Armenian Genocide: Millions Killed and Forgotten

Turkey has always denied the death of 1.5 million Armenian Christians as genocide, blaming it on civil war at the time.

On December 24, 2010, the United States once again avoided diplomatic difficulties with a Nato ally, Turkey. The House of Representatives ended its term by not putting forward a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. This resolution is unlikely to be passed by the Congress in the next term because the next house speaker, John Boehner, does not support it.

According to the Independent, supporters of the resolution had high hopes for it to be passed before the term ended because the outgoing speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had previously supported the resolution.

Turkey is an important ally of the US in the Middle East playing a supporting role in the Iraq War and has helped the US in the past on other war fronts. Turkish governments have always denied the death of 1.5 million Armenian Christians as genocide, blaming it on general anarchy and civil was at that time. However, historians term it as the first holocaust of the 20th century, of which documentary and photographic proof also exists.

Genocide roots in the Ottoman Empire

Within the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were generally concentrated in the eastern provinces. According to the Dhimmi system in the Ottoman Empire the non-Muslims were subjected to over-taxation and limited legal freedoms. Generally referred to as infidels or unbelievers, they were not considered equal to Muslims. Testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim was not admissible in court and their houses could not be higher than their Muslim neighbor’s.

Initial massacres took place under the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the late 19th century. These were called the Hamidiyan massacres in which, according to different historians, 80,000 to 300,000 Armenians were killed.

In 1908, the monarchy had collapsed after the Young Turk Revolution and by 1913 the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti, emerged at the head of the government in a coup. The CUP had an extreme Turkish nationalistic ideology and was mainly controlled by Enver Pasha, Minister of War, Talat Pasha, Minister of the Interior and Grand Vizier in 1917, and Jemal Pasha, Minister of the Marine.

The resettlement program

I will not go deep into political background of the genocide which occurred during World War I but one of the basic reasons behind it was Ottoman insecurity that the Armenian Christian subjects will support the Russians pushing on in the eastern front of the war. Some historians also credit it to the policies of the government to create a unified and pure “Turkish state.”

In the spring and summer of 1915 Armenians all around the empire were ordered to deport under a fictitious “resettlement program.” Convoys consisting of hundreds of thousands of Armenians from different parts of the empire started towards the Syrian Desert. These convoys were basically death marches because most of the people were subjected to torture, rape and slaughter during their painful journey towards the desert. The government did not make any plans for the provision of food and water and thousands died of starvation and disease. Some evidence of a primitive form of gas chambers also exists, where women and children were put into a cave and the entrance of the cave was set on fire, suffocating the people inside the cave.

The forgotten holocaust

A new “Special Organisation” called the Teshkilâti Mahsusa, was formed as a tool for extermination. Approximated two million Armenians lived in the Ottoman lands in 1915 but by 1918 an estimated 1 million had perished and by 1923 a negligible number of Armenians were left in main Anatolian Turkey.

Photographic and documentary evidence exist of the extermination of the Armenian race from the Ottoman lands.

This Genocide the forgotten holocaust because it was over-shadowed by the killing of the six million Jews during the World War II by Nazi Germany and generally people really don’t know about it. It is ironic because while persuading his associates that a Jewish holocaust would be tolerated by the west, Adolf Hitler said the following and he was right:

Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

Events of such magnitude cannot be explained in one article so for readers who are further interested in knowing about what took place in the Ottoman Empire during that time, should have a look at the following:

1. Great War for Civilization: The conquest of the Middle East – By Robert Fisk (Chapter 10)
2. Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire – by Suraiya Faroqhi
3. The Knock at the Door: A Journey through the Darkness of the Armenian Genocide – by Margaret Ajemian Ahnert
4. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility – by Taner Akçam
5. Survivors: An Oral History Of The Armenian Genocide – by Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller

Turkey: Islamism's Consequences for the West

The "good times" between Turkey and the West seem to be over. As the Erdogan years in Turkey have attempted to turn Turkey from a once-secular country into a de facto Islamist country, the West and Turkey seem to be on a collision course, or at best, an impasse.

