Tweet
SHOULD ISRAEL APOLOGIZE TO TURKEY?
By DEBORAH DANAN
Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=228434
July 7 2011
If the Turkish demand for an apology is nothing more than a hammed-up
provocation, is Israel justified in refusing to acquiesce - even if
it means restoring ties with its Muslim ally?
The back-and-forth spat between Israeli and Turkish officials over the
Mavi Marmara affair conjures up scenarios of a schoolyard bully pulling
his classmate's pigtails before a teacher intervenes and demands an
apology. But bizarrely, at the bully's insistence that "she started
it," it is the hair-abuse victim who is asked to apologize.
Israel is the unassuming little girl, the IHH-backed ship is the
bully and the teacher is the Turkish government.
Of course, most people will argue that the allegory's characterizations
are the wrong way around: after all, the image of trained IDF soldiers
shimmying down ropes doesn't exactly bring Laura Ingalls to mind,
and for that matter the phrase "humanitarian activists" isn't quite
analogous with the image of a tormenting schoolboy menace.
But it is exactly like that.
Without the Turkish government's support of the IHH - recognized by
Israel as a terrorist organization - the Mavi Marmara might never
have breached the blockade, and nine lives would have been saved.
However, for argument's sake, let's imagine for a moment that the
facts on the sea are irrelevant. In such a scenario, the only relevant
question is this: Is the excessive hoo-hahing about who owes whom an
apology worth the price that both sides are paying?
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, not known for his eloquence, fell
on the sword of his own rhetoric on Wednesday at a meeting of the
Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Lieberman restated
his view that "there is no need to apologize" to Turkey, and that
doing so would be "a humiliation." He also accused Turkey of using
the apology-card as a cheap trick to flex their muscles in the region,
stating that it was simply "a matter of honor" for the Turks.
Yet when speaking to reporters after the meeting, Lieberman seemed
to have undergone a change of heart regarding the importance of honor.
Israel cannot apologize to Turkey because, according to Lieberman,
doing so will "harm Israel's dignity [and] national honor carries a
real significance."
But if this is a legitimate rebuttal on Israel's part, why is Turkey
slated for its own efforts towards the same end?
Semantics aside, can't Israel simply swallow its pride and apologize
in much the same way a Englishman is prone to say sorry to the person
stepping on his toe? Isn't the greater good of repairing diplomatic
relations with Israel's Muslim ally worth the temporary embarrassment
of apologetics? And as we already know, sorry is not the hardest word
for Israel, as evidenced by the public apology to Turkey last year
over the "Sofagate" incident.
Unfortunately - at least in this part of the world - the answer is no.
A diplomatic apology is not a band-aid that gets discarded once the
wound has healed. Official apologies remain in collective memory
forever. They carry tremendous power and can reshape the historical
account of events. Furthermore, a diplomatic apology necessarily
includes an acknowledgement of responsibility and acceptance of
liability.
Consider what transpired at the UN-sponsored World Conference against
Racism in Durban, South Africa, close to 10 years ago. The conference
was a veritable finger-pointing fest, with Arab representatives
accusing Israel of racism while representatives from African countries
slammed Europe and the US over slavery. In the latter case, African
delegates demanded recognition of slavery as a crime against humanity
(which has no statute of limitations) and further demanded individual
apologies from European countries.
In the interests of preventing future liability, the delegations of
European countries - including Britain, Holland and Spain - fought
hard to substitute the word "apology" with "regret" - the same word
Israel is currently offering as an olive branch to Turkey.
[Incidentally, the issue of reparations and apologies over slavery is
one of the reasons the US pulled its delegation from the conference.]
So Europe and the US get away without ever officially succumbing
to the humiliation of apologising for slavery - indeed, they even
escaped having to pay reparations - while Israel is expected to
apologize over the use of "excessive" force during the breach of a
legally sound blockade?
And while we're on the subject of overdue apologies, Turkey may want
to revisit its own sordid history on the matter.
Israel is not the first country to have its ties with Turkey severed
over the issue of apology. While the argument of "they did it so why
can't we?" never works for Israel - primarily because the Jewish state
is measured by a different moral standard than the rest of the world -
there are things that are either too juicy or too horrifying to ignore.
Exhibit A is the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of
the Ottomans during World War I. Demands by the Armenian community in
Turkey to receive an apology from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
have consistently been met with refusal. To add insult to annihilation,
Turkey continues to reject the term genocide.
In light of its ongoing 16-year-old blockade with Armenia, one would
think Turkey would be a tad more sympathetic towards Israel's own
blockade of Gaza.
So here's a demand for you Prime Minister Erdogan: Instead of trying
to mask your country's macabre history with deplorable refutations,
how about taking a leaf out of your own book and owning up to it? You
never know, apologizing to the Kurds and the Armenians might just
spur Israel to follow by example.
