Arabs Through Turkish Eyes: Middle East politics as covered by Akbaba, 1935 to 1956 Nicholas Danforth – Georgetown University, May 2013 Contemporary analysis of Turkish-Arab relations – of which there has been a good deal recently – routinely invokes the history of Turkey’s anti-Arab prejudice as a reference point. Whether seen as a continuation of Ottoman-era attitudes or a reaction to Arab "betrayal" during World War One, this historical prejudice is invoked either to highlight the unprecedented nature of Turkey’s rapprochement with its Arab neighbors or suggest that a deeper current of animosity will ultimately undermine these relations. That this prejudice existed is undeniable (citing the phrase "Arap'tan dost, domuzdan post" or “befriending an Arab is like getting fleece from a pig” seems almost obligatory). Yet a more nuanced analysis of Turkey’s views toward Arabs from the 1930s through the 1950s reveals a more complex set of conflicting attitudes that are considerably more relevant to understanding Turkish-Arab relations today. Hundreds of cartoon Arabs from the pages of the weekly satire magazine Akbaba make it clear that, while Turkish depictions of Arabs were indeed based on often offensive stereotypes, these stereotypes were deployed in accordance with other long-standing beliefs. Specifically, these cartoons offer colorful evidence of the extent to which revulsion at European imperialism, historically-justified fear of Soviet/Russian power and crude antiSemitism all shaped the way Turks viewed their Arab neighbors. These cartoons help challenge the popular impression that anti-Arab prejudice led Ataturk to "neglect" the Arab world during the 1930s and then caused the Democratic Party to pursue good relations with Israel and NATO even when it meant antagonizing the Arab world. In this light, Turkey's cold war era support of France and Israel in the UN at the expense of the Algerians and Palestinians is frequently cited as the geo-political culmination of the Turkish government's sycophantically pro-Western, anti-Arab orientation. In fact, from the 1930s through the 1950s, Turks were often quite sympathetic to Arabs, particularly North Africans, when they appeared as victims of Western imperialism rather than stooges of Soviet Communism. During the Algerian war for independence, in particular, cartoons frequently condemned French violence and hypocrisy in harsh terms. Yet these cartoons frequently appeared alongside depictions of Syrians and Egyptians as big-lipped Africans or topless drunken whores. Cartoonists were at their most vicious when depicting Arabs, particularly Nasser, as Soviet puppets doing Krushchev's bidding. And needless to say, Turkish cartoonists deployed the full range of stereotypical tropes whenever they had reason to suspect Syria was laying eyes on the comely Turkish province of Hatay. Turkish attitudes towards Arab countries, in fact, often display striking parallels to US attitudes in the early cold war. That is, Americans frequently found themselves torn between their sympathy with the plight of colonized third world peoples and the perceived political necessity of cooperating with colonial powers like France and England to contain the USSR. Thomas Borstelmann’s work on race in US foreign policy, The Cold War and the Color Line, suggests that prejudice frequently played a role in resolving this dilemma by leading American policymakers to view African leaders as childlike, and therefore uniquely susceptible to Soviet manipulation.1 They could not be trusted with independence, in short, 1
Thomas Borstelmann, Cold War and the Color Line (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009).
because they could not be trusted to see through Soviet schemes. Selim Yaqub's Containing Arab Nationalism highlights the many occasions on which members of the Eisenhower administration articulated the same fears about Nasser.2 Yet Yaqub also makes the crucial point that for Americans, like Turks, these prejudices were hardly fixed, and could prove perfectly compatible with pragmatic or even positive assessments of the Arab character. Nasser was a virile reformer when he was building dams to harness the Nile with American support but a servile Arab Felah when he took Soviet money for the project. There is also a clear parallel between Turkish and American views of Israel and the Zionist movement. Akbaba's depictions of early Zionists inevitably drew on the anti-Semitic stereotypes that were ever-present in the Turkish media at the time. Cartoons from the 1930s frequently used Arab-Jewish conflict as an opportunity to make callous jokes about Jewish stinginess. Even when, by the time of the Suez Crisis, Israel had emerged as a cold war ally, Turkish depictions of the Israeli-Arab conflict betrayed a striking contempt for both sides. In the case of Suez, Israel's apparent role as an accomplice to the region's imperial powers provoked particularly hostile reactions. It's easy to forget that the United States' nascent political relationship with Israel during this same period took place in spite of widespread anti-Semitism, particularly among the country's policy-making elite. The ugly caricatures seen in these cartoons may have gone out of style in the US press by the 1950s, but the sentiments behind them were still present. Through the cartoons below, I hope to make the case that popular anti-Arab sentiments were as much a product of Turkey's foreign policy as they were a driver of it. A historical and geographical realities pushed Turkey and its Arab neighbors into