Israel-Turkey Special: How Serious is Ankara's Threat to Cut Relations? (Yenidunya)

UPDATE 0955 GMT: Reuters and Israeli newspapers have now picked up on the Davutoglu "three options", including the cut-off of Turkish ties with Israel.

Are relations between Turkey and Israel, after a week of surprising developments, at crisis point? To review....

Last Monday, Israeli media reported that Turkey had not allowed a plane carrying Israeli military officers, en route to a tour of memorial sites in Auschwitz, Poland, to fly over Turkish airspace.

Then Israel's Trade Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer, with the backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had a secret meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. When news of the meeting was leaked by Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Turkish side put the ball in Netanyahu's court and stated that the demand for the discussion came from the Israeli side. The Turkish daily Hurriyet claimed that there were four points made by West Jerusalem:

Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

- Israel is sorry for the tragic deaths.

- According to investigations, there were people linked with Hamas on board. So, it is not possible to pay compensation to these people and their families. Israel can pay to those with no connections.

- Though it understands Turkey's insistence upon an international commission, Israel believes that Turkey should give a chance to its internal enquiry.

- To discuss these matters, Israel wants the diplomatic channels to be opened. Israel is ready to talk.

Returning from a subsequent trip to Kyrgyzstan, Davutoglu said that the Israelis have three options:1) Apologise; 2) Accept an impartial international enquiry and its conclusions; 3) Accept the cutting of diplomatic ties with Ankara.

Denying that President Obama was behind the clandestine meeting last week, Davutoglu stated that Turkey's airspace is entirely closed to Israel's military planes and added:

There is no demand whether this ban should be extended to civilian planes for the time being. It will be considered according to developments. If no steps are taken, Israel's isolation process will continue. We know what we want. Principally, we are right.

The Turkish Defense Ministry informed the Israel Defense Forces over the weekend that it has decided not to participate in a naval search-and-rescue exercise planned for next month. Called Reliant Mermaid, the annual exercise began 10 years ago and included the Israeli, Turkish and American navies. It was even carried out last year after Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza raised tensions with Turkey, although Israel was removed from the Anatolian Eagle air force exercise.

At the end of the day, Turkey is decreasing its military relations with Israel at points where Turkey has no direct interest , such as Israel's use of Turkish airspace and joint military operations, to benefit from the friction over Gaza and the attack on the Freedom Flotilla. However, the limits of this game are also crystal clear.

Obama sent his First Warning to Ankara on Saturday. British Arabic-language daily al-Hayat reported that the US President warned Turkish Prime Minsiter Recep Tayyip Erdogan that the international probe which Turkey has demanded could turn into a "double edged sword", as it could lead to accusations against the passengers on board the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, some of whom were members of the pro-Palestinian IHH organization.

Egypt Analysis: A Practical Government's Moves on Gaza (Yenidunya)

On Saturday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit criticized the US for failing to advance the Middle East peace process. Gheit said that the conduct of Washington's envoy to the region, George Mitchell, would not bring about a settlement even 10 years from now. Later, he told the Egyptian daily al-Masry al-Youm that the Arab League will turn to the United Nations Security Council to declare an independent Palestinian state if talks between Israel and the Palestinians do not bear fruit by September.

Meanwhile, the Ma'an News Agency reports that more than 20,000 residents have traveled through the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt since Cairo announced its indefinite opening on 1 June. According to the Gaza crossings authority, 10,531 residents left Gaza while 10,172 have returned so far. Only 1,865 of those who left Gaza have permission to reside in Egypt; the rest must go back.

Meanwhile, Cairo is continuing its leading role in indirect negotiations between Hamas and the Israeli government on a prisoner swap in for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by Hamas for four years.

Amidst all these purported moves for resolution, Cairo banned an Arab delegation including 15 members of the Arab countries, headed by Assistant Secretary-General of the Union of Arab Lawyers, Abdel-Azim Al Maghribi, from entering Gaza on Saturday. Hamas responded with a call for the delegation to enter Gaza and to assist their humanitarian mission.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri also told the Palestinian Information Center that the measures taken at the Rafah crossing do not reflect any change in Egyptian intentions to move goods and people from and into Gaza.

Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)

The war continues between the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

After Ministry of Industry Benjamin Ben Eliezer's secret talks in Zurich with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Lieberman --- not informed of the mission --- forced Netanyahu step back and apologize.

Petraeus Plays Politics: The General’s E-Mail Scheming on Israel (Mondoweiss)
Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

On Sunday, there was another move to curb the Premier's power. The Ministerial Committee on Legislation considered a proposal giving the Knesset the power to veto an extension of a government-imposed freeze on the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party ordered its members to vote for the measure whereas Netanyahu phoned cabinet ministers from his Likud party in the hope of persuading them to oppose the transfer of authority.

