IsraCampus.Org.il

Professor Avi Shlaim became one of the best-known names worldwide during the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 people -- almost half of them civilians.

His popularity skyrocketed after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was interrupted while trying to refer to his now famous article, published in The Guardian on Jan. 7, strongly condemning the Israeli operation.

An Oxford professor, Professor Shlaim is not an ordinary Jewish academic. He is an insider, in a way, as he served as a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the mid-1960s.

In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman, Professor Shlaim strongly argued that Erdoğan was right in his reaction in Davos, roundly lambasting Israeli military actions and the behavior of Israeli President Shimon Peres. Stressing that the perception of Erdoğan's reaction in Davos was generally favorable in the West, Professor Shlaim said the Turkish head of government is seen as someone who stood up against the Israeli aggression.

Calling Israel a rogue state with an “utterly unscrupulous set of leaders,” Professor Shlaim argued that Israel needs Turkey more that Turkey needs Israel and flatly rejects the comments that Turkey has lost its status of an honest broker after Erdoğan’s spat with Peres in Davos.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

What is your reaction to the spat between Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan and Israeli President Peres?

My sympathy is with Mr. Erdoğan because he was not given a fair chance to respond to Mr. Peres’ speech. Shimon Peres made a very strong defense of a very controversial subject. Quite naturally Mr. Erdoğan wanted to respond to the defense of, what in my view, is indefensible. Peres was given 25 minutes to speak and he was not interrupted. Mr. Erdoğan was only allowed half of this time. When he was trying to respond, the chair of the session stopped him and stopped him rather rudely. It was extremely rude of him to interrupt the prime minister and to say, “Sorry, we don’t have time and we should go to dinner.” Surely he could have given the prime minister a few more minutes. The American moderator was very rude, he was not impartial and he was not a fair-minded moderator. He gave Shimon Peres as much time as he wanted; he then prevented the response from the Turkish prime minister.

Then you think Erdoğan was right in reacting the way he did?

Yes, I do. I think the prime minister was a bit emotional and used strong language, but he expressed his genuine feelings of outrage, and his feelings of outrage are shared by millions of people around the world and by masses of people throughout the Arab world as well. During the mass protest in Egypt, Mr. Erdoğan became a hero -- not only for Egypt but all throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

Some argue that his reaction was not diplomatic.

Mr. Erdoğan’s comments were not diplomatic because diplomats use very low key, cautious language and usually end up saying nothing. He expressed a strong position and his language was not diplomatic. But I uphold his right to express his feelings in his own way.

How do you assess Mr. Peres’ speech?

I am afraid I have not seen Mr. Peres’ speech. I was told that his tone was very aggressive, offensive and uncompromising. But this is second-hand information; I did not hear the speech myself.

How has Mr. Erdoğan’s reaction been perceived in the West?

I think that the reaction in Europe and in the West was pretty favorable to him because he had the courage to stand up and tell the truth as he saw it. In the Arab world, he became a real hero. The Israeli attack on Gaza was a vicious attack against Arab and Muslim civilians. No Arab leader has spoken up against the attack or against Mr. Peres. There were Arab representatives in Davos. Mr. Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, was in the meeting and he did not challenge Mr. Peres. The only person, the only Muslim who did so was Mr. Erdoğan. So he became a voice for all Arabs and Muslims. In the West he has been seen as someone who stood up against the Israeli aggression. The general perception was pretty favorable to him.

Do you think Turkey can really play a key role in the Middle East or is Turkey punching above its weight?

I think that there is a major role for Turkey to play as a mediator. It is not just a potential role. Turkey has begun to realize this role as a mediator particularly in the context of Israeli-Syrian relations. It is Turkey, not anyone else. Not the UN, not the US, not Britain, not the Quartet but Turkey who sponsored the indirect talks between Syria and Israel. It is a major contribution to the Middle East peace process.

Moreover, Turkey is an honest broker. Turkey has very good relations with Israel and with the Arabs. Turkey has a strategic alliance with Israel. It can be an honest broker -- unlike America, which has been a dishonest broker. Since 1967 there have been many opportunities to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN Resolution 242 and on the principle of land for peace. And yet all peace plans based on 242 were defeated by an axis of Israel and America. America has always been partial and partisan on behalf of Israel.

Some pundits argue that Turkey lost its status of an honest broker after Erdoğan’s spat with Peres. Is this true?

These pundits are wrong. Israel needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Israel. The Davos episode did not cause irreparable damage to Turkish-Israeli relations. The proof is that the Israelis played down rather than played up this isolated incident. Mr. Peres contacted the Turkish side in order to smooth things over.

Some claim the US has been an Israeli colony with its unconditional support?

I think it is going too far to say America is a colony of Israel. On the other hand, Congress has been described as “Israeli-occupied territory.” Israel has always enjoyed overwhelming support in the Congress, which is used to defeat any attempt to put pressure on Israel.

In your now very famous article, you have very strong words for Israel. You wrote: “Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace.” Why is your rhetoric so powerful against your country?

