Türkiye and Israel trade collaboration

The Gap between embargo rhetoric and reality

Photo Julien Goettelmann on Pexels

On May 2, 2024, Türkiye announced that it had completely halted all trade relations with Israel. According to official statements, exports, imports, free zone trade, and transit trade were fully suspended, and Turkish-flagged and Israeli-flagged air and sea transportation were banned. However, international trade data, ship tracking systems, and independent research reveal that this embargo has remained largely on paper, with trade continuing through various indirect channels.

There is a massive gap between Türkiye's official data and Israel's official data

While the Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) data shows no trade items with Israel after May 2, 2024, according to Trading Economics, which compiles the UN COMTRADE database, Israel's imports from Türkiye in 2025 were recorded at $2.12 billion. This figure places Türkiye as Israel's 10th largest import source, on par with the United Kingdom.

According to data from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), **exports from Türkiye to Israel in 2025 amounted to $924.1 million**. In just the January-February 2026 period, this figure reached $176.1 million.

The top product groups exported from Türkiye to Israel in 2025 were as follows.

Product Group	Amount (2025)
Electrical and electronic equipment	$283.17 million
Iron and steel	$235.43 million
Precious stones and metals	$177.52 million
Base metals	$183.2 million
Machinery and equipment	$172.8 million
Plastics and their products	$137.45 million
Textile products	$119.5 million

The "confidential country" category and the transparency problem

Murat Emir, Deputy Group Chair of the Yeni Party, drew attention to the "Confidential Country" heading in TURKSTAT's foreign trade statistics, opened under the pretext of "commercial secrecy." Noting that this category showed a volume of $2.1 billion for 2025, Emir asked, "Was the export to Israel recorded under this 'confidential country' item?"

The Ministry of Trade, however, denied these claims, asserting that the customs system is completely closed to Israel and that no trade transactions have been registered for 23 months. The Ministry labeled the claims based on Israeli data as "disinformation."

Oil shipments covert flow through Ceyhan Port

One of the most striking contradictions is in oil shipments. Despite Türkiye's embargo decision, Azerbaijani oil continues to be shipped from the Ceyhan terminal to Israel.

According to data compiled by Reuters from ship tracking systems, the amount of Azerbaijani oil sent from Ceyhan to Israel increased by 31% in 2025, reaching 94,000 barrels per day. This was recorded as the highest level in the last three years.

Oil sent from Azerbaijan via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline meets approximately 30% of Israel's oil needs.

The shadow fleet ships disabling signals

International investigations reveal in detail how the embargo is being circumvented. According to research conducted by Middle East Eye in collaboration with the "No Port for Genocide" campaign.

Covert crude oil shipments to Israel between May 2024 and December 2025.

57 covert crude oil shipments
Approximately 47 million barrels of oil
Shipments were carried out via Türkiye
Ships disabled their tracking systems (AIS), going into "dark" mode
Egypt's Port Said was reported as the false destination

Military material shipments.

13 military shipments in 2025 (ammunition, machine gun components, defense materials belonging to Elbit Systems)

Coal shipments.

8 covert coal shipments between October 2023 and February 2026
Total of 751,000 tons of South African coal

The role of Greek companies

The majority of covert shipments are carried out by Greek shipping companies. According to the research.

Companies Thenamaris and Kyklades increased their share of oil shipments after the embargo from approximately 22% to over 91%
Greek tankers circumvented Türkiye's Israel embargo via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
Ships violated international maritime rules by reporting false destinations and disabling tracking systems

The Palestinian route claim

The Ministry of Trade argues that the trade appearing in Israeli records stems from shipments made to the Palestinian Authority. According to the Ministry.

Since Palestine has no port or customs of its own, shipments are technically made through Israeli ports
Shipments are carried out with the approval of the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy
There is approximately $50-60 million in monthly Palestinian trade.

However, Yeni Party's Emir claims that the Israeli statistical office does not include trade with the Palestinian Authority in the standard "Israeli foreign trade" tables, therefore the announced figures directly reflect Türkiye-Israel trade.

