Introduction
While the war in Iran continues despite a 5-day pause initiated by US President Donald Trump, to give priority to negotiations before targeting the Islamic Republic’s critical energy infrastructure, an interesting battle of words is also taking place between Türkiye and Israel, two traditional American allies in the region, which have been suffering from problematic relations since the late 2000s.
In this piece, I will analyse recent hostile rhetoric from some statesmen on both sides to understand how the relationship between Ankara and Tel Aviv (Jerusalem) could be shaped in the New Middle East, which will be born following the end of the Gaza Crisis and the Iran War.
Turkish-Israeli relations in the 2000s: Problematic but not completely lost
After the Islamist-originated and ambitious Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ascension to power in Türkiye in the early 2000s, Ankara has adopted a more assertive foreign policy in its near regions, including Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Africa. The foundation of Yunus Emre Institutes since 2007, and the Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB) in 2010 signaled Türkiye’s new and more assertive foreign policy which would be based on the use of Sunni Islamic identity, the Ottoman heritage as well as Turkic identity and culture in foreign policy to accumulate more “soft power” to be influential in its near abroad. This transformation required Turkish statesmen to be more proud and knowledgeable of their past, more sensitive about the Turkic and Islamic world’s sensitivities (Palestine Problem as well as the protection of Turkic and Muslim states/minorities around the world; e.g. Nagorno Karabakh Problem, the situation of Arakan Muslims in Myanmar, the promotion of Turkish Cypriots’ de facto state, TRNC, the situation of Uighurs in China, etc.), and more critical towards Israel due to their long-standing problem with Palestinians.
This period, unfortunately, coincided with Israel’s transformation from a European-type democracy into a Middle Eastern identity-based state, the “Jewish State” with an increasing hostility both in rhetoric and in action against Palestinians and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as Islamist governments around the world, including Türkiye. In that sense, the intense competition and the rivalry between Erdoğan and Netanyahu started long ago, and the first serious crisis between the two countries took place in 2009, at the Davos World Economic Forum meeting, when then-Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emotionally and harshly challenged then-Israeli President Shimon Peres in his “One Minute” speech. This speech made Erdoğan a hero in the eyes of millions of Muslims around the world due to his first-ever serious challenge to Israel coming from a strong Muslim country’s leader following the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The crisis escalated when, in 2010, a flotilla (Mavi Marmara), organised by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), carrying humanitarian aid to Palestinians and intending to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza, was attacked by the Israeli Navy. Due to this harsh intervention, 9 Turkish civilians, as well as one Turkish-American civilian, died, which put Israel in a terrible situation in the international public opinion. Although the crisis was later resolved in 2013 with the mediation of then-US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s agreement to pay compensation to the families of the victims in addition to an apology call to then-Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the two traditional American allies’ relations never became completely normal and smooth following this incident (it is referred as the Flotilla Incident or the Mavi Marmara Crisis).
While diplomatic and economic relations persisted, and from time to time, diplomatic efforts to mediate between the two countries provided a rapprochement, such as in 2016 in Rome and the Erdoğan-Netanyahu meeting in 2023 in New York, structural developments in the Middle East and an “invisible hand” had always prevented the two countries from completely normalising their relations. This became crystal clear when Erdoğan and Netanyahu agreed to strengthen their relations in New York in September 2023, but the process was halted and reversed with the October 7 attacks (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood) towards Israeli citizens just a few days after. While we do not have clear evidence of what went wrong, it seems almost certain that radical groups on both sides did not prefer a rapprochement and used the attack of Hamas on Israel as a leverage to spoil the bilateral relations. Accordingly, the two countries went from normalisation to cutting economic ties and maintaining diplomatic and political relations at a minimum level in a few months following the attack. In that sense, anti-rhetoric was elevated in both countries’ media and statesmen’s speeches, starting from Israel’s blatant violation of international norms in Gaza due to its fight against terrorism.
It should be added that Türkiye is the first Muslim-majority country in the world to recognise Israel in 1949, and has a long and friendly history with Jews and the Israeli State. The Ottoman decision to host Sephardic Jews following their exclusion from Spain in 1492 symbolises the traditional Turkish-Jewish friendship. Moreover, the two countries, as staunch American allies, often cooperated on many issues, including efforts against radical groups in the Middle East. In 1996, Süleyman Demirel became the first Turkish President to visit Israel. In addition, after the 1999 Marmara earthquake, Israel provided substantial economic and humanitarian aid to Turkish citizens. The image of Israel and Turkish Jews became highly positive in Türkiye, similar to Türkiye having a good and trusted image in Israel and in the US. The relations even reached a strategic peak during the “February 28 process” in 1997, when the Turkish military intervened in politics due to the increasing Islamisation of the country’s foreign policy and social fabric. In those days, Çevik Bir and Martin Sherman pointed out this couple as “a formula for stability” in the Middle East, and many journalists and academics praised the “military democracy” model in these countries.
