Israel continues its offensives in Gaza that it began on December 27. The death toll reached 770 at the end of thirteenth day, with civilians accounting for one quarter of the deaths. Although many Arab columnists had interpreted the election of Obama as a new era for the region and had high expectations for him, the last events caused pessimism, particularly on the basis of his long silence.          
In spite of Hamas’ preference for the ground operation against Israel, the number of dead and injured people continues to increase.  Apart from the violence in the offensive, another striking situation is the reactions of the other Arab countries and Turkey on the matter.

The US and Its Allies in the Middle East

We are aware of the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance against that of Egypt-Saudi Arabia-Jordan in the region.  Needless to say, the encouraging factor for the offensives is the US and the allies of the US and Israel.            
Arab countries, not representing their people because of unfair elections, perceive Hamas and other religious-based organizations as a threat to their regimes. The reason for such a perception is the rising popularity of Islamic groups in these countries after the 1980s because of improvements in the international arena, weak secular opposition in these countries, and – whether they are legal or not – the Islamic opposition’s grassroots networks which provide a good ground for their  popularity. After the operations thousands took the streets to protest Israel and unreactive governments. Although the president of Israel, Shimon Peres, said that they are not making ‘public relations’ they are fighting against terrorism, it is not wrong to say that these latest attacks contributed to rising of Hamas’ popularity – like other Islamic groups – in Cairo, San’a, Beirut, Damascus, Ankara, Istanbul, and many of other cities in the world.

Referring to the statements of Arab leaders, famous Egyptian columnist Fahmi Huwaidi argues that today Arab regimes are “playing the game openly”. [1] For example Hosni Mubarak and Mahmud Abbas explicitly condemned and called attention to Hamas’ responsibility for the attacks, saying they had already warned Hamas about what would happen in the future.  Although there are many casualties, the moderate (mu’tedil) countries’ discourse is very soft and, after the ground operation, the leaders are criticizing Israel very carefully.
Many Arabs have been following the events in Gaza on Al Jazeera news, since they trust it more than their national channels.  Today it is not a surprise to see an Egyptian watching Al Jazeera in his small village home and hearing the critics to his own leaders in his own language, Arabic. In the first evening of the Israeli offensives, the political wing leader of Hamas, Halid Mashal, called all Arabs to pressure their governments and recalled Egypt’s previous wars against Israel to show the issue’s continued importance. The world is watching Al Jazeera’s round-the-clock broadcasts  on the events in Gaza. They see Gazans lying on the ground and showing their forefingers when they are dying, repeating shahadah; they see the dead bodies of children. At the same time the meaning of these broadcasts is ‘your leaders are the allies of the US and Israel’.

We also see Iran’s increasing sphere of influence over Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, and Israel, the US and the Arab allies’ fear of exploitation of these events by Iran to spread its political effect in the region. The Israeli attacks coincided with the probable Syrian-Israeli indirect peace negotiations and its possible positive effects on Lebanon. Today it is expected that Hamas and other religious groups will slip to the Iranian-Hezbollah block and, by taking the example of the 2006 Hezbollah resistance against Israel, the influence of shia groups among the sunni groups will increase more than before.

The Most Criticized Country: Egypt  
After the Israeli offensive, Hosni Mubarak and Mahmud Abbas received adverse criticism from the Gaza supporters. From Lebanon to Yemen, crowds demonstrated in front of the Egyptian Embassies.  Because of its moderate and mediator role in the region, Egypt is in a very difficult situation following the attacks.  After all the complex events, it is not wrong to say that Egypt is suffering the most today since the Iraq invasion of 2003.

Another point in the last days is that although it opened the crossing one year ago, Egypt has refused to open the Rafah crossing in the current situation. Egypt mediated between Israel and Hamas for a long time, finally reaching a tacit agreement for a cease-fire, but on December 19 Hamas declared that while the siege continues it will not continue the cease fire.  The killing of a Palestinian after the attacks when he was crossing the Egyptian side proves that there is a strict prohibition on the border. When we look at the state-owned media of Egypt we see a great emphasis on the humanitarian aid flowing from Egypt to Gaza, but in the independent newspapers, Egypt is portrayed as having the most responsibility for the increase of humanitarian crisis.
Mubarak has been accused of giving Tzipi Livni a green light for the operation two days before the operation. Livni had talked to Mubarak, the Egyptian Chief of National Intelligence, and the Foreign Minister about the rising number of Hamas rockets and the increasing demand from Knesset for an operation. Palestinian columnist Ibrahim Hammami argues that Israel preferred to make the attacks at 11.30 to coincide with students leaving their schools. He says that the information given by the Egyptian officials to Hamas to guarantee “no operation by Israel” and beginning of a new cease fire  was serving to mislead Hamas.[2] The guarantee given by the Egyptians was broadcast by Al Jazeera on Friday night as well.