different geopolitical camps, Turks' invoked well-established but previously dormant prejudices accordingly. Cartoons from the 1930s make it clear that Turkish sentiments at the time were strongly anti-Imperialist, anti-Communist and anti-Jewish. Subsequently Anti-Arab feeling, however strongly felt, was voiced most clearly when it accorded with these pre-existing sentiments. Today, Turkish attitudes toward the Arab-Israeli conflict must be understood in light of these long-standing sympathies (and antipathies). Though anti-Communism is obviously no longer a force in Turkish thinking, other real-politik concerns have taken its place. Meanwhile, an admirable disgust at the hypocrisy of Western imperialism and a regrettable tendency toward anti-Semitism remain prevalent. Arguably, these two attitudes alone do more to explain Turkish views of the Middle East than any concrete feelings, charitable or otherwise, toward the Arabs themselves. Indeed, much as cartoons about European imperialism from the 1950s were more focused on condemning the Europeans than praising the Arabs or showing them in any capacity other than victims, today's discourse focuses far more on demonizing Israel than on saying anything substantial about the Palestinians. The following cartoons should be read as evidence for the argument above (actual footnotes giving their source are provided at the end of the article). The cartoons have been organized thematically, along with translations and commentary where necessary. Though these represent merely a small selection of Turkish cartoons on the Arab world, I believe, based on wider research, that they are a representative sample of the opinions appearing in the Turkish press at the time.
2
Selim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
The Hypocrisy of Imperialism: Mussolini in Ethiopia
1. “Italy – We are bringing Civilization to Africa”
2. “Savage – Look Out! Savages are Coming!”
3. “Italian Pilot – Thank God I finally found something to bomb”
4. “Reconnaissance on the Ethiopian Front”
Italy’s 1946 invasion of Ethiopia offers a crucial reference point for any discussion of subsequent developments in the Middle East. While the ensuing war was a major news story throughout Europe, it had particular relevance for Turkey, which, not without reason, saw itself as a potential target of Italy’s future colonial endeavors. The cartoons inspired by the war almost invariably played on the language of savagery and civilization, featuring countless iterations of the idea that the “civilized” Italians were the ones behaving like savages. Besides the sheer popularity of this trope (a version of it appeared on at least 8 covers during the late thirties), what stands out is that it did not preclude cartoonists from also mocking the backwardness of the Ethiopians. As would be the case in the Arab world, contempt for imperialism could easily coexist with genuine sympathy for its victims and amusement at their primitive state. The Hypocrisy of France: Liberty, Equality and Brutality Though the Algerian war did not make the front pages as often as the Italo-Ethiopian conflict, Turkish sentiments proved quite similar. However their government may have voted in the United Nations, there was little doubt how Turks following the conflict felt about French behavior, the rhetoric that accompanied it or, as the last cartoon shows, American support for it.
5. “After the French-Italian Agreement [1935]” 6. “French Literature”. North Africa, chained to France, “Between Slave Traders – What of the dark one friend? holds a paper reading “Human Rights, Democracy…”
7. “Made in France:” America and Algeria
8. “One hand in butter (Human Rights), One in honey (Colonialism)”
9. “Souvenir of Morocco”
10. “Cabinet Crisis:” France urinating on “Human Rights”
11. “America Backs France on Algeria: a candle shines not on its base” Algeria sits below liberty’s torchlight.
British Imperialism in Egypt and Palestine Though Britain’s colonial activities received less attention than France of Italy’s they were no more popular. Interestingly, though, while Britain’s imperial rule in Palestine and Egypt were the subject of some criticism during the 1930s, Britain’s colonial activities in the 1950s were completely ignored with the exception of the Suez Crisis. It seems reasonable to speculate that this reflected at least in part a particularly close alignment of Turkish and British interests in the Middle East that was not present in North Africa.
12. Egyptian Uprising: “The Sun Is Setting Here Too!” 13. “What’s Going on in Palestine?”
The Miserliness of the Jews: These cartoons aren’t even the worst ones The cartoon on the page above might feature the most charitable depiction of a Jew in the entire history of Akbaba. In all other cartoons about Palestine or the Zionist movement from the 1930s the target was the Jews rather than the British – in one cover the majesty of the imperial lion even serves to mock the presumptuousness of Jews who sought to challenge British might. Cartoonists showed a remarkable knack for using every news story connected to Zionism or the plight of European Jews during this decade into an opportunity for a joke about Jewish miserliness, or less frequently, blood libel. Though on occasion Nazi atrocities inspired sympathy (for the victims, that is; though on occasion they seem to have inspired sympathy for the perpetrators instead) the cartoon on the next page makes it clear that by the end of the war cartoonists were fully capable of using anti-Semitic tropes to celebrate Hitler’s defeat.
