‘’…You know very well how to kill when it comes to killing. I know very well how you killed and shot the children on the beaches…’’
This was just a part of the improvised speech made by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the Davos Economical Forum in 2009 where his interlocutor was the President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres. The significance of this outburst was that later, it would be considered as the inception for the breakdown of two counties’ relations.
For a reasonable amount of time Turkey was Israel’s closest ally in the Middle East and the two counties succeeded in maintaining economic and military cooperation. Military agreements and projects, social and cultural accords, military drills, considerable amount of economic activity and so on. On the other hand the two countries shared different common points as they retained the only two functioning democracies in the region, faced the inevitable challenges of democracy itself and also fought a similar war against terrorism.
Only a few days before the Operation Cast Lead that was actually the reason of these serious accusations in Davos, Turkey was mediating between Israel and Syria in order to reach a peace agreement. So what has changed in less than two years to the extent that the events created a situation in which the two counties became unfriendly towards each other? Or had something already changed long before the Davos crisis? This article’s aim is to evaluate the events that caused the deterioration and analyze the reasons behind the main policy changes of the two countries, especially that of Turkey.
Before Justice and Development Party (AKP)
From the foundation of the State of Israel until the First Gulf War, Turkey has mainly maintained a balanced policy between Israel and the Arab States. In 1949, Turkey was the 43rd country to recognize Israel and has chosen to remain neutral throughout the wars between the Arab countries and Israel. Roughly, the main interests of both counties, namely regional and global developments, the Cold War and the dependence of Turkey’s support from Arab regimes oriented the relationship between two counties.
In the beginning of 90s, the collapse of the USSR completely changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Turkey lost its position as NATO’s border post, whereas the new balance of power increased Turkey’s strategic importance over the region. After the Gulf war in 1991; the breakdown of the Arab unity and the PLO’s pro-Iraqi stance, facilitated the improvement of Turkey’s relations with Israel. In 1995, when the Islamist Welfare Party (RP) which was lead by Necmettin Erbakan and adopted a certain anti-Israeli foreign policy, achieved to receive the majority of votes in the elections, the relations stressed questions about the future. Though, with the presence of the Turkish army which overthrew the RP lead government with a semi coup d’état in 1997, the relations improved rapidly especially regarding the military interests. The first strategic military agreement was signed between two countries in 1996, and lead to a strategic alliance, considering both countries’ tense relations with Iran, Iraq and with Syria. Also agreements on military modernization projects and common efforts to share intelligence, constituted as other dimensions of this strategic cooperation.
On the other hand, this convergence was beneficial for Turkey as they secured the support of the Jewish lobby in the USA against the Armenian and Greek lobbies. Support of the Jewish lobby was of vital importance for Turkey against the claims of Armenian Genocide.
Although never acknowledged by the Israeli government, the flow of information between two countries lead to capturing of the terror organization PKK’s leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in Kenya. In 1999, the Israeli aid and assistance after the devastating earthquake proved the deep proximity between two states. At the end of 1990s, the diplomatic relations of two countries had clearly altered into a strategic unity.
Keeping the Cooperation During AKP Rule
After the AKP achieved an absolute majority in the 2002 elections, and formed a single party government, doubts about the future of the relations increased especially as the charismatic Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a devotee of Necmettin Erbakan’s doctrine and a member of his political party. But against all odds, at the end of 2002, in a speech that was given at a meeting with Jewish leaders in USA, Tayyip Erdoğan clearly indicated that he doesn’t believe that the current relations are sufficient and he wants to improve the ties between the two countries. Though, while positive maneuvers were seen in the name of stronger ties, Turkish Government also did not hesitate to criticize Israel and take serious steps that could damage the relationship.
In fact at the beginning of AKP rule, many steps were taken in order to improve this relationship. In January 2004, Tayyip Erdoğan received the ‘’Profiles of Courage Award’’ from the American Jewish Committee, for promoting peace between cultures. In the following years, official contacts between the two governments continued and different agreements were signed in the areas of agriculture, energy and military cooperation, including the modernization of Turkish armed vehicles and the delivery of the Heron unmanned aerial vehicles.
