Uncategorized
As long as there are movies about Nazis, there will be movies about the art they looted
Early on in Pascal Bonitzer’s film Auction, Andre (Alex Lutz). a self-serving and sleazy art dealer, is placating a condescending, cruel, and racist art owner. “You have to stop at nothing for a sale,” he tells his intern.
The French film vividly brings to life the deceptive and hypocritical high-stakes world of prestigious art dealers operating in a Parisian universe of money grubbing and bad faith.
Based on a true story, it recounts what transpired in 2005, when a major work by Expressionist artist Egon Schiele, “Wilted Sunflowers,” was discovered in a home in a suburb of Mulhouse, France.
The 1914 painting originally belonged to the Jewish Austrian collector Karl Grunwald and had last been seen in public at the Jeu de Paume in Paris in 1937. In 1938 Grunwald fled Vienna for Paris, saving as many paintings as he could in a storage unit. They were ultimately looted and auctioned off.
Grunwald made it to America, while his wife and children were killed in concentration camps. For the rest of his life he futilely tried to recover his stolen paintings. Following his death in 1964, one of his sons persevered in his late father’s pursuit.
Bonitzer places the Schiele in the home of Martin (Arcadi Radeff) a highly moral, arguably sentimentalized, young factory worker who has no idea of its monetary value or backstory. Concepts of “provenance” are alien to him; he could use some money and just wants to do the right thing. So do the rightful heirs.
The whole story ends on a positive note as the painting gets sold at auction and the young worker is given an equal share in the sale.
It is estimated that more than 600,000 paintings, decorative items and other aesthetically and culturally valued items were summarily stolen from Jews during the War. Approximately, 100,000 have never been recovered.
Auction is only the latest in a long line of works centering on Nazi-looted art.
Perhaps the best known film in this sub-genre is 2015’s The Woman in Gold, which starred Helen Mirren as the patrician Maria Altmann, who works in tandem with her dogged attorney to retrieve six paintings by Gustav Klimt, one of which was a portrait of Maria’s aunt, Adele Bloch-Bauer I.
The Klimts were ripped off by the Nazis during World War II and exhibited in Austria at the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere until 2006. After a lengthy and byzantine legal battle, a number of the works were returned to the Altmann Family, which sold the Adele portrait for $135 million to Ronald Lauder who proudly displays the work in his Neue Galerie.
It would seem axiomatic that any stolen art should be restored to its original owners or, more usually, their heirs. For some, however, it’s a grayer area filled with moral and legal questions, starting with how the work was obtained. Was it purchased in good faith? If the current owners(let’s add “s”) truly didn’t know its origins should they be allowed to keep it? If not, how much compensation, if any, should they receive?
And, more broadly, who should own great art — a private collector or a museum? Doesn’t the public have a right to see great art? Wouldn’t it be better for a museum to have and display the work rather than a family who may hide it in its basement?
One of the most interesting elements in the “Gold” story, which was also addressed in the documentaries Adele’s Wishes and Stealing Klimt was the Austrian government’s contention that Adele, who succumbed to meningitis in 1925, had in fact left the painting to her husband with the stipulation that when he died it would go to the Austrian gallery. Therefore it was rightly theirs.
But if the will existed — and that was debatable — was it legally binding since Adele’s husband was forced to flee the country in the wake of Germany’s annexation of Austria, which Adele had no way of anticipating? Her will, if there was one, was predicated on the idea that he would die at home and that his art collection would remain intact and in his possession when he passed.
The Rape of Europa, a comprehensive and detailed documentary on pillaged art also touches on the dilemma surrounding Adele’s portrait, but it places the crime in a wider context, considering the questions that emerge when one country or culture appropriates the art of another. Still, it makes clear that the most egregious example is the Nazi seizure of Jewish art.
Much of the art in question, modern, abstract and acclaimed by the likes of Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, much of it owned by Jewish collectors, fell into the category that Hitler dubbed “degenerate,” which gave him the opportunity to further dehumanize those owners. Most of the paintings were destroyed while others were sold for enormous profits in order to underwrite a massive build up of armaments for the Third Reich.
