The Palmer Report, which examines the circumstances surrounding the attempted breach of the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip by the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in May 2010, was leaked to and published by the The New York Times on Thursday, one day ahead of its scheduled publication. The report's release ended Israel and Turkey's ongoing diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement about the final wording of the 105-page report and avoid its airing. What remains now are Turkish threats to impose sanctions on Israel if it does not apologize for the raid, which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. Having reviewed much of the report, I feel that the summary of the committee's Israeli representative, Dr. Joseph Ciechanover, expressed appreciation for its central findings, but showed reservations about their position that the IDF employed excessive force. If worldwide public opinion regarding the naval confrontation of May 29, 2010, was based only on the Palmer Report, then I too would support Moshe (Bogey) Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman, who both maintain there is no need to issue an apology to the Turks. Yet the media reality of 2011 is different. Against the backdrop of the Palmer Report, one that is fundamentally fair and whose scales tip in Israel's favor, the Turks will distribute photographs of bloodied terrorists. These photos will subvert the truth and determine prevailing world opinion. Ya'alon and Ciechanover conducted negotiations that were almost fruitless. Turkey had agreed that Israel should apologize or express regret regarding the conduct of its soldiers, "if they intended to cause damage" to people aboard the ship. This wording would not contradict the conclusions reached by the Turkel commission, headed by former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, or the military investigation led by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Giora Eiland. An Israeli apology is not necessary for justice to be served. It's not legally required, yet doing so would slow the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations. Ultimately, such an apology alone would not remove the topic from the international agenda, but it could reshape cold albeit stable relations with Turkey, and also show Israeli support for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's criticism of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is currently slaughtering his own people. It's highly possible that such a development would have created ripe conditions for a meeting with Erdogan and his Israeli counterpart. Israeli officials were split on the matter. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were not the only ones who supported issuing a softened apology. They had broad support. Four days ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Forum of Eight senior ministers would convene to once again discuss Israel's position on Turkey's demand, but he then postponed the meeting indefinitely. Now it is too late. Netanyahu has refused to express regret. It is not yet clear what sanctions the Turks will impose; if they will include an appeal to the International Criminal Court against the IDF soldiers involved in the raid, a vigorous campaign in support of the Palestinian bid for statehood at the U.N. General Assembly, recalling the Turkish envoy back to Ankara for "consultations" or even expelling the Israeli ambassador from Turkey. A late-19th-century Turkish admiral made a navigational error and said, "Malta? Yok" (Malta? It's not there). He couldn't find Malta. The two sides can't find a way to reconcile.
