ECHOES OF DAVOS CONTROVERSY

The Middle East still endures the consequences of the recent war in the Gaza Strip. The continual exchange of fire, which Israel and Palestine maintain to this day, have delayed the prospects of a more or less lasting peace. The main goal at present is to achieve a lasting cease-fire, and international mediators - not only the quartet of the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the EU - but also the influential regional powers, Egypt and Turkey, are in pursuit of that goal. The latter, as developments prove, is playing an increasingly important role in the Middle Eastern peace process and in moulding the geostrategic balance of power on the planet.

"Resort-town" incident

Israel's three-week military operation Cast Lead, which resulted in numerous civilian casualties, aroused strong protests from the international community, despite the fact that Tel Aviv cited the need to destroy the bases of terrorists who were launching missiles against the cities and towns of southern Israel. However, no country questioned Israel's fundamental right to self-defence, and the accusations levelled against the Ehud Olmert government stressed that the operation was disproportionate. Perhaps the harshest criticism of Israel (after the traditionally anti-Israeli rhetoric of the Iranian leadership) came from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Soon after the active phase of combat operations in the Gaza Strip, the Turkish and Israeli leaders were involved in an incident which sparked a real international scandal. It happened during one of the meetings at the World Economic Forum, organized annually in the Swiss resort town of Davos. During a discussion on the situation in the Middle East, a heated exchange of opinions took place between the Turkish Prime Minister and Israeli President Shimon Perez.

"You know well how to kill people," Erdogan said after Perez's speech. Perez recommended that the Turkish Prime Minister should think about what he would do if missiles exploded every night in Istanbul.  But when Erdogan, who was ready to answer his opponent's question, was interrupted, he got up and pointedly left the audience with the words: "I do not think that I will ever come back to Davos - you do not let me speak." Later he voiced his displeasure at the fact that Perez spoke for 25 minutes, whereas Erdogan was given half that time for his speech.

Erdogan's behaviour received a mixed welcome across the world and within political circles in Turkey itself. Upon his return home, however, he received a hero's welcome at the airport. But no matter what assessment is given to the incident, it is clear that the dialogue between Turkey and Israel, which in recent decades had reached the level of strategic partnership, faces a test of hitherto unseen difficulty.

Turko-Israeli relations have a centuries-long history. The Israelis remember with gratitude the times when Turks supported Israel in its most difficult moment. Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel (back in 1949). In the period that followed, the two countries established "special relations" for political, military and economic cooperation. And, despite the fact that Ankara often did not approve of Tel Aviv's policy in Palestine, there was never a squabble. But Cast Lead spoiled all that: the operation proved so bloody that Erdogan lost his temper and called Israel's operation a "crime against humanity." Then along came the Davos incident, the closure of the Turko-Israeli inter-parliamentary group and Ankara's decision to ban aircraft from Israeli air carriers from landing in Turkey. Political relations between the two countries were under threat, never mind the prospects for economic cooperation (although trade turnover between the two countries reached $5 billion in 2008) and Turkey's multimillion-dollar contracts with the Israeli defence industry.

Loud echoes of the "silent revolution"

Many people argue that Erdogan's demarche is not only a result of his ethical position, but also the outcome of quite pragmatic considerations which stem from the domestic political struggle in Turkey itself.

It is said that the Turkish Prime Minister, who supported the Palestinians and condemned the Israelis, was striving to "score points" for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) which he leads and which positions itself as an Islamic democratic political group relying on the religious section of the country's population.

However, to a much greater extent than a purely political ploy would achieve, Erdogan's actions may be considered an indicator of a "silent revolution" under way in Turkey: the coming to power of the AKP, which won parliamentary elections in 2002 and saw its representative, Abdulla Gul, elected president in 2007. For the first time in the history of the Kemalist state, all civilian political power was concentrated in the hands of a party which advocated Islamic spiritual values. Despite the fact that the Gul-Erdogan tandem rejects accusations that it is preparing for a change to the political system, expresses support for the principle of the division of religion and state, and follows a course towards the country's accession to the EU, present-day Turkey is certainly different from what it was just 10 years ago.

AKP rule is a consequence of social demand, which began to take shape back in the early 1990s in Turkey, for a policy which would take account of the cultural identity and historical traditions of the country. The main reason for the current changes in Turkey, of which the crisis in relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv was one repercussion, was that Turks began to understand that the political arena which, according to the tenets of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish republic, Turkey aspires to join, considers them inferior. Many people in Turkey now believe that in the 20th century their country turned from being the first country in the East into the last country of the West, especially as the West, not desiring the fully-fledged and equal integration of Turkey, takes every opportunity to remind the Turks of faults which are not worthy of a prosperous Europe. Procrastination in the process of Turkey's admission to the EU is especially painful for Turkish self-esteem and, at the same time, forces them to have recourse to their ethnic memories and to those religious and cultural ideals which in the past enabled their ancestors to attain universally recognized greatness. Turks are insulted when they feel they are cornered, hence their drive to express their self-sufficiency and aspiration to be leaders of the Muslim world, which is engraved in the mind of the nation at genetic level. Critical remarks about Erdogan, which were voiced even by friends of Turkey, who do not understand why the Prime Minister put into question the country's lucrative strategic partnership with Israel, are worth nothing in the eyes of the "instigator" of the Davos incident himself and his AKP constituency. After all, the move enabled Turkey to re-state its greatness - regardless of whether this is popular or not, and to reaffirm its moral and real (rather than ephemeral) political influence in the Muslim world.

