Tag: Recep Tayyip Erdogan

12th president of Turkey

  • Israeli army disowns general’s Turkey attack

    Israeli army disowns general’s Turkey attack

    The Israeli military on Saturday disassociated itself from remarks critical of Turkey made by one of its generals after Ankara described them as unacceptable and demanded an urgent clarification. Skip related content

    Related photos / videos

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Enlarge photo

    The remarks by Major General Avi Mizrahi, commander of the Israeli army headquarters, followed a row sparked by Israel’s offensive in Gaza last month and contained “unacceptable claims and nonsense targeting our prime minister and our country,” the foreign ministry said.

    The Israeli ambassador to Turkey was summoned to the foreign ministry on Saturday and handed a note of protest, the statement said, adding that “the Israeli authorities were asked for an urgent clarification.”

    In Jerusalem, the Israeli army later issued a statement saying Mizrahi’s remarks were not representative of its views.

    “General Mizrahi said some things that might be construed as critical of Turkey. The army spokesman wishes to clarify that this is not the official position of the army.”

    On Friday, the Turkish media quoted Mizrahi as saying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who vehemently criticised Israel‘s action in the Gaza Strip, “should first look in the mirror” and spoke about Ottoman massacres of Armenians during World War I and the Kurdish conflict in Turkey.

    The Turkish military also denounced Mizrahi’s remarks, saying they “distort the realities and are excessive, unfortunate and unacceptable.”

    Such comments “can harm national interests in relations between the two countries,” the statement said.

    “We expect the Israeli general staff, which we believe places importance on relations with the Turkish armed forces, to clarify the issue,” it added.

    The Gaza conflict has strained relations between Israel and Turkey, a predominantly Muslim non-Arab nation which has been the Jewish state’s main regional ally since the two signed a military cooperation accord in 1996.

    On January 29, Erdogan stormed out from a heated debate on the Gaza war at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland after clashing with Israeli President Shimon Peres.

    Before walking off, he said Israel committed “barbarian” acts in Gaza, told Peres that “you know well how to kill people” and lashed out at the audience for applauding the Israeli president’s emotional defence of the war.

    Mizrahi’s remarks reportedly came at an international conference in Israel on Tuesday in comments on Erdogan’s outburst, after which Israel had sought to defuse tensions, saying that relations would recover in time.

    Israel’s 22-day offensive on Islamist Hamas-controlled Gaza left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead and injured 5,300 others.

  • Talking Turkey About Israel

    Talking Turkey About Israel

    Philip Giraldi *

    The Israeli invasion of Gaza and the slaughter of civilians was such an egregious error in judgment that the usual suspects are working overtime to make it all look like a heroic defense of democratic values. The expected beneficiary of the “defensive action,” the ruling Kadima Party, so miscalculated that it is now likely to lose today’s election, with the Israeli electorate convinced that an even more extreme right-wing government is the only solution to the moderate right-wing bungling.

    Israel will likely choose hard-right nationalism by electing Bibi Netanyahu as the next prime minister. Netanyahu has never let any values, democratic or otherwise, stand in his way in his quest for a Greater (Arab-free) Israel encompassing all of the West Bank and running from the Litani River in Lebanon in the north to the Suez Canal in the south. He has already promised that if elected he will not turn any occupied land over to the Palestinians.

    There have been numerous signs that the world is no longer buying into the Israeli creation myth, even in the United States, where the suffering of the Gazans, neatly concealed by most of the mainstream media, nevertheless produced an outpouring of sympathy. The beleaguered little state of Israel founded as a homeland and refuge for the victims of persecution in Europe has become a regional military superpower ruled by a corrupt political class, with a socialist economy kept afloat by the U.S. taxpayer. Israel continues and even expands its occupation of the lands of its neighbors and engages in the brutal suppression of those who resist. Far from seeking a political solution that would create two states side by side, it has deliberately aborted every genuine peace initiative and now seeks absolute regional hegemony, pressing forward with racist policies that marginalize its own citizens of Arab descent. Most of the world has finally realized that claiming perpetual victimhood as a shield against criticism does not work very well when you can muster Merkava tanks, helicopter gunships, and white phosphorus against a civilian population.

