World press on democracy in Turkey and Crimean crisis' impact on Middle East (March 21, 2014)

"When President Barack Obama portrayed prospering Turkey, ruled by sweet Islamists, as “a great Islamic democracy” in 2010, he was probably hoping that this strange democracy that comes with a religious prefix would serve a useful purpose: a glittering role model for the Arab countries that lagged behind even an Islamic democracy. Mr. Obama’s mission impossible has failed – probably – for good," an article published by Hurriyet Daily News writes.

"The Arab Spring did not blossom (or fade) because of Turkey’s Islamic democracy. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s short-lived popularity on the Arab Street was not because Arabs envied Turkey’s Islamic democracy; but because they embraced his love affair with Hamas and accompanying hatred of Israel. None of which has sufficed to keep the Turkish model afloat," the author of the article , Burak Bekdil, writes.

"In fact, Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim country, could have appealed to the less and much less democratic countries in the Middle East had it been a democracy instead of an Islamic democracy," he believes. 

"Naturally, the talk and praise of the Turkish model for the Arab world had faded away even before Gezi. The never ending scandals revealing how corrupt and undemocratic Turkey’s Islamic democracy was have a message to the Arab world too: Contrary to how it was presented, the Turkish model was neither pious (moral) nor democratic," the author underlines. 

The Jerusalem Post published an article by Uri Savir entitled "Old World – New World" devoted to the Crimean crisis and its impact on the Middle East. 

"The battle over the destiny of Ukraine threw us back to the days of the Cold War, definitely as far as Vladimir Putin is concerned. He challenged the international community, not unlike Nikita Khrushchev did in the last century – "might is right," the article begins.

"Many in Europe were anxiously reading up in their history books about World War II and the Cold War. Angela Merkel was worried that Putin, with his Czar-like rhetoric, had lost touch with today's reality. Some right-wing xenophobes rejoiced like in the "good old days". Only Barack Obama did not play along in this rewinding of history. He is adamant about advancing his collective diplomacy doctrine and did not revert to the Truman doctrine,"  the article reads. 

"It felt somehow like a boxing match – in the right corner Vladimir Putin, listing his attributes to the public: in favor of military intervention and the use of force as a first resort; little tolerance for democracy and freedom of speech – long live "Pravda"; social justice only for wealthy oligarchs; discrimination against minorities and homosexuals; back to the days of spheres of influence in conflict with each other; Russian nationalism at its best, the language of force, not of Tolstoy," the author writes.

"In the left corner: Barack Obama, the man of diplomacy and mutual understanding, a fervent liberal and democrat, a believer in social equity, caring for the "have nots", civil and human rights; adhering to regional coalitions and economic globalization that with time will yield better fruits than the use of force. Leading from behind, but leading," the article reads.

"As for Israel and Palestine – undecided between the old and the new world – the time has come to decide. The decision point starts with the answer to the American framework. Today it seems that both sides might be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the continuation of peace negotiations, and will mumble a half-hearted "yes, but" to John Kerry. That is not making a real choice, unfortunately. Peace is not the lesser of two evils. It is a matter of identity," the author writes.

"For Israel, the choice must be for a democracy with a clear Jewish majority and equal rights to its Arab citizens. This means putting an end to the occupation as a political and moral choice, not as a "surrender" to American pressure. One cannot belong to the new world as an occupying power in the post-colonial era. The settlements are rejected by the whole world because they are perceived as outposts of neo-colonialism. Our choice must be in favor of real democracy, based on equality, basic civic and human rights, freedom of expression, as well as a free market economy, with equal opportunity and social justice," the article reads.