RSS
How Turkey Is Manipulating Syria for Its Own Advantage

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan leaves after attending a military parade to mark the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus in response to a short-lived Greek-inspired coup, in the Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus, in the divided city of Nicosia, Cyprus July 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Yiannis Kourtoglou
Following the recent regime change in Syria, Israel now faces a complex reality in which it must prevent the flow of advanced weapons to hostile actors in Syria while exploring possibilities for political dialogue with the new regime. At the same time, Turkey’s growing presence in Syria poses a strategic challenge due to both the potential for military confrontation and the possibility that Turkey may help Hamas expand its operations in the north.
Turkey’s trends in Syria align with the neo-Ottoman vision, which seeks to restore Turkey’s influence in the Islamic world. Beyond the military dimension, Erdogan is advancing an image of Turkey as savior, aiding refugees and helping Syrians with their country’s reconstruction. This image, along with the consolidation of internal control, serves as a counterbalance to criticism over human rights violations and Turkey’s historical legacy.
Turkey’s increasing involvement in Syria not only reflects its strategic aspirations but also acts as a political tool through which Erdogan is presenting Turkey as a humanitarian and protective power, furthering its position in the Muslim world at the expense of its rivals — Israel, Iran, and Arab countries.
The rapidly changing reality in Syria presents Israel with a mix of challenges and opportunities. Jerusalem is concerned about the security of its citizens in the face of Syria’s instability, but is also cognizant of emerging diplomatic possibilities that could transform the entire region. The bringing of those possibilities to fruition will require the acquiescence of Turkey, however, which is highly unlikely at present.
Israel’s security challenge stems primarily from the fear that both conventional and unconventional weapons could find their way into hostile hands close to its northern border. Missiles, chemical weapons, and even Syria’s military arsenal present real threats. However, a Syrian regime that is allegedly non-hostile toward Israel might, at least in the short term, offer diplomatic opportunities that align with Israel’s interests.
Israel remains vigilant and prepared to act. Thus, it prefers to destroy any weapons that pose a threat, ensuring that conventional and unconventional weaponry in the region does not fall into the hands of jihadist elements, even if they are Sunni and fierce enemies of Hezbollah and Iran. The concern is that Sunni and Shiite jihadist forces might position themselves at Israel’s border, threatening the Golan Heights and the eastern Galilee. Moreover, despite claims of ideological moderation by the HTS party, there is concern that extreme religious ideology could take over and turn the country into an authoritarian-controlled zone. Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani, the leader of the HTS, is a member of ISIS, and Israel cannot afford the presence of ISIS on its border.
Israel needs to eliminate any strategic capability from Syria for several reasons.
First, the new regime’s position toward Israel, while not openly hostile at the moment, remains unclear. It is too dangerous to allow weapons to remain in the area given that Al-Jolani could adopt ISIS’s extreme positions in the future.
Next, the fact that the Syrian border with Lebanon is now controlled by the Kurds, who view Israel as a partner, is an unplanned positive development in Israel’s efforts to prevent the smuggling of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah. However, the Kurds in Syria are in constant danger from the Turkish military. Zeki Aktürk, the Press and Public Relations Advisor of Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense, declared in December 2024 that “Turkey will not allow ‘terrorist organizations, foremost the PKK/YPG terror organization,’ to seize territories by exploiting the situation in Syria. We will continue to take destructive preemptive actions.” He also stated, “We believe that the new Syrian regime and its army, the Syrian National Army, will liberate the Syrian people and the areas occupied by the PKK/YPG terror organization.” This approach to Turkish involvement in northeastern Syria is also supported by the opposition party CHP, which is usually a harsh opponent of Erdogan. For example, its members have declared that Erdogan is not assertive enough against Israel. Yankı Bağcıoğlu, Vice Chairman of the CHP, whose responsibilities include relations with the military and national security policy, said that if there is a threat to Turkey in Syria, a military operation against the Kurds could be carried out. In this context, Erdogan can once again be seen exploiting internal and international conflicts to strengthen his rule and neutralize the opposition.
Another relevant minority in Syria is the Druze population in the southwest, along the Jordanian border. As Israel has a Druze community, it may be possible to renew an alliance to ensure defense of the shared border.
