Global connections
Research & archive
A Haifa Format expert report, September 2026. Statements and examples in the explanations are the interviewees’ assessments; they are not independently verified findings.
Key findings
11 / 11
Experts who identified a campaign
10 / 11
Selected the Jerusalem holy-sites objective
7 / 11
Prioritized long-term institutions and programs
25
Weighted points for litigation
Methodology
The Haifa Format project asked 11 specialists to assess Turkey's information campaign against Israel. The report combines counts from closed questions with thematic coding of open answers. Respondents could select multiple answers where indicated. In ranked questions, first, second and third places are weighted 3, 2 and 1; with two ranks, weights are 2 and 1. Weighted scores are points, not people or percentages. The panel was purposive; its judgments are not representative of public opinion and are not independent proof of the events or intentions discussed.
| Distribution | Numerical basis |
|---|---|
| Unanimous | 11 of 11 |
| Nearly unanimous | 9–10 of 11 |
| Clear majority | 7–8 of 11 |
| Simple majority | 6 of 11 |
| Divided views | No option reached six or comparable alternatives were offered |
| Rare or isolated view | 1–2 experts |
| Coding element | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Theme | Short formulation of a recurring position or argument |
| Basis | Features used to classify a passage under a theme |
| Prevalence | Number of experts using the argument or supporting the view |
| Standing of the view | Priority, widespread, minority or isolated |
| Quotation | Short excerpt that accurately conveys the position |
| Limit of inference | Boundary of applicability or lack of evidence noted by the expert |
| No. | Question |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Does Turkey conduct an information campaign against Israel? |
| 1.2 | Explain your answer. |
| 2.1 | How systematic is the campaign? |
| 2.2 | Explain your answer. |
| 3.1 | Select or add the principal geopolitical objectives Turkey pursues through the campaign. |
| 3.2 | Explain your answer. |
| 4.1 | Who is the most important target audience? |
| 4.2 | Explain your answer. |
| 5.1 | Are there actors inside Israel who use similar anti-Israel narratives in political debate? |
| 5.2 | If yes, who are they and what narratives do they use? |
| 6.1 | Which listed narratives are present in Turkey's campaign? |
| No. | Question |
|---|---|
| 6.2 | Which narratives cause Israel the greatest harm, in your view? |
| 6.3 | Explain the nature of the harm. |
| 7.1 | Which channels have the most short-term influence on the international agenda and how foreign officials and media discuss Israel? |
| 7.2 | Which institutions and programs produce the most durable results after the agenda shifts? |
| 7.3 | What should Israel prioritize in the next three years? |
| 8.1 | Which instruments cause the greatest harm to Israel? |
| 8.2 | Explain your answer. |
| No. | Expert specialization |
|---|---|
| 1 | International politics specialist |
| 2 | National security expert |
| 3 | Religion scholar |
| 4 | Commentator |
| 5 | Political scientist |
| 6 | Arab affairs specialist |
| 7 | International economist |
| 8 | Historian |
| 9 | Information campaigns specialist |
| 10 | International relations expert |
| 11 | International politics specialist |
Do experts see a campaign?
All 11 specialists answered yes. The closed question measures whether they interpret the activities as a campaign. It does not measure its reach, its effectiveness, or whether there is a single operational command.
| Response | Experts |
|---|---|
| Yes | 11 |
| No | 0 |
| Don't know | 0 |
| Total | 11 |
What the assessments are based on
Official statements and multilingual state media were the most frequently cited grounds (seven experts each), followed by permanent infrastructure (six). Five pointed to diplomatic and legal action, five to links with wider policy, and four to positioning around Jerusalem. Experts could cite more than one ground.
| Reason cited | Experts citing it |
|---|---|
| Public statements by Turkish officials and agencies | 7 |
| Turkish state media and multilingual distribution | 7 |
| Permanent institutions, funding and infrastructure | 6 |
| Diplomatic and international legal action | 5 |
| Religious and symbolic positioning around Jerusalem | 4 |
| Links to broader political, economic or military strategy | 5 |
Official statements and state media
The panel points to statements by senior officials and the presidency's communications apparatus alongside Anadolu and TRT. Specialists describe a division of labor: statements set the frame, while state and multilingual media keep it in circulation across audiences. These are the panel's interpretations of institutional practice.