The questions now to ask include: What to do about an Erdogan-ruled Turkey that appears intent on reshaping the Middle East in its own Islamist and nationalist image and agenda; the response of America and the West (particularly NATO) if Turkey breaks diplomatic relations with Israel; and what how to adjust the US-Turkish relationship in light of Turkey's friendly relationships with the dictatorships of Iran and Sudan.

Also of paramount concern is how Turkey might react toward an autonomous Kurdistan in the north of Iraq. Turkey has constantly rattled its scimitar against the PKK guerillas, and crossed the border into northern Iraq under the guise of pursuing Kurdish guerillas. It has also talked about protecting the Turkmens, relatives of the Turks, who just so happen to live in the oil rich city of Kirkuk, a city contested by Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens alike. Once America has withdrawn from Iraq, would America and NATO turn the other way to a possible Turkish occupation of Iraqi-controlled Kurdistan? Keeping silent about internal Turkish matters may be one thing, but a failing to respond to Turkey's foreign policy moves - especially military moves - could bring about an even further destabilized situation in the Middle East, affecting an already fractured Muslim world.

It is also possible -- especially in light of Europe's reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union -- that Erdogan is just waiting for a West-NATO confrontation with Turkey: Erdogan might use such an incident to whip up Turkish passions -- both nationalist and religious -- and once again show himself as a Muslim leader willing and able to stand up to the West. Turkey would no doubt bring up Turkish "grievances" -- claims that it is just trying to right the supposed wrongs of the past, and claims that will encompass not only Turkey's national complaints, but those of the rest of the Muslim world (sans Kurdistan) towards the West.

The irony of Turkey and its relations with the West cannot be lost in light of the fact that Barack Obama started his "outreach" to the Muslim world last year while giving a speech in Turkey's parliament. If Obama's feckless response to Iran's brutal crackdown on demonstrators last year over the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad is any indicator, one should certainly not expect Obama to react any differently vis-à-vis Turkey and its Islamist agenda. This not only applies to Israel, in that it seems unlikely that the current American administration will come to the aid of Israel in its deteriorating relations with Turkey, but also to Kurdistan and the rest of the Muslim world. The apparent obsession on the part of Obama with "repairing" relations with the Muslim world, even at the expense of Muslims trying – and even dying – to break the shackles of their totalitarian regimes, may signal that America no longer has the will or desire to confront Middle Eastern dictators. If such a scenario plays out, a major void will have been created in a region of monumental strategic importance to the West – a void which countries like Russia, China, and Iran could seek to exploit and replace.

Although the one institution that could prevent Turkey from becoming an Islamic republic is the Turkish army, it remains a question if the army could -- or would -- act. If it did, how would the Turkish people, as well as the West, react to such a situation? A new Turkish coup would be the fifth one in fifty years, and could open the military to charges of interfering in the democratic process. No doubt, Erdogan and the AKP appear to be "using democracy in order to destroy democracy."

And as the referendum on reforms to Turkey's constitution passed overwhelmingly on September 12^th, with 58% of the vote, many critics say that this will only strengthen Erdogan and his AKP, further eroding the strength of the military and judiciary. Of course, Erdogan has said the opposite, and that the constitutional reforms will only strengthen Turkey's "democracy." However, Erdogan has already stated that a new constitution is needed, stoking further fears of an AKP Islamist takeover.

Erdogan's only real opposition is the CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) otherwise known as the Republican People's Party. Ironically, this party was founded by Ataturk in 1923. Recently, it has been mired in a sex scandal forcing its leader, Deniz Baykal, to resign. It is currently led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a left-of-center politician.

At the end of the day, it appears that Turkey's last hope of staving off an Islamic Republic and a confrontation with the West is in the scheduled election of July 2011: voting Erdogan's party out. However, with Erdogan riding high after his constitutional referendum victory, this likelihood does noit, at present, appear to be likely.