    The sharp exchange between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Davos on Jan. 29 exemplifies Israel’s public relations problem and also casts light upon what steps the Israeli government and its friends in the United States are taking to counteract the negative press. Media reports suggest that Israel preceded its attack on Gaza by alerting a network of supporters to post comments on blogs, saturating the Web with the Israeli government’s justification for its action. This was evident on a number of blogs, including Huffington Post and the Washington Note. Many of the posters were Israelis, and it is believed that a number of them were active-duty military personnel selected for their fluency in English and other European languages as well as their familiarity with the Internet.

    The coverage of the Erdogan-Peres exchange was carefully managed in the U.S. media, but less restrained in Europe and the Middle East. In a one-hour discussion of Gaza moderated by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, an odd choice for such an important discussion, Peres was allowed 25 minutes to speak in defense of the Israeli attack. Erdogan and two other critics on the panel were given 12 minutes each. The YouTube recording of the debate shows Peres pointed accusingly at Erdogan and raised his voice. When Erdogan sought time to respond, Ignatius granted him a minute and then cut him off claiming it was time to go to dinner. Erdogan complained about the treatment and left Davos, vowing never to return. Back in Turkey, he received a hero’s welcome.

    Four days later the Washington Post featured an op-ed entitled “Turkey’s Turn From the West” by Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish-born, American-educated academic who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). WINEP was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Cagaptay is also on the board of the American Turkish Friendship Council, one of several Turkish lobbying groups that are supportive of the Israel-Turkey relationship. A review of Cagaptay’s writings reveals that he is AIPAC’s go-to guy for any argument that Turkey is becoming more anti-Western and religious.

    That Cagaptay is a genuine expert on the country of his birth is clear, but his view on developments there is very much shaped by who pays him. He finds anti-Semitism lurking everywhere in Turkey and being “spread by the political leadership.” He is astonished by Erdogan’s assertion at Davos that Israel is “killing people.” He finds inexplicable the prime minister’s belief that there was “Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza” and that the “Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts.” For good measure, Cagaptay believes it “doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of nuclear Iran,” and he sees a regrettable Turkish “solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes.”

    AIPAC’s Turkey expert might be surprised to learn that most of the world, which saw the images of dying Palestinian children on nightly television, would probably agree with Erdogan. Israel planned its invasion of Gaza six months in advance, timed the assault for maximum political benefit for the ruling party and to engage the incoming U.S. president in its policies, committed war crimes against a largely defenseless civilian population, and then kept journalists out of the combat zone so it could lie about everything that it was doing. The U.S. media in particular chose to ignore the carnage and present the Israeli point of view. Though it would be unfair to claim that the media is controlled by any ethnic or religious group, it is certainly true that Jewish organizations mobilized to make sure that pro-Israel commentary far exceeded any reporting of Palestinian suffering.

    Cagaptay likewise fails to see what the rest of the world sees regarding Iran. No one admires Iran’s government, but America’s European allies, not just Turkey, will not support yet another war in the Middle East, even if Tehran does move closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. Turkey’s development of closer ties with the Islamic world, which Cagaptay tellingly insists on calling “Islamist,” is also an understandable response to being repeatedly snubbed in its bids to join the European Union, something that even WINEP’s reliable scholarly claque surely knows to be true.

    Efforts to control and spin the narrative, to turn black into white, have been unrelenting since the Israelis decided to attack Gaza. Cagaptay is only a part of that effort, but his smearing of Turkey and its elected leaders is unfortunate, particularly as his newspaper audience probably knows little about Turkey and will assume that the analysis is credible. Anyone who knows Turks well knows that they are an exceedingly stubborn and honorable people who will invariably say what they think to be true. Prime Minister Erdogan spoke the truth in Davos and has been speaking the truth about the invasion of Gaza. Attempts to label him anti-Semitic and to denigrate the Turks in general will certainly have some impact, most certainly on the U.S. Congress, which will rapidly fall into line and comply with AIPAC’s instructions on an appropriate punishment. But Israel’s attempt to portray itself as always the victim of a global anti-Semitic, anti-Western conspiracy just will not stand any more, no matter how many Soner Cagaptays are paid by AIPAC to write for the Washington Post.