Permanent institutional infrastructure
Experts describe a standing network of government offices, state-linked agencies, funding and programs that can operate between crises. The existence of institutions is analytically distinct from evidence that every public statement is centrally coordinated.
Diplomacy and legal action
Some specialists see multilateral statements, resolutions and litigation as a way of translating communication into formal political or legal processes. The report records their assessments rather than adjudicating the underlying legal claims.
Religion and symbolism around Jerusalem
Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa are described as symbols through which Turkey presents a role in protecting Muslim holy sites. The report connects this positioning to durable religious and social ties; the panel does not independently establish the effectiveness of these initiatives.
Links with wider Turkish policy
Experts relate communications to diplomatic positioning, regional economic routes, security and the future governance and reconstruction of Gaza. They differ in how much weight to give domestic politics, external events and enduring strategic aims.
How systematic is the campaign?
Four selected a strategic direction activated by events, one a proactive long-term strategy and one a primarily reactive approach within a broad posture; five chose other descriptions. In open explanations, several described a standing strategic frame with intensity rising during crises. The qualitative pattern and the closed-answer counts should be read separately.
| Response | Experts |
|---|---|
| Proactive, comprehensive long-term strategy | 1 |
| Strategic direction activated by events | 4 |
| Primarily tactical responses within a broad posture | 1 |
| Spontaneous stimulus and response | 0 |
| Other | 5 |
| Total | 11 |
Perceived geopolitical objectives
A special role around Jerusalem's Muslim holy sites was selected by 10 and ranked first by five (23 points). Marginalizing Israel was named by nine (18 points), and gaining a role in Gaza's reconstruction and postwar order by eight (14 points). Other options included alternatives to the Abraham Accords and an India–Europe route through Syria and Turkey. These are inferred objectives; the report distinguishes institutional, symbolic and material roles.
Perceived geopolitical objectives
Gain recognition of Turkey's special role regarding Jerusalem's Muslim holy sites
Selected: 10 · Weighted points: 23
Marginalize Israel and portray it as principally responsible for regional tensions
Selected: 9 · Weighted points: 18
Join Gaza reconstruction and shape the postwar order
Selected: 8 · Weighted points: 14
| Proposed objective | Selected | First | Second | Third | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marginalize Israel and portray it as principally responsible for regional tensions | 9 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 18 |
| Weaken the Abraham Accords and advance alternative regional security and cooperation | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Promote an India–Europe route via Syria and Turkey to compete with the Haifa route | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Gain recognition of Turkey's special role regarding Jerusalem's Muslim holy sites | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 23 |
| Join Gaza reconstruction and shape the postwar order | 8 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 14 |
| Other | 4 | 0 | — | — | — |
In the source table of geopolitical objectives, first-place counts sum to 12 for 11 experts, and there are 36 selections including “Other.” This does not match the stated rule of at most three selections and one first place per expert. The original figures are retained; the discrepancy cannot be resolved without the individual responses.
Who the campaign addresses
Nine experts named Arab societies in the region and seven Western governments; each was ranked the primary audience by five. European Muslim communities and international rights organizations or courts were each named by six, Turkish society by five and Arab citizens of Israel by four. The number of mentions and the number ranking an audience first answer different questions.
