According to Ms. Glick, the fact that the Turkish government was hosting “Iran's genocidal, nuclear weapons-seeking leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” or that it had good relations with Syria, talked to Hamas, and was turning “Islamist,” was enough evidence to conclude that the good-old Western-friendly Turkey is long gone.

But is that really the case?

Ahmadinejad in Istanbul

It is understandable that Israelis feel uneasy with Ahmadinejad’s current trip to Turkey. He is, after all, a nuclear power-seeking leader who makes crazy speeches about wiping Israel off the map. But does the fact that the Turkish government is talking to him mean that his radical vision is approved by Ankara? Or does Ankara think that Tehran can be persuaded to back off from its concerning position through such contact?

The latter is true. Turkish leaders, including President Abdullah Gül, have repeatedly said that Turkey does not want to see nuclear weapons in the region. If Iran has nukes, that will be a major concern for Turkey as well. But the current government also believes, firstly, that this problem should not prevent Turkey from continuing its much-needed natural gas deal with Iran, and, secondly, that Iran can be persuaded by talks. Ankara even hopes to play a role in these talks.

If you call the Turkish government dreamers, think again. Earlier this year, the whole world was surprised when it was announced that Israel and Syria had engaged in a dialogue which was hosted and mediated by Turkey. It has received praise from almost all Western governments, including that of the United States, which is the most suspicious toward the Syrian regime.

So, if Turkey has been helpful in mediating between Israel and Syria, it could possibly be helpful in bridging the gap between Iran and the West, too. At least it is worth trying. Give peace a chance.

Why is Turkey so interested in all this, you might ask. Well, first of all, the current government has the “vision thing”. Dr. Ahmet Davutoğlu, the top foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has long been developing a strategy which would make Turkey a regional power, contributing to the peace and stability of the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Secondly, with the Iraqi War, Turkey has seen that conflicts in the region influences itself very badly, so finding solutions to regional crises before they escalate is in Turkey’s best interest.

And it is no secret that most of the contemporary conflicts in the Middle East have something to do with political Islam. That makes the Islamic identity of the AKP not a risk, as some Israelis and Americans suspect, but actually an asset. That very identity makes President Gül or Prime Minister Erdoğan more trustable and respectable in the eyes of Islamic regimes and organizations. Unlike most of Turkey’s previous leaders, these conservative politicians can use the language and find the tone that their Persian or Arab counterparts will understand.

This does not mean that the AKP government, or President Gül, will be able to convince all the radicals in the Middle East to come to their senses. They tried this with Hamas leader Khalid Meshal in 2005, and hoped to persuade him to recognize Israel and accept a bi-state solution. It obviously didn’t work, and the “Meshal meeting” almost turned into a scandal for Turkish diplomacy.

But a failed effort for peace is not “support for terrorism.” It is absolutely wrong to say that the “Turkish government speaks to Hamas” and infer from that a support for Hamas’ terrorist tactics. The crucial point is what Ankara says to Hamas or other radical elements of the Middle East when they speak. What will matter with Ahmadinejad will be, again, the content of the messages that the Turkish government will give.

Alarmism versus facts

Actually the whole alarmism about “the Turkey-Iran connection” these days, looks very similar to the hype and anger that some Washington commentators expressed in the face of Turkey’s relations with Syria in 2005 and 2006. Because of the ties between the AKP government and Bassar Esad, Turkey was again accused for “sliding to the axis of evil” by some Western, mostly neo-conservative, commentators. Yet it turned out that Turkey was in fact hoping to contribute to the normalization of Syria; a goal evidenced by Ankara’s mediation between Damascus and Tel Aviv.

In short, those who believe that Turkey is “abandoning the West” are getting Turkey wrong. Actually, what they write reveals that they have little clue about Turkey’s internal politics either. In her Jerusalem Post piece, Ms. Glick accuses the current government for “intimidating its pro-Western rivals”. Well, ask any diplomat in Ankara and they will tell you that the rivals of the current government are anything but pro-Western. Some of those rivals are actually anti-American and anti-European “Third Worldists” who are supporting the Russian onslaught going on in the neighboring Georgia these days.

What Turkey is really abandoning is the inward-looking and xenophobic foreign policy approach, which has defined much of its Republican experience. Ankara is now becoming an influential factor for peace and stability in the region. And it is good news for everybody except those who have a passion for war.