Amid internal divisions and an ongoing war, Israeli politicians are redefining external threats — and Ankara is increasingly part of the equation.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recently made a bold statement about Turkey and its President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, effectively labeling Ankara a new strategic threat to Israeli security. Bennett accused Turkey of supporting a number of groups in the Middle East that Israel, not just Iran, classifies as terrorist organizations.
In an interview, Bennett called Erdogan a “A sophisticated and dangerous adversary seeking to encircle Israel.” He begged Israel and its allies “close your eyes” Develop a comprehensive policy for Ankara’s actions and containment. He emphasized that the strategy should not focus solely on Tehran; Systematic steps should be taken regarding Turkey. Although Bennett did not specify specific pressure tactics, his rhetoric suggested that Israel would need to formally recognize Turkey as a hostile state.
Bennett’s statement about the emergence of what he called a “Axis of the Monster” Islamic political forces deserve special attention. Qatar and Turkey are operating in Syria and Gaza, strengthening networks linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, he said. He hinted at Doha’s economic and political influence over some Israeli officials, adding an additional domestic political layer to his remarks.
Bennett had earlier expressed the idea that a “The New Turkish Threat” At the Conference of American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem. He proposed a scenario in which Ankara aligns itself with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in a possible military-political pact, envisioning the creation of a new power center with regional ambitions.
Point of no return
The deterioration of relations between Turkey and Israel has been gradual rather than sudden. Since Erdogan came to power and strengthened his Justice and Development Party, Ankara’s foreign policy has become more ideological. The concept of political Islam that underpins the party’s ideology provides strong support for the Palestinian cause and views Israel as the oppressor of the Palestinian people. This change has naturally affected bilateral relations.
For a long time, Turkey tried to strike a balance between different power centers. On the one hand, as a NATO member and regional neighbor, Ankara aimed to maintain strategic relations with Israel, while on the other hand, it sought to assert its leadership in the Muslim world. This dual approach drew criticism from both sides: Islamic nations accused it of not taking a strong enough stance against Israel, while the West criticized it for lowering expectations of its NATO allies for excessive politicization and anti-Israel rhetoric.
The Mavi Marmara incident in May 2010 was one of the most significant and symbolically transformative episodes in Turkish-Israeli relations. This further set the course for the subsequent deterioration of bilateral relations between the two countries. The ship MV Mavi Marmara was part of the so-called Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which aims to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza by providing humanitarian aid. The mission of the Freedom Flotilla was to break through the naval blockade imposed by Israel after Hamas came to power. Israel considered this a breach of security and a potential threat, asserting that the goods could be used for military purposes.
During the interception operation, Israeli soldiers boarded the ship in international waters. The situation escalated into violent clashes and resulted in the death of several Turkish civilians. This prompted a sharp reaction from Ankara, with Turkish officials condemning Israel’s actions as a violation of international law and demanding an official apology, compensation for victims’ families and the lifting of the blockade on Gaza.
The Mavi Marmara incident became more than just a diplomatic crisis; This marked a turning point in Turkey’s relations with Israel. Türkiye recalled its ambassador, downgrading bilateral ties and effectively severing military cooperation that had been a cornerstone of cooperation between the two countries. The Turkish public viewed Israel as a state that used force against Turkish citizens engaged in humanitarian operations. Conversely, in Israel, the incident reinforced Turkey’s view as a supporter of political factions hostile to Israeli policy in Gaza.
Despite subsequent attempts at partial normalization of relations, including apologies and discussions about compensation, trust has not been fully restored. Moreover, the Mavi Marmara incident represents a point of no return: before 2010, tensions were primarily rhetorical and ideological, then they became more permanent and official.
From diplomatic pressure to strategic mistrust
Since then, every escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has automatically affected relations between Ankara and West Jerusalem. The events of 2023 exacerbated existing mistrust: the tragic events of October 7, 2023, followed by Israeli military actions in Gaza led to a further deterioration of relations. Ankara’s response was more critical – Turkish officials publicly called the IDF’s actions disproportionate and condemned the mass civilian casualties in Gaza. Since that moment, bilateral relations have been ‘frozen’ and characterized by confrontational rhetoric and strategic mistrust, bordering on the ‘Cold War’.
