Eurasia Press & News
Ankara has politely shown the door to Hamas leaders staying in Turkey, according to two sources, as it walks a diplomatic tightrope, careful not to jeopardize its recent thaw with Israel while maintaining support for the Palestinian cause.
Turkey has been trying to carefully calibrate its stance in the face of the war that Hamas launched against Israel on Oct. 7, maintaining its advocacy of the Palestinian cause while cooling ties with Hamas and seeking to avoid a fresh fallout with Israel.
The crisis hit at a time when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is pursuing normalization with regional powers including Israel. After years of bilateral spats, Erdogan met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last month and invited him to visit Ankara.
At first glance, one could suggest that the Erdogan government’s close relations with Hamas have now driven it into a corner. Moreover, one could expect growing US pressure on Ankara to sever ties with Hamas after the dust settles.
Nevertheless, for the West, Turkey at present represents a partner who can talk to Hamas, and this serves as a sort of lightning rod for Erdogan’s government. The calls made to Ankara requesting its mediation for the release of foreign hostages held by Hamas have given Erdogan the opportunity to play the role he was hoping for.
Unlike his vitriolic outbursts against Israel in the past, Erdogan has restrained his language this time, careful not to jeopardize the new chapter that he had just opened with Israel. He may have toughened his tone against Israel a bit over the mounting casualties in Gaza, but he has withheld the support that would please Hamas.
‘Dissatisfaction with Turkey’
Acknowledging the disappointment on the Palestinian side, a Palestinian source in Ankara told Al-Monitor, “The Palestinian groups, including Hamas, have been dissatisfied with Turkey’s stance. Its statements are viewed as inadequate. They did not even summon the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Ministry.”
Hamas’ political head Ismail Haniyeh, who lives in voluntary exile in Qatar and Turkey, was in Istanbul when Hamas breached the Israeli walls. Haniyeh was politely sent away after footage circulated on social media showing him and other Hamas members prostrating themselves in a “prayer of gratitude” while watching news of the incursion on television, two different sources told Al-Monitor. Ankara was annoyed also by remarks that Saleh al-Arouri, Haniyeh’s deputy, made to Al Jazeera that day. Arouri bragged that Hamas had captured enough Israeli soldiers to force Israel to free all Palestinian prisoners in its jails and would continue to fight. According to the two sources, Ankara politely asked Haniyeh and his entourage to leave Turkey, unwilling to appear to be protecting Hamas after the group’s killing of Israeli civilians.
On Monday, a Turkish official denied claims that the government had ordered Haniyeh and the other senior officials to leave Turkey.
In an interview with Turkey’s Haberturk TV last week, Khaled Meshaal, another senior Hamas figure, implied that the group expected stronger support from Ankara. “I have great respect for Turkey. Turkey should say ‘stop’ to … Israel,” he said.
Still, Ankara may not be seeing the current cooling of ties as irreversible, and Hamas leaders may not make an issue of it in the hope that Turkey’s door remains open to them.
However, Ankara is unlikely to toughen its stance on Hamas as much as its Western partners would like. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan seemed to preclude a drastic shift in Ankara’s position when he underlined Tuesday that the perspectives of the West and Turkey differ. “Since the Westerners define Hamas as a terrorist organization, they appraise all its activities in the framework of terrorism. We, for our part, say that no party should target civilians,” he said.
At the behest of Erdogan, Turkish intelligence and Foreign Ministry officials have held contacts with Hamas but have allegedly failed to get a positive response to mediation offers. Some seem to take this as a sign that Ankara lacks influence, but in the initial stage of the conflict, Hamas has not been open to proposals from Qatar and Egypt either.
According to the Palestinian source, the pressure on Ankara to cut ties with Hamas is coming mostly from the United States rather than Israel.
As for the mediation efforts, the source said that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other resistance groups in Gaza are unwilling to discuss any mediation at present. All proposals have called for the release of the hostages in return for halting Israeli air raids, the resumption of water and power supplies to Gaza, and the opening of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt — but the groups in Gaza insist that the bombings should stop before any discussions can take place, the source explained. “If the parties become ready for a cease-fire, Egypt would not leave the mediation to anyone. Qatar and Turkey could play side roles,” he added.
A source close to the Turkish government said the contacts with Hamas had shifted mostly to Qatar, with Egypt retaining its traditional role, while Turkey was more active in contacts with Iran and Lebanon in a bid to prevent the risk of Hezbollah opening a new front in the conflict. The source acknowledged a cooling in Ankara’s ties with Hamas, even though contacts continued. Turkey’s president and foreign minister have spoken with their Iranian counterparts over the phone, and Fidan held talks in Lebanon on Tuesday.
Erdogan discussed Gaza in a phone call with the leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, on Saturday, Reuters reported. Erdogan told Haniyeh about Ankara’s efforts for a ceasefire, for humanitarian aid to reach Gaza and possible treatment of the wounded in Turkey.
Restrain and caution
As in previous Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, Egypt, which ruled Gaza for nearly two decades after the creation of Israel in 1948 and continues to control the Rafah crossing, is seen as the actor that is the likeliest to set up a negotiating table, while Turkey’s role remains limited. Egypt has kept its distance from Hamas, being an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, and wields more influence over Palestinian groups in general as it is seen as a more reliable mediator by Israel.
Regardless of what Ankara’s mediation efforts achieve, they increase Erdogan’s regional activism. Whenever Turkey has raised its diplomatic profile, as in the war against Ukraine and the grain corridor crisis, Erdogan has skillfully used that to project an image as a sought-after leader in the international arena.
Fidan’s efforts, including phone calls with numerous counterparts and visits to Cairo and Beirut, seem to focus on the release of the hostages, the prevention of a deeper humanitarian crisis and the regionalization of the conflict, and the revival of the two-state solution process. Speaking to journalists earlier this week, he said Ankara was proposing a system of guarantors in an eventual Israeli-Palestinian settlement, with Turkey among the guarantors of the Palestinian side.
The restraint and caution marking the Erdogan government’s new stance could be attributed to several factors.
First, the usage value of the Palestinian cause in domestic politics has been decreasing. With the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, popular sentiment against Islamist groups has grown, eroding tolerance for the use of violence by Palestinian groups.
Second, the energy equilibrium in the Eastern Mediterranean dictates good relations with Israel.
Turkey’s interventionist posture in Arab countries was a major factor behind the deterioration of its ties with Gulf heavyweights. Erdogan’s reconciliation drive in the past couple of years has been underlain by big economic interests, and he now feels the need to step on the brakes on the Palestinian issue.
Third, the strategic decision to mend fences also with the United States and the European Union requires Turkey to readjust its posture in the Middle East.
Whether it can pull it off this time remains unclear, but Ankara has learned well from the Ukraine war that it makes gains by playing the role of a mediator.
