Home / Politics / Asia / “How dare Turkey criticise UAE over Israel relations?”
Novikov Aleksey /

“How dare Turkey criticise UAE over Israel relations?”

Recent news of the UAE normalising relations with Israel is hardly surprising; snug relations between the two has long been known. The global reaction to the ‘peace deal’ was also as anticipated: many Western nations expressed delight, and Egypt’s coup regime sent congratulatory messages, as did representatives of Oman and Bahrain. Naturally, much of the Muslim world, especially the Palestinians themselves, condemned it.[1]

However, it was the condemnation from the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that perhaps brought about the strongest reaction from some Muslims in the West, at least on social media. After accusing the UAE of displaying “hypocritical behaviour”, President Erdoğan said:

“The move against Palestine is not a step that can be stomached … we may also take a step in the direction of suspending diplomatic ties with the Abu Dhabi leadership or pulling back our ambassador.”[2]

The Turkish Foreign Ministry had earlier issued a similarly strongly-worded statement:

“The UAE, which is pursuing secret ambitions over a US plan that is stillborn, null and void, ignores the willpower of Palestine. [The UAE] has no authority to negotiate with Israel on behalf of Palestine without consent from its people and administration regarding vital matters.”

 “Neither history nor the collective conscience of the region will ever forget and forgive the hypocritical behaviour of the UAE, which is trying to depict the deal as a sacrifice for Palestine, when in reality it is a betrayal to the Palestinian cause for its own narrow interests.”[3]

This reaction, along with the threat to suspend diplomatic ties with the UAE, was especially notable since, as many were ready to point out, Turkey already has diplomatic ties with Israel. How can Turkey condemn the UAE for normalising its relationship with Israel when Turkey has held the very same relations since as far back as 1949? Are we really comparing like for like?

Turkey’s Relationship with Israel

Turkey has been a significant Muslim-majority land for many centuries. It only shifted towards secularism following World War One and the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.[4] In the years that followed under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Turkey became a nation that sought to free itself at many levels from being a member of the wider international Muslim body (the Ummah). Turkey instead strived to become an insular and secular republic, and was quick to recognise Israeli statehood by forming diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity just one year after the latter’s creation.

The relationship between the two began thriving in the 1990s. Hasan Koni, Professor of International Relations at Ankara University, told The New York Times in 1999:

“Even people who have been suspicious of Israel must now see that after the United States, Israel has become the country we can trust most. That is now clearer than ever.”[5]

The political landscape in Turkey would change dramatically with the ascension of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to power in 2002 after a landslide election victory. Whilst a strong relationship with Israel continued in the following years, the government’s drive away from militarised secularism and restoration of functional institutions and public services naturally refocused Turks away from their own challenges to those of the external Muslim world.

The cracks in the relationship between the two nations emerged when Israel brutally attacked Gaza in 2008/09. In front of world leaders, and pointing directly at the then-Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Erdoğan slammed the brutality shown by Israel [6][7] whilst the Turkish masses demonstrated against Israel in protest.

Just a year later, the infamous Gaza flotilla incident would bring the relationship to its knees. Israeli forces illegally attacked a Turkish aid convoy bound for Gaza, killing a number of civilians, including Turkish citizens.[8] This was described as “state terrorism” by the Turkish leadership. The incident severely downgraded diplomatic representation, and it would take until 2016 for a reconciliation to be reached, which included agreements on how Turkey would receive compensation and send aid to Gaza in the future.

Whilst trade and military cooperation would continue and remain significant, the relationship would never quite be the same, with both quick to slam the other whenever their interests collided. Further Israeli military aggression and Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would only exacerbate the drift. There has been no ambassador in either capital since Turkey expelled Israel’s ambassador from Ankara following Israeli attacks on unarmed protestors at the Gaza border in May 2018.[9]

Today, Turkey remains one of the most vocal supporters of Palestine, furthered by humanitarian aid and a real political obstruction to further Israeli assaults whilst it continues to trade and maintain strained relations with the Israelis.

Why Does Turkey Not Break Ties with Israel?

