you are legally entitled to keep that blockade going for as long as you claim that you feel threatened.

That is a manifestly absurd result, but it is also a result that is perfectly consistent with Palmer-logic(tm).

Israel and Hamas fought out Operation Cast Lead, and **during** that military operation the IDF was, indeed, perfectly entitled to blockade Gaza.

But Cast Lead *ended* and, furthermore, it ended because Ehud Olmert CALLED A CEASEFIRE i.e. r]the announcement of that ceasefire was the precise moment that the blockade had to end.

COLINDALE

10:27 PM ET

Killings cannot be claimed to have been in self-defense.

The United Nations has now reported that the killings of eight Turkish citizens and one American passenger by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara flotilla sailing to Gaza, were excessive, abusive and brutal. Israel was the attacker and its killings cannot be claimed to have been in self-defence.

The Turkish government has now cut all ties with Israel, as a result, including all military co-operation. So too should the European Union. Where there is no justice and where morality is replaced by abuse and brutality, then democracy is dead and society is corrupted.

It is a tragedy of the 21st century that a state born out of compassion by the UN after WW2 should have embraced brutality as a means to a political end and in the process lost its compass, its humanity and its respect for life and law.

9:04 PM ET

September 3, 2011

"so killing bin laden was not in self defense? "

The USA announced a ceasefire in the war on terror, did it?

Because I distinctly remember Ehud Olmert announcing a ceasefire to end Operation Cast Lead.....

P. AMI

10:51 AM ET

Of Course It Can and Was Self-Defense

Self-defense is often brutal and deadly. One can defend one's home and yet wind up killing the intruder. Israel was carrying out a legal blockade. Turkey supported the breaking of this blockade. Those on the ship violently resisted arrest and Israel used deadly force in defense of those trying to carry out a legal blockade. Anybody with a wee bit of knowledge of the law of blockade, as well as the capacity to sustain a thought (despite flotsam and jetsam of hate floating on the shallows of their thinking) would be able to recognize this logical pattern.

8:41 PM ET

"I distinctly remember Hamas and PIJ firing rockets"

Ho-hum.

The criteria for an naval blockade is an "armed conflict", and the odd angry shot across a border simply does not rise to the level of an "armed conflict".

It is a phrase that has **REAL** meaning under international law, NEOLEFTT, it isn't simply a catchy buzzword that you can throw around as/when it suits your hasbarah.

Operation Cast Lead was, without a doubt, an "armed conflict" (however one-sided) and I have no problem with the idea that the IDF was legally entitled to blockade Gaza as the IDF was busy beating the snot out of everyone and everything inside the strip.

But here's the rub: ISRAEL definitely and unambigously called a halt to that "armed conflict" by declaring - publically, and very loudly - that it was declaring "a ceasefire" to end Operation Cast Lead.

And declaring "a ceasefire" ends an "armed conflict", precisely because under international law those two phrases are mutually-exclusive.

You can point to rockets that have been fired into Israel since then?
Sure, just as I can point to airstrikes being launched against Gaza, even today.

But those are tit-for-tat retaliatory exchanges of fire i.e. they do not rise to the level of an "armed attack", and therefore they do not define an "armed conflict".

That is demonstrably true, because neither those qassams nor those airstrikes have caused **either** side to announce that the ceasefire is now over and the argie-bargie is Back On Again.

And without an "armed conflict" then you can not blockade anyone, precisely because naval blockade is covered by the international humanitarian laws that govern ARMED CONFLICTS AT SEA.

9:25 PM ET

Wrong

A cease fire is not the normalization of diplomatic ties. Hamas is at war with Israel at all times. Syria, BTW, is at war with Israel. The US blockade of Cuba was also legal, though there was no active conflict between it and Cuba, or the USSR. You are simply unaware of the laws governing international conflict.

5:59 AM ET

September 7, 2011

P. AMI says.....

"A cease fire is not the normalization of diplomatic ties."

Nobody claims that it is. But a "ceasefire" is the antithesis of an "armed conflict" i.e. if you are in a ceasefire then you are not in an armed conflict.

Pretty simple concept, I would have thought.

"Hamas is at war with Israel at all times."

No, it clearly is not, since Hamas **also** declared a ceasefire at the end of Operation Cast Lead.

You Can Not Be In A Ceasefire And Still Be "at war" because (du'oh!) the very concept of "at war" was replaced in 1945 by the concept of being in an "armed conflict".

That's why nobody "declares war" on anybody, and why conflicts end with "ceasefires".