Because the new Syrian regime’s policy toward Israel remains uncertain, Israel has no choice but to maintain a high level of military readiness and take steps to prevent the Iran-Hezbollah-ISIS axis from reorganizing there. Israel must also quickly identify and destroy any weapons that might eventually be aimed in its direction. If the new Syrian regime does ultimately adopt a positive position toward Israel – which is unlikely, at least as long as Turkey remains active – Israel could strengthen its position in the region through diplomatic and economic cooperation, presenting a more optimistic political-security picture overall.
With that said, the Turks are very confident about their position of power in Syria. By shifting its support among different forces in that country after the Arab Spring, Turkey expanded its influence in northern Syria. Turkey aims to turn Syria into a satellite, not unlike like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is possible that the relationship with Syria will eventually go through Ankara, as Turkey may demand a military alliance with the new regime to ensure its influence in the region. It has leverage to make this demand, as it has invested significant forces and money in Syria. Such an alliance would further bolster Turkey’s standing, both in the region and internationally.
Turkey is already playing a significant role in Syria’s reconstruction. It has invested billions of dollars in that country, especially since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011. In terms of humanitarian aid, Turkey has provided support to millions of Syrian refugees affected by the war, allocating about $40 billion (according to a speech by Erdogan five years ago) for aid to Syrian refugees. Turkey also frequently states its intention to repatriate the Syrian refugees back to their homeland.
In addition, Turkey has invested in the reconstruction of areas in northern Syria – especially those under its control, such as Afrin and Idlib – and allocated funds for infrastructure, education, health, and public services. According to Turkish media, the reconstruction of Syria requires a total investment of $400 billion. The first phase will involve the construction of infrastructure and thousands of housing units, with Turkish companies at the forefront of that effort. The forecast is that over the next decade, sectors such as furniture, energy, logistics, and retail will generate $100 billion for Turkey’s economy.
Turkey has also spent billions of dollars on military operations in Syria, including deploying military forces, operating military bases, and paying local militias. Due to these massive investments, Turkey may demand a permanent military presence in Syria, especially given Syria’s current fragile state. This could pose a threat to Israel.
Turkey does not want its vision in Syria to be compromised. It demands that Israel withdraw beyond the border, with Erdogan going so far as to threaten at least twice to take military action against Israel if it does not comply. The tension engendered by this language could manifest in several ways.
First, Turkey wants to eradicate all Kurdish activity in Syrian territory, especially along its border. But, as noted above, the Kurds are a partner Israel relies on. These are obviously conflicting interests. Moreover, Israel is very concerned about Turkey’s connection with, and well-known support for, Hamas. Turkey may establish Hamas bases in areas under its control in Syria, creating a link between Hamas in the north and Hamas in the south. In view of this danger, Israel is trying to prevent Turkish control from spreading in Syria and reduce the threat to its borders. Given these facts, even a small-scale military clash could arise between Israel and Turkey in the future.
Experts in Israel-Turkey relations have often used the term “frenemy” to describe the dynamic between the two countries, especially since the second decade of the 2000s. In light of current developments, such as the growing threat from Turkey towards Israel from the north, Turkey’s demand that Israel withdraw from Syria, and its belief that Israel plans to occupy parts of southeastern Turkey as part of the biblical Kingdom of Israel, it might be time to reconsider the “frenemy” and perhaps replace it with the term “enemy.”
Turkey’s presence in Syria, from Erdogan’s shifting from supporting anti-Assad forces in the early stages to conducting military operations in northern Syria, is a means of exploiting the conflict to achieve central objectives: to block Kurdish forces associated with the PKK and to expand Turkey’s regional influence. By framing Turkey’s involvement in Syria as national security defense, Erdogan has managed to both justify increased military intervention and strengthen his image as a strong and determined leader on the international stage.
Erdogan appears to be not just strong but a savior. Turkey’s presence in Syria is perceived as part of neo-Ottomanism, a term that describes the geostrategic and cultural policy of the Turkish government particularly under AKP administration. The concept aims to restore Turkey’s regional influence in areas that were once under the control of the Ottoman Empire (such as the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and North Africa), combining political, economic, and cultural power. Turkey is succeeding where Russia and Iran failed, and now holds the most significant footprint in Syria.
Turkey’s international image is largely negative. It is perceived as an oppressor of minorities, as responsible for the Armenian genocide during the Ottoman Empire, and as stubborn in its refusal to acknowledge its historical responsibility. The image of Muslim savior would help Turkey improve that global image. This aligns well with Turkey’s strategic needs as it tries to establish itself as a regional power with global influence.
