12 July 2010 By Mshari Al-Zaydi Ever since a detachment of Israeli troops stormed
the Turkish aid ship the Mavi Marmara that was part of
the Freedom Flotilla bound for Gaza, and which
resulted in Israeli troops killing a number of
activists, dozens of newspaper articles and television
talk shows in the Arab world have followed up on this
issue. I studied a portion of this media response, the
majority of which went down the path of weeping and
wailing and insulting Israel and insulting those who
failed to insult Israel. Some newspapers and writers
even began a "witch hunt" against those who dealt with
this issue and analyzed it with calmness and
composure. The argument was that some people did not
sufficiently support the Freedom Flotilla and those on
board, and did not completely and unequivocally take
their side, as if everybody who is involved in the
profession of writing should have dropped everything
to become a weeping protestor, or even take up arms
[against Israel]. This is despite the fact that we
have indeed been doing this for almost a century. Personally, I did not write about Gaza and the
Freedom Flotilla crisis because of urgent concerns,
however this has given me an opportunity to reflect
upon what has been written in the press and stated on
our television screens about what happened. In order not to be misunderstood as usual I
would like to first say that the debate is not about
the moral description of Israel's actions. This was a
crime, nothing less, and I do not think that anybody
with any conscience could disagree with this
description. There is also nothing wrong in fact it is
perfectly natural for people to protest in
solidarity with the victims of this crime, and against
its perpetrators. This is normal human behavior and a
spontaneous response. The media outlets that covered
this response were obligated to do so as part of their
professional duty, namely to report and comment on
news stories, and this is something that is carried
out by all media outlets around the world. There is nothing to worry about even if some
"opinion" articles echo these protestors and their
anger, especially as we are generally known to belong
to an emotional and expressive culture in which
resounding rhetoric plays an important role. In fact,
some people look upon writing as a kind of general
"jihad." The problem starts when some writers grow annoyed
at our attempts to analyze and question the reasons
behind the recent Turkish behaviour, and the behaviour
of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. For
example, there was Erdogan's walk-out at the World
Economic Forum in Davos more than a year ago following
an angry exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres,
and he has also made repeated references to Turkey's
greatness and its new regional role. Erdogan has also
publicly acknowledged his country's relationship with
the Hamas organization and others, opposed
international sanctions against Iran, and cooperated
along with Brazilian President [Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva] with Iran to this effect, not to mention the
Freedom Flotilla and Erdogan's carefully planned, of
course inflammatory speech against Israel. All of this represents a new shift in Turkey's
foreign policy; however on closer look this shift is
not completely new. Secular Turkish officials have
been issuing statements in support of the Palestinian
Cause since 1967, as the writer Adel al-Turaifi
explained in an analytical article on Turkey's
transformation published by Asharq Al-Awsat last
Wednesday. In this article, al-Turaifi said that
Erdogan's use of Palestinian issues as a means to
exert international pressure for Turkish policies
represents something new. This represents a startling transformation in a
pivotal country that represents one of the pillars in
the Middle East, and which has an important historical
and political heritage, as well as economic strength,
and strategic importance to the US and the West. In
that case, wouldn't such a transformation call for
careful analysis and examination, or should we just
blindly applaud Erdogan for fear of being branded
apathetic or traitors? The duty of any writer is to think outside of the
box, to turn things over in his mind and try to view
the situation from a different angle, this is not out
of a love for going against the "mainstream" but out
of a desire to see the bigger picture, rather than
just one corner of the picture that only reveals a
fragment of the truth. Is Turkey's Ottoman history behind Ankara's current
shift in foreign policy or is this motivated by a
desire to spite Europe for its reluctance to admit
Turkey into the European Union? Is this new foreign policy stimulated by Turkey's
perception of Iran's political isolation and the
Arab's weak presence and Ankara's resultant fear of
the imbalance of powers in the Middle East which has
caused it to step forward to bridge this gap? Or perhaps Turkey's new foreign policy is
economically motivated? Given that Turkey is a constitutionally secular
state, a member of NATO, and a strategic European and
American ally, and that there is a large US military
base in Turkey, and that Ankara enjoys military and
security cooperation with Israel and follows a
moderate form of Islam, supports the two-state
solution, and is against military action by militant
groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, could Turkey be
acting with the consent of the US and some Arab
countries in order to reduce the Iranian role in the
region and take over championship of the Arab street
from Tehran? In short, isn't it true that Turkey is a country
whose mode of struggle is comfortable [for the West]
whereas Iran is a state without borders, a
constitution, or ideological boundaries? Other assumptions must be carefully examined and
analyzed in order to try and understand why Turkey is
doing what it is doing under Erdogan's leadership. Is Erdogan a fraudulent Islamist or a Turkish
nationalist with an Islamic touch? Or are we truly seeing a new version of Islamism
that has risen under special circumstances, namely
almost a century in post-Kemalist Turkey? Does Erdogan represent a new type of Muslim
politician, one that combines Sufi intensity,
political activism, and national patriotism? Or is he nothing more than a man seeking fame and
fortune? Is Erdogan a new Ottoman Caliph, or a Turkish
General who secretly despises the Arabs, or something
completely different? Or is he nothing more than a man acting within the
borders of the new Turkish regional role? More questions than answers, however those who
specialise in Turkish affairs and who have observed
the situation in the country in the past are able to
answer such questions, and it would be far better if
we looked for these answers and examined them rather
than mindlessly protesting. The problem is that such vicious campaigns that
accuse anybody who tries to think carefully in the
heat of battle of treason is something that is
recurrent in our Arab media, from the 2006
Israel-Hezbollah war, to the recent Gaza War, and now
the Freedom Flotilla. Prior to all of this, there were
the numerous wars waged by Saddam Hussein, and before
that anybody who dared to criticize [Egyptian
President] Gamal Abdel Nasser prior to the 1967 [Six
Day war] defeat was branded as a traitorous devil.
This same response and frenzy is something that has
always remained the same, and this causes one to
wonder; does the Arab mentality suffer from a
collective and deep-seated neurosis, even amongst
those who seem to be calm and wise? Ironically, some Arab intellectuals who are known
for their revolutionary dispositions like Kuwaiti
Islamist and political sciences professor Dr. Abdullah
al Nafaisi takes up positions that are not shared by
the mainstream. Dr. al Nafaisi recently gave a lecture
at a forum organized by the Kuwaiti Bureau of National
Unity in which he said, "The most dangerous thing
about politics is that it is dealt with emotionally,
as can be seen with the emotion and publicity towards
Turkey and Erdogan." This is something that can also
be seen in a position taken by the spiritual father of
the Nursi movement in Turkey, Fetullah Gulen, who
criticized the way that the Turkish government handled
the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla, arguing that the
Freedom Flotilla should have worked to obtain Israeli
consent before travelling to Gaza rather than
challenging Israel. It is hard to accuse al Nafaisi or Gulen of giving
in to the West or committing treason, despite their
views that go against the mainstream. We do not know
how those who love to accuse others of treason would
react to the statements made by al Nafaisi or Gulen,
unless of course they already set their sights on a
particular target. In any case, what has been said in this article is
not debate or analysis on the latest Turkish
positions, but rather this is a quick analysis of the
position taken up by some Arab figures that have grown
annoyed and exasperated at our attempts to understand
and analyze Turkey's recent behavior I fear that the day will come when the profession
of thinking will become a crime, as this is something
that disturbs the noisy mainstream.
A Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi affairs. Mshari is Asharq Al-Awsats opinion page Editor, where he also contributes a weekly column. Has worked for the local Saudi press occupying several posts at Al -Madina newspaper amongst others. He has been a guest on numerous news and current affairs programs as an expert on Islamic extremism.
Comments 💬 التعليقات |