I will attempt to analyze the cost of confronting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan through three key occasions.
Since the beginning of his political career, Erdoğan has consistently emphasized a set of core principles. Among the most frequently repeated is the idea of “standing on the right side of history.”
Another principle he has upheld, regardless of circumstances or cost, is to stand against oppression and occupation, and to side with the oppressed.
A third guiding principle is “not to deviate from justice” – that is, to preserve fairness and justice in international and inter-state relations.
To these, one may add a fourth when examining Erdoğan’s political life in its entirety; his stance can also be described as rational and grounded in pragmatic leadership.
This article seeks to analyze its central argument through three distinct and noteworthy events.
The first concerns Erdoğan’s intervention at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Following that appearance, he has declined to attend subsequent meetings. During a debate with then Israeli President Shimon Peres, Erdoğan famously interrupted with the words “one minute,” delivering a forceful critique in which he accused Israel of killing children. At the time, few anywhere in the world dared to speak so openly about Israel.
In the aftermath of that confrontation, the world waited in suspense. What would happen to Türkiye? What would happen to Erdoğan? Years have since passed, and Erdoğan remains firmly in place – now one of the most experienced leaders globally, in a position to influence both regional and global affairs.
The second event, which has been widely discussed, followed the events of Oct. 7. At that moment, much of the global leadership – under the influence of dominant narratives in international media – was inclined to label Hamas members as terrorists. Yet, amid this intense climate, Erdoğan made a striking statement and described Hamas members as national resistance forces defending their homeland against occupation.
Today, perhaps many world leaders, politicians and human rights activists use these phrases freely. But back then, uttering that sentence was unique to Erdoğan. Two years have passed – that is, the war and massacre lasted two years. At the end of those two years, leaving aside the 4 billion people indifferent to world politics, half of humanity – the other 4 billion – came to think like Erdoğan and accused Israel of genocide. They accused it of a massacre and declared Hamas members as freedom fighters, defending their own land.
In fact, a survey conducted in the U.S. asked: “Are you on Israel’s side or Hamas’?” Twenty-five percent of the American public answered “Hamas,” and among young people, that rate was found to exceed 50%.
The third issue concerns the Iran conflict. Erdoğan once again adopted a position grounded in fairness, describing the war as contrary to international law. He stated that Israel had initiated the conflict and that its consequences were being borne by all of humanity. At the same time, he worked to prevent further regional escalation, discouraged Gulf countries from entering the war, kept Türkiye out of direct involvement, and played an active role in peace efforts.
Having proven itself unsuccessful in the war with Iran, Israel has constantly sought an enemy. It has reduced Gaza to the ground. It has struck Beirut. Furthermore, as if it were not enough to have opened a war against Iran and dragged the U.S. into trouble, Israel – driven by the bitterness of defeat – has now set its sights on Türkiye and Erdoğan.
Turning to this third issue, one would ordinarily find that politicians, statespeople, political scientists, and even prominent journalists or analysts covering Israel’s wars rarely place Türkiye so conspicuously at the center of the debate. Yet the global tide has turned so decisively against Israel that, in response to its attacks on Türkiye, it is no longer only Turkish citizens speaking out. World public opinion as a whole has now rallied against Israel and in support of Türkiye, led by figures such as Pedro Sanchez of Spain and Erdoğan.
The title of this article is deliberate. When Erdoğan adopts a fair, just stance – siding with the oppressed and upholding justice – circumstances eventually align with this framework. In particular, as people look at Israel and the U.S., which have lost their sense of justice and equity, they place Erdoğan on the side of what is right, while positioning the occupying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters on the side of what is wrong.
Upon closer examination, those who choose to confront Erdoğan often find themselves facing broader public criticism on a global scale. This is precisely thanks to Erdoğan’s fair, equitable, and rational stance, siding with the oppressed.
