Eyebrows were raised at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly in September, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rose to the podium and talked about the controversial report of South African judge Robert Goldstone.

The UN-mandated report, released only days earlier, accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza during the 2008-2009 crisis and possible crimes against humanity.

Speaking at a press conference right after the speech, Erdogan said: "There should be accountability for anyone guilty of war crimes in Gaza!" The only other leader to speak of the report at the UN was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it "biased and unjust". Furious at Erdogan's support of the Palestinians, Netanyahu defended his country's war on Gaza; drawing parallels between it and the bombing of Nazi cities during the Second World War. Erdogan said that in its capacity as a rotating member of the Security Council, Turkey was willing to bring the situation to the Council.

Erdogan also conveyed his country's intention to play an "active" diplomatic role in the region and beyond, defining Turkey's foreign policy as "zero conflict with neighbours". Israeli newspapers showered the Turkish prime minister with criticism, accusing him of hypocrisy for claiming to be an honest broker, yet siding with the Palestinians by upholding the Goldstone Report.

This is the same 54-year- old leader who stormed out of the Davos panel in Switzerland in January after a loud exchange with Israeli president Shimon Peres. Erdogan lost his temper when Peres defended his country's stance on Gaza, replying — red in the face — "President Peres, you are old and your voice is loud out of a guilty conscience. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill! I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches!"

Earlier in 2004, Erdogan had refused an invitation to visit Israel from then prime minister Ariel Sharon. Instead, he received a delegation from Hamas, headed by Khalid Mesha'al, in Turkey. He next turned down a meeting with then labour and trade minister Ehud Olmert in July 2004 and five months later, landed in Damascus, building bridges with the Syrians after relations soured with the international community, shortly after the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1559.

Erdogan's Turkey has clearly been projecting itself as a mediator and a big sister to countries in the Arab and Muslim world, longing for a position that it once enjoyed as leader of the Islamic nation.

Champion

If anything, Erdogan's loud stance on Gaza solidifies him as a champion and a problem-solver, more than ever before, in the eyes of millions around the Arab world. Turkish sources claim that Erdogan is not taking sides, but is willing to hear out all sides — Egypt, Hamas, Syria, Israel and Iran — to reach a consensus that would further strengthen Turkey's role as an honest broker and political heavyweight in the Middle East.

Given all of this luggage on Erdogan's shoulders, however, many in the West are questioning whether Turkey can still mediate peace talks between Syria and Israel, as it did in April-December 2008. Those talks were famously suspended unilaterally by the Syrians, in protest of the Israeli war on Gaza.

The Israelis have said on more than one occasion that they no longer want the Turks to play the go-between with Damascus.

Meanwhile, Western observers have been asking whether the Turks can really fill in the oversized shoes of the United States. The Turks were needed, many believe, when there was no honest US broker willing to sponsor Syrian-Israel peace talks. Now that Barack Obama is in power, with a declared desire to bring peace to the Middle East, the Turks have to take the backseat in any peace talks.

Others argue that the Turks never intended to hammer out a peace treaty between Syria and Israel, only to buy time and maintain a momentum, while waiting for a credible US broker to enter the White House.

This theory is not entirely correct. The Turks never tried to impose themselves either on Damascus or the Israelis, but were rather, called upon to play the go-between by both parties.

The Israelis might have more faith in the Americans, but clearly, the Syrians want to maintain the Turks in the peace process, having absolute faith in Erdogan.

The current bottleneck is in Tel Aviv, however, not in Damascus. The hard-line Israeli government is refusing to commit to peace, meaning that a peace process without serious US pressure is meaningless. A joint sponsorship of the peace process between Turkey and the US is what the region needs today — the wisdom, brains, passion, and credibility of two forceful men like Barack Obama and Recep Tayyip Erdogan combined.

That would be a win-win solution where all parties, the Syrians, the Israelis, the Turks, and the Americans, would be satisfied.