By Barçın Yinanç
“The plot of the terror act is amateurish, the implementation is professional,” a terrorism expert told me about the attack that took place in Istanbul on April 7.
By implementation, he meant the way the attackers used their weapons, indicating they had training in the field. The terror attack that took place in front of an office block that also hosts Israel’s consulate, left one of the perpetrators dead. Two attackers were apprehended wounded, while two police officers were slightly injured, according to official statements.
The block is in a very busy neighborhood in Istanbul. The entrance has been guarded by dozens of police officers 7/24 since the aftermath of the Hamas October 7 attack.
There are no officials in the consulate. Israel’s consul general, who is based in Sofia, makes periodic visits to Turkey. Although the Israeli consulate appeared as the obvious target of the attackers, Turkish officials tried to avoid mentioning it.
A SPECIFIC WARNING FOR MEDIA
“Publications emphasizing a ‘diplomatic target’ do not reflect reality and are misleading,” said a note sent to the media.
“Current findings suggest that the attack may be a multi-layered provocation rather than an isolated incident. The location of the attack and the choice of target are noteworthy in this regard. Notably, the Israeli Consulate General has been closed for a long time and is not engaged in any active diplomatic activity. In this context, presenting the attack as ‘targeting the Israeli Consulate General’ would directly serve both the perception the perpetrators seek to create and potential manipulations that could be carried out in the international public sphere,” read the note from the Presidency.
In this respect, US Ambassador to Ankara Tom Barrack appears to be one of the manipulators serving the perpetrators, as in his X posting, he was clear about the target of the attack. “The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s attack on the Israeli Consulate in Istanbul,” read the message posted at 1.56 pm, less than two hours after the attack took place.
In addition to the location, official statements also avoided clarity in naming the exact terror group the attackers belonged to.
One of the suspects has 'ties to an organization that exploits religion,' said Turkey's Interior Minister Mustafa Çiftçi.
TOLERANCE TOWARD POTENTIAL THREATS
A public authority’s alert level depends on its tolerance towards potential terrorists, the expert based in Ankara told me.
If so, then the treatment of journalists suggests they are classified as a group to be highly alarmed by.
On March 29, a few hundred of us wished to demonstrate to call for a free press. We were outnumbered five to one by police officers, and we could not get permission to hold a march in Kadıköy, on the Anatolian side of Istanbul.
A week later, a conservative religious group carrying the flags of the caliphate and chanting that Allah is great was allowed to march in Üsküdar, neighboring Kadıköy, while escorted by police officers.
The tolerance level can lead to cracks in the protection barriers, according to the expert, who is also familiar with intelligence organisations as well as security establishments.
Four years ago prosecutors sought a jail sentence for Yunus Emre Sarban, who died in the attack in Istanbul. Authorities wanted him jailed for ISIS membership, according to journalist İsmail Saymaz.
However, the court acquitted Sarban, on the grounds that while he had sympathies for the organisation there was no evidence of membership.
If Sarban had been convicted, he would now be in prison, wrote Saymaz.
As usual, TV pundits tried to answer the questions about the reason for the timing or whose purpose the attack served. “It could serve multiple purposes,” the expert with an army background told me, adding that there are all the conditions as well as an ecosystem in Turkey to expect such an attack.
The war in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Iran, Turkey’s 911 km border with Syria, the presence of more than 5 million refugees are just a few of those conditions.