A short background:

For close to ninety years now, the Republic of Turkey has been officially a secular state. The reforms implemented by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920's, turned Turkey from an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate into a modern Western-style secular state. When Ataturk overthrew the Sultanate under Mehmed (Mohammad) VI Vahideddin in 1922, he was signaling a global shift in Turkey's thinking, attitude, and way of life. (The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 when Abdul Mecid II, was forced into exile. Thus, the reign of the Ottomans, who had ruled Turkey, much of the Middle East, and a portion of Europe since the foundation of the empire in 1517, officially ended.)

Ataturk's reforms were so great – and stringent – that the term "Kemalism" is used to describe the tremendous transformation that Turkey went through from the age of the Ottomans to the age of the Kemalists. Ataturk was intent on reshaping Turkey; throwing off its Islamic past, and steering it toward the West. Among his major reforms were not only abolishing the Sultanate and Caliphate, and officially declaring the country a secular republic, but also, in 1928, banning of the fez and hijab, and replacing the Turko-Arabic script with that of the Latin alphabet. For a while, Ataturk was so intent on "de-Islamizing" Turkey, that he forbade the muezzin (prayer caller) from using Arabic when calling Muslims to prayer. As many know, Muslim prayers must be said in Arabic only; the banning of Arabic prayer was too much for the religious Muslims, and eventually even Ataturk had to relent and allow its reinstitution.

As the decades went by, Turkey weathered weak governments; army coups; right wing and left wing terrorism; and a host of other problems -- and, most notably, a Kurdish insurrection that continues to this day and has from time to time spilled over into Iraqi-administered Kurdistan.

In 1996, Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the Refah (Welfare Party), became Prime Minister; he was the first "post-Kemalist" prime minister who openly and unabashedly proclaimed his Islamist tendencies. After much controversy, the Turkish army -- the guardians of the secular state – diplomatically pushed Erbakan aside; and it appeared that Turkey had weathered its short term dalliance with an Islamic renaissance.

The situation, however, changed in the elections of 2002 when a new Islamist party – the Justice and Development Party – (Adaltet Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) emerged with the largest number of seats in parliament. Its leader, the former mayor of Istanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was a devoutly religious Muslim. Erdogan had been a follower of Erbakan; while still mayor of Istanbul in 1997, he was arrested for "religious incitement" due to a poem that he recited which hinted in part at a return to a militant brand of Islam:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers."

Aside from the metaphors, it must have come as a shock to the secular authorities that the mayor of such a cosmopolitan city as Istanbul, would be as brash as to recite such a poem that no doubt was a strong hint of his views on religion and the state. Eventually, Erdogan was brought up on incitement charges in 1998, but served only 4 months of a ten month sentence.

After the debacle of Erbakan's rule, and Erdogan's own brush with the secular authorities, Erdogan became more subtle in his attempts to re-Islamize Turkey. After Refah was banned in 1998, he became instrumental in forming the AKP in 2001, which de-emphasized -- at least publicly -- its Islamist ambitions.

In the November 2002 national elections, the AKP won only about 34% of the vote, but emerged with the most elected representatives (363 out of 550) in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (the Turkish parliament). Because of Erdogan's prison sentence, he was not allowed to assume the role of prime minister; it went to his right-hand man, Abdullah Gul. Through parliamentary maneuvers, however, Gul and his allies were able to change the law so that Erdogan could become prime minister in March 2003. Erdogan assured his country – and the West – that he was committed to a secular government - although his chimerical nature was revealed in a New York Times article, in May 2003, in which he was quoted as saying, "Before anything else, I am a Muslim." In the same article, though, he stated that "A political party cannot have a religion. Only individuals can." At the very least, this shows an apparently conflicted opinion on religion and secularism. The article also related a very chilling comment about Erdogan's opinion of democracy when he was still Istanbul's mayor: "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."

That same month, while America was planning "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, Washington asked permission from Turkey to allow U.S. forces to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish territory. While Erdogan and Gul did not openly say no to the request, the Turkish parliament rejected it. Washington was stunned.