In the same period, the AKP government was criticized for two bids; rental of mined territories on the Turkish-Syrian border to Israel, in exchange for removal of mines, and Galataport bid (Renovation and reconstruction of a port in Istanbul) that the Israeli businessman, Sami Ofer, won. Even though both of the deals were cancelled, it raised a number of discussions about the connections of the AKP government with Israel.
In November 2007, a historical meeting for Turkey, Israel and Palestinians took place in the National Assembly of Turkey. The Israeli President Shimon Peres and the President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas were invited to speak to the parliament by the Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Peres was the first Israeli leader to address the members of the parliament and in his speech he praised Turkey for its efforts towards peace.
On the other hand, in February 2006, HAMAS leader Khalid Meshaal was invited to Ankara, about a month after the Palestinian elections. This decision was interpreted as AKP’s move to form relations with the probable next government of the Palestinian Authority, and become a major partner in solving the conflict in the Middle East. This move was harshly criticized by Israel, the US and the EU as Turkey was seen to be legitimizing the terrorist organization. After a certain period of time, Tayyip Erdoğan would indicate several times that he does not see HAMAS as a terrorist organization but as a legitimate resistance group chosen by the people of Palestine and has succeeded in democratically held elections.
During the same period, the Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir’s and the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad were also invited more than once to Turkey despite the US and the EU reactions. In a speech in 2009 the Turkish Prime Minister would claim that Al Bashir is not committing crimes of genocide and support the Sudanese President publicly.
Furthermore in April 2009, the Shiite leader of the resistance in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, visited Turkey to meet with the Turkish officials and Iraqi Shiite leaders. These visits, which were denounced by the Western Governments, were interpreted as Turkey’s efforts to increase its dominance over the region and become the connection between the West and certain power holders in the Middle East. For some intellectuals and scholars this was the clear indicator of the shift in Turkey’s foreign policy.
Other indicators of an aggressive policy towards Israel were seen during the 2006 Gaza conflict and the Second Lebanon War. Turkish Prime Minister harshly criticized the Israeli attacks and several times accused Israel of excessive use of force towards civilians and of mass massacre. Turkey adopted a more biased attitude against Israel instead of following a more balanced approach regarding the conflicts. Many criticisms against the Israeli attacks were published in the media and mass demonstrations were held against Israel by different groups. Even though, after the conflict in Lebanon, Turkish efforts to maintain the ceasefire reduced the tensions between Israel and Turkey. In this context after the request of Israel, Turkish forces were deployed along the Israeli-Lebanon border as part of the UN’s peacekeeping mission.
Operation Cast Lead, Davos and the Beginning of Deterioration
After the escalation of ongoing attacks from Gaza and Israel, Israel entered Gaza at the end of December 2009. The three week armed conflict caused many casualties on both sides and a lot of international criticism against Israel.
Only five days before the beginning of the operation, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was in Turkey in order to discuss the peace deal with Syria. Tayyip Erdoğan said that he was deeply disappointed that he was not informed about the operation during Olmert’s visit. During the operation the Prime Minister and other Turkish officials harshly criticized Israeli attacks. Tayyip Erdoğan accused Israel of excessive use of force against the civilians and using phosphorus bombs in densely populated areas. During the conflict, even the writers and well known public figures who claimed that the Israeli attacks were justified were also criticized.
Throughout this period, public billboards in Turkey were filled with banners saying, ‘’You can’t be the son of Moses’’. Huge demonstrations were organized by different groups and anti-Isareli articles were published in mass media.
At the end of January 2010, Erdoğan and the Israeli President Shimon Peres attended a session at the Davos Economical Forum. After Peres’s speech, Erdoğan asked permission to answer and with an improvised speech, accused Israel of massacre. He even told that the acts of the State of Israel were against the values of Judaism. After the moderator, David Ignatius, tried to intervene in his speech, Erdoğan walked out of the debate saying that he will not attend the Davos forum anymore.
