Turkey and The New Levant

By John Ballard

This weekend's reading begins with Eternal Minorities? subtitled
Turkish Politics and the Challenge of Diversity, which carries two bylines, Michael Werz and Sarah Jacobs. Michael Werz is a Senior Fellow and Sarah Jacobs is an intern at the Center for American Progress. This post was several hours in the making and is not for the feint of heart but it ends with a hopeful note and reference to the Free Gaza Flotilla. 

This article was published May 13, before the Free Gaza Flotilla set sail, but the piece seems prescient.

The more Turkey moves to take on a leadership role in the new Levant, an interesting question will arise. What will define national Turkish self-perception when the Kurdish and Armenian questions are finally settled and the deafening silence about ethnic cleansing in 1915 and 40,000 victims in Eastern Anatolia during the 1990s is overcome? With decades of delay, Turkish society is beginning to address these issues. The outcome is far from certain; this analysis outlines the current debate in historical context.

Turkey has the opportunity to be a positive actor in the region. It is in the interest of the United States, Europe, and the world for Turkey to act as a mediator and leader in some of the most difficult situations the world currently faces. If Turkey wants to be taken seriously in this role and wishes for Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu�s policy of �zero problems with neighbors� to be a reality rather than a political line�then it must at the same time see its own diversity as a strength and not as predicament.

History students know that Turkey is and has been for centuries a kind of political and historic amphibian, neither fish nor fowl, due to its unique geographical location. In may ways Turkey is the fulcrum of the Western world, a land whose military, economic and cultural significance has played decisive roles from the start of written history.

A kaleidoscope of images and impressions of Turkey off the top of my head include my surprise years ago when a history professor assured the class that Robert College in Istanbul is among the oldest and most respected institutions of higher learning in the world. With a little nudge, most Christians can recall a little forgotten history of the faith. (In my case, Southern Baptists argue they were always there, even prior to the Reformation, hiding their light under a bushel, but that is another story.)  Oh, yes... that business about Rome and Constantinople, icons and all that. Mount Ararat is in Turkey and we hear about treks seeking remnants of Noah's Ark. The Dardanelles, controlled by Turkey, are Russia's only year-round ocean access and the importance of commerce between East and West cannot be over-emphasized.

Thanks to an unmanageable variety of faiths, cultures and customs trekking through Turkey has involuntarily become an island of tolerance. Otherwise, nothing works. Blood may be thicker than water, but money is thicker than blood. 

Since 1923, the Republic of Turkey has been a country of contradictions. Succeeding the multiethnic Ottoman Empire and becoming a land bridge between Europe and the Middle East, Turkey played an integral part in Western 20th century history. After the nationalist revolution, the country underwent a process of secularization in fast motion under the country�s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atat�he Gregorian calendar was implemented in 1924, the abolition of religious courts and schools followed, a purely secular system of family law was established, and the Arabic script was replaced by the Latin alphabet in 1928. Kemalism was a very peculiar form of secular nation building at the expense of acknowledging diversity and was driven by the need to neutralize differences in creed in the former multireligious empire.

There is no way to squeeze centuries of history into a blog post, but as I read this essay I scribbled a note that Ataturk was to Turkey what Peter the Great was to Russia, dragging a reluctant country into the future only with much complaining. Stubborn resistance survived however, in the same way that segregation, oppression of Native Americans and women endure in our own country. Nevertheless, the modern Justice and Development Party (AKP) strives to keep moving ahead.

Turkey has the opportunity to be a positive actor in the region. It is in the interest of the United States, Europe, and the world for Turkey to act as a mediator and leader in some of the most difficult situations the world currently faces. If Turkey wants to be taken seriously in this role and wishes for Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu�s policy of �zero problems with neighbors� to be a reality rather than a political line�then it must at the same time see its own diversity as a strength and not as predicament.

This is a short but provocative article and recommended reading for sure.

"New Levant" is a term new to me. It may be original with Michael Werz, but it makes sense in the context of a post-cold war world shifting from an East-West to a global paradigm. Any reference to a new Levant wants first to know what was meant by the "old" Levant. The term is a colonial relic carelessly referring to territory along the Eastern end of the Mediterranean, from Sinai in the South to the Anatolian plateau in the North, used by whatever colonial powers imagined themselves to be in charge. Middle East and Near East mean more or less the same. Another Michael Werz article in April titled The New Levant is subtitled Understanding Turkey�s Shifting Roles in the Eastern Mediterranean. (4 page pdf summary here) Turkey is once more clearly standing in a historic spotlight.