Against the backdrop of Turkey’s ongoing efforts to achieve legitimacy in Europe, its involvement in Syria reflects a strategic shift in its national vision. Given its failure to integrate into the European Union and achieve equal status among Western nations, Turkey is turning its attention to the Islamic world, where it aims to establish itself as a dominant regional power and gain the recognition and prestige it believes it deserves. It wants to be seen as a nation that succeeds, unlike other Muslim-majority countries, at saving Muslim societies, both within and outside its borders.
Erdogan oscillates between peace negotiations and military repression depending on his political needs. In the early years of his rule, Erdogan led a peace process with the PKK in order to garner support from the Kurdish population and present himself as a leader capable of resolving one of Turkey’s longest-running conflicts. However, when the dynamics shifted—especially after the electoral success of the pro-Kurdish party (HDP)—the Turkish military launched a campaign against the PKK, using the conflict to garner nationalist support and weaken the political influence of the HDP.
In Syria, a new opportunity presented itself. On March 1, the PKK declared that it would lay down its weapons and announced a unilateral ceasefire. This could mark the beginning of the end of the PKK’s 40-year violent struggle for independence in Turkish territory. Consequently, Ankara will no longer regard Turkey’s PKK and its branches in Iraq and Syria as a terrorist organization.
The hope is that the end of the armed conflict between Turkey and the PKK in Iraq will not only conclude Turkish military operations in the region but ultimately improve political and economic relations between the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Turkey. The same may happen in Syria, where unprecedented opportunities for effective governance and stability are opening up in the north.
However, while Nechirvan Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, embraces this message, there is no rush to disarm the SDF in Syria. Abdi has already declared that the disarmament does not apply to his group. Despite the agreement he signed with al-Jolani, according to which their military forces and the institutions they established would merge into the new Syrian state, the agreement represents more of a dialogue in the form of a state of non-war. It does not contain any solution for the Kurds in Syria.
Turkey may bring peace to its borders and present itself as a peacemaker and savior of the Muslim world, a role it has sought for many years (evidenced by its attempts to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians, Russia and Ukraine, and others). However, while Turkey’s image may be bolstered as a peacekeeper that ensures stability in the region, this very role could paradoxically lead to further fragmentation among the Kurds, deepening the already existing rift within Kurdish society – this time in Syria.
Prof. Efrat Aviv is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a senior lecturer in the Department of General History at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post How Turkey Is Manipulating Syria for Its Own Advantage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks

Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli strike on a tent camp sheltering displaced people, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Israeli military said on Sunday it had begun “extensive ground operations” in northern and southern Gaza, stepping up a new campaign in the enclave.
Israel made its announcement after sources on both sides said there had been no progress in a new round of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Qatar.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the latest Doha talks included discussions on a truce and hostage deal as well as a proposal to end the war in return for the exile of Hamas militants and the demilitarization of the enclave – terms Hamas has previously rejected.
The substance of the statement was in line with previous declarations from Israel, but the timing, as negotiators meet, offered some prospect of flexibility in Israel’s position. A senior Israeli official said there had been no progress in the talks so far.
Israel’s military said it conducted a preliminary wave of strikes on more than 670 Hamas targets in Gaza over the past week to support its ground operation, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots.”
It said it killed dozens of Hamas fighters. Palestinian health authorities say hundreds of people have been killed including many women and children.
Asked about the Doha talks, a Hamas official told Reuters: “Israel’s position remains unchanged, they want to release the prisoners (hostages) without a commitment to end the war.”
He reiterated that Hamas was proposing releasing all Israeli hostages in return for an end to the war, the pull-out of Israeli troops, an end to a blockade on aid for Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
Israel’s declared goal in Gaza is the elimination of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas, which attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and seizing about 250 hostages.
The Israeli military campaign has devastated the enclave, pushing nearly all residents from their homes and killing more than 53,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.
The post Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’

Pope Leo XIV waves to the faithful from the popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass in Saint Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Alessandro Garofalo
Pope Leo XIV formally began his reign on Sunday by reaching out to conservatives who felt orphaned under his predecessor, calling for unity, vowing to preserve the Catholic Church’s heritage and not rule like “an autocrat.”
After a first ride in the popemobile through an estimated crowd of up to 200,000 in St. Peter’s Square and surrounding streets, Leo was officially installed as the 267th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church at an outdoor Mass.
