U.S. diplomats were surprised on Wednesday when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israel would not issue an apology to Turkey. Their understanding had been that Netanyahu was trying to get a majority to back a partial apology formulated by Israel's representative to the talks, Dr. Yossi Ciechanover. Netanyahu had to choose between two competing positions: that of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, and that of Foreign Minister Ehud Barak and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor. Within each pair there were differences as well, over issues of wording. The essence of the Lieberman-Ya'alon position is clear: If Turkey was interested in a mutual apology, there would be no problem. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded an explicit apology from Israel, while rejecting the conclusion of the U.N. panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer that Israel has a right to its embargo on Gaza. If Israel was to apologize in a one-sided way, Erdogan would use this to strengthen Turkey's position in the Middle East, while the Jewish state would be perceived as weak and beaten. We must not project weakness. Our relations with Turkey will not go back to the way they were in any case. The intimate intelligence exchanges we had in the past are impossible now, because Turkey cannot be trusted not to pass on information to Israel's enemies. Trade is on the upswing with or without Turkey. The reduction in defense and commercial ties is mostly the fruit of our decision and not theirs. Given these circumstances, maintaining our national dignity would only bolster Israel's status in the Middle East. The essence of Barak-Meridor's position is clear as well: It is in Israel's interest to remove this issue from the table. The soon-to-be-released Palmer report is good for Israel in the sense that it confirms the legitimacy of the embargo, but it could get many soldiers into international legal trouble because it determined that they used disproportionate force. Various legal advisers favor an apology, especially a limited one that apologizes for mistakes made in the operation, if there were any. Meridor wanted to condition an apology on a full restoration of the close ties the two countries previously enjoyed. But Turkey has refused. On the contrary, Erdogan on Wednesday gave a decisive response to Netanyahu's announcement, saying that diplomatic relations would not be restored. It is clear that his country will back lawsuits against Israelis and take part in the Palestinian Authority's determined campaign for U.N. recognition, and that it will lower its level of representation from an embassy to a legation. There is no good news for Israel. Choosing between the two positions is not easy, but it seems that the stance favoring a partial reconciliation wins more points. Mainly this is because Ankara has set out on a path of discord with Iran and opposition to the murderous regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Also because it is in Israel's interest to focus its diplomatic efforts in a single arena: the U.N. General Assembly deliberation over a state of Palestine. It is not a good idea for Israel to spread its persuasive powers too thinly, especially when they are thin to begin with. At a time when Israel is rejecting American requests on the Palestinian issue, it is important to try to iron out the differences with America on at least one issue. If the negotiations were in my hands, I would issue the most feeble, toothless apology I could, and move on. Then at least Turkey would stop being preoccupied with the May 2010 events on the Mavi Marmara.
