Much at Stake in Middle East Crisis
Early this past Monday, May 30th, Israeli commandos boarded a series of six pro-Palestinian activists’ ships that intended to provoke and breach the naval blockade surrounding the Gaza Strip with hopes of delivering goods to the Palestinian people. Five of the six ships willingly complied without any resistance to the Israeli inspection and without violence. Upon boarding the last of the convoy, however, the Israelis became the target of violence at the hands of those on board. The resulting violence caused at least nine deaths.
To justify their boarding of the ferries, the Israeli authorities have invoked, among other rights, the Right of Self-Defense grounded in historical precedent and international law. Self-defense and the protection of sovereignty have been primary concerns for Israel since its founding in 1948 and continue to be so even now. In 2002, the Israeli Navy seized a freighter that attempted to deliver 50 tons of weaponry to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization created in direct opposition to the Israeli government and people. Similarly, in 2006, they seized another freighter containing a shipment of Katyusha rockets, also bound for Hezbollah and intended to target Israeli civilians. In November 2009, Israel again searched and seized an Antiguan-flagged ship carrying Iranian munitions bound for Hezbollah.
U.N. Resolution 1373 states that Israel has the right to “take necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information.” Because of the history of repeated attempts to smuggle weapons through disguised ships to bolster terrorist organizations that threaten Israel’s security, Israel would actually be acting in violation of Article 1A of that same resolution—which obliges that all nations prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts—if it did not take such necessary security measures, even if Israel’s own security interests did not demand it. Therefore, after repeated attempts and requests to stop the ship before reaching land, the Israeli forces were obligated to board.
The resulting increased tension between Turkey (some of whose citizens were among the dead) and Israel could prove problematic in upcoming peace talks between many Middle Eastern nations and Israel. Because Turkey has failed on multiple occasions to join the Eurozone, it has an interest in drawing nearer to those to the east in the hopes of building stronger alliances. By financially supporting this blockade-running convoy, Turkey sent a strong political message to the West that it supports the local Muslim population and intends to position itself as a leader in the Muslim world. This change in policy presents several issues for relations between the West and the East because Turkey serves as a bridge between civilizations, representing a unique combination of being a Muslim, democratic and modern nation.
In terms of U.S. foreign policy, these shifts present an incredibly fragile political environment. The United States faces the risk of alienating Turkey, a key ally in the Muslim world, and the simultaneous risk of isolating Israel, every bit as important an ally in the region. Depending on which course of action the U.S. government chooses to pursue, drastic consequences could be felt by either nation.
Should the Obama administration elect to condemn Israel’s actions and further isolate that country, the region could well become dangerously unstable. Specifically, the more independent Israel feels it must be, the more likely its leaders are to act unilaterally; that risks undermining what little peace and stability exists in the region. On the other hand, should the U.S. elect to condemn and isolate Turkey, the bridge between West and East might become a trench, dividing—rather than unifying—the regions and potentially lending credence to the notion that these conflicts represent some larger cultural war among societies. Should this come to fruition, there is the potential to create a divide reminiscent of the Cold War.
The United States should lead new negotiations before this fragile, multifaceted relationship deteriorates beyond repair. These events appear to be a critical point in the history of the region with potentially devastating consequences. The worst course of action, in this case, is inaction: if America removes itself from this situation (intentionally or otherwise), the West stands to lose the cooperation of two critical allies in the Middle East—or even lose them entirely.
The Foreign Policy portion of the Weekly Political Forecast is written by PAI’s Special Analyst for Foreign Affairs.
