US President Barack Obama was on the line when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for the deaths of nine Turkish protesters aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.
For those who don’t remember, the Mavi Marmara was a Turkish ship that set sail in a bid to break Israel’s lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline. When Israeli naval commandos boarded the ship to interdict it, passengers on deck attacked them – in breach of international maritime law. Soldiers were stabbed, bludgeoned and thrown overboard. In a misguided attempt to show the good faith of Israeli actions, the naval commandos were sent aboard the ship armed with paintball guns. As a consequence, the soldiers were hard-pressed to defend themselves. In the hand-to-hand combat that ensued, nine of the Turkish attackers were killed.
The Mavi Marmara was an eminently predictable fight. The Turkish group that hired the boat was an al-Qaeda-affiliated Turkish NGO named IHH. In 1999, the Turkish government was so wary of IHH that it barred the group from participating in relief efforts following a devastating earthquake.
IHH’s fortunes shifted with the rise of its fellow Islamists in the AKP Justice and Development Party led by Recep Tayip Erdogan. The AKP won the 2002 elections and has since been reelected twice.
By 2010, Prime Minster Erdogan had a long track record of anti-Israel actions. Indeed, by 2010, Erdogan had effectively destroyed the strategic alliance Israel had developed with Turkey since 1949. In 2006, Erdogan was the first major international leader and NATO member to host Hamas terror chief Ismail Haniyeh. The same year he allowed Iran to use Turkish territory to transfer weaponry to Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War.
In 2008, Erdogan openly sided with Hamas against Israel in Operation Cast Lead. In 2009, he called President Shimon Peres a murderer to his face.
By the time the flotilla to Gaza was organized, Erdogan had used Turkey’s position as a NATO member to effectively end the US-led alliance’s cooperative relationship with Israel, by refusing to participate in military exercises with Israel.
Following the incident, rather than apologize for his allied NGO’s gross violation of international maritime law and acts of wanton aggression against Israeli forces, Erdogan doubled down. He removed Turkey’s ambassador from Israel. He demanded an apology as a condition for the restoration of relations. He had his court system open show trials against IDF soldiers and commanders. He stepped up his exploitation of Turkey’s NATO membership to block substantive military cooperation between Israel and NATO. And he cultivated close economic and political ties with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
At the same time, Erdogan has cultivated close ties with President Barack Obama and his administration, and has spent millions of dollars on lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill to neutralize congressional opposition to his hostile behavior towards Israel and the US.
For three years Israel refused to apologize to Turkey. And then Obama came to Israel for a visit, and before he left the country, he had Netanyahu on the phone with Erdogan, apologizing for the loss of life of the Turkish protesters who stabbed and bludgeoned Israeli soldiers. Netanyahu also offered restitution to their families.
Israeli President Shimon Peres sought to silence the public outcry in Israel against Netanyahu’s action by soothingly saying that it was done to bury the past and move on to a better day in relations with Turkey. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz publicly backed Netanyahu’s actions, saying it was necessary to cultivate Turkish cooperation for dealing with the situation in Syria, which is rapidly spiraling out of control. Israeli and international concerns that all or parts of Syria’s massive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, as well as its ballistic missiles, will fall into the hands of jihadist forces have risen as jihadists, allied with al-Qaeda, have come to dominate the opposition to the Syrian regime.
Israel’s own concerns regarding the civil war in Syria have also escalated as rebel forces – affiliated with al-Qaeda — have taken over sections of the border region. UN observer forces deployed along Israel’s border with Syria since 1974 have been fleeing in droves, for Israel and Jordan. Earlier in the month, rebel forces took dozens of observer forces from the Philippines hostage for several days.
Given the situation, the main questions that arise from Israel’s apology to Turkey are as follows: Is it truly a declaration with little intrinsic meaning, as Peres intimated? Should it simply be viewed as a means of overcoming a technical block to renewing Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey? In other words, will the apology facilitate Turkish cooperation in stemming the rise of jihadist forces in Syria, and blocking the transfer of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles to such actors? Finally, what does Obama’s central role in producing Israel’s apology say about his relationship with the Jewish state and the consequences of his visit on Israel’s alliance with the US and its position in the region? And finally, what steps should Israel consider in light of these consequences?
