After Erdogan's statement about his country's readiness to intervene... Where are Turkish-Israeli relations heading?

As the aggression on Gaza continues, tensions and crises between Turkey and "Israel" are increasingly recurring, the latest of which was Erdogan's statement regarding the possibility of his country's military intervention, to which the occupation's foreign minister responded by threatening the fate of the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, then Turkey's mourning of the assassination of the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, which turned into an additional crisis between the two sides.

Erdogan's threat
Speaking to his party cadres and supporters, and in response to criticism from some opposition parties of the government’s official position on the war of extermination in Gaza and the relationship with the occupying state, the Turkish president confirmed a few days ago that he had invited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to deliver a speech before the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament) in response to Netanyahu’s speech before Congress.

But the most interesting statement was Erdogan’s talk about his country having to become very strong “so that Israel does not do what it does to the Palestinians,” and that “there is nothing preventing” his country from intervening in Palestine – that is, militarily – as it did in both Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh after it becomes stronger.

Although the statement does not talk about Ankara's intention to intervene militarily, but rather theorizes about the importance of Turkey's strength and its defense industries in particular to prevent the recurrence of aggression against the Palestinians, or let us say that it attributed the reason for not intervening to the lack of sufficient strength, it provoked angry and sharp reactions from "Israeli" officials.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz threatened Erdogan with the "fate of Saddam Hussein", urging him to "remember what happened and how it ended." He also called on NATO to expel Turkey from it, directing its ambassadors in NATO member states to pressure in this direction. Opposition leader Yair Lapid also called on NATO members to condemn his statement and "force him to end his support for Hamas." The Turkish Foreign Ministry responded to these statements by saying that "the fate of the perpetrators of the current genocide will not be different from the fate of the perpetrator of the previous genocide, Hitler."

While it is striking that there was no comment from the NATO Secretariat or any of its members, while the Dutch extremist politician Geert Wilders supported it, the most important question revolves around the motive behind it, especially at this time. It is clear that "Israel" sought two main goals from this statement, the first of which was to send a warning message and a threat to Turkey that it could be "punished" in an area that could harm it, which is the relationship with the United States and NATO.

The second is its annoyance with Turkey’s steps that blocked its paths to cooperation with the alliance, which could be repeated in the future. Ankara had used its veto to block Israel’s participation in alliance activities, including maneuvers, after the Mavi Marmara crisis in 2010, before gradually lifting those restrictions after relations were restored, leading to Israel opening a liaison office in Brussels as a partner state of the alliance.

Most importantly, the Turkish president threatened at the last NATO summit that his country would not agree to “cooperation initiatives between Israel and NATO, until a comprehensive and sustainable peace is established on the Palestinian territories.”

Although it is inconceivable that the alliance would respond to this incitement, given its need for Ankara in a number of vital files related to the region, the Russian-Ukrainian war, and others, this increases the undeclared tension between Ankara and Brussels. It also does not negate the level of impudence in the threats of "Israeli" politicians, including "reminding us of the fate of Saddam Hussein," which is a double threat to Erdogan as a person with a similar fate (i.e. execution), and to Turkey as a state by fueling internal conflicts and activating scenarios of dispersion, chaos, and weakness.

Haniyeh's memorial
The next crisis came very quickly with the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, which Erdogan condemned as a “heinous attack,” “Zionist barbarism,” and the treacherous assassination of “my brother Ismail Haniyeh.”

Many Turkish politicians and public figures also participated in the funeral of the martyr to his final resting place in Doha, with an official delegation headed by Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş, Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Head of the Intelligence Service Ibrahim Kalin, and Head of the Palestinian-Turkish Friendship Committee in Parliament Hasan Turan, in addition to heads of a number of political parties.

Turkey also declared a national day of mourning for Haniyeh on Friday, flying flags at half-mast across the country, including the Turkish flag at the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv. In response, the Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned the Turkish deputy ambassador for a “reprimand,” with Katz saying that embassy staff should “go to Turkey and grieve with their president” if they want to mourn.

National Security Minister Ben-Gvir also called on the Turkish ambassador to lower the flag and return to his country, noting that he has been in Ankara for months. Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Lieberman said that “lowering the Turkish flag is a great disgrace,” rejecting the presence of an embassy in Tel Aviv “for a country that has stood with terrorist organizations since the beginning of the war.”

Successive crises
The successive crises, which have been growing over time, between Ankara and Tel Aviv prove that relations between them are not on solid ground. Although the “Al-Aqsa Flood” war came in the context of the best bilateral relations between them in 15 years and in light of the desire of both sides to develop them, the facts imposed themselves in a way that cannot be ignored.

The war has revealed the true ugly face of the occupation, and Turkey cannot ignore the repeated crimes and massacres as it had previously intended, i.e. separating its relations with Tel Aviv from the latter’s policies towards the Palestinians, especially with the position of the Turkish street and the opposition parties with an Islamic and conservative background.

This reminded Turkey that its fundamental interests are at odds with Israel, contrary to what some of the diplomatic courtesies claimed during the course of reconciliation and rapprochement, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the conflict with Greece and from supporting separatist organizations to incitement against Turkey in the West. The war also reminded Ankara that the problem is not limited to Netanyahu himself, but extends to the entire political, military and security elite and even most of society in the occupying state.

Ankara's description of what the occupation forces are committing in Gaza as genocide is correct, accurate, and stems from facts and events, and is not merely a reaction or a pressuring speech. The hostile statements against Ankara in the occupying state after the recent crises also show its true position on Turkey and its leadership, especially Erdogan.

In addition to all of the above, Turkey now views Netanyahu’s government as seeking to systematically, deliberately and escalately destabilize the region. Erdogan has said that it is “a danger to all of humanity,” warning that no one can guarantee that “those who have their eyes on Lebanon will not extend their dirty hands to other places.”

Accordingly, Ankara should act in accordance with these descriptions, convictions and developments that have confirmed facts that were previously ignored for understandable political calculations in the context of rapprochement with Tel Aviv. Turkey can and should today put into effect everything it has promised or threatened, such as participating in the genocide case before the International Court of Justice, completely and permanently severing trade relations with "Israel", and severing diplomatic relations with it.

It is also necessary, in harmony with the latter’s description as a terrorist state and its actions as genocide and Hamas as a resistance movement and not a terrorist organization, to deepen relations with the resistance factions and provide support that goes beyond the current political position – as important as it is – towards pressuring towards the entry of humanitarian aid to the Strip despite all the obstructionists, resisters and procrastinators.

In addition to all of the above, there are other paths that are no less important, such as coordination with countries with the highest ceiling against genocide, and countries with influence on the international arena, and establishing a veto on any participation of the occupying state in and with NATO, and other steps that contribute to isolating the latter and pressuring it, as this not only contributes to stopping the bloodshed of the Palestinians and the possibility of stopping the aggression against them, but also - according to Ankara's recent correct conviction - in protecting the region from its destructive adventures, from which Turkey itself will not be isolated from the negative repercussions if they occur.