Well-wishers waved US and Peruvian flags, with people from both countries claiming him as the first pope from their nations. Born in Chicago, the 69-year-old pontiff spent many years as a missionary in Peru and also has Peruvian citizenship.
Robert Prevost, a relative unknown on the world stage who only became a cardinal two years ago, was elected pope on May 8 after a short conclave of cardinals that lasted barely 24 hours.
He succeeded Francis, an Argentine, who died on April 21 after leading the Church for 12 often turbulent years during which he battled with traditionalists and championed the poor and marginalized.
In his sermon, read in fluent Italian, Leo said that as leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, he would continue Francis’ legacy on social issues such as combating poverty and protecting the environment.
He vowed to face up to “the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world” and, in a nod to conservatives, he promised to preserve “the rich heritage of the Christian faith,” repeatedly calling for unity.
Crowds chanted “Viva il Papa” (Long Live the Pope) and “Papa Leone,” his name in Italian, as he waved from the open-topped popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass, which was attended by dozens of world leaders.
US Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who clashed with Francis over the White House’s hardline immigration policies, led a US delegation alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic.
Vance briefly shook hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the start of the ceremony. The two men last met in February in the White House, when they clashed fiercely in front of the world’s media.
Zelensky and Leo were to have a private meeting later on Sunday, while Vance was expected to see the pope on Monday.
In a brief appeal at the end of the Mass, Leo addressed several global conflicts. He said Ukraine was being “martyred,” a phrase often used by Francis, and called for a “just and lasting peace” there.
He also mentioned the humanitarian situation in Gaza, saying people in the Palestinian enclave were being “reduced to starvation.”
Among those in the crowds on Sunday were many pilgrims from the US and Peru.
Dominic Venditti, from Seattle, said he was “extremely excited” by the new pope. “I like how emotional and kind he is,” he said. “I love his background.”
APPEAL FOR UNITY
Since becoming pope, Leo has already signaled some key priorities for his papacy, including a warning about the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and the importance of bringing peace to the world and to the Church itself.
Francis’ papacy left a divided Church, with conservatives accusing him of sowing confusion, particularly with his extemporaneous remarks on issues of sexual morality such as same-sex unions.
Saying he was taking up his mission “with fear and trembling,” Leo used the words “unity” or “united” seven times on Sunday and the word “harmony” four times.
“It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda or by means of power. Instead, it is always and only a question of loving, as Jesus did,” he said, in apparent reference to a war of words between Catholics who define themselves as conservative or progressive.
Conservatives also accused Francis of ruling in a heavy-handed way and lamented that he belittled their concerns and did not consult widely before making decisions.
Referring to St. Peter, the 1st century Christian apostle from whom popes derive their authority, Leo said: “Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him. On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters, and to walk alongside them.”
Many world leaders attended the ceremony, including the presidents of Israel, Peru and Nigeria, the prime ministers of Italy, Canada and Australia, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
European royals also took their place in the VIP seats near the main altar, including Spanish King Felipe and Queen Letizia.
Leo shook many of their hands at the end of the ceremony, and hugged his brother Louis, who had traveled from Florida.
As part of the ceremony, Leo received two symbolic items: a liturgical vestment known as a pallium, a sash of lambswool representing his role as a shepherd, and the “fisherman’s ring,” recalling St. Peter, who was a fisherman.
The ceremonial gold signet ring is specially cast for each new pope and can be used by Leo to seal documents, although this purpose has fallen out of use in modern times.
It shows St. Peter holding the keys to Heaven and will be broken after his death or resignation.
The post Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
JNS.org – A smattering of Arabic words has entered the English language in recent years, the direct result of more than a century of conflict between the Zionist movement and Arab regimes determined to prevent the Jews from exercising self-determination in their historic homeland.
These words include fedayeen, which refers to the armed Palestinian factions; intifada, which denotes successive violent Palestinian uprisings against Israel; and naksa, which pertains to the defeat sustained by the Arab armies in their failed bid to destroy Israel during the June 1967 war.
At the top of this list, however, is nakba, the word in Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe.” The emergence of the Palestinian refugee question following Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence is now widely described as “The Nakba,” and the term has become a stick wielded by anti-Zionists to beat Israel and, increasingly, Jews outside.
Last Thursday, a date which the U.N. General Assembly has named for an annual “Nakba Day,” workers at a cluster of Jewish-owned businesses in the English city of Manchester arrived at the building housing their offices to find that it had been badly vandalized overnight. The front of the building, located in a neighborhood with a significant Jewish community, was splattered with red paint. An external wall displayed the crudely painted words “Happy Nakba Day.”
