Marking two years since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Israeli analyst Shay Gal spoke to SigmaLive (Part II of the interview) about developments in the Middle East, the strategic convergence between Cyprus and Israel, and the role of Turkey in the region’s shifting geopolitical landscape.
Gal drew a direct comparison between the October 7 attacks and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, calling it “the October 7 of Cyprus.”
He sharply criticised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, accusing him of attempting to “whitewash crimes” and shift blame onto others.
According to Gal, Cyprus’s real security framework does not lie within NATO, but rather in the Lisbon Treaty, which legally binds all EU member states to mutual defence.
He also denounced efforts to reintegrate Turkey into Western weapons systems, describing it as a “historic mistake” and a “repeat of Munich 1938.” Gal warned that advanced fighter jets such as the F-35 could one day be turned against Cyprus, Greece or even Israel.
Part II of the interview follows:
Next Tuesday marks two years since the brutal attack of October 7, 2023 from Hamas against Israel. In light of everything that has happened since then, where would you say we stand today?
On October 7, 2023, on a Saturday morning, we awoke to hell. Hundreds of terrorists crossed the fences, stormed homes, and massacred entire families. Children were burned alive in their bedrooms, women raped before their children, infants abducted, elderly – Holocaust survivors – dragged by the Nazis of our time into Gaza on golf carts before a cheering crowd. Twelve hundred Israelis were slaughtered in a single day – darker than anything the Jewish people had endured since the Holocaust. This was not a battle, but a premeditated crime of extermination, with death dances in Gaza’s squares and candy handed out on the blood of innocents.
But the State of Israel did not remain on its knees. In the two years that followed, it embarked on a determined campaign that restored its strategic initiative. In April 2024, Ismail Haniyeh was eliminated in Tehran – a crystal-clear message that no terrorist is immune, and no territory that shelters terror will ever be safe. In August 2024, Hassan Nasrallah – the man who threatened not only Tel Aviv but also Nicosia – was erased, and Hezbollah was nearly dismantled. In January 2025, the Houthi leadership was struck – a group armed by Iran, supplied by China, enabled by Turkey, that disrupted global energy routes, fired missiles at merchant ships, and threatened Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. In June 2025, Iran’s nuclear project was fatally hit – lifting from our region the nightmare of an atomic bomb in the hands of a murderous regime.
The message was clear: those who planned October 7, those who threatened to turn the region into a graveyard, learned that Israel not only has the right to defend itself – but the power and resolve to do so.
And when I think of Israel’s October 7, I cannot avoid Cyprus’s July 20, 1974 – the October 7th of Cyprus: a planned invasion, rape, abductions, mass displacement. Those who claimed to be preventing genocide in fact committed crimes against humanity. In Cyprus, this October 7 has already lasted fifty-one years.
Only a few days ago, I was honored to be invited by Cyprus’s Ambassador to Israel, Kornelios S. Korneliou, and his Deputy, Stavros Nicolaou, to the Independence Day reception of Cyprus in Tel Aviv. At the event there was an exhibition – and among the images was this one: children and mothers holding photographs of their missing loved ones, demanding their return, marching with signs that read “Bring Daddy back to me” or “We want our children.” Looking at those faces, I could not help but feel the same echo of anguish that Israelis felt on and after October 7. The cries of Cypriot children in 1974 and the cries of Israeli children in 2023 are part of the same human wound: the agony of abduction, the absence of loved ones, the demand for truth and justice.
I watched President Nikos Christodoulides at the United Nations. He said, simply and clearly: the occupation is not a story of the past – it is an ongoing crime. His words were not only a call for historical justice, but living proof that Cyprus neither surrenders nor yields – even after half a century of occupation. At that moment, every Israeli could see in his speech the experience of the Cypriot people.
And yet, in response to his speech, in occupied northern Cyprus – a fictitious state recognized by no one – a Turkish veterans’ group declared that the 1974 invasion ‘prevented genocide’. This is the great lie of fifty years – the executioner posing as savior. To call massacre, rape, and mass displacement ‘prevention’ is like calling October 7 a humanitarian mission.
