This has been an exceptional week for Mideast peace: 1) The jailed leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, called for a ceasefire and embrace of solely a political solution to Turkish Kurd problems, and 2) Israeli PM Netanyahu has apologized to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara deaths, agreed to work out compensation, and work toward a better situation in Gaza (these three are most of Turkey’s demands). These events have made me very happy, but I worry because of Erdogan’s ego. If you have followed Mideast affairs you will know that the scuttling of the Turkish-Israeli relationship began before the Mavi Marmara incident occurred. My view is that a big catalyst of this problem and many other problems in Turkish foreign relations is due to Erdogan’s inflated ego; that he overreacts when other nations do not meet up to his expectations, particularly when those expectations go against policies he wishes to make synonymous with his leadership, such as the “No problems with neighbors” policy. Both of these new peaceful developments have only turned a corner, so it could be easy to damage either of these processes. So will Erdogan’s ego eventually cause one or both of these developments to fail. Is there something specific that either the Turkish Kurds/PKK or Israel can do that will cause these developments to fizzle? I guess I am looking to debate whether there is anything on the horizon that will clearly kill these two chances to reduce Mideast tensions.
Other subjects that are welcome for debate are: 1) Whether Obama had anything to do with Israel apologizing; 2) Whether Israel’s apology is preparation to bomb Iran; 3) Any ulterior motives you may believe exist for peaceful developments with the PKK; 4) Any other events in the Mideast you link to these developments.
My guess is this is the result of several factors.
It may be an Israeli gift to Obama. Obama will be widely credited with a diplomatic coup, whether he had anything to do with it or not.
I have maintained all along that Israel-Turkish relations have as much or more to do with their fundamental sqabbling over the spoils of the offshore natural gas find in the med. as about Palestinian matters. As you guys probably know, non-Turkish Cyprus is the key Israeli ally in this dispute, facing off in a very high stakes contest for control over the relevant resources.
I’m wondering (based on pure speculation, mind) whether the timing of a deal has something to do with the economic crisis currently afflicting Cyprus. This clearly distracts and weakens Cyprus and its value as a ally, making patching up a deal with the Turks more valuable to Israel.
Naturally, further developments in this area have a strong potential to scupper any kind of deal.
I myself do not believe that it has to do with getting Turkish cooperation for an Israeli military strike on Iran. My basis for this is that such cooperation is neither likely nor necessary.
Someone asked me today: was this something John Kerry set up…or Hillary Clinton? How far back does the initiative go?
I like Malthus’ idea that it might be an Israeli gift to Obama. In some ways, it’s also an Obama gift to Israel, because it allows Netanyahu to divert the blame for it. “I only did it as a favor to Obama.” It keeps him from getting in too much trouble with his critics.
Given that his administration has consistently worked toward this goal, he had something to do with it. Maybe the forces blocking it, like the criminal Lieberman, are weaker, while the forces promoting it, such as the fear of Syria’s chemical weapons (7th paragraph), are stronger. There’s certainly a gift in the timing.
Since nothing has really changed as far as Turkey’s and Israel’s stance on this issue, doesn’t that argue against it as being a major contributing factor to the relation’s deterioration? In addition to the gas fields dispute cropping up after long after the relationship between Turkey and Israel had started to deteriorate?
That’s the kind of thing I was thinking of when I asked what could mess this deal up.
At least two years according to the article I linked to earlier in this response.
Certainly the timing is a gift, but the fact that it occurred is a lot more than simply a gift.
I’m impressed. Never thought I see the day when Israel admitted it was wrong and apologized. If Israel acted this way more often, I think it would do much in persuading others that their view is the correct one. Inevitably, though, we’ll see if this is actually a shift in Israeli dialogue with the rest of the world or - as dopers have suggested here - a diplomatic gift to Obama’s legacy.
It occured to me that the Kurds probably see a better chance for securing an autonomous region in Syria (Western Kurdistan) than in Turkey and want to strengthen their forces in north-eastern Syria to this end.
Is that all there is to it then? In thinking about your statement, some logical extensions to it are that: (1) The fighting will return to Turkey once this autonomous region is established; (2) The PKK is insincerely calling a ceasefire to establish negotiations with the Turkish government; (3) Ocalan’s stated desire to work toward greater freedom for Turkish Kurds via democratic means is equally insincere.
Do you disagree?
Why not just call a ceasefire without the drama of the Nevruz announcement and send their guerrillas to Syria? Also, I do not think there is much evidence that the various Kurdish rebel groups work with the level of cooperation your analysis is implying.
Certainly both Israel and Turkey have strong reasons to co-operate with each other and with the US over Syria. The breakdown in Syria equally impacts both of them - both have made noises about military interventions there where the instability threatens to spill across their borders. If anything, Turkey has more skin in this game, as Syrian refugees are crossing the border into Turkey.
I did not mean to say Obama wasn’t working towards this goal, I’m merely pointing out that he’s positioned to take the credit in any event.
There is a synergy of issues at work. Obviously, the root cause of the intitial deterioration was internal politics in Turkey; but it beggars belief that a high-stakes contest over what may be multiple billions of dollars worth of resources centred on a longstanding Turkish sore spot (namely, the widely condemned Turkish intervention in Cyprus) had nothing to do with it!
As for what’s changed, I’ve said what I think has changed - namely, non-Turkish Cyprus is right now engulfed in a financial calamity, which much reduces its potential value as an ally as far as the Israelis are concerned, which in turn weakens their hand vs. Turkey. Under these conditions, it simply makes realpolitik sense to patch up relations.
If the above theories have validity, a solution to the two problems identified - the political breakdown in Syria and the financial breakdown in Cyprus - would remove the reasons for patching up relations. Doesn’t mean relations would break down again though.
Basically, Turkey and Israel are like two guys in lifeboats in a sea of wreckage in the middle of a storm. They may well hate each other’s guts - or be totally indifferent to each other - but their chances of weathering the storms around them both is better if they aren’t busy flinging shit at each other.
If they want to hit something in the far northwestern bit of Iran, overflying Turkish territory would cut about 160 miles* off the round-trip distance, all of which is over enemy territory. Less distance, in friendly airspace? It could make the critical difference on a maximum range mission.
*measuring with my fingers held against a map, and doing the trigonometry in my head, so it’s not a terribly accurate figure. Should be ‘somewhere in the ballpark’, though.
Well, its possible that it was a diplomatic apology, rather than a sincere one. We had a topic on the dope regarding this, sometimes an apology is just pro forma or under duress and required, and not freely given.
The devil is in the details , the next time a gaza relief convoy makes a run.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the deal included an understanding that the Turks won’t allow any more such convoys. The U.S. *really *wants a united front on Syria.