Sean Paul Kelly at the Agonist  put up an interesting analysis of why Turkey was the springboard of the Free Gaza Flotilla. He quotes Chris Nelson supporting the view that local elections in Turkey have as much to do with the gambit as altruism. Humanitarian gestures look a bit dirty when they pick up a political stain, but when political realities kick in they carry more weight. Capone was right -- you get more cooperation with kind words and a gun than with kind words alone. [As an aside, Chris Nelson apparently refers to a subscription news commentator not available via the Web. Orin Kerr at VC couldn't find much about it so I decided not to look further.]

US-ISRAEL...post-mortems will continue on Monday's stunning Israeli mis-handling of a deliberately provocative maneuver sponsored by it's one-time ally, Turkey.

A quick summary from the media and informed Loyal Readership ascribes Turkey's gambit as being mainly upcoming local elections focused..good god, that makes it a trifecta tonight...S. Korea, Japan and now this.

They also note that Prime Minister Erdogan is perhaps rightfully angry with the US for its abrupt dismissal of the deal worked with Brazil on Iran...obviously a flawed deal, but one worthy of more respect, given the circumstances and the US-Turk relationship.

Or, rather, what WAS the US-Turk relationship. And on balance, there's this, from a concerned, if cynically rueful US Loyal Reader:

"...if you start from the view that everything published or written about the Middle East in U.S. newspapers is largely erroneous, you won't go too far wrong.

���

Bibi has long known what Obama has probably learned by now, which is that the Palestinians aren't currently prepared to do a peace deal, and won't be for some time. What he hasn't learned is how to hide that politically incorrect belief.

There are finally some grounds for understanding between the two men, or so I will speculate. After all, Bibi and Obama are now in the same shoes. When it comes to the Palestinians, Bibi is the one calling for immediate and unconditional peace talks, Abbas is the one balking, and Bibi is the one being deemed recalcitrant. And when it comes to the Iranians, Obama is the one calling for immediate and unconditional nuclear talks, the Iranians are the ones balking, and America is being deemed recalcitrant.

There are the facts, and then there are the newspaper narratives."

OK, with this in mind, what's in Haaretz today? Ari Shavit's discussion of the domestic harm Netanyahu has done to the interests of his country:

"The prime minister said behind closed doors that he will rescue Israel from the Iranian threat. I don't believe him. I respect Benjamin Netanyahu's understanding of history and his love for his country and people. But I see that Netanyahu is actually deepening the Iranian threat. Netanyahu is undermining Israel's international standing - he is isolating it and making it hated. He is not calming any of the fronts, only firing them up.

Instead of rallying the Palestinians, Syrians and Turks against Iran, Netanyahu is pushing them toward Iran. Instead of rallying the Europeans and Americans in Israel's favor, he is inciting them against Israel. The process reached a frenzied peak with the flotilla. Netanyahu insisted on a forceful action in a nonessential arena, and thus proved that his view of reality is flawed. Since the prime minister does not understand the essence of the campaign against Iran, he is losing it. After the flotilla failure, I doubt his ability to deal with our existential challenge."

A Loyal Reader who works for the USG, and therefore cannot be quoted by name, comments on the unfortunate Israel/N.Korea parallel we noted from China last night:

"There's been a lot on the internet about the Israeli/Gaza mess, but you've got it very well covered. You're right to urge Obama to confront Turkey as well as Israel on this. The spectacle of a NATO ally chumming up to Ahmedinajad and siding with Hamas is hard to take. What benefit does Erdogan see for his country's future in that? Is he just showing a domestic audience that he can tweak our nose for local political gain? Or has he just given up on the West and the EU? If the Turkish Army comes to think that, we'll be in for more instability there, which won't help us a bit. As for your point about PRC officials needling us by comparing "our" Israelis with "their" NKs, you may remember that in a March 11 e-mail I was crude enough to make that comparison:

Et cetera...

Readers are urged to check out the link and decide for themselves. There is plenty to support the view that Erdogan is playing to voters. As we have seen elsewhere, there is a minority of Turkish Jews sympathetic with the plight of Gaza and not shy about saying so. Check this Google translation from a site I think is of Turkish-Jewish origin.

The world is changing the world, not the old world. Israeli managers still continue to live in the old. Activists have been killed if they meet them with a stick or is this the only defense strategy will be? That the activists did not know that they are ready to make a scene?

