×
Approaching the Middle East
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Peace-brokering is a serious task. It cannot be entrusted to third parties suspected of overt or covert bias in favor of one of the conflicting sides in any dispute
If Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan keeps on making hot speeches on Gaza he may earn a few more votes in upcoming local elections, but his government will no longer be able to function as an honest broker for an already-highly-unlikely peace in the Middle East.
We may always try to understand some of Mr Erdoğan’s "more-Arab-than-any-Arab" rhetoric on the multiple human tragedies in Gaza. That, for example, is sometimes "Israel is committing a dark stain on human history," or "the dignity of humanity is being killed in Gaza," or "Allah will punish those who violate the rights of the innocent." But when the Turkish prime minister says "he is reacting as a human and approaching the issue with a Muslim’s approach (his words, in quite broken Turkish)," then we have something else here.
Would it not suffice if Mr Erdoğan reacted as a human only? Why does he have to react as a Muslim also, or, in his words, "approach with a Muslim’s approach?" Why should religion matter when there is a human tragedy? Is tragedy alone not enough to react?
We can always multiply these questions. But what matters is, can Israel (and the United States) trust someone who "approaches the Gaza violence with a Muslim’s approach" as an honest broker in a region where honesty is an extremely rare quality?
Of course, Mr Erdoğan can always send apologetic messages to the Israelis and the Americans through various back channels and tell them "he spoke like that for domestic consumption." "Hey, don’t get offended guys, our prime minister was just speaking with the local elections on the back of his mind; you know, it just happens." Then the right question to ask would be: Can someone "who approaches (Gaza) with a Muslim’s approach" be entrusted the task of peace-making between Jews and Muslims? Imagine Greece having been tasked with reuniting Cyprus; and Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis "approaching the Turkish occupation of the island with an Orthodox approach." Neutrality is not always diluted by religion. Mr Erdoğan’s Turkey as a peace-broker between Israel and Syria (or Hamas) looks not much different than Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Regional Government as a peace broker between Turkey and the PKK.
With Mr Erdoğan’s Muslim approach to Gaza it was not surprising at all why the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) has said that Iran’s (regional) allies were Syria, Hezbollah and Turkey, adding "no surprises but Turkey and that’s only a surprise if you haven’t been paying attention." If you "have been paying attention," JINSA’s report, "The Ducks are Lining Up Ğ and Turkey is a Turkey (Jan. 6, 2009)," is hardly surprising in its assertions:
"Under the leadership of the AKP and Prime Minister Erdoğan, Turkey has moved sharply from pro-Western to pro-IranianÉ Its key friend is Muslim-but-not Arab Shiite Iran.
"Turkey in or Turkey out, if the Obama administration wants to play a useful role in regional politics, it should first understand that the paradigm has shifted, the ducks are realigned, the ground has moved or whatever clich you like. It is no longer simply ’everybody in the region against Israel,’ and it is not about a Palestinian state. It is, rather, the pro-Iranian axis including Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies vs. the anti-Iranian axis that puts Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the same sideÉ"
Mr Erdoğan is not a neutral peace-broker. He cannot be one. Because he approaches what is basically a Jewish-Muslim conflict "with a Muslim’s approach." A neutral statesman, whatever his faith is, would approach to the Israeli offensive on Gaza like a human being and without a faith identity. Last week, in the wake of "conservative Muslim" calls for "shutting the Zionist embassy and expelling its ambassador," Mr Erdoğan spoke like a true statesman: "We are administering the Republic of Turkey, not a grocery shop." Good. Now he should learn to speak like the prime minister of Turkey, not a grocery shop owner.
He should not forget that his words have a multiplier effect on his grassroots supporters most of whom border on anti-Semitism, if already they are not. The grocery shop owner can engage in Jew-bashing or be indifferent to it, but the prime minister of Turkey cannot.
Too bad, he has been all too silent about the common Turkish language used in anti-Israeli protests which include "death to all Jews," "Jews and Armenians not allowed but dogs are," and "down with that ’cursed nation.’"
We may always try to understand some of Mr Erdoğan’s "more-Arab-than-any-Arab" rhetoric on the multiple human tragedies in Gaza. That, for example, is sometimes "Israel is committing a dark stain on human history," or "the dignity of humanity is being killed in Gaza," or "Allah will punish those who violate the rights of the innocent." But when the Turkish prime minister says "he is reacting as a human and approaching the issue with a Muslim’s approach (his words, in quite broken Turkish)," then we have something else here.
Would it not suffice if Mr Erdoğan reacted as a human only? Why does he have to react as a Muslim also, or, in his words, "approach with a Muslim’s approach?" Why should religion matter when there is a human tragedy? Is tragedy alone not enough to react?
We can always multiply these questions. But what matters is, can Israel (and the United States) trust someone who "approaches the Gaza violence with a Muslim’s approach" as an honest broker in a region where honesty is an extremely rare quality?
Of course, Mr Erdoğan can always send apologetic messages to the Israelis and the Americans through various back channels and tell them "he spoke like that for domestic consumption." "Hey, don’t get offended guys, our prime minister was just speaking with the local elections on the back of his mind; you know, it just happens." Then the right question to ask would be: Can someone "who approaches (Gaza) with a Muslim’s approach" be entrusted the task of peace-making between Jews and Muslims? Imagine Greece having been tasked with reuniting Cyprus; and Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis "approaching the Turkish occupation of the island with an Orthodox approach." Neutrality is not always diluted by religion. Mr Erdoğan’s Turkey as a peace-broker between Israel and Syria (or Hamas) looks not much different than Masoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Regional Government as a peace broker between Turkey and the PKK.
With Mr Erdoğan’s Muslim approach to Gaza it was not surprising at all why the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) has said that Iran’s (regional) allies were Syria, Hezbollah and Turkey, adding "no surprises but Turkey and that’s only a surprise if you haven’t been paying attention." If you "have been paying attention," JINSA’s report, "The Ducks are Lining Up Ğ and Turkey is a Turkey (Jan. 6, 2009)," is hardly surprising in its assertions:
"Under the leadership of the AKP and Prime Minister Erdoğan, Turkey has moved sharply from pro-Western to pro-IranianÉ Its key friend is Muslim-but-not Arab Shiite Iran.
"Turkey in or Turkey out, if the Obama administration wants to play a useful role in regional politics, it should first understand that the paradigm has shifted, the ducks are realigned, the ground has moved or whatever clich you like. It is no longer simply ’everybody in the region against Israel,’ and it is not about a Palestinian state. It is, rather, the pro-Iranian axis including Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies vs. the anti-Iranian axis that puts Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the same sideÉ"
Mr Erdoğan is not a neutral peace-broker. He cannot be one. Because he approaches what is basically a Jewish-Muslim conflict "with a Muslim’s approach." A neutral statesman, whatever his faith is, would approach to the Israeli offensive on Gaza like a human being and without a faith identity. Last week, in the wake of "conservative Muslim" calls for "shutting the Zionist embassy and expelling its ambassador," Mr Erdoğan spoke like a true statesman: "We are administering the Republic of Turkey, not a grocery shop." Good. Now he should learn to speak like the prime minister of Turkey, not a grocery shop owner.
He should not forget that his words have a multiplier effect on his grassroots supporters most of whom border on anti-Semitism, if already they are not. The grocery shop owner can engage in Jew-bashing or be indifferent to it, but the prime minister of Turkey cannot.
Too bad, he has been all too silent about the common Turkish language used in anti-Israeli protests which include "death to all Jews," "Jews and Armenians not allowed but dogs are," and "down with that ’cursed nation.’"
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
