Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
March 15 2013
Turkey, Israel, and Jujitsu Lessons
by Orhan Kemal Cengiz
The Japanese martial art of jujitsu is based on the idea that the
offender is taken down by the force he used in his move during the
offence. The party that remains calm and still uses the momentum
created by the move of his opponent and takes him down. If you move
with your opponent in the direction he is trying to take you, you can
defeat him with very little effort.
Those who make a move in the areas where they have certain weaknesses
actually take the risk of being taken down by a jujitsu move as well,
just like the risk associated with the moves that Turkey is
considering making against Israel which may affect its actions some
time later.
A quick note to indicate here that I am not discussing in this column
what would happen if Turkey actually and officially took the matters
in this column to the International Criminal Court (ICC), but rather
hoping to analyse the concerns the Turkish state has when it's
operating. For example, if the Cyprus issue goes before the ICC, the
court could very well say that the crime of aggression under the Rome
Statute occurred in 2010, and that there is no room to implement
anything, just as it might say that "occupation" of the island
continues. And it might also say that it holds the authority to
investigate the situation today, since Turkey became a party to the
Rome Statute of the ICC. And the latter is, in fact, what Turkey
fears.
In order to make my point, I have to explain the conundrum Turkey has
been experiencing vis-a-vis an international judicial body. Despite
calls from the European Union, Turkey does not recognize the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, some
preliminary work has been done to change this; for instance, genocide
and crimes against humanity were defined in the new criminal code by
recent amendments. However, Turkey has not taken the final step to
become a party to the ICC because it is afraid that three major issues
would be brought to the court. The first is the Cyprus issue. The day
Turkey recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC, Cyprus may refer a case
to the ICC, alleging that Turkey has committed the crime of aggression
due to the border changes of 1974. Likewise, the case of the missing
Greek soldiers on the island in 1974 could be taken to the ICC. In
addition, there is a risk for Turkey that it may face some criminal
complaints in relation to the Kurdish issue. The village burning
incidents in the Southeast and the failure to ensure the return of
missing persons to villages could be considered crimes against
humanity.
When Turkey starts to use international law to deal with Israel, there
is a great chance that the same mechanisms will be used against it.
The method that Turkey could use to take the Gaza blockade to the
International Court of Justice could also be used to take the Cyprus
issue to the same institution. Likewise, if Turkey takes stronger
action against Israel, we may see that the Armenian genocide
allegations will be taken to the international arena.
Of course, this does not mean that I suggest Turkey should not
criticize other countries for their grave violations. Israel committed
crimes against humanity in Gaza and these crimes have been documented
by the relevant international organizations. Turkey should be able to
hold Israel accountable for human rights violations, including
aggression against its citizens. However, in order to do this. Turkey
needs to resolve its own problems first. To what extent could a Turkey
that is unable to confront the crimes committed against the Kurds in
the past offer a remedy for the Palestinian people? Given that Turkey
is unable to try the security officers who burnt 3,500 Kurdish
villages in the 1990s, is it possible that it could sincerely hold
Israel accountable for what it has done to the Palestinian people?
Turkey's precarious position with regard to Israel does not stem from
its serious handicaps alone. Prime Minister Recep Tayipp Erdogan's
language and discourse on this matter also cause some problems. An
approach that constantly criticizes Israel but ignores the crimes
against humanity in Darfur and defends Sudan's President Omar
al-Bashir, arguing that Muslims do not commit genocide, has no chance
to be influential in the world. Without being critical of Hamas and
Hezbollah, you cannot be convincing that your sensitivity towards
Israeli action is based on humanitarian considerations. To make a long
story short, it is inevitable that any move by Turkey against Israel
without dealing with its own problems and relying on impartial
language in the field of human rights would come back to hurt it in
the end. Jujitsu lessons teach us this.
From: A. Papazian
March 15 2013
Turkey, Israel, and Jujitsu Lessons
by Orhan Kemal Cengiz
The Japanese martial art of jujitsu is based on the idea that the
offender is taken down by the force he used in his move during the
offence. The party that remains calm and still uses the momentum
created by the move of his opponent and takes him down. If you move
with your opponent in the direction he is trying to take you, you can
defeat him with very little effort.
Those who make a move in the areas where they have certain weaknesses
actually take the risk of being taken down by a jujitsu move as well,
just like the risk associated with the moves that Turkey is
considering making against Israel which may affect its actions some
time later.
A quick note to indicate here that I am not discussing in this column
what would happen if Turkey actually and officially took the matters
in this column to the International Criminal Court (ICC), but rather
hoping to analyse the concerns the Turkish state has when it's
operating. For example, if the Cyprus issue goes before the ICC, the
court could very well say that the crime of aggression under the Rome
Statute occurred in 2010, and that there is no room to implement
anything, just as it might say that "occupation" of the island
continues. And it might also say that it holds the authority to
investigate the situation today, since Turkey became a party to the
Rome Statute of the ICC. And the latter is, in fact, what Turkey
fears.
In order to make my point, I have to explain the conundrum Turkey has
been experiencing vis-a-vis an international judicial body. Despite
calls from the European Union, Turkey does not recognize the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In fact, some
preliminary work has been done to change this; for instance, genocide
and crimes against humanity were defined in the new criminal code by
recent amendments. However, Turkey has not taken the final step to
become a party to the ICC because it is afraid that three major issues
would be brought to the court. The first is the Cyprus issue. The day
Turkey recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC, Cyprus may refer a case
to the ICC, alleging that Turkey has committed the crime of aggression
due to the border changes of 1974. Likewise, the case of the missing
Greek soldiers on the island in 1974 could be taken to the ICC. In
addition, there is a risk for Turkey that it may face some criminal
complaints in relation to the Kurdish issue. The village burning
incidents in the Southeast and the failure to ensure the return of
missing persons to villages could be considered crimes against
humanity.
When Turkey starts to use international law to deal with Israel, there
is a great chance that the same mechanisms will be used against it.
The method that Turkey could use to take the Gaza blockade to the
International Court of Justice could also be used to take the Cyprus
issue to the same institution. Likewise, if Turkey takes stronger
action against Israel, we may see that the Armenian genocide
allegations will be taken to the international arena.
Of course, this does not mean that I suggest Turkey should not
criticize other countries for their grave violations. Israel committed
crimes against humanity in Gaza and these crimes have been documented
by the relevant international organizations. Turkey should be able to
hold Israel accountable for human rights violations, including
aggression against its citizens. However, in order to do this. Turkey
needs to resolve its own problems first. To what extent could a Turkey
that is unable to confront the crimes committed against the Kurds in
the past offer a remedy for the Palestinian people? Given that Turkey
is unable to try the security officers who burnt 3,500 Kurdish
villages in the 1990s, is it possible that it could sincerely hold
Israel accountable for what it has done to the Palestinian people?
Turkey's precarious position with regard to Israel does not stem from
its serious handicaps alone. Prime Minister Recep Tayipp Erdogan's
language and discourse on this matter also cause some problems. An
approach that constantly criticizes Israel but ignores the crimes
against humanity in Darfur and defends Sudan's President Omar
al-Bashir, arguing that Muslims do not commit genocide, has no chance
to be influential in the world. Without being critical of Hamas and
Hezbollah, you cannot be convincing that your sensitivity towards
Israeli action is based on humanitarian considerations. To make a long
story short, it is inevitable that any move by Turkey against Israel
without dealing with its own problems and relying on impartial
language in the field of human rights would come back to hurt it in
the end. Jujitsu lessons teach us this.
From: A. Papazian