On his eve of his meeting with President Obama in Washington, Netanyahu overcame another domestic challenge, as the Committee voted down the proposal. For now, there is no barrier to lawmakers continuing the "temporary and one-time freeze" in the West Bank.

Netanyahu has other "concessions" in his pocket before going to Washington. The Israeli Government voted on Sunday to expand the authority of the Turkel Commission investigating Israel's raid of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. According to a statement released by the Prime Minister's Office, new powers will allow the commission to subpoena witnesses and receive sworn testimony. However, the government added, "The decision excludes Israel Defense Force soldiers,"  a move designed to maintain the independence of a separate military investigation already in progress.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak will meet Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Monday, the first encounter between the two politicians since February and asign of progress in indirect US-mediated talks. And  the Foreign Ministry will publish on Monday its official "blacklist" of goods that will not be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. The list  will mainly consist of weapons and "problematic dual use" material that could be used to create them. Any items not listed will be permitted to enter Gaza.

Before November’s midterm election, President Obama also wants to show progress to boost his credibility in handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, this time, instead of continuing the friction with the incoming Israeli delegation, Obama will  probably employ a very different approach.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Obama will accept Netanyahu's suggestion of  ultimate Israeli control over the major settlement blocs and an extension of the freeze in all areas outside these blocs in the West Bank. The newspaper portrays this as the acceptance of President George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Iran Analyses: A Rafsanjani-Khamenei Deal on Universities Crisis? (Siavashi and Verde)

Yesterday the reformist website Rah-e-Sabz rather dramatically posted, from a source, that the Supreme Leader and former Hashemi Rafsanjani had agreed a resolution of the conflict over control of Islamic Azad University. The Supreme Leader would command the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution to not push the President/Government line against Parliament (and thus Rafsanjani, whose family are amongst the leadership of the university), and Rafsanjani would publicly praise Khamenei.

We have two contrasting analyses: Dave Siavashi of Iran News Now ponders the significance if the Rah-e-Sabz story is true, while Mr Verde --- who wrote on Saturday "a space created for Hashemi Rafsanjani to snipe at Khamenei" --- doubts there has been any resolution:

Siavashi in Iran News Now:

The Iran opposition website, Rah-e-Sabz, has reported that the dispute between Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Parliament has ended. Apparently, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani met with Ayatollah Khamenei (the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader), where an agreement was made between the two that Khamenei would asked the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR) to stop the dispute in exchange for Rafsanjani’s praise of the Supreme Leader in public.


This is interesting because it reveals a number of things.

First, Khamenei’s narcissistic personality is very much at play in the dynamic of the power struggle that has surfaced and intensified since the rigged Presidential election of June 2009. He is clearly feeling vulnerable in the public relations department. This is not surprising considering the many street protests against his rule (chants “Death to the dictator” and even “Death to Khamenei”, once unheard of in the Islamic Republic are now very common place during the protests). He clearly also sees this as an opportunity to humble Rafsanjani for not clearly siding with him in Iran’s power struggle.

Second, the deal adds more insight to the revelations made by Muhammad Sahimi in his piece in Tehran Bureau, Who’s In Charge?, in which Sahimi highlights the internal rift in the Islamic Republic between the militant revolutionary guards and the conservative clerics (mullahs). Khamenei appears to be precariously balanced with one foot on the head of the guards and another on the head of the clerics. But it has always been my opinion, based on his background and his actions over the 31 year history of the Islamic Republic that Khamenei is a man of the guards. He is with them. And whether he likes it or not now, his post is tied to them–even more so since he has used them to crush the opposition protests. Khamenei’s offer to Rafsanjani shows that, at the very least, he believes he has influence on the matter of the dispute over the university–either that, or he thinks Rafsanjani might believe that he does.

Third, Rafsanjani probably realizes that if Khamenei calls off the dispute, then in a way Khamenei’s hand has been forced. On the one hand, if the Ahmadinejad and the guards back off, then Azad University is ’safe’ for now. On the other hand, if they don’t back off, it reveals (again) the rift between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Either outcome is better than the status quo for Rafsanjani. He also may be calculating that some form of public praise for Khamenei will be seen by most observers as the political move that it is, and be largely disregarded by his supporters and the opposition.

Khamenei likely would not have made the deal if he did not at least have some misgivings about the beast that he has created in Ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guards. He is playing all sides against each other in a desparate bid to maintain his own position, influence and power. It is difficult to imagine that he is getting much rest these days.

