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
Antisemitism Data Illustrates the ‘New Normal’

Pro-Hamas protesters at Columbia University on April 19, 2024. Photo: Melissa Bender via Reuters Connect
JNS.org – As we mark the 80th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany and the liberation of the concentration camps, that terrible chapter of history no longer seems so distant. While there are only 15.7 million Jews among a global population of more than 8 billion—still less than the nearly 17 million who were alive in 1938, the year before World War II broke out—the uninitiated could be forgiven for thinking that the number is at least twice that, given the volume of media and political attention that the Jewish state and Jewish communities outside attract.
The great majority of Jews live in either the United States or Israel. For most of the postwar period, both countries were a potent symbol of Jewish life freed from the strictures of the past. Israel was a radical departure from the previous 2,000 years of Jewish history, a land where Jews as a collective could live as a sovereign entity defended by their own military, no longer dependent on non-Jews for their well-being and security. America—the “Goldene Medina” as some Yiddish-speaking immigrants called it—marked a similar rupture with the past, as a republic with no established religion and no history of antisemitic legislation (apart from one intemperate order issued by Gen. Ulysses Grant at the end of the Civil War, which was swiftly dispensed with by President Lincoln. “I do not like to hear a class or nationality condemned on account of a few sinners,” Lincoln wrote.)
In 2025, such a rosy narrative is no longer possible. Israel is in a frankly odd position. It remains traumatized by the Hamas pogrom on Oct. 7, 2023. It is bitterly divided, perhaps more so than at any other time during its brief existence. It has delivered powerful and sustained blows to its mortal enemies in Gaza and Lebanon, but Iran’s ambitions to weaponize its nuclear program, which will be bolstered by any deal agreed to by the Trump administration that does not involve the complete dismantling of its various facilities and development sites, remain a nagging, overarching threat.
Above all, Israel’s very existence, and not its policies, continues to be the primary complaint of its adversaries.
Meanwhile, in America, Jews are facing the most hostile atmosphere in living memory. According to data gathered and published last week by the Anti-Defamation League, there were a whopping 9,354 antisemitic incidents during 2024, the highest ever recorded in its annual audit. That marked a 5% rise on 2023 and an 893% rise over the past decade. In 2015, one year after another bitter war in Gaza triggered by relentless Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli communities in the south, the ADL recorded 942 incidents. At the time, it seemed like an unprecedented challenge. Now, it feels like a drop in the ocean.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the ADL report was its finding that nearly 60% of the incidents in 2024 were related to the Jewish state. “Increasingly, extreme actors in the anti-Israel space have incorporated antisemitic rhetoric into their activism; it has become commonplace for perpetrators across the political spectrum to voice hatred of Israel or conspiracy theories about the state in a range of antisemitic attacks,” the ADL noted.
Among the offenders creating this poisonous atmosphere were Students for Justice in Palestine, sundry groups on the far left and our very own fifth column—the spectacularly misnamed “Jewish Voice for Peace.” Additionally, slogans urging Israel’s destruction and chants of “We don’t want no Zionists here” are not restricted to public spaces but instead are increasingly present outside Jewish-owned businesses, Jewish schools from K-12, synagogues and community centers. College campuses are, of course, the riskiest locations with nearly 1,500 incidents involving offenders who would no doubt call themselves “anti-Zionists” and leave it at that.
In the same week that the ADL released its report, Tel Aviv University published its annual report on antisemitism worldwide, which made for similarly depressing reading. That report noted a decline in incidents during 2024 from their peak in the closing months of 2023, when Israel was still reeling from the venom of the Hamas assault. “The sad truth is that antisemitism reared its head at the moment when the Jewish state appeared weaker than ever and under existential threat,” noted the report’s editor, professor Uriya Shavit. Even so, the 2024 decrease was not uniform: Australia, Canada, Spain and Italy were among countries recording a rise in outrages targeting Jews compared with the previous year. Clearly, some people like to kick the Jews at the very moment when they are down, while others take a more long-term view.
The fact that so many incidents were logged in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 slaughter tells us that, just as in the Muslim world, the fundamental issue is not what Israel does, but the mere fact that Israel is. This reality manifests at every single pro-Palestinian—more precisely, pro-Hamas—demonstration. Some protesters will carry signs urging Israel to “stop bombing hospitals,” which is a gross misrepresentation of the IDF’s tactics, with its implication that Israel seeks to deliberately kill Palestinian civilians, but not necessarily antisemitic.
