Has Hamas miscalculated Turkey's role?- Some Thoughts on Regional Divisions

It has almost been a month since Israel launched its attack on Gaza, with the world standing by as over a thousand Palestinian civilians have been killed; it being clear that by all estimates Hamas militants killed in the fighting easily makeup the minority of victims.

Despite this, Hamas remains defiant from the start to continue with the “noble resistance” of shooting rockets into Israel, and attacking Israeli civilian and military targets via the tunnels. And, despite their large arms cache, and improved tactics, the Islamist group has proved mostly incapable of penetrating Israel’s iron dome and borders.

After such mass violence -- all claim that this round of violence far surpasses previous rounds of fighting -- it is clear that no protest, diplomatic sanctions, and international pressure, will distract the Israeli government from its onslaught. While it seems that both sides were not interested in the mass escalation, the question is why then have we reached this point where no ceasefire has been able to take hold. 

Anyone surprised at the death and destruction however should take a moment and place the current state of affairs in Gaza into the context of the current state of affairs of the Middle East. Following the Arab Spring, or more correctly, the popular uprising staged against the region’s dictators, the Middle East has become even more polarized, exacerbating regional divisions.   

Egypt’s former president Mohammed Morsi, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood, first brought hopes of change, providing support for Hamas. However, his policies set off mass protests at home, which led to a coup d’état.  The downfall of Morsi was not only a major blow to Hamas but also to Turkey’s Erdogan who saw himself as Morsi’s mentor. Without Egypt, Turkey would now represent Hamas’ stance; albeit, with little success. 

Just like Egypt, the Syrian conflict, which has led to the death over 170,000 people, shook the region and ignited the realigning of previous alliances. Just years before the breakout of the Syrian revolution, Erdogan placed his bets on Assad, which signaled a forming alliance against Israel, Mubarak’s Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and not surprisingly against the Palestinian authority. Once again Turkey landed on the side of Hamas.

As the Syrian revolution turned into a civil war, Turkey realigned itself with radical groups against Assad’s forces, while Hamas was left without Syrian-and Iranian-support. In fact, even if Turkey never officially pronounced its support for these groups, there is plenty of evidence that it supplied arms to ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra fighters and allowed them free movement within their border (with the grace of the United States).  

With this Middle East division, Hamas was left with two countries, Turkey and Qatar. In other words, the deadlock in reaching a ceasefire seems to be due to the fact that Hamas placed its hopes on Turkey and Qatar's ability to successfully lobby on its behalf. However, until now this has clearly failed.  

Just as Turkey's strategy failed in Syria, it seems that its strained relations with Israel and Egypt has made it more irrelevant than ever before. Even if Turkey succeeds in brokering a ceasefire, it will not be much more than a photo-op since in the end it seems it will most likely be dictated by Egypt. Regardless of the outcome, the current crisis has shown once again Turkey's inability to progress regional stability. 

No doubt that in the meantime Palestinians are in dire need of a ceasefire to stop the killing-something that Syrians, Iraqis (and Libyans) most likely will not get the chance to encounter in the near future.  However, rest assured that even if the polarized Middle East has caused a great deal of death and destruction, there could be much more in sight. 

How Turkey misread the Egyptian Political Map

Following the recent Egyptian army’s military coup that ousted its democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, the Turkish government immediately announced its disappointment, and unsuccessfully campaigned internationally to have it reversed. Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, stated that “No matter where they are ... coups are bad.... Coups are clearly enemies of democracy,” and went on to describe the negative effects coups had had on Turkish history. Reiterating his thoughts, his Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutolgu, called on the military to integrate Morsi back into politics, and claimed that the military coup was a counter revolution masterminded by “internal and external actors who wanted the continuation of the [Hosni Mubarak] era paradigms.” He also compared the military coup in Egypt with those in Turkey’s past.

There is no doubt that with Turkey’s past history with military coups, and the Turkish government’s strengthening of the state’s institution to prevent further ones, many in Turkey affiliated with the government saw their state as a model for the Egyptian case; further, following Morsi’s winning of the presidency, Erdogan took Morsi under his wing, acting somewhat of a mentor, guiding him on how a Muslim conservative government could defy an anti-democratic secular elite. In fact, Morsi was even showcased at last year’s AK party convention, where he was awarded up to two billion dollars in loans and support from Turkey, which significantly poised the Middle East with a new reality: no longer would countries in the region have to look to the US or Russia for support, or to the Arab Oil states, now Turkey was in the game.

Throughout all of this however, the Turkish government, and many of the Turkish sympathizers of President Morsi, have missed one important point: Egypt is not Turkey. Historically, the two countries could not be farther apart from one another. While many in Turkey are quick to point out the shared past of Turkey and Egypt under the Ottoman Empire, few scrutinize this claim; yes, for Turks longing for a glorious past, the Ottoman years in Egypt seems quite vivid; yet, they miss the fact that since the early 19^th century the Ottomans never had any direct rule over the country that eventually fell to British occupation in 1882. While the Albanian Ottoman officer, Mehmet Ali, and his descendants who turned into Egypt’s royal family and were eventually overthrown by the Young Officers in 1952, did speak Turkish, Egypt’s political map developed independently of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, much of what can be envisioned as the “Turkish” past, has just as much to do with Egypt’s Mamluk past than its Ottoman one.    

While Erdogan has worked to compare the fate of Mohammed Morsi, to those who suffered coups at the hands of the Turkish military, the comparison stops there. Any scholar of Egypt can attest to the fact that unlike Turkish history, Egyptian history is rich with popular uprisings and challenges to the state: from the Urabi revolt, to the Dinshaway Incidents, the 1919 revolution ignited by the Wafd incidents, the Egyptian revolution lead by the Free Officers Movement (leading to the renowned rule of Gamal Abdul Nassar), to the 1977 bread riots, Egyptians have a long history of hitting the streets to challenge Ottoman, British colonial, and Egyptian led governments. It is in this context that which the January 25 uprising, and the more recent June 30 one, which led to a military coup, need to be placed.

In other words, there is little comparison to the Turkish case, where the military-secular elite took the reins of the government, aiming to keep the state within their parameters of Kemalist ideology, which has developed for almost a century; while parallel to this the AK party emerged in 2002 as the result of a growing civil demand to once and for all remove the military completely from the public sphere. Not to mention the fact that Erdogan himself, by serving as the mayor of Istanbul, was a well-known politician who had built up credibility over years of public service, and importantly integrated elements of Kemalism in his own party’s platform and worldview. In other words, comparing the rise of the AK party to that of Morsi’s FJP party (affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood) is also quite far-fetched since it carries few similarities.         

In short, Turkish policy makers that treated Morsi and the recent coup, as if this was parallel to the Turkish case, have completely misread the Egyptian political map. I think few would argue with Erdogan’s claim that military coups are enemies of democracy, including many Egyptians in Tahrir Square who called for Morsi’s resignation; however, by discrediting the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets as not having legitimate claims and accusing them of not abiding by the rules of democracy, only blurs the reality that what occurred in Egypt had also a great deal to do with Morsi’s poor leadership and the fears of a large part of the Egyptian people who believed Morsi was set on implementing an authoritarian state similar to the one they had rejected two years ago. In other words, what we recently witnessed in Egypt was a continuation of the revolution that started two years ago; unfortunately, Morsi underestimated the army, and in place of working for a compromise, he opted for all-or-nothing, a price that Egypt is paying for today, with the military working under a similar approach violently cracking down on the Morsi camp.

Certainly, as violence continues to grow in Egypt, with Morsi’s return further away than ever, Turkey will need to stand two-steps back and reassess its relationship with Egypt; however, regardless of which group emerges from the current power struggle, it seems that Egyptians are more skeptical than ever concerning Turkey’s future role. Perhaps, this is the reason for the recent change: after the Turkish government vowed not to recognize Adly Mansour’s presidency, last Wednesday, Turkish President Abdullah Gul sent Mansour a message conveying good tidings on Egypt’s national day. This seems to be the first sign that Turkey is looking for away to safely climb down from the tree in an attempt to cut its losses. 

This approach is especially important as Egypt's witnesses its second massacre of Morsi supporters. If Turkey really wants to secure stability in Egypt then it will have to remove its status as an advocate of Morsi, and start to work under realpolitik, or even "damage control," to take every possible step that will contribute to a peaceful solution and place Egypt back on a democratic path; since as we have seen the continued stalemate (deterioration of the situation) is only to the detriment of the Egyptian people, not to mention Turkey's credibility in the region at large.  

  

Revolutions, a Film, and Obama: A Look at the recent anti-US Protest in the Middle East

Recently, news from the Middle East does not look good.  Last week, anti-American riots broke out in Egypt as the result of an obscure cheaply produced amateur film degrading Muhammad, the Muslim prophet.  Parallel to this, and seemingly not related to the film, an anti-American group of fighters (perhaps motivated by al-Qaeda) carried out a well planned attack on the American consulate in Libya, killing the US ambassador, Chris Stevens. Following the riots and the killing of the ambassador, a wave of commentary has emerged questioning whether or not the Arab uprisings, coined the Arab Spring, was “good” for the US, Europe, or even the Arabs themselves.

The fickleness demonstrated by so many concerning the Arab Spring is not new.  After the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Muhammad Mursi, in the Egyptian Presidential elections, some western news outlets covering the elections made it sound like it was doomed to become another Islamic Republic of Iran.  Now that Syria has fallen into a civil war, some in the world long for the days when Syrians never dared make a peep about their unhappiness with Bashar Assad’s totalitarian regime.     

If one supports, or does not support, the Arab uprisings, we all need to recognize the fact that there was no alternative to the revolutions, and we cannot turn the clock back. Revolutions happen not because one party supports one way or the other. They emerge due to deep desperation and the will of the people to make change. Yes, the Middle East has been thrown into a tumultuous and chaotic period; however, this should be expected due to the fact that for decades a tight lid was kept on their societies with their leaders ruling through coercion and corruption, losing all legitimacy in the eyes of their people. 

The short film, Innocence of Muslims, which sparked off the anti-American riots is not the source of hate for the US, only the catalyst.  While the killing of the ambassador is sad and frustrating it should not come as a surprise. The Americans are not a neutral partner in the unfolding of events and they cannot expect to remain unscathed.  The US is an integral part of the old order, which the masses rebelled against.  It was the US that propped up for years the late Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It is the US that has not been able to pressure Israel to move towards a peace agreement and end its 45 years of the occupation of Palestinian lands.  It is the US, which invaded Iraq on false pretensions and left the country in shambles, which under their command introduced new levels of violence to the region.

For those who keep criticizing the Arab uprisings and asking if they were good for the West, don’t forget this revolution belongs to the Arab people, not to Washington, or NATO. For the US to regain the trust of the people, taking measures at damage control will not suffice, but rather a serious reassessment of the US role in the Middle East which treats the regimes as equals and not as their cronies.  In the mean time, the US will also have to bear the backlash of violence and anger that they themselves sowed. 

On the flip side of the coin, the new Arab governments have shown that they are interested in stability and retaining relations with the US.  Moreover, we can breathe a sigh of relief because until now violent protests against the US have been directed at government offices and not at its citizens who reside in these countries. 

If Obama is reelected, the US will have a golden opportunity to show the region that they are serious about change, something way beyond the reach of Mitt Romney and the Republicans.  Moreover, President Obama will have the perfect opportunity to show the world that he did not win in 2009 the Nobel Peace prize in vain. A second term will allow him to make his stamp on the future of the Middle East, hopefully, one with an independent Palestine. What is for sure, time is not on his side.      

One more Day in Tahrir Square and the Meaning of Victory

February 6, 2011

Few would have imagined that the struggle would go on for so long. Even in my last blog, I stated that victory was near. Well the fact is it is near, especially for those waiting for thirty years! As another day passes, we continue to see a strong opposition, and cracks in the Egyptian government. Everyone however is right to ask how long can this go on? And, what does victory exactly mean? Now that almost two weeks have passed, it now seems unlikely that Egypt will see their President fleeing the country on the next plane as we did in Tunis. However, this does not equal failure; in fact, the opposite is true: the protestors have shown a great amount of strength which is seen in their soberness not to be enticed into violence. Simply, they have demonstrated that they are a responsible opposition, keeping the wellbeing of the majority at the top of their agenda.

Today, banks and businesses slowly began to open their doors, in an attempt by the government to show that life is “getting back to normal.” However, the protestors’ numbers grew throughout the day and they still can be sure that they have the majority of Egyptians behind them. Once again we saw both Christians and Muslims praying and protesting side-by-side; like so much of Egypt’s modern history, and Arab history in general, we see the two main denominations uniting together for a common cause. Not to mention the fact that both the Muslim and Christian communities in the square are not monolithic, meaning they are numerous groups in the square representing a spectrum of secularists and religious groups, and alongside them are the masses of citizens, who perhaps while not belonging to a certain political grouping, certainly have voiced their opinion much louder than any political party could have orchestrated.

As the protest continues, President Hosni Mubarak has remained hiding by the scenes with his government scrambling to try to end the popular uprising. However, it will take much more than the resignation of the top leadership of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, including his son Gamal, as we saw yesterday. Today, in attempt to start negations with the opposition, Vice President Omar Suleiman met with numerous political parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been outlawed since the 1950’s, with some of their leaders still in prison. One person who was not invited who is one of the symbols of the protests, Nobel Peace prize recipient Mohammed al-Baradei, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Until now, he has been the strongest voice in terms of reaching the US and Europe, demanding nothing less than Mubarak’s immediate resignation.

It is perhaps for this reason that al-Baradei was not invited since the government is interested reaching a compromise where Mubarak will remain as President without any real powers. In a sense, a move to save his image, allowing him to step down in a few months on his accord. Rightly so, the different opposition parties remain quite suspicious. With the continued arrest of journalists, the Egyptian government is still enforcing the State of Emergency Laws which has limited freedom of speech in Egypt for the last thirty years (actually since 1967, abolished for 18 months by assassinated Anwar Sadat, and then reinstated by Mubarak in 1981).

With the Egyptian establishment remaining stable and steadfast, and the army and Omar Suleiman remaining loyal to Mubarak, it seems almost inevitable that the real change will come once a deal is made between opposition parties leading to early elections. While it hard to say how this will play out, it seems safe to say that indeed the protestors have changed the future of Egypt; certainly, if Egypt will see free and fair elections in the near future this will be the true victory of the millions who sent their leaders a message of “no more,” showed other Middle Eastern regimes that they are living on borrowed time, and demonstrated to the world that every voice really can count.

The Sweetness of Victory: A New Egypt?

February 4, 2010

At the moment, as I am writing this, one almost does not need more proof; the pro-democracy protestors' victory is closer than ever, with millions of Egyptians from all of walks of life gathering throughout Cairo and Alexandria in a festive atmosphere calling in unison “Down with Mubarak!” Clearly, the “Day of Departure” has brought the victory so close that from Tahrir Square all the way to the other side of the world, we all can smell and taste its sweetness.

President Hosni Mubarak last night in a non-televised interview with ABC’s Christine Amanpour sent out a message that he himself was “fed-up” and that he is not stepping down because he is afraid of Egypt falling into chaos. Vice President Omar Suleiman also aired an interview confirming the tired President’s words, and also reiterated that the Egyptian government will not use the army against the protestors. And, this was the case today with the Egyptian army which worked together with protestors and has ensured their security. Truly, Mubarak should recognize that it is he who is causing chaos and that for the first time he needs to trust his own people, and not the other way around.

It is imperative that the government and the protestors come to a compromise which will bring the immediate resignation of Mubarak, in order to ensure that the “New Egypt” will not fall into a state of absolute chaos and violence. However, for now we can still remain upbeat. The anti-Mubarak campaign has shown their utmost respect for order, and inclusiveness; in short, a true democratic revolution. Egypt has always been a leader in the Middle East and their citizens have given the world a lesson in how to hold massive peaceful demonstrations without falling into the trappings of a regime which up until yesterday did everything to light flames and to incite violence.

Today with the government taking the backseat,the pro-democratic forces have ushered in a new beginning for Egypt. Once Mubarak resigns, the real test will be for the New Egypt to show their citizens (and the world) that after the Mubarak regime a true democracy based on a liberal democratic system will ensue, promising a place for all to live in freedom and dignity. Otherwise, this will all have been in vain.

In conclusion, as I write from Tel Aviv, I put my trust in all of those protestors, who after a long day are slowly returning home to be with their families, unsure of what tomorrow will bring. They should be satisfied that, together with the Tunisians, they have set a new bar for democracy not only for the Middle East but also for the world.