I stand by every word I wrote in that article. It did not give me any pleasure to say these harsh words against Israel. What I was doing was describing honestly the reality of present-day Israel as I see it. I did my national service in the IDF in the mid 1960s when it was true to its name. It was the Israeli Defense Force. Israel was surrounded by enemies, and it needed a strong army for self defense. After 1967, Israel became a colonial power. It built an empire in the occupied territories and it became an oppressive colonial power. So my position is clear-cut. I regard Israel fully legitimate within the pre-1967 borders, but I utterly reject the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line, beyond the 1967 borders. The occupation has been terrible for Palestinians. The Palestinians have lived under brutal military occupation for the last 41 years. They are the real victims of this conflict and my sympathy is with them.

How are you regarded by Israelis?

I have not received many reactions from Israelis because I live in Oxford. I received well over 300 positive e-mails to my Guardian article. They are from all over the world, including Muslim countries like Pakistan. They were extremely positive. They said that it is encouraging to see a Jew and an Israeli speaking the truth, that I am honest about Israel and about the war in Gaza. I received six hostile messages to the article.

Do you have any concern that you might be denied entry to Israel like Professor Norman Finkelstein?

No, I do not think there is a danger like that. Israel despite all its faults is a democracy, I mean inside Israel proper, not in the occupied territories. I have been outspoken for many years and I have never encountered any difficulty in expressing my views.

In your article, you strongly condemn the US and the EU for demonizing Hamas. Should the West start talking to Hamas?

It is high time for Western governments to engage with Hamas. Hamas is described as a terrorist organization, but it is much more than that. It is a political party and a broadly based social movement. It has a military wing which does practice terror, and I denounce terror which uses violence against civilians for political purposes. I denounce every form of terror, whether committed by Hamas or by the state of Israel. Killing civilians is wrong. Period. That applies to everyone.

But the important point is that Hamas, despite all its faults, has been democratically elected. Hamas leaders are not angels, but they have been democratically elected. Hamas represents the Palestinian people. If we want any progress toward a settlement, we have to engage with Hamas. The new secretary of state, Ms. Hillary Clinton, said in her congressional hearing that she refuses to talk to Hamas. But she needs to wake up and smell the coffee. There can be no peace and stability in the Middle East without engaging Hamas. The sooner the West realizes this, the better.

You argue that Israeli spokespersons are liars. According to Israel, Hamas broke the cease-fire. Who really broke the cease-fire?

Israeli spokespersons have been telling many lies in the course of this conflict. The single-biggest lie is the question of the cease-fire. If your readers do not understand who broke the cease-fire, they simply won’t understand anything about the recent war. The Israeli version is that there was a cease-fire and that Hamas broke it. But the facts, based on official Israeli figures, indicate that Israel is the guilty party.

On June 19, 2008, Egypt mediated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. There were two main terms to the cease-fire. One, Israel would lift the economic blockade of Gaza. Israel imposed an economic blockade stopping food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza. This is a form of collective punishment which is strictly forbidden by international law. Israel in fact intensified the blockade of Gaza. Second, and more important, both sides had to stop shooting. Hamas would stop firing rockets on Israel and Israel would stop aerial bombardment and targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders. Hamas observed the cease-fire. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, the cease-fire was a stunning success.

In the six months in 2008 before the cease-fire, the average monthly number of rockets fired from Gaza on Israel was 179. In the next four months after the cease-fire took effect, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets per month. These are figures from the Web site of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. They cannot be challenged. The cease-fire was a complete success until Israel chose to break it. It did so on Nov. 4, 2008. It launched a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Israel alone violated and breached the cease-fire. There is no room for debate on this issue.

One of your concluding remarks on Israel is that the Jewish state has now become a rogue state.

My academic discipline is international relations. In the academic literature in international relations, a rogue state is defined as a state which has three characteristics. The first is habitual, regular violation of international law. Israel is guilty of it. The second is possession of or quest for weapons of mass destruction. Israel possesses weapons of mass destruction. It meets the second criteria. The third is the use of terror. Terror is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel uses terror against civilians for political purposes. The most recent and cruelest example of it is the Gaza War. So Israel meets all three criteria of a rogue state and that is why I used this expression.

The toll in the latest Gaza offensive is terrible. Almost 400 children and 200 women were killed. How do you envisage the future of the Israeli state?

The saddest aspect of the war in Gaza is that it was completely unnecessary because if all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from rockets, then all it had to do was observe the cease-fire. So it is a real tragedy. As far as the future is concerned, the only prospect of peace is an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank alongside Israel. It is not me saying this. It is Ehud Olmert, who in a famous interview to Yediot Ahronot said this to his fellow countrymen -- the only way to achieve peace with the Palestinians is a complete end to the occupation and a complete withdrawal. If Israel is to keep any territory in the West Bank, it must compensate the Palestinians in a one-to-one ratio from Israeli state land. Israel cannot survive if the occupation does not end. In other words, an independent Palestinian state is an existential necessity for Israel. My view is that, for Israel’s own sake, it must give way to an independent Palestinian state. Israel should end the occupation and withdraw from the West Bank not as a favor to Palestinians, but as a favor to itself. As a very wise Jew, Karl Marx said that a people who oppress another cannot themselves remain free.