The documentary, The Portrait of Wally, is a searing indictment of MoMA and other major American art institutions that supported MoMA in a less-than-exemplary 1997 episode.
The film recounts the brouhaha surrounding Egon Schiele’s painting of his mistress Wally, owned by Lea Bondi, a Jewish Austrian art dealer before it was grabbed by the Nazis in 1939.
Prior to landing at MoMA it was housed in Rudolph Leopold’s Austrian museum. Leopold was a classic double dealer, pretending to be on the side of the original owners and their heirs when in fact he had no intention of handing over the painting.
But when the painting was on loan to MoMA, the Bondi heirs demanded that it be returned to them. Rudolph refused, which led to a 13-year criminal investigation launched by New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, during which time the painting was held by the United States government.
According to the film, MoMA and other art institutions sided with Rudolph because they were afraid that aligning themselves with the Jewish family would mean that museums across the globe would no longer lend their works to American museums for fear that they might potentially lose their art or have to pay big bucks to have it returned.
Ultimately in 2010 the Bondi heirs prevailed. The Leopold Museum paid them $19 million for the painting’s return. That case succeeded in opening the floodgates to many others. And a surge of films on the topic followed.
Movies centering on Nazi-looted art have been around for decades, such as John Frankenheimer’s 1965 action thriller The Train starring Burt Lancaster; and 39 years later George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, both loosely inspired by factual events.
Set in 1944, shortly before the end of the war, The Train is a suspenseful and well-acted account of a French resistance fighter (Lancaster) determined to intercept a train carrying Nazi looted art from France to Germany without destroying the art.
Set in the same era, the starry Monuments Men, co-written and directed by George Clooney and featuring Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, and Cate Blanchett, among others, depicts a unit of historians and archivists on a mission to locate and salvage works of art across Europe before the Nazis had a chance to steal and destroy them.”
Despite the caliber of talent involved, e.g., the film was seen as problematic because of its failure to point out that many, if not most, of these art works had belonged to Jews and were brutally confiscated from the original owners, many of whom had been carted off to concentration camps to be killed.
Clooney and his Jewish co-writer said that their purpose was to explore not the experience of any one group but the profound significance of great art and the violation that’s perpetrated when it is stolen, or worse, destroyed.
Both Clooney and Frankenheimer’s films also touch on the moral quandary of whether a great painting is more valuable than a human life. If the risk to save the art is that high is it worth taking?
For me the most affecting film on lost art is Elizabeth Rynecki’s 2018 documentary Chasing Portraits, her freshman endeavor. Even though — perhaps precisely because — at times it feels more like a home movie than a professionally honed flick it reveals an emotional core that is unexpectedly moving.
Equally relevant, her film centers on paintings that were scattered after the War. They may or may not have been looted, but their fate was directly tied to the Nazi regime that forced Jewish residents to escape without their precious belongings.
Rynecki grew up surrounded by the art of her great-grandfather Moshe Rynecki, who was murdered at Majdanek in 1943. His evocative expressionistic works portray the day to day life of Polish Jews prior to the Holocaust. Of his estimated 800 works, 120 remain in Polish and Israeli museums and private collections abroad.
Throughout her life Rynecki had wanted to see these works, not to reclaim them, but to uncover how they ended up where they were. She serves as a historian and witness, her great grandfather’s art a link to her family and Jewish heritage and a world that is gone forever.
The film follows her as she travels from Canada to Poland and Israel where she is, by turns, regarded with suspicion or more usually snubbed outright. Many owners, some Jewish, cannot believe that she is not there for restitution. In one of the strongest scenes, a Polish collector, a gentile, wraps up and hands over to Elizabeth one of her great grandfather’s paintings, unsolicited.
It’s a story that lingers and will no doubt continue to inspire more documentaries and feature films. Just this week, The Guardian reported that the heirs of a Jewish couple are suing The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York over a Vincent van Gogh painting they say was plundered by the Nazis.
‘Auction’ is currently screening in New York at Film Forum.