The hypocrisy begins already in Beştepe: Erdoğan himself accused Israel of genocide. And here we must say one truth, simple and clear: those who preach this word are those who built a supermarket of crimes against humanity. Erdoğan’s Turkey – the heir to the Ottoman Empire – annihilated Armenians, marched Pontic Greeks to death, massacred Assyrians, crushed Kurds, uprooted Cypriots, and today embraces Hamas leaders in Ankara, granting Turkish passports to their operatives. Turkey projects its own crimes onto others. And when Erdoğan dares to utter that word in New York, the extinguished eyes of millions stare back, reminding him: this word is written in our blood, not on his papers.
Israel and Cyprus therefore share a single destiny. Both peoples have known invasion and loss, yet both chose life over despair, truth over denial, freedom over fear. What unites us is not only the wounds of history, but the decision to transform those wounds into strength. The Eastern Mediterranean does not belong to those who brought death upon it – it belongs to those who keep faith with life. And together, Israel and Cyprus will not be remembered as victims of the past, but as builders of a future worthy of our children.
In a recent analysis, you argued that Article 5 (NATO) is more of a political option than a security guarantee. Do you think Turkey fully grasps this difference, or is Ankara still treating NATO as an automatic shield?
Article 5 of NATO has never been a blank check. It was invoked only once – after 9/11 – and even then each ally chose its own response. It is a political option, not a legal obligation. Those who believe Article 5 is an automatic shield discover in the moment of truth that it depends on the will of dozens of capitals.
Turkey still behaves as if NATO is a guaranteed umbrella, even while hosting Hamas leaders in Istanbul, violating international law in Cyprus and the Mediterranean, and deepening its dependence on Russia through the Akkuyu nuclear project. But this is precisely its weakness: if NATO states were asked to back Ankara in a confrontation involving Hamas, illegal occupation, or aggression against Cyprus, they would run headlong into their binding legal obligations under the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty.
This is the decisive difference. Cyprus is not in NATO, but it is a full member of the European Union – and under the Lisbon Treaty, Article 42(7), it enjoys a binding mutual defense clause. Lisbon is law; Article 5 is politics. The Treaty obliges every EU state to provide assistance if a member is attacked. As long as the EU recognizes the occupied north as part of Cyprus’s sovereignty, and as long as the EU designates Hamas as a terrorist organization, the implications are clear: if Israel strikes Hamas infrastructure on Turkish soil, any EU state siding with Ankara would be violating EU law. If forces move to dismantle Turkish drone and missile bases in the occupied north, EU law would see it as enforcement of legality, not aggression. NATO cannot be used to override European law. In any collision between Lisbon and Article 5, Lisbon prevails.
And the illusion in Ankara is not only political but popular. Surveys by KONDA – one of Turkey’s most reputable independent polling institutes – show that a clear majority of Turks see the United States and NATO as hostile, not friendly. Metropoll, another highly regarded and independent research center, has repeatedly found that Turks view Russia and Iran more positively than NATO. Even SETA, a pro-government think tank in Ankara, has published perception surveys depicting NATO as problematic, at times even adversarial. These are not marginal findings: they reveal that Turkish society itself no longer believes NATO is its shield. Ankara treats Article 5 like an ATM – but the account is empty.
That is why, for Turkey, Article 5 is dead. For Cyprus, the real shield is Lisbon, which legally binds twenty-seven states to its defense – plus one, Israel. Not a member of NATO, not a member of the EU, but a partner that proves in deeds what others only promise in words. For us too, the lesson is clear: security cannot rest on political options, but on law, on truth, and on alliances that are tested and proven. NATO was built to defend allies from external aggression – not to defend them from their own contradictions. Cyprus, thanks to Lisbon, already holds a stronger guarantee than Turkey can ever hope to receive from NATO. That is the reality Ankara refuses to face – and the clarity on which Nicosia can rely.
How do you assess the recent meeting between President Erdoğan and President Trump at the White House, and do you believe Turkey can play a role in shaping the future of the Middle East?
This was not a meeting – it was a test.
Washington provided the stage; Ankara sought legitimacy. But appeasement is not strategy, and appeasing Erdoğan is a historic mistake. A leader who has violated NATO rules, bought Russian weapons, tested missiles aimed at Athens, produced fighter aircraft prone to technology leaks, built a nuclear power plant under Moscow’s control less than 200 kilometers from Nicosia, and continues to occupy European Union territory in Cyprus – is not a trustworthy partner. Seating him at the White House and discussing advanced weapons sales is not risk management; it is financing a threat. History has already spoken: Munich 1938 promised peace and delivered war. Munich on the Potomac could end the same way – in catastrophe.
