Posts by LouisFishman:
Why We’ll Never Get a Full Accounting of Turkey’s Failed Coup*
August 19th, 2016
By Louis Fishman.
On Friday night just after 10pm my cellphone started buzzing and the deluge of WhatsApp messages started. “Go home immediately!” After that: “Turkey is in the midst of a coup d’état!”
Comments Off on Why We’ll Never Get a Full Accounting of Turkey’s Failed Coup*
A Debate on Co-ed housing places new limits on Turkey’s Prime Minister
November 14th, 2013By Louis Fishman.
During the last few days, a new controversy has been brewing in Turkey. Following a closed meeting of the government, reports were leaked to the press that the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had ordered an investigation into co-ed housing in the country’s university dormitories. This was despite the fact that university dormitories as it is are not co-ed and that such an incident had been reported at only one university, which was as the result of a shortage in space. While the Deputy Prime Minister, Bulent Arinc, denied that such a discussion had taken place, it took less than 24 hours for news to break that the story indeed was true (and exposing a divide on how the incident should play out in the public).
Anyone that has a small sense of how Erdogan reacts to any criticism could have forecasted how the controversy would play out. Rather than trying to calm fears that the Turkish government was intervening in the private lives of its citizens, and trying to impose its religious conservative values on the overall population, Erdogan did the opposite. Fiercely defending his crusade to save the young from such evils, the Prime Minister stated that: “Nobody knows whattakes places in those houses [where male and female students live together. All kinds of dubious things may happen [in those houses]. … Anything can happen. Then, parents cry out, saying, ‘Where is the state?’ These steps are being taken in order to show that the state is there. As a conservative, democratic government, we need to intervene.”
If this was not enough, he further stated that he would make sure legal measures would be implemented to enforce this not only in the public dormitories but also in private residences, which is a blatant violation of Turkish law and invasion of one’s private life. To make matters worse, he called on private citizens to report the immoral behavior, which led to reports of harassment of female students in private homes in Istanbul, and even one police raid on a house. The tenant in this case, received support from the owner of the apartment and her neighbors, despite their conservative lifestyle; however, concerning other raids, the tenant stated: “another student who said his house was raided was told by his neighbors that associations in Tophane had made complaints about student houses to the prime minister’s office. This is more worrying than the raids themselves…”
This sent the Turkish news media and social media into a frenzy, and was upped a notch when the Interior Minister, Muammer Güler, issued a chilling (ridiculous) statement referring specifically to mixed housing that “we are considering the issue from the viewpoint of a fight against terrorism. Particularly apartments, student residences and lodging houses where university students are living are places that terror groups and other illegal groups are seeing as a resource for gaining support and finding new members.” You heard right. Mixed housing leads to terrorism (the same claims made against the Gezi protesters, earlier this year).
If the Prime Minister had expected party members and supporters to fall one by one in line supporting his offensive statements concerning the lifestyle of a certain sector he was wrong. Some of his previously greatest supporters came out quickly to condemn his statement. Such criticism was voiced by long time public intellectual and former politician, Nazlı Ilıcak, who served as a MP in the Islamist Fazilet party (Erdogan’s former party). Ilıcak was shocked over the Prime Minister’s behavior and stated on CNN Turk that she was ashamed of this act despite her being a staunch supporter of the AK Party in the past. However, only today did we learn what a rift it has caused, when Bulent Arinc, the above mentioned Deputy Prime Minister, came out and stated his dismay over this week’s controversy.
In a press conference this morning, Arinc issued a statement, hinting that he is close to resigning over the scandal. It is important to point out the rift between Arinc and Erdogan was first made public on a wide scale following the Gezi Park protesters when he took a much softer stand than Erdogan. Frustrated at being undermined by Erdogan, Arinc stated, “I am not responsible for the prime minister’s remarks. I am not responsible for this situation. I am not only a minister, I have my own weight…I never want to be turned into the punching bag of some…” The highlight of his talk was that even if he personally agreed with Erdogan over the issue of co-ed housing, he was critical of Erdogan’s wishes to place this into law.