14. “Newspapers: No Peace for Jews in Palestine!”
15. “Solomon Goes Lion Hunting!”
16. “Poor Moishe… The Arabs shot him seven times... 17. “Hajji Efendi, if you are going to burn Jewish villages His poor family. They can’t sell a coat with so many holes” at least buy the matches from us!”
18. “After the Siegfried Line fell: Solomon – Tanks, tanks, bring out your old tanks!”
19. “Solomon, the Arabs are firing artillery [top atmak], why aren’t we? No, Misynaci, going broke [top atmak] isn’t a Jewish thing.”
The Hatay Dispute: Keep your dirty hands off our beautiful province
20. “Syrian – Antakya! Iskenderun!”
21.Hatay is tied to Syria by the Franco-Syrian Agreement: Dear, we are together as one!”
Turkey’s dispute with France and the soon-to-be-independent Syria over the province of Hatay / Alexandretta motivated a number of predictably nationalistic cartoons criticizing the behavior of the French and the Arabs alike. What stands out is that this issue, which had particular strategic and emotional importance for Turks, inspired what, to this observer at least, appear to be the most brutally unflattering images of Arabs to appear in the Turkish press up to that point. The Hopelessness of the Egyptians: Faruk was fat, the Free Officers are worse Akbaba’s coverage of the 1952 coup against King Faruk, in turn, comes closer than that on any other subject to suggesting a general antipathy toward all things Arab. Turkish cartoonists, like many of their American counterparts, treated King Faruk, with his wives, stomach, and fondness for gambling, as an object of ridicule. Even after he was ousted they were loath to lose him, using rumors that he might come to Istanbul as an excuse to trot out one more image of the corpulent ex-king. Yet with the exception of one cartoon praising General Naguib for putting an end to Faruk’s antics, Turkish cartoonists were even more contemptuous of Egypt’s new rulers and their revolutionary aspirations. 22. General Naguib – The game is over!
23. “French tailors are suing Faruk for the cost of the dresses he had made for his wives. Faruk: It’s a lie! I don’t recall ever dressing any of them.”
24. “This summer former Egyptian king Faruk will stay on Kinali Island.”
25. “Egypt: the Hat Revolution” Right: 26. “Egypt is Rising,” and 27. “The Victory of the Arab Armies”
The Greeks: From Martyrs to Monkeys
28. Helping Hand! Bulgar: Let me help you up!
29. U.N. Carnival: the Last Ball!
Moving west for a moment, Greece provides an interesting counterpoint to the Arab world in part because of how quickly Turkish attitudes towards it shifted during the early cold war period. A consider amount of Greek-Turkish reconciliation had taken place since 1922 under the leadership of Presidents Ataturk and Venizelos, and when the Greek government found itself in a civil war with communist insurgents after World War Two (shown as Slavs in the cover above) many Turks felt particularly sympathetic. Yet this sympathy turned to hostility remarkably quickly after the Greek independence movement on Cyprus antagonized local Turks and made the question of the island’s future unavoidable. Thus in less than a decade, the Greek Evzone was transformed from a heroic martyr in the battle against Slav communism to a monkey. Nasser: Magician or Mendicant Seeing how quickly perceptions and prejudices could shift provides a crucial backdrop to understanding the growing animosity toward Nasser and Nasserism in the Turkish press. That is to say, whatever the Turks’ past views of Egyptians or the Egyptian revolution, there is no reason to think these attitudes would have determined Turkish views of Nasser had other political circumstances not served to poison the relationship. As the cartoons below show, Nasr’s efforts to play the superpowers off against each other could inspire admiration or derision.
30. Beggar
31. Acrobat
Ultimately, Nasser’s break with Washington and increasingly close relations with the Soviet Union led American and Turkish leaders alike to characterize him as a puppet of the Kremlin. As will be seen below, the intense hostility directed at Nasser and his Syrian allies reflected the belief that his actions both before, during and after the Suez crisis, served Soviet interests.
Cunning Krushchev and the Ingenuous Arabs By far the most common depiction of Arabs in the late 1950s was as the puppets, pets, subservient wives, or whores of Nikita Krushchev. This series of cartoons illustrates perhaps better than any other the way prejudice and politics mutually constituted one another. It is impossible to look at them and doubt that there were some deep-rooted anti-Arab prejudices at work here, but it is also impossible to deny that there was also a distinct perception of Arab actions – whether accurate or not, needless to say – driving the articulation of this prejudice.
