« January, 2009: America Celebrates, and Averts Its Eyes from a Massacre | Dan K's Blog | Uri Avnery on War Crimes in Gaza »
Erdogan to Peres: "You Are Killing People"
An amazing scene took place earlier today at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Ergogan responds forcefully to a long harangue from Shimon Peres, and walks off after Wapo's David Ignatius tries to shut him up. Many others in the audience then walk out following Edogan. Read and watch.
Needless to say, this is an extraordinary departure form the usual civility and posh of Davos. Obama's close adviser Valerie Jarrett was in the stunned audience. Hopefully, she will report back to Obama on the incident, and he will finally get a clue. Does he really want to begin his administration with silence, stonewalling and deflection of attention from the kind of butchery that took place in Gaza?
Needless to say, this is an extraordinary departure form the usual civility and posh of Davos. Obama's close adviser Valerie Jarrett was in the stunned audience. Hopefully, she will report back to Obama on the incident, and he will finally get a clue. Does he really want to begin his administration with silence, stonewalling and deflection of attention from the kind of butchery that took place in Gaza?
Advertisement
The moderator's comment about the need to get people to dinner was really out of place. Very jarring in this context.
January 30, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does he really want to begin his administration with silence
Well, I don't expect the administration to make any public statement about what the Turkish PM said, just like I don't expect them to say anything about this, either:
Egypt attacks Iran and allies in Arab world
Reuters - Jan 28, 2009
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt aired its grievances against Iran, the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas and the Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah...
Egypt slams Iran’s Hamas, Hezbollah connection;
Christian Science Monitor
I just don't think it's smart diplomacy to start slinging talking points about other leaders' talking points about other leaders, especially if you plan on playing a broker regarding a super white hot regional topic with everyone involved at white hot anger stage.
January 30, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean silence about Davos, artappraiser. The exchange in Davos was just a symptom of global rage and frustration, not an issue in itself that needs addressing. I mean silence about Gaza. I understand the diplomatic challenges, but Obama's silence is wholly inadequate to the gravity of the situation.
He just went on the Saudi royal family's television network, presumably to communicate some level of verbal "caring" about the Arab world. And yet regarding the most salient situation requiring actions that would concretely demonstrate caring, he is silent. The international community needs help, and leadership, getting relief funds and medical assistance into Gaza. If Obama really wants to "restore US leadership" he needs to step up. Right now he looks like a gawking bystander.
January 30, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what Obama carefully chose to say in a pre-arranged and highly planned interview, Dan:
I've read most of what you've had to say on this topic, and you seem to want to see some kind of outrage out of him, some kind of sympathy statememt for the Palestinians and some kind of chastisement or denunciation of what Israel did. I don't think you are going to get what you want. Because putting the U.S. in a broker situation does not mean doing the flip side of us doing knee-jerk support of Israel in the past. Especially when there are far more parties involved in the situation, like Iran, Egypt and Lebanon (not to mention the repercussions in Shiite/Sunni Iraq.)
If you want more verbal support of the Palestinians because you think they've suffered an especially egregious wrong this time, and chastisement of Israel for how it acted, you are still operating according to past paradigms. The Obama administration needs to have in its pocket privately threatening removal of support from Israel once it knows what the elections in Israel make happen. You call it gawking bystander, I think its wise. Publicly expressing outrage about what Israel did, especially before the elections, when it could influence them, will not make it easier to be an honest broker. I even wonder if it is wise to do until they have been able to talk to Iran.
There were lines in the inaugural address about unclenching fists and "your people will judge you by what you build, not destroy"? I very much doubt they were aimed just at Al Qaeda, matter of fact, they were aimed at leaders of nation states and other groups, including Israel and Iran, Fatah and Hamas.
Talking with unclenched fist is not judging. Judgment carries with it the whole mighty wrath thing, I think his State Dept. doesn't want to go that way publicly. Lobbyists are allowed to judge, you can make all the statements of sympathy you want for the Palestinians. But successful negotiators are trying to avoid things getting to the trial stage where someone gets judged right and someone gets judged wrong.