Unfortunately, this comes just after Erdogan was applauded by the Turkish public at large for partially lifting the headscarf ban just a few weeks back (see my former article, Whats in a Headscarf), with four women parliamentarians entering the parliament, crushing one of Turkey’s taboo. Despite this major step forward, Erdogan’s wish to ban co-ed housing introduces just more trouble for women who already face discrimination when trying to rent apartments, due to their single status. In other words, it just another case of male hegemonic discourse. Over the last decade, in Turkey’s major cities and liberal neighborhoods, women are increasingly living on their own. Together with this, co-ed housing is becoming quite the norm among some sectors. Now with the Prime Minister’s taking a stand it will certainly cause some apartment owners to think twice about renting to these communities.
This case is also just another clear signal that secular lifestyle is under threat. While it differs with the case of alcohol, where Erdogan can claim the government restrictions are in sync with some European countries laws restricting sale of alcohol, banning co-ed housing in private sphere is a blatant violation of even Turkish law. Nevertheless, it is similar to the case surrounding alcohol as it shows the Prime Minister’s zero tolerance to other lifestyles; let us not forget that he has stated in the past that anyone who drinks should be considered an alcoholic. Also, while alcohol is legal, and no threat to it ever being banned, he has done his utmost to minimize drinking by taxing it to such an extent that it is cheaper to buy Turkish alcohol outside of Turkey; simply, for many Turkish citizens, even drinking beer can be seen as a luxury.
Turkey is a dynamic country and any interference by the government, whether secular or religiously conservative, into one’s lifestyle should be condemned. The current case once again reiterates that Erdogan has lost touched with a large part of the Turkish population, including his moderate base. While Turkey faces municipal and presidential elections next year, and parliamentary ones in 2015, Erdogan’s constant polarizing actions can only be a sign that his party’s support will decline. However, whether the CHP and other parties will be able to benefit from this stills seems far from reality. Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: even the Prime Minister’s own party seem to becoming weary of his escapades.
http://www.louisfishman.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-debate-on-co-ed-dorms-places-new.html
The US, Syria and the need for a comprehensive strategy
April 23rd, 2013Over time, the peaceful uprising turned into a civil war, with the formation of the Free Syrian Army, and numerous other factions, fighting the state’s forces.
Since the beginning of the Syrian uprising, the crisis has been locked in stalemate, with the US, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting the Free Syrian army and other factions, while Iran is supporting the Assad-led Syrian government, with the blessing of Russia and to some extent China. While many speculated numerous times that Assad’s forces were near the end, his regime’s resilience has came as a surprise to many. Others have rightly claimed that this has turned into a proxy war, showing little resemblance to what the Syrian people demanded at the beginning of the uprising. However, this should not deter us from the fact that Assad regime must go, and claims that the uprising has been orchestrated as a tool of Western imperialism, only give credence to Assad’s cruel authoritarian regime.
The cost of this international and regional stalemate has been disastrous and certainly will go down as a case study of how human life is the first loser when it comes to geopolitical strategies. Last month alone, 6,000 deaths were recorded, and the UN estimates over 70,000 people have been killed, with an unimaginable number of peoples suffering physical and mental injuries; not to mention the more than 1 million refugees flooding the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
With US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to the region, and the recent visit of President Obama, it seems like the United States is serious about taking a more hands-on policy concerning the Middle East, especially moving forward the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. However, unless information is being withheld from the press, it seems that the Syrian crisis will continue to be placed on the backburner, something disturbing due to the high cost of life. Unlike the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the death of Syrians has been unable to catch the attention it deserves, even in the face of its insurmountable death and destruction.
More recently, analysts correctly pointed out that one of the motivating factors for Israel and Turkey to restore ties was the continued war in Syria. Both countries know it is in their interest in keeping Syria intact and stabilizing its borders. For Israel, an Assad-free Syria could seriously change the balance of power, hurting Hezbollah, an organization that has remained immune to the suffering of the Syrian people. On this note, the fact that the fighting has not spilled over into Lebanon is encouraging. However, there are no guarantees concerning the future.
For Turkey, while they have made mistakes concerning its policy, such as short-sighted actions, such as arming Salafi and Jihadist factions, overall their zero-tolerance towards the Assad regime remains positive. The Turkish government’s commitment to solve their internal Kurdish question is a positive development and it seems aimed also at strengthening relations with Syrian Kurds. Its foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, needs to continue with the same vigor as he did last year in the United Nations to keep international initiatives on the table, even if his past attempts have fallen on deaf ears. Until now, it seems Turkey has been the only country showing the courage to lead the struggle internationally.
