In this context, you may draw attention to the fact that the AKP only narrowly escaped closure by the Constitutional Court last year. You may say that without full democratic control of the military, the AKP is not really in charge. You may point to the fact that the economic crisis is bound to take away the popular support that the AKP currently enjoys. More importantly, you may emphasize the fact that despite the steps towards solving the Kurdish problem, without an end to the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) insurgency, Turkey will continue to be vulnerable. You may be partly or fully justified in raising these issues.
All of these considerations, however, do not change the fact that the AKP government's efforts, while tackling a host of domestic problems, to redefine Turkey as a country with a growing economy and strengthening democracy, projecting peace and stability to its region is a respectable endeavor not only for its region but also the world. With Erdoğan's leadership and policies designed by his chief advisor, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkey has made remarkable advances in its foreign policy. Not more than 10 years ago, it had conflicting relations with almost all of its neighbors, and military threat was a basic instrument of its foreign policy.
Turkey under an AKP government has "sufficiently" fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria and is negotiating membership with the European Union, even if it is at a snail's pace. It may not yet have reached the stated goal of "zero problems" with its neighbors, but it has good or improving relations with all. It is true that neither the Cyprus problem, nor the bilateral disputes with Greece have been solved. Yet, war with Greece or Greek Cyprus has become unthinkable. It is true that diplomatic relations have not been re-established and borders remain closed with Armenia. There is, however, a promising rapprochement. Relations with Russia, Iran and Syria have improved immensely, and even relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq are being normalized.
Turkey, a member of the Council of Europe since 1949 and of NATO since 1952, has dialogue with all state and non-state actors with democratic legitimacy (including Hezbullah and Hamas) in the Middle East. It is serving as a bridge between the West and the region, facilitating dialogue with Iran and Syria. It has a military alliance and growing economic relations with Israel not likely to be fundamentally affected by the recent crisis over Gaza. It perhaps needs to be remembered that Shimon Peres, who attempted to scold Erdoğan at Davos, was the first Israeli president to address the Turkish Parliament last year, during which Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni described bilateral relations as never having been better. Ankara has facilitated dialogue between Pakistan and Israel and has put perhaps the greatest amount of effort into helping Israel and Syria achieve peace. There is no doubt that Turkish foreign policy under the AKP government represents the option of solving disputes with diplomacy and dialogue -- the option of a political instead of a military solution to conflicts.
Israel, on the other hand, represents the opposite, the military option. It is not interested in making peace with Syria, let alone the Palestinians. When the terms of an agreement with Syria were being worked out with the efforts of Turkey, Israel ruthlessly attacked Gaza. The principles of the Israeli policy toward the Palestinians are quite clear: 1) To prolong the occupation of Palestinian territory and the subjugation of the Palestinian people for as long as possible, hoping they will one day agree to a peace on Israel's terms; 2) "Divide and rule," to deepen and exploit to the utmost the differences between Palestinians; 3) To take advantage of the Oslo peace process with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to extend Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and the cease-fire with Hamas to prepare for the military attack against Gaza; 4) Not to accept interlocutors, to declare the PLO first as "terrorist," and later Hamas, to avoid negotiation; and 5) Relying, of course, basically on the only remaining course, that is militarism, and attacking Lebanon to subdue Hezbullah, attacking Gaza to subdue Hamas, bombing Syria and preparing to bomb Iran to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, all the while developing its own secret nuclear arsenal.
With these policies Israel is headed towards a condition worse than that of the United States under George W. Bush, increasingly being surrounded by a sea of animosity. Israel's militaristic policies not only threaten the security of its own people, but also the future of the authoritarian Arab regimes on whose support it relies. The question that Obama faces in the Middle East is simply the following: Will it pursue the Turkish option, based on diplomacy and engagement with all relevant players, or the Israeli option, based on militarism and the Bushite principle of "you're either with us, or against"?