This unexpected reaction was welcomed by Palestinians and Erdoğan’s supporters in Turkey. A huge crowd was waiting for his return even on the day of his walkout and many demonstrations were held to support the Turkish Prime Minister. The media was split into two, generally on the side of the Prime Minister. Some part of the media believed that this reaction was planned in order to increase the votes in the forthcoming local elections.
On the other hand there were harsh responses on the Israeli side. The army and foreign affairs officials addressed Erdoğan’s speech, claiming that the Turkish Government should criticize itself as they are still considered as occupiers in Cyprus, as well as for their attacks against the Kurds in Eastern Anatolia.
Even after his success in the local elections, Tayyip Erdoğan didn’t change his tone and several times publicly stated his support for HAMAS, condemning Israel for state terrorism. In one sense, this clear change influenced the public and lead to a series of events that caused the deterioration in the relationship between the two countries.
The first shock came when the international part of the military drill Anatolian Eagle that had to be originated in October was cancelled due to Israeli participation. The drill used to be held every year with participation of Israeli, American, Turkish fighter planes. After the cancelation, Turkey’s decision to hold a military drill with Syria was criticized by Israel. Moreover, this maneuver caused Israel to look for other military partners around the region. In late 2010s, Israel would hold an aerial military drill with Greek army that was known to have problems with Ankara, over the aerial control of Aegean Sea.
In October 2009, a TV series ‘’Ayrılık’’ (Separation) was shown on the state owned television channel, TRT at prime time. It was about a love story at the time of the Gaza conflict, in which the Israeli soldiers were shooting Arab children, even new born babies. The Foreign Ministry of Israel criticized the program as it included not only anti-Israeli but anti-Semitic content.
In January 2010, the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Oğuz Çelikkol was invited to the Foreign Ministry after screening of another popular series, ‘'Valley of the Wolves’’, that included anti-Israeli content. Oguz Çelikkol was seated on a lower chair than Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. After his complaints about the ongoing situation, Ayalon explained to the journalists in Hebrew, that Çelikkol was deliberately seated lower and there was only one flag, the Israeli flag, on the table. This protest which was against all the diplomatic protocols would be remembered as ‘’low chair crisis’’.
The Gaza Flotilla Raid
In May 2010, a flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish Islamist group IHH, in order to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and supply Palestinians with humanitarian aid and materials. The flotilla consisted of 6 ships and the participants were from 37 different nations: journalists, activists, clerics and scholars.
The state officials of Israel declared several times that they will not let the flotilla reach Gaza, as they stated that the aid has to be checked before entering the territories. The government gave the flotilla the possibility to dock at the port of Ashdod and after inspections, the aid would be delivered to Gaza. This offer was refused by the organizers. Israel also believed that the organizer IHH had undercover connections to the terrorist organization HAMAS. Israel used diplomatic means in order to prevent the flotilla from sailing but the Turkish government’s response was clearly negative as IHH was an NGO and the flotilla had no connections with the Turkish Government.
The organizers stuck to their agenda and the flotilla set sail with more than 600 passengers on board of the Mavi Marmara. As foreseen, the flotilla was stopped on the morning of 31st of May 2010 by the Israeli Navy. Due to active resistance on the Mavi Marmara, 9 passengers were killed by the Israeli commandos and there were many injured on both sides. After the ships were completely seized by the Israeli commandos, they were redirected to Ashdod and the passengers were taken into custody for interrogation. The other ships were seized without any aggressive contact.
Clearly there is much more to be said about the Flotilla Raid. What is important for the Israeli-Turkish relations is that the attack was the highest point of the tension between the two countries. The reaction was severe on the Turkish side as Tayyip Erdoğan accused Israel of state terrorism and piracy and demanded an apology and compensation for the families of the killed. He said that, after the raid things will never be the same again between Turkey and Israel. In addition, the Turkish ambassador to Israel was immediately recalled to Turkey.
Israel refused to apologize and pay compensation without discussion and accused Turkey of encouraging and supporting the flotilla. They claimed that the flotilla had no desire to aid the Palestinians but to create a provocation in order to gain popularity.