Within the context, it becomes clear that the fickleness of the US and its allies, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy, is also to blame for the human tragedy. Even if the US, and NATO, are correct in their assessment that a foreign invasion would be the detriment of Syria, this does not mean that solving the Syrian crisis should fall along the wayside. Rather, new methods need to be explored on how to align the main countries supporting the opposition factions, with a stress on reconnecting with forces that represent the general will of the Syrian people. Just as urgent, a plan on how to defuse the crisis once the Assad regime crumbles needs to be agreed upon now.
Now into its third year, the Syrian uprising from the outset has faced many challenges. While there is no magic want to end the violence, the US and its allies need to do their utmost to adopt policies that will ensure the Syrian people with the safest and securest outcome in the shortest time possible. This will entail planning how to promise the return of refugees to their homes, and guarantees that the Free Syrian army and other factions will not take their revenge out on the supporters of Assad once his regime falls.
*Louis Fishman is an assistant professor in the department of history at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
The PrisonerX Scandal and Israeli Censorship
February 21st, 2013By Louis Fishman.
.JPG)
Update: Censorship is Lifted
This morning (13.02.2013), Israeli authorities lifted the gag-order on foreign reports of “Prisoner X.” Immediately, all media outlets are reporting on the story; clearly, the attempts by the Israeli state to censor the story have failed. Knesset Members Avigdor Lieberman and Miri Regev are spewing out their anger at the previously mentioned MKs (Galon, Khenin, and Tibi) who challenged the censor, accusing them of endangering state security. Now we will need to wait and see what new information will arise in Israel, to understand what really happened to the Ben Zygier, why was he arrested (if this is the case) and what led to his death.
A Hunger Strike in Turkey: An Opposition behind Bars
November 4th, 2012By Louis Fishman
During the last 53 days, many things have happened in Turkey and the world. For me, I started the university semester and I cannot believe that next week midterms will begin. Summer ended, lasting extra long, and finally it is getting quite chilly outside. A film about Muslims sparked outrage. More recently, a hurricane named Sandy battered the East coast. I could go on and delve into different news stories. However, one thing we perhaps missed was that in Turkey, for the last 53 days, almost 700 Kurdish prisoners in Turkish jails have gone on a hunger strike (starting on different dates).
They are demanding their right as Turkish citizens to study in their mother tongue , have the right to speak Kurdish in courts (with a translator), and want an end to the solitary confinement of the outlawed Kurdish PKK’s leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Those following the Turkish news, or my blog during the last almost four years, will know that Turkey has for over thirty years been subjected to an ongoing armed uprising of its Kurdish population in Turkey’s southeastern regions. During these years, over 40,000 Turkish citizens have been killed (on both sides) and throughout the 1990’s Turkey offered no negotiations, and sought out a military solution. The Kurdish organization, the PKK, recognized by most of the western world as a terrorist organization, has no chance of winning their armed struggle, but they also inflict great challenges on the Turkish military, and this year alone, there has been almost 100 security personnel killed.
During the last few months, as a result of the growing rift between the Turkish state and the Kurds, we have seen an increase in the violent clashes between the Turkish military and the PKK fighters. On the civilian front, thousands of Kurds have been jailed (along with their Turkish allies), including academics, writers, journalists, and elected officials (mayors to MPs). Many are held months and years without trial, and often charged on anti-terrorist laws, which the United Nations Human Rights Committee recently criticized as “incompatible with international law,” and implenting “unacceptable restrictions on the right of due process for accused people.”
It is this atmosphere that Kurdish prisoners sought out to become active in their opposition; where they are silenced in jail, a massive hunger strike has awoken both Kurds and Turks (both Turkish citizens) to the ongoing Kurdish plight. The Turkish government once again is showing that it is losing its grip over the society at large (see last week’s blog on Republican Day march), with the PM Erdogan ridiculing the BDP leaders as ones that feast at huge banquets, while their counterparts are on a hunger strike; he was basing his claims on a picture of the leaders at a feast, which was taken two months before the strike. On an official state visit to Germany, Erdogan, standing next to German PM Merkel, even went so far as to call the strike a political “show,” claiming that only one person is really on a hunger strike.
