The U.S. Is Playing the Role of Nasreddin Hoca

Ankara is angry at Washington’s characterization of the Turkel Commission Report as an “independent report, credible and impartial and transparent investigation.” Actually, there is very little about which to be surprised. It was assumed from the very start that the commission would absolve Israel. And we guessed all along that Washington would follow its normal reflex to support Israel. Nevertheless, Washington places great importance on its relationship with Ankara, and many thought Washington would try to strike a greater balance between its two allies.

However, predictably, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley gave a strong statement supporting the report, calling it an “independent report, credible and impartial and transparent investigation.” And once again, relations have grown frigid between the two allies.

But a separate announcement by Crowley gave Israel its own turn to become incensed. Crowley called Turkey’s separate investigation “independent and credible,” as well. Yet, the conclusions reached by the reports are so starkly contradictory that many wonder how it could be possible that both could be “independent and convincing.”

This brings to mind the Nasreddin Hoca fable. Nasreddin Hoca tries to defuse a conflict by telling both sides they are correct. To the sides who are each responding in consternation that “both sides can’t be right,” Nesreddin Hoca responds, “Yes, you’re right.”

Those of us who expect “logic,” “principles” or “consistency” from diplomacy are too often destined for frustration. After all, much logic and ethics are considerations of national interest. And it’s for this reason that Washington is defying the rules of logic in order to please both sides of the conflict.

Washington is hopeful that it can escape from this logical dead-end by kicking the ball to the Palmer Panel, which has been established by Ban Ki-moon to investigate the Mavi Marmara incident. And that is just what Crowley attempted to do at a recent press conference, stating that: “Each country — Turkey and Israel — has worked seriously and responsibly to get at the facts, and both have made important contributions to the work of the Secretary General’s panel.”

Basically, Crowley is trying to divert the attention toward the investigation headed by Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. Turkey, on the other hand, is reluctant to place its support behind this panel. In fact, Washington and Ankara are taking very different approaches to this directive. In essence, Turkey regards itself as 100 percent in the right and expects nothing less than Israel to be charged with piracy and murder, pay restitution and offer a public apology. For this reason, Ankara was very pleased with the U.N. Human Rights Commission report on the incident, which placed extensive blame on Israel. But the United States voted against this report. Ankara expects just the same from the Palmer Panel, but the U.S. doesn’t look at the investigation as aimed at finding one side guilty and the other innocent. In fact, the U.S. would prefer if no such evaluations were made.

Months ago, Susan Rice explained what the U.S. expected from the report. According to Washington, the panel is to consider the findings of both contending parties, adding to this additional materials and further investigation — then, relying on this information, the panel will deliver conclusions aimed at precluding any kind of repeat of this sort of incident. Washington also hopes that this panel can lay the groundwork for political reconciliation between Turkey and Israel. On the other hand, if the Palmer Panel makes an unexpected move and places considerable blame on Israel, Washington will without a doubt deploy its veto. Long story short, it looks like the Mavi Marmara incident is going to continue to be a huge headache for Turkey, Israel and the U.S.