Zeynep Dağı: Israel paved way for its own alienation

EMPA members were sad to witness Israeli parliamentarians disregarding boundaries and speaking recklessly during meetings, Dağı said. “We were saddened because in meetings in Europe, the cradle of democracy, the preservation of perceptions of democracy and democratic standards is very important, but despite this the Israeli delegation was insistent on its reckless stance. Following the recurring outbreaks of war in Gaza, on Jan. 29, 2009, Turkey destroyed the taboo of criticizing Israel at Davos. This clearly emboldened all parliamentarians. After the Gaza war, and on my recommendation, I traveled with a delegation of European parliamentarians to Gaza, Jerusalem and Ramallah. The Israelis were very anxious about our visit to Jerusalem. But again, they were still immersed in a state of immunity and recklessness despite all their human rights violations. The parliamentarians in the delegation reacted strongly to the human rights violations in Gaza and Ramallah. In a sense, the European parliamentarians were questioning Israeli legitimacy. And I also later witnessed how nearly all of the parliamentarians were very sensitive [to these issues] and didn’t shy away from giving any criticism,” she said.

Recalling that on Nov. 3, 2009, the Israeli ambassador to the EU fell victim to very strong protests amidst debates over the Goldstone Report, Dağı said that along with this, the words of Hélène Flautre -- who said that silence in the face of the policies implemented by Israel equated to complicity in them, and that they were sorry about this but that from now on they did not want to be a partner in crime with Israel -- were important steps in the process of Israeli alienation from the world.

In the process of Israel’s self-alienation, the lies it employed were also influential, Dağı asserted. “The Israeli ambassador to the EU had claimed humanitarian aid reached [Palestinian areas] very easily. The reactions to this were great -- it was expressed very clearly that these claims were lies. Similar things occurred during a meeting we held on May 21, 2010. Again, Hélène Flautre engaged in self-criticism of the EU for failing to correctly read the process regarding Hamas’ election. Israel’s alienation was triggered on May 31, but I saw the true foundation for this established through Israel’s mistakes on many platforms.”

Dağı said that just as nobody would have a problem with an Israel truly respectful of human rights, everybody recognizes the Israeli state. “But trouble arises when you try to establish your own existence upon destroying the existence of another,” she noted.

Disinformation leads people astray

Dağı also emphasized that it was incorrect to evaluate Israel’s May 31 attack on an aid flotilla only from the perspective of Turkish-Israeli relations, saying that there were circles that had intentionally launched a disinformation campaign with regard to the issue. There are attempts at hand to lead people to forget the fact that the aid ships had been organized by a multinational civil society effort, she said. “A process of disinformation has been started to portray the multinational organization -- which is a prime example of the type of inter-civilization alliance that we need following Sept. 11 -- as if the Turkish government had planned it. Turkey had, with its peaceful, active foreign policy, successfully told the entire world of Israel’s lawlessness, breaking the taboo about criticizing this country. The organization of the aid [flotilla] took place through aid associations from 33 nations in parallel with decisions of the UN Security Council. Because the broadly based organization, with the participation of civil society organizations, parliamentarians and members of the media, fell victim to an attack, this is not a Turkish-Israeli problem, but a problem for all of humanity,” she asserted.

Dağı went on to say that the flotilla’s organization was of great importance in terms of the power of international NGOs and its international dimension with regard to democracy, and said that it was upsetting that there were attempts to drag the interpretation of events into another arena and very wrong to transform discussions over the flotilla into debates over the direction that Turkey is taking as a nation.

Conceding that there have been difficulties in interpreting the role of Turkey in all this, Dağı remarked: “We’re at a juncture where there are very serious incongruities between perceptions and the truth. We know there are attempts to squeeze the [ruling Justice and Development Party] AK Party and our esteemed prime minister into a tight spot by using Iran. What has Turkey done? On which topic is it guilty? Turkey follows a policy in its region that is attempting to build peace. Is this a crime? Is this a manifestation of a change in direction [away from the West]? Not at all! Turkey is a country that is at the same time involved in deep cooperation with the West; it has never compromised this.”

Noting Turkey’s efforts in 2004 to get a solid EU membership negotiation timetable and its ensuing determined stance in pushing through reforms, Dağı said these were indications that there should be no question over the direction in which Turkey is oriented. “But despite this, there are circles discomfited by Turkey’s peaceful regional policies, and sometimes they try to condemn Turkey using certain perceptions. There are efforts to bring to the fore debates over [Turkey’s] orientation, Islamic references and the esteemed prime minister’s Islamic background. As an individual who believes in change and is ever respectful of it, I believe that our prime minster and political actors in Turkey have all changed in parallel with the direction that the world is headed,” she added.

The same thing happened with Vietnam

Through diplomatic channels, Turkey brought to the world agenda the stance of Israel, which is escalating conflict in its region and completely disregarding human rights, Dağı said, emphasizing that even during the Cold War period there were examples of civilian responses in opposition to acts of lawlessness.

Recalling that there was a serious reaction from civil society, including Americans, to American acts of lawlessness in Vietnam, Dağı said in conclusion: “Why is there difficulty in understanding the civilian reaction of citizens from 33 countries? Were there not civilian initiatives even during the Cold War, when nuclear armament and the arms race had reached its most extreme point?”