This basic error stems from reducing criticisms voiced by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to two false assumptions. First, they assume that Erdoğan acts in this way and makes use of every opportunity to harshly criticize Israel in order to boost his popular support inside the country. Second, they believe that Erdoğan and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) voice these criticisms because of their Islamist identity.For those who tend to define the problem in this way, there is only one way to regain Turkey: to get rid of the AK Party and Erdoğan. This inevitably urges one to think that there might be cooperation between those who think in this way in Israel and the anti-AK Party groups in Turkey.
Oddly, the Turkish wing of this coalition tends to accuse Erdoğan of doing a service to the Greater Middle East Project and other US and Israeli projects with the intention of discrediting him. Isn’t it interesting that some authors, including Ergün Poyraz, who went so far as to claim that Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül were originally Jews, today stand trial as defendants in the Ergenekon case? It is a big contradiction to accuse Erdoğan of serving the US and Israeli interests in Turkey and the Middle East on the one hand and claim that he is against Israel because of his Islamist identity on the other, isn’t it?
Another point that must be explained by those who think in this way is how Erdoğan’s attitude prior to the massacre in Gaza could be explained if he is claimed to be acting with considerations for domestic politics or his Muslim identity. If this were the case, as has been claimed, would Erdoğan personally try to make peace between Israel and Syria?
It is a well-known fact that Prime Minister Erdoğan closely monitored this process and invested great effort for its successful completion. Before he became the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, too, exerted great effort for this reconciliation process. Rumors had been going around that significant progress had been made between the parties, which indirectly met four times.
Indeed, there were very minor glitches left in the fifth meeting held in Ankara and attended by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. If these could be overcome, the two countries would start direct talks. Before he left Ankara, Olmert had promised to take care of these glitches in Israel. Erdoğan’s only demand was that Israel should not trigger any tension with Lebanon or Palestine that would undermine this process.
You know the rest. Four days later, as Erdoğan was waiting for good news from Olmert about the process, the Gazan massacre began. This was a far nastier scandal than arranging for the Turkish ambassador to sit on a lower sofa in Israel. It meant that Israel played both with Turkey and with Erdoğan. Those who did not believe Olmert was uninformed about the attack plan even tried to give the impression that Turkey knew about Israel’s intentions.
Work hard, toil and sweat so much, and be left with such a picture in the end. Everyone in Turkey and around the world, be they rightists or leftists, revolted against what was done in Gaza. Those Israelis who wonder why Erdoğan raised his voice louder than any world leader should take into consideration this sense of disappointment and deception.
Finally, Olmert, who takes the greatest share in the responsibility for the massacre in Gaza and this humiliation afforded to Turkey, recently made some interesting remarks about Erdoğan. Saying that it is possible to have peace with Syria, Olmert called Erdoğan “a fair mediator.” He also spoke wisely when he said: “It’s too easy being angry at Erdoğan, but it would be wise to reconcile with him. … We need negotiations with Turkish mediation.”
It would be better for Olmert to state whether he knew about the attack on Gaza when he came to Ankara, but what Israel should do is look in the mirror instead of focusing on Turkish domestic politics in search of a scapegoat. The sympathy Turkey earned by tidying up its home although it was being criticized by the whole world until as recently as five to 10 years ago may serve as a model. Moreover, restarting the half-finished process with Syria seems to be the fastest way to normalize relations with Turkey.
