In an uncredited article, that seems largely based on Robert Mackey’s account, the New York Times once again reports:
Using unusually blunt language for a British prime minister speaking about Arab-Israeli tensions, Mr. Cameron added: “Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.”
Really, there was a lot more to the speech than that and Barry Rubin has “fisked” PM Cameron’s efforts at currying favor with Erdogan in How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study: UK PM in Turkey. The short critique:
What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?
A specific example is:
“I’ve come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.”
Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: “I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries.” In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn’t need Britain at all.
And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West’s radical Islamist enemies.
Much of the rest of the critique involves similar statements made by Cameron. But it’s interesting to note that the Obama administration could be viewed as taking the same tack with the Palestinians. Also from Barry Rubin:
–U.S.-Israel relations are quite good, the best at any time during the current presidency, and this could be expected to continue into early 2011 at least.
–The U.S. government has upgraded the Palestinian Authority representatives in the United States to the level of a general delegation, allowing them to fly the Palestinian flag in Washington DC. If this had come after the PA accepted direct negotiations with Israel that might have been understood. But once again we see the fatal pattern: first give a unilateral concession in hope that the other side will reciprocate. Shall I list the occasions on which that approach has failed during the last 18 months? You can develop your own list. That’s not the way to do foreign policy.
Essentially, the administration decided that it considered Palestinian cooperation essential so it flattered the PLO. But by showing how essential it considered the Palestinians, the administration gave the Palestinians a veto. What it did wasn’t a bribe; it was sacrificing its leverage. (And where is the administration’s outrage over one more Palestinian snub?)
It’s also outrageous that the Washington Post chooses to report Pressure mounts for Mideast talks as Israel’s settlement freeze nears end, without even mentioning once that it’s Abbas who has been refusing to engage with direct talks with Israel. By fawning all over Abbas and the Palestinians, this administration (and to be sure the Bush and Clinton administrations too) continues to allow Abbas to engage in his passive aggressive diplomacy and ensure that nothing gets done.
UPDATE: I forgot about Martin Peretz’s critique of Cameron, David Cameron Has Been to Washington. He Got The Message…And Now He’s Delivering It.
Peretz’ clearly means that Cameron got the Obama administration’s message figuratively, but Jonathan Hoffman thinks it may be literally:
I may have maligned the FCO who reportedly were as surprised as anyone to see the Cameron comments about Israel. It seems that Obama may have been the one who fed him the drivel — and that he willingly swallowed…
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
