The Israeli apology’s inner meaning

Commentaries published in papers circulating in the Muslim world are indicative of this. Hussein Shobokshi, a columnist from Asharq al-Awsat, an influential paper in the region, titled his latest essay “Thank you, Erdoğan.” He believes that having been awarded the King Faisal Award, considered the Nobel Prize of the Muslim world, Erdoğan is providing a good leadership model for the Muslim world.

In his article enthusiastically titled “You, Turkey, are my homeland,” another columnist asserts that Turkey’s return to the Middle East created a counterbalance against Israel, particularly in military terms. Susan Abtah, from the same paper, writes that while Israel is busy building a wall around itself, Turkey has abolished visa requirements with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and Turkey’s entry into the region via commerce is a big blow to Israeli interests. “Sultan Erdoğan” is the headline of the Lebanon-based al-Akhbar. “Israel can only understand Turkish,” the paper says. “After Ankara’s effective threat, Israel quickly bowed to Turkish demands.” A London-based Arabic language paper, al-Quds al-Arabi, argues that Turkey gave a response Israel never expects from Arab countries and one which it deserves. “Ankara spoke to Israel with the language it understands. Erdoğan did not accept the ambassador representing Ottoman Turkey, one who carries the genes of the splendid Islamic empire,” the paper added. Turkey’s stance was so influential that the general public in Arab countries is now questioning its own governments for failing to show a respectable attitude toward Israel as Turkey did. Likewise, the Israeli public is harshly criticizing the Netanyahu government and the Israeli Foreign Ministry that masterminded the scandal. It is very meaningful that the Israeli opposition has demanded the resignation of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

This incident also has an important effect on Turkey’s domestic policy. I can never forget a reception I attended at a time when opposition to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) peaked in the country and demonstrations were being organized to reprimand the government. During the meeting, attended by many local and foreign officials, I overheard an Israeli official make an assessment of the AK Party and Prime Minister Erdoğan. His remarks were marked by such extreme opposition that his views were no different than the staunchest opponents in Turkey. Even though this official did not represent all of Israel, his comments showed that at least one segment of society in that country was bothered by the AK Party. Considering that these emotions were shared at a reception, who knows what else would have been said if the conversation had taken place in a closed and private environment. The first thought that comes to mind is that people holding such extreme ideas can easily stand in solidarity with AK Party opponents inside the country or at least encourage each other in their opposition. After all, it has become a known fact that circles that oppose the AK Party in Turkey to the extent that they even oppose democracy are cooperating with circles that are close to Israel in Washington. If we recall that Turkish-Israeli relations peaked at a time when Gen. Çevik Bir was very effective in Ankara and when military tutelage was at its prime and that relations between the countries do not have a democratic foundation, then we understand why some are disturbed by Turkey’s democratization.

As Turkey resolves problems inside and improves ties with neighboring countries, it becomes less like Israel. Israel’s former ambassador to Turkey, Alon Liel, explained this contradiction very well when he said: “We need Turkey much more than Turkey needs us. We are isolated in the Middle East and Turkey is a prominent player. They have problems with one country in the region -- Israel -- and we have problems with 20 out of 22 countries around us.”