Contradictory Positions and Complex Equations in the Middle East:
To be Against Israel, and to be Like Israel

Ergün İşeri

The violent attacks of Israel first towards Palestine, then Lebanon caused the projects on the Middle East to be brought back unto the front burner.

The discussions on these plans also created a base for a very contradictory discussion on internal politics in Turkey: To be against Israel’s aggression on the one hand, and to be like Israel on the other.

A brief summary of the developments is in order to try to explain our position.

Why did Israel attack? What does it want?

The apparent reason for the attacks were the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Hamas on Palestinian border and 2 Israeli soldiers by Hezbullah on Lebanese border. As a matter of fact, it is hard to relate the level of the Israeli attack to these excuses. Yet, in the current situation, it is also apparent that no excuse carries any meaning anyway.

The reason these excuses have no meaning is because everybody knows full well that both Hezbullah and Hamas had attacked Israel before or had taken responsibility in such attacks without causing such response.

The change in power in both Israel and Palestine sharpened the polarization between them in a very short time. They both went into a hardened exchange of words and action against each other. The words of peace in the language left their place to words asserting war and destruction. The period marked on the bases of tolerance towards each other’s existence was shredded to pieces.

Hamas’ taking power after Hezbullah’s setting up its own system and settling in Lebanon and the tension of and the talk about war coming to the forefront can not be explained with the policies and position of Israel alone.

When considering the Middle East politics, mentioning the influence and existence of the US is necessary; actually it is mandatory.

From the US’ perspective, the politics are crystal clear: the absolute control of the oil fields; support for the war and the logistics sectors that are necessary for the workings of its economy; and, a political hegemony. All the regimes which have accepted the US’ hegemony and are accountable to the US militarily, economically and politically are considered a friend while the rest are declared enemies.

The reduction to politics is rather important. To narrow down the definitions provide the clarity and concentration on the targets. Friends and foes are defined; threats are determined; a search gets underway to find ways to defuse and even annihilate these threats. The definitions of friend and foe have been redefined for the US claiming to be the world’s ruler.

The basics of the foe model have been cast first from the radical Islamist movements, and then a broader, civilian version has been shaped against the Arabs and the Muslims. Now, the players are positioned according to this model and the target is selected to be the region of Middle East. In this approach, the first attack was directed against Al Qaida taking responsibility for the September 11 attacks and the Taliban that was in power in Afghanistan. The next in line was Iraq.

Yet, these steps have neither legitimized the reasons for attacking, nor the results of these attacks have pleased the broad alliance front.

The United States is requiring fresh fronts and new supporters to catch its breath in the war it has been trapped in Iraq. It is also threatening other possible enemy targets and trying to neutralize them.

For this reason, the issue on Iran has been forced to the agenda on the rhetoric of “nuclear weapons production,” but an appropriate foundation for the attack was not established. On the other hand, nothing was gained from pressuring Syria, a relatively weaker target.

During this process, new developments, which tipped the balances and were hard to control, appeared on the scene. Hezbullah, for one, had proved it was a force to recon with in Lebanon. It had narrowly lost the elections but had won representation in the cabinet. In Palestine, on the other hand, Hamas enjoyed tremendous success in the elections and took power.

These developments concern not only Israel, but also the US claiming hegemony in the Middle East. One could even say, beyond concern, they are bothersome for the same. Therefore, they are from those “enemies” who will have to be put on the cross-hairs.

Lebanon is an important port region opening to the Mediterranean and is vital for the US interests. Therefore, in the last elections, heavy pressure was exerted there from the US and from Europe.

In order to create a country from Lebanon that will be in the liking of the US, first Syria had to be divorced from control, and then the power of Hezbullah needed to be broken. This way, Lebanon will be made a country in the control of Christian Arabs and not in conflict with the US.

The existence of Syria in Lebanon has been eliminated with a successful operation. What is left behind is Hezbulllah, which had expelled Israel from Lebanon and is in control of the south of Lebanon.

This is the fundamental reason behind the Israeli attack receiving unconditional US support. For Israel, the target is to erase the existence of Hezbullah from Lebanon militarily, politically and economically; and to collapse the Hamas government in Palestine. By doing so, it aims to destroy the Palestinian resistance if possible, or at least pacify it by bringing the ascending Hamas-Hezbullah line under pressure.

However, for the US, with the Israeli attack, additionally the nearest sphere of influence of Syria and Iran in the Middle East would be “cleaned”. Also, the attack would be used as an effective ground to escalate the tension with Iran and Syria and would be used as a hot conflict area in order to isolate Iran and Syria.