On Saturday, the Arab League convened in Doha, Qatar and discussed Israel’s apology to Turkey and its ramifications for pan-Arab policy. The Arab League member states considered the prospect of demanding similar apologies for its military operations in Lebanon, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The Arab League’s discussions point to the true ramifications of the apology for Israel. By apologizing for responding lawfully to unlawful aggression against the State of Israel and its armed forces, Israel did two things. First, Israel humiliated itself and its soldiers, and so projected an image of profound weakness. Due to this projected image, Israel has opened itself up to further demands for it to apologize for its other responses to acts of unlawful war and aggression against the state, its territory and its citizens from other aggressors. The Arab League like most of its member nations is in an official state of war with Israel. The Arabs wish to see Israel destroyed. Kicking a nation when it is down is a perfectly rational way for states that wish other states ill to behave. And so the Arab League’s action was eminently predictable.
As for the future of Israel-Turkish cooperation on Syria, two things must be borne in mind. First, on Saturday Erdogan claimed that Netanyahu’s apology was insufficient to restore Turkish-Israel relations. He claimed that before he could take any concrete actions to restore relations, Israel would first have to compensate the families of the passengers from the Mavi Marmara killed while assaulting IDF soldiers with deadly force.
Beyond that, it is far from clear that Turkey shares Israel’s interests in preventing the rise of a jihadist regime in Syria allied with al-Qaeda. More than any other actor, Erdogan has played a central role in enabling the early jihadist penetration and domination of the ranks of the US-supported Syrian opposition forces. It is far from clear that the man who enabled these jihadists to rise to power shares Israel’s interest in preventing them from seizing Syria’s weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, if Turkey does share Israel’s interest in preventing the Syrian opposition from taking control over the said arsenals, it would cooperate with Israel in accomplishing this goal with or without an Israeli apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara.
So if interests, rather than sentiments dictate Turkey’s actions on Syria, as they dictate the interests of the Arab League in kicking Israel when it is perceived as being down, what does Obama’s central role in compelling Israel to apologize to Turkey tell us about his attitude towards Israel and how his attitude towards Israel is perceived by Israel’s neighbors, including Iran?
By forcing Israel to apologize to Turkey, Obama effectively forced Israel to acknowledge that it is in the wrong for lawful actions by its military taken in defense of international law and of Israel’s national security. That is, Obama sided with the aggressor – Turkey – over the victim – Israel. And in so doing, he signaled, deliberately or inadvertently, to the rest of Israel’s neighbors that the US is no longer siding with Israel in regional disputes. As a consequence, they now feel that it is reasonable for them to press their advantage and demand further Israeli apologies for daring to defend itself from their aggression.
Whether or not Obama meant to send this message, this is a direct consequence of his visit. Now Israel needs to consider its options for moving forward. For Israel’s allies in Congress, it is important to take a strong position on the issue. Members of Congress and Senate would do well to pass resolutions stating their conviction that Israel, while within its own rights to apologize, operated with reasonable force and wholly in accordance with international law in its interdiction of the Mavi Marmara, which was on an illegal voyage to provide aid and comfort for an internationally recognized terrorist organization in contravention of binding UN Security Council resolution 1379 from September 2001, which prohibits the proffering of such aid. Congress should enjoin the administration to issue a declaration noting US support for Israel in its actions to defend itself from aggression in all forms, including from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Second, Israel should scale back the level of military assistance it receives from the US. While Obama was in Israel, he pledged to expand US military assistance to Israel in the coming years. By unilaterally scaling back US assistance and developing its domestic military industries, Israel would send a strong signal to its neighbors that it is not completely dependent on the US and as a consequence, the level of US support for Israel does not determine Israel’s capacity to continue to defend itself. On a wider level, it is important for Israel to develop the means to end its dependency on the US. Under Obama, despite the support of the great majority of the public, the US has become an undependable ally to Israel, and indeed to the rest of the US’s allies as well. The more quickly Israel can minimize its dependence, the better it will be for Israel, for the US and for the stability of the region. The apology to Turkey was a strategic error. To minimize its consequences, Israel must boldly assert its interests in Syria, Iran, and throughout the region.
14 comments:
But in a changing world as apostasy increases this may not be so in the future.
