.jpg)
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli deliver some of Ankara’s sharpest public broadsides against the Netanyahu government, framing Israeli rhetoric toward Turkey as a calculated attempt to manufacture a new enemy after Iran.
Turkey escalated its war of words with Israel on Monday and Tuesday, with senior officials deploying some of the most biting language yet in the ongoing feud between Ankara and the Netanyahu government. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan accused Tel Aviv of deliberately seeking to designate Turkey as a new adversary, while nationalist opposition leader Devlet Bahçeli called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent statements about President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a “moral bankruptcy” rooted in panic and guilt.
‘Israel Cannot Live Without Enemies’
Speaking at an editorial roundtable hosted by the Anadolu Agency on Tuesday, Fidan offered a pointed structural diagnosis of Israeli behaviour. “After Iran, Israel cannot live without enemies — they need to develop a rhetoric,” Fidan said, adding that attempts to cast Turkey as a hostile power originated as a domestic political necessity in Israel before being elevated into state strategy. He warned that what began as street-level populism was now being institutionalised within Israeli foreign policy circles.
The minister also addressed growing Gulf Arab interest in Turkish defence cooperation, noting that the inability of regional states to intercept incoming rockets had led them to appreciate the value of Turkey’s defence industry. Fidan indicated that Gulf partners had expressed a desire to deepen ties in the post-conflict period and called for the establishment of a regional security architecture: “A security pact in the region now needs to be built.”
Bahçeli: ‘The Words Are Void’
The day before, MHP General Chairman Devlet Bahçeli posted a lengthy and unusually acidic statement on social media targeting Netanyahu directly. Bahçeli described the Israeli leader’s remarks about Erdoğan as “not merely a political delusion but also a manifestation of moral collapse,” arguing they reflected a “guilt psychology that has lost its grip” and a fear of being cornered.
The nationalist leader accused Israel of bombing children in Gaza, occupying the West Bank, invading Lebanon, threatening Syrian sovereignty, and pursuing regime change in Iran — then using rhetoric against Turkey to divert attention from those actions. “This approach is not only aggression but a kleptocracy and moral collapse,” Bahçeli wrote, characterising the Netanyahu government as an organised crisis hub destabilising the entire Middle East and beyond.
Bahçeli was explicit that any attack on Erdoğan constituted an attack on Turkish sovereignty itself. “The shameless and insolent language is directed squarely at the Turkish state’s sovereign rights, the honour of the Turkish nation, and the national will itself,” he wrote, concluding that Netanyahu’s words were “void” and pledging the full backing of the Cumhur Alliance for the president.
Context: A Sharpening Feud
The Turkish-Israeli relationship has deteriorated sharply since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023. Ankara severed trade ties with Israel in May 2024 and has consistently championed the Palestinian cause at international forums. Netanyahu and members of his cabinet have in recent days made statements targeting Erdoğan by name, prompting a coordinated response from across the Turkish political spectrum: TBMM Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş declared the Israeli prime minister’s words “void” given that “his hands are stained with the blood of children,” while AKP Spokesman Ömer Çelik said the Netanyahu “gang” would face justice before a court of humanity.
Fidan’s framing of Israeli rhetoric as a strategic — rather than merely rhetorical — escalation is significant. By arguing that Tel Aviv is in the process of institutionalising Turkey as a state-level threat in its foreign policy doctrine, Ankara signals that it views the current exchange not as a passing spat but as a structural shift in bilateral relations that demands a systematic response.