By : Ibrahim Kurtulus – Community Activist
Rize – Cayeli – Demirhisar Koyu – Republic of Turkiye
Anti-Türkiye propaganda by Sinan Ciddi and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD):
Frist and foremost the name is Turkiye Not “Turkey ” Mr Ciddi lets get it right.
The argument advanced in the referenced article rests on a shallow reading of Turkish foreign policy and, more troublingly, on the familiar pattern of marginalizing Türkiye’s role in its own region. The piece assumes that peace in Gaza is somehow the prerogative of external actors while denying meaningful agency to a sovereign nation that has, for decades, demonstrated both principled consistency and strategic capability in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Such claims reflect less a genuine analysis of diplomatic realities and more an ideological resentment rooted in outdated geopolitical illusions.
For years, there has been a chorus of commentators who mask their discomfort with an independent, self-confident Türkiye by framing their objection as a critique of President Erdogan alone. In truth, the position they oppose is not a govarnment, but the very ethos of the Republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk namely, the right of the Turkish nation to chart its own political, regional, and security course free from external tutelage. The attempt to present this as a struggle between “secularism” and “Islamism” is a false dichotomy deliberately constructed to obscure the real issue: the rejection of the failed Western neoconservative project that once aimed to engineer a compliant “model Muslim state,” complete with imported social hierarchies and externally sponsored religious leadership. Türkiye’s refusal to submit to such schemes is precisely what irritates these commentators. Their current rhetoric is simply the echo of old grievances.
The assertion that Türkiye is unqualified to support or facilitate peace in Gaza is historically inaccurate and strategically misleading. Türkiye has maintained one of the most sustained diplomatic, economic, and military relationships with Israel in the region, even during periods of political tension. A true partner does not merely smile politely; a real partner delivers difficult truths. Ankara has also long served, with the quiet acknowledgment of Washington, as an intermediary with Hamas precisely because Türkiye could speak credibly to all sides. To suggest otherwise is intellectual dishonest with one motive to use as a another weapon in the international campaign to de-legitimize the Turkish state and the Turkish people.
Moreover, Türkiye’s military and diplomatic competence is not rhetorical. The Turkish Armed Forces have led NATO missions in Afghanistan (commanding ISAF twice), supported international stabilization in Somalia, brokered the delicate normalization process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, assisted Bosnia in its darkest hours, and conducted counter terrorism and stabilization operations in Syria and Iraq. This is not theoretical capability it is proven operational leadership. Türkiye does not merely project power; it deploys capacity with legitimacy grounded in regional familiarity and cultural fluency.
Contrary to the article’s insinuations, Türkiye is not merely in the Middle East it is of it. That distinction matters. Unlike distant actors seeking influence through pressure or military impisition, Türkiye’s relationships with regional societies, institutions, and political actors are organic, historical, and ongoing. This unique positioning is precisely what makes Türkiye indispensable to any sustainable Gaza solution. Peace cannot be engineered from afar; it requires a mediator who understands the language literal and diplomatic of the region.
The article’s author, Sinan Ciddi, has unfortunately become a recurring voice in the international campaign to depreciate Türkiye’s strategic relevance. His analyses increasingly reflect personal disaffection rather than disciplined scholarship. Since departing institutional roles where policy required rigor over rhetoric, his commentary has grown more polemical, aligning closely with organizations that promote a narrow, ideological agenda rather than balanced security analysis.
Dismissing Türkiye’s role in Gaza does not strengthen diplomacy; it weakens the prospect of a viable, durable peace. Those who genuinely seek stability should recognize that Türkiye’s contributions will not resemble the models of the past because the region itself has changed. The task now is not to deny Türkiye’s role, but to engage with it seriously, constructively, and without ideological prejudice