The Gap between official statements and industry data

Türkiye's Ministry of Trade maintains that the embargo is being fully implemented.

"Since May 2, 2024, trade with Israel has been zero. The customs system is closed."

However, international data and field research contradict this claim.

Source	Trade Volume
Türkiye's official statement	$0
UN COMTRADE (2025)	$2.12 billion
Israel CBS (2025)	$924.1 million
TURKSTAT "Confidential Country" item	$2.1 billion

Political consequences and contradictory messages

The claims that trade is continuing create a serious credibility problem in Türkiye's foreign policy.

While harsh rhetoric against Israel continues in public, the continuation of trade relations behind the scenes causes foreign policy to be perceived as "two-faced."
U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Tom Barrack, at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, stated "Türkiye and Israel will not fight each other" implying that a trade agreement between the two countries could be made in the "not-too-distant future."
While Türkiye is seeking an Interpol "Red Notice" for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the continuation of billions of dollars in trade during the same period raises questions about the sincerity of Türkiye's support for the Palestinian cause.

Available data clearly demonstrates a deep chasm between Türkiye's "no trade with Israel" rhetoric and international trade data. Despite official statements.

UN COMTRADE data shows a $2.12 billion trade volume in 2025
Israeli official data records $924 million in exports in 2025
Ship tracking systems confirm that covert oil shipments from Ceyhan port to Israel are continuing
"Shadow fleet" operations conducted through Greek companies reveal that the embargo is being systematically circumvented
The appearance of $2.1 billion in TURKSTAT's "Confidential Country" category deepens the transparency problem

This contradiction raises serious questions about the sincerity of Türkiye's support for the Palestinian cause, its foreign policy credibility, and its commitment to international obligations. This chasm between harsh public rhetoric and the trade relations that continue in reality represents a significant test for the future stance and reputation of Turkish foreign policy.

Note: This article is based on publicly available trade data, shipping records, and reporting from various news sources. All figures are cited from their respective sources and are presented for informational purposes.

The Ambiguity of Peace Analyzing Türkiye's New "Framework Law" and the Challenges Ahead

On August 10, 2026, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) ratified one of the most consequential and heavily debated pieces of legislation in the Republic's modern history. Officially titled the "Law Proposal on Strengthening National Solidarity and Social Integration" (Millî Dayanışma ve Toplumsal Bütünleşmenin Güçlendirilmesine Dair Kanun Teklifi)—but widely known as the "Framework Law" (Çerçeve Yasa)—the bill passed after an exhausting 12-hour session. The final tally recorded 468 votes in favor, 88 against, and 6 abstentions out of the 562 participating parliamentarians.

Marketed by the ruling coalition as the cornerstone of a "Terror-Free Türkiye", the law outlines a conditional amnesty and social reintegration program following declarations of disarmament by the PKK/KCK. However, beneath the sweeping rhetoric of unity and historic resolution lies a deeply ambiguous text. By leaving critical enforcement mechanisms open-ended and centralizing the assessment process within the executive branch, the Framework Law introduces a precarious set of legal, political, and societal challenges for Türkiye's immediate future.

Cumhuriyet

The Architecture of the Legislation

To understand the risks embedded in the Framework Law, one must first examine its mechanics. The 12-article legislation essentially establishes a conditional pause on prosecutions and the execution of sentences for individuals associated with the PKK/KCK and its affiliated structures.

The primary trigger for the law is a two-step verification process: security forces must first confirm that the organization has entirely dissolved its operational existence and surrendered all weaponry, a finding that must then be officially validated by the National Security Council (MGK) and published in the Official Gazette. Only after this MGK decree does a six-month window open for written applications and weapon handovers. For those who qualify, ongoing prosecutions carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years are suspended for 5 years, while sentences exceeding 15 years or carrying life imprisonment are suspended for 10 years, provided the individual commits no further crimes during the probationary period.