Many fairly hold that no supporter of Palestine can truly justify maintaining normalised relations with the Zionist entity given their state-sponsored terrorist activities, illegal occupation, and further annexation plans. In a simplistic world, one would expect Turkey to sever ties with Israel once and for all – put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. However, the reality is much more complex than an immediate cessation of a diplomatic or economic relationship. By virtue of Turkey being a democracy with a hugely diverse parliament, and many multi-directional institutions that operate independently of government with interests with Israel, such relations are by no means comparable to the absolutist UAE, which politically sways with the decision of a handful of its leaders. This contrast is discussed further below.

It further cannot be doubted that Turkey remains a problem for Israel at all levels. The attack on the Gaza flotilla is only one example. Whilst worldwide condemnation comes and goes, Israel would need to grovel over the course of six years to ‘restore’ ties with Turkey, when many other nations in the region would have ‘taken it on the chin’. The relationship in its current form is without doubt affording the Turkish government a degree of leverage over Israel.

Secondly, and more importantly, one cannot disregard Turkey’s political direction. This is a critical consideration, as a judgement must take into consideration the Turkey’s current ‘absolute’ situation as well as its direction vis-a-vis reform (islāh) against corruption (ifsād). Sentiments in Turkey and within Turkish politics are veering in the direction of Palestine. The normalisation of pro-Palestine sentiment amongst the Turkish masses has even pushed members of the secular public to speak up against Israel’s policies.[10]

In summary, this does not justify or validate such a relationship, but recognises that it is not a simple one. Despite thriving in certain areas, the relationship with Israel has not cost Turkey its reciprocal support from the Palestinians.

A Brief Background to the UAE Deal

On the 14th of August 2020, President Trump announced a historic agreement that saw the UAE normalise relations with Israel, calling for more Muslim nations to follow.[11] Delegations are planning to meet in the weeks ahead to sign lucrative deals involving tourism, investment, technology, and much more.[12]

Cooperation between Israel and various Gulf nations has increased year on year and has mostly been clandestine, particularly since President Trump began harnessing support for his stalled ‘Deal of the Century’. The deal was rejected by the Palestinians and much of the international community, including Turkey, and was dubbed as only serving Israeli interests, legitimising occupation and annexation whilst seeking to buy off the Palestinians.[13]

Earlier this year, President Erdoğan explained:

“I have already stated that this is an occupation plan, not a peace plan.”

“(The ‘Deal of the Century’) prevents [the] Palestinian diaspora from returning to their lands … They claimed for years that they provided so much support (to solve the crisis in the region). However, the support was always for Israel, not Palestine.”[14]

The normalising of ties between Arab nations and Israel is also an important part of the deal. Upon its announcement in February this year, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE rushed to applaud it and show their support.[15] Thus, it is important to look at the relations between the UAE and Israel through this lens; one that is intended to serve only American and Israeli interests entirely at the expense of the Palestinians. As one PLO Executive Committee leader explained:

“The UAE’s position, in terms of its timing and essence, can only be understood as giving Israel leverage for free. There’s no reasonable justification for it except that it gives more power to the occupation and increases its crimes against the Palestinians.”[16]

The UAE is not seeking to replicate the features of Turkish-Israeli relations. As far as Palestine goes, Turkey and the UAE are as divergent as it gets. The UAE is instead seeking a relationship that lends legitimacy to Israeli aspirations over Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Jordan Valley. The ‘Arab’ and ‘Gulf’ UAE used a relationship that Israel could only have dreamt of to leverage absolutely nothing for Palestine. Even the dressed-up Emirati claim that Israeli annexation would be called off was debunked within hours by Netanyahu, who confirmed it was very much still on the cards.

How do the Relations Contrast?

It is wildly unfair and misinformed to equate Turkey’s relations with Israel and that of the UAE. Firstly, the political direction within Turkish politics is diametrically opposed to that within the UAE. Whilst sentiment in support of Palestine is increasing in Turkey, it is in freefall in much of the Gulf.

Secondly, whilst the absolutist structure of the regime in the UAE and the rest of the Gulf can single-handedly opt to boycott Israel, a representative democracy such as Turkey that needs to deal with an array of diverse institutions and political persuasions does not have the same privilege. The opposite is also true.

