Israeli Fears Over Turkey's Role in Gaza

SadaNews - On Saturday, the newspaper "Yedioth Ahronoth" reported that researchers from the Israeli "Institute for National Security Studies" warned that the role of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the Gaza Strip in the upcoming phase "could turn into a nightmare for Israel".

The newspaper noted in its report that Israel has strongly rejected, since the beginning of the war on Gaza, involving Turkey in any negotiations or arrangements concerning Gaza, especially after Erdogan described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the "Hitler of our time" and accused Israel of genocide.

The report indicates that the scene has changed in recent weeks, and Turkey has become a central part of the discussions that led to the ceasefire agreement.

The two experts in Turkish affairs speaking with the newspaper, Rami Daniel and Galia Lindenstrauss, believe that Turkey's involvement came under American auspices, but the Turkish rhetoric towards Israel has not changed; rather, it has intensified.

Lindenstrauss states that U.S. President Donald Trump sees Erdogan as "the leader capable of restoring order in the Middle East," which has led him to bet on him to implement the "day after" plan in Gaza, benefiting from the good relationship between Ankara and Washington at this stage.

She adds that this bet raises widespread concern in Israel, as "involving Turkey in post-war arrangements is highly concerning for Israel, as it is a publicly adversarial player to it, and its presence in Gaza contradicts basic Israeli interests".

Lindenstrauss adds that "Turkey possesses military and organizational capabilities that make it an influential player in any monitoring or peacekeeping force, but this is exactly what makes it a potential danger, as merely the presence of Turkish soldiers near Israeli forces opens the door to incidents that could trigger a diplomatic or military crisis," referencing Israeli clashes that occurred with the "UNIFIL" peacekeeping force in Lebanon.

The researcher believes that Trump, who prefers "managing the Middle East through strong leaders' relationships," has granted Erdogan what he has long sought: legitimacy to return to Gaza as a key player, after being banned from doing so since 2010 following the "Mavi Marmara" incident.

According to Lindenstrauss, Ankara views its intervention in Gaza as a "historic opportunity" to restore its status in the region after years of isolation and demonstrating its ability to influence central Arab issues, particularly the Palestinian cause, in which it has invested politically for two decades.

Researcher Rami Daniel describes Turkey's entry into the negotiation process as a "decisive turning point," explaining that Ankara was not a part of the mediation at first, but it persistently sought to be a key player ultimately.

Daniel notes that "Turkey has pumped large amounts of assistance into Gaza over recent years and tried through Erdogan's anti-Israel rhetoric to lead an Islamic axis supporting the Palestinians, but it failed to translate that into actual influence until this moment."

The Israeli researcher sees that the Turkish president "found in Trump's plan a golden opportunity to prove his regional role," pointing out a "change in the rules of the game puts a cost on Israel, as Erdogan has not changed his political stance towards Hamas but will work to maintain its political legitimacy, making progress towards the second phase of the agreement more difficult."

Strategic Nightmare

According to Daniel, from the first day of the war, Erdogan dreamed of a role in Gaza, and today he is getting it, and he will seek to be as significant and influential as possible. In contrast, Israel sees the Turkish dream as a "strategic nightmare."

He adds that "the Israeli security establishment fears that Turkish presence in any formula for monitoring could constrain military freedom of action, and perhaps lead to direct confrontation in case of a field incident."

In addition to security risks, there is a political dimension: Ankara, according to Daniel, leans toward granting Hamas a status in any future settlement and opposes the idea of its complete disarmament or exclusion from the management of Gaza, while Israel, Egypt, and the UAE are pushing towards precisely the opposite.

Daniel claims that "most countries in the region today are closer to the Israeli stance than to the Turkish stance and do not wish to see Hamas in a strong position," noting that Turkey is the exception, but it is strong now, although the situation may turn against it later if the balance of power changes.

Meanwhile, Lindenstrauss highlights the debate within Israel regarding the extent of Turkey's permissible role in Gaza, stating that the idea of Turkish forces in Gaza is "very concerning, and it would be better for Israel to limit any military Turkish intervention as much as possible."

Two Fronts for Influence

Israeli concern is not confined to Gaza alone. According to the Israeli researcher, the rise of Turkey's role in Syria in recent years, coupled with the relative decline of Iranian influence there, makes Ankara the "emerging regional player" that may intersect with Israel in more than one arena.

Lindenstrauss explains that Turkey was previously primarily interested in northern Syria, while Israel focused on the south, but the changing battlefield after the fall of ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has made Turkey a power with broader interests, increasingly viewing Israel as a potential obstacle to its new influence.

This is why, she states, a hotline has been established between the Turkish and Israeli armies to avoid aerial incidents in Syrian airspace, indicating the fragility of relations between the two despite their intertwined security interests.

In this context, Lindenstrauss notes that Turkish media close to the government points to what it calls a "diplomatic victory," as Erdogan has managed to impose himself again as a defender of the Palestinian cause and a partner in ceasefire arrangements, after years of marginalization.

However, she conveys from Israeli observers that the Turkish government is using the Gaza file to repair its image in the Arab and Islamic street and to improve its position in the competition with Iran for influence in the region. It also sees it as an opportunity to demonstrate its worth to Washington as a "disciplined" player capable of balancing American and Arab interests.

The researcher affirms that Israel sees in this strategy a "double-edged sword," as while Turkey presents itself as a partner to the U.S. in promoting peace, at the same time it violently attacks Israel in its internal discourse and continues to politically and media-wise embrace Hamas.

Turkey, according to the two Israeli researchers, will seek to entrench its presence in the sector through monitoring teams or participation in reconstruction projects, which will grant it long-term influence that Israel cannot easily accept. Lindenstrauss warns that "any minor incident between the two armies in Gaza could turn into a major diplomatic crisis."

Source: Yedioth Ahronoth