Change of axis in foreign policy and Israeli problem (2)
by
ALİ YURTTAGÜL*

Olmert departed from Sharon’s policy when he launched attacks against Gaza and Lebanon. The attack against Gaza at a time when the talks with Syria were about to become conclusive showed that Israel was unready for peace and willing to ignore the probable reactions of radical groups in an attempt to come closer to the Arab world. Israel still remains stuck to its traditional policy of settlement in an effort to satisfy the demands of marginal groups and relies on violence and war as a means of protecting its interests. This policy pursued by Israel serves as a tool of legitimization for the Palestinian radical groups and puts those who work hard for the achievement of peace in a difficult position. The attack against Lebanon carried out via this logic legitimized the radical groups in this country and contributed to the agenda of the radical groups in Palestine. Turkey did not have the luxury of aligning with this policy that apparently contradicts its policy of peace and stability.

The goals of Turkey and Israel overlap in respect to the policies against Iran; however, their approaches are significantly different. Israel holds that bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities will resolve the problem; on the other hand, like many EU countries, Turkey believes that Iran may be convinced to give up on its nuclear ambitions and that reliance on violent measures will lead to a catastrophe in the region. The developments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan show that similar consequences will cause grave problems for Turkey if the same course if followed with regard to Iran. For this reason, the policy of peace and stability visibly contradicts the policy of chaos and violence. So what needs to be done?

Turkey cannot remain indifferent to the ongoing row with Israel. For this reason, even though it has problems with a government whose political composition is not so appealing, Turkey needs to develop dialogue with the movements acting for achievement of peace in Israel and to explain the ongoing problems to the Jewish Diaspora that is uncomfortable with the ongoing crisis. Furthermore, it should also underline that it does not want nuclear weapons in the Middle East, that it is still eager to contribute to the achievement of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and other regional issues, and that the actual problem is due to the contradiction between Turkey’s new vision and the conventional approach held by the Israeli authorities instead of a change of axis. However, the prime minister should also consider a new fact that his speeches are closely followed in New York, Brussels, Paris and Cairo in addition to Konya and Kayseri. Sometimes, it is wise to choose the words or remain silent; such an action may prevent misunderstandings. It will be better for him to talk to “mon cheres” he trusts for the sake of the bilateral relations with Israel and the general outlook of the international relations of the country. Sometimes, to win, it is not enough to be right.