Kind of replying, not on behalf of Ianus, i wouldn't dare:)

Submitted by Alexandros (United Kingdom), Nov 23, 2012 at 05:33

Dear Dr Pipes,

I am taking your answer to Ianus as an excuse to extend in a way the opinion i expressed in my first post and also reply to the comment "of looking to the West for inspiration and leadership".

The difference between Kemalists and Islamists is that the first used to have a different attitude towards israel and the Arab world, i take that you being an Israelite take this as the starting point and build around it your opinion, which is alright because it is logic that an Israelite is interested in Israel's interests, but this has as a result to make a mistake, not only towards an objective attitude towards Turkey, but also towards the interests of your country, towards the interests of the US and in the end towards the interests of what we mean western world in general.

First of all and so to explain what my point is, i would like to propose all the books of Neoklis Sarris for Turkey. Neoklis Sarris was a sociologist and historian, unfortunately he died last year, he was born in Istanbul and he knows Turkey and the Turkish society better than anyone and he has written objectively, because he did n't have any kind of hostility or hate against Turkey, neither the politicians, nor the people of course, which i believe nobody hates actually, at least my problem is with the Turkish state.

Kemalists and Islamists are the two sides of the same coin. They both have been underestimated by the West greatly. Both parties are deeply nationalists and have no difference according to their nationalistic ideology with the Grey Wolves basically. They both agree in a lot of issues, for example nobody accepts the genocides, both support the invasion of Cyprus, both deny the Pogroms of Istanbul and Imbros, both support the destruction of any Christian monument, both support the absurd theory of Pan-Turkism, both are militarist regimes with absolute disregard to freedom of speech and human rights, both support that Turkey should be an ally of the US. Which is their difference? The role of religion, the Kemalist have a more bourgoise culture and the Islamists are an Islamic elite. Note that i did not mention their different attitude to Israel or the same attitude that they keep towards Greece and Cyprus which is absolutely hostile. I did not mention any of this because this is their national policy regardless the party in power.

Concerning Greece, the Greek politicians supported Erdogan strongly, because they expected a more friendly approach from him than the militaristic regime of the Kemalists before. He took advantage of this support so to enhance his western profile, the greek politicians were convinced they convinced also the European politicians that Erdogan is interested in giving Turkey a European future and when he took power not only he was n't more friendly towards Greece, but started seeing Greece as an Ottoman district, he threatens Greece and Cyprus constantly and he disregards openly any national law and decision of the UN regarding Cyprus and always try to cause problems in Greece presenting himself as a protector of all Muslims and also in any dispute that Greece is involved, he supports the opponent side, he is clearly a bigger threat than the Kemalists were!

Also, after being a few years in power he changed the attitude of Turkey towards Israel, but would the Kemalists have done different? In my opinion no! I think that they would have also taken advantage that the US got scared of "losing" Turkey when they lost Pakistan. Everything started when Pakistan went rogue and the Americans got panicked. Erdogan took immediate advantage of that and using the American fear he sold his "obedience" for regional dominance, this meant that he did not need Israel any more. Turkey had won the trust of the Americans using Israel and now Israel was a weight for them, it was another Ottoman district, what their interest was, was to gain the trust of the Arabs and gain power through them and inside Islam so to rise as a power.

By this i mean that Israel was played from Turkey just as Greece before, just as US has been played and have n't realised yet. Ianus findings might be cherry picking, but it is worthmentioning because it shows how Kemal used diplomacy to control both sides. He was not Western and he did not give a dime about the West. But let's see what his actions say about him. He called Turkey a republic, this was the only western thing he did, other than that it is a joke to say that Turkey was any kind of Democracy, he slaughtered millions and set the example for Adolf Hitler, he did not take part in the second world war, which at that moment was in favour of the Axis basically and the most possible thing is that if he had the military power at the moment he would have fought for the Axis and when the war was over he kept very good relations with Soviet Union and the proof for that is that Stalin had the opinion the Dodecanesse whould be given to Turkey as a prize for staying neutral and when Stalin was told that the population there is almost in total Greeks, his response was that this could be fixed and that there are some muslims there as well. Which exactly were the Western values he followed then? Basically none! He followed the Western road because Stalin lost Greece and Greece became a member of NATO and he did not want the Americans as an enemy, this is the answer and it is a historically proven answer.

In the end only listening to the national anthem of Turkey, someone can understand that their values are not related to the West by any way!

What i am proposing is to change your perspective towards Turkey, try to explain what are doing disregarding the interests you favour and i think that in the end you wll be able to serve these interests better.

I am just expressing a humble opinion and i am at anyone's disposal for a dialogue and of course at your disposal for this matter,

Sincerely Yours

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".