    Source: www.antiwar.com, 10.02.2009

    * Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency who became famous for claiming in 2005 that the USA was preparing plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in response to a terrorist action against the US, independently of whether or not Iran was involved in the action. He is presently a partner in an international security consultancy,  Cannistraro Associates.

  • Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    Drama in Davos: A reading of the bizarre incident

    By Ferruh Demirmen

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walkout from the Gaza panel in Davos last week created quite a stir on the international scene. The walkout strained the Israeli-Turkish relations, and the direction the Turkish foreign policy is headed became a subject of debate.

     

    The occasion was a panel discussion on the Gaza crisis where two of the four panelists were Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres. During his talk Erdogan blamed Israel for the Gaza violence, and Peres passionately defended his country’s policy. The tempers became inflamed when the moderator refused to allow Erdogan sufficient time to reply to Peres. This brought the panel discussion to a breaking point, and the PM walked off.

     

    The prevailing sentiment in Turkey is that Erdogan was justified in his action. Upon return from Davos, the PM was welcomed as a courageous leader by his supporters in Istanbul. The Arab world, in particular Hamas, lauded Erdogan’s action. There were alarm signals from the American Jewish lobby and the Israeli media, the former warning that Turkey’s image was damaged and making a sarcastic reference to PKK. In the rest of the world, the reaction was one of bemusement,

     

    The substance

     

    In substance, it is difficult to disagree with Erdogan on his criticism of Israel on the Gaza crisis. While the Jewish state deserved sympathy for the plight of its citizens that came under rocket attack from Hamas militants, its response was grossly disproportionate. Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip created a humanitarian crisis in an area that was already reeling under a military lockdown. Some 1300 Palestinians lost their lives, as opposed to 13 on the Israeli side. Gaza’s industry was destroyed, and even schools, mosques, hospitals and a UN compound came under attack.

     

    The notion that a vastly superior military firepower was turned on a nearly defenseless population under siege, with graphic images of Palestinian civilians suffering and dying, was too much to bear for the world at large, in particular the Islamic world. Erdogan verbalized these sentiments.

     

    What made the Israeli action particularly offensive was that the military campaign appeared to be planned months in advance, and that Israel was timing its military campaign according to presidential turnover at the White House. Israel’s banning of journalists from the war zone also exacerbated anti-Israeli sentiments.

     

    The style

     

    Putting substance aside, the manner in which Erdogan handled himself in Davos was both right and wrong. To make sense of conflicting reports of the incident, this writer viewed the official webcast of the panel discussion. It is clear from the webcast that Erdogan was justified in protesting to the moderator.

     

    A cardinal rule in panel discussions is that the participants are allowed equal time. In this case, Peres was allowed to speak considerably longer than Erdogan.

     

    It is also a standard practice in panel discussions to allow a second chance to the speakers to respond to each other. There was no such provision in the panel discussion. Erdogan wrestled to get additional time to respond to Peres, the last speaker, but when the moderator cut him off after two minutes, the PM became visibly agitated. Turning red-faced, he stormed out.

     

    Because the other two panelists had talked shorter than both Erdogan and Peres, the moderator could have allowed Erdogan more time to respond, thereby preventing a diplomatic crisis.

     

    On the other hand, the PM could have chosen to remain calm, letting the audience judge the unfairness of the situation. His parting remark to the moderator, “For me, Davos is finished,” was unnecessary, and his rhetoric aimed at Peres, “You are older than me. Your voice is coming strong, this has to do with a guilty conscience.” … ”You know well how to kill,” were quite inappropriate. He had lost his temper.

     

    In diplomacy, there is no substitute for composure.

     

    In Ankara, retired Turkish diplomats who criticized Erdogan’s behavior in Davos also drew the PM’s ire, who called them “monsieurs” – a thinly disguised pejorative term.

     

    Some commentators in Turkish media compared the PM’s action to the bluster of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when he, in a fury, took his shoe off and banged it at the table at a United Nations conference in 1960. The comparison, however, was off the mark.

     

    The motive

     

    Erdogan’s action raised some basic questions. What was the PM trying to accomplish by becoming the spokesman for Hamas when the Arab world is almost indifferent to the plight of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip?