The Danger of the "Open-Ended" Framework

The most glaring vulnerability of the Framework Law is its open-ended nature. Legislation dealing with national security, transitional justice, and amnesty demands airtight definitions to prevent arbitrary application; yet, this law is riddled with interpretive voids.

First, the concept of "complete disarmament and dissolution" is politically and logistically nebulous. How the state will quantify and verify the total eradication of decentralized militant structures operating across transnational borders remains dangerously unclear. By placing the ultimate authority to declare the end of terror in the hands of the MGK, the law effectively bypasses robust judicial and parliamentary scrutiny, transferring a monumental legal trigger to an executive security organ.

Furthermore, the legal terminology regarding who exactly benefits from the suspensions is highly complex. While the law excludes "intentional homicide committed within the framework of organizational activity" and life sentences for crimes committed prior to June 1, 2005, drawing clear distinctions in decades-old, multi-defendant terror trials will inevitably lead to immense judicial bottlenecks. The ambiguity risks creating a two-tiered justice system where subjective interpretations by localized execution judges (infaz hâkimleri) could result in vastly different outcomes for similar offenses.

The Erosion of Parliamentary Oversight

While the law mandates the creation of a 17-member TBMM Monitoring Commission to oversee the process, the actual implementation, coordination, and follow-up are dominated by the executive branch. A special board, chaired by the Vice President and comprising key cabinet ministers (Justice, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Defense) along with the heads of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and the MGK, will direct the reintegration process.

This centralization of power is a critical flaw. By relegating the parliament to a mere "monitoring" role, the Framework Law stifles the broad, transparent democratic consensus required for a societal trauma of this magnitude. In a polarized political environment, peace processes managed behind closed executive doors historically suffer from a profound lack of public trust.

Societal Pushback and the Road Ahead

The 88 "No" votes and 6 abstentions in the TBMM highlight the deep reservations simmering within the Turkish public. Opposition voices, notably from the İYİ Party, dissenting factions within the Yeni Party, and the Yeniden Refah Party, signal a significant segment of the electorate that views the law not as a masterstroke of peace, but as a dangerous concession.

Türkiye faces three immediate challenges in the wake of this legislation:

Societal Polarization: The abrupt transition from decades of intensive counter-terrorism rhetoric to a framework of "reintegration" risks alienating nationalist and conservative voter bases, as well as the families of terror victims, leading to severe social friction.
Implementation Gridlock: The 6-month window following the MGK's declaration will be a logistical nightmare. The judicial system, already burdened, must rapidly process highly sensitive intelligence to determine eligibility without violating the law's stated exceptions.
The Threat of Relapse: Without a parallel, comprehensive plan addressing underlying socioeconomic and political grievances, the legal mechanisms of the Framework Law may only offer a temporary freeze on conflict rather than a permanent cure.

The ratification of the Framework Law on August 10, 2026, marks an undeniable turning point for Türkiye. However, passing a law in parliament is vastly different from cementing peace on the ground. With its open-ended criteria, heavy reliance on executive decrees, and complex legal loopholes, the "Çerçeve Yasa" is less a definitive roadmap to a "Terror-Free Türkiye" and more a precarious gamble. If the ambiguities of the text are exploited, or if the process lacks the transparency required to build genuine public consensus, this framework may ultimately construct the scaffolding for Türkiye's next political crisis rather than its long-awaited peace.

YENİ Party Reaches Decision on Framework Law

A Shift Toward Individual Conscience in Parliament

Party leader Özgür Özel announces that lawmakers will vote independently on the controversial "Terror-Free Türkiye" initiative.

The political landscape in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) witnessed a significant development today as the YENİ Party finalized its stance on the highly debated "Framework Law." Following a critical closed-door group meeting chaired by Party Leader Özgür Özel, the party leadership arrived at a decision that breaks from traditional party block voting: they have opted against enforcing a unified position among their deputies.

Spearheaded by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), alongside the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM), the "Framework Law" has been drafted under the broader, ambitious umbrella of a proposed "Terror-Free Türkiye" initiative. However, the legislative move has sparked intense public and political debate across the nation. Critics and observers have pointed out that the bill reportedly includes specific provisions that could pave the way for the postponement of sentences for individuals affiliated with the PKK—a highly sensitive issue in Turkish politics.

