Erdogan calls Israel occupier, denies Hamas is terrorist group

Erdogan calls Israel an occupier and blames the West for Gaza killings

"Israel is an occupier, a gang." Erdogan does not hold back, according to the account opening the debate, and behind the phrase comes the full package: that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, that the main culprit in the Gaza massacre is the West, and that Israel would not last three days without Western backing. Turkey, he says, owes nothing to anyone. One participant in the discussion argues that Israel considered it relevant enough to weigh a break in diplomatic relations with Ankara. It is not a slip of the tongue: it is the starting point for everything else.

What Erdogan said about Israel, Gaza and Hamas

The catalog goes in increasing order of discomfort. First the definition of the State: occupier, gang. Then the status of Hamas, which Ankara does not label as a terrorist organization. Next the distribution of blame: the main person responsible for the massacre in Gaza is the West, and those who shed tears for Ukraine now keep a striking silence. The cherry on top is material, with practical consequences: Israel would not last three days without Western support.

From his own comparison comes an uncomfortable corollary. If Gaza equals Ukraine, Israel takes Russia's place, and whoever invades is a war incivil. The simile turns against the one who launches it, and this contradiction has been pointed out in the discussion.

Why does Turkey say it owes nothing to Israel?

The official explanation is sovereignty: Ankara speaks clearly because it does not depend on Tel Aviv, and this allows it to lead the Muslim street without asking permission from anyone. The fine print is less epic, according to another participant: textbook realpolitik, because the rally ends and the same day there is a meeting with US and Israeli counterparts to talk business.

Turkey remains in NATO and hosts US troops on its territory. That is the paradox reproached to it: many banners and no consequences. Those defending the Turkish president respond that verbal gesture is also action — putting sticks in the wheels of Washington's unconditional support has a cost — and that Israel has considered it relevant enough to move.

Would Israel survive a long war without the West?

The repeated data is demographic: Israel has 9 million inhabitants. With that base, doctrine can only be short and sharp strikes, enough to deter without bleeding. The calculation handled in the thread is that in the short term Israel hits very hard; in the medium and long term, its economy and industry would not sustain the wear.

Modern war has changed the arithmetic, according to that same participant: a drone or RPG destroys a multi-million dollar tank, and replacing those losses requires industrial capacity that a country of nine million does not have. Against this weighs the opposite argument: that Israel has defeated all Arab countries, even united, and that its armies excel in raids and not conventional wars. No one has put a specific timeframe on the table. Only the phrase of the three days that peine the matter.

The double standard reproached to Ankara

Here is where the discourse cracks. Whoever demands accountability for Gaza has northern Syria militarily occupied, maintains presence in northern Cyprus and applies, according to the reproaches read in the thread, harshness towards the Kurdish population. The comparison was made explicit: for the case to be equivalent, one would have to find an episode where the Turkish army had surrounded a city of more than two million people and cut off water, electricity, communications, food and medicine before bombing it. In the thread that episode does not appear, and thus the specificity of Gaza is defended.

The other flank is memory. It asks why Erdogan has said nothing about the tragedy of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. And a pattern is pointed out: Turkey is a weathervane that changes course according to the balance of power, and the day it stops antiestéticaring Washington the problem will be another.

Israel's isolation and the UN vote

According to the count made by one of the participants, the last vote at the United Nations left a photo with few friends: the United States, the Anglo-Saxon bloc —with visible doubts—, Micronesia and Hungary. The Hungarian government, according to another participant, voted against the resolution and has repositioned itself towards its old loves. In the same direction points, for another of the interveners, the advance of pro-Palestinian movements in traditionally favorable squares to Israel, such as the United States or Europe.

The strategic reading made in the debate is that Israel has decided to behave more harshly precisely when its diplomatic cover narrows, trusting that the US umbrella is eternal. The alternative scenario is that of a declining power, with enough internal problems not to sustain foreign projects thousands of kilometers from its coasts.

Remains the detail that disorients. The country that calls Israel a war incivil keeps its seat in NATO and US troops on its territory, while the one who voted against the last UN resolution is one of the countries that the count placed on the Israeli side. Rhetoric goes one way. Accounting goes another.