Vice President Biden comes to Israel to jump-start peace talks, and the Netanyahu Government announces 1,600 new homes for settlers in East Jerusalem. In case you hadn't realized yet, the Netanyahu Government has zero respect for the Obama Administration.

An important component of Netanyahu's foreign policymaking is structural party politics. The infamously unstable Israeli political scene all too often makes small settler parties kingmakers in forming governments. This is only possibly in a system of proportional representation. In a first past the post system, a la the US and Britain, the winner of the election takes everything. This system usually leads to a two-party state, which is more stable and more centrist. Israel would be better off with such a system.

Last week, Israelis hosted their annual national security gathering in Herzliya- a big conference open to the press that is usually a very frank examination of Israel's long-term national security situation. Apparently, Netanyahu was a flop, but Salaam Fayad and Ehud Barak made headlines. Money Quote from Tablet Magazine:

In an appearance many called courageous, Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, surrounded by a phalanx of Israeli and Palestinian bodyguards, accepted an invitation to be a keynote speaker at the annual gathering of Israel’s establishment, where he appealed for peace. Ignoring threats and condemnations by his rivals in Hamas for his decision to appear here in the packed auditorium, Fayyad called upon Israel to stop expanding settlements on the land of the future Palestinian state.

His message was not particularly new. Nor was that of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who also appeared to restate Israel’s official position. But both men made gestures that went beyond what the stalled peace process would seem to allow. Fayyad did that simply by showing up on Tuesday night, rather than canceling, as he has done before. And Barak delivered a shot across the bow of his fractious coalition government by warning that unless progress on the peace front occurred now, Israel would either become a “bi-national” or an “apartheid state” headed inexorably into global isolation. 

A few participants gasped to hear the defense minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government use the language of Israel’s most virulent critics. Apartheid state? One of the panels here at Herzliya had described the effort to paint Israel’s occupation policies in the West Bank as analogous to South African apartheid as part of a “soft war” against the Jewish state.

One veteran European diplomat called the dueling appearances by Barak and Fayyad at the highly charged conference a “mood-changing moment.” “Both sides were signaling what they really wanted to do,” the diplomat said. Now they just have to figure out how to do it.

More than a few were shocked that Barak dropped the "a" word. People forget that despite leading Operation Cast Lead, Barak has traditionally been one of Israel's leading peaceniks. Daniel Levy offers analysis here. 

"Compared to 10 years ago, Turkey is more ______." The default answer from most Turkey experts for this fill in the blank is religious. There is some truth to this (I would argue that Turkey as a country is no more religious than before; religion has simply become more prevalent in public life), but I don't think that this rather obvious answer captures the most important shift in the Turkish psyche during AKP's tenure.  

I'd answer the question like this: Compared to 10 years ago Turkey is more confident. At the beginning of AKP's rule, Turkish foreign policy amounted basically to acting like a precocious teenager in response to the US decision to invade Iraq. Turkish foreign policy has since matured greatly.

AKP deputy chairman for external affaira Suat Kiniklioglu's recent op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor on the diplomatic spat between Israel and Turkey is a prime example of this confidence. Kiniklioglu argues that it is time for Israel to deal with the fact that Turkish foreign policy has shifted and understand that this doesn't have to be the end of relations between the two countries:

Despite some Israeli and American efforts to paint Turkey’s objections to Israeli policies as “anti-Semitic,” people in the business of statecraft understand very well where Turkey is coming from.

They recognize that disagreements between Turkey and Israel are likely to continue provided there is no recognizable change in issues such as improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza. They also recognize the complete and immediate freezing of settlements and the overall posture of Israel toward the peace process – if one can still talk about such a process.

I remember vividly the days when the United States criticized Turkey for engaging with Syria at a time when Washington and the Europeans were trying to isolate Syria. Today we see a full reversal of US and European policies; both the US and Europe now recognize that engaging with Syria is the right course of action.

Then, Turkey’s views on the Middle East were shunned and disregarded – in my view, primarily due to the inability to make the mental shift about Turkey and its new posture.

This is a clip from the Turkish TV drama "Ayrilik", one of the shows (along with Kurtlar Vadisi) that have infuriated Israel in the past few months. "Ayrilik" literally means "separation." Viewer discretion is advised. 

While the Turkish foreign ministry doesn't control Turkish television, it is unusual for states to air negative fictional depictions of other states on public channels, much less of a military ally. Even during the Cold War, Western spy films steered away from scripts that pitted America against Russia. Think of who James Bond's enemies were- they were international criminals, not the Kremlin's minions.

I'd like to add a few things to the points that Evan made about the downward spiral in Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey was working hard for the past few years to broker talks between Syria and Israel. These talks were raising Turkey's profile in the world, and success would have marked Turkey's return as a Middle Eastern power. 

Turkey could have then built on this diplomatic momentum to reinvigorate efforts to solve the Palestinian issue. Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutolgu, is an ambitious man who thinks about the world in broad terms. States make their mark in the Middle East by getting involved in the Palestinian cause. Turkey, which has amicable relations with all relevant players, including Hamas, was in a unique position to become the regional dealmaker.

But suddenly, Israel invaded Gaza without informing the Turks. This torpedoed Turkey's diplomatic efforts and made Turkey's relatively close relationship with Israel turn into a political liability. Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan genuinely felt betrayed, and this was an important precursor to his outburst at Davos (and the rest of the recent back-and-forth spats).

This turn of events also merged with socio-political changes in Turkey, namely the rise of Islamic identity (the youtube video is tagged with Islami Gundem, meaning the "Islamic Journal"). With prospects for Arab-Israeli peace in the Middle East looking grim, it makes more sense for Erdogan to stoke anti-Israeli sentiment, which strengthens both his base at home and Turkey's soft power in the region. I do believe that the Turkish-Israeli relationship reached its apex in the 1990s, and will not quite be the same for the foreseeable future. It is a sad development for those who want to see peace in the region.

- Jon

Update: Larison does an excellent job of parsing the situation here.

Diplomacy is normally a delicate dance in which both partners at least pretend to respect each other. The recent exchange between Israel and Turkey, however, was anything but respectful.

On Monday, Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish envoy Oguz Celikkol to express displeasure with a Turkish TV show that depicted the wanton killing of innocents by Israeli security forces. Unfortunately Ayalon chose to convey this message in a rather petty way. Celikkol was seated on a low couch making him look like a small child sitting before his Israeli master, the Turkish flag was conspicuously absent from the table, and Ayalon refused to shake Celikkol's hand on camera.

I can see why the Israelis were peeved, especially considering Turkey's probable response if Israeli TV depicted Turkish soldiers as blood-thirsty murders (anyone remember a little thing called Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code?). But why did the Israeli Foreign Ministry stoop this level to convey its anger?

The answer has little to do with TV shows or couches.

More after the jump -->