Flickr

The Internal Debate and the Decision for Free Will

During their extensive internal discussions, senior officials and members of the YENİ Party rigorously evaluated the proposed legislation. Sources close to the meeting indicated that several lawmakers drew sharp attention to what they perceived as serious shortcomings and ambiguities within the text of the proposed regulation. As the debate concluded, the party leadership determined that imposing a strict 'yes' or 'no' mandate would not reflect the diverse concerns and perspectives of their constituency. Consequently, it was resolved that all 91 of the YENİ Party's parliamentary deputies will cast their votes based entirely on their own free will and personal initiative.

"By allowing a free vote, the YENİ Party leadership is transferring the immense political responsibility of this controversial bill directly onto the shoulders of its individual lawmakers, acknowledging the complex moral and political dimensions of the 'Framework Law'."

The party itself, as an institution, will formally abstain from adopting a binding collective position on the legislation. This move is seen by some political analysts as a strategic maneuver to maintain party unity while avoiding the potential fallout of officially endorsing or rejecting a bill fraught with such deep historical and emotional resonance.

Implications for the General Assembly Vote

YENİ Party Chairman Özgür Özel is expected to take the rostrum at the General Assembly shortly to officially declare this free-vote strategy. By publicly announcing that the party will leave the final decision to the individual consciences of the lawmakers, Özel is setting a precedent for how the opposition might handle deeply polarizing legislative proposals in the current parliamentary term.

The upcoming vote on the "Framework Law" is now more unpredictable. With the YENİ Party's 91 deputies voting independently, the final tally will likely be a close reflection of individual negotiations, regional constituent pressures, and the personal political convictions of the lawmakers involved.

As the TBMM prepares for the pivotal session, all eyes remain focused on the parliamentary floor to see how this reliance on individual conscience will ultimately shape the outcome of the "Terror-Free Türkiye" initiative and alter the broader legislative dynamics in Ankara.

Democracy and Dissent The Erosion of Political Immunity in Türkiye

Demokrasi ve Muhalefet Türkiye'de Siyasi Dokunulmazlığın Aşınması

In any functioning democracy, the ability of parliamentarians to question the government, expose alleged wrongdoing, and speak freely is a fundamental pillar. Political immunity exists precisely for this reason: to protect elected representatives from judicial harassment and ensure they can perform their duties without fear of retribution. When this protection is undermined, the very foundations of democratic oversight are threatened.

İşleyen herhangi bir demokraside, parlamenterlerin hükümeti sorgulama, iddia edilen yanlışları ortaya çıkarma ve özgürce konuşma yeteneği temel bir dayanaktır. Siyasi dokunulmazlık tam da bu nedenle vardır: seçilmiş temsilcileri yargı tacizinden korumak ve görevlerini misilleme korkusu olmadan yerine getirebilmelerini sağlamak. Bu koruma zedelendiğinde, demokratik denetimin temelleri tehdit altına girer.

The Rising Trend of Legal Scrutiny on the Opposition
Muhalefet Üzerindeki Yasal İnceleme Eğiliminin Yükselişi

In recent years, Türkiye has witnessed a concerning trend where opposition members who vocalize allegations of corruption or criticize government policies face swift legal repercussions. The preparation of summaries of proceedings (fezleke) to lift parliamentary immunity has transformed from a rare necessity into a common political tool. This mechanism is increasingly deployed against those who bring uncomfortable truths to the public's attention, shifting the focus from the alleged corruption to the individuals exposing it.

Son yıllarda Türkiye, yolsuzluk iddialarını dile getiren veya hükümet politikalarını eleştiren muhalefet üyelerinin hızlı yasal sonuçlarla karşılaştığı endişe verici bir eğilime tanık olmaktadır. Parlamenter dokunulmazlığın kaldırılması için fezleke hazırlanması, nadir görülen bir zorunluluk olmaktan çıkıp yaygın bir siyasi araca dönüşmüştür. Bu mekanizma, rahatsız edici gerçekleri kamuoyunun dikkatine sunanlara karşı giderek daha fazla kullanılmakta ve odak noktasını iddia edilen yolsuzluklardan, bunları ortaya çıkaran bireylere kaydırmaktadır.

