Monday, 29 December 2008Israel has carried out attacks on Hamas targets on last Saturday, and Sunday. More than 300 people have been killed and hundreds have also been wounded in the attacks. Since, many of the casualties were civilians; a huge reaction occurred at international community, moreover, numerous Muslims held protests against the attacks all over the world.
These attacks were carried out on the ground that the Hamas targeted civilians in Israel. The significance of the attacks can be analyzed under several sections among which the followings can be considered as more critical aspects of the issue.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the political climate in the Middle East has become relatively calm regardless of number of suicide attacks committed in the country. The agreement between the Iraqi government and the United States created a state in which future expectations grew stronger in and outside of Iraq. For the first time, enduring chaos and uncertainty in Iraq seemed to be changing.
The unpredictable tension between Iran and the US, hopefully, has not resulted in a real violence and tragedy at least until now.
Although, the terrorist attacks in India brought India and its neighboring country Pakistan to the edge of another conflict, thanks to the prudent leaders of these two countries, the world has ridden out of another storm.
Turkey, which has been under immense pressure from its public to rid the terrorists out of the country and out of Northern Iraq, has finally started to receive support from the Iraqi government and from the regional leadership. Such a political climate has created another impetus for stability of the region.
More importantly, the election results in the US increased the positive expectations in the world with regards to foreign policies of the US. The US President-elect Obama made people, not only in his country but all over the world; believe that the US foreign policy will witness a dramatic change from go-alone, exclusive, ethnocentric policies to more cooperative, inclusive policies and strategies. Yet the recent attacks in Gaza received almost no reaction from the US authorities except for a cold warning toward Hamas to end its attacks against Israel.
There are problematic and dichotomous points in this issue. First of all, the way the Israeli security forces reacted to attacks from Hamas is not proportional. Attacks of the Israeli army targeted civilians, security installations, and buildings most of which had no connection with the justifications of Israelis for such targeting. Second, the international community, in particular, the US, the UK, and the UN have not shown any significant reaction to lessen the tension. It seemed that they were not against the operation if not OK with it. Third, for Israel, the Hamas is a terrorist organization, yet the operations were held as the initial steps of a bigger war. Normally this situation does not fit to any description of a conflict between a legitimate state and a terrorist organization.
More perplexing and may be more frightening issue is that the war atmospheres of this kind have long been used by the terrorist organizations to justify their attacks against the West. 9/11 attacks in the US, March 2004 attacks in Madrid, and 7/7 attacks in London and the others have been carried out by the terrorist on the ground that the Western foreign policies are to destroy the Muslims, and they are not just. Thus, terrorist groups promote the idea that the only remaining option for these people is using terrorism.
From this point of view, it is fair to say that the recent attacks may create an unprecedented tension among the Muslim populations in Europe and other parts of the world. Moreover, this situation can play a triggering effect for the individuals as well. If radicalization is a process which needs breeding grounds for new recruits, then the last attacks will be a fertilizer.
The Western countries should do more and play an active role to release the tension in the region. These countries should reflect the feelings of their own people in their countries. A kind of “deniable plausibility” approach by the Western countries will not eradicate the aforementioned risks. In such a circumstance, the western countries will be the vulnerable ones, not Israel.
These attacks unfortunately could be a benchmark for those who claim that the tension in the region is something that Israel needs the most.
One of the most unique, difficult to comprehend and yet conspicuous reaction came from Mahmud Abbas, who almost openly blamed Hamas for these attacks and refrained from addressing Israel’s disproportionate use of force. But his “unique position” does not change the fact that in the past, the very same country has treated his mentor and everlasting leader Arafat similarly.
Not only have these attacks destroyed the positive political environment into desolation of uncertainty, they also created a fragile situation in the region. The US foreign policy perception, which is the only determining factor for Israel to stop the attacks, will be affected. Obama, who could be a peace facilitator before the attacks, instead of capitalizing from the positive political environment, will now have to increase the threshold from a peace maker to a crisis manager role.
Stability, peace and prosperity are the pillars of the underlying conditions for an environment which will rid radicalization out of the world. Unless these three things come together the Middle East will continue to witness turmoil which has been used by the terrorists to recruit new members. If legitimacy is one of the most important factors for the stability of the region, then the use of force needs to be proportionate. In the case of conflict, the other countries should be aware of the fact that their positions will have side effects. Even though they may not be part of the conflict, they may be affected from it as well.
Denying this fact will not render the possible outcomes. Overcoming this unfortunate situation necessitates all the concerned parties, including the US, the EU countries, the parties of the conflict, and more importantly regional countries one of which is Turkey, to come to the table for a plausible conclusion of peace in this area.
President-elect Obama could be a chance to ease the tension, if he proposes a different approach toward how peace efforts can reach to a positive conclusion. But he should do so with the assistance from regional countries. In this context, considering Turkey’s performance in orchestrating the negotiations between Syria and Israel, Turkey can be a key country as a moderator between parties of conflict once again.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suleyman Ozeren |
Monday, 29 December 2008
Journal of Turkish Weekly
|
|