In addition, Erdogan's action was caused by yet another factor directly related to a Middle East settlement. Israel's military operation in Gaza also threatened the prospect of Turkish mediation in the region. Ankara achieved considerable progress in a rapprochement of Israel's and Syria's positions last year, so it is not surprising that Turkey perceived Tel Aviv's military campaign as a "manifestation of disrespect for Turkey."

The Middle East needs Turkey's leadership

Now, in light of the aggravation of Turko-Israeli relations, a question arises: what will Ankara's role be in Middle Eastern geopolitics and, first and foremost, in the process of regulating the Arab-Israeli conflict? Of course, the Turkish Prime Minister's position yielded his country considerable dividends in the Arab world, which is why it is hard to say now how flexible Ankara can be in maintaining a balanced stance between the raised expectations of Arabs for active intervention by the Turks in a Middle Eastern settlement on the one hand, and a dialogue of partnership with Israel on the other. But no matter what the relative weight of these two factors might turn out to have in Turkish politics, it is obvious that Ankara will try its best to gain political influence in the region and reduce to a minimum the difficulties in relations with Tel Aviv.

In a recent interview with the Times, Recep Erdogan reaffirmed the Middle Eastern ambitions of his country and reiterated that "Turkey has experience of mediation and the organization of secret talks between Israel and Muslim countries." Having decided not to exacerbate the controversy over Turkey's mediation between Israel and Syria, Erdogan voiced his support for a "transition to direct dialogue between the sides." As for the current state of the Middle East conflict, the Turkish Prime Minister stressed that Hamas is a "political party which takes part in elections," which is why the international community should "respect the political will of the Palestinian people" and initiate talks with it, despite even the fact that that movement had made a "great many serious mistakes." It would be expedient to remember in this connection the statement by Ahmet Davudoglu, Turkish cabinet spokesman, who admitted that Hamas had agreed to cease fire largely under pressure from Turkey.

The hope that Turkish-US relations, which "should develop thanks to a further determination of US strategic positions in Turkey," will have a positive effect on, among other things, the regulation of the conflict in the Middle East, as expressed by Erdogan in his congratulatory letter to new US President Barack Obama, clearly demonstrates what the future plans of Ankara might be. Certainly, Washington realizes how well-justified Ankara's statements are. But the most interesting point is that, in the context of US policy in the Middle East, which is a region that many US strategists covet, Turkey's position on the recent war in Gaza is of benefit to the United States. After all, by doing what he did, Erdogan effectively cut the ground from under the feet of the Iranian clerical regime, which lays claims to leadership in the Muslim world. And although the influential Jewish lobby in the United States gave quite a negative assessment of the Turkish Prime Minister's initiative, it is quite clear that Turkey, which is a NATO member and one of the closest strategic allies of the United States, is a much more attractive pretender than Iran to leadership of the Muslim world, to both the West and to Israel itself.

As for the Jewish lobby, which issued a threat to push Congress to pass a resolution on the so-called "Armenian genocide" in retaliation for Ankara's actions, the Turkish Government apparently took this factor into account. It is evident that Ankara ventured to openly condemn Tel Aviv's policy precisely when normalization of relations with Armenia was in the offing. Apparently, Ankara's bet was that the Barack Obama administration, which included recognition of the "genocide" in the list of its campaign promises, would not dare to nip in the bud the process of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, which the West has awaited for a long time. In this sense, the Jewish lobby's threats are not so important at present, not to mention the fact that there is no immediate reason compelling US Jewry to dance to the tune of the Armenian diaspora.

In addition, Ankara made it clear that the behaviour of the meeting's moderator, US journalist of Armenian descent David Ignatius, played an important role in the Davos incident. In this connection, the political circles concerned began a discussion as to whose interests might be served by a rift between Turkey and Israel. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also made a noteworthy statement when he stressed that the "moderator, who unjustly hindered Erdogan in expressing his opinion, was guilty of what happened at the forum." Despite these events, Ban Ki-moon noted that the "Middle East needs Erdogan's leadership and mediation."

Israel realizes this too, and neither can Turkey ignore the strategic prospects of cooperation with Israel. This is why both sides are inclined to prevent an escalation of the crisis in bilateral relations. The media disseminated reports that Shalom Turgeman, aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is holding talks with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan to restore friendly relations between the two countries. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni voiced her conviction that "everything can be resolved; we must talk, put our cards on the table, promote our common interests and take into account our differences."

So the probability of overcoming the crisis in Turkish-Israeli relations is quite high; this, however, cannot be said about overall developments in the Middle East, whose unpredictability has already exceeded all conceivable limits.