Well, as Erdogan tries to brush off the strike, during the last two weeks, the mainstream Turkish media has been covering events on a daily basis. Massive demonstrations have been held in Turkey’s southeastern cities, such as Diyarbakir and Van, and in some western cities with large Kurdish populations, such as Adana. A general strike was observed throughout most of the southeast last Tuesday with shopkeepers closing their shutters and children refusing to go to school. There is no question that the Kurdish question just in a matter of a few months has managed to bring a huge split in the society, with Kurds and Turks reaching a dangerous divide.
Turkey, almost a decade ago witnessed a prison “death strike,” held by a Turkish radical left movement with some dying; however, their support was limited, not like the Kurdish hunger strikers. Last year the BDP member and MP Sebahat Tuncel, who herself might find herself behind bars due to an ongoing court case, wrote an article which appeared in the NY Times. It was an op-ed which talked about that the Kurds in Turkey also might have their own “Arab Spring.” If the government does not act soon, and strikers start to die one by one, the Turkish government could be faced with a backlash that it has not seen until now, giving impetus to Tuncel’s words. Further, with the Turkish society polarized at the seams, such a scenario could lead to a general consensus that Erdogan, the invincible leader, might just not make it through the storm.
Lacking a Clear Vision: Turkey Strikes back at Syria
October 6th, 2012By Louis Fisherman.
Turkey’s recent strike on Syria was portrayed both in Turkey and in the world as Turkey acting out of its right to defend itself. However, if the Turkish government did not receive international support for the move, and was not pressured domestically, then the question remains why the change in policy. Let me be clear, Turkey has the right to defend itself; however, Syrian mortar fire falling on the Turkish side of the border is far from being an attack on Turkish sovereignty.
Internally there are those Turkish citizens who supported the reprisal; however, it seems that majority are not interested in heating up tensions between the two countries, and do not wish for their country to get militarily involved in the Syrian quagmire. Furthermore, while Turkish casualties from the Syrian mortar are sad, internal violence and death in Turkey due to the ongoing Kurdish conflict is much more serious. Just this year, almost one hundred Turkish soldiers and police have been killed and the government seems as far as ever from reaching an understanding with the outlawed Kurdish organization, the PKK. It is easy for Turkey to raise its head and invoke some national pride by firing back at Syria, but its real work remains at home.
Therefore, the question remains why did Turkey choose to retaliate against Syria, and even go so far to pass a bill in parliament allowing Turkish troops to cross into foreign countries. In my opinion, the change in Turkish policy emerges due to the realization that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) divisions, which Turkey has been supporting, are losing ground. In other words, Turkey’s strengthening of its border is aimed at boosting up the FSA, who are trapped between the Turkish border and the Syrian army. Without Turkish action the FSA could in some places be pushed back into Turkish territory. Next, after Turkey’s failure at securing UN support for a buffer zone in Syria to house refugees (see previous blog), it seems that the Turkish reprisal is bringing us one step closer to Turkey achieving that goal.
Whether or not my analysis is correct, one point remains clear. From one failed policy to another, Turkey has been acting out of damage control and lacks a clear vision when it comes to Syria. It is for this reason the Turkish reprisal is worrying since this very well could be the opening of the door to greater Turkish military involvement in Syria; not tomorrow, or the next day, but certainly in the next few months.
Revolutions, a Film and Obama: A Look at the recent anti-US Protest in the Middle East
September 17th, 2012
By Louis Fishman.
Recently, news from the Middle East does not look good. Last week, anti-American riots broke out in Egypt as the result of an obscure cheaply produced amateur film degrading Muhammad, the Muslim prophet. Parallel to this, and seemingly not related to the film, an anti-American group of fighters (perhaps motivated by al-Qaeda) carried out a well planned attack on the American consulate in Libya, killing the U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens. Following the riots and the killing of the ambassador, a wave of commentary has emerged questioning whether or not the Arab uprisings, coined the Arab Spring, was “good” for the U.S., Europe, or even the Arabs themselves.
