What does Turkey's agreement with Israel not cover?

Turkey's new steps in foreign policy, particularly those involving Israel and Russia, have in many respects offered important opportunities to observe the scale and nature of Turkey's weight in world politics. Turkey's strength in foreign policy is to some extent very closely tied to the economic power it has accumulated in recent years. The relationship and volume of trade developed with Russia in recent years has perhaps made the two countries far more dependent on each other than in the past. That is why the severing of relations harmed both countries. It is a situation arising from the strange paradox between dependence and power in foreign policy. As your power grows, your dependence can grow too. A country cannot become one that has grown powerful and needs no exchange with anyone.

The same is true for Israel. Together with all the aid it receives from the EU or the US, in order to stay on its feet or sustain its power it has to move to a different level of relationship with the countries around it too. The gas it found in the Mediterranean can make it rich, but to turn this gas into material wealth it needs a safe transit route, and along that route there will be Turkey as well as other countries. Thus Israel finds its new opportunities for power in regional peace more than ever before.

In fact, to secure or sustain its own security in the long term it will sooner or later have to see that it needs a different approach in the region that takes the Palestinian people into account. As long as it keeps opening settlements continuously and keeps its occupier position without withdrawing to the 1967 borders, it will be constantly threatening its own security with its own hands.

This is a separate matter, though, but let us touch on the following on this occasion. Because of the agreement Turkey made with Israel, it is supposed that from now on Turkey will enter a relationship of friendship in which it will not let a speck of dust fall on Israel, and the government is almost being criticized for having entered such an agreement. Honestly, since we are aware of all dimensions of the agreement, this criticism sounded too strange to be taken seriously, but seeing that it is being voiced in earnest by sensible people necessitates a few considerations.

First of all, with this agreement Turkey has not formed an alliance with Israel against the Palestinian or Gazan people. Everything done was done in full consultation and consent with all the officials of Palestine and Gaza. Both Khaled Meshaal and Ismail Haniyeh were informed of all stages of the negotiation process leading to this agreement and thanked openly when it concluded.

Second, this agreement is only a step taken to restart relations between the two states. These steps by no means imply that all of Israel's policies will be approved or supported by Turkey, or even, when necessary, exempted from criticism.

For example, even at the time this agreement was made, Turkey has not given up its demand for the blockade to be lifted fully and unconditionally, nor its demand for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, nor its demand that it comply with UN resolutions, nor its claim that Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine. With this agreement or despite it, Turkey will continue to support the Palestinian state and Gaza on every ground, and will continue to criticize Israel for all its wrongs.

I think there was actually no need to say this so openly. But something I heard somewhere really surprised me. At a gathering we dropped by during holiday visits, a person whose Islamic concerns and sincerity I have never doubted said he was sorry that "Turkey has made an agreement with Israel and decided to go to war with Iran." Finding that this opinion is more widespread than I had thought also gave me a great deal to think about. How is it that such a perception can arise?

When Turkey has fixed its relationship with Israel, is it thereby making a choice between Iran and Israel?

Why would that be so?

It is no secret that Turkey is not at all pleased with the sectarian policies that Iran is pursuing in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, and with the instability and unrest these policies have caused, and that it therefore feels great disappointment with Iran. But Turkey is not establishing a relationship with Israel as part of a search for new alliances to open a new front.

For years Turkey kept explaining that improving relations with one does not require spoiling them with another, and it largely put this into practice. It is a great injustice, above all, to attribute to Turkey the idea of an alliance with Israel against Iran or another Islamic country. Even if Turkey is experiencing these great disputes with Iran, at the level of the existing relationship it has never ignored the need to tell Iran its mistakes and the necessity of cooperation to build a better, safer and more stable Islamic world, and it has never thought of destroying a possible opportunity for cooperation.

Turkey's new foreign policy steps are not a return from principled politics to pragmatic politics. Even in pragmatism, people can make choices parallel to their principles. But not doing anything contrary to one's principles, that is what is very important. Mutual interests can sometimes make room for a more principled and humane politics than we think. Making good use of these spaces would also benefit the prevalence of principles.

Turkey does not give up its principles while looking after its interests. It also shows that it is possible to do this. Of course this is a different style of politics. To understand it, one needs to keep watching a little more carefully.