The WikiLeaks circus has sparked an unexpected sideshow in Turkey, where Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan is livid over leaked cables that highlight his allegedly crooked financial dealings. In the 2004 documents, U.S. diplomats relayed claims that the premier held eight Swiss bank accounts and accepted bribes.
In response to these revelations, Erdogan has announced he will sue the U.S. diplomats for libel:
The Turkish Premier adversely responded to American diplomats’ claims that he has eight accounts at Swiss banks. Erdogan stated that he has not a single cent at Swiss banks and urged the U.S. authorities to hold the diplomats responsible and suggest Turkey’s ruling party intends to sue them.
At its sitting the JDP Executive Board, following Recep Erdogan’s instruction, decided file suits against American diplomats and claim financial compensations from them for insulting Turkish officials. Specifically, the party plans to sue former US Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman, who, in one of his messages, claimed Erdogan had bank accounts in Switzerland, Hurriyet reported on Thursday.
Erdogan has doubled down on his denial, saying that he will resign from office if the allegations are proved accurate. And it looks like his opposition party, the Republican People’s Party, is also on board with the litigation:
“If there is something incorrect in the allegations, then you can prove its falsity and the debate will come to an end. Moreover, you can take legal measures against those who made up false claims. It is so simple,” Republican People’s Party, or CHP, leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu said Thursday in the northwestern province of Bursa. “Instead of attacking us, [Erdogan] should sue the United States. We will lend our support if he does so. …
While a legal fight would certainly be an entertaining spectacle, it sounds like the Turkish government still has some logistics to work out before they can head to court:
Sabah reports that Ankara is considering a number of options. Claims may be lodged with local courts in the U.S. as well as with the World Court in the Hague.
And just in case the legal route proves ineffective for Erdogan, his government is already getting a head start at blaming the whole predicament on the Jews.
“in 2009 Kadima will have to reinvent itself to win”
True, however, Kadima is not a true ideological movement. The notions that moved Israeli to support Kadima are correct – but that is not what Kadima is. It is a bubble, carried to electoral victory on the waves of the popular Sharon. By comparison, Shinui was an ideological powerhouse. Kadima is made up primarily of people fed up or kicked out from their old parties.
Kadima cannot reinvent itself, since it never was anything more than Sharon’s invention, escaping the Likud (as he has left various political parties over the course of his lifetime, beginning with Mapai – today’s Labor). It can still win a significant number of seats in the next Knesset – but that speaks more to the weaknesses in the Israeli electorate (and possibly to the fact that Barak and Netanyahu are both known entities, not exactly popular with most people), than it does to Kadima as a true political party with a future.
You can’t just throw the key to the other side and hope for the best, especially not in Judea and Samaria.” Quite. But isn’t it exactly what Kadima did in Gaza in August 2005?
Gaza was a liability to Israel, because its settler population was so small and guarding them was a logistical nightmare. It made sense to throw that key to the other side. Even with the attacks on Sderot as a predictable outcome, I don’t think that, given the chance to turn back the clock, Kadima leaders would choose a different path. The withdrawal from Gaza bought Israel tremendous goodwill in the international community. It provided the Palestinians a chance to prove that they can govern themselves (a test they botched spectacularly). The total collapse of Palestinian national aspirations is a direct result of the Gaza withdrawal. It has forced the Arab states to take responsibility for the Palestinians in new and painful ways (e.g. the Egyptian Gaza crossing crisis).
The West Bank is an entirely different story. The settler population is huge. Its geographical contiguity to Israel proper is an insurmountable barrier to unilateral withdrawal. The international community is not now pushing for that. For all the posturing by Abbas, Fatah doesn’t want that either — it would be a red flag to Hamas’ ambitions. The status quo for Israel is manageable. Kadima doesn’t have to do or say anything in the forseeable future, Annapolis nothwithstanding.
Diane – The Gaza withdrawal is considered almost universally in Israel to have been a disaster. There has been no goodwill generated – in fact, quite the opposite, it whetted the appetite for more Israeli concessions and withdrawals; Israel has suffered in lack of ability to respond militarily to rocket attacks and human intelligence has suffered from not being on the ground. The Settlements far from providing security nightmares, were siginficant strategic and tactical assets in being able to limit not only Hamas attacks, but also limit its ability to grow in strength for future attacks. Just as Hizbollah was unchecked in Southern Lebanon, so too is Hamas in Gaza. Egypt has little will to stop a Hamas build up. Further, if it is a Hamas takeover of Judea and Samaria you fear, then I fail to see how you can support the removal of the IDF from Gaza – the only thing between Hamas and control of Gaza.
While you are one of the rare people who still think that retreat from Gaza was good policy, you are correct with respect to the hurdles over such action in the “West Bank.” I would further add that in addition to the hurdles you raise to such a move, the biggest hurdle is that the Israeli electorate has no appetite for further unilateral withdrawals after the Gaza disaster.
Lichy
You write from the ideological right’s playbook, including the approved nomenclature (Judea and Samaria, as you say, with shock quotes around my “West Bank”). Whatever. I was analyzing for myself, without reference to ideology. Probably what I said could be challenged, but your canned assertions don’t carry much water.
Diane – whether my response is from the right’s playbook or not, you are simply wrong, as even those on the left have admitted, that retreat from Gaza was by any measure, good for Israel.
Support your contentions rather than ad hominem.
I’ve never seen what Israel might have done except hang on to the West Bank once the Arab states had given the Three No’s of Khartoum to Israel’s offer to return the land captured in 1967 (except East Jersualem) in exchange for a negotiated peace and recognized borders. We see in Gaza that a unilateral withdrawal is a bad idea. The initiative is entirely in the hands of Israel’s enemies. There is no action Israel can take to bring peace closer.