When politicians attempt to hold the ruling power accountable—whether by questioning public tenders awarded under suspicious circumstances, highlighting economic mismanagement, or revealing bureaucratic nepotism—they are performing their constitutional duty. Targeting these acts of transparency creates a political environment where silence is rewarded and critical inquiry is penalized.

Siyasetçiler, şüpheli koşullar altında verilen kamu ihalelerini sorgulayarak, ekonomik kötü yönetime dikkat çekerek veya bürokratik adam kayırmacılığı ortaya çıkararak iktidarı hesap vermeye zorlamaya çalıştıklarında, anayasal görevlerini yerine getirmektedirler. Bu şeffaflık eylemlerini hedef almak, sessizliğin ödüllendirildiği ve eleştirel sorgulamanın cezalandırıldığı bir siyasi ortam yaratmaktadır.

The Case of Turhan Çömez
Turhan Çömez Vakası

A recent and striking example of this pattern is the investigation launched against İYİ Party Member of Parliament Turhan Çömez. Known for his assertive political stance and his consistent efforts to bring government shortcomings to light, Çömez is now facing legal scrutiny. The justification provided for this new investigation is the alleged crime of "publicly disseminating misleading information."

Bu kalıbın son ve çarpıcı bir örneği, İYİ Parti Milletvekili Turhan Çömez hakkında başlatılan soruşturmadır. İddialı siyasi duruşu ve hükümetin eksikliklerini gün yüzüne çıkarma konusundaki tutarlı çabalarıyla bilinen Çömez, şu anda yasal bir incelemeyle karşı karşıyadır. Bu yeni soruşturma için sunulan gerekçe, "halkı yanıltıcı bilgiyi alenen yayma" suçlamasıdır.

Many political analysts and citizens share the skepticism that this accusation reflects a genuine legal concern. Instead, it is widely perceived as a strategic move to silence a prominent critical voice. By framing political dissent and the exposure of alleged corruption as the spread of "misleading information," the authorities can effectively weaponize the legal system against the opposition.

Birçok siyasi analist ve vatandaş, bu suçlamanın gerçek bir hukuki endişeyi yansıttığına dair şüpheyi paylaşmaktadır. Bunun yerine, yaygın olarak öne çıkan eleştirel bir sesi susturmaya yönelik stratejik bir hamle olarak algılanmaktadır. Siyasi muhalefeti ve iddia edilen yolsuzlukların ortaya çıkarılmasını "yanıltıcı bilginin" yayılması olarak çerçeveleyerek, yetkililer hukuk sistemini muhalefete karşı etkili bir şekilde silah olarak kullanabilmektedir.

The "Disinformation Law": Protection or Censorship?
"Dezenformasyon Yasası": Koruma mı Sansür mü?

The charge against Çömez stems from the controversial amendment to the penal code introduced in late 2022, often referred to as the "disinformation law" or "censorship law." While the stated legislative intent was to combat fake news and protect public order in the digital age, journalists, human rights organizations, and opposition parties heavily criticized the law from its inception.

Çömez'e yöneltilen suçlama, ceza kanununda 2022'nin sonlarında yapılan ve genellikle "dezenformasyon yasası" veya "sansür yasası" olarak adlandırılan tartışmalı değişiklikten kaynaklanmaktadır. Belirtilen yasama amacı dijital çağda yalan haberle mücadele etmek ve kamu düzenini korumak olsa da gazeteciler, insan hakları örgütleri ve muhalefet partileri yasayı en başından beri ağır bir şekilde eleştirmiştir.

