Bayezid II vs. Erdoğan I

Five hundred and seventeen years later, a wannabe Ottoman sultan, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan I, said of the Jews, "When it comes to killing, you know it too well." But why should Turkey have an elected sultan in the 21st century’s political architecture? Because the Turks democratically chose to have a sultan. And that’s all too normal in the Orient. The Lebanese, after Mr. Erdoğan’s flare-up in Davos, proposed to declare him the new "caliph." Why should the Turks not call him the new Ottoman sultan?

Mr. Erdoğan is playing a dangerous game. He plays his Islamist self in public, and his pragmatist self in private. Easy game: You call the Jews -- that "cursed nation" as most dogmatic Muslims think of them -- "killers" in public road shows and win votes.

Then you resort to all possible means of private diplomacy and back channels to avoid Jewish-American hostility because you must also behave like a survivor. Excellent blend! And you don’t care the least because you have perilously added to the already explosive anti-Semitic sentiment at home. Plus, you can now play the new Ottoman sultan, the darling of all the oppressed nations of the Middle East. Very cunning indeed.

But do the gains in real life come that easily? Not always. Not forever. True, Washington needs Turkey’s services, especially at a time when it hopes for a graceful exit from Iraq and for a better task force in Afghanistan, to name just two. But statesmen do need to talk realities in addition to fantasies. One of those moments will come soon.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be in Ankara on the weekend. During their meeting, according to Mr. Erdoğan’s account, the prime minister-turned-sultan will ask the secretary of state for an explanation of the State Department’s human rights report on Turkey.

Add to that Mr. Erdoğan’s all-too enthusiastic love affair with Hamas. Now add to that blend fresh input: Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed on Monday that "the United States would deal only with a Palestinian unity government that renounced terrorism and recognized the right of Israel to exist; that would clearly exclude Hamas, which, she noted, continues to launch rockets at Israeli towns."

There will surely be niceties in Ankara. That will be the "pragmatic" part of the very important talks in the Turkish capital. In reality, Mr. Erdoğan’s neo-Ottomanism does not fit into the new U.S. administration’s view of an ideal Middle East. Mr. Erdoğan will no doubt wear his pragmatic mask when he meets with Mrs. Clinton. And for sure Mrs. Clinton will tell Mr. Erdoğan all the necessary words of consolation over the human rights report which, according to his own words, angered him a lot. In return, he will nod and return the pleasantries, highlighting Turkey’s "geo-strategic importance" for American interests. There is nothing unusual in all that talk.

But the fundamental -- and widening -- divergence of world views is too powerful to hide behind temporary periods of mutual pragmatism: 

* Mr. Erdoğan is too pro-Hamas whereas Mrs. Clinton’s idea for peace does not include a popular political movement with a branch that commits terrorism. 

* For Mrs. Clinton, the Israelis have a right to exist whereas for Mr. Erdoğan the Israelis "only know too well when it comes to killing." 

* For Washington, Turkey must remain a genuine democracy, not an autocracy with free elections. But Mr. Erdoğan loves his messianic role as the Ottoman Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan I, if he just does not have an eye on the trophy for the new caliph. 

* Hopefully these "negligible" differences can be skipped Ğ but not forever if anyone on either side of the Atlantic is serious about the Middle East.

And by the way, this is how Mrs. Clinton’s State Department reported on Mr. Erdoğan’s Turkey on religious freedoms: 

* Religious social orders (tarikats) and lodges (cemaats) are officially prohibited; however, they remained (in 2008) active and widespread and many prominent politicians and social leaders continued to associate with these and other societies.

* (Mr. Erdoğan’s) government continued to restrict applicants’ choice of religion on their ID cards. 

* There are reports that officers in governmental ministries faced discrimination because they were not considered by their supervisors to be sufficiently observant of Islamic religious practices.

Need one say more?