     

    And if the PM was sincere in his humanitarian concerns over the Gaza crisis, why did he not raise similar objections to the killing fields in Darfur, and, for that matter, next-door Iraq?

     

    Erdogan twice welcomed in Ankara Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashira radical Islamist – who has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. These are questions only the PM can answer.

     

    But there is little doubt that Erdogan’s stance in Davos was driven at least in part by domestic politics. Local elections are scheduled for March, and by embracing the staunchly Islamic-oriented Hamas, the PM calculated that he could boost his popularity with his Islamist base at home. His popularity, in fact, did receive a boost, at least temporarily.

     

    The rallying welcome the PM received at the Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning just after leaving the panel discussion was obviously planned in advance.

     

    Israeli-Turkish relations

     

    The larger issue with the Davos incident is whether it heralded a major shift in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel. In press releases, both sides tried to downplay the significance of the event, claiming that the relations between the countries remained fundamentally strong.

     

    There is considerable truth in that assessment, as the two countries have long had close bilateral ties, from tourism to commerce to defense. The two countries also have shared common strategic interests, a point verbalized by Peres during his talk at the Turkish Parliament in November 2007. Both countries will want to continue the alliance.

     

    The alliance, however, will face challenges. Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization, and unless the organization becomes more moderate, a serious rift in the Israeli-Turkish alliance will be inevitable. Turkey’s relationship with the US and the EU will also be affected.

     

    There is also the concern, raised by the American Jewish lobby, but also by the Turkish Jewish community, that Erdogan’s pro-Hamas stance may stoke anti-Semitism in Turkey. The PM tried to allay this concern by stating that his quarrel is with the Israeli administration, not Jewish people.

     

    The problem with this argument is that his constituents in the Islamic camp may not make such distinction.

     

    Any rise in anti-Semitism in Turkey would be very unfortunate. Since the Ottomans welcomed Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century, Turks and Jews have lived in peaceful coexistence. The secular republic established by Kemal Atatürk bestowed full citizenship rights on Jews, as it did on other religious and ethnic groups.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In summary, a badly administered panel discussion was at the root of a bizarre incident in Davos. Although there will be challenges, Turkey and Israel should put the bizarre incident behind and move on. The Jewish state should use the Davos incident as a wakeup call from a friend for resolution of the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Turkey’s part, it should weigh carefully its association with Hamas. A lasting peace in the Middle East is far too important to let an emotionally charged panel discussion to be a distraction. On Erdogan’s part, he should learn how to control his anger in conflict situations.

     

    ferruh@demirmen.com

     

  • Temper tantrums

    Temper tantrums

    Temper tantrums

    Feb 5th 2009 | ANKARA
    From The Economist print edition

    A dramatic Davos walkout raises new questions about Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    WAS it premeditated? Or did Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, lose control? Mr Erdogan’s walkout from a debate with Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, in Davos has made him the most talked about Turkish leader since Kemal Ataturk. His audience of financiers and policy wonks was stunned. But Muslims worldwide cheered as Mr Erdogan scolded Mr Peres over Israel’s war in Gaza. “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches,” thundered a crimson-faced Mr Erdogan.

    The incident has led to new debate over Turkey’s strategic alliance with Israel, whether an increasingly erratic Mr Erdogan is fit to lead Turkey at all and, if so, in what direction: east or west? There is no question of Turkey walking away from NATO or the European Union, or scrapping military ties with Israel and America. Mr Erdogan’s critics say his outburst was a ploy to please voters. If so, it worked: his approval ratings have shot up. Polls suggest that 80% of Turks support Mr Erdogan’s actions. His mildly Islamist Justice and Development party will reap dividends in municipal elections on March 29th.

    Mr Erdogan’s defiance has also helped to assuage his people’s long-running feelings of humiliation and inferiority, which date back as far as the Ottoman defeat in the first world war. Many insist that Mr Erdogan’s reaction was spontaneous and utterly sincere. Turkey has assumed “moral leadership” based on Western values, opined Cengiz Candar, a liberal commentator. Mindful of the public mood, Turkey’s secular opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, grudgingly declared that his rival had done the right thing.

