Turkey’s gaffe-prone PM Ecevit irritates his main regional ally
It would be no ordinary event if a prime minister said, «We want war in the Middle East, not peace.» Well, it may be if the man has a rich record of lapsus linguae. It caused embarrassment when Bulent Ecevit, the Turkish prime minister, praised «Turkey’s excellent relations with Israel» after meeting with former US President Bill Clinton as he mistook the Jewish state for America. It caused similar embarrassment when he promised prompt «earthquake aid» to Turkish flood victims; or when he condemned Russia «for its bad treatment of the Uighur minority in East Turkestan,» mistaking Russia for China. Shortly after Mr Ecevit referred to Hamid Karzai, leader of Afghanistan’s interim government, as «general manager of Afghanistan,» Bekir Coskun, a prominent Turkish columnist, suggested that the government set up a «gaffe management bureau» to repair the damage after Mr Ecevit makes a public statement. But Turkey’s Jewish friends thought it went beyond a simple slip of the tongue when Mr Ecevit called Israel’s military offensive against Palestinian civilians «genocide.» Although he probably meant «massacre,» the prime minister broke many Jewish hearts in Tel Aviv and, more importantly, in Washington. In protest, the Jewish American Friends of Turkey, a lobby group, decided to dissolve itself, but later gave up the idea. All the same, Mr Ecevit’s quasi-apologies that «I am sorry to have offended…» or «I did not mean to…» have failed to win Jewish hearts. The Jews want something more than a mere apology. Jewish groups in the US Congress want Mr Ecevit «to retract his statement, not to apologize.» The trouble is, Mr Ecevit has no intention of doing so at a time when his coalition government has come under political pressure to distance itself from «the butcher of Sabra and Shatila.» Turkish reactions to the Middle East drama, however, are not homogeneous. The Islamists and Marxists, who have categorically opposed Turkey’s strategic alliance with the Jewish state, take the front lines in anti-Jewish protests. Recai Kutan, leader of an Islamist opposition party, has asked the government to suspend all diplomatic ties with Israel. Mr Kutan has even argued that the Palestinian suicide bombers «resort to violence because they have been left with no other choice.» Politicians are notorious hypocrites, but Mr Kutan’s statement was quite over the line in a country that has lost nearly 40,000 lives in 15 years of separatist terrorism. Fortunately, no anti-Semitic violence has so far been reported in Turkey. Demonstrations are neither frequent nor massive, apart from those weekly protests after Friday prayers, and those even less frequent ones by groups of leftist and Islamist students at university campuses. A campaign to turn off home lights at 9 p.m. sharp every day to express solidarity with the Palestinians has failed to attract many enthusiasts. Although they disapprove of the Israeli violence against civilians in Palestinian cities, most Turks seem to remember that the Kurdish separatist terror was born at Syrian-controlled camps in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. They also seem to remember their deep historical hostilities with most of their Arab neighbors. Ertugrul Ozkok, editor in chief of the mass circulation Hurriyet, argued that «this is a kind of reciprocity… the Turks protest the massacre of the Palestinians as silently as the Arabs had protested the massacre of the Turks throughout the history.» Such were the times when the Israeli Independence Day was celebrated in Ankara. Few social events could have been timed worse. Unlike other national day celebrations, only one Turkish Cabinet minister showed up at the Israeli reception, only to shake hands with David Sultan, Israel’s ambassador to Ankara, and to have a quick drink in less than three minutes and leave. As evidence of the policy differences between the government and the military, one general and four lieutenant generals from the Turkish General Staff were present at the event, along with two former air force commanders. For the government, Middle East developments are a nuisance that may have (negative) political repercussions and therefore must be «handled with care.» For the military, it is a nuisance that should leave no trace on «our long-term strategic alliance with Israel.» On the surface, the former may look like Turkish policy. In reality it is the latter that counts.
