Publication
Omar Shaban Ismail · Sama News Agency · 2016
Omar Shaban argues that the Palestinian reaction to the restoration of Turkish–Israeli relations was emotional and reproachful and lacked rationality: like any state, Turkey is entitled to pursue its interests and could not sacrifice its strategic relationship with Israel for Gaza, despite trying to strike a balance. He holds that years of exaggerated praise raised expectations of Turkey, much as some applauded the Communist Party's election victory in Greece. He concludes that Palestine and the blockade are no longer international priorities, that Palestinian political thinking confuses other states' positions with its own wishes and bets on outside help, that the rapprochement could serve Palestinians because it is friends who make concessions to each other, and that the world must see its own interest in supporting Palestinians — which is their responsibility alone.
Omar Shaban, June 2016: the problem is not Turkey’s deal with Israel but an emotional Palestinian political thinking that relies on others.
The reaction of some Palestinians to the restoration of Turkish-Israeli relations was fully consistent with the Palestinian mode of political thinking for many decades: emotional, rebellious, reproachful, and lacking greatly in rationality, sound judgment, and maturity. Turkey, like any state in the world, has the right to pursue its interests in the way it deems appropriate. History has not recorded a single case of a state sacrificing its strategic interest for another state, no matter what that state may be. By contrast, history has recorded dozens of examples of states setting aside their emotions in order to take their interests into account. China, India, and many countries in Africa and Latin America, among others, are examples of such states. It is true that states have a duty to work toward respecting human rights, supporting the oppressed, and helping those in need, but the ability of states and their commitment to these principles vary from one state to another and from one time to another. It would be extremely naive even to think that a major state with a strategic vision, aspiring to be a regional power and actor, would behave emotionally. Turkey cannot sacrifice its strategic relationship with Israel—a deep-rooted and entrenched relationship, with both being allies of the United States—for the sake of Gaza. This is a normal situation, as many Arab and Islamic states do no more than what Turkey has done. It would be unfair to deny that Turkey tried hard to balance between the priority of supporting the Palestinian cause and its strategic relations with Israel, but it did not succeed. Therefore, there is no reason for shock over the Turkish-Israeli agreement; relations between states are governed by interests, not emotions.
The problem is not the Turkish position, but rather the method of political thinking and the standards by which we make our calculations. The exaggerated and continuous praise over the years of Turkey’s role has harmed it more than it benefited it, because it raised people’s expectations of it, making the collapse of their hopes severe. The continuous and futile attempts at the same time to portray Turkey as an innocent state acting with extreme romanticism have greatly harmed Turkey, because it is not like that. This excessive praise of Turkey’s role has obscured reality from its politicians and dulled their sense of where improvement is needed.
The Palestinian reaction to the restoration of Turkish-Israeli relations is not at all far removed from the reactions to statements supportive of the Palestinian position issued by Western and Eastern countries, while these same countries ultimately take positions consistent with their interests. What happened in the Security Council and the United Nations on many occasions is the best evidence of the great contradiction between statements and positions.
Just as many politicians and writers, out of profound ignorance, applauded the Communist Party’s victory in Greece in the parliamentary elections, imagining that the party’s victory was an indication of a radical change in Greek policy toward the Middle East, as though the Greek people—very friendly to the Palestinian cause, yet groaning under the pressure of economic hardship and enormous debt—had the luxury of caring about other issues and forgetting the pressing concerns weighing upon them.
The expected and entirely natural Turkish position, and the Palestinian reaction to it, raise important observations:
• The Palestinian cause and the siege on Gaza are no longer among the priorities of international policy; the world is preoccupied with new issues that are more urgent and pressing than the Palestinian situation.
• Palestinian political action and thinking confuse the positions that states can take with the wishes the Palestinian side has of them.
• The chronic state of incapacity suffered by the Palestinian political system pushes it to bet in a childish way on the positions of other states, as though it were waiting for relief and assistance from abroad.
• The Palestinian position, which greatly rejoices in statements issued by states, takes them as though they were its actual political position and approach.
In the end, my view, which I wrote years ago, may be summarized as follows:
• Turkish-Israeli reconciliation could serve the Palestinian situation, in application of a basic principle in politics: friends are the ones who make concessions to one another, not enemies. If Turkey wishes to help Palestine by influencing Israeli policy toward Gaza and Palestine, it must first enjoy a good relationship with Israel in order to be heard.
• The Turkish position should represent a new incentive to rationalize Palestinian political action toward more reason and fewer emotions. The millions of statements, articles, and programs supportive of the Palestinian cause are not sufficient to achieve our goal unless they are accompanied by internal Palestinian action characterized by rationality and professionalism, and based on strengthening the world’s interests with us.
The solution: for the world to align with us and support our positions, it must see its interest in doing so, and this is our responsibility alone.
Topic: Regional & International Politics — Turkey · Turkish-Israeli relations · Palestinian political thinking — Text © Sama News Agency — archived here with attribution to the source. — Original source