Turkiye risks turning Gaza reconstruction into a geopolitical trap

The idea of Turkiye taking a seat at the table for Gaza’s reconstruction is not just misguided; it is perilous. 

Amid a war that has engulfed the region in blood and devastation, allowing Ankara a role in shaping Gaza’s future risks legitimizing interests aligned with extremism rather than peace.

Recent moves by Israel to bar Bilal Erdogan, son of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and 27 senior Turkish figures from entering Israel highlight the dangers of underestimating Ankara’s entanglement in Palestinian militancy. 

This is not mere rhetoric or diplomatic posturing; it is a stark warning of the potential geopolitical fallout if Turkey’s involvement is normalized.

Turkiye’s ties to Hamas

Turkiye’s ties to Hamas are longstanding and undeniable. Since the organization’s rise in Gaza, Ankara has provided political, financial and logistical support to the Islamist group, presenting itself as a champion of Palestinian resistance while actively undermining efforts to curb extremism.

Erdogan’s government has repeatedly framed Hamas as a legitimate representative of Palestinian interests, glossing over its classification as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union.

This dual approach: advocating for Palestinian rights while backing a group with a documented record of violence, makes Turkey a problematic partner in reconstruction efforts that demand neutrality, humanitarian focus and a commitment to peace.

The Erdogan factor

Bilal Erdogan’s participation in pro-Palestinian rallies in Turkey underscores the personal and political entanglement of the Erdogan family with Hamas-aligned ideologies.

His public calls for boycotting Israel, though framed as solidarity with Palestinians, mirror the official rhetoric of Ankara itself, reflecting a political culture that conflates support for Palestinians with antagonism toward Israel.

By extension, Turkiye’s potential role in Gaza reconstruction is not about humanitarian neutrality; it is an exercise in advancing its geopolitical influence under the guise of aid. This is particularly alarming in a context where reconstruction decisions are intertwined with security, governance and long-term stability.

Ankara’s regional ambitions

Moreover, Ankara’s regional ambitions complicate the narrative further.

Turkiye has consistently sought to assert itself as a dominant power across the Middle East, often positioning itself in opposition to Western-backed initiatives. Its involvement in Gaza risks transforming humanitarian aid into a tool for political leverage, enabling Ankara to dictate terms in reconstruction, influence local governance and expand its ideological footprint.

In a region already fragmented by conflict, such interference threatens to deepen divisions rather than foster recovery.

The US-led process to include Turkey in Gaza oversight was designed to pool international expertise and resources, but Turkey’s inclusion carries the danger of turning reconstruction into a stage for ideological competition rather than impartial humanitarian action.

Lessons from history

History offers a cautionary tale. Previous interventions by states with strong ideological alignments in conflict zones have often exacerbated crises.

In Gaza, where Hamas maintains de facto control, empowering a state with explicit sympathies for the governing faction risks consolidating a political and military apparatus that continues to obstruct peace.

Reconstruction is not just about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about laying the foundations for governance, security and social cohesion.

Turkiye’s alignment with Hamas and its broader Islamist policies threaten the very principles of impartiality and stability necessary to ensure that aid reaches civilians rather than being diverted for political ends.

The limits of engagement

Critics might argue that excluding Turkiye is counterproductive and that engagement could moderate Ankara’s behaviour.

This line of reasoning assumes that Turkiye is motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns, a claim difficult to reconcile with its recent diplomatic and political conduct.

Erdogan’s government has leveraged humanitarian issues to bolster domestic legitimacy and project regional influence, as seen in Libya, Syria and more recently in the Israel-Palestine context. \

In Gaza, any Turkish involvement risks replicating this pattern: aid could be channeled selectively, reconstruction priorities could favour groups aligned with Ankara, and the delicate balance of power in the region could tilt dangerously toward one faction.

The potential consequences are too severe to risk on untested assumptions of goodwill.

Security implications

Furthermore, Turkiye’s ideological alignment with Hamas has tangible security implications for Israel, the United States and regional stability.

Hamas continues to employ violence against civilian populations, rocket attacks and incitement to disrupt any movement toward peace. 

Allowing Turkiye a formal role in reconstruction could legitimize these actions indirectly by enabling Ankara to influence policy and resource allocation within Gaza.

From a geopolitical perspective, this is not a theoretical concern; it is a realignment of power that could embolden Hamas and similar actors, undermining efforts to stabilize the region and protect civilians.

Symbolism matters

It is also essential to recognize the symbolic dimension. The presence of Turkish officials in Gaza reconstruction would signal international acceptance of Ankara’s ideological posture.

In a conflict as polarized as this, symbolism matters. It shapes narratives, emboldens actors on the ground and influences public perception globally.

By contrast, Israel’s principled move to bar Bilal Erdogan and other Turkish figures sends a clear message: reconstruction must be grounded in neutrality and respect for international norms, not ideological alignment.

Neutrality is not about sidelining stakeholders; it is about ensuring that aid and reconstruction efforts serve the population rather than advancing external political agendas.

The humanitarian case

Critically, the international community must heed the lessons of mismanaged interventions.

History shows that well-intentioned aid becomes counterproductive when intermediaries are aligned with political factions rather than humanitarian principles.

In Gaza, Turkey’s ideological sympathies threaten to do just that: convert reconstruction into a vehicle for political influence, strengthen a group with a history of violent governance and compromise long-term stability.
 

The people of Gaza deserve reconstruction that prioritizes their needs, safety and future prospects, not a geopolitical chess game designed to enhance Ankara’s influence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Turkiye should play no role in Gaza’s reconstruction.

Its long-standing support for Hamas, ideological alignment with extremist elements and pursuit of regional dominance make it an inappropriate and dangerous partner in a humanitarian mission that requires impartiality, transparency and security awareness.

Israel’s preventive measure to bar Bilal Erdogan and senior Turkish officials is not a provocative gesture; it is a principled stance grounded in realism and the hard lessons of geopolitics.

Any effort to include Turkiye risks legitimizing extremism, compromising reconstruction and undermining prospects for peace.

Gaza’s future must be shaped by actors committed to humanitarian priorities, stability and the protection of civilians, not by external powers with political and ideological agendas that conflict with these goals.