But let me tell you at the outset what I will tell you at the end. In my opinion, firing Andrew Finkel was a serious mistake and losing Finkel is a big loss for this newspaper. I also understand the factors which led this newspaper to this decision.
The Ergenekon case created very fragile sensitivities in Turkish society. There are two different wings who say extremely opposite things about the case. For one group the Ergenekon case is perfect, for another it is all rubbish in which opponents of this government have been tried. My regular readers know my position very well.
I can summarize my view on the current situation of the case like this: I believe wholeheartedly and I do not have the slightest suspicion that if the Ergenekon case collapses for one reason or another, the assassination of intellectuals and attacks on non-Muslims would immediately start with full intensity. On the other hand, as I tried to explain in my various articles before, this case suffers from some shortcomings and human rights violations, like all other cases that are being handled in Turkey. For example, as exactly happened in the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK) case, in the Ergenekon case, the court’s understanding of being a member of an illegal organization is quite problematic in the sense of being too loose, and detention on remand is used quite arbitrarily.
Here we come to the dilemma: While there are some circles who try to discredit this case relentlessly and wage a dirty campaign against the case, should we turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of the case in fear of providing ammunition to the other camp? Can we really protect the case like this? What is the best way to defend this case? In my view, democratic opposition to the case in which giving full support to the content of it but at the same time having a critical stance regarding the procedural mistakes and shortcomings of it is the best way to protect it.
As far as I can see, Today’s Zaman and Zaman newspapers, at the editorial level, have acted in a way in which they have no critical stance on anything in these cases. It is obvious that the editorial teams of these newspapers see these cases as a matter of life or death for Turkish democracy. I think, one factor may help us to understand the emotional reactions of the Zaman group. The Gülen movement, with which the Zaman group is affiliated, was specifically targeted by the Ergenekon gang. They were planning to destroy this movement by launching smear campaigns. We know from the documents that Ergenekon is planning to plant weapons and explosives in the houses of members of this movement to make it look like a terrorist group rather than a religious congregation.
When Ahmet Şık was arrested, divisions and debates about the case reached a critical point. Şık wrote a book specifically targeting the Gülen movement, the “Imam’s Army.” And you know the rest of the story. He was arrested and police started a hunt for the book. On the first day I said that his arrest and the confiscation of the book were serious mistakes, casting a shadow over the whole Ergenekon trial. Since I know the mentality of Turkish prosecutors and judges I can understand why they took these steps. Sık’s book was serving the goals of the Ergenekon gang by targeting the police and prosecutors who handle this investigation. Like they did in the KCK and other cases, prosecutors made a comment I do not agree with at all. If your actions are serving the goals of an illegal organization you are also a part of it. This is a technical matter and I do not have enough space to discuss it in full detail for this article.
I have read Şık’s book and I have serious moral criticism of it. I believe some parts of it were written by members of the police force; it aims to create a sensation, rather than provide objective information, etc. But none of these make a person a member of an illegal organization, even if he may have been used by them in a sophisticated manner. Even if I were to accept that he is a member of this organization, confiscation of the book and his arrest were wrong.
Let's return to Finkel. Bülent Keneş explained why Finkel was fired in his column. He said the discrepancy between Finkel's understanding of Turkey and Today's Zaman's editorial policies reached a point after which the newspaper had to send away one of its columnists. Finkel may have read some facts incorrectly, may have made some wrong comments, but none of these things make his stance anti-democratic. It would be utterly unfair to put Finkel in the same position as some Turkish writers who deliberately distort facts about the case, like those in the Doğan media group, for example.
I think oversensitivity regarding the case makes Today's Zaman's editorial policies quite rigid, and this rigidity led to this mistake.
A final word. When I read Finkel's last (Today's Zaman) column in the Hürriyet Daily News, I felt sorrow. This newspaper tried to enjoy a credibility it does not deserve. When the Hürriyet group fires someone, the victim never knows why this happened. I may not agree with Bülent Keneş on some policy matters, but I know he is a man of great dignity. He explained in great detail to Finkel why his contract was terminated. When I was fired from the Hürriyet Daily News I was not given similar courtesy. They gave me some frivolous explanations and after much time I understood that they were very sensitive to my sharp criticism of military guardianship and that they decided to fire me after a notice of a lawsuit brought against me by a military unit was received by the newspaper.
I hope Today's Zaman revises its decision and calls Finkel back to continue writing his magnificent columns.
