What Is Erdogan Smoking?

The Islamist-leaning jefe grande of the AKP and prime minister of Turkey, Recip Erdogan, is proving to be something of a regional loose cannon.  It is one thing to demand an apology from Israel for the badly mishandled boarding of the Mavi Marmora, but it is a far different matter to threaten war.

Make no mistake about it, the bellicose prime minister's promise/threat to provide naval cover for future "aid" flotillas headed for Gaza is the next best thing to a declaration of war against Israel.  Erdogan might not like it, but the Israeli blockade of Hamas ruled Gaza does conform with international law as well as the customs of war at sea.  That inconvenient truth has been made clear time after time, most recently in the Palmer Report.  The report severely criticized the Israelis for the conduct of the blockade but emphasized that the blockade per se was and is totally legal.

This means that any Turkish naval units convoying the "aid" vessels would be seeking to break an internationally recognized and legal blockade by armed force.  That is a pretty good operational definition of war.  Perhaps the huffing and puffing PM did not realize that as he allowed his mouth to run away from adult supervision, but if the Turkish navy shoots, the Israelis will shoot back, just as sure as it is hot as hell in Texas.

Having made the promise/threat, the AKP government now had best hope that no pro-Palestinian group will take up the offer.  Given that the "humanitarian" NGO behind the Mavi Marmora flotilla has very close ties to the government, it may be expected that at least that group, IHH, will be controllable.  But there are many other entities willing to use the specious cover of humanitarian aid convoys to embarrass Israel and, given the Erdogan commitment, perhaps start a war which will end the Zionist menace once and for all.

Certainly there are enough entities, including both state and non-state actors, which fervently desire an end to Israel.  Of these, most would be willing to manipulate a face off between Turkey and Israel into the long hoped for War of the Final Solution.  Erdogan's promise/threat darn near invites some group to do just that.

There is the chance that Erdogan was motivated not only by his ambition to recreate the Ottoman Empire in an updated form but also by an exaggerated belief that his navy could simply intimidate the Israelis into allowing the Turk protected "aid" convoy to steam unimpaired to port in Gaza.  The Turkish navy is much larger than its Israeli counterpart.  The TCG has eight former US Perry class frigates as well as more modern classes including eight MEKO vessels.  The Turks also can deploy an impressive number of smaller combatants headed by six French built corvettes.

The Israeli navy is small in comparison.  However the almost microscopic coastal defense oriented IDF naval forces include three highly competent Dolphin class submarines whose tube launched missiles constitute a serious threat to any surface opponent.  Far more importantly, any confrontation between Turk and Israeli would occur within very easy range of the Israeli land based air force.  The Turks have no credible way of countering the Israeli air threat.  Period.

Israeli air dominance means it is game, set, and match to those fighting under the blue and white flag of Israel.

Erdogan is apparently too busy contemplating his diplomatic brilliance to remember the hortatory advice which ended the sci-fi classic, The Thing, "Watch the skies!"

The Islamist PM has also overlooked the vast difference between impressing the Arab street with anti-Israeli oratory (very good) and saber rattling (which scares the hell out of the same street.)  Turkey has gained a whale of a lot of traction in the Mideast by cocking a snoot at Israel by way of words and diplomatic rupture. This does not mean the Arabs or their governments, either new or old, are hoping for a return of the Ottoman Empire under any guise.  Nor are all hands thrilled by the prospect of a new regional war whether initiated by intent or miscalculation.

The same dynamics and considerations apply to the second of Erdogan's promises/threats.  The expansive, not to say delusional, PM also declared that the Turks will guarantee the maritime commons and subsea resources against Israeli exploitation.  This is a more comprehensive commitment than the convoying of humanitarian flotillas.  At the same time, it places the Turks in a more vulnerable position by greatly enlarging the possibility of starting a war of miscalculation.  It also places Turkey in the role of regional semi-hegemon pretending that no one can drill below the water of the Eastern Mediterranean without Ankara's remit.  This is a preposterous assertion which will alienate not only the government of Cyprus but a host of others as well.

Alienation takes many forms.  And, alienation can have a host of consequences, none of which is positive from Ankara's perspective.

For example, the present Egyptian government (the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) may be happy with the new military agreement between itself and Turkey.  It may be pleased with the prospect of joint military, naval, and air exercises to be held early next year.  But, neither SCAF nor any successor government other than one dominated by the more extreme Salifists would be thrilled by a joint war against Israel.  After all, the Egyptians are a lot closer to Israel and know from experience what that can mean if the bullets fly and the bombs fall.

Every Arab state is too preoccupied currently with internal problems to seek a war.  If a war of miscalculation would ensue after a Turk-Israeli shoot out at sea, there would be few Arabs rushing to the frontline.  The Turks would find themselves rather alone in the matter.

Erdogan (who now deserves the Joe Biden Award) has no choice in the real world now other than to back down.  Fortunately for him the walking back can be done quietly.  He and the AKP will lose a bit of street cred, but that is preferable to losing a war.