Didn't anyone ever tell you that?

"Syria, BTW, is at war with Israel."

No, it is not.

It's attitude towards Israel is that of unrelenting belligerency (as befits a country whose territory is under an Israeli belligerent occupation) but
Not Liking Israel
is not the same thing as being
In An Armed Conflict With Israel.

"The US blockade of Cuba was also legal, though there was no active conflict between it and Cuba, or the USSR."

Riiiiight. And that must be why Kennedy flat-out refused to call it a "naval blockade", insisting instead that he had just plucked a valid principle of international law out of thin air i.e. he solemnly declared that he had ordered "a quarantine of Cuba".

Q: Why did he have to invent that nonsensical bit o' make-believe if he could have simply declared that he had ordered the "legal blockade of Cuba"?
A: He couldn't, because any blockade would have been illegal under international law.

"You are simply unaware of the laws governing international conflict."

Says the man whose ideas of international humanitarian law appears to be stuck in the 19th century.

SCREWED AND TATTOOED

2:24 PM ET

Are you kidding me

They have been in an armed conflict for most of their existence. Wow, the ignorance here is amazing.

3:59 PM ET

Cease Fire

Neither the odd firing of rockets, nor the illegal smuggling of weapons qualify as a cease fire. If hostilities have ceased, why is Hamas holding a prisoner of war?

9:01 PM ET

September 9, 2011

Oh, I see ignorance all right....

"They have been in an armed conflict for most of their existence. Wow, the ignorance here is amazing."

Indeed, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

An "armed conflict" is not simply two armed forces glaring at each other over a fence and furiously rattling sabres at each other.

It is a REAL legal term that has a REAL meaning; it is not simply a bit o' jingoistic nonsense that hasbarists can throw around like confetti.

Q: Was Operation Cast Lead an "armed conflict"?
A: Sure. Hugely one-sided, but definitely an "armed conflict".

Q: Is the odd qassam and the semi-regular bombing by F-16s an "armed conflict"?
A: No, they are not.

Q: Did Operation Cast Lead officially end?
A: Sure. Olmert declared a ceasefire, and Hamas followed.

Q: Does a qassam END a ceasefire?
A: No, it VIOLATES a ceasefire just as surely as an F-16 bomb VIOLATES it, but neither action ENDS a ceasefire unless either Hamas or Israel repudiates their own declarations.

Q: Has Israel repudiated its January 2009 declaration of a ceasefire?
A: No, it has not.

Q: Has Hamas?
A: No, it has not.

And that's the be-all and end-all of it i.e. unless Israel (or Hamas) repudiates those January 2009 ceasefire announcements then Israel has *****NO***** leg to stand on regarding the legitimacy of this naval blockade.

9:08 PM ET

P. AMI makes to erroneous comments.

"Neither the odd firing of rockets, nor the illegal smuggling of weapons qualify as a cease fire."

One More Time.

An "armed attack" is the criteria for determining that you are in an "armed conflict"
While you are in an "armed conflict" then The Rules Of War apply to your conduct.
When you announce a "ceasefire" then that "armed conflict" is over.

Since the criteria for renewing an "armed conflict" is an "armed attack" then it is axiomatic the firing of Qassams and/or the bombing of tunnels by F-16s needs to rise to the level of an "armed attack".

Q: Is a cross-border barrage an "armed attack"?
A: No, it does not rise to that level.

This is demonstrably true, and ISRAEL demonstrates it every time it flies into Syria to bomb a building, or sends drones into the Sudan to blow up convoys, or when North Korea shells an island of the coast of South Korea.

"If hostilities have ceased, why is Hamas holding a prisoner of war?"

Because when hostilities end there is supposed to be a PRISONER EXCHANGE, and Israel refuses to release **it's** prisoners in exchange for **their** prisoner.

That process is not a one-way street, but you can't hear that message above all the loud rending of hair and gnashing of teeth from your side of the divide.

FORLORNEHOPE

8:26 AM ET

What we did

Just recalling what we did when some people tried to blockade our ports and block our airspace. We sent our bombers to make a holocaust of their cities and a burnt offering of their people, old, young, men and women alike. Our then Prime Minister memorably quoted "They have sown the wind and they will reap the whirlwind." Not even a metaphor when you create a firestorm.

6:58 PM ET

Mavi Marmara killings to be brought before the ICC. When?

"Ayalon said on Israeli TV Saturday. "I think we need to say to the Turks: as far as we are concerned, this saga is behind us."

