Is Israel's apology smaller than its offence?

Israel's apology to Turkey for its attack on the Mavi Marmara is undoubtedly no ordinary event. It is equally beyond doubt that this apology will not, and cannot, fully make up for Israel's offense in this affair. After all, Israel has the capacity to commit such grave offenses over and over again, and with this apology it gives no sign that it will refrain from similar offenses in the future.

Moreover, it would have been far more desirable for Turkey to hold a more urgent and more fitting sanction against Israel. Let us leave that aside for now. Even so, it is no small matter that Israel, after three years, has been forced to back down from the shameless stance it has maintained since the very beginning of the incident, and has announced that it accepts all the conditions Turkey set for the repair of relations. For one reason or another, Turkey avoided a more direct retaliation in the heat of the moment, but it demonstrated its strength in another way. By showing the courage to stand firm against Israel, and through Israel against the pressures of the US, it radically changed the traditional diplomatic concept based on being colonized; and by proving wrong the warnings that it would pay a very heavy price for taking this path, it ultimately confirmed and consolidated its stance and its position.

Now that Israel has offered this apology at the request, and even under the pressure, of the US, the question is being asked: what is the US demanding from Turkey in return for securing this apology from Israel?

Truthfully, this question is still the product of a mind that cannot conceive of Turkey's foreign policy concept beyond the customary hierarchical relationship. The US, or rather Obama (and this difference is by no means negligible), has an important demand regarding its policies toward Israel. Obama sees very well that the one issue that has wrecked all of the US's plans in the Middle East, and made the US an object of hatred among the peoples of the Middle East today, is its unconditional support for Israel. He assesses very well that Israel's current policies are the most important threat in the region to the interests of both Israel and the US itself. For that reason, Obama's visit to Israel should not be perceived merely as a generous show of support for that country. On the contrary, in the meetings he attended there, he did not hold back from criticizing, to their faces, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its attempts to establish new settlements.

On the other hand, the US sees and appreciates the influence Turkey has attained in the Middle East that is now taking shape, in the Arab Spring countries and in Syria. Israel, which has become thoroughly isolated in the region especially with the overthrow of Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, has no door other than Turkey for the policy of normalization it needs in the face of the pressure it feels. But Israel's need for normalization, and Obama's attempt to make this need understood in Turkey's eyes, is the kind of demand that creates pressure on Israel rather than on Turkey.

Frankly, Turkey's relations with Israel being severed does no harm to Turkey; indeed, it is even beneficial. Since its relations with Israel were severed with the Mavi Marmara incident, Turkey has gained a standing in the international arena that it could never have obtained otherwise. Truly, from this point on, Israel will care much more about maintaining on a healthy footing its relations with Turkey, which it has repaired at the price of an apology, that is, at a rather heavy cost to itself. Doing so will be difficult for Israel, because it will now implement a great many of its policies knowing that it is under Turkey's watch.

At this very point, another thesis has been voiced: that Israel is seeking ways to repair its relations with Turkey in order to complete the circle of alliance for an attack it is planning on Iran.

This is not a thesis but a delusion. How can it be thought that Turkey could at any time take part in an alliance with Israel, or even with the US, in an attack on Iran? Truly, it is astonishing. Even in periods when its hand was relatively weaker, Turkey did not take part in moves against Iran in spite of the US. Frankly, an Israel that has repaired its relations with Turkey has moved much further away from any possibility of attacking Iran. Otherwise, it knows best.

How should we understand Netanyahu's explanation of the reason for the apology as the worsening of the situation in Syria and his concern that Assad's chemical weapons might fall into the hands of the opposition? Does this show that Syria's future will be shaped in cooperation with Israel?

First of all, Turkey's now unignorable role in developments both in Syria and in the Arab world creates pressure on both the US and Israel to keep relations with Turkey good. That is why they are trying to keep relations with Turkey good. The conclusion to be drawn from this picture is not that the position Turkey has gained in Syria or the Arab world requires being shared with Israel, but on the contrary that their presence in this region now needs Turkey's mediation.

Let us also remind certain people on this occasion that Israel now says it is disturbed by the prospect of chemical weapons, which it never found at all disturbing while they were in Assad's hands, falling into the hands of the opposition. If this disturbance draws it closer to Turkey, should we not reread the situation in Syria with a different eye?