Attacking Erdogan While Being Afraid of Kilicdaroglu: How Does the Hebrew Media View Turkiye’s Elections?

Following the preliminary results of the Turkish presidential elections, the frustration that struck the Turkish opposition seeped into “Israel,” which closely monitored the democratic process.

Israeli media spoke negatively about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president and leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), while expressing hopes for his opponent, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the candidate of the Nation Alliance.

In the elections held on May 14th, Erdogan received 49.51% of the votes, while Kilicdaroglu received 44.88%.

Ahmet Yener, the head of the Supreme Electoral Council of Turkiye, stated: “Neither candidate (Erdogan and Kilicdaroglu) received sufficient votes to win in the first round, and a second round of presidential elections will be held on May 28th.”

 

Supporting the Opposition

The Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper commented before the results were announced and said it is possible that Erdogan will finally lose the vote after his popularity declined due to the earthquake of February 2023 and the immense economic pressures.

The same newspaper added on May 14th that it is certain Erdogan still has loyal followers, but for many in Turkiye, the authoritarian leader mishandled the earthquake, and many hope that this will be his final term.

It claimed that there were concerns that free and fair elections are far from reality under Erdogan’s rule, stating that the amount of airtime given to the opposition on public stations as well as major media outlets was minimal.

In this context, the Jerusalem Post Hebrew newspaper stated that most opposition media outlets have been closed, so the results and news are dominated by government-controlled media run by the Justice and Development Party or those loyal to it.

It further noted in its analysis published on May 15th that during the elections, it was difficult to rely on the data coming from these media outlets, which consistently portrayed Erdogan as the winner.

Regarding the election campaign, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper stated that there was a lot of misleading information in public gatherings, alleging that the current government threatened to use full force to occupy the (presidential) position to undermine the opposition.

The newspaper criticized what it referred to as Erdogan’s Islamist approach and claimed that his former supporters feel disappointed, and this should not be underestimated.

The same newspaper “played on the Jewish community in Turkiye” and conducted interviews with Jews who refused to disclose their names, expressing their support for Kilicdaroglu and stating that he is the preferred candidate for them.

It also predicted that if Kilicdaroglu wins, he will not support Hamas as Erdogan did; he will even shut down the Islamic movement offices and put an end to their presence on Turkish soil to avoid what it called “involvement in supporting terrorism.”

The Jerusalem Post newspaper clarified that despite the Turkish elections registering a record turnout (88.92% domestically and 52.69% abroad), the overall scene is similar to many countries with mixed democracies, where multiple parties exist, but trends work against the opposition as a legitimate competitor.

According to its claim, the opposition realizes that if it conducts strong campaigns or challenges, its leaders may end up in prison.

This means that the Ankara elections share common characteristics with those in Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and Egypt more than they resemble completely free and fair elections held in Western countries such as Denmark or the United Kingdom.

It also alleged that democracy has only been part of Turkiye’s history and has suffered from numerous military coups throughout the past century.

Nevertheless, Turkiye remains a member of the NATO alliance, which is the historical legacy of the Cold War, and it leans toward Russia.

 

Ambiguous Policy

However, while Kilicdaroglu seems to be favored by the Jewish community, he is far from being a pro-“Israel” leader. On the contrary, he opposes deepening relations with “Israel,” as the Jerusalem Post stated.

In a televised report, the i24 Hebrew channel stated that Erdogan’s stay in power is not just a Turkish matter, but it is seen as a regional and international development that affects the relationship with the Israeli Occupation—“Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.”

It continued on May 15th, “Erdogan has always been a constant pain for Israelis due to his positions on the Palestinian issue and his support for Hamas.”

One of the prominent milestones during this stage was the incident of the Turkish solidarity ship Mavi Marmara, which was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters near the shores of Gaza on May 31, 2010, resulting in the death of 10 Turkish activists.

This incident led Turkiye to downgrade its diplomatic relations with “Israel” to the lowest level, and Erdogan has been known to criticize the Israeli Occupation whenever there is aggression against Gaza.

