These comments discuss Turkey’s relations with the EU and even its membership in NATO. A review of these comments shows that there is nothing to worry about in a possible change of axis in Turkish foreign policy; however, the crisis with Israel might be seen as an exception. It should be noted that relations with Iran are not new. The new dynamic relating to the emergence of ties with Armenia in the Caucasus region is a process that takes Turkey closer to Europe. The democratic project initiated by the government is a historic step in terms of the Copenhagen criteria. If the government is able to resolve the Kurdish issue and take bold steps towards democratization, Turkey’s EU bid will have a realistic and concrete ground. The same constructive approach is followed with respect to the Cyprus issue. Why is this process now called a change of axis when all these developments were commended and admired by the same circles? Even if we assume that the New York and European media are under the influence of lobbies, it is interesting to witness that even Turkish commentators are making similar remarks and comments on the current course of Turkish foreign policy. Even though this is partly due to the socialization of Turkish intellectuals accustomed to taking a look at Turkey from a Western perspective, the primary reason is the ongoing row and crisis with Israel. This crisis worries not only the Jewish world but also a substantial number of Turkish intellectuals, including me. For this reason, it is necessary to analyze whether this change of axis argument is caused by Turkey’s policy towards Israel or by the Israeli state. Before focusing on this question, I would like to make a couple of points for a better understanding of the issues surrounding Israel.The painful past of Israel and the Jews is full of lessons that need to be taken into account in many respects. This past should serve as an element in the educational policy of Turkey for future generations. Turkey is a country suffering from far right and racist movements; the racist discourse dominant in Turkey is one of the obstacles to the resolution of the Kurdish issue. To make sure that anti-Semitic thoughts and sentiments do not become influential in Turkey, this dimension of the problem should be considered. Besides, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic feelings overlap in some respects. Secondly, a policy overlooking Jewish history and sufferings will not be able to resolve the Palestinian questions. I would like to take the liberty and go further to stress that peace and stability will be impossible without winning Israel. A policy focusing on Arabs alone will not be successful. I do not think the government is aware of this.
Considering these historical facts, the Israeli reaction to the Iranian nuclear program should be understandable. Iran’s nuclear venture is not due to its lack of energy resources. Besides, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is not a threat for Israel alone; it is a dangerous development that could lead to turmoil and chaos in the Middle East as well. Iranian nuclear weaponry may encourage other countries in the region, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to follow the same path and possess nuclear weapons. If this dangerous development is not stopped, achievement of peace in the region will become impossible. To this end, it should be recalled that Israeli sensitivities and concerns actually address Turkey’s interests and regional goals including achievement of peace and stability in the region. Despite this, bilateral relations with Israel are deteriorating. Is the problem a change of axis in Turkish foreign policy?
Erdoğan’s disappointment
The term change of axis is used to point to a process resulting from structural and political transformations. Such a transformation does not take place overnight and correspond to the terms revolution and radical changes. It is obvious that Turkish foreign policy is going through a dramatic transformation. I will get back to this, but first I should note that bilateral relations with Israel have deteriorated dramatically during the period between Monday and Friday; in other words, a huge transformation has taken place in these relations. Let us recall that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan learned four days after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Ankara that Israel had started an attack against Gaza. He received this news on a TV broadcast. I should also note that Turkey has been working as a mediator to settle the disagreements between Israel and Syria while Israel was devising its plans to launch the attack. The day the attack started was the day the indirect talks with Syria, as well as Erdoğan’s mission as a mediator, came to an end.
Undoubtedly, Erdoğan was disappointed by the Israeli attack against Gaza; it is not easy to translate the word “disappointment” into other languages because this does not necessarily refer to an undesirable situation and accompanying saddening result. Essentially, a person suffering from disappointment is inherently naïve and unable to realize the facts and the real world. Maybe Erdoğan was particularly sad because of the Israeli attack against Gaza as well as the thought that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad found him pretty naïve and imaginative. The “one minute” showdown and the subsequent reactions are reflections of this disappointment. Olmert should not have headed to Ankara for talks shortly before the Gaza attacks and indirectly mocked Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who assumed a role to mediate in the dispute between Israel and Arab states. We do not find the “I did not know” statement authentic and convincing. Israel is not a banana republic; it is a serious state with a strong tradition. It is not possible to think that a comprehensive military operation had been planned without informing the prime minister. The pretext suggesting that he did not feel obligated to share this plan with the Turkish prime minister given that he did not inform even his closest friends is another grave statement. Erdoğan was not somebody; he was a politician who had assumed key roles to mediate between Israel and Syria.
Israeli policy contradicts Turkey’s regional policy
If the whole issue had been Erdoğan’s disappointment, there would have been nothing to worry about in terms of bilateral relations between Turkey and Israel. It is impossible to argue that bilateral relations between these two strategic partners will deteriorate because of the disappointment of a single politician; however, sadly, the problem has taken root. The actual problem is about Turkey’s new foreign policy and the contradiction between this policy and the Israeli approach.
*Ali Yurttagül is a political advisor for the Greens in the European Parliament.
Benzer Haberler 
