To those keen on sitting at the table with America

There is no need to recall the most important arguments of those who advocated for Turkey to side with America during the debates on the March 1 motion. These days, the same arguments are being repeated over and over, somehow finding the audacity to present a "we told you so" attitude. While everything that has happened requires us to give thanks day and night for not being made a tool of this atrocity, they are still trying to whet appetites by pointing to the spoils left over from this savagery.

The argument was immoral in every respect from the very beginning: it suggested that in this process where the invasion of Iraq could not be prevented, Turkey should at least be involved in the process, or more clearly, have a seat at the table. From what has transpired, we can conclude that these people—who presented America as if they had known it as a friend for forty years—either did not know their friend at all or were trying to trick this side on behalf of their friend. For America's persistent attitude in the plans it tries to implement in the Middle East leaves no room whatsoever for any companion to offer any input. It acts as the sole determinant in every matter, following its own course.

Far from allowing a partner like Turkey, which might settle for whatever is left over at such a table, the opportunity to intervene, what is currently happening leaves no room for intervention even for Britain, which has appeared to be America's biggest partner, ally, and true partner at the table from the beginning. The picture regarding where America stands concerning Israel's attack on Lebanon is gradually taking a very different form than at its beginning. America, which rushed weapons to the front during the most brutal moments of the attacks and persisted in providing every convenience to Israeli aggression at a moment when any reason would find it unjustifiable, does not hesitate to openly sponsor Israeli aggression. While everyone is very keen to expose the implicit role of Iran and Syria behind Hezbollah and Hamas, it is also very interesting that no one asks what kind of thing this blatant support and direction from America actually is.

The British public was not very convinced about the American alliance that began with the invasion of Iraq in the first place. That alliance had also found a place with the grounds brought into play here: to be effective at the Iraq table and to balance America's unbridled power.

Britain might be snatching a few things from the table, but far from balancing America's unbridled use of power, it is clear that it has been unable to refrain from sharing in the same atrocity. Now, the British public rightly opposes the extension of the alliance to Israel's recent aggression. Tony Blair is criticized at every opportunity by his own ministers and party MPs for the meaningless support given to Israel. It is said that there is not even a single MP within the Labour Party who supports the Iraq and Israel policies.

Whenever Blair is overwhelmed by these criticisms, he takes refuge in America. Having sat at the table there initially under the pretext of balancing America and preventing things from reaching more irrational dimensions, he fails every single time to achieve a result such as conveying the pressure of his own public. On the contrary, he returns every time convinced of American policies. For instance, he made his last trip to America under the pressure of his own public's demand for an unconditional ceasefire. But he returned from there with messages emphasizing the importance of disarming Hezbollah for Middle East peace. This was a message completely contrary to the advice of his own Foreign Office and cabinet. What was recommended to him was that Israeli attacks were counter-productive and that he should make efforts toward securing an immediate ceasefire (The Guardian, August 3, 2006).

The condition of disarming Hezbollah already constitutes the most unjust and irrational pretext or goal of American and Israeli aggression, blocking a ceasefire even in the medium term and further cementing the grave consequences of "counter-productive" Israeli aggression. The British public sees much of what we see and has now fully understood that sitting at the table with America is not enough to influence American policies. America is always a bit more persuasive, or finds a way to step on Blair's toes every time.

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from this situation will serve to better understand America for the future: if you have a goal of influencing American policies, the way to do so usually does not involve sitting at the same table with America.