Atıf Sayısı
5
Görüntüleme
55
İndirme
14
Çalışmada, Orta Doğu gibi çatışmacı bir coğrafyada kendilerini seküler ve demokratik olarak tanımlayan ve bölgedeki Arap kimliğinden farklı etnik kökenlere sahip iki ülkenin ilişkileri AK Parti dönemi açısından ele alınmıştır. Tarihsel arka planına bakılacak olduğunda İsrail’i ilk tanıyan Müslüman ülke olan ve İsrail'le bölge de savaşmamış az sayıdaki ülkelerden birisi olan Türkiye’nin, günümüzde İsrail ile ilişkilerinin bu seviyeye nasıl geldiği ilgi çekicidir. AK Parti hükümetlerinin İsrail ile yaşadığı krizlerin başlıca nedenlerinin Filistin Sorunundan ziyade olmadığı çalışmada vurgulanmak istenmiştir. Özellikle Davutoğlu’nun Başbakanlık Danışmanlık görevi ile Başbakanlığı arasındaki süreç boyunca TDP’de ortaya koyduğu birtakım doktrinler açıkça İsrail tarafından olumsuz olarak karşılanmıştır. Bu doktrinler kapsamında Orta Doğu’daki Müslüman aktörlerle geliştirilen ilişkilerin, kuşkusuz Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerinde Mavi Marmara’ya kadar varan krizlerin gebe kalması ile de bağlantılı olduğu düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca daha önceki hükümetlerin aksine özellikle 2008’den sonra AK Parti döneminde Türk karar alıcıların İsrail’e karşı kullandığı sert söylemler, Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerindeki diplomatik gerilimi tetiklemiştir. Hiç şüphesiz AK Parti'nin yıllar itibariyle İsrail'e karşı daha muhafazakar bir kimlikle yaklaşmasının bu söylemlerde etkisinin olduğu düşünülmektedir. AK Parti, her fırsatta Filistin halkının yanında olduğunu ortaya koyduğu pro-aktif eylemlerle göstermiştir. İsrail ise realist bir tavırla hareket ederek, AK Parti’nin dış politikalarını kendi iç politikasına müdahale olarak görmüştür. İsrail de aynı şekilde AK Parti'nin sert retoriğine karşı kendi diplomatik hamleleri ile krizi daha üst seviyeye çıkarmakta tereddüt etmemiştir. İsrail’in bu tavrında, hiç şüphesiz İsrail’in tecrübe ettiği 4 büyük Arap-İsrail savaşının getirdiği yalnızlık ve mağdur devlet psikolojisinin de etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir. Fakat, buradan iki ülke arasındaki ilişkilerin bir anda bozulduğu gibi bir sonuç çıkarılmamalıdır. Nitekim, ilişkilerdeki bozulmalar kendi içinde belirli periyodlardan geçerek büyümüş ve olgunlaşmıştır. Örneğin, AK Parti Orta Doğu’daki pro-aktif politikası doğrultusunda HAMAS gibi aktörler ile ilişkiler geliştirmiştir. İkinci olarak, Filistin halkının gördüğü mezalim AK Parti tarafından uluslararası arena da her fırsatta sertçe eleştirilerek ortaya koyulmuştur. Tüm bu politikalar İsrail’i ciddi şekilde rahatsız etmiştir ve etmeye devam etmektedir. Tüm bu gelişmeler kısa bir süre içinde iki ülkenin devlet başkanları birbirlerini “Hitler”, “terörist” ve “soykırım” gibi ciddi söylemler kullanabilecek noktaya getirmiştir.
In the study, the relations of the two countries, which define themselves as secular and democratic in a conflicting geography like the Middle East and have different ethnic origins from the Arab identity in the region, are discussed in terms of the AK Party period. Looking at its historical background, it is interesting how Turkey, which is the first Muslim country to recognize Israel and one of the few countries that has not fought Israel in the region, has reached this level with Israel today. It is aimed to emphasize in the study that the main reasons for the crises experienced by the AK Party governments with Israel are not the Palestine Problem. In particular, some of the doctrines that Davutoğlu put forward in the TDP during the period between his duty as Prime Minister's Advisor and his Presidency were clearly received negatively by Israel. It is thought that the relations developed with Muslim actors in the Middle East within the scope of these doctrines are undoubtedly related to the conception of the crises up to the Mavi Marmara in Turkey-Israel relations. In addition, unlike previous governments, the harsh rhetoric used by Turkish decision makers against Israel, especially during the AK Party period after 2008, triggered diplomatic tensions in Turkey-Israel relations. Undoubtedly, it is thought that the AK Party's approach to Israel with a more conservative identity over the years has had an impact on these discourses. The AK Party has demonstrated with proactive actions that it demonstrates that it is with the Palestinian people at every opportunity. Israel has acted in a realistic attitude, seeing the AK Party’s foreign policy as an interference in its own internal policy. Also, Israel has not hesitated to bring the crisis to a higher level with its own diplomatic movements against the hard rhetoric of the AK Party. In this attitude of Israel, it is undoubtedly believed that the loneliness and victim state psychology brought by the four great Arab-Israeli wars that Israel has experienced are also effective. However, there should not be a result that the relations between the two countries are broken at once. In fact, the disturbances in relationships have grown and mature through certain periods within themselves. For example, the AK Party has developed relations with actors such as HAMAS in the pro-active policy in the Middle East. Secondly, what the Palestinian people see, is seen by the AK Party in the international arena, and it has been strongly criticized in every occasion. All these policies have seriously disturbed Israel and continue to do. All of these developments in a short time have brought the two countries' presidents to a point where they can use serious statements like "Hitler", "terrorist" and "genocide".
In this study, the relations of the two countries, which define themselves as secular and democratic in a conflictual geography such as the Middle East and have different ethnic origins from the Arab identity in the region, are discussed in terms of the AK Party period. When we need to look at the historical background, Turkey is the first Muslim majority country that recognized Israel. Moreover, Turkey is one of the few countries located in the Middle East which did not go to war against Israel. By regarding these facts, it is interesting to see how relations between Turkey and Israel came to its current level. It was tried to emphasize in the study that the leading causes of the crises with the AK Party and Israel were not only the Palestinian Issue. In particular, some of the doctrines that Davutoğlu put forward for Turkish Foreign Policyduring the process between the Prime Ministry Advisory Office and the Prime Minister's Office have been negatively perceivedby Israel. Within the scope of these doctrines, relations developed with Muslim actors in the Middle East are undoubtedly linked to a wide range of crises in TurkeyIsrael relations such as Mavi Marmara. Also, unlike the previous governments, AK Party's harsh rhetoric, which used by Turkish decision-makers, especially after 2007, against Israel has triggered diplomatic tensions in Turkey-Israel relations. Undoubtedly, the AK Party's approach to Israel with a more conservative identity over the years is thought to have had an impact on these discourses. Undoubtedly, the AK Party's approach to Israel with a more conservative identity over the years is believed to have affected these discourses. The AK Party has demonstrated its pro-active actions to support the Palestinian people at every opportunity. Israel, on the other hand, acted realistically and viewed the AK Party's foreign policies as an intervention in its domestic policy. Israel did not hesitate to take the crisis to a higher level with its diplomatic moves against the harsh rhetoric of the AK Party as well. The loneliness and victimized state psychology of Israel after four major Arab-Israeli wars are undoubtedly influential in this attitude of Israel. However, it should not be concluded that relations between the two countries suddenly deteriorated. As a matter of fact, in the deterioration of relationships, it has grown and matured in specific periods. For example, the AK Party has developed relations with actors such as Hamas in line with its pro-active policy in the Middle East. Secondly, the atrocities towards the Palestinian people were sharply criticized by the AK Party at every opportunity in the international arena. These policies have seriously disturbed Israel and continue to do so. In a short period, all of these affairs brought the heads of the two countries to the point where they could use dangerous discourses like" Hitler," "terrorist," and "genocide."
Alan : Eğitim Bilimleri; Filoloji; Güzel Sanatlar; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Atıf Yapanlar
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
