The rhetoric of theft and conflict
Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently made a statement that reverberated globally. In a press conference addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he likened the situation to outright theft: "You occupy somebody's land, confiscate their house, kick them out, and then bring somebody else and put them there. And you call that a settler. This is theft."
Isn't that an exciting position for Minister Fidan to take? He represents a country where Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds, Yezidis, Laz, Arabs, and many other ethnic groups have ancient claims to the land.
The irony isn't lost–it's glaring. It's akin to thieves casting stones at other thieves, perhaps to deflect attention or dilute the gravity of their misdeeds. Fidan's country has not only been implicated in territorial disputes but has also been known to influence global conflicts covertly.
Yet here he is, criticizing Israel despite his government's deals with the nation, even following the Mavi Marmara incident. Is this the complexity of criminal psychology at play, where the accused deflects blame and accusation by pointing at another?
Thieves often seek social respectability and prestige among their peers. Pointing out the crimes of others could serve as a mechanism to elevate their stature, creating a façade of righteousness.
But there's another layer to this–the role of collaborators. Political statements, often made in tandem with more powerful allies, can divert attention from one's misdemeanors while shining a spotlight on others. Israel.
Yet some see through the smoke and mirrors, and others don't. The latter, often uninformed or manipulated by the government, cannot question and scrutinize. They neglect the historical context and overlook their nation's role in such conflicts.
Fidan's characterization of the Israeli-Palestinian situation as "theft" oversimplifies a profoundly intricate issue. This reductionist view hinders constructive dialogue and shows a clear bias, which raises the question: is Turkey genuinely a participant in this conflict, or merely a superficial player?
In an era where "international powers" feign allegiance but prioritize their interests, the discerning observer must scrutinize every statement meticulously. As seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the European Union's direct deal with Russia, the shifting sands of alliances expose the superficiality of proclaimed allegiances.
In the grand orchestration of international politics, the silence in Karabakh, the isolation in Ukraine, and the vocal support for Palestine may not show genuine support but strategic posturing.
In conclusion, Minister Fidan's assertion is not isolated. It mirrors a global political theatre where old "thieves" weave intricate veils of deception, drawing attention to current "thieves" while adeptly cloaking their own historical and ongoing transgressions. Every statement, every allegiance, and every condemnation in this complex dance of international relations deserves a discerning, critical examination.