From Nicosia, Athens, and Jerusalem the view is clear.
The meeting was perceived as an attempt to whitewash Ankara: a conversation that looked pleasant in Washington, while Erdoğan declared that the federal model in Cyprus is finished, and that he will “take what is his” in the Eastern Mediterranean. The question everyone asks is simple: is Washington truly prepared to reward a state that has kept soldiers on occupied land for over five decades? Is it really willing to hand advanced weaponry to a regime that hosts Hamas, funds the Houthis sinking Greek ships, and threatens Israel?
Turkey has a clear ambition – to hold the nuclear card.
The Akkuyu nuclear plant is not just an energy project – it is a potential proliferation hub, built and operated under Russian control, dangerously close to the heart of Cyprus. Its very location is a threat to Nicosia and to the region as a whole. And we must remember: Erdoğan himself already said, “Some countries have nuclear missiles and tell us we cannot have them – I do not accept this.” These words, together with Akkuyu, are not theoretical – they are a dangerous declaration of intent.
One cannot ignore the simple question: what will F-35s be used for if delivered to Turkey?
They will not be directed against Russia, from whom Ankara buys weapons systems and nuclear reactors. They will not deter Iran, with whom Turkey coordinates in regional maneuvers. They will be used against our region – against the sovereignty of Cyprus, against the security of Greece, against the cities of Israel – and also against the Kurdish people, who have become Ankara’s scapegoat. Let us be clear: the same F-35s recklessly sold today could tomorrow be the ones aimed at Kurdish women and children, at Cypriot shores, at Athens’ skies, and at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Turkey has already shown what it does with Western technology: the Bayraktar drone was born of Western engineering and meant for limited use, yet it was copied, sold into gray markets, and transferred to hostile actors. The same will happen here: what is handed to Ankara will leak onward to Iran’s clients – and in the end be turned against the democracies. To believe the F-35 will remain solely in Turkish hands is to ignore Ankara’s well-known habit: take Western systems, replicate them, and sell them on – even to the West’s enemies.
Turkey cannot be a shaping force for the region’s future so long as it insists on remaining an occupying and destabilizing power.
The occupation of northern Cyprus is not a given reality but an ongoing crime. As long as Turkey clings to 1974 as if it were eternal, it is not shaping the Middle East – it is sabotaging it. Stability will not come from expanding the “Blue Homeland,” but from recognizing clearly that the occupation must end, and that only the lawful sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus is the answer.
The reality is plain: advanced weapons cannot be given to those who occupy, fund, and destabilize. Selling F-16s or even hinting at F-35s is not “alliance cooperation,” it is a prize for occupation. Erdoğan seeks to export his internal crisis outward – to Gaza, to the Aegean, to northern Cyprus – and every “appeasement” only gives him more oxygen.
The Eastern Mediterranean belongs to those who keep it open, free, and lawful.
Nicosia, Athens, and Jerusalem will not accept a reality of permanent occupation, nor allow our sea to become a playground for imagined empires. Ending the occupation is not a side condition – it is the starting point of any regional future. As long as it endures, Turkey cannot claim to be “shaping the future.”
And therefore: neither Cyprus, nor Israel, nor Greece will be the victims of Munich on the Potomac.
Cyprus will not agree to be the Czechoslovakia of 2025; Israel and Greece will not agree to be Poland – the fleeting promise will not save us when, months later, we face the same historical price of appeasement that Poland paid on September 1, 1939. That is the price of appeasement – and here, we will not allow it.
The bottom line: appeasement of Ankara is not stability but illusion. Just as in Munich, the cost of that mistake will be paid in the Mediterranean. If Turkey wishes to be part of the solution, it must end the occupation, stop embracing terror, and put an end to nuclear ambitions that endanger us all. If not, the future will be written by Nicosia, Athens, and Jerusalem – three capitals that understand our sea does not belong to those who occupy it, but to those who choose to build in it a lawful and just order.
Also read: Shay Gal interview: Cyprus-Israel deterrence and the fear of Turkey
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