32. “El Azhar Mosque: Imam and Congregation”
34. “Egypt and Syria Unite: Mulitiple Wives”
33. “Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia form a joint army: The head of the camel”
35. Unititled
36. “Arab Union”
38. “Caravan of love”
37. “Krushchev – Fetch!”
39. “Arab Union” 41. “Egypt will cooperate with Russia. Modern Cleopatra: I couldn’t get on with a lot of men so they left”
40. “Syria and Egypt invate other Arab states to join their union. Russia: Here little bird.”
42. “Syria: My new friend, Turkey is going to rape me!” 43. “Doll: Turkish-Syrian Union!”
Contemptuous Neutrality: The 1956 Suez Crisis As these previous cartoons show, Turkish anti-Arab sentiment ultimate peaked in response to the 1958 Arab Union between Egypt and Syria. What is intriguing about the Suez Crisis, however, is that it brought together the diverse impulses behind Turkish thinking toward the Middle East into a single confrontation that seemingly pitted Arabs and Communists against Jews and European imperialists. Cartoons could be criticized as a source for understanding popular opinions on the grounds that they, as a medium, are predisposed toward an attitude of sneering disdain. Yet I would argue this is what makes them perfect for understanding the multifaceted role of stereotypes in political rhetoric. Prejudices seldom determine policy in part because their often expansive scope leads them to come in constant conflict with one another. If there is an overriding prejudice that seems to define the view of far too many leaders and citizens around the world toward their allies and enemies alike, I would suggest this final cartoon captures it well:
44. “Supposed Maidens”
References: 1. Issue 62, Cover, 7 Mart, 1935. 2. Issue 78, Cover, 29 Haziran, 1935. 3. Issue 85, Cover, 17 Agustos, 1935. 4. Issue 101, Cover, 14 Birinci Kanun, 1936. 5. Issue 55, Page 11, 17 Ikinci Kanun, 1935. 6. Issue 294, Page 4, 31 Ekim, 1957. 7. Issue 279, Page 4, 18 Temmuz, 1957. 8. Issue 314, Page 4, 20 Mart, 1958. 9. Issue 182, Page 4, 8 Eylul, 1955. 10. Issue 298, Page 4, 28 Kasim, 1957. 11. Issue 213, Page 4, 12 Nisan, 1956. 12. Issue 98, Cover, 23 Teşrinievvel, 1935 13. Issue 244, Page 10, 8 Eylul, 1938. 14. Issue 121, Cover, 2 Mayis, 1936. 15. Issue 147, Cover, 7 Ocak, 1947. 16. Issue 121, Page 2, 2 Mayis, 1936. 17. Issue 121, Page 3, 2 Mayis, 1936. 18. Issue 207, Cover, 28 Eylul, 1944. 19. Issue 128, Cover, 20 Haziran, 1936. 20. Issue 67, Cover, 5 Temmuz, 1945. 21. Issue 145, Cover, 17 Teşrinievvel, 1936. 22. Issue 29, Page 15, 2 Ekim, 1952. 23. Issue 87, Cover, 12 Ekim, 1953. 24. Issue 55, Cover, 2 Nisan, 1953. 25. Issue 24, Cover, 28 Agustos, 1952. 26. Issue 25, Page 3, 4 Eylul, 1952. 27. Issue 29, Page 5, 2 Ekim, 1952. 28. Issue 30, Cover, 19 Teşrinievvel, 1944. 29. Issue 260, Cover, 7 Mart, 1957. 30. Issue 254, Cover, 24 Ocak, 1957. 31. Issue 241, Cover, 25 Ekim, 1956. 32. Issue 249, Cover, 19 Aralik, 1956. 33. Issue 159, Cover, 3 Mart, 1955. 34. Issue 513, Page 9, 13 Mart, 1958. 35. Issue 296, Page 3, 14 Kasim, 1957. 36. Issue 160, Cover, 7 Nisan, 1955. 37. Issue 296, Cover, 14 Kasim, 1957. 38. Issue 259, Page 7, 28 Subat 1957. 39. Issue 99, Page 15, 4 Subat, 1954. 40. Issue 312, Page 5, 6 Mart, 1958. 41. Issue 103, Page 2, 4 Mart, 1954. 42. Issue 296, Page 3, 14 Kasim, 1957. 43. Issue 310, Page 7, 20 Subat, 1958. 44. Issue 247, Page 3, 6 Aralik, 1956.