God bless
Chris.
I have always used Bible Gateway also. Yesterday I visited them. I noticed (yesterday) that they had removed the NIV 1984 version. I wondered if it was just them or whether I could find another site that STILL listed the 84 version. There are others I have visited in the past that used to have that version.
I was shocked to find that ALL of them had removed it. I also THEN noticed that these sites had removed other older versions such as the NASB. I could not find any listed Bibles of any versions which were older than 1995. This is why I wrote the article. I am shocked that "so called" believers can do something so blasphemous as to distort God's Word.
By the way, I have made some changes to the article. Please read the edited bits, which are in purple.
Regarding the NIV, I sent an email to Bible Gateway and this was their reply:
Bible Gateway Customer Care, Mar 28 12:37 (EDT):
Dear Madam,
Greetings from Bible Gateway! Thank you for contacting us.
Our publishing partner, Biblica, who generously provides the NIV text to Bible Gateway, has requested the removal of the older NIV (1984 edition) and the TNIV resources.
During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway.
Bible Gateway is a distributor of Biblical content and does not have control over the sale nor free distribution of Bible texts. We will abide by legal licensing restrictions and are complying with Biblica’s request.
Older editions of the NIV will no longer be available on Bible Gateway or any website. We’ve provided further information on the transition of the NIV through:
https://support.biblegateway.com/forums/21800162-NIV-Transition
Again, thank you so much for contacting us. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you online.
Respectfully,
Bible Gateway Customer Care
www.biblegateway.com
Very interesting. I took a look at the site address listed in their email. This is what it says to the following question "Is there anywhere I can access older editions of the NIV?":
"Yes. Older editions of the NIV are no longer available on Bible Gateway or any website, but the Committee on Bible Translation (who is solely responsible for the translation of the NIV) and Biblica (the worldwide NIV publisher and copyright holder) have designated the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections as the official repository of historical documents related to the NIV.
At present the historical text is not available online, however, discussions are underway to determine if it will be possible to access previous editions of the NIV online for research purposes. When available, access will be in accordance with the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections access guidelines.
In the absence of the 1984 NIV and TNIV, we hope you’ll give the most current edition of the NIV a chance, as many Bible Gateway users and believers around the world have done."
Therefore, I call upon everybody to write into Bible Gateway (inundating them) with requests to make the NIV 1984 version (as well as other older versions they are in the process of removing) available from Wheaton.
We need to tell Bible Gateway that the newer versions are not accurate translations being too "politically correct" to fit in with what general public opinion think rather than in what GOD SAYS.
"The NIV remains the most popular English contemporary translation, with more than 450 million copies distributed since it was first published in 1978.
During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition.
This transition period mirrors the earlier two-year transition from the 1978 version to the 1984 version. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway, and we are complying with their wishes.
Since the latest edition of the NIV was published in December 2010, over 11 million copies have been distributed and it has been adopted by thousands of churches, ministries, authors and other publishers around the globe. We understand your disappointment that the 1984 edition of the NIV is no longer available, but we hope you’ll grow to appreciate the updated NIV, as many other Bible Gateway visitors have done."
THEY SIMPLY DO NOT 'GET IT'! It is not about how many copies are being sold and that we will "grow to love it". IT IS A FALSE TRANSLATION PERIOD!!! There will be NO "growing to love it, but actually a despising of it because it is a CORRUPTION.
Bible Gateway does not make judgments as to the accuracy of Bibles. They simply offer as a service a "gateway" to any and all versions. They offer The Message which cannot even be considered a Bible. It is one of those "trendy" things that caught on, probably because Billy Graham pushed it.
Personally I use the New King James because it is an actual translation. This is not a discussion about Bible versions, but I have found it to be accurate and I like it better than the King James in many ways such as it capitalizes the pronouns of Deity while the King James does not. It has its critics, primarily from the KJV only crowd.
It would stand to reason that God's Word would be high on Satan's target list. And he has been quite successful in "dumbing down" the Word of God. But what is amazing is that the verses dealing with salvation still pack the power necessary to convert.
The New Living Transatio has become quite popular, but I do not trust it and do not use it.
