Under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ankara has become increasingly authoritarian, Islamist, and hostile toward Israel and the West more generally. The Turkish government has also indicated that it aspires to alter its maritime border with Greece, and even its border with Syria. Analyzing these changes, and what they term the country’s “bellicose foreign policy,” Efraim Inbar, Eran Lerman, and Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak examine the implications for Israel, and how the Jewish state might best respond:

The political changes in Turkey reflect long-term trends in Turkish society and foreign policy that will not disappear even when the Erdogan era ends. Turkey’s frictions with Israel likewise reflect a distancing from the West and a growing solidarity with popular anti-Israeli attitudes in the Muslim world.

In short, Turkey threatens the stability of the region as well as Israel’s strategic interests in the region. Nevertheless, it is possible to design an effective Western strategic response to Turkey.

Israel must act with great caution toward Turkey. It has no interest in turning this powerful country into an active enemy. It should be borne in mind that even under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has demonstrated a certain degree of pragmatism regarding Israel. It has not completely severed its diplomatic relations, and it maintains extensive trade ties with Israel, alongside mutual air traffic that is important for Turkey’s tourist trade—including securing access for Muslim visitors to Jerusalem and particularly to the Temple Mount.

Consequently, Israel must distinguish between Turkey’s current leader and Turkish society as a whole to preserve the possibility of better relations with a future government that is not under [his AKP party’s] control, or a government based on moderate elements in the party. Secular circles in Turkish society [and certain religious Muslim circles] want good relations with Israel. Turkey is not Iran.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.