The culprits were a group called Palestine Action, a pro-Hamas collective of activists whose sole mission is to intimidate the Jewish community in the United Kingdom in much the same way as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists did back in the 1930s. Its equivalents in the United States are groups like Within Our Lifetime and Students for Justice in Palestine, who have shown themselves equally enthused when it comes to intimidating Jewish communities by conducting loud, sometimes violent, demonstrations outside synagogues and other communal facilities, all too frequently showering Jews with the kind of abuse that was once the preserve of neo-Nazis. These thugs, cosplaying with keffiyehs instead of swastika armbands, can reasonably be described as the neo-neo-Nazis.
The overarching point here is that ideological constructs like nakba play a key role in enabling the intimidation they practice. It allows them to diminish the historic victimhood of the Jews, born of centuries of stateless disempowerment, with dimwitted formulas equating the nakba with the Nazi Holocaust. It also enables them to camouflage hate speech and hate crimes as human-rights advocacy—a key reason why law enforcement, in the United States as well as in Canada, Australia and most of Europe, has been found sorely wanting when it comes to dealing with the surge of antisemitism globally.
Part of the response needs to be legislative. That means clamping down on both sides of the Atlantic on groups that glorify designated terrorist organizations by preventing them from fundraising; policing their access to social media; and restricting their demonstrations to static events in a specific location with a predetermined limit on attendees, rather than a march that anyone can join, along with an outright ban on any such events in the environs of Jewish community buildings.
These are not independent civil society organizations, as they pretend to be, but rather extensions of terrorist organizations like Hamas and—in the case of Samidoun, another group describing itself as a “solidarity” organization—the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we cannot ban them outright, we need to contain them much more effectively. We can start by framing the issue as a national security challenge and worry less about their “freedom of speech.”
But this is also a fight that takes us into the realm of ideas and arguments. We need to stop thinking about the nakba as a Palestinian narrative of pain deserving of empathy by exposing it for what it is—another tool in the arsenal of groups whose goal is to bring about the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
When it was originally introduced in the late 1940s, the word nakba had nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinian refugees or their dubious claim to be the uninterrupted, indigenous inhabitants of a land seized by dispossessing foreign colonists. Popularized by the late Syrian writer Constantine Zureik in a 1948 book titled The Meaning of Disaster, the nakba described therein was, as the Israeli scholar Shany Mor has crisply pointed out, simply “the failure of the Arabs to defeat the Jews.”
Zureik was agonized by this defeat, calling it “one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been inflicted throughout their long history.” His story is fundamentally a story of national humiliation and wounded pride. Yet there is absolutely no reason why Jews should be remotely troubled by the neurosis it projects. Their defeat was our victory and our liberation, and we should unreservedly rejoice in that fact.
The only aspect of the nakba that we should worry about is the impact it has on us as a community, as well as on the status of Israel as a sovereign member of the international society of states. As Mizrahi Jews know well (my own family among them), the nakba assembled in Zureik’s imagination really was a “catastrophe”— for us. Resoundingly defeated on the battlefield by the superior courage and tactical nous of the nascent Israeli Defense Forces, the Arabs compensated by turning on the defenseless Jews in their midst. From Libya to Iraq, ancient and established Jewish communities were the victims of a cowardly, spiteful policy of expropriation, mob violence and expulsion.
The inheritors of that policy are the various groups that compose the Palestinian solidarity movement today. Apoplectic at the realization that they have been unable to dislodge the “Zionists”—and knowing now that the main consequence of the Oct. 7, 2023 pogrom in Israel has been the destruction of Gaza—they, too, have turned on the Jews in their midst.
They have done so with one major advantage that the original neo-Nazis never had: sympathy and endorsement from academics, celebrities, politicians and even the United Nations. Indeed, the world body hosted a two-day seminar on “Ending the Nakba” at its New York headquarters at the same time that pro-Hamas fanatics were causing havoc just a few blocks downtown. Even so, we should take heart at the knowledge that nakba is not so much a symbol of resistance as it is defeat. Just as the rejectionists and eliminationists have lost previous wars through a combination of political stupidity, diplomatic ineptitude and military flimsiness, so, too, can they lose this one.
The post The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem first appeared on Algemeiner.com.