No! This saga is NOT behind us! Not until those responsible for the deliberate taking of the lives of nine civilian and unarmed passengers on board the Mavi Marmara have been brought before the ICC to determine their guilt or otherwise. Justice is imperative, and soon. The world waits for the law to be applied.

8:09 PM ET

Not to the ICC, but to the ICJ

Turkey are being very canny here.

They are going to the ICJ first to get an authoritative ruling on wether (or not) the blockade itself is legal under international law.

It will certainly get the ruling that it wants i.e. the ICJ will most definitely rule that a naval blockade is legal only **DURING** an armed conflict, and at the time that the Mavi Marmara set sail there was no armed conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Once Turkey gets that ruling (and it will) then it will take the case of the killings themself to the ICC in order to prosecute those who ordered the illegal assault on their ship.

AKIVA

1:20 PM ET

September 4, 2011

How can you identify an anti-Semite?

When they heap ridiculous vitriol on one of the tiniest countries on the planet...but sit in hushed silence to the true human rights abuses throughout the world...in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Congo...and the list goes on and on.

PULLER58

8:40 AM ET

September 5, 2011

Turkey and Israel

There isn't much to root for here. Erdogan has made moves that show he and his party are intent on maintaining power. Granted, defanging the military might be a smart move to avoid turning into Pakistan, but I suspect future elections will take on a rubber stamp quality as Ankara becomes less moderate and committed to an Islamic style of government. Israel is still in the grip of "Greater Israel", and will desperately try and stave off any attempts to stop it. Pride goeth before a fall...

ARGONNE18

10:41 PM ET

Good for Turkey!

When it's ships are illegally boarded in international waters on a mission of mercy,it's citizens brutally executed, Turkey responds as any nation in the right should. Contrast Turkey's forthright response with Obama's craven, acqiecense (sp?) to Israel's murder of a US citizen on the same flotilla. Israel should have the same crippling sanctions it wants imposed on Iran, imposed on Israel. Enough of this continuing anti-semitic whine. Israel is a lawless, racist, expansionist, apartheid state. My hat is off to Turkey. May it's courage in the face of evil be followed by many more countries.

BERN

3:08 AM ET

Israel should mend its ways!

Israel has done it again; seizing Mavi Marmarra even when the wounds of Gaza attacks are still fresh in the minds of the people of Turkey is a gargantuan mistake that only Israel is capable of committing. Just like the poor circulation in legs, Israel’s poor relations with the Middle East countries, its adamant refusal to reconcile and live in harmony with its neighboring countries is going to cost them in the end. U.N. report about Mavi Marmara incident has only confirmed the unexpressed fear that has been haunting the political observers of the region for quite some time. Unless Israel’s unruly behavior is checked, there can be no hope of seeing the peace dawn upon the Middle East.

ARVAY

12:27 PM ET

September 8, 2011

a modest proposal

That we not respond at all to the Zionist droppings about "anti-Semitism" and their ad hominem attacks.

It's a waste of space and phosphor.

People with brains read their stuff and draw sober conclusions. Our names don't belong anywhere near these radioactive areas. Same goes for the falso flag postings.

Eventually, deprived of vitriol, they will begin to attack each other.

It's already happening in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settlers-vandalize-military-base-in-first-price-tag-attack-against-idf-1.383121

Question: are these self-hating Jews?

News flash for the settlers: Iranian weapons are available for your attacks on the IDF. Hizbollah is there to help.

Shalom.

ALEXWORK

4:42 AM ET

September 16, 2011

Siege and Settle

I can only see Israel having more of a siege attitude out of this. Mind you, they take any pretext they can to build on their siege and settle mentality. Goal Setting

TAYFA34

1:45 AM ET

September 29, 2011

Turkey Millioner Water

And Palestinian land will shrink, suicide bombers will respond, rockets will be launched and Israelis killed. Now Hezbollah and Sunnis have started up again in Lebanon. And Iran is powering up its nuclear capacity. Israel may feel impelled to react at some point if it calculates either Lebanon or Iran needs to be nipped in the bud. Add Syria to the toxic mix in Lebanon; and if things boil over there then Palestine will be left to sit and stew on the perennial international back burner. Hope, at this point, is not even a diamond in the rough. porno porno porno porno web tasarım

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

As Turkey cuts Israel adrift, the relationship between these two former allies is sinking fast. And petty politics aside, that's bad news for a tense region.

BY YIGAL SCHLEIFER | SEPTEMBER 2, 2011

(23)