It would not be wrong to list the above as a partial list of reasons behind the rapid escalation of attacks.

A dirty and irregular war as well as massive slaughters are occurring while the world shows no reaction

The advance of Israeli ground troops is facing a fierce Hezbullah resistance. The method deployed by Israel against this resistance is to bomb the areas under Hezbullah control from air, ground and occasionally from the sea.

Regions are being wiped off of the maps while people are cleansed and the area becomes uninhabitable. Israel army is forcing people to evacuate, only to attack the convoys of the leaving people.

Chemical weapons are used in the bombings. Not too different from the methods used against the Jews by the Nazi’s, Lebanese Arabs are being burned inside the buildings or on the roads with these chemical weapons. The irregularity of these attacks is not only confined to Israel, but is also a means deployed by the real force behind Israel. Ignoring entire international regulations, the US is sending billions of dollars worth of bombs and weapons to Israel. This is not a war, what is happening has turned into a crime against humanity, a genocide. Even the most fundamental rules of war are completely being ignored.

The ugliness and impunity of the attack also made its way into the diplomatic language. Israel and the US do not hesitate to hit anybody who gets in the way of their policies. The most blatant proof of this was demonstrated with the massacre of the United Nations officials and the insults hurled at the UN General Secretary Kofi Annan.

It would not be wrong to say that from the highest levels of diplomacy to the street demonstrations, when compared to the past, a serious change is occurring in the reaction to this aggression.

In the past, a similar attack from Israel would provoke massive demonstrations nearly throughout the world. A sharp reaction would form against the imperialist policies of both Israel a
nd the US in the region.

Now, we are seeing that the reactions are weak. More interestingly, crowds are participating in the demonstrations supporting Israel.

This non-reaction not only shows itself in the Western world, but is prevalent everywhere else in the world.

Most of the “Western” intellectuals excuse Israeli attacks, even if covertly, by asserting that Israel had no choice and had to do something against Hezbullah.

One needs to be prepared for the soon emergence of those who would support such aggression.

The “Western” world differentiates Hamas and Hezbullah from the Palestinian Liberation Organization and emphasize that these are “terrorist organizations.”

The reason for this is the alliance the US has formed with the European Union on the model of “enemy-number-one” we described above.

The Arab countries are silent because they are also against the system either Hamas or Hezbullah is trying to forge, or, they are not in favor of standing up against the US. These organizations also constitute a threat against the regimes in the region whose existence relies on their cooperation with imperialism. Even the emergency meeting of the Islamic Development Organization and its latest declaration does not change this fact in the last analysis.

The people in Turkey are in a conflict. On the one hand, they are angry against the Israeli attacks, and they want to demonstrate this. However, on the other hand, with the encouragement from the press, they want the Turkish army to act like Israel. The most interesting position is the nationalist’s stand on the issue. Both the Turkish and the Kurdish nationalists are in complete disarray. The Turkish nationalists had discovered the US imperialism due to its Kurdish policies and had directed their forces in that direction until they met with the nationalists who only appeared to be on the left. Their only reason to “object” the US imperialism is their conviction that the “US supports the Kurds.” In reality, they are not against US imperialism, but they are against the Kurds. The harsh criticism they have against the “US imperialism” is due to their belief that “the US has made a bad choice.” The moment US pulls its support from the Kurds, she will again become a friend and an ally.”

The Kurdish nationalists, on the other hand, while opposing the US imperialism due to its policies in the Middle East, have started to see the US as their main protector because of the Kurdish State project. For both of these nationalists, the situation has become a catch-22.

The same situation exists for the left. Some oppose the US which supports the Israeli strikes, however, because the current balances prevent Turkey from invading northern Iraq, they grind their teeth and abstain from building a head on opposition.

The institutional Republican Peoples Party (RRP-CHP) finds it “against the Turkish national interests” to be either for or against the Israeli aggression. They think taking such a position would eventually force Turkey to be fully engaged in the US’ Middle East politics which will have “harming effects on national unity.” For this reason, RRP is taking the position of, “leave Palestine and Lebanon alone, and concentrate on Eastern Turkey.” As a result, after having supported the Anti-Terror Laws, now they have become the champions of the militaristic Emergency Conditions measures. This party is trying to ignore the Israeli attack against Lebanon or Palestine as much as it can and does nothing but to wait for the ruling JDP (the Islamic, ruling, Justice Development Party – tr. note) to make a mistake.

The situation is bit more complex for the ruling JDP government. Due to its internal politics conflict (with the military), JDP wants the Turkish Army to be “partially” engaged in the Middle East clashes. This must be the reason why the Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan announced, “Turkey can take part in the UN Peace Force” when there wasn’t even a talk of either ceasefire or “international force” to be present in the region. He also claimed, “The right of Israel to do operations against Hezbullah gives the right of Turkey to do operations against the PKK.” (PKK: Labor Party of Kurdistan – Kurdish group fighting for political and cultural recognition in Turkey- tr. note)

These attitudes created the blunder of putting Turkey and Israel on the same side on the one hand, and defined the grounds to make Turkey a part of the US’s anti-Islam policies, on the other. However, when it was seen in few days that the Lebanon-Hezbullah resistance would not fold easily, the government was forced to change its words. But this time Israel government caught the weakness of the Turkish argument and started to pressure Turkey for the task of “demilitarizing the Hezbullah.” A reflection of this pressure is evident in the reports filed by the media tied to the big capital and the government when they have to mention “Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli cities and their concealment of rocket launchers inside hospitals and apartments,” before they can criticize Israel for its barbarism.

Israel’s side and Turkey’s side on the Middle East crises. To re-draw the borders

All the above represent only one side of the crises in the Middle East. The other side is the northern part of the region and naturally involves Turkey. As one may remember, the increase in the deaths of Turkish soldiers and police due to PKK’s attacks is strengthening the tendencies to react out of reflexes both from the state and from the society.

In the first days of Israel’s attack against Lebanon, one could see the start of the mentioning of, “becoming like Israel” both in the headlines and from the government. The prime minister even mentioned to pull out of the Middle East Project if measures were not taken by the US against the existence of PKK and its attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq. There is no need to remind that this was only a tactical complaint. To put it in another way, this was the overture prior to the real demands.

All these developments actually reveal the real contradictions in the Middle East equation. The US is giving all available means to Israel to annihilate Hezbullah which it sees as a threat, a terrorist organization, from its perspective.

Yet, Turkey is not allowed to strike against the PKK, which Turkey sees as a threat and together with the US has labeled it as a terrorist organization. For months, Turkey has amassed half of its army to the border and is waiting.

One important question that begs an answer is, in the face of so many losses why doesn’t the Turkish army conduct an operation against the PKK within its own borders. No answer has been given to this question. But, moving half of the army to the border is creating the appearance of another strategic connection, much different than the announced, “fighting against the PKK.”

The Turkish rulers, who could cross the border to Northern Iraq whenever they wanted to and even settled there for long periods prior to the US invasion, are realizing that the roles have changed. What face them are the US and preparing for its new role, the Kurdish state.

In reality, the rulers of the Turkish state have de facto accepted this new state that they still object in rhetoric. They have even gone further and started serious contributions to the formation of the Kurdish state. Even one simple example is enough to draw the picture: The major construction company building the large infrastructure and contracting in the area under Kurdish control is OYAK, the Turkish Military Corporation.

The real problems lie in the position of the PKK when future developments are taken into consideration due to the effects and new formations this new state will create in the region.

PKK is losing its power over some sections of the Kurds in Turkey. Starting with the Kurdish businessmen and the n
ationalist Kurdish intellectuals of the middle classes, an increasingly expanding base are now turning towards the newly formed Kurdish state and its administration. This line, represented by Barzani and Talibani, has started to flourish in these sections of the Kurdish population. The real threat PKK feels is this trend. To counter this threat, instead of adopting an oppositional approach to Barzani and Talabani, PKK is trying to convince the USA that Turkey’s policy on Kurds is an obstacle challenging the US’ Middle East policies (against Syria and Iran) and wants the US to intervene in Turkey’s Kurdish politics.

PKK is reluctant to fall into conflict with the political forces in the area it has settled and established its military center in the Kurdish state, especially with the forces of Barzani. Now becoming an issue of debate also between the Kurds, PKK is trying to control the masses under its influence by attacking both the state and the revolutionary movements in Turkey.

The PKK administration is trying to mature the conditions that will allow them to hold-on in Turkey, the principle area of existence for them. They have chosen the tendency towards the direction of having no other alternative but to stay within the borders of Turkey and to exert itself politically. At the heart of all proposed PKK policies lies a demand to sign an agreement with the Turkish state on these foundations. The assertion that the recent attacks by PKK have all been weighing heavily towards tactical aims for internal politics has been gaining strength.

The dimension of the issues in the Middle East has come to a point where, for the conditions Turkey is in, the issue has become very complex and a receding force for Turkey. The plans around the Greater Middle East Project waiting to mature have started to surface.

At this level, the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Condoleezza Rice has taken the first concrete step and has announced that the time has come to re-draw the borders in the Middle East. A similar announcement paralleling this came from the European Parliament by giving a positive signal to the formation of the Kurdish state by saying the Kurds were one of the largest populations in the world without a state.

A new era is starting and Turkey is on top of the list of candidate countries that will suffer in this period. Since the borders in the Middle East have always been drawn by the imperialists, these announcements should not surprise anybody.

OK, what will happen to us then?

While the heat from the Middle East is spreading and a colossal project is step by step being implemented, the calm, confusion and the wait seen in the region can also be seen in Turkey.

Above all, there exists an anxiety which waits quietly deep down inside: Then what?

What will happen in the future is a complex, unpredictable chaos. A reality that has emerged is that the Kurds have gained a national identity that can not be underestimated. But there is a negative cost to this. The Kurdish nationalism supports the US’s policy in the Middle East. Turkish nationalism, on the other hand, is expressing its discontent for the results this policy creates for the Kurdish question. The Kurdish nationalist’s sympathy for the US allows the Turkish fascists to see themselves as if they were”anti-imperialists!”

The attack against Iraq and the expansion of the Israeli front that now covers Turkey carries with it some elements that could badly hurt Turkey. It is possible to say that an attack against Iraq by crossing the border could very well prepare the ground for a clash between Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey which will result in losses that could never be replaced on the one hand, and will deepen the divide further on the other.

Even if they’ll never admit to it, the rulers in Turkey are fully aware that they are losing the control of the conditions and the possibilities of resolving the Kurdish question internally as a domestic conflict. The issue naturally has become an important headline of the region as well as the world politics. From this point on, everybody has to think twice before they take another step.

After all the experiences they went through, the left in Turkey will have to reexamine their own position and stand.

The difference between defending a nation’s right to self determination and a policy that takes refuge under the shade of US’ policy need to be very carefully separated.

Nearly all revolutionary, socialist and even social democratic movements have always shown an internationalist attitude, stayed within the boundaries of basic rights and freedoms and in this low intensity war situation have defended the rights of the Kurds against the deep state (secret government) in Turkey.

However, today, the Kurdish politicians are in an inclination of hurling accusations against the Turkish left, insulting and even using violence in a state of infantile disorder of nationalism.

The scenario of the new Middle East, played by the lead actor, the US, has become a perfect candidate to inadvertently bringing the left in Turkey against the Kurdish nationalists who have become an accessory of imperialism in many arenas.

If one only considers the issue from the perspective of organizations, it is obvious that many mistakes are unavoidable.

The need to know the difference and to act accordingly between opposing the attack Lebanese and the Palestinian people have suffered as well as to respect the right to resist on the one hand, and to show active or passive support for Hamas or Hezbullah on the other has become crucial.

The discussion, for the revolutionaries, should be done from the perspective of the conditions of the peoples and the laboring masses towards imperialism and class struggle.

In place of the end

The crisis in the Middle East is very important from two fronts. First, it is pregnant with pushing Turkey any moment into a condition of war because of the background scenario.

That is, a possible redrawing of the maps of our eastern and southeastern borders may be on the agenda.

This could very well be the reason why the Turkish army has amassed a large presence to the border region and instead of conducting a broad internal operation against PKK, has chosen to direct their forces to this position.

Every environment of hot clashes and the precursory tensions are pregnant with the developments that could somewhat alter the entire lives of the poor. As a result, the first victims of the war, or the threat of war, will be the impoverished people under these threats.

In these conditions, the position to protect becomes being against the war; to prevent the war: To defend peace! This is the prerequisite to prevent the destruction of the people, growth of poverty, and to stop the capital forcing us with new demands by using new excuses.

In order for those who think they are in the left by defending narrow nationalist reactions, or asserting policies removed from class basis to learn a thing or two, they do not even have to live through the events. There are quite a number of resources that analyze the First and the Second World War from the class analysis perspective.

We need to defend the brotherhood of the peoples.

We must defend peace.

We must collectively weave a common struggle against ploys and for the interests of imperialism with all the peoples of the region.

We must show to all friends and foes what it means to be and the difference of being a revolutionary in an environment where everybody else is shamelessly silent.