Reliable information and collective action on Gaza
Instant news, prayer & hope wall, situation map and global campaigns
Total Deaths
72.063
Female Deaths
12.500
Child Deaths
20.179
Signature of Support for the Ceasefire
Approved: 120.0%
Goal: 100,00099,988 to go
Signature Form
Enter your email address
Why this campaign?
We join the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza to protect civilians and ensure access to humanitarian aid. With your signature, you reinforce this call.
Double opt-in: Once the email is verified, it is considered a signature.
Data is stored according to privacy principles. (GDPR/KVKK)
Turkish TV network accused of stoking communal tensions for airing pork dinner scene
Submitted by
MEE staff
on
Wed, 02/18/2026 - 19:28
A controversial scene has ignited fierce debate, with critics accusing a government-aligned broadcaster of being deliberately provocative
Demonstrators attend a rally in solidarity with the Palestinian people, at the Galata Bridge in Istanbul, Turkey, on 1 January 2025 (Yasin Akgul/AFP)
Off
A primetime Turkish TV show has ignited a fierce online debate this week after a scene showing pork being served to a visibly conservative, Muslim-looking family went viral, prompting criticism that the episode was deliberately stoking social tensions.
The controversy erupted following a scene from the ATV network series, Aynı Yagmur Altında, which means Under the Same Rain. In the show, a host family serves pork to newly arrived guests who appear to be religiously observant.
While the characters are not explicitly identified as Muslim, many viewers argued that the visual cues, headscarves, conservative dress, and religious mannerisms, along with the fact that the show’s story takes place in Turkey, made the implication obvious.
The show began airing on 9 February, and its second episode, which aired on Monday, included the controversial scene.
For many social media users, the backlash was not centred on religious doctrine itself, but rather on what they described as a culturally implausible and insensitive scenario.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
A viral post from the Turkish Orthodox Society read, “Even in religious circles in Turkey, there is the reality of 'Muslims who drink alcohol'. But, with rare exceptions, even in secular circles, there is no reality of 'eating pork.' Even we, Christian Turks, very rarely eat pork. And we would never serve pork or alcohol to our Muslim neighbours. Who are the people writing these scenarios?”
Many online agreed with the statement, amplifying that the issue was not eating or serving pork itself, but rather an agenda of creating greater polarisation within conservative Muslim society in Turkey.
The series itself is not primarily about religion. Its plot follows Rosa, a young woman whose story begins in London, where she attends a pro-Palestine protest before returning to Turkey. The show explores themes of illness, activism, identity, and cross-cultural relationships, including her connection to a man she meets during the protest.
The pork scene appears within this broader narrative, but it has quickly overshadowed much of the show’s intended storyline.
The series initially struck viewers as politically grounded, opening with its lead characters meeting at a protest and drawing focus on Israel's genocide in Gaza, where over 72,000 have been killed. But critics say it quickly veers into what they describe as comical and unnecessarily divisive religious scenes that undercut its earlier tone.
Hem senaryoyu yazanların hem de böyle bir senaryoya itiraz etmeyip rol alanların kendi toplumlarından bihaber kişiler olduğunu gösteren bir fragman. Son derece kalitesiz ve düzeysiz bir dil ve içerik de cabası.
Türkiye’de marjinal bir grubun dışında kimse domuz eti yemez, yese… https://t.co/qmVwl55ouq
— Deniz Ülke Kaynak (@DenizUlke) February 17, 2026
(Translation: a trailer that shows both the scriptwriters and those who took part in such a scenario without objecting to it are people unaware of their own society. On top of that, the language and content are extremely low-quality and vulgar. In Turkey, outside of a marginal group, no one eats pork, and even if they do, they would not serve it to others. The screenwriter has either deliberately tried to provoke social polarisation or there is a serious issue of judgment and standards. Just before Ramadan, ATV has managed to get people talking about it; if they see that as a success, of course.)
Others argued that the issue went beyond the scene itself, framing it instead as part of a broader cultural and political struggle playing out through entertainment media.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Critics pointed out that the series airs on ATV, a channel owned by Turkuvaz Media Group, which is widely seen as aligned with the Turkish government and conservative circles.
Serhat Albayrak, chairman of the board at Turkuvaz Media, is the brother of Berat Albayrak, former Turkish energy minister and son-in-law of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Some questioned why a network perceived as pro-government would depict a scenario that many interpreted as humiliating or marginalising visibly religious characters. Social media users had abundant answers and commentary on the issue.
Bu bir “hikâye tercihi” değil, toplumsal fay hatlarını bilinçli biçimde kaşımak, dindar-seküler karşıtlığını körüklemek.
Yazıklar olsun, bunu yazana da, yönetene de, oynayana da, yayınlayana da. Allah hepinizin belasını versin. https://t.co/GRroJQ2wuW
— Ayşe Baltacıoğlu-Brammer (@BrammerAyse) February 17, 2026
(Translation: this is not a “storytelling choice”, but a deliberate scratching at social fault lines and an attempt to inflame the religious–secular divide. Shame on those who wrote it, directed it, acted in it, and broadcast it.)