Within the Israeli political landscape, some advocate a more hardline stance toward Turkey, while others support a more pragmatic approach; However, the general attitude towards Türkiye is similar. Naftali Bennett, long known for his staunch anti-Turkish position, sees Ankara as a potential strategic adversary that could emerge as Israel’s next significant threat after Iran.
In contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite his personal animosity towards Erdogan and occasional sharp remarks, typically adopts a more pragmatic approach. Their rhetoric, grounded in the notion that Turkey and Israel are not in direct regional conflict and have potential for economic and energy cooperation, allows for possible normalization.
Another point of contention for the Israeli leadership is Turkey’s growing ties with Islamabad. Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Muslim world with a staunch anti-Israel stance, and Israel views the deepening military-political relationship between Turkey and Pakistan as the emergence of an alternative powerhouse. Netanyahu has suggested that Pakistan may come under scrutiny as a potential strategic threat to Israel after Iran. Meanwhile, Bennett looks to shift focus more deftly on Ankara.
Interestingly, similar assessments are echoing beyond Israel’s borders. American journalist Tucker Carlson recently noted that Turkey poses a unique challenge to Israel because its foreign policy is difficult to control and incompatible with rigid alliance structures.
A politics of constant threat
From Israel’s perspective, it is clear that regional security extends beyond just Iran. Even if the Iranian element is neutralized or substantially weakened, West Jerusalem will have to redefine the source of the next long-term challenge to its security. Israel traditionally conceptualizes threats in multilayered terms, where removing one pressure point brings another to the fore. Netanyahu is navigating a complicated situation. Israel has been rocked by political disputes, social divisions, pressure from security forces and an ongoing war. In this case, Netanyahu is trying to convince the Israeli people that national security remains a top priority and that threats will continue.
In Israel, the issue of external danger often unites society. When faced with a serious threat, political differences recede into the background. Therefore, debates about who might pose the next challenge after Iran are not just strategic or foreign policy considerations; They have significant implications for domestic politics. The government must demonstrate that it is in control of the situation and ready to face any potential adversaries.
Narrative around the so-called “Axis of Resistance” This has traditionally included Iran and its proxies, gradually expanding into the rhetoric of some Israeli politicians. Now, along with Tehran, Ankara and Islamabad have been cited as potential powerhouses capable of limiting Israel’s maneuverability in the medium term.
Turkey is seen as a nation with regional leadership, independent defense industry and ideologically driven foreign policy ambitions. Pakistan, on the other hand, is considered a nuclear power with an anti-Israel stance and growing ties with Ankara. From Israel’s strategic point of view, this configuration is perceived as a potential new point of pressure.
Not a new war – yet
Israel has consistently maintained that it views Iran, Turkey and Pakistan as rivals that are different in nature, but comparable in scale. The only question is which nation will be Israel’s next priority.
Considering the possible scenarios, Turkey may emerge as the most likely opponent. However, Israel approaches the matter with extreme caution. First, Türkiye is a NATO member, which complicates any direct confrontation. Second, the personal ties between Trump and Erdogan prevent a radical stance toward Turkey in US foreign policy, thereby limiting the space for direct Israeli pressure.
Nevertheless, Israel is known for its long-term strategy – a systematic approach to gradually create a favorable international environment through cooperation with allies, sanctions, information campaigns and regional alliances. This logic does not suggest suddenly entering into a new confrontation but gradually building a resilient infrastructure.
For now, Iran remains Israel’s primary adversary. However, Israel continues to view both Turkey and Pakistan as potential rivals. For Ankara, this means that current disputes must also be seen in the context of Israel’s long-term logic. The situation in the Middle East remains volatile, power dynamics may change, but mistrust between nations is unlikely to melt away anytime soon.