The post As long as there are movies about Nazis, there will be movies about the art they looted appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why are we so focused on Mamdani — not Nazi-inspired ideas proliferating on the right?
Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for mayor of New York City has become a matter of national debate — particularly among Jews. Recently, more than 1,000 rabbis across the country signed a letter singling out Mamdani as a threat to Jewish safety under the heading, “Defending the Jewish future.”
If you didn’t know better, you might think that Mamdani had used Nazi rhetoric or used racist or antisemitic language. He hasn’t. He’s only “guilty” of criticizing Israel: The rabbis’ letter references no antisemitic language because, by all appearances, Mamdani has not trafficked in antisemitic rhetoric.
This week marked the seventh anniversary of the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the single bloodiest day for Jews in the history of the United States. The killer justified the slaughter by invoking a conspiracy theory that Jewish groups like HIAS were bringing immigrant “invaders in that kill our people.” The following year, a gunman who killed one synagogue-goer in the town of Poway, California — where a number of my congregants live — penned a similar screed, claiming that “every Jew is responsible for the meticulously planned genocide of the European race… and every Jew plays his part to enslave the other races around him.”
The contrast between the anniversary of the tragedy of the Tree of Life and the furor about Mamdani has deeply troubled me. Because while many members of our national Jewish community have come to perceive the potential election of a mayor who is critical of Israel as one of the greatest threats to our future in this country, the hate speech that fueled those two killers continues to be not just normalized on the right, but turned into a central element of its political platform.
It is this reality that makes the rabbinic letter about Mamdani heartbreaking. At a moment of increasing threats to the safety of all marginalized communities in this country, my colleagues have targeted the wrong person and the wrong movement.
In a democratic society, the candidacy of a young mayoral candidate who challenges the righteousness of Israeli actions is not a threat to the “Jewish future.” It is an invitation to engage in discussion about those actions.
By contrast, the rise of the “great replacement” theory and its ilk — baseless claims of “white replacement” or “white genocide” — is a threat to the future of all minorities, including Jews. This awful movement, which has led to violence against Jews, immigrants of color, Muslims, and trans people, has found a home in mainstream Republican politics. The Department of Homeland Security increasingly utilizes white supremacist language in recruiting new employees and arresting immigrants including phrases like “report all foreign invaders” and “defend your culture!”
Frighteningly similar language has been used by those who have Jewish blood on their hands.
Ironically, the right’s willingness to indulge in open Jew-hatred has shown up even in arguments about Israel. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene recently criticized lobbying efforts by AIPAC, invoking classic antisemitism: “I’ll never take 30 shekels,” she wrote on X earlier this month, “I’m America only! And Christ is King!”
At least as troubling is the revelation that Republican operatives regularly engage in racist, sexist and antisemitic discourse, as was recently reported by Politico. These messages illustrate all too clearly the MAGA movement’s descent into bigotry. They include praise of Hitler, white supremacist shorthand, jokes about gas chambers, and one claim that it’s a mistake to “expect… the Jew to be honest.” Together, these messages offer a chilling glimpse into the mindset currently ruling the Republican Party.
Vice-President JD Vance dismissed “pearl clutching” over those texts — a choice in keeping with others made by President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump nominated Paul Ingrassia to the position of White House Special Counsel; Ingrassia was recently revealed to have said he had a “Nazi streak.”(He also said that all of Africa is a “shithole.”) Ingrassia withdrew his name from consideration for that position, but his “punishment” has been to instead remain in his job as White House Liaison to the Department of Justice. Department of Defense spokesperson Kingsley Wilson has posted antisemitic conspiracy theories, featuring references to the “great replacement” theory and the lynching of Leo Frank in 1915. She remains in her job as well, as does the most prominent law enforcement official in the nation, FBI Director Kash Patel, who regularly appeared on the podcast of notorious Jew-hater Stew Peters.
Where is the rabbinic outrage about this spate of antisemitism in the highest levels of power in this country?