No, Israelis do not deserve to be ruled so. Israel openly threatens to destroy some of the countries exposed to blood at a time when such interventions will become completely alone in the world and no country will try to even understand it. In addition to new enemies to win.

Auschwitz syndrome, there is immediate danger of over-reaction caused by instinct is understandable up to a point is a fact. Not that the world is changing, and this response was not time to give it in different ways? If you want to create economic miracles, you always occupying the world, now even the western press as a "pirate state" will be recognized as. After all this pain is not a shame for the state was established with great effort?

The people of Israel, it does not deserve it!

***

Turkey-Israel crisis, difficult to predict where to go up. Not that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc's extremely cool of a man face the problem approach and both of them, as well as AK Party Deputy Chairman Huseyin Celik, the CHP General Administrator Kemal Kili�roglu'nun Turkish Jews possessive discourse, Turkish Jews to After a nightmare last time was the only remaining consolation.

Turkish Jews, who developed their own outside of events and death are extremely sad.

Nervously waiting for a new day full of them.

���

Here is a brief narrative of recent Gaza history taken from Wikipedia.

• Gaza was occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War following the defeat of the Egyptian Army. Frequent conflicts have erupted between Palestinians and the Israeli authorities in the city since the 1970s. The tensions lead to the


• First Intifada in 1987. Gaza was a center of confrontation during this uprising, and economic conditions in the city worsened. In September 1993, leaders of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the


• Oslo Accords. The agreement called for Palestinian administration of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho, which was implemented


• in May 1994. Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza, leaving a new Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to administer and police the city. The PNA, led by Yasser Arafat, chose Gaza as its first provincial headquarters.


• The newly-established Palestinian National Council held its inaugural session in Gaza in March 1996. Since the Palestinian organization


• Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian elections of 2006, it has been engaged in a violent power struggle with its rival Palestinian organization Fatah.


• In 2007, Hamas overthrew Fatah forces in the Gaza Strip and Hamas members were dismissed from the PNA government in the West Bank in response. Currently, Hamas has de facto control of the city and Strip

Israel left Gaza six years ago amidst much pain and tears, abandoning the place to the Palestinian National Authority. Even now, that many years later, most Americans are oblivious to the complexity of the conflict tossed aside as "the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." Terms like Hamas, Abbas, Fatah, West Bank, Gaza, and Settlements are used and heard without understanding and any reference to Jimmy Carter's politically incorrect use of the term apartheid is met with sneering condescension.

When Hamas took the world by surprise and won an election in 2006 the reasons were not mysterious. As an extension of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood they understood  what it took to win the hearts and minds of voters. (Where have we heard that phrase?) Fatah, on the other hand, was mired in political conflict following the death of Arafat two years earlier, and was better at politics than governing. The Palestinian Authority, a creature of the Osolo Accords, was assigned responsibility for governing, but when it came to ordinary infrastructure Hamas simply did a more workmanlike job. 

I was blogging at the time and even from a distance the election of Hamas was a shot heard round the world. Bill Petti at Duck of Minerva summed it up thus.

The world is abuzz this morning with the news that the radical muslim group Hamas has apparently won a majority of seats in the recent parliamentary elections in Palestine. The group which in the past has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' has apparenlty won a a 53% majority of seats in the parliament. Hamas' victory seems due in no small part to the dissatisfaction on the part of Palestinians with the incumbent government and their inability to stem corruption. However, this turn of events obviously puts a chill on the peace process in the short term. President Bush and Secratery of State Rice have already wieghed in and began the 'bargaining process' by stating that Hamas cannot be a partner for peace unless they renounce violence, an obvious message that a government led by an unchanged Hamas will not be dealt with by the US as well as other Western states.

Needless to say this will be an enormous test of President Bush's democracy agenda. By all accounts the election in Palestine was free and fair (unlike recent elections in the region which were supposed to 'ring in' a new era of politics--see Egpyt). This means that while most Palestinians viewed the vote more as a referrendum on the failed leadership of the corrupt Fatah party, the democratic process brought to power a terrorist organization that has not been all that hospitable to the idea of a "two-state solution" with Israel. Dicey, very dicey...

Much of the rest of the world was optimistic as well.
This summary is from a comment at Mark Lynch's place.

Hamid Karzai: "If the Palestinian people have expressed their will in electing Hamas, then we must give Hamas a chance."