The real purpose of the flotilla is still being discussed. Still a particular group in the Turkish public opinion and also global media believes that the only aim was to provoke the series of events that will direct the global attention over the territories and the IHH itself, whereas some believe that the IHH had no political or provocative intentions as the group organizes many projects around the world in order to help people.
Aside from the purpose of the flotilla, Israel was internationally criticized by many countries. The UN Security Council condemned the attack and called for an immediate investigation of the raid. The international pressure and the criticisms would later force Israel to ease the blockade on Gaza.
Allies or Enemies?
The main question that has to be answered in order to understand the reasons for the deterioration in relations is "why the statues-quo that has been maintained for a long period of time had to change? Or which side benefited more from this change?"
Both countries had their interests in the ongoing cooperation. Being the only two democracies in the Middle East was their main common point. In addition to that, Israel's desperate need for a non-Arab partner in the region, especially losing one after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the economic, social and cultural midpoints of the countries created a strong bond between them.
Nevertheless it is not wrong to say that Israel has been the one who needed this relationship more than Turkey considering the new Turkish foreign strategy towards its neighbors and the Middle East. With the doctrine of ‘’zero problems with the neighbors’’, Turkey consolidated its relations with neighboring countries and established closer ties with other states in the region. Concrete steps were taken in order to improve economic ties especially with the Gulf States. These facts; strong economy, powerful army and its close relations with the regimes like Iran, increased Turkey’s importance for the Middle East and put it into a unique position.
Especially after the Davos crisis, the outrage of Tayyip Erdogan and the following seriously harsh statements against Israel was explicitly welcomed by most states in the region and definitely brought him a respectable popularity on the Arab street and increased Turkey's reliability within the Arab regimes.
This change was gladly approved, not only outside of but also within the borders of Turkey. Tayyip Erdoğan became a figure as non-tolerant to violence and protector of the oppressed. Especially after the flotilla attack, with the increase of hostility towards Israel, a more accusatory speech was publicly announced against Israel by the government officials and well-known public figures. Before the elections in 2011, both the government and opposition leaders accused each other for their relations with Israel in order to gain support from the public.
We have to include the fact that the periods of crises were not significantly well managed by the Israeli government. Because a single party government can’t be formed, the main problem that the Israeli prime ministers face is the dilemma between adopting policies and keeping the government as a whole. Especially after the Davos crises, wrong diplomatic measures were taken in order to point out the displeasure that was felt during the circle of events because the government could not succeed to act as a whole.
For the Turkish side, considering the developments during the AKP period, maintaining their alliance with the Jewish country would reveal a higher cost. Because of this, a certain attitude was taken against Israel in order to maintain the dominance within and outside the borders. We can tell that the same steps were not taken while the opposition was suppressed in Iran after the 2009 elections or during the massacre that was conducted in Sudan.
After the flotilla raid it became casual to blame Israel officially in order to divert the public attention from the common agenda. Because of the raid, not much attention was directed at the arrests and custodies in relation to the ‘’Ergenekon’’ case or even at the soldiers that were killed by PKK in Iskenderun. Before the elections in 2011, an article in the popular magazine, ‘’The Economist’’, was published stating its support for the opposition party, Republican People’s Party (CHP), in the forthcoming elections. The Turkish Minister of Interior, Beşir Atalay, claimed that the Israeli lobby was responsible for the article.
Even though, it is not hard to guess that both counties were not expecting the wave of acts to come to a conclusion where both of them reached the verge of breaking relations.
One thing that can be said about the future of the relations is that even if all will be done in order to revive the relations, it will take a long period of time for the two governments and the two peoples to believe and trust in each other again. On the other hand it would be an illusion and meaningless optimism to think that the two countries will return to their days of alliance as Tayyip Erdoğan now has a reputation to keep in Turkey and the Middle East. After the parliamentary elections in June 2011, in his victory speech, Tayyip Erdoğan sent a clear message to Israel, saying that not only Turkey but also Ramallah, Kudüs(Jerusalem) and Gaza won, remarking once more that the future of relations will continue to be unclear.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder