President Erdogan delivers his speech to the masses at the Great Palestine Meeting (Anatolia)
Social media pages in Arabic have always been a tool for Turkish soft power through which it tries to address the Arab public. Official and party figures have competed to open platforms in Arabic, and have embraced and supported hundreds of Turkish activists and media professionals who are proficient in Arabic to be a voice for Turkey in the Arab world.
The public from various Arab countries visited these pages because of their admiration for the experience of the Turkish rise, and their eagerness to research its smallest details. A quick look at these accounts was sufficient to realize the extent of the celebration and positive interaction with everything published.
But the war of extermination on Gaza constituted a turning point in the electronic interaction with these accounts, as it appeared to any observer that the public was sensing the shift in the official Turkish position on the war, in a conscious and clearer way than any political and media analyzes and studies, and in fact the public was more liberated from the accounts. Politicians and writers and media professionals expressed their dissatisfaction with this Turkish transformation.
It is enough to look at the responses that poured in to the post of President Erdogan’s official account on February 13 to realize the public’s disappointment and awareness, and at the same time its freedom from the necessities of courtesy that restrict others.
The Turkish position during the war of extermination on Gaza can be summarized with the word absence;
Absence from the positions taken previously and from the promises and speeches that were made on more than one occasion, which raised people’s expectations and hopes, and this is a syndrome that has not left Turkish foreign policy on many issues.
The Turkish position during the war of extermination on Gaza can be summarized with the word absence;
Absence from the positions taken previously and from the promises and speeches that were made on more than one occasion, which raised people’s expectations and hopes, and this is a syndrome that has not left Turkish foreign policy on many issues.
What raises discontent among those interacting electronically is that they see that official Turkey is not making a significant effort within its Islamic and Arab environment to stop the genocide, or thwart the plans for displacement and starvation, but rather its diplomatic movement is framed within the space drawn by its Foreign Minister at the beginning of the war, and which he defined as being regular. Within the framework of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
This gap has become a concern for many who looked with admiration at Turkey for reasons that go beyond the economic renaissance, or the charming beauty of its cities and beaches, or the drama, cuisine, and customs close to them. They made it a destination for their hearts because of its positions in supporting the oppressed, siding with truth, and confronting aggression.
This absence can also be observed in the lack of official attendance at the ceasefire mediations, the modesty of initiatives seeking to break the siege and remove official support for them, the decline in the circulation of news of the genocide through television channels and the media, the fading of the popular movement in the street, and the involvement of the business elite close to the Justice and Development Party in A chorus of denial or justification for trade with Israel.
While these were the limits of action, the enthusiastic promises and speeches knew no bounds, leaving a gap between words and actions that is difficult to camouflage or beautify, especially since the data and numbers indicate the continued supply of vital goods to “Israel” through Turkish companies and ports as it was before the war.
This gap has become a concern for many who looked with admiration at Turkey for reasons that go beyond the economic renaissance, or the enchanting beauty of its cities and beaches, or the drama, cuisine, and customs close to them. They made it a destination for their hearts because of its positions in supporting the oppressed, siding with truth, and confronting aggression, and the statement in Davos that Shimon Peres is not a peacemaker. Rather, he killed children, and that the world is bigger than five, which have become slogans for rejecting hegemony and breaking the norm, but none of these statements find their validity in the position on the annihilation of Gaza.
All of this comes at a time when Turkey is repositioning itself in the region as part of a reconciliation campaign with the forces and symbols that have aborted peoples’ dreams of democracy and freedom, and is conspiring to starve the civilian population in Gaza to break their political will, making the lackluster position on the war of extermination an unprecedented event at a time full of disappointments. Hope, which widens the gap between speech and actions much greater than any ability to beautify and improve.
Here I wonder, will Turkey’s sun set in our Arab world from Gaza as it rose from it 14 years ago?
Or will it be followed by a future path of correction?
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.