As the years passed, Erdogan continued to cultivate a moderate image in the West, while quietly espousing Islamist causes in Turkey -- most notably by appointing members of the judiciary and government ministers who were religious conservatives, and thereby changing the landscape of Turkey's secular foundations. Paradoxically, he appointed a supposedly avowed secularist as his new military chief of staff, Mehmet Ilker Basbug, in 2008; but on August 30^th, Basbug retired and was replaced by Land Forces Commander Isik Kosaner, who promised to uphold the secular character of Turkey.

Earlier this year, however, the Erdogan government had forty military officers arrested, claiming that they were planning to "destabilize" the government. Many critics saw this as another step in Erdogan's attempt to do away with the Kemalist republic and neutralize the once staunchly secularist military.

Erdogan's apparent "good cop/bad cop" approach extends also to his relations with Washington. While professing friendship for America and the West, in 2006, Erdogan was quite vocal in his approval of the notoriously and viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli movie "Valley of the Wolves." The movie portrayed American soldiers in Iraq as murderers, and included a Jewish doctor harvesting Iraqi organs for sale in Tel Aviv. Even Erdogan's wife, Emine (a conservative Muslim who is always seen wearing a traditional Turkish hijab) also chimed in about the movie, praising the actors, and stating that she was "so proud" of them. More recently a thirteen part – and virulently anti-Semitic -- series was aired on Turkish TV, entitled "Separation: Palestine in Love and War," which aired to rave reviews in parts of the Arab world as well as in Turkey. This series, despite Israeli protestations, led to a further poisoning of Turko-Israeli relations. Ironically, some Arabs decried the series as well, but not out of defense of Israel. Apparently, the reason was that the Turkish series showed the Palestinians as killing their daughters after having been raped by Israeli soldiers, something the Palestinians object to as defaming them.

Contrary to the myth among many Jews and others who see a good portion of Turks as at best indifferent to Israel and Jews, "Mein Kampf" reached the best sellers list in Turkey in 2005. The book was subsequently banned -- in part through German efforts -- but it probably should give the reader pause for concern if average Turks make "Mein Kampf" a best seller.

Meanwhile, internal recriminations continued to simmer in Turkey between the Kemalists and the Islamists, with new Turkish elections held in 2007. This time, the AKP received over 46% of the vote – almost 12% more than in 2002 -- and 341 seats. Ironically, while garnering an overall higher percentage of the vote than in the previous election, the AKP lost twelve seats, which went to other parties. A short time later, Abdullah Gul became president after three rounds of voting in the Turkish parliament, again causing controversy, with many Turks seeing Gul's election as another victory for the Islamists. Like Prime Minister Erdogan's wife, Gul's wife, Hayrunissa, also wears a headscarf -- which has now become a symbol of the clash between secularists and Islamists.

After the AKP's second victory, and Gul's ascension to the presidency shortly thereafter, Erdogan began to become more outspoken in his criticism of the West, and especially Israel, as was seen by his eruption against Israel's president, Shimon Peres, at a January 2009 meeting at Davos, Switzerland, when Erdogan launched into a vitriolic verbal assault against Israel, stating to the shocked Peres that "when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," and then stormed off the stage. Unfortunately, like a true "dhimmi" [second-class citizen according to Sharia Law], Peres phoned Erdogan, apologizing to the prime minister if there might have been any misunderstanding regarding the verbal dispute between the two leaders in light of Israel's offensive against Hamas in 2008.

Turkish anti-Americanism began to increase as well. Even as President Obama was beginning his "apology tour" by visiting Turkey in April 2009, anti-American demonstrations were well underway, with demonstrators chanting slogans against both Obama and America. Much of the anti-American feeling had to do with the American invasion of Iraq and perceived American "atrocities;" and no doubt, the constant anti-American and anti-Israeli media barrage in the Turkish government-controlled press played a large role in the average Turk's opinion of both America and Israel.