Basically it seems you want him to publicly show preference, to say what is acceptable and what is not, to lead the world in support of suffering Palestinians. He very clearly said he's not going to start by dictating.
I'm actually enjoying a moment of seeing our government not saying "my way or the highway" and not taking a moral high ground position of denounce or support. I'd like to see us do more of that, I hope it lasts, and I hope they use the same methods in places like Zimbabwe and the Congo.
January 30, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S.
Obama Authorizes $20 Million in Aid to Gaza Palestinians, By VOA News, 30 January 2009.
Can't you see how publicly saying "bad Israel, very bad, bad Israel" right now might cause many in Israel to swing further to the right in the elections? There is always blowback to taking very public sides, always, just like George Washington warned about in his farewell address....we've got the blowback from supporting Israel knee-jerk in the past, now you expect things to improve by doing the flip side?
January 30, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read most of what you've had to say on this topic, and you seem to want to see some kind of outrage out of him, some kind of sympathy statement for the Palestinians and some kind of chastisement or denunciation of what Israel did.
I would at least like him to make statements that acknowledge the moral gravity of what has occurred in Gaza. Even if he cannot bring himself to criticize Israel, he can adopt a tone and express a level of concern that are commensurate with the weight of the horrific events that have occurred, instead of trying to brush past them. Had this much damage had been done even by a tidal wave or an earthquake, I suspect there would be much greater concern.
Nor is there any credible claim to be made that the silence is necessary because the US is adopting an honest broker role. The United States is not neutral here. The US, the Egyptians and some of the Europeans have adopted a policy of active diplomatic >assistance for the Israelis in their war aims, and for Israeli attempts to manage the post-conflict environment in pursuit of Israeli interests by maintaining a lockdown and siege environment, and stifling the flow of international aid.
There are also questions of international law on which the US needs to take a position if it wishes to be seen as an honest broker and a defender of a just international order. If there are credible claims that certain Hamas actions violated international law, then these claims should be investigated and a determination made. And if there are credible claims that certain Israeli actions violated international law, then these claims should likewise be investigated and a determination made. The US should actively support international law and the investigation of violations of international law. In my view, the UN is attempting to play a constructive role in the aftermath of this war, and they need more public support from the US.
Being an honest broker does not mean adopting an attitude of moral equivalence or moral insouciance. This is not just some insignificant Israeli-Palestinian dustup that should be thrown down the memory hole so that we can "move forward."
January 30, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
nor is there any credible claim to be made that the silence is necessary
The Al-Arabiya interview as the first of his presidency is not silence. The appointment of George Mitchell in the first days of his presidency while a global economic meltdown is going on is not silence. The aid package just approved is not silence.
As far as I am concerned, you basically agreed with what I said about your criticisms, and that's fine.
But I don't really see how you expected anything else from this president if you've read his books and followed his beliefs and modus operandi. He doesn't like taking moral stances, nor focusing on issues from a single incident perspective, nor allowing single issues to supposedly focus minds away from nuanced interpretations. You're not going to see many cri de coeurs coming from him on foreign policy.
He's done a lot in his first week, giving the area an awful lot of attention to the detriment of other problems, so it's not like he's ignoring it. You just don't like what he's doing, but you really can't honestly phrase it as doing nothing or being silent.
January 30, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's ominous. It's relationship with Turkey is the nearest thing Israel has to a warm peace with a muslim nation. Of course that was the case with Turkey's long string of secular governments and Erdogan's is the first instance since Ataturk of an effective non-secular one . (There have been a couple of short-lived,ones heavily constrictd by the Military.)
Peres and Ignatius both failed to rise to the occasion.
By ,in effect ,confronting Erdogan , Peres left him no alternative and Ignatius exacerbated the situation.Bad enough that if Erdogan had let Peres' speech go unanswered he'd have lost face at home. But add to that letting an american columnist tell him he couldn't reply because it's time to eat! Unacceptable.