That rabbis composed and distributed a letter condemning a single candidate for mayor in one city, while too often remaining silent regarding the explicit hate speech that now runs through the Republican party, is embarrassing and shameful. The Trump administration recently scrubbed a report from the Department of Justice website showing that right-wing extremism is far and away the most prevalent threat to marginalized communities in this country. For more than 1,000 rabbis to treat this reality as less serious a threat than Mamdani, in itself, a threat to Jewish safety.
Perhaps our rabbinic colleagues feel it is too dangerous to confront the party in power in this country. Perhaps they are afraid of losing access, or funding, or alienating donors. But Jewish history is replete with examples showing that appeasement of Jew-haters never makes Jews safe.
What has helped cultivate Jewish safety has been the work of solidarity. Building genuine investment in relationships across lines of difference — the kind of relationship-building that Mamdani himself has modeled with Jewish New Yorkers — is the best kind of investment in a secure Jewish future. For the sake of the safety of Jews from Poway to Park Avenue, I pray that my colleagues might begin to understand this.
The post Why are we so focused on Mamdani — not Nazi-inspired ideas proliferating on the right? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one.
(JTA) — There must be consequences when politicians endorse and campaign for unpalatable candidates for public office in order to court that candidate’s political base. I am just one voter, but I am ready to commit to issuing some.
I am a lifelong Democrat and consider myself a centrist liberal on most issues. The last times I recall voting for a Republican were in 1992 — 33 years ago! — when I supported Bill Green in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection as the U.S. representative from New York City’s largely Upper East Side congressional district, and then in 2001 when I voted for Mike Bloomberg for mayor of New York City.
But, like many other centrist Democrats, I have been watching with ever-increasing concern as the party I once considered my political home has moved further and further away to the left — indeed, often to the extremist far-left — on an issue I care about deeply.
The fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist — its geopolitical and moral legitimacy, as it were — is one such pivotal issue. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mario and Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand all identified and identify as supporters of Israel even while they may have criticized particular policies of one Israeli government or other.
This is not true of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City is a declared and uncompromising anti-Zionist. He comes by his inflexible antagonism toward the Jewish homeland honestly — his father, Mahmood Mamdani, Columbia University’s Herbert Lehman professor of government, has demanded for years that Columbia divest its endowment from companies that invest in Israel, and his mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, pointedly refuses to attend Israeli film festivals.
Zohran Mamdani considers the likes of the anti-Zionist academics Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi as his intellectual mentors. While at college, he founded the Bowdoin chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine.
All this is known. Mamdani never made a secret of his hatred of — as opposed to disagreement, even harsh disagreement, with — Israel and Zionism. As a result, he engages in some of the most extreme, bordering on the absurd, antisemitic conspiracy theories imaginable. In 2023, we learned this week, he told a far-left group that alleged violence on the part of New York police officers is somehow masterminded by the Israel armed forces: “We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”
If ever there was a clear incitement to antisemitic violence, violence against Jews, this is it. And yet a host of prominent New York Democrats, rather than distancing themselves from if not affirmatively repudiating Mamdani, have not only endorsed him but are actively campaigning for him.
Among this lot are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and State Sen. Liz Krueger. All of them purport to be appalled by the surging antisemitism around them, and yet they stand by their candidate.
Mamdani claims not to be antisemitic, only pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, and his above-listed supporters assist him in threading this particular noxious needle.
I’m not the first Jewish voice to say they’re attempting an impossible task. “Mamdani’s distinction between accepting Jews and denying a Jewish state is not merely a rhetorical sleight of hand or political naivete — though it is, to be clear, both of these,” warned Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove in his courageous sermon. “He is doing so to traffic in the most dangerous of tropes, an anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
But I might be the first Jewish voice to say publicly that I will never again cast a vote for any of the Democrats who have endorsed Mamdani. For me, at least, his supporters have crossed a moral and ideological Rubicon, and they have forced me, with not inconsiderable trepidation and reluctance, to do the same.
While Nadler, who announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026, is a lame duck, many of Mamdani’s other acolytes appear to still want to have a political future beyond Nov. 4. I will not countenance that.
Politicians by definition tend to make strategic decisions they deem to be in their self-interest. The more high-minded, not to say ethical, ones among them draw the line when it comes to issues of principle. More likely, or perhaps, more frequently, they will balance competing considerations and opt for what they consider to be their most advantageous pragmatic option.
It’s true that supporting Mamdani may seem like a rational, if not especially ethical, choice. Numerous polls have shown that support for Israel has diminished, especially among younger voters. Thus, the cynical calculation behind some of the Mamdani endorsements may well have been that the future support of such anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voters would more than make up for any loss of disaffected pro-Israel Democrats like me.
Still, Hochul’s early endorsement of Mamdani’s candidacy could well end up being an albatross around her neck next year when she seeks reelection. Especially if the now prevailing anti-Israel sentiment recedes once the Israel-Hamas war is in the rearview mirror. The same goes for Mamdani’s other cheerleaders. Pendulums have a way of swinging back toward the center.
I, for one, will not vote for Hochul again. And yes, that means that I am open to supporting a palatable Republican nominee for New York governor. It’s not an easy conclusion for me to reach or decision to make, but I don’t see how I can do otherwise — and while I might be the early in declaring it publicly, I hardly think I will be alone.
I am writing in advance of the Tuesday’s election, which I hope may yet turn out to be a surprise, come-from-behind win for Andrew Cuomo. I am also doing so in advance of the inevitable attempts at fence-mending that will follow, regardless of the result.
I know New York’s centrist Democrats will try to win me back, and I know that the forces acting on Republicans may well make a return attractive. But I am making this vow now because I am distressed that while Mamdani’s mainstream allies may not have consciously written off the New York Jewish community, they are hoping for collective short memories on our part. I know, even if they do not, that Jewish security and survival have always depended on remembering.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.
The post I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Turkey Expands Regional and Global Ambitions, Raising Alarm Bells in Israel
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq, April 22, 2024. Photo: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS
Turkey is rapidly expanding its regional and global influence — strengthening ties with Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Gulf states, while pressing for a role in post-war Gaza — a trend that is raising alarm bells in Israel and the broader region amid shifting Middle East power dynamics.
As part of its push to expand regional influence and strengthen strategic partnerships, Turkey has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Syria, expanding their military cooperation to cover training, advisory support, and access to weapons systems and logistics.
On Thursday, Turkey’s Defense Ministry announced that Syrian armed forces have begun training at Turkish facilities and will also attend the country’s military academies, as both nations seek to deepen their defense ties.
Turkey’s push to expand its ties with Syria comes as the latter is reportedly in the final stages of negotiations with Israel over a security agreement that could establish a joint Israeli–Syrian–American committee to oversee developments along their shared border and uphold the terms of a proposed deal.
Ankara has also been working to establish closer diplomatic and military relations with Israel’s other northern neighbor, Lebanon, at a time when the country stands on the brink of renewed conflict with the Jewish state.
Amid mounting international pressure, the Lebanese government is intensifying efforts to meet the ceasefire deadline to disarm the terrorist group Hezbollah, while trying to avoid plunging the nation into a civil war.
As the Iran-backed terrorist group continues to refuse disarmament, Turkey is leveraging the opportunity to bolster its regional influence and expand its alliances.
Last week, Turkey’s Defense Ministry confirmed that the country’s peacekeeping forces would continue to support the Lebanese army in its mission to restore stability and peace.
“Ongoing efforts will focus on enhancing security in the region, promoting stability, and supporting the development of the Lebanese armed forces, with the goal of fostering and sustaining peace in Lebanon,” Turkish officials announced, following the approval of a two-year extension to their mission in Beirut.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who has been openly hostile toward the Jewish state for years – has repeatedly condemned Israeli offensives targeting the Iranian proxy and its terrorist operations in Lebanon.
He has previously said that Israel’s “genocidal” and “expansionist” policies remain the biggest threat to regional peace.
Ankara has also been working to expand its regional influence in the Gaza Strip, which borders Israel to the south, positioning itself to play a pivotal role in post-war developments under the US-backed peace plan.
However, experts warn that Turkey’s growing involvement in the enclave’s reconstruction efforts could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure and undermine the fragile ceasefire.
