They even wrote that no one should be deceived by the claims that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is trying to liken Turkey to Iran. They further accused the White House of being negligent and failing to take action against the anti-democratic groups in Ankara. However, the international press which lent its full support to the AK Party in all those critical processes of the past, such as the presidential election crisis and the closure case against the ruling party, has recently been caught in a fit of criticism against Erdoğan and his party.The last of these was clearly visible in a recent Washington Post editorial. The title of the article that portrayed a very negative image of the AK Party and Erdoğan summed up its content: “An Islamist government’s commitment to democratic principles is looking shaky.” Its criticism started with Erdoğan’s positive remarks about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is accused of winning the office with fraud in the election and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of massacre in Darfur, and continued with the tax fine imposed on the Doğan Group and several breaches of law in the Ergenekon investigation. Of course, the article also included Erdoğan remarks about Israel. The Western press has always had hardcore opponents of the AK Party. Here we are not talking about Rubin, Pipes, Çağaptay, and the likes of whom we already know much about. The point is why the former supporters of the AK Party have suffered from a change of heart. This is a question which we need to think about seriously. Is it because those infamous lobbies have stepped in? Because of some steps the AK Party has taken in domestic or foreign policy? Its difficulty in explaining what it does to the external world? Excessive self-confidence and ensuing slips of tongue without supportive action? Or a combination of all of these?
Speaking on the answer to these questions, an AK Party foreign policy expert drew attention to an important point: Although it is not the only reason for the recent increase in the amount of criticism against the AK Party, the deterioration of bilateral relations with Israel is a major factor. When Turkey’s relations with Israel go badly, the international media starts to adopt a different perspective about many issues including Sudan and Iran, with added negative impact. For him, a series of recent events, which occurred one after the other, too, played a role in the formation of this negative perception although this was not intended: the abolishment of visa requirements between Turkey and Syria in a spectacular ceremony immediately after the cancellation of a military exercise with Israel; a joint Cabinet meeting with Iraq and then Erdoğan’s visit to Iran.
Israel’s influence in the change of heart against Erdoğan and the AK Party can also be seen in the statements made by several Israeli leaders. Don’t you think that it makes sense that while Turkey is having a hard time with a new coup plan emerging each passing day, Israeli President Shimon Peres is lauding the Turkish army? Responding to the US defense magazine Defense News’s question, “Is … Erdoğan leading his country away from partnership with Israel and toward radical Islam?” Peres said: “Turkey is the only country in the world in which a non-democratic institution, the Army, was in charge of protecting democracy. And they did it. Now the role of the Army has changed, and the question is whether Erdogan will lead his Muslim population toward democracy or whether democratic forces will demand a more Islamist state.”
However, in an interview I had with him two years ago, Peres had denounced these concerns about the AK Party: “These concerns are unfounded in two respects. First, Erdoğan declares that he favors a secular government, not an Islamic one. One may have suspicions about remarks. Actions are more important than one’s remarks. Does Erdoğan act like a fanatic? Even the fact that Turkey still maintains ties with Israel during the time of Erdoğan is the best proof of his mentality.” (Zaman, Aug. 1, 2007)
Although we may choose to continue to criticize Israel’s cruelty, we may question why Iran did not accept a meeting in Israel for discussing the nuclear crisis. The criticism voiced by the Western press concerning the tax fine imposed on the Doğan Group is flawed with missing or false information. Isn’t it possible to establish a more effective communication with the groups that still maintain their objectivity? Do we have the luxury to say that the Western press may do whatever they want when great changes are happening in Turkey?
Benzer Haberler 