Russian Foreign Minister: "Russia will respect, as always, the democratic choice of the Palestinian people. It is important to us that all those who participated in the Palestinian democratic process remain faithful to peaceful national aspirations of the Palestinian people."

Pervez Musharraf: "We shall leave the door open, including to Hamas. I don't believe we should shut off relations. I think we should base our actions in reality. If Hamas has won, then we cannot go into denial."

Amos Luzzatto, Chief Rabbi of the Italian Jewish community: "Let us hope that the victory pushes Hamas in a different direction from that which it has followed in the past. Hamas has won and everyone must respect the verdit of the ballot box."

And last, the Muslim Brotherhood. "The victory at the polls by Hamas shows the desire of the Arab nation to turn towards Islam." [At least the statement doesn't make me want to strangle them].

The worst thing I heard today was the disgraceful claim by Israel that Hamas will now "establish links" with al-Qaeda".

We all know what happened.

Quick like a rabbit Washington and Israel moved to legitimize the demonstrably corrupt Hamas organization and discredit any legitimacy of the election. Hamas accommodated, it must be said, by not only driving out any Fatah representatives but killing a good many as well. It was not a pretty sight. And together with intermittent rocket attacks from Gaza it gave Israel all the justification needed to become the neighborhood bully we now see.  Fatah received both arms and encouragement from America, justified by the official designation of Hamas as a card-carrying terrorist organization.

Lynch's comments were exactly to the point.

If the reports now out of a clear Hamas victory in the Parliamentary elections, with upwards of 70 seats on participation of over 70%, turn out to be accurate, then we are now facing the single most important test - possibly ever - of America's commitment to democracy in the Middle East. (Update: al-Jazeera is reporting that the Palestinian government has resigned, Fatah has refused to take part in a proposed national unity government, and President Mahmoud Abbas has asked Hamas to form a government.)

It is an article of faith among virtually all Arabs and Muslims that in 1992 the United States and Europe green lighted the Algerian military coup after the Islamist FIS stood on the brink of electoral victory. This has been taken for a decade and a half as the definitive evidence that the American and European commitment to democracy was a hypocritical farce: democracy only if our allies won.

Another amusing link to Dr. Hadar at CATO makes fun reading, but also points to how the Hamas election came as a surprise to the US intelligence experts.
(intelligence experts = oxymoron)
Little has changed, either there or elsewhere.I want to hold my nose every time I read about US IR policies.

Two years later as Israel's noose tightened, Gaza busted out at the Rafah end, with the Egyptian border furnishing what was needed for survival. Tony Karon here.

The hole blown by Hamas in the Gaza-Egypt border fence has finally punctured the bubble of delusion surrounding the U.S.-Israeli Middle East policy. In a moment reminiscent of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, through the breach surged some 350,000 Palestinians � fully one fifth of Gaza�s total population, as my friend and colleague
Tim McGirk observed at the scene. And what did they do on the other side? They went shopping for the essentials of daily life, denied them by an Israeli siege imposed with the Wehrmacht logic of collective punishment. And the Egyptian security forces didn�t stop them, despite Washington and Israel urging them to, because U.S.-backed strongman Hosni Mubarak would provoke a mutiny among his citizenry and even his own security forces if they were to be ordered to stop hungry Palestinians from eating because Israel has decided that they should starve until they change their attitude.

With some carefully placed semtex (or whatever the Palestinian sappers use), Hamas managed to take advantage of the impossible situation the U.S.-Israeli policy had created for Mubarak and for President Mahmoud Abbas, to once again emerge on top. Then again, it ought to be noted that Hamas is blessed by the brutal ineptitude of its enemies.

Rob Malley and Hussein Agha, in a characteristically sharp analysis last week noted that Israel, Abbas and Hamas were confronting one another in a three-way standoff in which each was obsessed with preventing any rapprochement between the other two. But Hamas has now forced the issue. The Israelis have no choice but to recognize that the group�s control of Gaza is an intractable reality, that will force the Arab world and Abbas himself to accelerate efforts to restore Palestinian unity. And Israel will have no choice but to pursue the cease-fire option offered by Hamas as the most effective means for ending rocket fire out of Gaza.

In that sense, of course, Hamas has done Israel a favor, presenting it with a fait accompli that can allow it to stand down from an unworkable and morally untenable position evolved by the dunder-headed combination of the Bush Administration and the two Ehuds, Olmert and Barak (whose return to the center stage of Israeli politics is a sure sign that Israel has run out of ideas� Next up, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu � take that one to the bank.)

