As the 14th day of the Israeli offensive in Gaza unfolds, the humanitarian crisis associated with this conflict continues to intensify. The unwavering support from the United States and a significant contingent of Western nations for Israel’s aggressive military campaign has created an exceptional situation, allowing Israel’s actions to go unchecked. The adoption of collective punishment as a war strategy by both Israel and the U.S., with their resolute backing, threatens to destabilize the region and jeopardize global security on an unprecedented scale.

The political landscape in the Middle East is gradually evolving, yet many countries in the region have not taken substantial steps to halt the ongoing conflict. Several nations remain stuck at the rhetorical level, struggling to transition from verbal expressions to tangible actions. In contrast, Türkiye has adopted a balanced approach to address Israeli aggression in Gaza. Türkiye is emerging as one of the most proactive countries in efforts to cease hostilities and prevent the crisis from escalating further. Grounded in realism, Türkiye is pursuing a strategy prioritizing robust regional dialogue and a humanitarian approach to address the conflict.

On Oct. 7, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reacted swiftly to the unfolding crisis. He called upon all parties to exercise restraint and urged them to avoid hasty and impulsive actions. Subsequently, he openly criticized Israel’s military attacks on Gaza and articulated a vision for a lasting solution. Erdoğan emphasized that a viable path toward resolution hinges on establishing a Palestinian state, adhering to the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and preserving territorial integrity.

In his dedicated efforts to address the crisis, Erdoğan has dedicated a significant portion of his working hours to engage with other world leaders. To this end, he has undertaken intensive telephone diplomacy, conversing with 18 heads-of-state thus far. In each conversation, he underscored the paramount importance of declaring a humanitarian ceasefire, the creation of a humanitarian corridor and the imperative for Israel to act in accordance with established international laws and norms.

Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan is also playing a pivotal role in the ongoing diplomatic endeavors. Fidan’s primary objective is to expedite the cessation of Israel’s military campaign through the effective use of regional diplomacy. In this context, Türkiye is channeling substantial efforts to curb Israel’s aggressive actions and seek a pragmatic solution by establishing a genuine ceasefire. This comprehensive diplomatic approach involves engaging with Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Pakistan and Iran.

Notably, Fidan’s discourse during these diplomatic talks is marked by its realism and clarity concerning the Palestinian issue. He underscores that Israel’s comprehensive security cannot be achieved without addressing the long-standing Palestinian cause and draws attention to Israel’s ongoing occupation. In light of these realities, Fidan emphasizes that the urgent need of the region is the establishment of a Palestinian state, reverting to the 1967 borders while ensuring territorial integrity and designating East Jerusalem as its capital. This approach resonates with Türkiye’s official position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and aligns with the recognized framework established by international law.

Türkiye’s mediation efforts play a pivotal role in the diplomatic landscape. The primary objective is to lay a solid foundation for negotiations by securing the release of Israeli and foreign citizens currently held captive by Hamas. Türkiye’s extensive negotiation channels with Hamas and past experiences position it to serve as a facilitator in this regard. Another dimension Fidan highlights is the prospect of Türkiye assuming a guarantor role. Participation in a multifaceted guarantor mechanism, which includes Türkiye, would be instrumental in ensuring the sustained maintenance of a ceasefire once it is established.

A regional security crisis

Another critical aspect to consider is the potential repercussions of this crisis on regional normalization and the likelihood of a new regional security crisis emerging. The U.S.’ overt political and military support for Israel, coupled with the deployment of its military forces in the region, ostensibly as a deterrent to regional countries, heightens the risk that the conflict may transcend Gaza and involve other actors. Such a scenario could precipitate a fresh regional security crisis for Türkiye. Consequently, a ceasefire and the cessation of Israeli attacks are viewed by Türkiye as vital measures to avert destabilizing the broader regional security landscape.

The final point pertains to the impact of Israel’s actions in Gaza on the normalization process between Türkiye and Israel, which had gained momentum before the onset of the war. Erdoğan maintains a balanced stance on this matter, with Türkiye’s primary objective being resolving the crisis. However, as the crisis deepens and Israel’s aggressive actions intensify, the prospects for normalization could be shelved once more. Therefore, the process of normalization between Türkiye and Israel is presently undergoing a rigorous test and it hinges on the evolving regional climate following Oct. 7. It is evident that any discussion on the future of Türkiye-Israel relations cannot be divorced from the evolving dynamics in the region.

Türkiye-Israel normalization

There are several vital considerations that must be taken into account in the context of Türkiye-Israel normalization: First, any future effort towards Türkiye-Israel normalization will need to chart a new course, especially in the aftermath of Oct. 7. Prior to this date, expectations for normalization were notably high. The factors that traditionally drove the normalization process, such as energy-related interests and other geopolitical concerns, are no longer sufficient in themselves to propel this process forward. Second, it is essential to acknowledge that Türkiye-Israel relations have never mirrored the alliance-like ties between the U.S. and Israel. The era of close relations between the two nations that was often referred to as a "golden age" during the 1990s is unlikely to be resurrected.

Third, the pragmatic approach to foreign policy, which has been a cornerstone for both Türkiye and Israel, has its inherent limitations. The pragmatic approach, characterized by Türkiye’s "moral pragmatism" and Israel’s realpolitik-driven pragmatism, served as a critical element that allowed the two countries to maintain their relations only at the maximum level. However, it also posed challenges in deepening relations, particularly concerning the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian question has historically been a major impediment to the deepening of ties between the two nations, and it remains a formidable challenge. Lastly, it is clear that the Turkish public’s sentiment favors the Palestinian cause over Israeli normalization. These dynamics hold substantial significance and must be considered, particularly by Erdoğan.

Given these complex dynamics, Türkiye currently plays a proactive role in the region to mitigate the escalation of the crisis and secure a ceasefire. The deepening of the crisis could lead to suspending the ongoing normalization process between Türkiye and Israel. Moreover, the Israeli actions on Oct. 7 and their subsequent impact could potentially reverberate throughout Türkiye’s broader foreign policy normalization initiatives. The way forward heavily depends on the stance taken by Western nations and their response to Israel’s aggressive actions that undermine both the internationally established rules of warfare and the inherent principles of conflict.