The fickleness demonstrated by so many concerning the Arab Spring is not new. After the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Muhammad Mursi, in the Egyptian Presidential elections, some western news outlets covering the elections made it sound like it was doomed to become another Islamic Republic of Iran. Now that Syria has fallen into a civil war, some in the world long for the days when Syrians never dared make a peep about their unhappiness with Bashar Assad’s totalitarian regime.
If one supports, or does not support, the Arab uprisings, we all need to recognize the fact that there was no alternative to the revolutions, and we cannot turn the clock back. Revolutions happen not because one party supports one way or the other. They emerge due to deep desperation and the will of the people to make change. Yes, the Middle East has been thrown into a tumultuous and chaotic period; however, this should be expected due to the fact that for decades a tight lid was kept on their societies with their leaders ruling through coercion and corruption, losing all legitimacy in the eyes of their people.
The short film, Innocence of Muslims, which sparked off the anti-American riots is not the source of hate for the U.S., only the catalyst. While the killing of the ambassador is sad and frustrating it should not come as a surprise. The Americans are not a neutral partner in the unfolding of events and they cannot expect to remain unscathed. The U.S. is an integral part of the old order, which the masses rebelled against. It was the U.S. that propped up for years the late Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It is the U.S. that has not been able to pressure Israel to move towards a peace agreement and end its 45 years of the occupation of Palestinian lands. It is the U.S., which invaded Iraq on false pretensions and left the country in shambles, which under their command introduced new levels of violence to the region.
For those who keep criticizing the Arab uprisings and asking if they were good for the West, don’t forget this revolution belongs to the Arab people, not to Washington, or NATO. For the U.S. to regain the trust of the people, taking measures at damage control will not suffice, but rather a serious reassessment of the U.S .role in the Middle East which treats the regimes as equals and not as their cronies. In the mean time, the U.S. will also have to bear the backlash of violence and anger that they themselves sowed.
On the flip side of the coin, the new Arab governments have shown that they are interested in stability and retaining relations with the U.S. Moreover, we can breathe a sigh of relief because until now violent protests against the U.S. have been directed at government offices and not at its citizens who reside in these countries.
Turkey’s Latest Challenges
September 9th, 2012By Louis Fishman.
During the last month, the Turkish press has been focused on the Syrian refugee crisis, and the resurgence of clashes between the Turkish military and the PKK. The growing turmoil surrounding these two issues stands as a major challenge to the Turkish government since it has found itself void of any real answers on how to handle them.
Almost two weeks ago Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, campaigned the UN Security Council to set up a buffer zone in Syria in order to stem the flow of refugees to Turkey. Currently there are approximately 80,000 refugees located in 11 camps situated along Turkey’s southern borders, coming in close second after Jordan as the country which has the most Syrians (see UN report dated 07/00/2012). Davutoglu’s proposal however fell on deaf ears with only five Foreign Ministers of the 15 council members taking part and all parties involved declaring the plan as unrealistic. For Turkey, whose influence in the Middle East has been growing since the downfall of dictatorships in the Arab world, this was a major disappointment and a diplomatic fiasco.
A few days following the meeting in New York, Turkey started turning refugees away with many stranded at the border. It is reported that approximately 10,000 people are waiting to enter Turkey, with Turkish authorities announcing that they will only be able to cross the border after the needed facilities are available (see above UN report). In one case, a woman was allowed to give birth in a Turkish hospital but after two days was forced to return to trepid conditions on the Syrian side with her newly born twins. In addition to these refugees, thousands of Syrians have entered Turkey as tourists, possessing the necessary resources to live in hotels. In Istanbul alone there are many Syrians who are waiting for the day they are able to return home. For some Turkey is only a base to move on to Europe, with some opting to be smuggled out. However this also can end in tragedy. Last week, a boat smuggling refugees sank off the Turkish coast, killing over 60, including many women and children.
