Viewing some video clips of the so-called “smart bombs” or pinpoint strikes, one can easily stepped into the memory of the Gulf War. In 1990 and 1991, national broadcasts in the US aired the battle scene day-by-day. The picture of the US missiles flew into the dark sky over the Gulf to defeat “evil” Saddam Hussein called for American patriotism and provided high degree of dignity and legitimacy of the mission. If Israel could obtain such legitimacy on her operation in Gaza, she would gather supports and sympathy regardless of the reality on the ground (amorally speaking). Further strengthening this argument, the Israeli spokesperson appeared on the video emphasizing that Israel is not targeting the Palestinian people but the Hamas terrorists.

On one hand, it could be seen as propaganda, but on the other hand, it could be seen as Israel’s demand and necessity of supports from international community more than the US backup in the UN Security Council. While the Arab countries are obviously not in favor of this operation, Egypt, for example, is not yet willing to commit anti-Israel campaign led by Hamas. Rather, some Arab elites seem to worry about the Hamas-Syria-Iran axis being strengthened if Israel retreats early. If Israel could obtain some degree of dignity described above, it would be easier for non-pro-Iran Arab leaders to be silent to observe Hamas getting weakened.

In 2006, Israel attacked Hezbollah bases in Lebanon. This ground operation caused serious damages on local infrastructure, and thus Israel paid some moderate sum of money to Lebanese government.. However, before Lebanese government’s aid reached to the local community, Hezbollah, allegedly supported by Iran, distributed considerable amount of cash directly to the local people in exchange with the support for Hezbollah. This was a catastrophic PR failure for Israel, and hence, this mistake led her to consider more populist PR campaign such as the YouTube channel.

YouTube is, after all, utilized in the political scenes in the US even during the presidential election of 2008. Speeches of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and others (and parody of them) frequently appeared on it, and millions of Americans obtained political information from it. Particularly, young generations who strongly supported Obama are the core of the YouTube users. Israel, who already has a strong political lobby in Washington, may dream to strengthen her influence on the next US administration by establishing positive relationship with such young Obama supporters.

After all, uploading video clips on YouTube does not cost anything. So, one may easily ignore the possible effects on inter-state or international affairs (the so-called “high politics”). Yet, this PR campaign of Israel, probably targeting young Americans, could result in the shift of the US public opinion of the young generations from anti-war liberal to more center neutral. Although it is almost impossible to predict exact consequences, this PR campaign is worth to try for Israel.

The leaders of Europe and the US must be careful because any pro-Hamas organizations can successfully provoke such shift in public opinion. Of course, we cannot regulate YouTube and other Internet directory due to the freedom of expression. Nonetheless, we need to obtain/provide unbiased information regarding the conflict before the coincide Israeli-Hamas PR war stirs up the mind of our voters.

First of all, I give my sincere sympathy toward those who lost family, friends, and houses. Regardless of their nationality, we need to help those victims of power politics. Moreover, I pray for those who lost their lives in the madness of humankind – war. Today, the way to the heaven is clouded by the Georgians, Ossetians, and even Russians who believed their leaders were doing the right thing. Those who lost lives are not guilty of this chaos: let us forgive them.

Second aspect I would like to point out is that “right” or “wrong” means little in a war. Even if the Georgian act of “retaking” South Ossetia is “right,” this “rightness” diminishes in front of the massive casualty. Given the fact Russia has more tanks, ships, airplanes, and soldiers than Georgia, this operation in South Ossetia was a tactical and strategic mistake (even immoral, I think). Moreover, Tbilisi, hours before the attack, declared the cease fire unilaterally and broke it in the morning of 8th August. There are some reports that the Russian Air Force bombed small villages before the Georgian attack took place (and thus, implying legitimate retaliation). Yet, the remaining fact is that Tbilisi committed military actions hours AFTER the cease fire declaration (which was not officially accepted by South Ossetia) and the operation was conducted without prior diplomatic efforts with the United Nations.

Third, Russia has the right to intervene as there are many Russian citizens in South Ossetia. I am not going to legitimize the Russian position on the “peacekeeping” role: that is a different issue. But, one thing for sure is that as Russian citizens in South Ossetia were attacked by Georgia, Russia has the right to protect them. Once again, there is possibility that Russia provoked Georgia. Even so, Georgia should have considered that Russia would attack once Georgia launched offensive operations.

