WarSclerotic

Within the government, there are — and were — three different conclusions drawn after Israel apologized to Turkey over the 2010 IDF raid on a Turkish ship that resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists.

Some people believed that Israel could have apologized to Turkey and ended the row two years ago. These officials included former ministers Ehud Barak, Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, and Israel’s representative to the U.N. investigation into the raid, Dr. Yossi Ciechanover. A second group believed that Israel should never have apologized, and that the very apology itself was wrong. This group included officials such as former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and former National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. And a third group, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, believed that Israel waited until the right time came to apologize.

It’s likely that the debate over the Israeli apology will carry on for some time, but, alas, what’s done is done.

Israeli history has had no shortage of such divisive debates. Just in the last decade, two other important issues demanded incisive deliberation: former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s agreement with Hezbollah to free captive Elhanan Tennenbaum, and Netanyahu’s deal with Hamas to free Gilad Schalit. These situations were not identical. Though each deal set the bar for the next kidnapping, the debates surrounding them lost their significance the moment the captive prisoner emerged from his cell and was greeted by sunlight.

In the case of the Mavi Marmara incident, the conclusion is very much the same.

In each of these resolutions — especially in Israel’s apology to Turkey — the preceding debate raised important political and security-related questions: What is the limit to Israeli actions and, more importantly, how bold is Israel’s initiative?

Two opposing approaches to rapprochement with Turkey were developed in the last government. Netanyahu believes that his way will reap the most benefits for Israel.

According to Netanyahu, the party that initiates the apology will be forced to pay a high price; the initiating party is naked in front of the enemy, capitulating just by making the first move, and will be forced to make more concessions throughout negotiations. In addition, critics will slam the government because it didn’t wait for the enemy to initiate reconciliation. However, in Netanyahu’s scenario, the government would score political points and electoral support from its constituents if it could prove that it was forced to make concessions by an external party, proving that the government had “no choice.” The government’s status would remain unchanged and undiminished in the eyes of its supporters if Israel was to be strong-armed into dividing Hebron, halting settlement construction for a year, or declaring support for “two states for two peoples.”

Barak and Meridor — and sometimes other officials — proposed a different idea. In their opinion, despite the advantages of waiting for a “no-choice” scenario to arise, there are many disadvantage that accompany procrastination. Taking the initiative in issues of grave, national concern is an integral part of Zionism, they argue. Israel would do better to look interested in — and not be coerced into — a compromise that comes at such a high price.

For those who back this approach, the recent Israeli apology showed the world — and many young Israelis — that Israel does not pursue its own objectives. Rather, Israel responds only to force, or when it is backed into a corner — bad scenarios for everyone.

Still, when Israel does takes the initiative, greater concessions are often demanded of it; Israel capitulates through force. David Ben-Gurion took the initiative all his life (except when he was forced to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula in 1957). Menachem Begin initiated three major events: the peace treaty with Egypt, the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor and the First Lebanon War.

So, as the dust settles following Israel’s apology to Turkey, which approach triumphs? In my opinion, the second school of thought: taking the initiative. Many say it’s a draw. Actually, it hasn’t been decided.