My recommendation is to totally abandon the NIV which I did many years ago.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
This article (and subsequent comments) is NOT JUST ABOUT the NIV. I used that as an illustration to what is happening generally to ALL Bibles.
Even the NASB older versions have now been removed. The oldest one still shown is only as old as 1995.
The NIV 2011 version edited "brothers" with "brothers and sisters" even where the context was clearly talking to men. Same with thje NLT.
This was the first thing I noticed. That in itself was sufficient to tell me it was a corrupted version. The NIV 1984 was still not yet affected by "political correctness".
Now all the bibles versions are one by one being changed. The KJV is a 2000 revision now and probably the NKJV has been updated too.
This is why I STRONGLY encourage everybody to stick with what they have got because you don't know what your replaced version is likely to be like.
It is not just about the NIV 1984 being removed. It is the principal of the matter. This stands as the thin edge of the wedge of ALL reliable translations being removed and replaced with inferior, corrupted,watered down,contemporary versions.
We need to make our voices heard opposing this trend, so that the next generation (if there is one before the rapture) have the TRUE Bible and not an apostate version.
The managers tell me to contact the publishers directly. Which I have done and yet to receive a response. So I contacted them again this morning 3/30/2013
http://zondervan.com/ http://www.thomasnelson.com/
Who else publishes the NIV 1984?
God Bless,
Wayne
However, my contention is that even the 1984 NIV is not trustworthy.
Not to sound defeatist, but I do believe that any protests to Bible Gateway,Thomas Nelson or any publisher will fall on deaf ears. The apostasy has gone too far which is evident in all aspects of Christiandom.
As believers we just have to come to terms with the reality of the apostasy and that it is what it is. That does not mean that we do not continue to sound the alarm, but there are some things where there is a possiblity our voice will be heard and there are places where it just will not. That being with companies that are big business and so heavily influenced by those who have agendas to corrupt the Word.
So-called Christian bookstores are not a safe source anymore. They are about the bottom line, catering to an apostasized Church that wants pablum instead of meat.
Biblegateway is constrained by legalities. That is the real world. I will be careful that what I get from there from the NKJV matches my Bible. The changes can be very subtle.
But God is faithful to preserve the portion of His Word that speaks to salvation.
The Word has been distorted, misquoted, twisted and this is even with the best of the translations.
I think where we can do the most good is to spread the word amongst our circle of influence rather than mount a campaign against the big boy corporations and Biblegateway. Just sayin'......
Again, appreciate the heads up!!!
I know that being KJV only is not very popular, but it is now my stance, before now, I went to and fro with my feelings on versions. I do not understand the problems people say they have with the old English.
I was looking at something someone sent me, it is a paragraph written in words that are all mixed up. The test is to see if you can read the words as if they were normally written. I had no problem at all, so to me, that shows how our brain can recognise words. Thus I do not see the problem with a few thees and thous! The other positive with the KJV is that because there are so many 'protectors' of it, you can be assured of being able to find the Authorised text online. If/when you cannot purchase the proper KJV online in bookstores, you could download and print it out from the KJV sites.
I much appreciate your comments.
I hear what you are saying. However, if enough people contact Wheaton, online sites etc about their concern it will have SOME effect because this godless world STILL operates on "supply and demand". If there is sufficient demand/concern for the older versions of our "trusted" versions, then MAYBE they will make them available.
Bible Gateway DID say:
" discussions are underway to determine if it will be possible to access previous editions of the NIV online for research purposes. When available, access will be in accordance with the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections access guidelines.
So, I assume they will do this IF enough of us make that demand. We can use this situation to point out our GENERAL concerns about ALL the Bible versions, KJV, NKJV, NASB etc that the older versions of ALL of these be made available also.
I agree that the NIV 1984 is not perfect, but is is perfectly okay to use comparatively with the NASB and KJV or with NKJV and KJV.
The advantage of the NIV is that it is in modern English. When I compared the NIV with those other versions I found little fault with it AS LONG AS I always referred back to the KJV and NASB on the more difficult passages.
With the 2011 version there are SOOOOOO many issues that it is no longer possible to study with it anymore.
The NIV is contaminated and uses the tainted Westcott & Hort manuscripts as do other cultish 'Bibles' Blessings Pastor David Hall