One notable incident in this context was Erdogan’s famous departure from the Davos Forum in 2009 when he was Prime Minister. At that time, a discussion was taking place regarding the situation in Gaza.

Erdogan took offense at the organizers preventing him from speaking after a long intervention by the then-Israeli President, Shimon Peres, in which he sought to justify the attack on Gaza.

However, Turkiye and “Israel” decided on August 17, 2022, to elevate their diplomatic relations to the ambassadorial level as part of their efforts to normalize ties after recent setbacks.

This was followed by several subsequent visits between officials from both sides.

In this context, former Israeli Ambassador to Turkiye, Alon Liel, stated in an interview with the i24 Hebrew channel that “Erdogan, in the past two years, we know him in the foreign policy file as an open book, and it is difficult to predict the opposition’s positions, especially since Kilicdaroglu is leftist and also holds supportive positions toward the Palestinians.”

He pointed out that “the recent changes make Israel prefer Erdogan’s stay in the presidential palace, despite the prevailing leftist orientations that make him closer to the Palestinians.”

He explained that this preference today stems from “Israel’s bet” on a golden period in its relationship with Turkiye if Erdogan remains in power, indicating a deepening of normalization efforts.

 

Will Relationships Be Affected?

It is noteworthy that Israeli officials did not comment on the Turkish elections in an attempt to prevent the recent rapprochement between the two parties from becoming an election issue there.

Professor Meir Masri, a political science professor at the Hebrew University, stated in a television interview on May 15 that most Israelis who follow regional affairs prefer to see Erdogan as a personal adversary.

However, at the official level, “Israel” remains neutral and does not interfere in Turkish political matters.

Non-resident fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and expert on Turkish domestic politics and foreign policy, Sinan Ciddi, does not believe that Kilicdaroglu has any intention to destroy relations with “Tel Aviv.”

However, he emphasized that the opposition candidate will not open a new page in relations with “Israel,” and they will continue as they are now, according to previous statements in a report by Yedioth Ahronoth.

This estimation is believed by many to be aimed at maintaining the current relations without any deterioration caused by leaks or Israeli statements, after making significant progress in normalization.

In this context, The Monitor confirmed that it does not seem that anyone in “Israel” considers Erdogan a true ally, but Israeli diplomats expect him to continue the normalization process if he is re-elected.

The website mentioned that if the opposition wins, it may not backtrack on the rapprochement with “Israel,” but it may appear more critical of the “Israeli government.

Over the years, Kilicdaroglu has made several statements regarding “Israel.” In 2011, he criticized the United Nations report on the Mavi Marmara incident, condemning the Israeli forces for their excessive use of force.

In response, Erdogan expelled the Israeli ambassador and reduced diplomatic relations with “Israel,” but Kilicdaroglu criticized this move.

The leader of the Turkish opposition at the time said: “There is no benefit in that, and we do not need to risk our interests with trivial actions.”

Faruk Logoglu, the deputy chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), also criticized Erdogan, stating that “the possibility that the ruling party in Turkiye has pushed the country to the brink of a hot conflict is sad and unacceptable.”

The Monitor affirmed that if “we take into account Kilicdaroglu’s other statements,” it appears that his statement mentioned from 2011 was essentially a criticism of Erdogan and not a positive gesture toward “Israel.”

However, the report emphasized that despite these statements, Kilicdaroglu’s policy toward “Israel” remains unclear.

The Monitor hinted that “Israel” is also concerned about some of Kilicdaroglu’s partners in the Nation Alliance.

The leader of the Future Party (Gelecek), Ahmet Davutoglu, was against rehabilitating relations with “Israel” and has a complicated relationship with it.

Furthermore, the leader of the Felicity Party (Saadet), Temel Karamollaoglu, strongly opposes rapprochement with “Israel.” On several occasions, he criticized Erdogan for toning down his criticisms of Israeli operations against Gaza and accused him of betraying the Palestinian cause.

Nevertheless, the website believed that, similarly, Kilicdaroglu may follow Erdogan’s path if he wins, only to avoid confrontation with Washington and the West and to serve Turkiye’s economic interests.