In January
2009 the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attracted considerable
media attention, at home and abroad, for his spat with the Israeli Premier,
Shimon Peres, at the Davos World Economic Forum. Apparently, Mr Erdoğan
couldn’t resist taking the opportunity to berate his Israeli counterpart for
his country’s recent actions in the Gaza conflict. Undoubtedly, there has been a
cooling of relations between Turkey and Israel in recent years, especially
since the accession to power of Mr Erdoğan’s AK (Justice and Development)
Party.
Perhaps, then, it’s a good time to take a look at this event in the broader context of history, particularly when Turkey is being increasingly challenged to accept the accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Armenian people.
One important point that must be noted at the outset, of course, is that both Turkey and Israel are relatively ‘new’ nations – the Republic of Turkey was founded as recently as 1923, while Israel became a nation in 1948. At the same time, however, it must also be recognised that the peoples of these two ‘modern’ states have lived as neighbours for more than a millennium. Turkic invaders entered Anatolia in force after defeating the armies of the Byzantine Roman Empire in 1071 CE. Already Muslim, they mixed and intermarried with the predominantly Christian peoples they had conquered, establishing states and empires culminating in the 600-year Ottoman Empire, which lasted until it was finally dissolved after the end of the First World War. It is probably fitting, then, that its successor state, the Turkish Republic, was the first Muslim nation to recognise officially the fledgling nation of Israel.
In my previous post, we looked at the complex procession and interplay of religions that have taken place in this part of the world over three millennia of history. The so-called ‘clash of cultures’, referring to the face-off between the Christian West and the Islamic East, is largely a western construct. Its roots lie in the desire of the medieval Bishops of Rome (Popes) to add the muscle of temporal power to their presumably less satisfying spiritual leadership. In the Near and Middle East, it has been a different story.
Perhaps, then, it’s a good time to take a look at this event in the broader context of history, particularly when Turkey is being increasingly challenged to accept the accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Armenian people.
One important point that must be noted at the outset, of course, is that both Turkey and Israel are relatively ‘new’ nations – the Republic of Turkey was founded as recently as 1923, while Israel became a nation in 1948. At the same time, however, it must also be recognised that the peoples of these two ‘modern’ states have lived as neighbours for more than a millennium. Turkic invaders entered Anatolia in force after defeating the armies of the Byzantine Roman Empire in 1071 CE. Already Muslim, they mixed and intermarried with the predominantly Christian peoples they had conquered, establishing states and empires culminating in the 600-year Ottoman Empire, which lasted until it was finally dissolved after the end of the First World War. It is probably fitting, then, that its successor state, the Turkish Republic, was the first Muslim nation to recognise officially the fledgling nation of Israel.
In my previous post, we looked at the complex procession and interplay of religions that have taken place in this part of the world over three millennia of history. The so-called ‘clash of cultures’, referring to the face-off between the Christian West and the Islamic East, is largely a western construct. Its roots lie in the desire of the medieval Bishops of Rome (Popes) to add the muscle of temporal power to their presumably less satisfying spiritual leadership. In the Near and Middle East, it has been a different story.
For a
start, the Muslim religion always recognised the debt it owed to its
predecessor faiths, Judaism and Christianity. To Muslims, Jews and Christians
are also ‘people of the book’ – followers of a great monotheistic belief system
with shared history and common prophets. The ‘Christian’ crusades of the 11th to the 13th
centuries, it can be argued, were more attempts to unite Western Christendom
under the Popes of Rome, and assert its superiority over the East, whatever
faith they espoused, than the more commonly held belief of a confederation of
the righteous aiming to free the Holy Lands from heathens and unbelievers. As
evidence of this, we can take the fact that the army of the Fourth Crusade took
time, on its way to fight the Muslims, to besiege, conquer and despoil the
Christian capital of Constantinople, 250 years before the Muslim Ottomans set
foot in it. It has also been argued that, prior to the Crusades, genuine
Christian pilgrims from other lands were not prevented from visiting and paying
homage at sacred sites in the city which is sacred to all three religions.
Little of
this, however, directly concerns modern Turkey. Of much more relevance to our
discussion here are the actions of the Ottoman Empire since, at least in
Western eyes, there is an undeniable connection between the two. 1453 is one of
those dates in history that are interpreted by some as marking key transitions
from one age to another. In this case, it was the year that the Ottomans, led
by their youthful Sultan, Mehmet II, known to Turks as ‘the Conqueror’, finally
succeeded in entering the city of Constantinople. However, far from
representing the defeat of a glorious empire, the Ottoman victory was more of a
final symbolic act. The Byzantine capital was, by this time, merely the rump of
a former mighty empire, with a population estimated at no more than 50,000.