    Not everybody agrees, however. Mr Erdogan’s behaviour makes it less likely that Turkey can successfully mediate between Israel and Syria. His call to Barack Obama to “redefine” what terrorist means has been seen as an appeal to remove the label from Hamas. Although European and American reaction has been muted, in private officials are unhappy. “What [the Davos spat] does leave in Europe is the feeling that Mr Erdogan is unpredictable,” says a European diplomat. Mr Obama is highly unlikely now to pay Turkey an early visit.

    Mr Erdogan’s temper tantrums are not new. But they used to be reserved for his critics at home. The Davos affair, says another foreign diplomat, is further evidence of “Mr Erdogan’s conviction that the West needs Turkey more than Turkey needs it.” It is of a piece with Mr Erdogan’s threat to back out of the much-touted Nabucco pipeline to carry gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe via Turkey. In Brussels recently Mr Erdogan said that, if there were no progress on the energy chapter of Turkey’s EU accession talks then “we would of course review our position”. Meanwhile, Turkey sided with Saudi Arabia and the Vatican in opposing a UN statement suggested by the EU to call for the global decriminalisation of homosexuality.

    Mr Erdogan’s supporters argue that EU foot-dragging on Turkey’s membership bid explains why Turkey is now seeking new friends in the Middle East and beyond. Its growing regional clout is another reason why the EU should embrace Turkey. But the reverse is also true. It is because it is the sole Muslim country that is at once secular, democratic and allied with the West that Turkey commands such respect in the rest of the world. Growing numbers of Arab investors have flocked to Turkey, “because we see it as part of Europe, not the Middle East,” says an Arab banker in Istanbul.

    To retain its allure, Turkey will need to swallow its pride and make further concessions on Cyprus. The EU may suspend membership talks altogether unless Turkey meets a December 2009 deadline to open its ports to Greek-Cypriots. The hope is that Egemen Bagis, who was chosen as Turkey’s official EU negotiator in January, will remind Mr Erdogan that, at least in these talks, it is Turkey that is the supplicant not the other way round.

    Source:  Economist, Feb 5th 2009

  • A dramatic Davos walkout raises new questions about Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    A dramatic Davos walkout raises new questions about Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    Turkey’s prime minister

    Feb 5th 2009 | ANKARA
    From The Economist print edition

    WAS it premeditated? Or did Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, lose control? Mr Erdogan’s walkout from a debate with Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, in Davos has made him the most talked about Turkish leader since Kemal Ataturk. His audience of financiers and policy wonks was stunned. But Muslims worldwide cheered as Mr Erdogan scolded Mr Peres over Israel’s war in Gaza. “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches,” thundered a crimson-faced Mr Erdogan.

    The incident has led to new debate over Turkey’s strategic alliance with Israel, whether an increasingly erratic Mr Erdogan is fit to lead Turkey at all and, if so, in what direction: east or west? There is no question of Turkey walking away from NATO or the European Union, or scrapping military ties with Israel and America. Mr Erdogan’s critics say his outburst was a ploy to please voters. If so, it worked: his approval ratings have shot up. Polls suggest that 80% of Turks support Mr Erdogan’s actions. His mildly Islamist Justice and Development party will reap dividends in municipal elections on March 29th.

    Mr Erdogan’s defiance has also helped to assuage his people’s long-running feelings of humiliation and inferiority, which date back as far as the Ottoman defeat in the first world war. Many insist that Mr Erdogan’s reaction was spontaneous and utterly sincere. Turkey has assumed “moral leadership” based on Western values, opined Cengiz Candar, a liberal commentator. Mindful of the public mood, Turkey’s secular opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, grudgingly declared that his rival had done the right thing.

    Not everybody agrees, however. Mr Erdogan’s behaviour makes it less likely that Turkey can successfully mediate between Israel and Syria. His call to Barack Obama to “redefine” what terrorist means has been seen as an appeal to remove the label from Hamas. Although European and American reaction has been muted, in private officials are unhappy. “What [the Davos spat] does leave in Europe is the feeling that Mr Erdogan is unpredictable,” says a European diplomat. Mr Obama is highly unlikely now to pay Turkey an early visit.

    Mr Erdogan’s temper tantrums are not new. But they used to be reserved for his critics at home. The Davos affair, says another foreign diplomat, is further evidence of “Mr Erdogan’s conviction that the West needs Turkey more than Turkey needs it.” It is of a piece with Mr Erdogan’s threat to back out of the much-touted Nabucco pipeline to carry gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe via Turkey. In Brussels recently Mr Erdogan said that, if there were no progress on the energy chapter of Turkey’s EU accession talks then “we would of course review our position”. Meanwhile, Turkey sided with Saudi Arabia and the Vatican in opposing a UN statement suggested by the EU to call for the global decriminalisation of homosexuality.

    Mr Erdogan’s supporters argue that EU foot-dragging on Turkey’s membership bid explains why Turkey is now seeking new friends in the Middle East and beyond. Its growing regional clout is another reason why the EU should embrace Turkey. But the reverse is also true. It is because it is the sole Muslim country that is at once secular, democratic and allied with the West that Turkey commands such respect in the rest of the world. Growing numbers of Arab investors have flocked to Turkey, “because we see it as part of Europe, not the Middle East,” says an Arab banker in Istanbul.

    To retain its allure, Turkey will need to swallow its pride and make further concessions on Cyprus. The EU may suspend membership talks altogether unless Turkey meets a December 2009 deadline to open its ports to Greek-Cypriots. The hope is that Egemen Bagis, who was chosen as Turkey’s official EU negotiator in January, will remind Mr Erdogan that, at least in these talks, it is Turkey that is the supplicant not the other way round.

    https://www.economist.com/europe/2009/02/05/temper-tantrums

  • American Jewish Committee Letter to the PM R.T.Erdogan

    American Jewish Committee Letter to the PM R.T.Erdogan

    From: BENJAMIN YAFET [mailto:byafet@juno.com]

    Open Letter to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan

    “Dear Prime Minister Erdogan”
    by David A. Harris
    Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
    February 1, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister Erdogan,

    I write as a friend of Turkey.

    These days, though, I’m finding it harder to feel well-disposed. I’ve been stunned by things I’ve heard, seen, and read in recent weeks. The outburst of animosity for Israel and the anxiety awakened in the Turkish Jewish community make me wonder what’s going on and what the future holds.

    If this only emanated from the “street” or from an extremist fringe, it would be worrisome enough. But it goes deeper – and higher. It starts at the very top. Yours has been the loudest voice, and you have used it to attack Israel in a manner that is not only vicious, but also disconnected from the facts.

    Let me step back for a moment.

    I have long admired Turkey. Like all countries, it’s not perfect, but there is much to appreciate.

    As an American, I have valued Turkey’s strategic partnership with the U.S. and the close ties that have linked our two countries.

    As a Jew, I have always remembered the Ottoman Empire’s warm welcome to Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition and the rich history of the Jewish presence in Turkey.

    As a democrat, I have appreciated Turkey’s commitment to many values I cherish, including its participation with the Allied nations in the Korean War and its front-line role in NATO.

    As a friend of Israel, I have witnessed the strengthening of bilateral links between Ankara and Jerusalem over the years, serving the vital interests of both nations, as many Turks and Israelis have learned to appreciate.

    As a peace-seeker, I have been grateful for the role of Turkish peacekeeping forces, including in southern Lebanon, not to mention the facilitation of indirect talks between Israel and Syria.

    In that spirit, I have acted on the assumption that friends help friends.

    When Ankara has needed assistance in Washington, or even in European capitals, Turkish officials have often turned to American Jewish groups, ours among them. Whenever we could, as you know, we have been there to help.

    When Turkey was struck by a major earthquake in 1999, we were there to build a school in the devastated region of Adapazari as a gesture of solidarity and friendship.

    And when Turks in Germany were targeted by hate crimes, we spoke up. Indeed, in 1993, we traveled from New York solely to attend the funeral service at the Cologne mosque after an arson attack killed five Turkish women in nearby Solingen.

    I don’t say these things to pat ourselves on the back, but to underscore our deep commitment to the relationship – in many ways, over many years.

    Which brings us to the present.

    Mr. Prime Minister, you have described Israeli policy in Gaza as a “massacre” and a “crime against humanity” that would bring about Israel’s “self-destruction” through divine punishment. These words are inflammatory, and they are wrong.