Who the campaign addresses
Arab societies in the region
Selected: 9 · Primary: 5
Western governments
Selected: 7 · Primary: 5
Muslim communities in Europe
Selected: 6 · Primary: 0
| Target audience | Selected | Primary |
|---|---|---|
| Turkish public | 5 | 1 |
| Arab societies in the region | 9 | 5 |
| Muslim communities in Europe | 6 | 0 |
| Western governments | 7 | 5 |
| International rights organizations, courts and related audiences | 6 | 0 |
| Arab citizens of Israel | 4 | 0 |
| Jewish population of Israel | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 1 | 0 |
Similar narratives inside Israel
Seven experts saw similar narratives in Israeli political or public debate, one did not and three did not know. Mentions included opposition voices, parts of academia and rights advocacy, and Arab political or Arabic-language public debate. Similar language does not establish coordination, origin, or a relationship with the Turkish government.
| Response | Experts |
|---|---|
| Yes | 7 |
| No | 1 |
| Don't know | 3 |
| Total | 11 |
| Actors cited by experts | Similar narratives | Experts | Example, paraphrased |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parts of Israel's opposition | Decisions and military escalation interpreted as aimed at Netanyahu's political survival | 3 | An expert linked references to external threats to political survival and unnecessary escalation. |
| Academia, rights advocacy and some legislators | Colonial framing and allegations of systematic destruction of civilians | 3 | An expert noted that descriptions of colonialism and systematic destruction were voiced inside Israel. |
| Arab political actors and public figures | Claims concerning Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa, Palestinian rights and Muslim holy sites | 2 | An expert distinguished who uses the words from where they originated. |
| Arabic-language public discourse in Israel | Al-Aqsa in danger, Jerusalem's Judaization, Murabitun and Murabitat, and criticism of settlements or operations | 1 | An expert attributed key formulations to Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. |
Narratives identified in the campaign
All 11 marked narratives accusing Israel of genocide and of violating international norms. Ten marked a narrative concerning Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, nine a colonial frame and eight the portrayal of Israel as an instrument of U.S. interests. These labels identify claims the experts reported seeing, not findings that the claims are true.
| Narrative | Experts | Example, paraphrased |
|---|---|---|
| Israel framed as a Western colonial project against the Global South | 9 | Formulations about the colonial character of the state. |
| Israel accused of genocide against the Arab population | 11 | References to the Netanyahu government as genocidal. |
| Israel portrayed as usurping Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa | 10 | Ankara presented as a defender of Jerusalem in official and state media statements. |
| Israel portrayed as an instrument of U.S. geopolitical interests | 8 | Netanyahu depicted as an obstacle to a U.S.–Iran deal. |
| Israel accused of violating international norms, rules and agreements | 11 | Public diplomacy, multilateral activity and appeals to international law. |
| Other narrative | 3 | Israel portrayed as a source of regional instability and an obstacle to a postwar settlement in Gaza. |
Which narratives were rated most damaging?
Nine experts selected the genocide accusation as particularly damaging and eight the claim of systematic international violations. Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa were selected by four, a colonial framing by three and the U.S. instrument framing by one. Respondents could select up to two, so these are counts of selections, not separate populations.
| Narrative | Experts | Example, paraphrased |
|---|---|---|
| Israel framed as a Western colonial project against the Global South | 3 | Places the conflict in a global confrontation and challenges Israel's legitimacy. |
| Israel accused of genocide against the Arab population | 9 | Associated with serious political and international legal consequences. |
| Israel portrayed as usurping Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa | 4 | Mobilizes Muslim audiences and heightens the religious dimension. |
| Israel portrayed as an instrument of U.S. geopolitical interests | 1 | Portrays Israel as lacking agency in regional politics. |
| Israel accused of violating international norms, rules and agreements | 8 | Accusations may lead to formal procedures. |
| None | 0 | — |
| Other narrative | 1 | Directly attributes regional instability to Israel. |
How experts describe the harm
The explanations distinguish reputational harm, pressure on diplomatic relationships, formal legal consequences and the durability of institutional and symbolic ties. Specialists describe routes by which accusations can enter hearings, resolutions and public debate. The survey does not quantify actual damage or show what would have happened without the campaign.
Short-term channels
Official statements and presidential communications received 12 weighted points, Anadolu 10, TRT 6 and statements in multilateral forums 4. The two-rank weighting favors first places. The result describes relative judgments among this panel, not measured audience sizes.
