Thomas Friedman is apparently vexed, by the recent conflict between Israel and Turkey in When America’s friends fall out:
As a friend of both Turkey and Israel, it has been agonizing to watch the disastrous clash between Israeli naval commandos and a flotilla of “humanitarian” activists seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Personally, I think both Israel and Turkey have gotten out of balance lately, and it is America’s job to help both get back to the center — urgently.
Except, as Shiloh Musings points out:
Turkey has betrayed Israel by supporting the terrorists in Gaza. No whitewashing or urging of by the United States can repair the relationship.
The rift that so bothers Friedman consisted of Turkey moving away from Israel and embracing Israel’s enemies.
Friedman again:
Therefore, it has been painful to hear the same Prime Minister Erdogan in recent years publicly lash out with ever-greater vehemence at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Many see this as Turkey looking to ingratiate itself with the Muslim world after having been rebuffed by the European Union. I have no problem with Turkey or humanitarian groups loudly criticizing Israel. But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.
That concern for Gaza and Israel’s blockade is so out balance with these other horrific cases in the region that it is not surprising Israelis dismiss it as motivated by hatred — not the advice of friends. Turkey has a unique role to play linking the East and West. If Turkey lurches too far East, it may become more popular on some Arab streets, but it would lose a lot of its strategic relevance and, more importantly, its historic role as a country that can be Muslim, modern, democratic — and with good relations with both Israel and the Arabs. Once this crisis passes, it needs to get back in balance.
He considers it “not surprising” that Israelis dismiss Erdogan as motivated by hatred. How condescending. It’s as if there’s a misunderstanding here. But there’s no misunderstanding the actions of the Turkey’s Islamist government. They hate Israel. They hate Jews. They are allied with Iran.
But it’s not just Friedman’s whitewashing of Turkey that’s frustrating. Towards the end he writes:
But I sure know this: It is overwhelmingly in Israel’s interest to bring more diplomatic imagination and energy to ending this Gaza siege. How long is this going to go on? Are we going to have a whole new generation grow up in Gaza with Israel counting how many calories they each get? That surely can’t be in Israel’s interest. Israel has gotten so good at controlling the Palestinians that it could get comfortable with an arrangement that will not only erode its own moral fabric but increase its international isolation. It may be that Hamas will give Israel no other choice, but Israel could show a lot more initiative in determining if that is really so.
Let’s go back five years to a column of Friedman’s from February 2005, The Tipping Point.
The Israel-Palestine drama has gone from how Ariel Sharon will use any means possible to sustain Israel’s hold on Gaza, which he once said was indispensable for the security of the Jewish state, to being about how Mr. Sharon will use any means possible to evacuate Gaza – with its huge Palestinian population – which he now says is necessary for saving Israel as a Jewish state. The issue for the Palestinians is no longer about how they resist the Israeli occupation in Gaza, but whether they build a decent mini-state there – a Dubai on the Mediterranean. Because if they do, it will fundamentally reshape the Israeli debate about whether the Palestinians can be handed most of the West Bank.
Got that? Not even five years ago he wrote that evacuating every single Jew from Gaza would place the onus on the Palestinians. They would have to show their commitment to peace by building a “decent mini-state” in Gaza. They didn’t. They built a launching area from which to shoot rockets into Israel. Israel’s “siege” was a foreseeable consequence of Israel following a policy that he advocated. (That Gaza would be turned into a terror staging area was something that, I think, was reasonably predictable. It wasn’t obvious to Friedman though.) Now he’s blaming Israel for lacking imagination!
Given that the Palestinian did not “reshape the debate” it’s more than a little hypocritical of Friedman to blame Israel for not responding “creatively” to unchanged circumstances.
Friedman concludes:
This is a critical moment. Two of America’s best friends are out of balance and infuriatingly at each other’s throats. We have got to move quickly to get them both back to the center before this spins out of control.
But this isn’t about some silly fight that the United States to mediate. One of those friends, has abandoned the United States too. Turkey, as Barry Rubin writes is Marching towards Islamism. The more important question is will the United States recognize this change and treat Turkey accordingly.
Friedman clearly hasn’t.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Note how Friedman uses the term “siege” to describe what is happening in Gaza. You’ll see that in a lot of comments at the NYT, now. But of course, there is a world of difference between a siege and a blockade. If this were actually a siege, Israel would be cutting off all supplies and all power to Gaza, with the idea of creating a humanitarian disaster to make the populace surrender.
Now, maybe Israel should do exactly that, if the world is going to act as though it is happening.
I was horrified by the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish comments in the Times. Fortunately New York is different from America.