Thirdly, Turkey’s inherited relationship with Israel – dating back to 1949 – has often been hanging around the neck of Israel, as the latter’s diplomatic balance with Turkey has forced it to concede many privileges for the Palestinians. Conversely, the UAE needlessly sought out a relationship at a time when Palestine needs more support than ever.

Even if one were to assume that the Turkish leadership makes such statements and condemnations against Israel for show, or to stir up emotions and gain public support among Muslims ‘out of hypocrisy’, why does the Gulf fail to do the same? All Muslims love Masjid al-Aqsa and yearn to see Palestine freed from oppression and injustice. The fact that the UAE and other Gulf regimes dare not speak up for Palestine – even for political show – indicates how far they have drifted away from the cause.

This is not to mention Turkey’s others grounds for condemning the UAE: its alleged participation in the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey; its seeking to devalue the Turkish lira; its involvement in atrocities, land annexation, and partitioning in Yemen; its support for the warlord Haftar in Libya and Assad in Syria; its support for China’s oppression of the Uyghur Muslims, Modi’s oppression in Kashmir, and the coup in Egypt – the list goes on. In each one of the aforementioned, Turkey has taken the diametrically opposite side. As such, there is a level of enmity between the two nations that goes beyond the matter of Israel, and all of this must be taken into account before uninformedly dismissing the relations as ‘the same’.


This article does not intend to convince Turkey’s detractors to change course, nor does it aim to justify Turkey’s weaknesses. Instead, the aim is to show the need for maturity when trying to understand the rapidly changing political landscape of today.

The world is not monochromatic. Carefully balanced decisions will need to be made on who truly represents Muslims around the world, from our enemies and from within. One must recognise that diplomatic relationships are not of a single type or for a single purpose. Matters need to be judged by their substance rather than their name. Only a handful of Muslim states have consulates in Israel, yet there are also many others who legally classify Israel as an ‘enemy’ but are expediting its expansionist interests even more than some nations who openly recognise it.



















About Ahmed Hammuda

Ahmed Hammuda is a regular contributor at Islam21c. His interests lie in Qur'anic Tafsir and the field of Middle East Affairs and how they reflect on Muslims living in the West. He is an Electrical Engineer by trade and has been involved in various Da'wah activities over the course of his education and working life. He has transferred the same analytical approach required in engineering into a careful and measured approach in his views and positions.


  1. Asalamualaikum

    I think it is important to address Erdoğan like morsi imran Khan mahatir they are not Islamic rulers they are simply democratic rulers who are Muslim but are not Islamic rulers and they have various errors in them as their rule is based on barramundi hence overall they can never be people who revive islam or khilafah or shariah because allah will never all these people to revive islam through kufr methodology of democracy

    Look at having of Bangladesh even she is doing many islamic things but overall she is a ruler of kufr democracy secular and even being a women makes her rule more harram

    At best they can improve the economic situation along with adding some islam but overall their rule unfortunately can never be a islamic revival

    • hasina I meant autocorrect

    • Abdullah, democracy is the best method of governance because when it works it gives the people a say in public policy. It ensures peaceful change over of power and protection of personal rights. This is far better than a Imperial or Theocratic Caliphate style of Islamic government where there is civil war every time a Caliph dies and his sons fight over power. Human beings have outgrown slavery, clerical rule and forceful expansion in the name of religion. It’s time some activists accepted this reality.

      As for Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina is leader of a secular Bengali nationalist political party that has never even pretended to promoting Islamic shariah. In Bangladesh, Islamic parties are not very popular. The Awami League is a political party born out of the language movement and in opposition to Pakistani Islam-flavoured oppression of the 1960s and 1970s. However, they do respect Islam as a part of Bangladeshi culture. Hence why Sheikh Hasina has policies like recognising Qauami Madrasha certificates for civil service jobs.

      Also, living in a first world country, please don’t dismiss the importance of economic improvement to the daily lives of Muslims in the third world. Bangladesh has made impressive strides with its garments industry and empowering women policies. It’s a poster child for development. Regardless, it still has a lot of poverty. We should be big enough to recognise successes.

