The Correct Diagnosis of the Problem: It is not a war of faith or religion, but a war for humanity

The most important step required for the treatment of the problem is to make the correct diagnosis. The name and diagnosis of the problem occurring in the Middle East is the “Israel Problem.” It is not the Palestine Problem. Palestine's problem is Israel. It is Israel that causes this problem and continues it.

This war is not a war of faith or religion. It is a war for humanity. With the complexes and trauma remaining from World War II, Israel is doing things worse than what the Nazis did to them, not only to all of Palestine but also by trying to take over the Middle East for its own security. It is not just Palestinians who are dying; humanity is dying.

The permanent solution to the problem is for the current pseudo-state of Israel to withdraw to its pre-1970 borders and for two independent and sovereign states to be established. It should not end there. All administrators, especially Netanyahu, who have followed a fascist path to date, must be tried in the International Human Rights Court just like the Nazis because they have committed crimes against humanity, and they must serve their sentences. No other approach will be able to solve the problem. A ceasefire, a pause in bombing, or any peace agreement will not be a solution.

Anti-Israel approaches in world public opinion are important, but they are neither sufficient nor an approach aimed at a solution. Not drinking coffee from a coffee chain that supports Israel, not buying sneakers, or not using a phone are approaches that can only affect the world economy at the margins. It is very far from making the slightest contribution to the Israel problem; it is a fantasy. Personally, these are just steps in fulfilling our responsibility. By not wearing sneakers—and the same approach is needed all over the world because the company will definitely recover the money for the unsold shoes from the rich who buy the shoes—the ones who will suffer will be the underage slave workers working for starvation wages in Cambodia. Young people working in coffee chains and studying at university with the money they earn will be affected. Israel will not be affected. I cannot say that these approaches have no benefit; they are important steps for public awareness. However, they cannot save the life of a single child in Gaza. Instead of raiding a coffee chain to protest, I would like to invite those who want to make a more meaningful contribution to stop using their credit cards. Can they do it? I highly doubt it.

When the Cyprus problems began in 1964 and 1967, there was a desire to launch an intervention in Cyprus. Inönü's attempt resulted in the Johnson letter. Demirel's attempt had a similar fate. There was one point that was overlooked. That was that both prime ministers wanted America to stop us. The reason for this was that we did not have landing ships in the situation at that time, and our army had no amphibious experience. By 1974, those ships had been built in our shipyards, and the Army had repeatedly conducted landing exercises on the Aegean coasts, which resemble the shores of Kyrenia. Despite these, deficiencies were still seen. For example, because the military radios were British-made, the British were aware of every step of the operation's communications (for only four hours). Afterward, the batteries of the devices ran out, and the British thought that we had developed a new encrypted communication device and therefore could not follow our communications. This event is the reason for the establishment of Aselsan. Between 64-74, the Army prepared for the Cyprus war that would inevitably break out one day. And in the end, it won. In this victory, one must give credit to the determined stances of the late Ecevit and Erbakan. Do not say what Cyprus has to do with Gaza. The only difference between Gaza and Cyprus is that the time is spread over a longer period. The goal in what is being done is the same and reaches out to our national sovereignty. The Israel problem emerged as a result of the Greater Middle East Project developed for Israel's security, and one of the target countries is Turkey.

I hope our army is preparing to defeat a superpower that might one day attempt to occupy our country. This must be one of the purposes of developing short, medium, and long-range missiles. I believe that we have work underway that will send the aircraft carriers of those who attempt to reach out to our sovereignty, whether from the south or the north, to the bottom of the sea.

Turkey is a country with great experience. It is wrong to damage this past success by repeating a cliché statement like “we may come suddenly one night.” If it is necessary to come, one should come. Doing this without voicing it would be much more effective.

So, what can be done to reach the solution I propose? What path should be followed for this solution? If the Muslim countries of the region are to contribute, they should. If they will not, Turkey must be ready to speak to Israel in the language it understands alone. If Israel cannot be stopped today, it will be too late tomorrow. This is very clear.

The US is in a position where it cannot afford to intervene directly in an armed initiative against Israel; after the painful experiences of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, it is difficult for it to risk such a conflict. Moreover, do you remember any war that the US has won? Most of us will think of the Korean War. The establishment of South and North Korea there is not an American success. It is an unsuccessful result. North Korea continues to be a headache for America. A determined power will definitely achieve success against the US. Can this proposal be realized?

Unfortunately, it is very difficult. Saudi Arabia is in conflict with Yemen, Turkey has problems with Syria and Iraq, and Libya and other North African Muslim countries have problems with Egypt. Jordan is a country that is distant from every problem, stands passively neutral, and does whatever America says. Iran is in conflict with all Sunni Muslim countries. The situation in Lebanon is obvious; its airport is being bombed, and it cannot make a sound. It seems difficult to establish a joint force. So, can every country declare war on Israel on its own? Is there any other country that can show the courage that Yemen has shown? Can the countries of the region risk this? The Turkish public is divided on this issue, and both groups have valid points.

It is very easy to engage in peace romanticism by saying there are no winners in war. Remember the days when we fought the War of Independence. There were those who said, "Let the mandate be accepted and let us not fight." Of course, back then we were defending our homeland and our independence, and we were fighting for our sovereignty. However, right now, Israel is at war with Palestine. Within the scope of the Greater Middle East Project, we will also be involved in this situation in the near and medium future; this is very clear. This problem must be solved before it comes to our homeland. Unfortunately, the co-chair of the GMEP, which was made only for a greater Israel, is also from our country.

Is a solution not possible without war? There are other solutions, of course. For example, all countries in the region imposing an air, sea, and land embargo on Israel. The end of this embargo could lead to war, but it must be risked.

In this case, Muslim countries are looking for an effective leader. Is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan this sought-after leader? No. First of all, he has problems with Syria. Other than Qatar, he does not have a relationship that can be called good. Relations with Egypt are just beginning to take shape. The sought-after leader needs to be able to explain this joint initiative to the world effectively, calmly, and with knowledge, both to Muslim countries and to the world. Erdoğan is good at outbursts like "one minute," but these outbursts have no contribution to the solution of the problem and have not had any. He could not even stand tall during the Mavi Marmara incident. Moreover, commercial relations continue in Turkey-Israel relations, and since Turkey has not been able to solve its financial problems, it seems it cannot end these relations. Countries that risk breaking relations with Israel must also risk their relations with the US and the European Union and the sanctions that come with them. What happened during the US Secretary of State's visit breaks our hearts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denies the cheap bravado shouts of the pro-government newspapers with its own voice. Was this the situation we were supposed to fall into? It is a pity and ridiculous.

In the end, do you see a leader or a country that will take an active step for a solution and risk everything?

Why does the world apply double standards? In this double standard, there are both the approaches that Muslim countries cannot agree on and the effects of the Palestinians' own approaches. Another Palestinian organization assassinates the Hamas leader. Instead of a few organizations joining forces, they are at war with each other. This complex situation only helps Israel's dirty ambitions and fascist politics.

Now we have two paths before us. One is to not buy or use the products of certain companies to satisfy our own feelings, to engage in anti-Israel rhetoric, to do tragicomic things, and to satisfy ourselves. The other is to do what will truly solve the problem and push Israel back, to speak the language it understands, to take initiative, and to impose an embargo on Israel by risking war if necessary. No other path is visible. If this problem is tried to be solved today as it was yesterday, we will have risked the threats that will come to our country in the medium and long term.

Prof. Dr. A. Murat Tuncer

Sociologist, Political Scientist

News Source: 12punto