Hamas’ unanswered pressure to open the Rafah crossing increased accusations against Egypt. If it opens the crossing, it will assume responsibility for Gaza. Keeping Rafah closed will also speed Hamas’ submission to Israel.  Egypt, receiving 1.4 billion dollars annually in US aid, is one of the most strategic allies in the region. Citing the legal procedures, diplomatic relations, and burden of 1.5 million people, Egypt refuses to open the crossing. Mubarak stated that he is not planning to open Rafah unless Mahmud Abbas takes over Gaza. If Egypt opens Rafah the passing of Gazans will lead to insufficient economic sources.

Another important point for Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which was the mother organization for Hamas from the beginning.  Although the Brotherhood has been banned since 1954 and doesn’t have a legal party, it still represents the most powerful opposition with its independent MPs in the Assembly. Brotherhood leader Musrhid Muhammad Mahdi Akef participated in the demonstrations against Israel and repeated his organization’s support for Hamas.  Naturally, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology is closer to Hamas while the ideology of the Egyptian regime is closer to al-Fatah. From this point of view, the opening of the crossing means that it will contribute to the cooperation between Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Mubarak has to either allow the opening of Rafah and help Hamas members while he fights with an Islamic group inside, or be criticized by the Arab people and lose his legitimacy in their eyes.

Iran has been an important rival for Egypt for almost two decades. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Shah was welcomed by Anwar Sadat, reflecting the close relationship between Israel and Egypt. The Camp David Accords were another important factor for the severance of relations between the two countries. Although in the last months there has been an effort to repair Iran’s relations with Egypt and the Gulf countries by beginning diplomatic meetings and telephone conversations between Mubarak and Ahmadinajad, despite these efforts Egypt continues to be reluctant about the full normalization of relations. Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and support for Hamas – although it is a sunni organization – in Gaza make Iran a less preferable and more dangerous ally when Gulf countries and Egypt compare the second alternative – alliance with the US and Israel.

Turkey’s Reaction

Although since the 1990s Turkey and Israel have had a strong strategic relationship, and the Israeli people have a favorable impression of Turkey, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan harshly criticized Israel for its disproportionate attacks against Gaza. It was not the first time Turkey has objected to Israel’s treatment of Hamas and Palestine. For example, in 2002, previous Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said, “Isreal is committing genocide.” After the assassination of Hamas leader Ahmad Yasin in 2004 Erdogan had called Israel a “terrorist state.” But in January 2006 Erdogan delivered a speech to the newspaper El-Pais, stating that Hamas must recognize the Israeli State and Turkey may play a role between Israel and Palestine. One month later, the Hamas Political Bureau, including Halid Mashal, visited Turkey for two days.

However the recent events had another meaning for Turkey because of Olmert’s visit three days before the attacks. Turkey had burnished its reputation as a key regional mediator with its efforts, since May, to mediate between Syria and Israel. Although the negotiations were indirect and a positive result was not expected before Obama’s term, Olmert talked to Erdogan in hopes of progressing to direct talks. On the first day of the Israeli offensive Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said, "I was thinking of calling [Israeli Premier] Olmert in regard to the Israeli-Syrian talks, but I decided not to call him [due to Israel's air strikes on Gaza]." When Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was talking about the Middle East peace process, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the negotiations between Syria and Israel under Turkey's mediation, it was not known that he was lying to Turkish officials in front of millions. In the same day Ismail Haniya had also called Erdogan to talk to Olmert regarding the siege of Gaza.

Erdogan did not want to be in the same position as Mubarak for having met with Olmert before the attacks, and claimed the Israeli Premier deceived him in front of millions to preserve his party’s domestic power. Although Turkey is criticized by some for behaving like a spokesperson of Hamas, at the same time it supports the recognition of Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian factions with the hope of peace in the region. While the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel were suspended, and Turkey said that it will not continue as a mediator between the two countries, it is expected that will resume this effort in the future due to its emotional and historical links with the region. In the meantime, Sarkozy and Mubarak are very keen to undertake the mediator role if Turkey refuses this position in favor of Israel, but should it choose to maintain its position, Turkey must continue to keep balanced relations with its neighbors, including Israel, and the U.S. because in the eyes of Arabs, Iran, and Hamas the only respected and trustable country today is Turkey.

A inside criticism to Erdogan’s reaction is that Turkey is skipping from the US-EU block to the Middle East more frequently, and he is talking to persuade his voters. It must be remembered that in a democratic country a top official must represent his citizens, and today many Islamists and secularists in Turkey are against Israeli attacks. Yet when compared to the region’s autocrat regimes, Erdogan’s sensibility is unusual indeed.

[1]Fahmi Huwaidi, “????? ??? ???????”(To Play Openly), El-Dostor, 03.01.2009

[2]Ibrahim Hammami, “?? ???? ???” (Who Surprised Whom?), www.palestine-info.info/ar , 01.01.2009

Serpil ACIKALIN           

Middle East Desk – USAK           
sacikalin@usak.org.tr