How Turkish media is trying to turn the Kurds against Israel - opinion

Over the past week, something deeply troubling has happened twice: Turkish media outlets have published statements attributed to senior Kurdish military figures portraying Israel as an enemy or potential military target — statements that were subsequently denied by the individuals concerned or by senior representatives of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The effect of such reports is obvious: to create confrontation and suspicion between Israel and the Kurds at an especially sensitive moment for the future of Syria.

This should not be dismissed as two isolated journalistic errors. It reflects a broader information war aimed at manipulating perceptions of the Kurds, Israel and the rapidly changing political landscape in Syria.

On August 17, Türkiye Gazetesi published statements attributed to M. Berxwedan, the YPG commander associated with the Kurdish city of Kobani. Among the claims attributed to him was that if Kurdish forces were ordered to deploy to the Golan, Quneitra and Daraa fronts against Israel, they would do so and fight. The same reporting portrayed Israel as a threat to the Kurds.

The claims were subsequently circulated more widely by regional media.

But the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) later reported that the statements attributed to Berxwedan concerning deployment against Israel were fabricated and had no basis in reality. According to SOHR, sources warned that publishing such statements could damage Berxwedan’s standing in Kurdish society and undermine the reputation of a commander associated with the liberation of Kobani from ISIS — a commander who led forces that fought until the final stages of the battle before the intervention of the US-led coalition.

Then, only days later, the same newspaper published another questionable story.

On August 22, Türkiye Gazetesi published an article under the headline: “Sipan Hemo, one of the founders of the SDF: We opened a new page despite Israel.” The article attributed statements to Hemo portraying Israel as a force attempting to undermine the integration process between the SDF and the Syrian interim government, and suggesting that those who wanted to use the Kurds as a military force — including Israel — had lost.

Again, the statements were denied.

Farhad Shami, head of the SDF Media Center, said that Sipan Hemo denied making the remarks or expressing the positions attributed to him.

Two incidents in one week. The same Turkish newspaper. Similar political messaging. And in both cases, serious questions about the authenticity of the quotes.

That is enough to warrant much greater scrutiny. We are not simply dealing with bad journalism. We are witnessing what appears to be a deliberate information strategy.

Erdogan is attempting to exploit the current so-called “peace process” with the Kurds in Turkey to consolidate his influence over Syria and the wider region. Ankara wants to shape the emerging Syrian military and political order according to its own strategic and ideological interests.

At the same time, Turkish propaganda is increasingly attempting to define how the Kurds are perceived by Israel, and how Israel is perceived by the Kurds.

That is where the danger lies.

If Kurdish commanders can be falsely portrayed as preparing to fight Israel, Israeli society and decision-makers may begin to view the Kurds with suspicion.

If Israel is portrayed to Kurdish audiences as secretly attempting to use Kurdish forces against Damascus, Ankara or other regional actors, Kurdish society can likewise become suspicious of Israel.

The result is exactly what Turkey would want: distance between Kurdistan and Israel.

The Kurdish position is clear. It would therefore be deeply cynical to manufacture statements suggesting that Kurdish commanders are now eager to fight Israel. Kurds genuinely believe that Israel’s security and the security of Kurdistan are not mutually exclusive objectives. On the contrary, both nations have been at the forefront of the fight against jihadist extremist organizations such as ISIS, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

So why is Turkey constantly bringing Israel into the Kurdish story? That is the question Israeli policymakers should be asking.

Why does Turkish media repeatedly feel the need to insert Israel into statements attributed to Kurdish leaders?

Because Israel is becoming increasingly important to the emerging Syrian equation. The recent Israeli strike on the Abu al-Duhur airbase has further highlighted the growing tension surrounding Syria’s future. Jolani [Ahmed al-Sharaa] is attempting to consolidate his rule, while Erdogan is attempting to shape Syria’s political and military order.

In this environment, Ankara has an obvious strategic interest in preventing an independent relationship from developing between Israel and the Kurds.

If Israel and the Kurds develop greater political understanding, communication or cooperation, Turkey loses part of its ability to define the regional narrative.

The easiest way to undermine such a relationship is to poison it before it develops.

A regional media echo chamber

There is also a wider regional media ecosystem that amplifies these narratives.

A story originating in Turkish media can quickly be repeated by other regional outlets, including media associated with Qatar. Once repeated several times, an unverified claim begins to look like established fact.

This is the nature of modern information warfare. Eventually, the original question — “Did this person actually say it?” — is forgotten.

Israel now has an important strategic choice to make.

It can continue to understand Kurdish affairs largely through the prism of Ankara and other regional actors. Or it can develop direct channels of communication with Kurdish political, military and civil society representatives.

I believe the second option is essential.

The Kurds are not a Turkish proxy. They are an independent national actor with their own interests, fears and ambitions.

The absence of a meaningful Israeli role in Kurdish affairs gives Turkey considerable room to maneuver. It allows Ankara to portray the Kurds differently depending on the audience: as terrorists when speaking to Turkish society, as Israeli proxies when speaking to Arabs, and as potential enemies of Israel when speaking to Israelis.

We should not accept this framing.

The only reliable way to understand Kurdish intentions is to listen to Kurdish voices directly.

The ultimate objective of this propaganda is not merely to attack Israel or discredit individual Kurdish commanders. It is to create enough fear and uncertainty that the Kurds will think twice before taking any step toward Israel, because Turkey is waiting to manipulate, distort and sabotage that relationship.

That is why we must look beyond the headlines. And that is why we must not allow Ankara to define our relationship with regional actors.

If Turkey is so afraid of a Kurdish-Israeli relationship, perhaps that relationship deserves to be taken more seriously.