“Even despots, gangsters and pirates have specific sensitiveness, (and) follow some specific morals.”
The claim was made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a recent speech, following the deadly commando raid on the humanitarian aid flotilla to Gaza on May 31. According to Erdogan, Israel doesn’t adhere to the code of conduct embraced even by the vilest of criminals.
The statement alone indicates the momentous political shift that is currently underway in the Middle East. While the shift isn’t entirely new, one dares to claim it might now be a lasting one. To borrow from Erdogan’s own assessment of the political fallout that followed Israel’s raid, the damage is “irreparable.”
Countless analyses have emerged in the wake of the long-planned and calculated Israeli attack on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, which claimed the lives of nine, mostly Turkish peace activists.
In “Turkey’s Strategic U-Turn, Israel’s Tactical Mistakes,” published in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Ofra Bengio suggested Turkey’s position was purely strategic. But he also chastised Israel for driving Turkey further and faster “toward the Arab and Muslim worlds.”
In this week’s Zaman, a Turkish publication, Bulent Kenes wrote: “As a result of the Davos (where the Turkish prime minister stormed out of a televised discussion with Israeli President Shimon Peres, after accusing him and Israel of murder), the myth that Israel is untouchable was destroyed by Erdogan, and because of that Israel nurses a hatred for Turkey.”
In fact, the Davos incident is significant not because it demonstrates that Israel can be criticized, but rather because it was Turkey — and not any other easily dismissible party — that dared to voice such criticism.
Writing in the Financial Times under the title, “Erdogan turns to face East in a delicate balancing act,” David Gardner places Turkey’s political turn within a European context. He sums up that thought in a quote uttered by no other than Robert Gates, U.S. defense secretary: “If there is anything to the notion that Turkey is moving Eastward, it is in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought.” But what many analysts missed was the larger political and historical context, not only as pertaining to Israel and Turkey, but to the whole region and all its players, including the US itself. Only this context can help us understand the logic behind Israel’s seemingly erratic behavior.
In 1996, Israeli leaders appeared very confident. A group of neoconservative American politicians had laid out a road map for Israel to ensure complete dominance over the Middle East. In the document entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” Turkey was mentioned four times. Each reference envisaged the country as a tool to “contain, destabilize, and roll back some of … (the) most dangerous threats” to Israel. That very “vision” in fact served as the backbone of the larger strategy used by the US, as it carried out its heedless military adventures in the Middle East.
Frustrated by the American failure to reshape the region and unquestioningly eliminate anything and everything that Israel might perceive as a threat, Tel Aviv took matters into its own hands. However, in 2006 and between 2008 and 2009, it was up for major surprises. Superior firepower doesn’t guarantee military victory. More, while Israel had once more demonstrated its capacity to inflict untold damage on people and infrastructure, the Israeli weapon was no longer strategically effective. In other words, Israel’s military advantage could no longer translate into political gains, and this was a game-changer.
There are many issues the Israeli leadership has had to wrangle with in recent years. The U.S., Israel’s most faithful benefactor, is now in a crisis management mode in Iraq and Afghanistan, struggling on all fronts, whether political, military or economic. That recoil has further emboldened Israel’s enemies, who are no longer intimidated by the American bogyman. Israel’s desperate attempt at using its own military to achieve its grand objectives has also failed, and miserably so.
With options growing even more limited, Israel now understands that Gaza is its last card; ending the siege or ceasing the killings could be understood as another indication of political weakness, a risk that Israel is not ready to take.
Turkey, on the other hand, was fighting — and mostly winning — its own battles. Democracy in Turkey has never been as healthy and meaningful as it is today. Turkey has also eased its chase of the proverbial dangling carrot, of EU membership, especially considering the arrogant attitude of some EU members who perceive Turkey as too large and too Muslim to be trusted. Turkey needed new platforms, new options and a more diverse strategy.
But that is where many analysts went wrong. Turkey’s popular government has not entered the Middle Eastern political foray to pick fights. On the contrary, the Turkish government has for years been trying to get involved as a peacemaker, a mediator between various parties. So, yes, Turkey’s political shift was largely strategic, but it was not ill-intentioned.
The uninvited Turkish involvement, however, is highly irritating to Israel. Turkey’s approach to its new role grew agitating to Israel when the role wasn’t confined to being that of the host — in indirect talks between Syria and Israel, for example. Instead, Turkey began to take increasingly solid and determined political stances. Thus the Davos episode.
By participating at such a high capacity in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, with firm intentions of breaking the siege, Turkey was escalating its involvement well beyond Israel’s comfort zone. Therefore, Israel needed a decisive response that would send a message to Turkey — and any daring other — about crossing the line of what is and is not acceptable. It’s ironic how the neoconservatives’ “A Clean Break” envisaged an Israeli violation of the political and geographic boundaries of its neighbors, with the help of Turkey. Yet, 14 years later, it was Turkey, with representatives from 32 other countries, which came with a peaceful armada to breach what Israel perceived as its own political domain.