Yes, Bibi, Great States Do Apologize

The apparent center of gravity in the current degradation of relations between Turkey and Israel is the failure of the latter to offer an acceptable, formal apology for the nine deaths which occurred at the hands of IDF personnel during the encounter between Israel and the utterly bogus "relief" flotilla headed by the Mavi Marmora.  The Palmer Report concluded that while Israel had international law and custom on its side as regarded the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, the enforcement of the blockade as well as the resultant deaths constituted an egregious act of overreach.

The incident on board the ship handed anti-Israeli elements, including the Islamist leaning AKP government of Turkey a heaven sent opportunity to make much propaganda at the expense of the Jewish state.  In this context the Turks have demanded repeatedly that Israel not only provide compensation for those wounded and killed by IDF members but also provide an acceptable apology.  Israel has agreed to compensation but has balked over the idea of an apology.  Prime minister Netanyahu has maintained that doing so would damage Israeli public morale among other sinister things.  In this he has been backed (or exceeded) by the always ready to breath fire foreign minister, Lieberman.  The far right of the Israeli political spectrum has been monolithic in the rejectionist stance adopted by Netanyahu.

It seems that the Netanyahu government believes that an apology for an action seen as being defensive in nature and not overdone in view of the provocations offered by activists on board the Mavi Marmora who were armed with bludgeons and similar weapons would somehow lessen Israel in the eyes of its citizens and the world generally.  This is an utterly specious notion.

The first reason for declaring the Netanyahu stance specious is simply that the raid was poorly conceived and even more poorly executed.  It seems preposterously arrogant that the raid's planners and commanders did not anticipate any armed resistance to the IDF boarding party.  Did these experienced military officers really, really believe the activists sponsored by a group with a long record of hostility to Israel would not seek a confrontation?  Or, were they of the view that the simple arrival of the dreaded IDF would cause an instant collapse of will on the part of the activists?  Either flies in the face of both experience and realistic military planning.

To put it bluntly, the boarding was as badly botched as, for example, the special operations force attempt in Somalia twenty years back which resulted in Blackhawk down.  The IDF blew it pure and simple when they mounted the assault.  This is not a mark against the troops who fast roped down to decks filled with men ready and eager for a violent confrontation, men who were willing to court and accept death at the hands of the IDF, men willing to be martyrs for the faith and the cause.

Apologizing for your own side's errors is no shame--only a transient embarrassment for those in charge.  Admitting that better thinking, better planning, better timing, better methods and tactics would have resulted in a death free takeover of the ship is no sin,  no humiliation, but rather an expression of a willingness and capacity to learn from mistakes.

The second reason the Netanyahu posture is specious not to say vacuous is simply that great nations can and do apologize.  By this the Geek does not mean the bogus exercises of mea culpa engaged in by President Obama for American "transgressions" both real and imagined but in all cases resident in the far distant past.  No, the Geek means such examples as that provided by General Stanley McChrystal, sitting, legs crossed, feet bootless, on the rug covered floor of an Afghan stone hut apologizing for fatalities inflicted by forces under his command upon civilians, upon members of the family in whose house he sat.

The humble, human gesture of offering apologies for lives cut short in no way humiliated the general, nor the forces in his command, nor the nation in whose service he and his people fought.  Rather, it demonstrated that a great and powerful country disposing military force of nearly unlimited power could admit it did inadvertent wrong, wreaked unintended havoc and death--and, most importantly, could acknowledge and apologize for it.

Unlike General McChrystal, there will be no need for Mr Netanyahu to face the kin of those who died at the hands of the IDF.  Mr Netanyhu will not have to take off his shoes, sit on the floor, and personally say, "I am truly sorry for the deaths my men caused and the pain inflicted upon you by our actions.  Mr Netanahu can do the job by written words, words carefully crafted by diplomats and vetted by politicians, words which can be totally insincere provided they do not read as such.  It can be an antiseptic charade without any requirement for the direct person-to-person dynamic which involved McChrystal.

True, the Turks will crow over an apology.  The Erdogan government will distort it, use it to advance Turkey's status in its ambitious plan of a neo-Ottoman Empire.  That will be to the shame of Ankara not Israel.  And, it is debatable that the resultant propaganda will be any more destructive of Israel's interests than is the ongoing festering crisis of diplomacy and trade.

Best of all, the issuance of an apology puts the ball back in the Turk's court.  The apology would place the onus on Ankara to put up or shut up, to restore the status quo ante or admit the whole issue was false, a gambit intended to put Israel on the unending defensive, a way to back out of the previous policy of cooperation between the two countries.  This manner of clarification is in Israel's interest, is it not?

Get a grip, Mr Netanyahu!  An apology is in your interests.  It is in the better interests of your country.  Offering one will not diminish Israel; it will buff the country's image and status around the world and in the US.  It will not even bruise your ego.  It might even enhance your sense of self.  It will have been you who called the Erdogan bluff.