Turkey’s top diplomat announced on Friday that Ankara has closed its ports and airspace to Israeli ships and aircraft, with a diplomatic source telling AFP that the restrictions specifically target “official” flights. The move comes amid escalating tensions between Turkey and Israel, reflecting Ankara’s strong stance in response to recent developments in Gaza.

The decision is expected to impact diplomatic and official travel, while signaling Turkey’s growing disapproval of Israeli actions in the region.

Ties between Turkey and Israel have been shattered by Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, with Ankara accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in the tiny Palestinian territory — a term roundly rejected by Israel — and suspending all trade ties in May last year.

“We have closed our ports to Israeli ships. We do not allow Turkish ships to go to Israeli ports…. We do not allow container ships carrying weapons and ammunition to Israel to enter our ports, nor do we allow their aircraft to enter our airspace,” Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told lawmakers in a televised address.

Asked for clarification about the minister’s remarks, a Turkish diplomatic source said its airspace was “closed to all aircraft carrying weapons (to Israel) and to Israel’s official flights”.

It was not immediately clear when the airspace restrictions were put in place.

In November, Turkey refused to let the Israeli president’s plane cross its airspace, forcing him to cancel a planned visit to the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan.

And in May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a visit to Baku after Ankara reportedly refused overflight rights.

Trade cut off:

On Monday ZIM, Israel’s biggest shipping firm, said it had been informed that under new regulations passed by Ankara on August 22, “vessels that are either owned, managed or operated by an entity related to Israel will not be permitted to berth in Turkish ports”.

The information was made public in a filing to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in which ZIM warned the new regulation was expected to “negatively impact on the company’s financial and operational results”.

The ban also extended to other ships carrying military cargo destined for Israel, it said.

“Separately.. vessels that are carrying military cargo destined to Israel will not be permitted to berth in Turkish ports; in addition, Turkish-flagged vessels will be prohibited from berthing in Israeli ports.”

Fidan’s remarks were the first public acknowledgement of the ban.

“No other country has cut off trade with Israel,” he told Turkish lawmakers at an emergency session on the Gaza crisis.

Turkish officials have repeatedly insisted that all trade ties with Israel have been cut, vowing there would be no normalisation as long as the Gaza war continues.

But some Turkish opposition figures have accused Ankara of allowing trade to continue, notably by allowing oil shipments from Azerbaijan to pass through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline running through Turkey — claims dismissed by Turkey’s energy ministry as “completely unfounded”.

Although Azerbaijan has long been one of Israel’s main oil suppliers, data published on its state customs website this year no longer showed Israel as one of the countries that purchase oil from Baku, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported earlier this year.

The UK government announced on Friday that representatives of the Israeli government will not be invited to participate in an upcoming London arms fair, amid escalating diplomatic tensions between Britain and Israel over the situation in Gaza. A government spokesperson stated that the decision reflects growing concerns regarding recent developments in the region and the UK’s position on ongoing humanitarian and political issues.

The move comes as relations between the two countries face increased scrutiny, drawing attention from international observers and media.

“We can confirm that no Israeli government delegation will be invited to attend DSEI UK 2025” in September, said a defence ministry statement emailed to AFP.

Israeli defence companies will still be allowed to attend the biennial event. But Israel slammed the move taken against officials as “discrimination”.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has in recent months suspended arms export licences to Israel for use in Gaza, suspended trade talks with Israel and sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers in protest at the conduct of the war.

“The Israeli government’s decision to further escalate its military operation in Gaza is wrong,” the UK government statement said.

“There must be a diplomatic solution to end this war now, with an immediate ceasefire, the return of the hostages and a surge in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza,” it added.

Israel’s defence ministry reacted furiously to officials being excluded from the event, which runs September 9 to 12.

“These restrictions amount to a deliberate and regrettable act of discrimination against Israel’s representatives,” it said.

“Accordingly, the Israel ministry of defence will withdraw from the exhibition and will not establish a national pavilion,” it added.