After the uproar in June 2010 over the "activist flotilla," Turkey announced cancellation of military exercises with Israel, as well as the cancellation of military contracts between them. Turkey also recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and strongly hinted at breaking diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkish officials have spoken of "Turkish honor" and "Turkish pride" regarding events vis-à-vis Israel, yet it appears that the terms "Israeli honor" and "Israeli pride" -- let alone "Israeli self-defense" -- are words that do not exist in the Turkish lexicon. Even a "moderate" Islamist as Fethullah Gullen, also no friend of Israel, criticized the Turkish led "flotilla" fiasco. Yet where is "Turkish pride" and "Turkish honor" when the tyrant from Tehran, Ahmadinejad, refused to visit Kemal Ataturk's mausoleum? At one time in Turkey, such a display of diplomatic arrogance and contempt for Ataturk would have been met with outrage by a secular Turkish government and military. Apparently, in today's Turkey, that is a thing of the past.

There is another telling sign in Turkish-Israeli relations of how far Turkey has veered from its one time alliance with Israel: Turkey's recent appointment of Hakan Fidan, as head of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization. It has been rumored that Fidan might have played a role in the flotilla incident, and might also have relations with the Islamist dominated IHH (Insan Hak ve Hurriyetleri ve Insani Yardim Vakfi (The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), which orchestrated the Marmara flotilla.

Turkey's vitriolic statements and actions on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs by Prime Minister Erdogan has come as a shock. But while Erdogan still vehemently condemns Israelis as "murderers," and calls Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East," he hypocritically refuses to address the Armenian genocide, even though it was perpetrated under Ottoman rule close to a century ago. Further, while Erdogan supports his Muslim "brothers" in "Palestine," he continues in implacable hostility toward his own Kurdish Muslim minority, and especially towards a quasi-independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Apparently, "Islamic solidarity" is fine with Turkey, as long as the Kurds play no role in Turkish affairs other than to be subservient to Ankara's desires. One final aspect to ponder is: if Turkish officials call Israelis "murderers" and Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East" while still having relations with Israel, what will their rhetoric and actions be if and when they break relations completely with Israel? Perhaps, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran which openly calls for Israel's destruction, Turkey may wish to foster a more "moderate Islamist" façade, and call for the repeal of United Nations Resolution 181 of November 22, 1947 which ultimately led to the establishment of modern day Israel. At present, this may seem unfathomable, if not absurd, but a short time ago, the notion of Turkey rejecting Kemalism and establishing itself on an Islamist path was also thought unfathomable.

As Turkey escalated its Israel-bashing barrage, it also courted the Arab world and Iran. This appears to be not only for political reasons, but for economic reasons as well. The Turkish budget deficit has swollen tremendously over the last few years, doubling in just the last year alone. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran will gladly aid Turkey economically, which will only increase their political and possibly religious influence as well. Meanwhile, Turkey also tried to patch up differences with Greece and Armenia, long time Eastern Christian foes. The Cyprus issue, however, will no doubt remain a continuing thorn in Greco-Turkish relations, not to mention Turkey's support of the Azeris over the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

Further, there is the intractable dispute over Kurdistan. If ever an ethnic minority in the Middle East -- other than the Jews -- has been mistreated and betrayed, it is the Kurdish nation. From the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, to the first Gulf War and beyond, the Kurds have been victimized by Arabs, Persians, and Turks alike. All the while, the West has turned a blind eye. It is not unthinkable that after America's withdrawal from Iraq, Turkey will seek a pretense to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan under the guise of protecting their Turkmen "brothers" from Kurdish "aggression." Additionally, the northern city of Kirkuk is oil rich; control of it by Turkey would strengthen Turkey economically.

For now, Turkey, still a powerful member of NATO, and still presumably a friend of America, teeters between East and West. A "neo-Ottoman" Empire -- like a "neo-Czarist" Russia that appears in the making -- is something that America, the West, and Israel, should take seriously.

In the Middle East, the past is never forgotten and never forgiven. The future in the Middle East often consists of the merging of the present with the past. The West might therefore be well advised to prepare for the day that a once pro-Western secular Turkey no longer exists. The once "sick man of Europe" of the 18^th and 19^th centuries has now become the 21^st century "strongman of the Middle East." While the secularist Kemalist ship is sinking in the Straits of the Bosporus, the neo-Ottoman Islamist ship of Erdogan is docking at the port of Istanbul.

---

This article appeared in Hudson-NY website.

The Myth of Secular Turkey

True secularism was never realized in Turkey, it never will...

---

Turkey is often praised for being a secular Muslim country, which can serve as a role-model for other mainly Islamic societies because of its rich history of secularism. America, the United Kingdom and other Western nations often claim that Turkey is a beacon of hope, and that it serves as evidence that democracy and secularism can thrive in mainly Muslim states. However, during this so-called “golden age” of secularism in modern Turkey, religious and ethnic minorities have clearly suffered greatly. This raises the question: truly how secular is Turkey?

If we look at Kemal Ataturk, the founding father of modern Turkey, it becomes clear that he himself supported exclusively "Turkish" nationalism and the destruction of Christianity, which continued to take place after the genocide of Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Orthodox Christians in 1915.

Therefore, it is clear that Turkish nationalism and secularism is tainted by its anti-Christian as well as anti-Kurdish nature. After all, the nation state of Turkey was about Turkish nationalism, and secularism did not protect the religious or ethnic minorities of this diverse nation.

In spite of this, the myth of modernity and secularism based on the founding father prevails and Western nations are very optimistic about Turkey. Yes, Ataturk faced many difficulties; and from a Turkish point of view, he was very astute because he preserved a Turkish state when it was threatened by others. Yet, in order to do this, he crushed others. Therefore, the “bedrock” of secularism from the start was “frail”, because it was based on purely "Turkish" nationalism.

Ataturk did implement many reforms in order to modernize Turkey and did lay the foundation stone for a secularism-based state. In this sense, he crushed Islamists' hope of a Sharia Islamic state, and he gave more rights to females which did not exist in the old Ottoman Empire. However, his legacy of modernity and secularism is tainted by the overt nationalism of old Turkey, which is still strong in today's Turkey.

If secularism means having the right to crush various minorities, namely Christians, moderate Muslim Alevis, as well as the Assyrians, Syriacs, Armenians and Kurds in modern day Turkey, then it cannot be called secularism at all. Therefore, modernization and secularism of modern Turkey is tainted by its overt nationalism; and of course, the Sunni orthodox mindset means that religious inequality is the norm.

In the 1990s, Alevi Muslims witnessed an upsurge in attacks against them. For example, David Zieden, who wrote an article called, The Alevi of Anatolia, states that “Renewed inter-communal violence is sadly on the rise. In July 1993, at an Alevi cultural festival in Sivas, a Sunni fundamentalist mob set fire to a hotel where many Alevi participants had taken refuge, killing 35 of them. State security services did not interfere and prosecution against leaders of the riot was not energetically pursued. (41) In 1994, Istanbul municipal leaders from the Refah Islamic political party tried to raze an Alevi tekke (monastery) and close the Ezgi cafe where young Alevis frequently gathered.”

Meanwhile, if we focus on recent times, it becomes clear that persecution is still continuing. In 2007, three Christians had their throats slit. Two of the victims had converted from Islam to Christianity; therefore, Necati Aydia, 36, and Ugur Yuksel, 32, were killed by Islamic fanatics on the grounds of merely leaving Islam; the other murdered Christian, Tilmann Geske, 46, was a German citizen. One of the killers stated in the Hurriyet newspaper that “We didn’t do this for ourselves. We did it for our religion. May this be a lesson to the enemies of religion.”

Before concluding, it is important to state that there are many positive elements within Turkish society, who desire change and support a genuine inclusive secular-democratic Turkey. Viewed from its past history and from a Turkish perspective, this nation clearly faced many obstacles; for Ataturk, the infancy of Turkey was about survival and many Turks also suffered greatly. Apart from this, Turkey is also a valued member of the NATO and a vital strategic ally for America and the West.

Despite these positives, seen from perspectives of the rights of Alevi Muslims and Christians in modern day Turkey, plus the persecution of Kurds, clearly orthodox Sunni Islam and nationalism is still being used by conservative elites. These elites still desire to crush both religious and ethnic minorities, and depriving them of equality in modern Turkey.