As one of the biggest backers of Hamas, Turkey could potentially shield the Islamist movement in Gaza or even bolster its power, especially as the Palestinian terrorist group continues to reject disarmament — a key element of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan.
In the past, Ankara has provided refuge to Hamas leaders, granted diplomatic access, and allowed the group to fundraise, recruit, and plan attacks from Turkish territory.
Under Trump’s plan, Turkey has sought to join a multinational task force responsible for overseeing the ceasefire and training local security forces.
Erdogan declared that the country is “ready to provide all kinds of support to Gaza,” and insisted that the Turkish Armed Forces “could serve in a military or civilian capacity as needed.”
However, Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any involvement of Turkish security forces in post-war Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Turkey’s participation in the International Stabilization Force would be out of the question, labeling it a “red line.”
Gulf states have also raised concerns about Turkish and Qatari involvement in Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and governance efforts.
While the Trump administration has ruled out sending US soldiers into the war-torn enclave, Washington has also considered involving Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Azerbaijan in the international peacekeeping efforts.
US officials have confirmed that any participating countries in the international task force will be selected in close coordination with Israel, ensuring that no foreign troops will be included without Israel’s consent.
Despite Turkey’s efforts to advance its regional ambitions in the enclave and secure a role in post-war Gaza, Erdogan continues to attack Israel while defending the Palestinian terrorist group, as he has repeatedly in the past.
He has frequently defended Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters” against what he describes as Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. He has even gone so far as to threaten an invasion of the Jewish state and called on the United Nations to use force if Jerusalem fails to halt its military campaign against Hamas.
On Thursday, Erdogan reiterated his anti-Israel rhetoric, targeting Germany for its alleged indifference to what he called Israel’s “genocide, famine, and attacks” in Gaza.
In a joint press conference with his German counterpart, the Turkish leader said that it is the international community’s duty to end what he described as famine and massacres in Gaza.
ERDOĞAN: “HAMAS HAS NO BOMBS – ALL THESE WEAPONS ARE IN ISRAEL’S HANDS”
“Hamas has no bombs, no nuclear weapons. But all these weapons are in Israel’s hands.
And Israel, using these weapons, for example just last night, again struck Gaza with these bombs.
Don’t you see… https://t.co/Z5eDHq1exW pic.twitter.com/LoKHNHUIvC
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 30, 2025
Ankara’s regional ambitions have led the country to expand bilateral ties with Iran, seeking closer cooperation on political, economic, and security matters.
This week, Iranian and Turkish officials pledged to deepen their ties during high-level talks in Tehran — a move likely to raise further alarm bells, given both countries’ longstanding role of supporting Islamist terrorists and their hostile stance toward the West.
In a message to his Turkish counterpart, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed the importance of deepening mutual cooperation to strengthen security, development, and stability for both countries and the region.
Ankara has also engaged with Saudi Arabia in an effort to strengthen bilateral ties and secure Riyadh as a regional partner amid shifting power dynamics in the Middle East.
On Wednesday, Turkey’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Emrullah Isler, praised the growing defense cooperation between the two countries, including joint training and other initiatives, amid the signing of new agreements.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia “are key regional actors that share a commitment to peace, stability, and international law,” Isler wrote in a post on X.
“As reaffirmed by both countries during various high-level meetings, we are confident that our military cooperation will continue to grow in terms of both scope and depth,” he continued.
As part of Turkey’s push to expand its influence across the Middle East, Erdogan set out last week on a diplomatic tour to Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman.
During this official tour, he aimed to secure new trade, investment, energy, and defense deals, while also seeking regional support for his proposal to deploy Turkish troops in Gaza.
But Turkey’s efforts to boost its regional influence have also extended beyond the Middle East.
On Thursday, when Erdogan met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they discussed regional developments and exploring opportunities to strengthen their bilateral cooperation.
At a joint press conference, Merz described Turkey as a key partner for the European Union, noting that Berlin aims to help Ankara expand its relationships with other EU member states.
“I personally, and the German government, see Turkey as a close partner of the European Union. We want to continue smoothing the way to Europe,” the German leader said.