Davos, Israel and Erdoğan
by
ALİ YURTTAGÜL [*]

From a European perspective, the Israel-Erdoğan tension, which has become very popular in the world media, looks like a pretty rational process. I am calling this Israel-Erdoğan tension because there are no rational reasons for the launch of such tension; for this reason, if we consider this incident calmly and with restraint, we will conclude that Israel rather than Erdoğan is the cause of the problem and the tension. Erdoğan contributed a great deal to the progress of peace talks in the Middle East; however, he noticed that his efforts had become inconclusive because of Israeli assaults in Gaza. Additionally, as he implied during his Brussels visit, Erdoğan was fooled by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Israeli diplomatic establishment with regard to the operations. Because of this, he expressed his disappointment in Israel's attitude to imply that he would act against the endeavors of Israeli politicians to exploit this issue in an attempt to gain greater popular support. I would like to take a closer look at the reasons behind the tension in terms of such issues as Turkish-Israeli relations, Turkey's role as a mediator and developments with respect to EU-Turkey relations.

Erdoğan attracted a great deal of popular support because of his gesture in Davos and similar actions before this summit; this last move was particularly influential, so influential that it now seems that the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) support base has been mobilized for the upcoming local elections. I do not want to discuss this part of issue because it has already been reviewed by others. Whether Turkey has lost its ability to serve as a mediator in the problems and disputes between Israel and Arab countries is now the number one matter of curiosity in Europe and the Middle East. The Davos tension is not the only determinant in this case; the whole process will be also affected by the new administration in the US and US President Barack Obama's eagerness to pursue proactive foreign policies in the region. It was held that Turkey was filling the void left by the Bush administration in the Middle East and that this was the primary reason for the US's open support for Turkey's role as a mediator. Some even argue that Israel did not notify Turkey of the Gaza operation because of this. Even though this argument is a plausible one, I do not think it was determinative. Turkey will remain a key country for peace talks and for their aftermath in the region.

Israel’s Gaza attack was   a surprise for Europe

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini and Olmert met two days before the operation in Gaza; in that meeting, Frattini got the impression that Israel would not enter Gaza. He was so sure about this that he made press statement indicating that there was no such a possibility. After the initiation of the attack, Frattini had to deal with sarcastic comments suggesting that he should review his relations with his friends. Erdoğan's situation was something like that, only more serious. After meeting with Olmert, Erdoğan took initiatives toward organizing a fifth session of peace talks between Israel and Syria; he also got the impression from that meeting with Olmert that he could do something about a peaceful resolution in Gaza. At a moment when progress was made in talks with Syria after a decision to start direct negotiations, Israel launched the attack against Gaza without even informing Turkey. Because of this, Erdoğan's image was seriously undermined in the Arab world. If he contacted Hamas to convince its leadership for a cease-fire and received some promising messages, I can conclude that Erdoğan's disappointment is deeper than we thought. Because Hamas' leadership is based in Damascus and because the possibility of tension in Gaza would strongly affect peace talks between Syria and Israel, it is pretty likely that the Gaza issue has been discussed during trilateral talks involving Turkey, Israel and Syria.

Erdoğan, as a senior politician who has no affinity for diplomatic jargon, realized that the Gaza attack was intended to influence the Israeli elections and that he was being humiliated. This is why he relied on a relatively harsh stance and discourse in Davos. He did so because he wanted to emphasize Turkey's role as a mediator. I do not agree with the criticism put forward by columnists and elite diplomats with regard to Erdoğan's style. His remarks have met with confirmation and acceptance in Turkey and Europe, though most of those who agree do not freely express their views with respect to this. The European people were already reactive against the Gaza incident, in which a number of civilians were massacred by the Israeli army; however, their reaction and protest was not expressed aloud. For this reason, Erdoğan's harsh criticism was appreciated not only in Arab countries and in Turkey, but also in Europe. For this reason, with the exception of a few politicians who are known for their opposition to Erdoğan and Turkey, Erdoğan's remarks and stance did not attract noticeable criticism or negative reactions from European circles because he was expressing the feelings of the European people as well.

Secondly, Turkey's active foreign policy moves and attacks and its ability to serve a reliable mediator in regional problems is appreciated by European governments and peoples; Turkey's initiatives for regional peace have been strongly supported by European circles. For this reason, Erdoğan's harsh criticism met with approval in Europe. Nobody in Europe has ever seen Israel's operation as an attempt or move to eliminate terror and promote peace. The only concern in both Europe and Turkey was the possibility that Turkey would lose its ability to serve as a mediator and emerge as a voice of the Arab world. Of course, this concern should be taken into account because such a development would be the first step that moves Turkey away from Europe. For this reason, I may say that Erdoğan's remarks are not anti-Semitic and that they are decisive in protecting the rights of Turkish Jews and of Israeli people. On the other hand, criticism from Israel should be understandable because the recent polemic with Erdoğan poses a problem that is even more important than the elections in Israel. So what should Erdoğan be careful about? Above all, these two facts should be considered. 

[*] Ali Yurttagül is a political advisor for the Greens in the European Parliament.