By breaking the siege, Hamas has opened the way for a range of new possibilities, including movement toward restoration of a single Palestinian government (by inviting Abbas to once again send PA units to guard the border with Egypt), cooperation with Egypt over managing Gaza�s affairs, and even movement towards a cease-fire with the Israelis.

It remains to be seen whether Israel has the imagination to seize the opportunity � to the extent that Olmert is still taking directions from Washington, I wouldn�t bet on it. Then again, as Malley points out in another of his must-read pieces, the alternative is war.

Karon was wrong. There was another alternative which has been exploited by Israel to full advantage. The political struggle for power within the Palestinian ranks has been exploited by Israel in the divide-and-conquer finesse of a skilled surgeon. How better to hold on to and expand into the West Bank? As mentioned before,  a growing number of ultra-Orthodox voices at home, supported and encouraged by others abroad, abetted by Christian Zionists and like-minded allies around the world have kept Hamas in a stalemate for two years now.

And the tunnels, Egypt's chips in the pot, together with the now-infamous Israeli occupation, have resulted in a shaky balance. And Israel, while maintaining an iron grip elsewhere, turns a blind eye toward Rafah and the Egyptian-Hamas connection.

The worst possible development now might be a healing union of Hamas and Fatah. It's not likely but not out of reach. Check this out from Friday.

The Hamas movement invited Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fateh party, to visit the Gaza Strip as the first step to break the Israeli siege, and end internal divisions between the two movements.

Mousa Abu Marzouq, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau, invited Abbas to visit Gaza, and said �come to Gaza and start a Legislative Council session with unity.�

He added that this will not only be the first step in ending the siege, but also a step to end internal divisions.

The statements of Abu Marzouq came in Damascus during an event challenging the Israeli siege on Gaza.

�Do you have the courage, Abu Mazin?�, Marzouq said, �Go to Gaza and end divisions�.

Addressing Abbas in his speech, Abu Marzouq stated that �friends and enemies came Gaza, near and far, the road to reconciliation is shorter than you think�.

On Wednesday, Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, called for unity and for ending internal divisions.

He added that the leadership in the West Bank decided to send a delegation to the Gaza Strip.

But Salah Bardaweel of Hamas stated that such visits aim at stalling unity talks, and do not have the real will to achieve reconciliation.

And this from the Jerusalem Post was dated last Monday...

A number of Hamas leaders have hinted over the past few days that the US administration has begun talking to the Islamist movement through both official and non-official channels.

Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, was quoted on Sunday as saying that Washington was talking to the movement despite its declared policy of boycotting it.

�Their official policy states that there are no contacts with Hamas,� Abu Marzouk said during a visit to Algeria. �However, they are engaging Hamas for objective reasons.�

He added: �There are several open channels [between Hamas and the US]. Some are official and some are unofficial. All those who are talking to us receive permission from the US State Department and the White House. The US administration tells them to talk to Hamas but without causing a big fuss.�

Abu Marzouk claimed that the US administration had reached the conclusion that Hamas is a factor that can�t be ignored.

�The Americans know that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people and is leading a legitimate government,� he said. �While the US does not see Hamas serving American interests and plans in the region, they are nevertheless aware that Hamas is a fact.�

The Free Gaza Flotilla was perfectly timed. The people of Gaza have been gasping for air for too long. The time has come for healing.

���

Addendum...

The day hasn't ended and already Tony Karon puts up a relevant post, What the Gaza Flotilla Tells Us About the Future of the Mideast, ending with this.

...the challenge to the blockade may have succeeded: the blockade�s stated purpose, after all, was to throttle the Gazan economy in the hope that collective punishment would turn the civilian population against Hamas. That�s a policy now being deemed untenable even by the United States � something that would not have happened without the flotilla.

Exposing the failed Gaza policy has also reignited calls for the US and its allies to recognize the futility of trying to conduct an Israeli-Palestinian peace process as if Hamas simply didn�t exist. Pressure is mounting for the West to find ways to try and integrate Hamas into more stable political arrangements.

None of this lets Iran off the hook in terms of its NPT obligations, of course. But the consensus among the key players is that the Iran standoff will be resolved through a negotiated compromise. What the events of last week have taught us is that the global and regional balance of power here is shifting in ways that make it unlikely for conflicts in the Middle East to be resolved on terms set by the US and Israel.