By «isil Okant, JTW

Journal of Turkish Weekly conducted an interview with Dr. Oded Eran, Head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), regarding Turkish-Israeli relations. You can read the full text of the interview below.

Q: The TurkeyñIsrael relations have some tensions besides the Palestine problem because of some regional policies of both countries. Turkeyís attitude towards Iranian nuclear program and Israelís treaty with South Cyprus on petroleum research and starting simulated military operation with Greece can be mentioned as examples of these. Are these short term attrition policies or long term new partnerships?

A: Our major preference was the cooperation with Turkey which was based on the recognition of Israel. From its strategic point of view, Turkey is a major player in the eastern Mediterranean region. When Turkey decided to lower the profile of its relations, Israel had no choice but to pursue other alternatives. As you know the Israeli air force was training in Turkish air space when that ended not by the decision of Israel but by the decision of Turkey, Israel was looking for other possibilities and this is the basis for our current cooperation with Greece. On the issues of the border delineation between Cyprus and Israel, Israel is keeping away from the controversy on this issue. One can say that we are following the policies of most of the countries in the international community when it comes to Cyprus. And therefore, the agreement that we signed on the delineation of the border has nothing to do with the politics of the issue. What will develop or may develop is, if natural gas is discovered also at the coast of the Turkish part of Cyprus and then it will be a question which Israeli government and indeed other governments will have to decide how to react to it. But the agreement between Cyprus and us has nothing to do with political issues, it does not denote any political judgment by Israel.


Q: How do you think have the trade, military and tourism relations been affected from these tensions between the former allies?

A: Well, I think that the security relations that existed between the two countries have helped in creating a perception of stability in the region. When two powerful players in the region such as Turkey and Israel cooperate, obviously it is sending a very clear message to the other countries and other players in the region. In the short run, it may not create any effect, the two countries may lose by that, but it is not a major issue Turkey will continue to survive with other cooperations so will Israel. However, it is something desirable and I think that if the two countries can come back to it, it will be useful. But it is not precondition to developing the bilateral relations.


Q: The two basic changes in the regional dynamics that can be observed against Israel are pointed as; Turkeyís integration process she has launched in accordance with her ëzero problems with neighborsí policy and parliamentary changes that have started with Egypt and Tunisia and expected to continue in Yemen, Libya and Bahrain. What is or should be the policy for Israel to employ considering Israelís isolation in the region and the possibility or in recognition of the international treaties it has signed?

A: In the short run, the changes in the Arab world that we witness today may have a negative effect on Israelís strategic balance because some of the new governments in the region may turn their backs to the existing treaties of peace we have signed such as the treaty of peace between Israel and Egypt from 1979. But in the long run, democratic processes are very much in favor of Israel because a better educated society, a more free society which can judge for itself and is not given dictates by this ruler or by the other will be able to judge that the peaceful solutions to conflicts are much better than military or any other solutions which are not based on mutual recognition or mutual acceptance. So the question is how we prevent a serious damage in the short run. And I say that here Turkey can play a role for example in cooperating with the new democracies trying to educate them about the way to develop a democratic and open society. I think that this is a very important contribution that Turkey and other players such as the EU could play. So I am more concerned about the short term impact of the changes in the Middle East than the long term.


Q: For the resolving of the Mavi Marmara incident, Turkey requests from Israel only an apology to be made and compensation of the harms given, why does Israel refuse to provide for her former allyís requests? In sensitive cases as such, what should be the international foreign policy that should be employed to resolve the issues as such?

A: I think that these are two different issues: the apology and the compensation. The compensation is relatively easy: one can create a fund which compensates all victims not solely the Israeli victims; there were Israeli victims, soldiers who were injured. Maybe one can deal with it more easily than the apology. It is a different issue because Israel does not look at itself as responsible for the creation of this problem. Israel believes that Mavi Marmara should not have reached the area where the operation took place. If Israel apologizes, then it means that Israel cannot take defensive actions which it deems right in order to prevent serious potential damage to its security. I think that this issue, may be it can be resolved through mediation or may be it can be resolved by two sides reaching a certain formula which will be acceptable to both of them but the way it is presented to us today it makes it very difficult for Israel, not because the request comes from Turkey but because it will create a very serious precedent.