The primary issue lies in the ambiguous and highly subjective definition of "misleading information." When the state holds the sole authority to determine what constitutes the "truth" any claim of corruption, economic failing, or systemic abuse brought forward by the opposition can easily be categorized as disinformation. This ambiguity turns the law into a flexible net, cast wide enough to catch any political adversary.

Temel sorun, "yanıltıcı bilginin" muğlak ve oldukça öznel tanımında yatmaktadır. Devlet "gerçeğin" ne olduğuna karar verme konusunda tek yetkiye sahip olduğunda, muhalefet tarafından öne sürülen herhangi bir yolsuzluk, ekonomik başarısızlık veya sistemik istismar iddiası kolaylıkla dezenformasyon olarak sınıflandırılabilir. Bu belirsizlik, yasayı herhangi bir siyasi rakibi yakalayacak kadar geniş atılmış esnek bir ağa dönüştürmektedir.

The Chilling Effect on Society
Toplum Üzerindeki Caydırıcı Etki

The broader consequence of investigating figures like Turhan Çömez goes far beyond the halls of parliament. It generates a profound "chilling effect" across the entire society. When members of parliament, who possess constitutional immunity and a direct mandate from the electorate, can be easily investigated for their public statements, ordinary citizens receive a clear warning.

Turhan Çömez gibi figürlerin soruşturulmasının daha geniş kapsamlı sonuçları, parlamento koridorlarının çok ötesine geçmektedir. Tüm toplum üzerinde derin bir "caydırıcı etki" (chilling effect) yaratmaktadır. Anayasal dokunulmazlığa ve seçmenden doğrudan yetkiye sahip milletvekilleri, kamuoyuna yaptıkları açıklamalar nedeniyle kolayca soruşturulabiliyorsa, sıradan vatandaşlar açık bir uyarı almış olur.

This atmosphere suppresses investigative journalism, discourages whistleblowers within state institutions from stepping forward, and creates widespread self-censorship among the public. A society where fear dictates what can and cannot be spoken is one that is fundamentally stripped of its democratic vitality. Transparency is replaced by opacity, and accountability is overshadowed by intimidation.

Bu atmosfer araştırmacı gazeteciliği bastırır, devlet kurumlarındaki bilgi sızdıranların (whistleblower) öne çıkmasını engeller ve halk arasında yaygın bir otosansür yaratır. Korkunun neyin konuşulup neyin konuşulamayacağını belirlediği bir toplum, demokratik canlılığından temelden yoksun bırakılmış bir toplumdur. Şeffaflığın yerini kapalılık alır ve hesap verebilirliğin gölgesinde sindirme kalır.

Conclusion
Sonuç

In conclusion, the foundation of a resilient republic is not built on the forced silence of its critics, but on the absolute transparency of its governance and the rigorous debate of its policies. The systematic lifting of immunities and the initiation of investigations against opposition MPs under the guise of combating disinformation highlight a critical juncture for Turkish democracy.

Sonuç olarak, dirençli bir cumhuriyetin temeli, eleştirmenlerinin zoraki sessizliği üzerine değil, yönetiminin mutlak şeffaflığı ve politikalarının titizlikle tartışılması üzerine kurulur. Dezenformasyonla mücadele kisvesi altında dokunulmazlıkların sistematik olarak kaldırılması ve muhalefet milletvekillerine yönelik soruşturmaların başlatılması, Türk demokrasisi için kritik bir dönüm noktasını vurgulamaktadır.

For democracy to survive and thrive, political opposition must be protected, and the act of exposing corruption must be treated as a civic duty, not a criminal offense. Ensuring that the judicial system remains an independent arbiter of justice, rather than an instrument of political suppression, is the only way to safeguard the nation's democratic future.

Demokrasinin hayatta kalması ve gelişmesi için siyasi muhalefet korunmalı ve yolsuzlukları ortaya çıkarma eylemi cezai bir suç değil, yurttaşlık görevi olarak görülmelidir. Yargı sisteminin siyasi bir baskı aracı olmaktan ziyade bağımsız bir adalet hakemi olarak kalmasını sağlamak, ülkenin demokratik geleceğini güvence altına almanın tek yoludur.