Israel’s War Policy and an Assessment of a Third World War

Stating that Ismail Haniyeh was an important leader in the Palestinian cause, Prof. Veysel Ayhan said: “On 31 July Israel carried out an assassination attempt against Ismail Haniyeh, Head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, in Tehran, the capital of Iran. Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in the attack together with his bodyguard, was one of the leading figures of the Palestinian cause, known not only in Türkiye but also to international public opinion. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that “avenging Haniyeh was Tehran’s duty”. Following Haniyeh’s killing, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that “Iran would defend its territorial integrity, dignity and honour, and would make the terrorist occupiers regret this cowardly act”. Pezeshkian had met Haniyeh after the presidential swearing-in ceremony. In a statement on his X account, President Erdoğan likewise said, “I strongly condemn and curse the treacherous assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, carried out in Tehran”, and, with regard to ending Israeli aggression, added: “To this end, as Türkiye, we will continue to try every avenue, to push every door and to support our Palestinian brothers and sisters with all our means and all our strength.” On 30 July the Netanyahu administration had also targeted Fuad Shukr, one of Hezbollah’s senior commanders, in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Israel’s attacks in Iran and Lebanon indicate that the Netanyahu administration is determined to drag the entire Middle East into war.”

Erdoğan’s policy of deterrence

In his assessment, Ayhan stated: “President Erdoğan’s statements on Israel’s attacks in Gaza, Lebanon and Tehran are of great importance for the peoples of the Middle East, who are seeking regional stability and security. While approximately 200 thousand people have lost their lives as a result of the policy of genocide that Israel has pursued in Gaza since 7 October, Netanyahu’s attempts to spread the war to Lebanon and Iran have deepened the concerns of the peoples and states of the Middle East. In a statement, President Erdoğan had said: ‘Who can guarantee that those who have their eyes on Lebanon today will not stretch out their filthy hands elsewhere tomorrow?’ Indeed, hours after this statement, Israel carried out military operations first in Lebanon and then in Tehran. Stating that Israel was pursuing an invasive policy in its region, Erdoğan said: ‘Israel is the only country in our region that seeks its security in aggression, massacre and the seizure of land.’”

Ayhan: Türkiye has made its reaction to Israel’s attacks clear

Ayhan stated: “In a statement on 28 July on stopping Israeli aggression, President Erdoğan had said: ‘Just as we entered Karabakh, just as we entered Libya, we will do exactly the same to them. There is nothing to stop us from doing so.’ Indeed, in his statement after Haniyeh’s killing he also said that Türkiye would try every avenue to stop Israeli aggression. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz, in turn, responded to President Erdoğan’s words in a post on his X account: ‘Erdoğan is following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein and threatening to attack Israel. He should just remember what happened there [in Iraq] and how it ended.’ The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs sharply criticised Katz’s statement in a post on its X account, stating: ‘Just as genocidal Hitler met his end, so will genocidal Netanyahu. Just as the genocidal Nazis were held to account, so will those who try to destroy the Palestinians be held to account. Humanity will stand with the Palestinians. You will not be able to destroy the Palestinians.’
In this context, Türkiye’s criticism of Israel set out, in addition to its criticism of the genocidal policies applied to Palestine, its reaction to Israel’s attempts to spread the war regionally, above all to Lebanon. Consequently, the tension in relations between the two countries arising from the genocidal policies in Gaza has, after sharp exchanges of statements, given way to a confrontational policy.”

Ayhan’s assessment of Israel’s war policy

Prof. Veysel Ayhan assessed Israel’s policy of spreading the war and of deterrence in the following words:

“Following Israel’s attacks on Gaza, clashes, albeit limited, had begun on the Lebanon–Israel border. As a result of mutual attacks, thousands of people on both sides had been forced to leave the area. Tension on the border escalated after the attack on 27 July on Majdal Shams, a Druze town in the Golan Heights under Israeli occupation. 12 people, most of them children, were killed in the attack and 30 people were injured. Druze leaders and the Hezbollah leadership held Israel responsible for the attack. After the attack, talk on the Israeli side of a comprehensive military operation against Lebanon came onto the agenda at the highest level. While Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant stated that the Israeli retaliation would be harsher than Hezbollah expected, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Indeed, after the attack in the Golan, Israel carried out a limited number of air strikes on predominantly Shiite residential areas, including Beirut. In response to the Israeli attacks, Hezbollah too carried out counter-attacks on Israel with unmanned aerial vehicles. In particular, after the air strikes targeting Hezbollah leaders in Beirut, demonstrations were held in the streets of Beirut calling for all-out war against Israel. The Israel–Hezbollah conflict has once again shown that Lebanon’s quest for stability and security is not independent of the Palestinian question.

Israel’s Attempt to Occupy Lebanon

In this context, the stability of the Middle East, and above all of Lebanon, is directly linked to a political solution to the Palestinian question. Looking at Lebanon in particular, however, it should be noted that Beirut, which before the 1967 War had been seeking sectarian balance and stability, was dragged after the 1967 War into instability stemming from the Palestinian question. In the period 1962-1982, Palestinian refugees and the military operations of the PLO directly shaped Lebanese–Israeli relations. Israel’s limited occupation of Lebanon in 1978 deepened the conflict between the two sides. Having invaded Lebanon by land, air and sea on 14 March 1978 with more than 20 thousand troops, Israel quickly seized the territory up to the Litani River, which it regarded as land of “Historic Israel”. With the occupation, PLO militants withdrew north of the Litani River but continued to remain in Lebanon. Israel subsequently carried out a comprehensive invasion of Lebanon in 1982. On 6 June 1982, Israeli forces 90 thousand strong launched the first phase of the operation to occupy Lebanese territory. The primary objective of the Israeli units, which bypassed the UN forces, was to create a “security zone” over an area of 40 km. Israeli units then occupied the area up to Beirut. When Israel decided in 1985 to withdraw to a security strip to be established in South Lebanon, Israeli units pulled back as far as the Litani River and continued to keep this area under occupation until the early 2000s. Israel’s policy of creating a security zone was turning, day by day, into an insecure zone as a result of Shiite resistance. During the occupation, Israel succeeded in ending all the PLO’s military activities in Lebanon. The Shiite groups that launched military operations against the Israeli occupation, on the other hand, soon succeeded in becoming a significant resistance organisation with the support of Iran and Syria. Born as a resistance organisation against the occupation, Hezbollah gradually won the support of all Lebanese groups. By the early 2000s, Hezbollah forces had succeeded in driving the Israeli occupation forces out of Lebanese territory

