��������Ƶ

In international relations, alliances have different forms and motivations. However, no alliance can be considered permanent, as evolving policies and changing national interests can lead to their collapse or the establishment of new ones. Turkiye was once considered an ally of Israel, but now Tel Aviv views the Kurds — whom Ankara views as a national security threat — as its “natural allies.”

In his first speech on taking office, new Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar this week said Israel should reach out to the Kurds and that this approach has both political and security aspects. His statement came as Tel Aviv’s relations with Turkiye have reached rock bottom due to Israel’s bloody war in Gaza. He went on to say that Turkiye used to be an ally, while some Arab states were adversaries, and that it is impossible to know how things will shake out in the future. This is true because, for Israel, interests are the priority, not principles, and this can be clearly seen in its policy toward the Kurds.

In the 1990s, the Turkish-Israeli alliance was viewed as a critical buffer to states that were backing the Kurdish PKK, which is considered a terrorist organization by Turkiye and many Western nations. Due to support for the PKK from Syria and, to a lesser extent, from Iran and Iraq, Turkiye and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding on military cooperation in 1996. This military cooperation involved stronger intelligence cooperation, logistical support and training for the Turkish military.

While the Arab states perceived this military cooperation as directed against them, Turkiye and Israel insisted that their alliance was not aimed against any party in the region. However, it was obviously a deterrent against Syria, Iraq and Iran, which despite supporting the PKK against Turkiye also had issues with the Kurds within their own territories.

For Israel, interests are the priority, not principles, and this can be clearly seen in its policy toward the Kurds

Sinem Cengiz

Ankara’s converging interests with Israel on the PKK issue was highlighted by the-then Turkish defense minister, who said that Turkiye and Israel saw eye to eye regarding Syria’s support to the PKK. Benjamin Netanyahu, who was the Israeli prime minister at the time, stated that the PKK was a terrorist organization and added that Israel opposed the establishment of a Kurdish state. In this way, Tel Aviv secretly agreed to support Ankara’s policy toward the Syrian-backed PKK, as Damascus’ support to the Kurds and other groups was seen as a security threat by Turkiye and Israel.

Today’s Israel, under the same prime minister, calls for closer ties with the Kurds, who it was once against. This is not surprising, since Israel was also the only country in the region to openly support the independence referendum held by the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq in 2017. Concerned that it may fuel Kurdish independence aspirations in Turkiye and Iran, Ankara and Tehran both strongly opposed and criticized the referendum.

Israel’s changing attitude proves that its policy toward the Kurds is not ideologically driven, but rather dependent on the course of its relations with Turkiye. According to reports, within the context of the 1996 military agreement, Turkiye has used Heron drones it bought from Israel in the struggle against the PKK. The PKK and its supporters have also long accused Israeli intelligence of involvement in the imprisonment of their leader, Abdullah Ocalan, after he was captured by Turkish intelligence in Nairobi in 1999. And when Israel supported the 2017 referendum, Kurds stated that Israel “only speaks out when it benefits its own national interests and does not really care about the Kurdish cause,” according to reports.

The interests and identities of states are not static. As interests evolve, approaches may also change because of developments in the domestic and international environments. These changes may dominate a state’s foreign policy discourse.

Israel perceives the establishment of an independent Kurdish state as a chance to strengthen its position

Sinem Cengiz

It is very clear that the new Israeli foreign policy approach toward the Kurds is a response to Turkiye’s support for the Palestinian people facing Israeli aggression. Israel’s call to the Kurds came just three days before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the severing of all ties with Israel. Erdogan stated on Wednesday: “The government of the Republic of Turkiye, under the leadership of Tayyip Erdogan, will not continue or develop relations with Israel … and we will maintain this stance in the future as well.” Erdogan also called on all regional countries to cooperate to end the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people. Within this context, it is easier to understand the motives behind the Israeli approach to the Kurds.

However, there is a striking difference here. While an independent Palestinian state is supported by all regional states, an independent Kurdish state is not supported by anyone but Israel, which perceives the establishment of such a country as a chance to strengthen its position in the Middle East.

Israeli policy toward the Kurds remains closely linked to its vision for a broader Middle East. This approach is particularly seen as a threat by regional states, not only now but even decades ago. For instance, back in 1966, Iraqi Defense Minister Abd Al-Aziz Al-Uqayli blamed the Kurds of Iraq for seeking to establish “a second Israel” in the Middle East. When the Kurds of Iraq held their referendum decades later, in 2017, the governments in Iraq, Turkiye and Iran all rejected it.

Israel’s approach to the Kurds, which seeks their autonomy, reveals its desperation, as Tel Aviv seeks to use them to undermine the regional states that support Palestinian rights.

• Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz