Türkiye’s Gaza Diplomacy After October 7: Opportunities and Challenges to Peace-building in Palestine

Summary:

Türkiye is a key actor in overcoming the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Türkiye has provided humanitarian aid for Gaza and led the advocacy for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has developed a guarantor formula, placing itself at the center of efforts to resolve the conflict.

Humanitarian Diplomacy as a Foreign Policy Tool:

Beginning in the 2000s, humanitarian diplomacy has been particularly prominent among rising powers. Türkiye’s AKP has adopted a humanitarian and entrepreneurial vision. For Türkiye, humanitarian diplomacy is seen as a means of ensuring legitimacy in domestic policy and reliability in foreign policy. Compared to Western actors, Türkiye is said to be less impacted by political interests and divisions despite the pragmatic aspects of its policies. One of Türkiye’s most effective diplomatic tools is humanitarian aid, unlike the West. Advocacy, good offices, and peacebuilding are also part of this humanitarian aid. Former Foreign Minister and PM Davutoğlu referenced Türkiye’s policies during times of crisis, highlighting its mission of easing tensions and maintaining a humanitarian approach. He further argued that a process of reform should begin within the UN system.

Palestine-Israel Cause: Deadlock and Türkiye’s Humanitarian Diplomacy Approach:

Although many different conflict resolution methods have been tried in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they have historically not been successful in bringing about a peaceful solution. Therefore, it is crucial to address the issues that cause the Palestinian cause to remain deadlocked. It is further important to understand Türkiye’s active Palestine diplomacy adopted in the 2000s.

Before October 7th: Deadlock in the Palestine-Israel Cause:

This article focuses on foreign influence and geopolitical competition. The US, starting with its War on Terror, has negatively affected the Palestinian cause by strengthening ties with Israel, resulting in the demoralization of Palestinians rather than supporting a two-state solution.

On the other hand, the EU, as Israel’s biggest trade ally, also influences Palestine. It has suggested cutting aid to the Palestinian Authority to deter Palestine from attacking Israel.

Overall, Israel has been sustaining politicide towards the Palestinian efforts to establish a state. The asymmetrical power structure between Israel and Palestine leads to the de-development of Palestine, causing increased poverty, unemployment, and lack of food security for most Palestinians. Three tendencies are visible regarding the Israeli-Palestinian cause: powerful actors prioritizing political and security-centered concerns, the asymmetrical power capacities of Israel-Palestine leading to a lack of international pressure on Israel, and Israel’s repressive and isolating attitudes decreasing faith in peaceful resolution and causing violent tendencies.

Türkiye’s Palestine Diplomacy in the 2000s: Approach, Roles, and Relations with Israel:

The Palestinian issue has always been significant in Turkish foreign policy, but during and after the Cold War, Türkiye maintained a cautious approach. However, with the rise of AK Party, Türkiye shifted to a more active Palestinian diplomacy through an entrepreneurial and humanitarian foreign policy. This diplomacy is guided by three main principles:

1. Sustaining relations with both parties.
2. Preventing Israeli aggression against Palestinians.
3. Condemning Palestinian attacks on Israel.

Türkiye supports Palestine’s goal of establishing an independent state with political and economic aid, humanitarian assistance, mediation, and advocacy. For instance, Türkiye played a key role in coordinating a unified response within the Islamic world against Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital and the US recognition of this decision, influencing the recognition of East Jerusalem as the “occupied capital of the Palestinian state.”

Türkiye’s role as a mediator and facilitator has been effective as long as it remains neutral, but attempts to increase influence over Hamas have reduced this effectiveness. These efforts have also caused tensions in Türkiye-Israel relations, especially during events such as the Mavi Marmara incident. Despite such tensions, Türkiye prioritizes maintaining a certain level of relations with Israel to ensure the continuation of economic aid and development cooperation with Palestine.

In summary, Türkiye’s active Palestinian diplomacy in the 2000s, driven by a humanitarian diplomacy approach, has made Türkiye a key player in the Palestinian issue.

After October 7th: Opportunities and Boundaries for Peace:

The conflict that began on October 7 and the subsequent humanitarian crisis in Gaza have highlighted the urgent need for a two-state solution. The persistent lack of resolution and Israel’s excessive use of force call for new strategies. Türkiye’s diplomatic efforts in Gaza have presented practical innovations for achieving peace in Palestine, including a guarantor formula designed to facilitate peacebuilding and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Traditional diplomacy has been inadequate, focusing too intensely on political and security issues and failing to address the humanitarian crisis. Despite international appeals for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, major powers have been unable to enforce binding resolutions due to geopolitical disagreements.

Following October 7, Türkiye has been actively engaged in peace diplomacy, emphasizing humanitarian needs, proposing international mechanisms for peace monitoring, and advocating for a ceasefire and the reconstruction of Gaza. President Erdoğan has called for an international peace conference involving all the key stakeholders. Although Türkiye’s guarantor formula has received limited international support, its holistic and human-centered approach could enhance its influence in the peace process, utilizing its historical, cultural, and diplomatic ties with Palestine.

Conclusion:

After October 7, Gaza experienced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. The main obstacles to resolving this crisis are also linked to the dynamics that impede a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The study identifies three key trends:

1. Most actors, particularly Western countries, prioritize Israel’s security concerns over addressing the humanitarian crisis.
2. The power imbalance between Palestine and Israel legitimizes Israel’s expansionist policies, making international pressure crucial to deter violations of international law and human rights.
3. Israel’s comprehensive control, isolation, and siege of Palestinians diminish faith in peaceful negotiations and increase the frequency of violence.

Türkiye has responded with a humanitarian-focused Gaza diplomacy, offering innovative ideas and mechanisms to address the crisis and promote peace. This approach includes advocating for Palestine on the international stage, designing steps for state-building and economic development, and promoting a two-state solution through multilateral involvement. Türkiye’s guarantor formula aims to respect international law and multilateralism, potentially marking a significant shift in the conflict.

In conclusion, the author argues that Türkiye’s proactive Gaza diplomacy not only offers solutions to the humanitarian crisis but also provides a functional framework for peace in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, the mechanisms within this framework require further discussion and increased awareness. The study offers a concrete example of effective humanitarian diplomacy, beneficial for other actors, especially developing countries, who aim to pursue regional and international peace.

This was an intriguing article that clearly explains Türkiye’s humanitarian aid motivation and motives to get involved in the Palestinian cause, as well as the cause for Israel’s favorable perception internationally that legitimizes occupation of Palestine. However, when it comes to Türkiye’s Gaza policies, the article does not offer any alternative proposal beyond a two-state solution. Rather, the article seems to assume that supporting a two-state solution would contribute to peace. However, this solution has been on the agenda for years and has failed to produce any favorable result.

By: Dilara Özdemir, CIGA Research Assistant