  2. So forbearing towards some and so harsh towards others. This article reminds me of a saying of Imam al-Shaafi’i:

    وعين الرضا عن كل عيب كليلة
    ولكن عينَ السخط تبدي المساويا

    I apologise for the really rough translation but it means:

    The content/satisfied eye is blind to every blemish/flaw
    But the discontent eye sees just the faults

    If someone can improve the translation then that would be greatly appreciated, and may Allah reward your efforts.

  3. Assalamualaikum – Hope you are well. I just wanted to leave feedback on your articles which I hope inn shaa Allah will be helpful for any future articles.

    I really enjoy reading these mashaAllah tabarakAllah, however, majority of the time I find it hard to understand due to some of the wordings used. It would be helpful if articles could be written in order for everyone to be able to comprehend, by using simple wording. Even though I am British born, I find the wordings used are not really simplified. I hope you will find my feedback useful inn shaa Allah. BarakAllah feekum and jazakamullahu khairan for all your hard work – may Allah swt reward you Ameen.

  4. I am disappointed that this article seeks to distinguish between Turkish relations with Israel and those of the UAE. Both countries conduct relations with Israel based on their respective national interests as opposed to any theoretical notion of Muslim brotherhood. I can only assume that the author is favourable toward increasingly Islamising Turkey under the AKP over the increasingly secularising UAE under its Monarch. Ideology is no reason to find distinction where none exist.

    While ties between Turkey and Israel have cooled at a political level in recent years, ties across the board are still very strong and enduring. Economically, Turkey is Israel’s sixth-largest export destination. Israel is now one of the top 10 export markets for Turkish products. Turkish Airlines trails right behind Israel’s national carrier El Al as the second most popular carrier out of Tel Aviv. Israel is the top buyer of both Azerbaijani and Iraqi Kurdish oil in the world, owing in part to Turkish facilitation. Trade in 2018 was worth $5 billion and from growing. Militarily, as late as 2011, Israel upgraded Turkish owned US M-60 tanks and Israel also sold armed Heron drones to Turkey.

    Ultimately the above indicators of ties are based on tangiable indicators. Not mere political statements and symbolism. President Erdogan making a blistering statement of the UAE’s alleged betrayal of Palestinians is for domestic consumption only. He will never risk the economic ties between the two countries. In the same vein, the UAE’s fear of growing Iranian interference in Arab lands eg. Iranian support to Shia groups eg. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and the Hashd Al Shabi in Iraq and the tangiable intelligence and security assistance to Abu Dhabi has to be put in contrast to rhetorical support for ‘Palestinian brothers’ who can do nothing to repay such solidarity.

  5. “This article does not intend to convince Turkey’s detractors to change course, nor does it aim to justify Turkey’s weaknesses.” – The whole article is about justifying Turkey’s weaknesses, its the article’s sole purpose. This claim of trying to teach “nuance” to the others who allegedly see the world in black and white is the same claim that supporters of UAE make, the supporters of Saudi make and is basically the line Shiekh HY takes. Why can’t we focus on calling a spade a spade rather than claiming “maturity”. There should be outrage at what Turkey is doing, the question is how to channel it constructively. We shouldn’t be convinced that what is happening okay because other countries are worse.

    • The website has a bad habit in justifying turkey same as how others are biased in some country and organisation

      Turkey does evil saudi does evil all Muslim countries do evil if you are justifying the evil of a ruler country amd attack another country for the same evil action then this is you being two faced not speaking for the deen or being just as per Islam

      Turkey relation with Israel is as bad as any others those who justify tutkeys relation with Israel are no better to other countries or scholars who do the same for saudi arabia Bangladesh Pakistan Malaysia Indonesia any muslim country

      Turkey betrayed uighur yet this website if it was another country it would have gone all out against them

      This website is doing some brilliant things but their opinion of Erdoğan being calipha or student finance halal are amongst some opinions that needs guidance from Allah and they need to stop spreading these deviated beliefs and thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend