Here's a dialogue about the Davos incident between Laurence Zuckerman and Phil Weiss:
Zuckerman: I happened to watch the Davos panel on C-Span last night. The
portrayal of Erdogan's actions as a walkout are not exactly correct. He
tried to continue speaking after the event ended. David Ignatius,
the moderator, tried to stop him. Erdogan would not relent, promising
to speak only for a moment. After he spoke for a while and announced
that he had made point no. 1, Ignatius stepped in forcefully. The panel
was way over and Erdogan was the only one given a second chance to
speak. When it was clear that they were going to cut off his mike,
Erdogan got up and stalked off saying he would not return to Davos
again. I had never seen Erdogan before but he struck me as a posturing
and preening pol. I was not surprised to learn that Turkish elections
are imminent.
[this is still Zuckerman] Here is a more detailed description of the panel:
Each of the big wigs spoke starting with Ban Ki Moon followed by
Erdogan followed by Abr Moussa and finally Peres. By the time Peres got
a chance to speak it was an hour of attacks on Israel in rising level
of vehemence. It felt like Peres had to wait a long time to respond.
When he finished, they were already way over time and dinner was
waiting. Erdogan insisted on speaking. Ignatius said no, fairly firmly.
It went back and forth and it wasn't clear whether Klaus Schwab, the
organizer of World Economic Forum signaled to Ignatius to relent.
Erdogan promised him a minute and Ignatius said he would hold him to
it. Erdogan had spoken for 2 minutes or more when he finished point no.
1. Erdogan claimed that Peres had more time to speak but I don't think
that is the case. In any event. there is no doubt that between Erdogan,
Moussa, and Ban, all the grievances against Israel were aired. As the
only head of a government present, Erdogan may have felt he didn't get
the respect he deserved but he was being a prima donna. Peres gave a
forceful rebuttal and challenged Erdogan on his facts a few times so
Erdogan might have felt it was a matter of honor to reply but he didn't
directly address Peres's charges.
Weiss: I only watched a few minutes. I think you're talking about context
here. I get your point about timing. It was hard for me to sense
who felt more aggrieved in that bit, it felt like Peres had been
holding back and finally let loose, and had the crowd. And I could see
Erdogan going on too long. It seems like Ignatius was rude. What's
wrong with letting him have his say?
I would stick by walkout. He did walk out, and Times
characterized it as same in headline, and he said that he was never
coming back.
The
whole thing strikes me as one of those great theatrical moments that
will be played and replayed, and I haven't even watched it in full. It's
like Clarence Thomas v Anita Hill.
Of course I took sides then, and you know, notwithstanding everything
I'm on Erdogan's side here. Even with the Armenian genocide.
Zuckerman: I don't think the crowd was with Peres more than the others. In fact, I think Ban Ki Moon, Erdogan,
and Moussa each got a lot of enthusiastic applause. I was curious to
see how the crowd would react to Peres, who spoke last, so I listened
carefully. He got applause but slightly less than the others, I
thought.
Ignatius's role was tricky. We have all been at panels where the
moderator lays back and it goes off the rails. I have no insight but to
me it seemed like Ignatius was enforcing the organizer's agenda. The
event had gone over time. Dinner was waiting. it was an emotional
topic, they had each had their say. It seemed unfair to let Erdogan
filibuster unless you were willing to let them all have another round,
which I agree might not have been a bad thing. Perhaps Ignatius should
have appealed directly to the organizers. But I bet there was
communication there. I would love to know what message Ignatius was
getting from Schwab, who was there, and came up to the podium after
Erdogan stalked off to smooth things over.
I know you are sympathetic to Erdogan and I don't usually buy into
the everything-Israel-does-is-criticized argument, but I do think there
is a bit of a double standard here. It was Peres who was actually
personally insulted by Erdogan. (Peres said that Erdogan had his facts
wrong; Erdogan called Peres a joyful murderer.) Imagine if after being
attacked by the three speakers and then having his say, Peres stalked
off. He would get no sympathy.
The idea that Turkey's honor was somehow compromised is absurd and
obvious to anyone who would take the time to watch the event.
Oh, and Ignatius's question to each was how to get the peace process back on track. It was supposed to be constructive.
Weiss: You know, not having watched it, I do feel like, This is about
slaughtering civilians. Period. Where is the international response?
Here it is, from a (former?) ally. Since I find Gaza monstrous, and an
insult to the peace process, such as it is, or has been, I honor all
efforts to publicize it and condemn it. I don't think the Hamas attacks
excuse what Israel did in any way. Americans learned this in Iraq,
where we have shown some minor accountability on the Haditha massacre. I'm
sure Slobodan also had his provocations. So that's why I'm with
Erdogan.
And it's also why I find Ignatius's punctilio under the circumstances
absurd. The emotion in these leaders was real, and the little guys
should have gotten out of the way. It would have been better if Peres
had talked about Armenian genocide, and American ethnic cleansing of
Indians…
Zuckerman: Your position is understandable given your feelings but in the end the
way to prevent future loss and help the people of Gaza is a durable
peace. Hanging Israelis as war criminals, however much you think it is
justified, is not going to get you there. Let's stop the bloodshed.
Erdogan is calculating and cynical. The guy is running for
election. Do you think he is surprised by the reaction he has elicited
at home? I am sure he would kiss Peres on both cheeks — and has
probably already kissed worse people — if it were in his interest.