The Israeli response, as bloody as it was, can only be understood within this larger context. Erdogan’s statements and the popular support his government enjoys show that Turkey has decided to take on the Israeli challenge. The US government was exposed as ineffectual and hostage to the failing Israeli agenda in the region, thanks to the lobby. Ironically it is now the neoconservatives who are leading the charge against Turkey, the very country they had hoped would become Israel’s willing ally in its apocalyptic vision.
Of course, the real question is what’s with the sudden outcry of 9 dead pro-Hamas militants? The UN, half of whose members are either Arab nations or are totalitarian or theocratic regimes (i.e. Cuba, North Korea, Iran is all three, and too many more to name) have used this incident to further their own political standing and agenda. Outside a few Arab countries, and hippie humanitarians seeking a “cause du jour”, most couldn’t give a whit about Palestinians otherwise.
During their bloody coup, Hamas murdered 350 Fatah members, threw them off buildings and shot them in the streets in front of their own families., and hardly the world said a word. Turkey this week claims to have killed about 200 Kurds in bombings and the world is silent. So why the outcry over the 9 dead Turkish militants? Well, why not? Berating the Zionist entity sells at home; it gets votes or quells the masses (depending on the leader who is screaming).
What really may be coming is something that will surprise many – – an enormous backlash against Muslim states. It is just getting started now, really, for the first time.
Up until now, since 9/11, the outcry has been against extremism in Islam, but not against Islam itself or Arab states. However, that subtle difference is being eroded as jihadist ideals and states that support jihadist ideals can no longer be distinguished by populations in the West.
The clash of civilizations is upon us. Samuel Huntingdon predicted it, and its borders will be bloody.
This turn against Islam is SUDDENLY occurring as a shock to the Western system as one of its NATO members seems to have adopted the position of jihad, that of Hamas, a group similar to Al Quaeda in many ways, not the least of which is a proclaimed jihad and a blood thirsty lust for conquering others.
Regardless of Ankara’s good intentions, it has turned stomachs in Europe, North America and down under. And be not fooled about the Russians; they know well that Moscow is now within current range of Iran’s more advanced ballistic missiles (the UN resolution arrived just in time to save Russia from itself.)
Many believe that the pro-Zionist lobby is working hard to defend itself, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Zionist lobby seems all but dead, does it not? It has rolled over and has few supporters remaining.
In its place is something different being brought on by the extreme Islamists themselves. What is now becoming the Arab problem is the popular adoption of the Khilafah movement, or at least its announcement and intention, around the world.
This is going to result in a backlash much more serious than some anti-Islamic right wing politicians gaining ground in Europe.
The naivety of the greater Arab world reminds me of the Pro-Arab forces that attacked the Zionist Entity in 1973. Things looked good before the battle and in its intial days when the battle was going well (this also reminds me of the invasion of Iraq, come to think of it), but as always, attackers tend to fool themselves time and again. Many attackers over the course of history convinced themselves that they were stronger than the enemy but were not.
Counter attacks may take long, but often they are fierce and eventually are decisive. Currently, the Zionist flanks are unmanned. The people who support the Zionists seem absent.
What the Arabs think they hear is the siren of victory; they see a ball rolling downhill, when indeed what may await them is something entirely different.
The Arab streets hear Zionist silence blasted by a cacophony of boisterous Islamic statesmen.
As time moves forward, with the prospect of Khilafah being brought to the West’s doorstep, Anti-Arabism is going to step up, and those steps are going to feel like steel tipped boots from a bygone era.
Dude,
I want some of the stuff you’ve been smoking!
I think he/it has been smoking some judenweed.
Toxic stuff !
No problem. You can get it anywhere. Just ask for it by name. It is called “reality”
@Wheres DaPeace,
They were not “militants”, they were humanitarian activists, and their deaths were murder.
Also, there was no Hamas “coup”, only a Hamas response to a U.S.-Israeli-backed Abbas coup.
The idea of a “clash of civilizations” is absolute nonsense. I don’t know of any evidence for Huntington’s theory.
Well said, Jeremy.
The brainwashed masses conveniently forgets that Hamas won a parliamentary majority, fair and square.
Only when Abbas and Fatah, at the the USA’s and Zionist proddings, attempt to limit the Hama’s CONSTITUTIONALLY-guaranteed authority as the majority in Parliament…..did Hamas wrest control of the piece they were ABLE to wrest control of !
Militants? Pro-Hamas? How did you come to this conclusion..? The most nonsense comment I can ever imagine..
WheresdaPeace
Hamas is democratically elected.
Turks martyred were on a humanitarian mission, IHH helps more than 30 poor countries in the world including Christian ones such as Ethiopia.
Kurds killed in airstrikes were terrorists, recognised by all nations except Israel!
This is perfectly consistent with the notion that Israel is a terrorist state as well.
Lastly, be sober next time you post a comment.
wow, the most objective far-reaching in-depth yet laconic article even a five year old can understand
this article bests over 7k google newsfeeds currently on this topic
please make it a sticky
love it, thank you
nate levi
ps. even if they could generate one -BIG ‘if’, the mass media can not report this article because it is unbiased & hard to sell to their bases. again, thank u
Thanks for the comment, Nate.
Thanks for great article
I hope soon America will wake and realize
that supporting Israel is not a GOOD business
look how much does it cost? what did we get in return
U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240