The point is that the majority of demonstrators seem more motivated by the prospect of destroying Israel than they are by the plight of the Palestinians. That is why chants urging the “liberation” of Palestine “from the river to the sea” and banners condemning “Zionism” are far more common. It also helps to explain why the pro-Hamas movement has studiously ignored the spread of anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, which, in recent days, have included calls to release the hostages still in Hamas captivity not because of any humanitarian reasons, but because growing numbers of Gazans have final twigged that their lives would be infinitely easier if Hamas would just back down.
The ongoing symbiosis of hatred of Israel with classical antisemitism can be twisted to make the point—as some anti-Zionists do, particularly those who identify as Jews—that Israel’s existence is the principal source of antisemitism today. Within the Jewish community, that needs to be countered with the message that we cannot succumb to victim-blaming. Outside of the Jewish community, we need to stress over and again that the security of the Jews will never again be left to non-Jews.
In both spaces, Jews need to walk with their heads held high, knowing in their hearts that we do not have to apologize for Israel. That may seem obvious, but I write these words in the anticipation that future audits undertaken by the ADL or anyone else are likely to remain consistent over the next few years, and may even worsen as conspiracy theories about Jewish influence and Israeli power that are not directly connected to the Palestinians take hold.
The post Antisemitism Data Illustrates the ‘New Normal’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Playing With Fire When It Comes to Tehran

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting with government officials in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2025. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
JNS.org – About two-dozen Mossad agents broke into a clandestine warehouse in the middle of an industrial section of Tehran on Jan. 30, 2018, making away with more than 100,000 documents outlining the Islamic regime’s nuclear-weapons work. This collection covered years of Iran’s nuclear archive, including the AMAD Project’s production plans, enrichment projections and warhead designs.
Flash-forward seven years. According to an article that came out this week in Iran International, Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said: “Iran is not far from having a nuclear problem. They don’t have it, we know it. But the material for it, it’s already there. To make a few warheads.”
Grossi added that “it would be a matter of months, not years” and that the level of visibility is “insufficient.”
This is certainly verified by Andrea Stricker of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who recently wrote about a small building being destroyed by the Israelis in airstrikes last September, as part of the Parchin military project. The building was not on the list of what the IAEA had planned to visit, nor was it in the AMAD documents.
A 2018 Mossad document revealed that this building was used to test the explosive capability of a nuclear bomb’s core, known as a “hydrodynamic chain reaction.” Yet the IAEA could not enter it, and Grossi did not appear to even be aware of what was going on there.
This brings up one of the great flaws of the former nuclear deal—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA—made in 2015 under the Obama administration: The IAEA does not have immediate access to monitor and verify areas of Iranian nuclear weaponization. According to Section T of the JCPOA, Iran must “describe in writing its activity,” and the IAEA would simply engage in verification, post facto.
What, if anything, is to prevent a rogue state such as Iran from concealing its nuclear program?
The JCPOA also says that Iran must collect its own soil samples for inspection of nuclear particles (tantamount to saying that a serial drug user must conduct his own drug tests).
Yet about one month ago, speaking before a Senate Intelligence Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, declared that “the international community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khomeini has not authorized its nuclear-weapon program that it suspended in 2003.”
She added that “in the past decade, we have seen a taboo within Iran against discussing Iran’s nuclear operations in public, likely emboldening nuclear-weapons advocates in its decision making public” She also added that “Iran’s nuclear stockpiles are at its highest levels, and it is unprecedented for state without nuclear weapons.”
Iran now possesses enough highly enriched uranium at the 60% level for at least six nuclear bombs. Israel is a one-bomb state.
Iran has just reported that after three years, they are turning on the cameras in their nuclear sites (at least the ones that are known).
After Israel decimated several of Iranian defensive nuclear sites in September 2024—with Hezbollah and Hamas in a tattered state, and President Donald Trump attempting to obliterate the Houthis from the Bad al-Mandeb Strait—and with the Iranian rial worth 0.000024 of a dollar, a majority of the country’s 90 million people are reportedly disgusted with the theocracy.
