Turkey’s Complex Response to the Israel-Gaza Crisis: A Deep Dive into Trade Restrictions, Political Tensions, and Diplomatic Maneuvers

Turkey and Israel: A Relationship on Shaky Ground

The recent escalation of tensions between Israel and Palestine has cast a long shadow over the already strained relationship between Turkey and Israel. This complex dynamic fueled by political ideologies, historical grievances, and competing regional interests has reached a boiling point with the imposition of trade restrictions and harsh diplomatic exchanges.

Trade Restrictions: A Tit-for-Tat Response

In the wake of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Turkey took the unprecedented step of announcing trade restrictions on 54 types of products exported to Israel. This move, which includes aluminum, steel, construction products, jet fuel, and chemical fertilizers, signifies a significant escalation in the already tense relations between the two countries. Israel responded in kind, preparing a ban on products from Turkey. This tit-for-tat response reflects the deepening animosity between the two nations and threatens to further complicate their economic ties.

Political Tensions: A Clash of Ideologies

The current crisis has exposed the deep ideological divide between Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Israeli government. Erdoğan, a staunch critic of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, has accused Israel of “war crimes” and “genocide,” while expressing support for the Hamas militant group. This stance, diametrically opposed to Israel’s position, has further exacerbated the political tensions between the two countries.

Diplomatic Maneuvers: Seeking a Post-Conflict Settlement

Despite the harsh rhetoric, both Turkey and Israel recognize the need for a post-conflict settlement in Gaza. Turkey, eager to play a leading role in the diplomatic efforts, has expressed interest in participating in the mediation efforts and in Gaza’s postwar reconstruction and governance. However, Israel’s anger at Turkey’s strong condemnation of its actions has complicated Turkey’s ability to play a constructive role.

The United States: Caught in the Middle

The United States, a close ally of both Israel and Turkey, finds itself in a precarious position. While the Biden administration has expressed concern over Turkey’s harsh criticism of Israel, it also recognizes the importance of Turkey’s involvement in any future peace process. The United States will need to carefully navigate this complex situation to maintain its relationships with both countries.

The current crisis has significantly strained the relationship between Turkey and Israel. The imposition of trade restrictions, the clash of ideologies, and the complicated diplomatic landscape all point to a fragile future for these two nations. It remains to be seen whether Turkey and Israel can find common ground and work together towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Gaza.

Additional Resources:

Frequently Asked Questions:

  • What are the main reasons for the trade restrictions between Turkey and Israel?

The trade restrictions are a direct response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Turkey’s strong condemnation of Israel’s military actions and its support for Hamas have angered Israel, leading to the imposition of retaliatory measures.

  • What is Turkey’s role in the diplomatic efforts to end the conflict?

Turkey has expressed interest in participating in the mediation efforts and in Gaza’s postwar reconstruction and governance. However, Israel’s anger at Turkey’s harsh criticism of its actions has complicated Turkey’s ability to play a constructive role.

  • What is the role of the United States in the current crisis?

The United States, a close ally of both Israel and Turkey, finds itself in a precarious position. While the Biden administration has expressed concern over Turkey’s harsh criticism of Israel, it also recognizes the importance of Turkey’s involvement in any future peace process. The United States will need to carefully navigate this complex situation to maintain its relationships with both countries.

  • What is the future of the relationship between Turkey and Israel?

The current crisis has significantly strained the relationship between Turkey and Israel. It remains to be seen whether Turkey and Israel can find common ground and work together towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Gaza.

Turkish elite vs. societal opinion

KEVIN HUGGARD: To what degree are the demands of the Turkish people at large driving the country’s political leadership, as opposed to the demands of the bottom up?

ASLI AYDINTABAŞ: There’s no denying that the public is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and extremely sensitive to this issue. For the average person, the suffering in Gaza is constantly covered, and there is constant commentary suggesting that Israel is only able to carry out these actions because the US permits it.

Public criticism of Hamas in the early days after the October 7 carnage is long gone. In public discourse, the oppressor and the oppressed are portrayed in stark black and white, with little room for nuance and little recollection of the events of October 7. There is also growing anti-Americanism for what is perceived as the United States’ blank check for Israel.

By arguing that Hamas is not a terrorist group, Erdoğan reinforces those feelings and gives the group some degree of legitimacy. By doing this, he has been able to shape the public’s perception of the problem. Specifically, according to Metropoll polling data, only 3% of respondents think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

This conflict has also allowed Erdoğan to make a case about a civilizational rift with the West. He calls it “crusader vs crescent” and of course, Turkey is on the side of the crescent. I’m concerned that an increasing number of Turks are beginning to believe this civilizational narrative and view Turkey as distinct from the liberal order, which is characterized as immoral, prejudiced, and contradictory. I think Turkish society is getting closer to the idea of a non-aligned Turkey as a result of the Gaza conflict.

Turkey’s response to the crisis

In your policy paper, you state that the evidence indicates that “the Turkish establishment views this as an inflection point, not a passing flare-up of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Kevin Huggard asks how Turkey has responded to the current crisis. In light of this, has Turkey’s policy response up to this point deviated from its customary stance toward Israel and Palestine?

ASLI AYDINTAŞBAŞ: Erdoğan is known for his pragmatism and his skillful use of geopolitics to expand Turkey’s interests. He is prepared to compromise, go back on his principles, straddle the line between the West and Russia, make amends with adversaries, and other actions when it serves his interests. But not on the Palestinian issue. There is no pragmatism there. In Erdoğan’s view, speaking out against Israel’s actions is his calling, even if it means facing isolation. It is clearly personal, ideological, and near and dear to his heart.

Turkey has taken the most strident anti-Israeli position within NATO, with Erdoğan organizing pro-Palestinian rallies himself and slamming both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the United States. But he may have gone overboard this time. Erdoğan has called Hamas a “liberation movement” — openly stating “Hamas is not a terrorist organization” and accusing Israel of committing “genocide.” Of course, this is very different from what many Arab leaders have done, which is criticizing Israel for its disregard for Palestinian civilians while also keeping their distance from Hamas.

Speaking with Turkish diplomats and officials, including secularists, I was astounded to learn how bitterly they felt about the U.S. S. approach they were. When it comes to handling civilian casualties in Gaza and Ukraine, the West is frequently criticized for applying double standards.

From these conversations, I also observed that Turks are not sure that the threat of regional war has abated. They see the U. S. military buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean as a provocation for Iran and Russia rather than as a deterrent for Iran, as the Biden administration believes. They appeared to believe that this might still turn into a turning point in the region, with more involvement from Iran’s proxies and then Russia, or a new intifada.

“Strongest Military in the Middle East” – Turkey’s Erdogan Threatens War Against Israel

Leave a Comment