    You seem to believe that Israel had other ways to deal with the relentless barrage of missiles and mortars fired at its civilians, even though months of restraint accomplished nothing.

    You contend that Hamas is a reasonable negotiating partner. You even invited its leaders to Ankara, though it had not met the Quartet’s demands to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by previous agreements. It still has not done so, and it still seeks Israel’s destruction with weapons imported from your neighbor, Iran.

    You have accused Israel of deliberately seeking to kill civilians. In reality, as British Colonel Richard Kemp told the BBC, “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties. … Hamas has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield.”

    Even if you disagreed, you might have been respectful of such public criticism of Hamas, whether from Col. Kemp, EU official Louis Michel, Egyptian and Saudi leaders, or, in more hushed tones, some Gaza residents themselves. Instead, you accused “Jewish-backed media” of spreading falsehoods.

    Mr. Prime Minister, Israel yearns for a secure and lasting peace. No one has more fully embodied that hunger for peace, or worked more tirelessly to achieve a new start for the Middle East, than Shimon Peres – Israel’s president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and your fellow panelist at Davos last week.

    Yet, in your remarks, you essentially called him a child-killer. And, inexplicably, you quoted an obscure ex-Israeli who has turned into a rabid anti-Semite.

    And then you left, claiming that the moderator had been unfair. We hope the conciliatory phone call between you and President Peres helped to repair the breach, but, make no mistake, damage has been done. By storming off the stage, you not only insulted him, but you harmed the image of Turkey. Maybe you gained popularity in the Turkish street, where anger against Israel and Jews has been stoked in recent weeks, but you did your country no service by your unstatesmanlike behavior.

    Mr. Prime Minister, I wonder what Turkey would do if its population were targeted, day after day, by merciless enemies determined to wreak havoc, terrorize, and intimidate.

    But wait. We know exactly how Turkey would act if it saw its national interests endangered.

    When Turkey feared union between Greece and Cyprus, it rushed troops to the northern part of the island in 1974. A new government was declared. The UN Security Council later “deplore[d] the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported succession.” Only Turkey recognized the new state. And over the years, the population of the Turkish part of the island markedly increased. Where did the growth come from? Observers insisted that it was a policy of settlement from Turkey.

    Now, however, you assert that Israel should not be “allowed to enter through the gates of the UN” because it has defied the Security Council.

    Turkey knows something about terrorism. The PKK has targeted your country for years, initially seeking an independent Kurdish state that included part of Turkey. Now it claims to seek greater autonomy for the millions of Kurds living in Turkey. Even as the PKK has apparently lowered its demands, has Turkey pursued talks with that murderous group?

    Absolutely not.

    Indeed, I recall a rather blunt threat from Ankara to neighboring Syria in the late 1990s: If the PKK continued to receive protection there, the Turkish army would cross the border and take matters into its own hands. Luckily for Turkey, Syria was smarter than Hamas. It got the message. I also remember last year’s incursion of Turkish forces into northern Iraq to stem PKK attacks from there.

    But now, you demand that we “redefine terror and terrorism in the Middle East.”

    And wasn’t it Turkey, objecting to Armenian policy toward Azerbaijan, that chose to close its border with landlocked Armenia from 1993 to today? Yet you now accuse Israel of creating “an open-air prison” by sealing its own frontier with a hostile territory.

    Please understand me. I am not – I repeat, not – seeking here to pass judgment on Turkey’s actions. Rather, I am simply recounting them to show what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

    It’s so easy to tell another country what it should or shouldn’t do in the face of threats, especially when one’s own country is ten times more populous and 38 times larger. But ultimately, Israel, like its friend Turkey, must make tough choices to protect its citizens.

    Mr. Prime Minister, only you know how far you want to take your belligerent posture. It has already resulted in damage to your country’s reputation in the United States, concern for the well-being of the Turkish Jewish community, and, no doubt, joy in Iran and Hamas’ radical circles.

    The Turkey I know and admire would recoil from partners like Iran and Hamas. Their central beliefs are antithetical to everything that modern, democratic Turkey ought to stand for.

    And so, even as I worry, wonder, and despair, I’ll be watching, waiting, and, yes, hoping.