Recent Polemics
Polemics between the two countries intensified in recent days. However, it should be noted that the polemics were made by prominent statesmen who are no longer in prominent positions today. The first example came from Israel, when the former Israeli Prime Minister (2021-2022) pointed to Türkiye as the “New Iran” in the region. Bennett said, “A new Turkish threat is emerging. I want to be very clear: Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region. And from here, I warn: Turkey is the 'New Iran'. Erdoğan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel. And while some senior Israelis are on Qatar's payroll, Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the 'Islamic Brotherhood' monster that is growing and eventually might become as dangerous as the one created by Iran. Turkey and Qatar are gaining influence not only in Syria but also in Gaza, through the front door and everywhere and trying to create a new 'choke ring'. Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us and to establish a hostile 'Sunni axis' with nuclear Pakistan."
As a response to Bennett, who could replace Prime Minister Netanyahu in the near future as Israel's new right-wing hawkish politician, former Turkish Minister of Interior Affairs and influential populist politician, Süleyman Soylu, said, "We might give 300,000-400.000 martrys, but there will be no country called Israel left." Soylu exactly stated: "While we are celebrating, we are all experiencing what is happening in Gaza, the sorrow of Al-Aqsa Mosque. We are witnessing the massacre of civilians in Lebanon. At the same time, we are witnessing the brutal, deliberate, and intentional murder of 165 girls in Iran. I want to say this to this hall: they have only one flaw on the other side: being Muslim. They have no other flaw; it is entirely their being Muslim. And this is not the time for 'buts', 'however', 'yet', 'it was like this or like that', or 'there was an opposing side right before their eyes'. The infidels are attacking Muslims. This is very clear and obvious. And the stance that our President has taken—determined, resolute, and at the same time cautious and prudent, with his experience and knowledge—against those who want to drag Türkiye into war, is essentially a lesson to the whole world. But I want to underline this, I am saying this very clearly: there is something we will say to Israel, which wants to drag us into this fireball with these provocations: perhaps they are aware, but we are neighbours with Israel here. I'm saying this very clearly: we share a border. Perhaps they don't realise it, but I'll say it again, we share a border. By God, if they try to do to us the same kind of oppression they inflict on Muslims, I say this as a son of this country, as someone who has considered martyrdom an honour since childhood, yes, Israel is 5 hours away from here. Perhaps we will lose 300,000, 400,000 martyrs, but with God's permission, there will be no state called Israel left."
However, it should be added that these provocative statements are not made by statesmen on active foreign policy duties. In that sense, the optimistic approach would be to consider these statements as populist political speeches by two right-wing, hawkish politicians seeking to increase public support for replacing their country’s leader in the future. In that sense, I should admit that while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan are also critical of Israel’s violation of international law recently, they have never used such harsh and provocative words as those used by Soylu. Moreover, Fidan recently signed a communique in Qatar with other neighbouring countries' foreign ministers, which condemns Iran as well due to its attacks towards other states. In that sense, Türkiye still seeks to pursue a foreign policy based on balance and active neutrality rather than an anti-Israeli or anti-American approach. This is, in fact, normal, as Türkiye was also hit recently by Iranian rockets multiple times, although these attacks were intercepted by NATO forces.
Conclusion
In a Schmittian approach, the formation of a hostile state is very ordinary and even necessary for accumulating power. Carl Schmitt defined “political” as the “distinction between friends and foes”. In that sense, while the recent escalation of anti-rhetoric on both sides poses a dangerous potential, in my opinion, we cannot still talk about the real, concrete, and imminent hostility between Ankara and Tel Aviv (Jerusalem). That is because the two countries have become neighbours in Syria, which might necessitate cooperation rather than conflict if the US leadership makes greater efforts in this regard. Moreover, Iran's situation also requires regional cooperation not only between Türkiye and Israel but among all states in the region. To prevent the spillover effects of a collapsing Iran, Israel should give up its intentions of “regime change” in the short run and focus more on the imminent problems. This requires the ending of the war with a ceasefire and greater protection for Iran’s Arab neighbours' critical infrastructure facilities. Türkiye and Israel should also make steps to normalise their relations following the US efforts to reconstruct Gaza and solve the decades-old Palestinian Problem with a final agreement. This is not a dream, as President Trump has all the qualities and courage to end the conflict with a fair final deal.
Prof. Dr. Ozan ÖRMECİ
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder