SDE Director Prof. Dr. Yasin Aktay talked about “The Peace Perspectives in the Middle East and Turkey’s Existent and Possible Role to Provide the Peace” by participating in the European Parliament Middle East Study Group in Strasbourg.
Arguing that the policy pursued by Turkey in the international relations recently is based upon a serious change in paradigm, Mr. Aktay said that certain parameters of the new paradigm are based on an understanding that enables to improve the relations with neighbor countries rather than regarding them as hostile and freezing the relations. “Instead of fettering itself with the frozen relations, Turkey realizes the limitless advantages of a new international arena by daring to overcome the problems with its neighbors.” said Mr. Aktay.
Mr. Aktay also said that with a “zero problem” policy adopted as the ideal in the region, Turkey can solve many of the problems just with this intention although it has not reached the ideal yet. After saying that Turkey has taken significant roles in order to solve the insurmountable problems in the Middle East, he added:
“Having held a mediatory position between Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine, Turkey felt deeply disappointed and deluded upon Israel’s air attacks on Gaza which happened just one day after the meeting at which the President Erdoğan and Ehud Olmert talked for hours; for Turkey believed that it had covered a lot of ground in the negotiations with Syria. The tragic outcomes of the attacks caused the Turkish nation to feel a deeper anger towards Israel more than a feeling of delusion. The anger towards Israel is not a rootless feeling; yet it was activated by Israel’s attitudes. That is why, the President Erdoğan’s well-known remark at Davos- “one minute”- was appreciated by the Turkish nation and aroused great sympathy in a great number of Arab countries. Mr. Erdoğan’s increasing criticism of the politics of Israel made him the best representative figure of the feelings of the collective feelings in the Muslim world. It may seem as an anti-Israel picture, but if peace is desired in the region, it has increased the chance of Mr.Erdoğan’s being a negotiator in order to provide the peace in the region. Although Israel complains about Mr.Erdoğan’s criticisms, only the people who are able to gain confidence by daring to say the mistakes clearly for the solution of the problems with the Arabs, can have an active role. Because of his popularity in the Muslim world, Mr. Erdoğan, in contrast to expectations- has further increased his chance of being an important actor in the Arab-Israel peace negotiations. If Israel indeed wants peace, what Israel needs in order to provide peace will be nothing but Mr. Erdoğan’s this profile.
In fact, if peace is wanted, the peace is provided between two parties. If there is an evident problem, this problem is discussed by the ones involved not by the outside forces. At this point, there cannot be a matter of liking each other for the parties. Frankly, the ones that are in search of another party because they do not like the actual one are condemned to live with this problem forever. After some time, you realize that they, in fact, like the deadlock more than the solution of the problem. Therefore, considering the Israel-Palestine problem, Israel and the so-called negotiators under the influence of Israel exclude the real parties of the problem-for instance Hamas- and therefore there is no basis of the peace that they are trying to reach. However, five years ago Hamas believed the promise of finding the alternative of the armed struggle in the politics by means of the elections, but his victory in the elections was not acknowledged and thus it became a real major blow to the democratic alternative.
Today we must be more realistic. If the security of Israel is wanted, we have to admit that this security can never be kept with Israel’s occupation policy. Thus, we can argue that the plan which will be presented to you in detail by Alon Ben-Meir, which is also known as the Arab Peace Initiative, contains at least the minimum requirements on which it is possible to agree even it is not the ideal for the ones that are sincerely in search of peace and justice. This plan includes the recognition of Israel by the Arab countries, Israel’s withdrawal from all the lands that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace, the formation of a two-state structure, and the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. For the acceptance and practice of this plan, Turkey has a very convenient position as of today. Turkey has this position especially for its decent impression on the Palestinians to act fairly without ignoring the mistakes of the parties. And if Israel is not comfortable with Turkey’s position, Israel has to admit that it is more convenient for it if it really wants its own peace and security”.
Taking the floor after Mr. Aktay, Alon Ben-Meir explained that the Arab Peace Initiative was the best solution with no alternatives in order to solve the Arab-Israel problem. Ben-Meir argued that a violent atmosphere or a wave of violence became a barrier for the people to talk on many things. For instance, the initiative issue that has been on the agenda since 2002, every time has been hindered by suicide attacks or the missiles of Gaza to Israel or Israel’s severe attacks on the Palestinians. And today it is a great advantage that violence has not been on the agenda for a long time. It will be very good if we turn it into an advantage, act accordingly, and make an improvement. One-state solution-the binational solution- may seem better; yet in this solution Israel has the intention to bring Palestinians into line with harsh measures in the long run while Palestine aims to threaten Israel’s security with their population growth and domestic struggle. In short, because it does not seem possible for two nations to live together in peace, two-state solution should be accepted. Now that even Ariel Sharon and the Palestinians agree on it, it means that there is a starting point or a reference point. In none of the peace negotiations so far there is a reference text; but as a reference text the Arab Peace Initiative is a facilitator. All the members of Arab Union agree on it. Until now everyone has handled the issue merely considering the power relations and economic side of it; yet what is really needed is to change this mentality. Israel’s consideration of occupation for security as a solution is extremely wrong. Now it must have been realized that occupation does not bring security, but it brings more insecurity. Furthermore, Palestine should admit that Israel is a permanent and real state in the region.
There are some principle conditions in the Arab Peace Initiatives. It includes the foundation of an independent Palestinian state with the capital city of Western Jerusalem and also accordingly this plan contains conditions for Israel’s security. Especially because Israel has some safety concerns for the long term, these concerns should be dealt with clearly. Two-state solution, compensation to the Palestinian immigrants for their victimization due to the Jewish settlement, and the return of the Golan Heights to Syria with a fair solution of a joint settlement again is the only way for a viable and sustainable solution. The Arab Peace Initiative is quite clear on these issues. What Arab states should do now is to develop their solutions actively and uncompromisingly. However in order to achieve this, they should start from changing their political accounts and expressing the Arab nations that peace with Israel is the best solution for the national interests of the Arab states.
Lastly, even if the greatest obstacle to the peace between the Arabs and Israelis is not the land, it is crystal clear that Israel should withdraw from all the lands that it has somehow occupied since 1967.
After Alon Ben-Meir’s speech, the discussion session started.
As a response to the question of a parliamentarian-“Hamas is among the list of terrorist countries of Europe and the USA. Do you think it is right to deal with it?”-, Mr. Aktay replied by saying “Israel is also known as a terrorist even as an occupant and is not recognized by all the Arab states and even in the whole Muslim world. However, today there is an actual atmosphere and Israel is a reality in the region. It should be taken into consideration that while the Arab Peace Initiative recognized Israel, the exclusion of Hamas, which is an outcome of the sociological realities in the region, does never serve the solution of the problem. Besides, Hamas, in contrast to the assumptions, is not just an organization composed of a few simple militants. Hamas is a reality with increasing legitimacy and the ability of representation as long as Israeli attacks and expansionism continue. Whether you like it or not, this is an unchanging reality and if you really want peace in the region, you have to deal with the actual parties instead of the ones that you choose and like. It is always an unchanging rule that when there is no political solution, there will be a search for solution with radical ways out of politics. If today Hamas resort to violence, it must have been because of coming to a deadlock in politics for the solution of problems. This should also be taken into consideration”.
The same question was replied by Alon Ben-Meir and he said, “At first Halid Meshal’s visit to Turkey and his acceptance by Mr. Erdoğan and Mr. Davutoğlu was severely criticized and interpreted as an interest of the current Justice and Development Party (AKP) Administration in Islam; yet as time passed it was clearly understood that this interest and relation in fact harbored great advantages”.
Another parliamentarian asked whether Hamas was supported by other Arab states and what the relation between Iran and Hamas was. Mr. Aktay answered this question by saying “As long as there is an obvious problem, the states in the region want to play their own roles in terms of this problem. Considering Hamas, it is certainly impossible to think that Arab states are comfortable with it. However, we cannot say the same thing for the people of these states. Today as long as Israel pursues its present aggressive policies, it is likely to see that the Muslim people continue to sympathize with Hamas as a reaction to Israeli policies. It is never enough to call Hamas as a terrorist for the solution of the problem and it also causes an islamophobic discourse in the Muslim world”.
Another parliamentarian asked about the sustainability and future of the agreement on nuclear exchange signed recently with Iran and Mr. Aktay replied, “I have no authority to deliver an official opinion for Turkey; for I speak as an academician and an intellectual. Turkey’s attitude towards this issue is quite clear: Nuclear energy technology is a common property of the whole humanity and every state has the right to reach it. However, nuclear weapons are not a right of anyone, neither Iran’s nor any other country’s. With a diplomatic success achieved by no prominent state of the world, Turkey built confidence with Iran and made an agreement on nuclear exchange. From now on, the ones that do not recognize it, should indicate clearly what they really want. Turkey does not make an agreement with Iran by taking the possibility of being deceived by Iran. As long as Iran or any other party agrees on the agreement, I suppose Turkey will not be the one that breaks the agreement. The existence of nuclear weapons in the region is never approved by Turkey, as well. Besides, there is another point on which we should also focus: The production of nuclear weapons by Iran is merely a possibility, yet there is Israel in the region, which still has a nuclear weapon, and no one remembers when and how Israel had this weapon. Is Israel considered to have a peaceful role in the region? Its policies until now illustrate that it is the last possibility”.
As a reply to the same question, Alon Ben-Meir objected to Mr. Aktay by stating that they did not find it reasonable and right to make a comparison between the conditions of Israel and of Iran in terms of nuclear weapons.