– Protests –

The DSEI UK website said the event “includes unrivalled access to international governments, ministries of defence, and military officials, alongside all UK front line commands”.

The move comes after France in June blocked access to the stands of several Israeli arms manufacturers at the Paris Air show for displaying “offensive weapons”.

Demonstrations are planned for the opening of the London fair at the Excel London exhibition centre.

A coalition of more than 100 grassroots organisations and activist groups, under the banner “Shut DSEI Down”, are set to converge on the venue.

“The coalition includes a large number of pro-Palestine organisations, as well as climate, anti-imperialist and social justice groups,” a spokesperson said this week.

Starmer last month announced that Britain will recognise a Palestinian state in September .

If Israel does not take steps, including agreeing to a truce in the Gaza war.

European Union foreign ministers are to discuss possible new sanctions against Israel and Hamas at a meeting in Copenhagen on Saturday.

Sweden and the Netherlands have already called for more action.

On Friday, a divided U.S. appeals court ruled that the majority of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump are illegal, delivering a major setback to one of his key international economic policy tools. The decision challenges Trump’s use of these levies to influence global trade relations and could have wide-ranging effects on U.S. trade agreements, affected industries, and supply chains. Legal experts note that the ruling may also set an important precedent for how future administrations implement tariffs and other trade measures.

The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place through October 14 to give the Trump administration a chance to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court.

The decision comes as a legal fight over the independence of the Federal Reserve also seems bound for the Supreme Court, setting up an unprecedented legal showdown this year over Trump’s entire economic policy.

Trump has made tariffs a pillar of US foreign policy in his second term, using them to exert political pressure and renegotiate trade deals with countries that export goods to the United States.

The tariffs have given the Trump administration leverage to extract economic concessions from trading partners but have also increased volatility in financial markets.

Trump lamented the decision by what he called a “highly partisan” court, posting on Truth Social: “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country”.

He nonetheless predicted a reversal, saying he expected tariffs to benefit the country “with the help of the Supreme Court”.

The 7-4 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, addressed the legality of what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs imposed as part of his trade war in April, as well as a separate set of tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.

Democratic presidents appointed six judges in the majority and two judges who dissented, while Republican presidents appointed one judge in the majority and two dissenters.

The court’s decision does not impact tariffs issued under other legal authority, such as Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

‘UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY’

Trump justified both sets of tariffs – as well as more recent levies – under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

IEEPA gives the president the power to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the court said.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

The 1977 law had historically been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets.

Trump, the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, says the measures were justified given trade imbalances, declining US manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorise a president to “regulate” imports or block them completely.

Trump declared a national emergency in April over the fact that the US imports more than it exports, as the nation has done for decades.

Trump said the persistent trade deficit was undermining US manufacturing capability and military readiness.

Trump said the February tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders, an assertion the countries have denied.

MORE UNCERTAINTY

William Reinsch, a former senior Commerce Department official now with the Centre on Strategic and International Studies, said the Trump administration had been bracing for this ruling.

“It’s common knowledge the administration has been anticipating this outcome and is preparing a Plan B, presumably to keep the tariffs in place via other statutes.”

There was little reaction to the ruling in after-hours stock trading.

“The last thing the market or corporate America needs is more uncertainty on trade,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.

Trump is also locked in a legal battle to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, potentially ending the central bank’s independence.

“I think it puts Trump’s entire economic agenda on a potential collision course with the Supreme Court. It’s unlike anything we’ve seen ever,” said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.

The 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings favouring Trump’s second term agenda, but has also, in recent years, been hostile to expansive interpretations of old statutes to provide presidents newly-found powers.

The appeals court ruling stems from two cases, one brought by five small US businesses and the other by 12 Democratic-led US states, which argued that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs.

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to impose taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be both explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits.

The New York-based US Court of International Trade ruled against Trump’s tariff policies on May 28, saying the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed both sets of challenged tariffs.

The three-judge panel included a judge who was appointed by Trump in his first term.

Another court in Washington ruled that IEEPA does not authorise Trump’s tariffs, and the government has appealed that decision as well.

At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.