Short-term channels
Statements by Erdoğan and the presidential communications directorate
Selected: 8 · Weighted points: 12
Anadolu Agency
Selected: 7 · Weighted points: 10
TRT channels, including international, Arabic, Hebrew and Russian services
Selected: 5 · Weighted points: 6
| Channel | Selected | First | Second | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statements by Erdoğan and the presidential communications directorate | 8 | 4 | 4 | 12 |
| Anadolu Agency | 7 | 3 | 4 | 10 |
| TRT channels, including international, Arabic, Hebrew and Russian services | 5 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Statements by Turkish representatives at the UN, OIC and NATO | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Long-term institutions and programs
Diyanet, TDV, mosques and scholarship programs received 14 weighted points; TİKA and associated activity in East Jerusalem received 12; cultural and education organizations and television series received 6. Panelists emphasize durable education, religious, social and cultural relationships alongside fast-moving media coverage.
Long-term institutions and programs
Diyanet, TDV, mosques and scholarship programs
Selected: 9 · Weighted points: 14
TİKA and associated organizations in East Jerusalem
Selected: 8 · Weighted points: 12
Yunus Emre, Maarif and Turkish television series
Selected: 4 · Weighted points: 6
| Institution or program | Selected | First | Second | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diyanet, TDV, mosques and scholarship programs | 9 | 5 | 4 | 14 |
| TİKA and associated organizations in East Jerusalem | 8 | 4 | 4 | 12 |
| Yunus Emre, Maarif and Turkish television series | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Turkish diaspora organizations in Europe | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Priorities over three years
Seven experts prioritized long-term institutions and programs, two short-term channels and two both equally. Their recommendations reflect judgments about persistence and timing rather than tested interventions.
| Response | Experts |
|---|---|
| Short-term messaging and channels | 2 |
| Long-term institutions and programs | 7 |
| Both equally | 2 |
| Total | 11 |
Instruments ranked most damaging
Litigation was selected by 10 and ranked first by six, giving it 25 points. UN resolutions and permanent East Jerusalem institutional activity each received 13 points; camera-visible escalations received eight and international statements six. The experts stressed that legal procedures can outlast the news cycle, and noted distinct effects from institutions, public statements and dramatic images.
Instruments ranked most damaging
Initiating or joining international and domestic legal proceedings against Israel
Selected: 10 · Weighted points: 25
Advancing resolutions against Israel at the UN
Selected: 7 · Weighted points: 13
Actions prompting Israel to use force on camera, including attempts to breach Gaza's maritime blockade
Selected: 5 · Weighted points: 8
| Instrument | Selected | First | Second | Third | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiating or joining international and domestic legal proceedings against Israel | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 25 |
| Advancing resolutions against Israel at the UN | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 13 |
| Actions prompting Israel to use force on camera, including attempts to breach Gaza's maritime blockade | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Supporting international statements condemning Israel | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Permanent Turkish institutions in East Jerusalem, including consular, religious and educational activity and TİKA | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Other | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Theme | Explanation | Experts | Example, paraphrased |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long-lasting effects of legal procedures | Legal action turns accusations into procedures, decisions and documents that may be used for years. | 10 | Effects may persist years after the war. |
| Permanent presence through East Jerusalem activity | Programs build local ties, infrastructure and a basis for influence. | 6 | A growing network of local contacts and influence. |
| UN resolutions increase international pressure | Resolutions and joint statements place criticism on the interstate agenda. | 7 | Public diplomacy, multilateral forums and international law. |
| Visual escalation raises reputational risks | Images of Israeli force reinforce a negative media agenda. | 5 | Actions that induce visible use of force. |
| Joint statements widen the circle of governments voicing criticism | Collective condemnation increases pressure but is judged less durable than legal action or institutions. | 4 | Joining international statements condemning Israel. |
Conclusions and limitations
The experts described a combination of public diplomacy, multilingual news, international legal initiatives and religious and symbolic positioning. Their answers point to both rapid agenda setting and longer-lived institutional relationships. The 11-person panel cannot establish a single center of coordination, measure the campaign's causal effects, or capture all Turkish political debate. The report represents the September 2026 assessment and should be read as a dated expert snapshot.