The writer is editor of The Jerusalem Post's Premium Zone.
By DEBORAH DANAN
Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=228434
July 7 2011
If the Turkish demand for an apology is nothing more than a hammed-up
provocation, is Israel justified in refusing to acquiesce - even if
it means restoring ties with its Muslim ally?
The back-and-forth spat between Israeli and Turkish officials over the
Mavi Marmara affair conjures up scenarios of a schoolyard bully pulling
his classmate's pigtails before a teacher intervenes and demands an
apology. But bizarrely, at the bully's insistence that "she started
it," it is the hair-abuse victim who is asked to apologize.
Israel is the unassuming little girl, the IHH-backed ship is the
bully and the teacher is the Turkish government.
Of course, most people will argue that the allegory's characterizations
are the wrong way around: after all, the image of trained IDF soldiers
shimmying down ropes doesn't exactly bring Laura Ingalls to mind,
and for that matter the phrase "humanitarian activists" isn't quite
analogous with the image of a tormenting schoolboy menace.
But it is exactly like that.
Without the Turkish government's support of the IHH - recognized by
Israel as a terrorist organization - the Mavi Marmara might never
have breached the blockade, and nine lives would have been saved.
However, for argument's sake, let's imagine for a moment that the
facts on the sea are irrelevant. In such a scenario, the only relevant
question is this: Is the excessive hoo-hahing about who owes whom an
apology worth the price that both sides are paying?
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, not known for his eloquence, fell
on the sword of his own rhetoric on Wednesday at a meeting of the
Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Lieberman restated
his view that "there is no need to apologize" to Turkey, and that
doing so would be "a humiliation." He also accused Turkey of using
the apology-card as a cheap trick to flex their muscles in the region,
stating that it was simply "a matter of honor" for the Turks.
Yet when speaking to reporters after the meeting, Lieberman seemed
to have undergone a change of heart regarding the importance of honor.
Israel cannot apologize to Turkey because, according to Lieberman,
doing so will "harm Israel's dignity [and] national honor carries a
real significance."
But if this is a legitimate rebuttal on Israel's part, why is Turkey
slated for its own efforts towards the same end?
Semantics aside, can't Israel simply swallow its pride and apologize
in much the same way a Englishman is prone to say sorry to the person
stepping on his toe? Isn't the greater good of repairing diplomatic
relations with Israel's Muslim ally worth the temporary embarrassment
of apologetics? And as we already know, sorry is not the hardest word
for Israel, as evidenced by the public apology to Turkey last year
over the "Sofagate" incident.
Unfortunately - at least in this part of the world - the answer is no.
A diplomatic apology is not a band-aid that gets discarded once the
wound has healed. Official apologies remain in collective memory
forever. They carry tremendous power and can reshape the historical
account of events. Furthermore, a diplomatic apology necessarily
includes an acknowledgement of responsibility and acceptance of
liability.
Consider what transpired at the UN-sponsored World Conference against
Racism in Durban, South Africa, close to 10 years ago. The conference
was a veritable finger-pointing fest, with Arab representatives
accusing Israel of racism while representatives from African countries
slammed Europe and the US over slavery. In the latter case, African
delegates demanded recognition of slavery as a crime against humanity
(which has no statute of limitations) and further demanded individual
apologies from European countries.
In the interests of preventing future liability, the delegations of
European countries - including Britain, Holland and Spain - fought
hard to substitute the word "apology" with "regret" - the same word
Israel is currently offering as an olive branch to Turkey.
[Incidentally, the issue of reparations and apologies over slavery is
one of the reasons the US pulled its delegation from the conference.]
So Europe and the US get away without ever officially succumbing
to the humiliation of apologising for slavery - indeed, they even
escaped having to pay reparations - while Israel is expected to
apologize over the use of "excessive" force during the breach of a
legally sound blockade?
And while we're on the subject of overdue apologies, Turkey may want
to revisit its own sordid history on the matter.
Israel is not the first country to have its ties with Turkey severed
over the issue of apology. While the argument of "they did it so why
can't we?" never works for Israel - primarily because the Jewish state
is measured by a different moral standard than the rest of the world -
there are things that are either too juicy or too horrifying to ignore.
Exhibit A is the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of
the Ottomans during World War I. Demands by the Armenian community in
Turkey to receive an apology from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
have consistently been met with refusal. To add insult to annihilation,
Turkey continues to reject the term genocide.
In light of its ongoing 16-year-old blockade with Armenia, one would
think Turkey would be a tad more sympathetic towards Israel's own
blockade of Gaza.
So here's a demand for you Prime Minister Erdogan: Instead of trying
to mask your country's macabre history with deplorable refutations,
how about taking a leaf out of your own book and owning up to it? You
never know, apologizing to the Kurds and the Armenians might just
spur Israel to follow by example.
The writer is editor of The Jerusalem Post's Premium Zone.