'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 conversation with journalists on the plane.

Back then, journalism was being 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 President's and Prime Minister's domestic and international trips 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 diplomacy at the highest level through a mechanism established at the level of heads of state.

Demirel was pressuring Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had assumed a leadership role of sorts in the Arab world, to have Öcalan removed from Syria, and was asking him to make more effort to convince Hafez al-Assad.

But Hafez al-Assad would not be convinced; he did not want to let go of such a major trump card against Turkey as 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 way back.

Demirel would not give the headline, he would skillfully dodge the question, he could not bring himself to say, "we are returning empty-handed"; nor would he hint at it so that we could write a few lines of assertive news as we saw fit.

Then, a young reporter from the back rows of the plane asked a question that was half-midfield, half-shot: if we know where Öcalan is, why don't our planes go and strike there?

A few seconds felt like a few years; Demirel swallowed hard first, aware that every sentence that would come out of his mouth would be a headline one way or another. Not answering was not an option! Then he straightened up in his seat on the plane and said, "Look, my brother," he said, "We are conducting diplomacy. If we wanted war, we would have declared war long ago. Thousands of our people have died from terrorism. Our soldiers are being martyred. But first, let us seek the normal in the reasonable, and the reasonable in the normal. What you are saying is a matter for later."

The headline was out:

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, in that period, 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 faded and then disappeared completely. In the past 22 years, whatever was unreasonable became normal, and whatever was abnormal became considered reasonable. Erdoğan's pragmatism, which would make even Machiavelli look mild, replaced state wisdom.

However, this pragmatism seems to have reached a dead end on the Israel issue.

The fact that US Treasury Under Secretary Brian Nelson said they were "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," was lost in the intensity of the agenda.

Yet the background of this statement is closely related to the government's current Middle East policy.

I asked an old news source of mine who both follows the diplomatic arena very closely and is well-versed in diplomatic backstage.

"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 will Israel be the old Israel, nor will Hamas be the old Hamas—that is, whatever remains of Hamas, of course!

Countries that put up with everything Erdoğan does, 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 and result-oriented process could be initiated through an Israeli government without Netanyahu and a Palestinian government that does not include Hamas.

They may roll up their sleeves for a "fair" and lasting peace according to the West. Preparations have already begun quietly. It seems there is a calendar in the minds of Western countries.

This can be called the "worst-case scenario" for Erdoğan, who does his best 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 an accusation of providing financial support to terrorism. The fact that the US gave this message through the press rather than behind closed doors is important in terms of showing the seriousness of the issue.

In this process, it is not a distant possibility at all that the bill for every step taken by Islamist organizations in Palestine will be charged to Turkey.

The next stage is a situation of choosing between sanctions and more sanctions for Turkey!

Can Erdoğan reverse his current position, and if he shifts into reverse, will the problem be solved?

As of today, it is difficult to get a "yes" answer.

What is being talked about in diplomatic backstage 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 an intense migration movement towards Europe; on the other hand, there is fear that Turkey's destabilizing effect on the Middle East will increase even further.

Especially in foreign policy, the bill for stopping the search for the reasonable in the normal and the normal in the reasonable seems to be getting heavier in the coming period.

Finally, let us provide a piece of critical backstage information and put a period to our article by saying that one of the leading countries of the EU is trying to learn through its diplomats in Ankara whether Minister of Finance Mehmet Şimşek will be dismissed as of 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 election.