Events and incidents in recent years makes it clear that the Sunni Islam, recognized by the Turkish state, is favoured at the expense of other faiths, including minority Muslim sects, like the Alevis. Moreover, Sunni Islamic extremism is on the rise, while the current Islamist leadership of Turkey clearly favours a return to the past.

It, thus, can be concluded that true secularism was never realized in Turkey. And the latest turn toward puritan Islam and Sharia would leave the realization of secularism in Turkey a distant dream. The nature of Islam and the mindset it creates toward all others make it impossible for a mainly Muslim state to become truly secular.

Flotilla Campaign: Turkey's Brinkmanship against Israel

The Flotilla campaign was a well-calculated stunt by Turkey's Islamist regime, aimed at political windfall at home and its desire to cut all ties with the ever-hated Jewish state. And it has gone perfect for them.

---

On the backdrop of the Gaza Flotilla misadventure to force Israel withdraw blockade on Gaza, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that "Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality."

And calling for punishing Israel for "state terrorism" over its bungled operation on board the Flotilla ships that left 9 pro-Hamas Turkish activists dead, Turkey has already ordered reduction of "economic and defence ties with Israel", probably its first step toward gradual freezing of diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

For Turkey, its diplomatic ties with Israel, established soon after Israel's founding in 1948, was never one of mutual friendship or cordiality, but of strategic necessity. The Kemalist secularists saw alliance with Israel as an antidote to theocratic Islamists at home and in the Arab world. In the 1990s, the relationship deepened further in an effort to undermine the common enemy, Syria, which was supporting the Kurdish separatists (PKK) against Ankara. Israel provided military hardware and intelligence to Turkey on PKK activities in Syria, when Damascus was hosting of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.

With Islamists themselves now in power, the Kurdish separatist movement on the decline and Syria turned an ally after the current Islamist government took power, Turkey's ties with Israel has turned meaningless, indeed a liability, for the current Islamist government.

Much has been said of the Islamist root of the AKP government in Turkey. Let us review here the AKP politicians' attitude toward Israel. The AKP Islamists' spiritual guru is Prof. Erbakan, who founded the National Salvation Party (NSP), as an Islamist front against Kemalist secularists. Top leaders of the current AKP government were groomed by Ebrakan. Both PM Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul served as mayoral, ministerial and parliamentary candidates in Erbakan's parties to hone their political careers. But realizing that the staunchly secularist army would not allow them to stay in power on a visibly Islamic card, they disguised themselves as secular-democrats and formed the soft-Islamic AKP party.

Let us take a look at Prof Erbakan's attitude toward the Jews and Israel. Erbakan is a fanatical anti-Semite with a pan-Islamic ambition of the former Ottoman days. During the last election, he compared Zionists and Jews with 'Bacteria' and 'Disease', and said:

"Do you know what the safety of Israel means? It means that they will rule the 28 countries from Morocco to Indonesia. Since all the Crusades were organized by the Zionists…”

He wrote virulently anti-Semitic commentaries in its media mouthpiece, Milli Gazette, in February & April 2005. Citing anti-Jewish Quranic verses (3:112, 2:61 etc.), he wrote:

“In fact, no amount of pages or lines would be sufficient to explain the Quranic chapters and our Lord Prophet's [Muhammad's] words that tell us of the betrayals of the Jews... The prophets sent to them, such as Zachariah and Isaiah, were murdered by the Jews...”

Most observers would argue that leaders of the AKP have moderated themselves and do not have the same anti-Semitic attitude like their mentor Prof. Erbakan anymore. But, let me emphasize from my experience of living a Muslim for nearly 40 years that anti-Jewish hatred, with which Muslims are groomed since childhood, never declines, but may only intensify, so long one remains a Muslim. This applies much more to Muslims, who make their career based on appeal to Islam.

Let us also try to understand PM Erdogan's Islamic mind. He has claimed himself to be “a servant of the Sharia" and “the Imam of Istanbul", and emphatically said: "The Mosques are our barracks, the Domes are helmets, the Minarets are Bayonets and the faithful are soldiers." He has mocked Kemalist secularists and expressed his desire to turn Turkey into an Islamic state and to inaugurate the parliament by reciting the Quran.