Mr Verde:

There are rumours that Khamenei has ordered that the SCCR not change the management of Azad University (what Rafsanjani wants) and the university does not become a trust (what Ahmadinejad wants).

If this is the case, it may be that the situation is not resolved. Khamenei is just saying, "Keep things as they are", sitting on the fence as it were. He is not resolving the crisis (which I think is unable to resolve anyway, as he is weak and his authority is weak). And the situation is left this way, Azad University will become another festering wound, ready to cause problems at any time in the future.

Gooya has another version of the rumours about Khamenei’s intervention. This version says that Rafsanjani told Khamenei that overturning the courts and Majles must have happened with the Supreme Leader's help. He asked Khamenei to set up a meeting Rafsanjani and the three heads of regime branches --- Ali Larijani, Sadegh Larijanis,and Ahmadinejad --- to discuss Azad University.

In response Khamenei said that he would not wish to enter the arguments about the university. Rafsanjani replied that "we in Azad University" see no reason to give in to the Government's demands. Subsequently he called a meeting (reported last week) of the old university board, invited Mir Hossein Mousavi to it, and did not allow Ahamdinejad’s representatives to attend.

After this, Khamenei asked Ayatollah Mahdavi-Kani to intervene. In response Mahdavi-Kani is supposed to have told Khamenei that, as far as he knows, Rafsanjani would not back down and that also that in his experience Ahmadinejad would not listen to him. He is also reported to have told Khamenei that he even doubts if Ahmadinejad would listen to the Supreme Leader and therefore mediation will not work in this case.

As far as I am concerned these are different rumours. The fact remains that there is, so far, no proper resolution to the Azad University crisis.

Petraeus Plays Politics: The General's E-Mail Scheming on Israel (Mondoweiss)

Sunday's media headlines are dominated by the soundbite of General David Petraeus, the new US commander in Afghanistan, on the conflict --- "We in it to win it" --- backed up by glowing references for his record, notably the supposed success of the "surge" under his supervision in Iraq in 2007/8.

Regular readers will know that I am a sceptic of Petraeus' well-crafted military reputation but am a great admirer of his political skills. So, amidst the weekend's cheerleading, I have noted an illuminating story from Mondoweiss.

In March EA noted an apparently dramatic stance by Petraeus warning that the US had to confront the Israel-Palestine issue, if necessary talking tough to West Jerusalem, if its broader policy from the Middle East to Central Asia was to be successful. Little did we know that, behind the scenes, Petraeus was putting out the message that he did not hold the views --- including the need for pressure on Israel --- set out in his written testimony to Congress:

Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)
Israel-Turkey Analysis: Netanyahu Saves Face with Foreign Minister by Snubbing Ankara and Washington (Yenidunya)

Last March General David Petraeus, then head of Central Command, sought to undercut his own testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that was critical of Israel by intriguing with a right-wing writer to put out a different story, in emails obtained by Mondoweiss.

The emails show Petraeus encouraging Max Boot of Commentary to write a story-- and offering the neoconservative writer choice details about his views on the Holocaust:

Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome...

Petraeus passed the emails along himself through carelessness last March. He pasted a Boot column from Commentary's blog into in an "FYI" email he sent to an activist who is highly critical of the U.S.'s special relationship with Israel. Some of the general's emails to Boot were attached to the bottom of the story. The activist, James Morris, shared the emails with me.

The tale:

Back on March 13, Mark Perry broke the explosive story that Gen. David Petraeus was echoing Joe Biden's view that the special relationship with Israel is endangering Americans. Perry said that Petraeus had sent aides to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House to tell him that the U.S.'s inability to stand up to Israel was hurting Americans across the Middle East. Perry reported that Petraeus was asking that Israel and Palestine be included under his Central Command (rather than under Europe, as they are now).

On March 16, neocon Max Boot, who is on the Council of Foreign Relations and holds militarist pro-Israel views (he's an American Jew born in Russia), sought to refute Perry's post at the Commentary blog:

I asked a military officer who is familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus’s thinking on the issue to clarify matters. He told me that Perry’s item was "incorrect".

Boot quoted the unnamed officer at some length apologizing for Israel:

He did not suggest that Petraeus was mainly blaming Israel and its settlements for the lack of progress. They are, he said, “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.” That’s about what I expected: Petraeus holds a much more realistic and nuanced view than the one attributed to him by terrorist groupie Mark Perry.

I suspect this unnamed officer was Petraeus himself-- based on the emails. But we'll get to them in a minute.

Read rest of story...