As it is ,he'll be strengthened in the next election which I think is due soon. Who knows the effect on the Israeli one?
Another problem for Hillary. It sure doesn't make me nostalgic for Condi.
January 30, 2009 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If intelligent people who care about the Middle East honestly believe that what happened on the stage at Davos is at all meaninful in terms of what will happen in the long-term, I would only suggest that they view the entire hour-long program. Personally, as a Jew and a zionist who deeply regrets the Gaza campaign, I was extremely proud of the manner in which Shimon Peres addressed the group, after having endured harsh attacks against Israel by everyone else on that podium, and in particular by Prime Minister Erdogan. Shimon Peres has been a man of peace for decades, and his words were warmly received by the assembled throng, and if you listen to Prime Minister Erdogan, you will hear him complaining about the fact that so many people applauded President Peres and that apparently made him angry because it's not part of the standard international script. . .or something. I don't believe the Obama Administration will change its approach to the Middle East peace process or its commitment to the security of the State of Israel on the basis of Prime Minister Erdogan's "conduct" before the world community. But, again, listen to the entire hour long presentation if you think it matters. I did and Shimon Peres, I submit, rocked the house with his passionate defense of the fundamental integrity of the State of Israel and its rightful place among the community of nations, despite the degree to which so many demonstrate nothing but dripping contempt for the Jewish State. . .no matter what Israel does.
But, again, if theater matters, watch the entire presentation.
January 30, 2009 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I viewed the entire program, Bruce. I disagree profoundly with Peres's interpretation of what is happening and has happened in the West Bank, and therefore with his view of the context on the ongoing struggle. I also disagree with his implicit claim that what has happened in Gaza is an appropriate and measured response to Israel's security challenges. Gaza was a crowd-pleasing murderous rampage dressed up as a state security operation.
But I don't think Peres is a liar. I think he is a sincere and even honorable man who honestly views the world in the way he presented it, and has so deeply internalized the Israel as perpetual victim worldview that he can't see what is happening. Israel has gone over the edge. Its public is now deeply radicalized. Livni and Barak killed 1500 Gazan Palestinians, and that is still not enough for the bloodthirsty Israeli public who now want Netanyahu, who promotes an agenda that will render the two-state solution non-viable for all time. And another large number of Israelis are going to vote for the fascist Lieberman.
We have credible reports of right wing rabbis firing up extremist troops on the even of war to commit atrocities. The atrocities appear to include the execution style killing of children. The last report I read said that about a third of the dead are children. And now aid shipments are being blocked and denied access by Israel and Egypt. Isn't it clear that the point of this operation was to inflict sheer pain and terror on all of Gaza, and then keep them in pain, in an effort to break the back of Hamas?
I understand panel discussions at conferences and the need to stay on schedule. I've moderated such panels myself. But for some reason Ignatius was unconcerned about the schedule when he let Peres hold the floor for 25 minutes and go on to make his case in somewhat repetitive fashion, as Erdogan was calmly writing notes and preparing his responses. Then it was time to break for dinner. All the diplomatic work to improve our image in the Middle East can be undermined if the folks who work at our flagship newspapers act like such guileless stooges for Israel.
The audience was clearly divided. Peres received some applause. But the support for Erdogan and challenges to the moderator were loud also. The exasperation were palpable. Davos is generally a very civilized affair, with the world's government, business and cultural leaders congratulating each other on their power, and conducting courteous panels. I think this event indicates something about the level of global frustration, which has bubbled up from the street to the highest levels of government. We saw a similar example of the breakdown of the protective barrier between the street and the government with the passionate remarks of Turki al-Faisal during the war:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=155962
January 30, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Shimon Peres has been a man of peace for decades,"
Simply not true.
January 30, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than a few, although not in the US MSM so far, have noted that Peres was yelling and lying his @$$ off.
Some are trying to be charitable and suggesting that Peres is probably going dotty.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/01/30/duking-it-out-in-davos-erdogan-v-peres/#comments
January 31, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink