Bahadır Selim Dilek: One of the leading EU countries is trying to find out whether Mehmet Şimşek will be dismissed

Journalist and 12punto columnist Bahadır Selim Dilek stated in his assessment, "One of the leading countries of the EU is trying to learn through its diplomats in Ankara whether Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek will be dismissed by the end of December or the beginning of January, and whether Erdoğan will bring another name to the helm of the economy just before the elections."

Bahadır Selim Dilek's assessments are as follows:

 'One must seek the reasonable in the normal, and the normal in the reasonable' 

Demirel used to use this phrase.

I first heard it in September 1997, while returning to Turkey after a visit to Egypt, during a chat with journalists on the plane. Back then, journalism was done as it should be. Today's young journalists might even think it's a joke, but throughout the 90s, reporters could ask any kind of question to all politicians, including Demirel, without hesitation. For this reason, the domestic and international trips of the President and the Prime Minister were extremely productive in terms of news. Throughout the second half of the 90s, since the PKK terror and the Öcalan issue were the most important agenda items of the contacts made with Middle Eastern countries, eyes were inevitably turned to the visits made to the region. The most critical country for diplomatic traffic was Egypt. Turkey was conducting high-level diplomacy through a mechanism established at the level of heads of state. Demirel was pressuring Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had assumed a self-styled leadership of the Arab world, to expel Öcalan from Syria, and wanted him to make more effort to convince Hafez al-Assad. But Hafez al-Assad would not be convinced and did not want to let go of a major trump card against Turkey like Öcalan. For this reason, Demirel's day-trip visits to Egypt soon turned into a futile effort. Naturally, journalists were also pressuring him on the return journey. Demirel would not give the headline, skillfully dodging the question, and could not bring himself to say, "we are returning empty-handed"; nor did he imply it, so that we could write a few lines of assertive news in our own way. Then, a young reporter from the back rows of the plane asked a question that was half-pass, half-shot: if we know where Öcalan is, why don't our planes go and strike that place? A few seconds felt like a few years; Demirel swallowed first, aware that every sentence that would come out of his mouth would be a headline one way or another. It wouldn't do not to answer! Then he straightened up in his seat on the plane and said, "Look, my brother, we are conducting diplomacy. If we wanted war, we would have declared war long ago. Thousands of our people have died from terror. Our soldiers are being martyred. But first, let us seek the normal in the reasonable, and the reasonable in the normal. What you are talking about is a later matter."

The headline had emerged:

Signal for a military operation to Syria from Demirel!

The next day, newspapers came out with this and similar headlines. But no one put Demirel's sentence, "let us seek the normal in the reasonable, and the reasonable in the normal," in the headline. Yet, at that time, the main line in both domestic and foreign policy was always determined through this sentence; state wisdom was at the forefront. With the AKP coming to power in 2002, this line first became blurred and then completely disappeared. In the past 22 years, whatever was unreasonable became normal, and whatever was abnormal became reasonable. Erdoğan's pragmatism, which would even make Machiavelli look merciful, replaced state wisdom. However, this pragmatism seems to have reached a dead end on the Israel issue. US Treasury Undersecretary Brian Nelson's statement that they are "concerned about Turkey's support for Hamas," followed by his words that "we are deeply concerned that Hamas may continue to raise funds or find financial support for its operations for future terrorist attacks it may carry out in Turkey," were lost in the intensity of the agenda.

However, the background of this statement is closely related to the government's current Middle East policy. I asked a former news source of mine who both follows the diplomatic arena very closely and is well-versed in diplomatic backchannels. "Erdoğan is standing above a critical threshold in his relations with the West," he said, and added:

- But he is not yet aware of this...

I carefully noted what he told me. After the crisis in Gaza, neither Israel will be the old Israel, nor will Hamas be the old Hamas—that is, whatever remains of Hamas, of course! Countries that have tolerated everything Erdoğan has done, saying "as long as he doesn't open the doors to refugees," may take a new political and diplomatic position based on a new paradigm regarding the Middle East. A new, results-oriented process could be initiated with an Israeli government that does not include Netanyahu and a Palestinian government that does not include Hamas. They might roll up their sleeves for a "fair" and lasting peace, according to the West. Quiet preparations have already begun. It seems there is a calendar in the minds of Western countries. This can be called the "worst-case scenario" for Erdoğan, who does everything he can to keep Hamas, and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood, in the region. Turkey will not only be excluded from the new process between Israel and Palestine, but it will also face accusations of providing financial support to terrorism. The fact that the US is delivering this message through the press rather than behind closed doors is significant in terms of demonstrating the seriousness of the matter. In this process, it is not at all a remote possibility that the bill for every move made by Islamist organizations in Palestine will be laid at Turkey's door. The next stage for Turkey is a situation of choosing between one sanction or another, one embargo or another! Can Erdoğan reverse his current position, and would the problem be solved if he shifted into reverse? As of today, it is difficult to get a "yes" answer. What is being discussed in diplomatic backchannels this time is different. On one hand, there is fear that Turkey will turn into an economic black hole after the local elections and that this will trigger a massive migration movement toward Europe; on the other hand, there is concern that Turkey's destabilizing influence on the Middle East will increase even further. Especially in foreign policy, the cost of stopping the search for the reasonable in the normal and the normal in the reasonable seems set to be heavy in the coming period.

Finally, One of the leading EU countries is reportedly trying to find out through its diplomats in Ankara whether Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek will be dismissed by the end of December or the beginning of January, and whether Erdoğan will bring another name to the helm of the economy just before the elections —let us provide this critical piece of inside information and conclude our article.