Lastly, Turkish opposition members have accused the Turkish government of allowing the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to train in the Apaydin camp, which is housing Syrian soldiers and officers who have defected. While the government denies that this camp is used as a base to launch attacks on Syrian army strongholds, members of the FSA have suggested otherwise. Many reports in the Turkish press have focused on the fighters’ radical Islamic elements, claiming that this camp is also home to al-Qaeda and jihadist factions. They are right to be concerned if it is true that the camp might also be home to radicals from such places as Chechnya and Afghanistan. In fact, even if these groups are making leeway on the ground, we must not forget the fact that Syrians from all sects and religions support the uprising and the continued use of radical groups as fighters will only come back and hit the region like a boomerang
http://louisfishman.blogspot.com/2012/09/turkeys-latest-challenges.html
Edging towards War: Netanyahu takes on Obama
August 19th, 2012By Louis Fishman.
Last spring in my Palestinian-Israeli conflict class, we periodically dealt with current events. Our class discussions reflected much of what the students followed in the mainstream media, and during those months it seemed as though Israel was preparing to attack Iran at any moment. In fact, I commented that it almost seemed as if there was a concerted effort to notify Iran of the eventual attack. However, by the end of the semester, the tension eased and a full-out Israeli-Iranian war was put on the back burner, while the U.S. continued to work through diplomatic means to force the Iranians to rethink their race towards becoming a nuclear-armed state.
Well as the summer is now coming to a close Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, have succeeded in putting Iran back on the agenda. However, now the level of speech concerning an Israeli strike has surpassed that of last spring and has left all the actors in the region on edge. Literally for the past two weeks, the Israeli media has been discussing the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis, presenting multiple scenarios and timelines. What has emerged is worrying, since it is tangled up with an outright duel between Netanyahu and Barak on one side and President Barack Obama on the other side.
The scenario is simple: Israel will unilaterally strike Iran before the U.S. elections, which will in essence force Obama to support the Israeli move and Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even though the Obama administration is convinced that a military strike is premature. Of course with Mitt Romney courting Israel at all costs, Obama will need to appear defiant in his support for Israel. Clearly this tactic does not need to lead to an actual Israeli strike, since even the threat of one before the elections is enough for Netanyahu to reap fruits, such as Obama committing to an American airstrike after the elections (which some pundits have been discussing). Let us remember that Netanyahu is no stranger to meddling in U.S. politics. Back in 1998 President Clinton pressured Netanyahu (during his first term) to negotiate with the Palestinians. Upon arriving to meet with Clinton and Yasser Arafat, Netanyahu chose to meet first with a Clinton adversary, U.S. Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, along with a thousand supporters, to send a strong message to Clinton that he also could play the pressure game.
The Obama administration thus far has not caved to this pressure, and has even warned Israel that the time is not right. U.S. Defense Minister Panetta has stated that the use of force should be a last resort, and General Martin Dempsey, US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, maintains that an Israeli strike will only “delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” On Israel’s Channel Two, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and a staunch supporter of Netanyahu, rebuffed the American “advice” and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense. He argued that even a unilateral strike that would only “delay” the Iranian nuclear program might be sufficient for the time being.
For now the Netanyahu-Barak coalition is shunning the chorus of opposition in Israel to a unilateral Israeli strike, which has been voiced among members of the military establishment and most recently by Israeli President Shimon Peres. This voice of reason was not welcomed among the Netanyahu administration, which reminded Peres that the Israeli presidency is merely ceremonial and is supposed to remain above (and out of) politics.
While I have not focused on the regional implications of a unilateral Israeli strike, it is clear that, with Syria in disarrayand the Middle East fresh from the downfall of dictatorships, many scenarios can play out. However unlike past Israeli wars, this one could actually place the majority of the Israeli population under a major assault. It is therefore safe to say that Netanyahu is playing with fire.
For now, we will need to wait to see how Netanyahu plays his cards. With Israel appointing Avi Dichter last week as Home Front Defense Minister, it appears that they will need some time to prepare their citizens for war, leaving the possibility for a strike within the next the few weeks highly unlikely. Also, it would make sense that the next event to wait for is an Obama-Netanyahu meeting in mid-September at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. The question remains whether such a meeting will defuse the tension between the two leaders. When Netanyahu arrives in the U.S., it will be interesting to see if he will first meet with Romney in order to embarrass Obama, as in the above mentioned 1998 case. What is certain is that Netanyahu’s tactics prove once again how detrimental he can be to Israel’s world standing. Clearly, more than any other leader in Israeli history, Netanyahu has completely isolated Israel, and it seems that he will continue to choose this option.