Unsuspecting observers must also recall what Erdogan once said of his party's current guise: “Democracy was a train, from which you could alight once you reached your destination.”

AKP has already reached its destination with firm support amongst an increasingly radicalized Muslim population; so it can now throw away its secular-democratic guise. And it has already started. Didn't the Saudi King recently ordain Erdogan with the "King Faisal International prize for service to Islam"?

As concern Turkey's diplomatic contact with Israel, it was meant to undermining the same Islamists currently in power. Given current government's intense hatred of Israel, Turkey's ties with the Jewish state would naturally be the most hated or unpleasant element, it has deal with. The AKP government cannot but do away with Turkey's diplomatic ties with Israel as soon as possible, and hit back at it if possible.

In fact, the current Islamist government has started both processes: gradually freezing the diplomatic ties with Israel as well as hitting back at it. Over the past few years, Turkey has become one of the fiercest critics of Israel in the Muslim world, fiercer than Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It would be accurate to say that Turkey falls on the Iran-Syria axis in the Muslim world, when it comes to Israel. Turkey's Islamist government is also gradually freezing military contact and joint military exercise with the Jewish state.

What Erdogan's government eagerly looking for is an excuse for complete break of diplomatic contacts with Israel. It is not easy for Islamists, as members of AKP are, to deal with Israel as a friend or ally, when they hold intense hatred for them deep in their heart.

Moreover, Turkey's continued contact with Israel is the greatest political liability for the AKP Islamists at home. They thrive on Islamic appeal amongst the populace, and intense hatred of Israel and Jews is a common feature of their support base. Only by trying to undermine or harm the Jewish state could they consolidate their appeal and support amongst the populace. But if they try to be a friendly ally for the Jewish state, that will be a political suicide for them; it will kill their support.

Since coming to power, the AKP government's action and attitude toward Israel clearly suggest that they are walking a tight-rope: Gradually walking away from Israel, which is not only helping them avoid the path of suicide, but also helping consolidate their political capital at home.

In the present case, Erdogan's government has acted as the Muslim world's most committed and vocal supporter of the Flotilla campaign, intended to undermine Israel; and after the bungled Israeli operation, it has also placed itself as the harshest critic of the Israeli action amongst Muslim governments.

All these would undoubtedly help solidify AKP's hold and support amongst the Turkish populace, throwing their secular rivals into political obscurity. So, when Erdogan said, "Turkey tried to preserve their relationship, but the Israeli government did not understand this, and committed a historical mistake," it's all a dishonest political stunt and excuse to make a complete break with Israel on the diplomatic front, which is not far away. Had Turkey valued its diplomatic ties with Israel, it could not be the provocative eager supporter, indeed the organizer, of the Flotilla campaign to undermine Israeli blockade on Gaza, which the Israelis say helps undermine Islamist militants' attack from the Hamas territory and evidently so.

(It should be understood here that IHH—an Islamic relief organization in Turkey and a staunch supporter of the current Islamist government—which organized the Flotilla campaign reportedly has ties to radical Islamic groups and have helped and financed travel of militant Muslim fighters from Turkey to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya and Uzbekistan etc. to fight Jihad. Given most Islamic charity organizations even in the West have been found to have ties to militant Islamist groups, this is hardly surprising. And for Bülent Yildirim, the main IHH organizer, the Gaza Flotilla was a Jihad operation, not a humanitarian one.)

Despite Erdogan's bluff that his government tried to preserve relationship with Israel, the evidence is all too clear that his government was eagerly looking for what transpired over the past week. It was part of Erdogan's government's calculated attempt to hit back at the Jewish state, which, for decades, has acted as an ally of the Kemalist secularists to undermine and suppress his ideological Islamists brethren in Turkey, including his own AKP party.

The whole Flotilla campaign was a well-calculated stunt, orchestrated by the Turkey's Islamist regime. And it has gone perfect for them, which would bring them great political windfall at home. While Israel is the major loser on the surface, Turkey's secularists are probably a bigger loser than Israel.