By 2006, in response to Israel’s attacks on civilians in Gaza, Hezbollah forces attacked military units on Israel’s northern border on 12 July 2006. 8 Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and 2 soldiers were taken captive. Following the clashes on the border, the Israeli government announced that it held the Lebanese state responsible for the attacks and declared war on Lebanon. In addition to Hezbollah forces, Lebanon’s superstructure and infrastructure were also targeted in the Israeli attacks. As a result of the intensive bombardment by the Israeli Air Force, which lasted 34 days, more than 1000 civilians lost their lives in Beirut and in villages and towns inhabited mostly by Shiites. Schools, bridges, hospitals, roads and television and radio stations were targeted in the attacks. The Lebanese government announced that the material losses caused by the Israeli attacks amounted to approximately 2.5 billion dollars.

Türkiye’s Reaction to the Occupation of Lebanon and the Deployment of Turkish Troops to Lebanon

In 2006, while the Israeli attacks were continuing, Prime Minister Erdoğan stated that what Israel was doing in Lebanon was a disproportionate use of force and that women and children were being killed in full view, and said: “No justification can make what is being done appear innocent. This war we are witnessing can in no way be accepted as legitimate or defended. This is an unjust war, and it will have no victor. This is a war that sows the seeds of hatred and leads to radicalism. It would not be a prophecy to say that a global conflagration, a great catastrophe, awaits us.” Indeed, while the war was still under way, after it was decided under the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution of 11 August 2006 to establish an international security force to restore and maintain peace in Lebanon, Türkiye announced that it would provide military support to the peacekeeping force. The then Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora, speaking to Erdoğan, who met him in the summer of 2006 while the Israeli attacks were continuing, expressed support for Türkiye’s active efforts, saying: “We trust you. We believe that you will stand by Lebanon. We believe that your efforts with Western and regional countries will bear fruit.”
In September 2006, when the motion authorising the deployment of troops to Lebanon was being debated in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT), Prime Minister Erdoğan stated clearly that Türkiye could not remain silent in the face of the Lebanon crisis. The AK Party government, which backed the decision to send Turkish troops to Lebanon, underlined that contributing to stability in Lebanon was a “historic” responsibility. With regard to the decision to send troops, the then Prime Minister Erdoğan said: “We are taking this on as a humanitarian duty, as a requirement of law in the region and as a historic responsibility, and that is how we view the matter.” After the GNAT adopted the motion to send troops to Lebanon on 5 September, Türkiye, within the framework of the UNIFIL land operation, deployed a land force from 20 October 2006 at Al-Shaatiyeh, located approximately 8 km east of the city of Tyre, where Shiites live and Hezbollah is strong, and, within the framework of the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force, assigned one frigate at a time for 45-day periods from 15 October 2007. In addition, from 17 March 2007 it assigned a replenishment-at-sea ship, and from 25 April 2007 two corvettes, to the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force. The units serving in the Turkish Engineering Construction Unit, in which 261 personnel served, comprising 237 soldiers and 24 civilian staff, developed good relations with the Shiite community.

Türkiye’s Active Deterrence Policy to Prevent a Regional War

President Erdoğan’s statements of July 2024 should not be assessed independently of Türkiye’s Middle East policy. Commenting on Türkiye’s policies aimed at stopping Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the then Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Abdel Fattah Amora said in a statement: “Türkiye is a very important country for us. Türkiye is also a country that understands the sensitivities of both Syria and Lebanon. We see Türkiye becoming more and more of a regional power with each passing day. No power in the region can ignore Türkiye.” It is therefore clear that President Erdoğan’s statements will both help to prevent the war from turning into a regional conflict and have confidence-building effects on Türkiye–Syria relations.
Nevertheless, Israel’s aim of moving, at a time when the US has entered its election process, towards a comprehensive war against Lebanon and then Syria, together with Palestine, should not be overlooked. In that case it is also unrealistic to expect Türkiye to remain a bystander to the conflicts taking place on its doorstep. Israeli aggression has also provoked a serious public reaction in the Sunni countries of the region. The passive stance of Arab leaders is provoking a reaction from their publics. This situation is also giving rise to debate about the triggering of a second Arab Spring in our region. President Erdoğan’s deterrent rhetoric also contributes to the stability of the Arab countries. Indeed, it is clear that Türkiye will not consent to an Israeli fait accompli in the region.
In conclusion, President Erdoğan’s statements can be assessed as a result of the Middle East’s quest for stability and security. Despite the support Israel receives from Western countries, it is of vital importance in stopping Israeli aggression that the countries of the region voice their reaction at the highest level. While the policies Türkiye is pursuing to build peace in the region are aimed at preventing the conflict from deepening, it must be noted that the Netanyahu administration is moving step by step towards crossing every red line.”

Prof. Veysel Ayhan

*This article was first published here.