Turkey has remained quiet about the Israeli airstrikes in Syria over the last few days. Not that there is anything surprising about this silence as Turkish and Israeli delegations meet in Jerusalem for the second time today [May 6], since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized on March 22 for the deadly May 2010 Mavi Marmara incident and set the stage to normalize relations between the two countries. While Ankara’s silence signals that Turkey is determined to end the bad blood over the Mavi Marmara incident, there is no guarantee that the two sides will ever trust one another like they used to.

Therefore, there may be two ways to interpret Ankara’s silence over the Israeli airstrikes in Syria for now — that it’s all about the timing, coinciding with the ongoing compensation talks in Jerusalem and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s upcoming visit to the White House scheduled for May 16. It was after all US President Barack Obama who brokered the apology from Netanyahu in his first visit to Israel, and that US Secretary of State John Kerry has already expressed their disapproval about Erdogan’s announced potential visit to Gaza toward the end of May. In other words, one may need to take caution before attributing too much significance to this silence. What is striking in all of this diplomatic politicking is how the Erdogan government’s swinging pendulum in the friend or foe relationship with Israel makes Ankara’s assertive “principled policy” be questioned.

It is not to say Erdogan is insincere about anything he says concerning Israel. Not at all. The prime minister means what he says, and he says what he thinks. There is no question about it. But he and his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have been playing for a leadership role of the Sunni Muslim world, and have stood out in Middle East politics by bashing Israel at any given opportunity, as it is the easiest way to attract attention and become a popular leader. Erdogan’s popularity skyrocketed all around and many analysts in Turkey started to argue quite appealingly that the nation-state has come to an end, and that Erdogan’s embraced leadership in the region marks the return of the Ottoman Empire back to its lost lands. Those who interpret the developments in such fashion won’t change their minds easily, but it’s far from reality.

That said, they may give it a try to question Ankara’s silence to the recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria and wonder whether that silence is kept for Turkey’s national interests or for the benefit of the Muslim populations at large. Egypt has condemned the strikes, as well as the Arab League. The United Nations has also expressed concern for the implication of these strikes to the region. As always, Iran sent a strong condemnation message, and there are commentaries in the region already accusing Turkey of switching sides. Put simply, Israeli behavior is not changing, but Turkey presents an inconsistent posture against Israel.