Lastly, some assume that Tbilisi was expecting stronger international support, possibly military intervention by NATO. However, as all political leaders were in Beijing attending the Olympic ceremony, such assumption seems fragile. On the contrary, Tbilisi might have assumed that Russia would react slowly given the Olympic condition. Prime Minister Putin, however, was in Moscow.

At last, Russia does not have the right to overthrow the Georgian government. As Russia had been the one who accused the American approach in Iraq, Russia should know at least on the rhetoric. That said, the fact Georgia attacked South Ossetia without prior diplomatic consensus with the United Nations puts Georgia in a weak position. This was NOT a unilateral invasion by Russia into Georgia as anti-Russian media reports. It was a military conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia in which Russian citizens were involved. It looks like an invasion because the Russian Army and Air Force were overwhelming. Russia even moved the Black Sea Fleet for economic sanction against Georgia. As Georgia ceased fire, such aggressive actions by Russia are no longer necessary. Thus, it is high time to negotiate and to start the reconstruction of the “society of the people” – not the “territory of (some) nationals.”

First, Dr. Davutoglu sees the necessity of balance between security and freedom. Without security, freedom becomes anarchy, and without freedom, security becomes an authoritarian regime. As the Western society tends to outweigh freedom over security, I believe that it is important to note that there is a freedom to chose security over freedom. In other words, while the basic human rights must be observed under any circumstances, some other rights (such as freedom of travel in the conflict zones) can be limited. It is difficult to say, however, where the border line between security and freedom would be.

Second, Dr. Davutoglu calls caution on the geopolitical characteristics of Turkey. In the past twenty years, there are three civil conflicts which led to foreign intervention: former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Yugoslavia was the small Balkan; 6 republics, 5 nations, 4 languages, 3 religions, and 2 alphabets coexisted under 1 government. Afghanistan is the small Central Asia, and Iraq is the small Middle East in the similar sense. All three countries hold ethnic and religious minorities of the region within its relatively small territory. Thus, Dr. Davutoglu emphasizes, Turkey must be careful: Turkey has all the characteristics of the Balkan, Central Asia and the Middle East. There are more Albanians, for example, in Turkey than in Albania. Yet, Dr. Davutoglu is optimistic. He recalls our memory and asks since when Turks and Kurds have fought each other in the name of ethnic discrimination. After all, they fought the war of liberation together. So, why not today?

Turkey today is very active in International Relations. It is an observer of the African Union and many other non-European organizations. While many conflicts from Kosovo to Iran are directly related to Turkish interests, Turkish current government believes that other issues such as Sudan is indirectly related to Turkey. This notion has already been the major understanding of the world in European nations, and in this regard, Turkey became more European. On the other hand, Turkey today is the only country which has a nice relationship with variety of countries beyond religious and cultural differences: Greece, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon… the list seems not exhausting. Turkey is, thus, in very unique position to hold people together under the balance of freedom and security.

It is easy to say that Turkey is still in the process of modernization pointing out the differences between Turkey and say France. Nonetheless, in the last election, a woman in jail who was accused to have a relationship with PKK (a radical Kurdish secessionist party) was elected as a Member of Parliament. That is, Dr. Davutoglu emphasizes, “the strength of Turkish democracy.” I must agree with him that since the age of Ottoman Empire, Turks and Turkish polity have been generous to religious and ethnic minorities. Although I also believe that Turkish authorities today ignore some political freedom (at least comparing against the Anglo-Saxon Standard), it is still fair to say that Turkey has strength to embrace democracy in the region and brings cooperation in the three decade-long problematic regions: the Balkan, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Mothers of the nations that burn.

Burn with the insecurity of our kings,

who sit back and see the mothers of nations

beg for the lives of their sons.

The sons they bore with equal pain as Queens did.

As queens bore their princes.

These mothers waited for their sons to return home,

now they wait for their funeral.

They are the mothers of nations

rich in oil; such a sin!

So let us cut throats and spill oil;

Let us celebrate funerals and light candles

at their graves!

Let us call this celebration as democracy!