Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became one of Israel’s fiercest international critics during the war to eradicate Hamas. Erdoğan accused Israel of genocide and compared Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler. The Turkish leader has called for sanctions and Israel’s political isolation and presents himself as a defender of Palestinian rights. Yet in doing so, Erdoğan has opened himself to a counterargument, one delivered last week by Israel’s foreign minister.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated, “It is particularly ironic that someone who does not hide his imperial ambitions, someone who invaded northern Syria and illegally occupies northern Cyprus, claims to speak on behalf of morality and international law. A little self-awareness could help.” His comment drew attention to not only Turkey’s broader regional behavior, but also its long-running occupation of northern Cyprus.
Turkey’s present-day occupation in Cyprus persists in defiance of international consensus.
The division of Cyprus dates to 1974, when Turkish military forces invaded, occupied, and ethnically cleansed 36 percent of the island, establishing a self-declared entity in the northern third of the island—the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus— recognized by only Turkey. Turkish troops have remained in place since then. Multiple resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly affirm the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and call for the withdrawal of foreign troops.
Turkey’s present-day occupation in Cyprus persists in defiance of international consensus and Turkey’s refusal to normalize relations with Cyprus, coupled with its continued military and political control in the north, stands in direct contradiction to the principles that Ankara invokes when criticizing others.
Sa’ar’s reference to Cyprus, therefore, is not rhetorical; it highlights inconsistency in Turkey’s foreign policy—one that weakens Erdoğan’s credibility when he speaks about international law and moral responsibility.
This pattern is also evident in other areas of Turkey’s regional conduct. In recent years, Turkish authorities have asserted expansive maritime claims in the Aegean Sea, overlapping with Greece’s zones. Turkish forces have conducted repeated cross-border operations in northern Syria and Iraq, both without host government consent and in civilian-populated areas. Domestically, Erdoğan’s has eroded Turkey’s already weak democracy. Constitutional amendments have expanded executive power, while he curtailed judicial independence and press freedom.
These developments raise legitimate concerns about Turkey’s trajectory and its ability to serve as a voice on international human rights. When a government maintains a long-standing military presence on foreign territory, represses domestic dissent, and undermines legal norms at home, its claims to moral authority abroad are questionable.
Israel’s actions in Gaza, like those of any government engaged in armed conflict, should remain subject to scrutiny. But criticism is persuasive only when applied consistently. Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus and its broader regional behavior expose a double standard in Erdoğan’s critique. Sa’ar was right to call him out.
While assessing these dynamics, the United States should prioritize strategic clarity and alliance credibility. Israel has been a dependable partner—militarily, diplomatically, and technologically. It shares intelligence, aligns closely with Western security goals, and acts wit
Turkey ... has undermined allied interests through unilateral military actions, diplomatic obstruction, and alignment with authoritarian powers.
hin the framework of its strategic commitments. Turkey, by contrast, has undermined allied interests through unilateral military actions, diplomatic obstruction, and alignment with authoritarian powers.
While Israel operates under scrutiny and democratic pressures, Turkey continues to pursue policies that complicate regional stability and diverge from Western priorities. The issue is about not just values but also trust. A reliable ally honors its commitments, respects its partners, and contributes to common goals. In this regard, Israel continues to meet the standard. Turkey does not.
For this reason, the United States should reaffirm its support for Israel not only as a fellow democracy but as a trusted strategic ally. Engagement with Turkey should remain open, but only within clear boundaries. There should be no illusion of parity between the two. In choosing between reliable partnership and opportunistic confrontation, Washington’s position should be unambiguous. By standing with Israel in the face of selective and politically motivated condemnation, the United States should affirm the principle that alliances are built on not only shared values but also shared reliability.
