This “inappropriate treatment,” which contradicts the traditions of diplomacy, an occupation founded upon courtesy, constitutes the latest phase in relations with Israel, which have been tense for some time.The rise in tension, triggered by the attack Israel launched against the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008 and the ensuing massacre of civilians, was accelerated by the increasing sensitivity toward such developments on the part of both the Turks and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who had until that point been mediating peace talks between Syria and Israel. In turn, Israel on the one hand began to speak harshly against Turkey and on the other spurred its lobbies in the US and the rest of the West into action, conducting anti-Turkey propaganda. The Israeli lobby’s anti-Turkey activities came to such a point that it became possible to determine solely based on Western media coverage that opposed the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration which press organs were under this lobby’s grip. So much so that Ayalon’s latest arrogant move, conducted upon the order of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, served some good in that it brought these efforts to the surface.
The question that must now be posed is this: Why did all of this happen? Let’s ask this question and try to immediately answer it. The most important principle of Israel’s strategy of existence in an enemy-ridden atmosphere has always represented the establishment of strategic relations with a non-Arab country in the region. Until the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Shah’s regime had played the role of Israel’s non-Arab regional ally. Along with the revolution Israel lost this strategic regional ally that was so important to it, and the most appropriate -- in fact the only -- other country that could meet the same need was without a doubt Turkey. Just as Turkey was not from amongst the Arabs that encircled Israel, even if only outwardly it was also a democracy like Israel, and even if it had a Muslim identity, it was a secular country (albeit with a problematic understanding of secularism).
Turkish-Israeli relations progressed in the 1980s and reached the point of strategic cooperation in the 1990s. Even the coming to power of the Welfare Party (RP) under the leadership of Necmettin Erbakan -- which did not take a liking to Israel at all -- was not able to cast a shadow over these relations. A military training cooperation agreement that led to concern on the part of other regional nations was signed between Israel and Turkey during this period. And the overthrow of the Erbakan administration by generals that enjoyed special relations with Israel, as well as the pressure and antidemocratic policies against religious and conservative segments that began on Feb. 28, 1997 and continued for many years, were evaluated as domestic political adjustments mandated by the ever-controversial Turkish-Israeli relations.
We remember quite well that in that period, a phrase frequently used to characterize Turkish-Israeli relations was “a dance of alones.” Accordingly, Israel, surrounded on all sides by Arabs with hostile feelings, could have no other friend than Turkey, which also considered all its neighbors enemies. And for Turkey, which was as alone in its region as an Israel surrounded by Arabs, the view was generally accepted that there could be no better friend than Tel Aviv. And truly, Turkey was, just like Israel, completely and utterly alone in its region -- because of land disputes with Syria and disputes over Syria’s support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); because of threats having to do with Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime, especially concerning water disputes; because of problems over Iran’s support of terrorism and attempts to export its regime; because of its problems with Greece over the Aegean and Cyprus; and because of its problems with the West over human rights violations and its struggle against the PKK, which from time to time forayed into the illegal, making Turkey a nation with highly tense and in a sense hostile relations. In this environment, it seemed fairly reasonable for two such democratic countries to come together in comparison to the rest of the countries in the region.
But when we come around to the present, we see that Turkey’s situation has changed entirely. Today’s Turkey is a country engaged in negotiations to enter the European Union, that has left behind a considerable segment of tension with Greece, that has drawn so close to Syria that there’s almost no border to speak of between the two nations, that is nurturing both good neighborly relations and serious commercial relations with Iran, that is aiming for a $100 billion trade volume with Russia and that has made friends with Iraq and has a say in the affairs of that country despite not entering into armed conflict with it. That is to say, Turkey is not the lonely country of the 1990s, not that strange, timid, withdrawn country surrounded by enemies. Just the opposite, today’s Turkey has arrived at a point where it has developed mutual cooperation with all of its neighbors, increased trade and commercial ties, established friendly relations based on mutual ties, and symbolizes regional peace and stability.
And what about Israel? Israel’s status in the region unfortunately has not progressed by even an inch since the 1990s. However it was that Israel felt as part of its region in the 1990s, it feels the same way now. It still feels surrounded by enemies and continues to confine itself to an agonizing loneliness. And what’s more, it is doing everything within its power to offend the best friend it has in the region -- and it’s succeeding. Of course, in the event that it loses its only friend in the region, the party that will be harmed the most by this is the one that is in most dire need of this friendship -- Israel itself.
And that is what I’m saying here -- those governing Israel need to pull themselves together and re-evaluate the regional realities at play. The reality that they cannot ignore is this: Neither is today’s region the same as it was in the past nor is today’s Turkey that old Turkey. There’s nothing stranger than Israel’s insistence upon opposing regional change in an environment where everything has changed. My recommendation to the Israeli administration is that it opens its eyes already, faces the new regional reality and makes an effort to come to terms with it.
