Turkey's Foreign Policy In Serious Disarray

Realistically speaking, no single nation has the power to solve the long-standing dispute between Palestine and Israel in the Middle East alone since the latter began a ground invasion over the weekend against the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip following 10 days of air bombardment.

Israel initiated the invasion on the grounds that Hamas militants controlling Gaza had not stopped launching rockets toward Israeli cities. This comes as Israeli attacks have already taken the lives of hundreds of civilians.

Yet each nation, in particular the ones located in the region, has a big role to play in contributing to a collective effort and enabling a peaceful settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis.

The question then arises as to what NATO member Turkey's contribution can be to a lasting peace in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a conflict whose tragic consequences are not only the destruction of human lives but the destruction of stability.

Despite the facts that Turkey's eastern border neighbors the Middle East, it has a largely Muslim population, a secular Constitution, and above all Ottoman ancestors that ruled the region for about 400 years, Turkey has never had an important influence over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This is mainly due to the fact that since its creation as a state in 1923, Turkey has largely refrained from being a major player in this neighborhood.

It was only under the current conservative and Islam-sensitive government that Turkey focused its attention on the problems in the Middle East, which has been engulfed in the turmoil of the Arab uprisings over the last several years, while pursuing policies to increase Turkey's influence in the region.

Turkey's foreign policy shift under the current government is usually described as neo-Ottomanism, (terminology denied by Ankara) a Turkish political ideology that promotes greater political engagement with regions formerly under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, its predecessor state.

But the Turkish strategy of influence has backfired in parallel to Ankara's -- what I will describe as unrealistic -- policy of reviving Ottomanism, which neglects the current realities of the region as well as its limited influence in the region.

Added to the concern has been presidential candidate and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's increased use of his authoritarian instincts in the governance of the nation, restricting all sorts of freedoms internally while departing from a rational foreign policy objective. This policy has already irritated Turkey's Western allies and Arab neighbors alike.

Now, after the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza, Erdoğan blasted Israel, Turkey's one time ally, saying Israel's attacks on Gaza have “surpassed Hitler in barbarism,” and that this nation is committing genocide, among other things.

But Erdoğan's rhetoric does not match his policies on Israel as they are felt on ground.

He has come under severe criticism in Turkey and is accused of pursuing a double standard in his Israeli policies. Opposition parties accused him of continuing increased trade relations with Israel behind the scenes, for instance, behavior that does not match his severe criticism of Israel.

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, chairman of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), this past Sunday, claimed that Erdoğan's son Bilal, who is implicated in a high profile corruption scandal, was allegedly using the maritime fleet he owns to ship oil for the Israeli fighter jets and tanks that are attacking the civilians in Gaza.

Israel's invasion of Gaza has also fallen victim to Turkey's internal politics ahead of the presidential election in Turkey that is due to take place in August and in which Erdoğan is competing against two opposition candidates.

Erdoğan, who is leading in the opinion polls for the presidential race, has increased the dose of his offensive rhetoric against Israel, in particular, provoking rural and conservative Turks against this Jewish state.

Yet his rhetoric does not help with any possible Turkish contribution to a much-needed cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. On the contrary, Turkish policy toward Israel has a negative impact on the possibility of a lasting cease-fire to stop Israel's ground incursion.

An important sign of Turkey's waning influence in the region is that Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN, met with several leaders from the Middle East to facilitate a cease-fire between Palestinians and Israelis. He did not include Turkey in his program.

Erdoğan has been burning bridges, not just with Turkey's Western allies, but with many Arab neighbors also. Under his rule, Ankara has increasingly been accused of taking sides with extremist groups such as Hamas in Palestine or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS has now renamed itself the Islamic State and is still holding over 45 Turkish hostages, including diplomatic personnel, in Mosul, taken after ISIS invaded Iraq in June.

The Turkish opposition blames Erdoğan and his government for giving support not only to ISIS, but also to al-Nusra, another extreme radical Islamic group, fighting in Syria.

Turkey has already lost its impartiality in the ongoing civil war in Syria by extending support to moderate opposition fighters, i.e., the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which has already lost influence in Syria and been replaced by extreme Islamic fighters.

Even if accusations that the Turkish government has been giving support to extreme radical groups fighting against Syrian regime turn out to be false, Ankara has long been perceived, both internationally and domestically, as a country that has bizarre relations with unwelcome non-state actors such as jihadists.

There is an urgent need for Ankara to readjust its foreign policy to become a credible and respected partner with Western allies as well as with its Arab neighbors. But I have doubts that the Turkish government will do so.

LALE KEMAL (Cihan/Today's Zaman)