Most people have been born after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and a slim majority (50.1%) classify themselves as atheists. Many mosques (approximately 75,000) have been recently shuttered in Tehran.
I remain highly concerned that the regime wants to play out the clock and use the time as a smokescreen to conceal its weaponization program.
Remember, it is the Iranians who first invented the Persian Bazaar.
The post Playing With Fire When It Comes to Tehran first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘For This, Have You Been Chosen’

“The High Priest Aaron,“ oil on panel, between circa 1545 and circa 1550, painted by Juan de Juanes. Photo: Museo del Prado/Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – I trust that Jews worldwide enjoyed a meaningful and memorable Passover with family and friends. Of course, no one could stop thinking of our brothers and sisters who have been held hostage in Gaza now for 18 months. We continue to pray for them to speedily enjoy their own anxiously awaited “season of freedom” and liberation.
After all the excitement of Passover, we now return to the weekly Torah readings; the portion this week is Shmini (Leviticus, Chapters 9-11). We read about Aaron, the brother of Moses, who was consecrated into his position as the nation’s very first high priest, the Kohen Gadol.
After Moses concluded the initiation service, it was time for Aaron to begin officiating over the sacrificial offerings in the sanctuary.
“And Moses said to Aaron, ‘Come near to the Altar and perform the services …’ ”
Why did Moses have to tell his brother to come near? The Torah scholar Rashi, quoting the Midrash, says that because Aaron inadvertently had a hand in the tragic Golden Calf episode, he felt unworthy and ashamed to approach the Altar. Moses, therefore, encouraged him by saying: “Why are you ashamed? For this, have you been chosen.”
The simple meaning is that Aaron was chosen by God to be the high priest and Moses was telling him that he must do his job regardless of feeling unfit for the position. But how did that set Aaron’s mind at ease?
There is a Chassidic interpretation that turns this verse on its head. When Moses said, “Why are you ashamed? For this have you been chosen,” he was telling his brother that the very reason he was chosen for the exalted position of Kohen Gadol was precisely because he felt ashamed. If he took it for granted that he was the right man for the job, then he would clearly be the wrong man. God desires humility and despises arrogance. By feeling ashamed and overwhelmed by such a high position, Aaron demonstrated that he was the perfect person for such a prominent position.
The Talmud writes that three characteristics have traditionally personified the Jewish people—compassion, bashfulness and benevolence (Yevamot, 79a). While you may know lots of Jews who appear rather forward and far from reticent, according to our sages, the hallmarks of the Jewish people are to be shy, humble and modest. Hubris and haughtiness should be foreign to us. We are not meant to take ourselves so seriously.
Rabbi Sholom Nelson was one of the first students to enroll in the Chabad-Lubavitch Yeshivah in New York when it was founded in 1940. In the early 1950s, the Lubavitcher Rebbe—Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson—encouraged him to study shechita, kosher slaughter, and to become a qualified ritual slaughterer. But he resisted the idea, feeling that he was unworthy of such a position, as it demands a high degree of knowledge and piety. The Rebbe’s response was: “The very fact that you feel unworthy proves that you are most worthy of being a shochet.”
We live in a mad world where social media rules, where those who shout the loudest are all too often the most powerful, and the quiet voice of truth often goes unheard. “The lies are always loud, and the truth is always quiet,” goes the old folk saying.
In the book of 1 Kings, the Prophet Elijah experiences a Divine revelation. There is wind, an earthquake and a fire. But he is told, “God is not in the wind … not in the earthquake … and not in the fire.” Only afterward does Elijah hear “the still, soft voice” (Kings 1, 19:12). This is the true word of God. Indeed, this phrase, “the still, soft voice,” has made its way into the famous Unetaneh Tokef prayer, which is a highlight of the Mussaf service on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. God is Almighty, even if His voice is still and soft.
I remember hearing someone coaching a debater and telling him, “When your point is weak, shout like hell!” The quiet voice of truth is authentic. The shouters must shout because their arguments have no basis in fact or logic.
Aaron was the most suited man for the role of high priest precisely because he was soft and humble. May we never need to shout.
Let it be our character, humility and honorable conduct that make us truly worthy.
The post ‘For This, Have You Been Chosen’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.