The city
that Mehmet the Conqueror envisaged as his own imperial capital required
repopulating – and the Ottoman policy knew no nationalistic exclusivity. The
Sultan brought Greeks and Armenians as well as Turks from other cities to
assist in the economic resurgence of the conquered city. Churches were restored
as mosques were built, and the cosmopolitan character of Constantinople /
Istanbul was established from the outset. The various communities had their own
specialisms in terms of occupations, and each contributed its own areas of
expertise. So, towards the end of the 15th
century, when Mehmet’s successor, Bayezid II opened his welcoming arms to
Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, he saw it as a natural step in
the economic strengthening of his empire. The Jews brought financial expertise
and other trade skills which the Ottomans needed. Neither Turkish ethnicity nor
Islamic belief were prerequisites for citizenship.
It is a
fascinating feature of the Jewish community in Istanbul that most of them trace
their ancestry back to the Sephardic refugees who made their home in the
Ottoman Empire after the forced conversions and persecutions of the Spanish
Inquisition. While Turkish is their first language today, their rituals and
music preserve the Judaeo-Spanish dialect known as Ladino, which they brought
with them from their homes in the Iberian Peninsula. As an aside, contrary to
popular belief, it was Jews and Arabs who were the main target of the Spanish
Catholic Inquisitors at that time, rather than Protestants, whose Reformation
had barely begun, and certainly not in Spain.
A
sub-branch of the Jewish community in the Ottoman Empire was the dönme,
followers of the 17th century self-styled Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi.
This gentleman made himself unpopular with the Ottoman establishment at the
time, and he and his supporters had to convert to Islam in order to remain
within Ottoman borders. It is said, however, that they maintained their Jewish
faith and rituals behind a Muslim façade. Unlike the Spanish, the Ottomans
were, apparently content to accept the ‘conversion’ at face value, and
refrained from applying unpleasant methods to identify backsliders. Two of the
better-known private educational foundations in Istanbul today, FMV Işık and
Terraki, are reputed to have been founded by the dönme community in Salonika,
whence they moved after the population exchanges following the Turkish War of
Independence.
Several
sources set the number of synagogues in modern Istanbul at twenty-one, with a
further eleven in Izmir, and a sprinkling in other Turkish cities. By contrast,
modern Thessaloniki, formerly, during Ottoman times, regarded as the largest Jewish city in the world, has three.
At that time known as Selanik, the city became part of Greece in 1912.
Subsequently, a huge fire in 1917 destroyed much of the city including most of
the synagogues and left many of the Jewish community homeless. After the Nazi
occupation of Greece in 1942, Jews were rounded up and sent to death camps. The
mortality rate is reported to have been 98%.
The
Republic of Turkey maintained its neutrality for most of the Second World War
until the final months. During the war, however, several Turkish diplomats did
their best to alleviate the suffering of Jewish people under threat from the
Nazi extermination machine. Behiç Erkin was Turkey’s ambassador to France from
1939 to 1943. During this period he worked to identify members of the Jewish
community who were of Turkish origin, and to persuade the Nazi authorities that
they should be repatriated to Turkey. His efforts are believed to have saved
thousands of Jews from removal to concentration camps.
Necdet
Kent, Turkish Consul-General in Marseilles, is recognised as having put his own
life at risk to save Jews from transportation to Nazi camps. Stories are told
of how he boarded a train loaded with Jews of Turkish origin bound for Germany,
refusing to get off until the Jewish prisoners were allowed off too.
Selahattin
Ülkümen perhaps saved fewer souls, but paid a higher price for his humanitarian
efforts. As Turkish consul on the island of Rhodes during the Second World War,
he worked to have many Jewish families shipped to Turkey to save them from Nazi
round-ups. After Turkey abandoned its neutrality in the last months of the war
to side with the Allies, his house was shelled by the Germans and his young
wife fatally wounded. He himself was interned in occupied Greece until the war
ended.
Undoubtedly
there have been incidents in subsequent years where Jewish people have been
victimised in local incidents – but for the most part, Turkey, and the earlier
Ottoman Empire, have an exemplary record of good relations with the Jewish
community, in
comparison with their European neighbours. Turkey has at times acted as a mediator in Middle East conflicts involving Israel. There is a free-trade agreement between the two countries, and Israel is an important supplier of arms to the Turkish military.
comparison with their European neighbours. Turkey has at times acted as a mediator in Middle East conflicts involving Israel. There is a free-trade agreement between the two countries, and Israel is an important supplier of arms to the Turkish military.
Prime
Minister Erdoğan has a tricky task as leader of a secular, parliamentary
democracy with its strategic location on the fringe of the Middle East. Much of
his predominantly Muslim electorate undoubtedly sympathises with co-religionist
brethren suffering from Israeli expansion (and missiles). Continually fobbed
off by Europe in their attempts to join the European Union,
Turkey will inevitably look to form partnerships with more accommodating neighbours.
At the same time, Turkey remains committed to gaining acceptance
among the civilised nations of the world – and friendship with the USA and
Western Europe is a prerequisite for this. Politics, for the most part, is a
business of compromise. Perhaps a little grandstanding on Mr Erdoğan’s part in
front of his Islamic neighbours abroad and supporters at home is
understandable, in the circumstances.
Very cool and timely article, Alan.
ReplyDelete