Erdogan 'is no Gamal Abdel Nasser'

A recent poll has revealed that 43 per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip view Turkey as the regional country that is most supportive of their cause.

The survey was conducted following the deadly Israeli interception of a Gaza-bound international aid flotilla that claimed the lives of nine Turkish nationals.

Egypt, once the leader of the Arab world, came a very distant second, with just 13 per cent.

Wave of admiration
Although no similar polls were conducted elsewhere in the Arab world, press reports, opinion columns and the Turkish flags waved during anti-Israel protests, seem to indicate that Turkey is emerging as the new popular - or at least respected - regional leader.

Even Arab governments seem to have been swept up in this new wave of admiration for Turkey in the wake of its insistence on an apology for and an independent investigation into the deaths of its citizens.

Arab officials reportedly gave Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, a very enthusiastic reception at the Turkish-Arab Economic Forum in Istanbul earlier this month.

The Turkish position simultaneously embarrasses many Arab governments by exposing their weakness vis-à-vis Israel, while also bolstering the official Arab stand against Israel's arrogant dismissal of Arab rights and demands.

Turkey is not perceived as a threat to Arab regimes as its influence does not undermine Arab governments at home.

Force for moderation
While Turkey is ruled by an Islamic party, its influence over Islamic movements, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, which leads the opposition in several Arab countries, is largely viewed as a moderating factor.

In fact, many Islamic writers view Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) as the vanguard of a liberal Islamic movement seeking to take its rightful place in the international arena.

But the rise of Turkish influence is also a testimony to the decline of pan-Arab power and the absence of strong leadership in the Arab world.

Regional powers, such as Iran and Turkey, have stepped in to fill a leadership gap that has emerged partly as a result of Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the US occupation of Iraq and the general decline in pan-Arab solidarity.

But while Iran, which is widely perceived as a strong counterbalance to Israel, is viewed with suspicion by most Arab governments and even members of the intelligentsia, Turkey is generally seen as less threatening and as a force for stability in the region.

The Arab street

Even as Turkey is attacked in the West for supposedly "turning eastward" and favouring its "cultural affinity" with Muslim countries, the Arab world continues to see it as a bridge to the West and a potential mediator with the US and Israel.

On the Arab street, however, a new image of Turkey is emerging that is not necessarily reflective of a realistic reading of the policies and statements made in Ankara.

In the wake of the flotilla carnage, the refusal of Turkish leaders to budge on their threats to suspend relations with Israel and, more significantly, their unequivocal demand that the Gaza blockade be lifted, has seen them portrayed in articles and on popular forums as the new leaders in "the Islamic world's struggle to liberate Palestine".

But this is a role Turkey has neither claimed nor coveted.

This casting of Turkey as the champion of the Palestinian cause derives partly from the comparison drawn between Turkey, whose leaders take their country's role and pride seriously, and meek Arab regimes who are vying to be accepted by the US and the West.

Countries and leaders who have challenged Israel and the West have always captured the imagination of the Arab masses, who seek an advocate in the battle against decades of colonialism, Western domination and injustice.

By calling off joint military maneuvers with his country's long-standing ally, Israel, after the latter's war against Gaza and by leaving the podium at Davos after an angry exchange with Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, Erdogan's casting as a hero in the Arab imagination was sealed.

But, while certainly benefiting from his growing personal clout and that of his country among Arabs and Muslims, the Turkish prime minister has not abandoned his declared goal of being a bridge between East and West, as opposed to a champion of the East against the West.

Neo-Ottoman ambition?
Erdogan's obvious high regard for his country's role and status has earned him the respect of even some of the most sceptical Arab intellectuals.

But others warn that Turkey's ambition - often described as neo-Ottoman by its critics - is more concerned with expanding Turkey's sphere of influence than championing just causes.

That may be so and Turkish leaders are open about bidding to become the most important interlocutor for the East - Arabs and Muslims - with the West.

Turkey's so far successful move to fill the leadership void in the region, does not, however, compensate for the absence of Arab leadership.

Erdogan is not the new Gamal Abdel Nasser, the late Egyptian president who commanded an unrivalled influence over the Arab intelligentsia and masses during the late 1950s and 1960s, until his premature death in 1970.

Neither he nor his outspoken intellectual foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, are - or yearn to be - the saviours of Arabs and Muslims.

If anything Turkey could be a stabilising force in the Arab world, but only the Arab world can decide how that will benefit it.

The fact that Egypt came second in the Palestinian survey signals both the decline of the Egyptian leadership of the Arab world and the persistence of its special place in Arab politics.

NATO member Turkey stands to gain from being a mediator between the Arab world and Israel - speaking its mind and becoming a hero in the process.

But for Egypt, acting as the go-between between Israel and Arab states has only served to diminish its power. And Turkey's rising influence cannot compensate for that absence of an Arab leader, for it is neither its duty nor its role to protect Arab interests.

Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2010/06/erdogan-is-no-gamal-abdel-nasser.html

Stephen M. Walt: The Critic of My Friend is My Enemy

By Stephen M. Walt* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however — fueled primarily by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians — the ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders of Israel began switching sides, too.

Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service, detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.

First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism. But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy, and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only democracy in the Middle East."

But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally of the United States. Of course,Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey, and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.

Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not. So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq — even though Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan — and why they are now pushing for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.

As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.

One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's interests over America's. After all, if the interests of the two states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue (a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.

I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions — yes, billions — of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues, such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President Obama's failures on this front — despite his repeated pledges to do better–make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.

Although the United States and Israel do share certain common interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly) will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal track record and their underlying motivations.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/16/

So who is Israel’s one true friend? Clue: it isn’t the U.S.

By Tony Karon
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk, an old American slogan says. By that measure the U.S. has hardly been a real friend to Israel over the past decade. It has enabled a pattern of Israeli behaviour so reckless as to endanger Israel’s prospects of ever achieving peaceful coexistence with the states and peoples around it.

An aggressive drunk often reserves his most toxic invective for those of his friends who tell him the truth: that his behaviour is intolerable, is dangerous to himself and others, and can’t be allowed to continue.

So it should come as no surprise that the most belligerent of Israel’s leaders are shaking their fists at Turkey, most recently in last week’s adolescent stunt in which the deputy foreign minister deliberately humiliated the Turkish ambassador. The specific complaint was a negative portrayal of Israelis in a Turkish TV drama. The deeper grievance is that Turkey, a long-time friend of Israel, has started to deliver a message no longer heard from the U.S. or most of Europe: that normal relations with Israel depend on Israel pursuing a policy of peace.

During the Clinton years, while America’s Middle East policy was certainly biased in Israel’s favour, it was nonetheless based on a recognition that Israel was in a state of conflict precisely because its borders have never been finalised: where Israel begins and ends, and who belongs within those boundaries, has been a matter of conflict since 1948.

Mr Clinton and his Israeli partner, Yitzhak Rabin, understood exactly why the Palestinians had taken up arms: not because of some fanatical religious ideology or hatred of Jews, but because they had lost their land in 1948, and many had lost their freedom in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that began in 1967. The Palestinians had reacted as any proud people would have done under similar circumstances, and the Israelis knew it.

Mr Rabin believed peace could be achieved by restoring to the Palestinians at least some of the land they had lost, and offering a just solution to their plight. And Mr Clinton expressed his friendship with Israel by doing his best to help it to resolve its conflicts with its neighbours through a two-state solution.

But Camp David failed, the second intifada followed, Mr Clinton was succeeded by George Bush, and Ariel Sharon, a fierce opponent of Mr Rabin’s “land for peace” principle, became prime minister of Israel. He declared the peace process dead, and set about suppressing the intifada by overwhelming military force.

The 9/11 attacks sealed the shift in U.S. policy. As a crucial front in its global “war on terror”, the Bush administration embraced Israel’s portrayal of itself as just another western country under attack from terrorists motivated by the same nihilistic ideology as those who struck the Twin Towers. And the suicide bombings of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades played into that narrative, ending the very idea of pressuring Israel to make concessions for peace; the key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship was now Israeli security. Israel was given free rein to bomb, blockade and besiege the Palestinians in the name of fighting terror.

Not only did Mr Bush give up on restraining Israel, but he managed to bully the Europeans into doing the same; perhaps they entertained the vain hope that supporting Israel’s “war on terror” would prompt Washington to press Israel to make a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians.

Instead, it had the opposite effect. Israel was free to bludgeon the Palestinians on to the defensive, and build a security wall that kept out suicide bombers but also cemented Israel’s grip on vast areas of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. And behind that wall, with the Palestinians out of sight, Israeli society simply moved on.

Israelis no longer believe their society needs peace to ensure its long term viability. Opinion polls suggest that only 40 per cent of Israelis hope to revive the peace talks with the Palestinians, and only half that number believe such talks would achieve anything. Even if its leaders now routinely admit that demographics require a two-state solution, that is an abstract principle; at the moment, Israeli society is content with the status quo, however intolerable it may be for the Palestinians.

Whether Israel is expanding its grip on East Jerusalem, strangling Gaza’s economy or just bombing the place to rubble, U.S. acquiescence has helped to cultivate among the Israelis an arrogance that brooks no criticism or restraint. When Barack Obama suggests that it would be in Israel’s best interests to stop all settlement construction, his plea is ignored by an Israeli leadership that knows no U.S. president can afford the domestic political price of applying the necessary pressure on Israel.

Israeli leaders fret today that Turkey has “gone over to the Islamist” camp. The truth is that Turkey is simply a close ally willing to tell harsh truths – starting with its condemnation of Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Gaza last year. The Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan pays no heed to the self-defeating restraints Washington has imposed on its own ability to engage the likes of Iran and Hamas, and is quickly emerging as the most effective potential mediator in conflicts stretching from Gaza to Afghanistan.

If Israel took the long view, it would see these developments as positive. Until now, the only leader in the region willing to publicly challenge Israel’s behaviour has been the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regional influence has swelled considerably as a result of those actions and the failure of others to challenge them.

It is better for Israel – and the U.S. too, frankly – if Turkey takes the lead in saying things that western powers are no longer willing to say. Because the essence of Turkey’s message is simple: Israel needs to sober up.

-- Tony Karon's website is www.tonykaron.com. This article appeared in the The National.
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/So-who-is-Israels-one-true-friend-Clue-it-isn.html