The debate quickly expanded beyond the show itself, touching on long-standing tensions between secular and conservative segments of Turkish society. Over the past two decades, cultural productions, from TV dramas to talk shows, have often mirrored and amplified political fault lines.
Supporters of the series, however, dismissed the outrage as overblown, arguing that fiction frequently uses uncomfortable scenarios to provoke discussion.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Some commentators accused the show of attempting to manufacture a sense of grievance or victimhood, suggesting the scene was crafted to reinforce narratives of religious discrimination.
Some accused the writers of trying to maintain the status quo for the current government by spreading division.
bu ülkede çeşitli dinlerden, anlayışlardan, inançlardan insanlar geldi geçti. siz hiç müslüman misafirine -özellikle- domuz eti yedirmeye çalışanı gördünüz mü? peki neden yapıyor bunu atv? çünkü bir kesimin saltanatının devamı için toplumun kamplaştırılması gerekiyor da ondan. pic.twitter.com/sMHtibFztM
— abdullah naci (@abdullahnaci) February 16, 2026
(Translation: in this country, people of various religions, worldviews and beliefs have come and gone. Have you ever seen anyone - especially - try to make their Muslim guest eat pork? Then why is ATV doing this? Because for the continuation of one group’s dominance, society needs to be polarised, that’s why.)
One person commented on how the incident bridged the divide between Turkish conservatives in the US and in Turkey.
Every day Conservatives in the US and Turkey seem more similar.
Now, it's "conservatives make up a totally impossible story to make themselves angry." https://t.co/ArF4WzECR4
— Alexander Thatcher (@ThatchEffendi) February 16, 2026
Social media users also noticed that the X account for the TV show has been deactivated in the last couple of days after the airing of the controversial episode.
As clips of the scene continued to circulate across X and Instagram, the controversy became less about dietary rules and more about identity politics, media ownership, and the perceived role of government-aligned broadcasters in shaping social narratives.
Whether the scene was a clumsy storytelling choice or a calculated provocation, the reaction underscores how even fictional moments can quickly evolve into flashpoints in Turkey’s deeply polarised public sphere.
Middle East Eye reached out to ATV, Turkuvaz Media Group and the show’s production company, Baba Yapim, for comment, but did not receive a response by the publication time of this story.
Turkey Politics
Trending
Post Date Override
0
Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29
Update Date Override
0
Israel's annexation drive has sped up - because the world allows it
Submitted by
Abed Abou Shhadeh
on
Wed, 02/18/2026 - 20:48
New mechanism for land registration in the occupied West Bank highlights the need for Palestinians to reclaim the discourse about their own future
Israeli soldiers demolish a house in the village of Silat al-Harithiya, in the occupied West Bank, on 17 February 2026 (Mohammed Mansour/AFP)
Off
While the world debates statements of condemnation over Israel’s policy in the occupied West Bank, mulling whether annexation will proceed, Israel is already implementing its decision on the ground: expelling communities, confiscating land, and transferring powers from the army to civil authorities.
Yet even after two years of an ongoing genocide in Gaza, there are still people around the world who believe Israel is deterred by international condemnations.
They choose, consciously or unconsciously, to ignore a simple reality: as long as there is no meaningful force standing in the way of Israeli policy, it will move towards further conquests - and it is doubtful that this process will stop at the occupied West Bank and Gaza alone.
Israel’s plan accelerated this week, as the cabinet approved an initial budget of around 244 million shekels ($79m) to establish a mechanism for land registration in Area C of the occupied West Bank. Current landowners will have to prove ownership, and if they can’t, the land will be registered by the Israeli state.
The move came amid a slew of recent decisions, including repealing a Jordanian-era law that prevented the sale of land to Israelis; applying Israeli civilian law in the occupied West Bank, in violation of international law; transferring authority over the Ibrahimi Mosque from the Hebron municipality to the Israeli civil administration; increasing Israeli control in Areas A and B by shifting authority away from the Palestinian leadership; and further expanding the settlement enterprise.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Naturally, Arab states have condemned this policy shift. But after the genocide in Gaza - and in the Trump era, where military and economic discourse sets the tone - Israel has come to understand that beyond empty statements, there will be no meaningful response in terms of sanctions, severing ties, or cancelling trade and arms agreements.
Worse still, in a nonstop news cycle, it is likely that by next week, the world will be focused elsewhere, perhaps on another crime Israel has committed - whether in the occupied West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or even a war with Iran.
Deepening the occupation
Even if we examine Israeli policy in the occupied West Bank before the genocide in Gaza began, we find a steady, gradual strategy aimed at deepening the occupation and creating facts on the ground. From before the Oslo Accords all the way up to the past week, the one meaningful difference is in how Israel reads the international mood.
To understand this progression fully, it must be analysed through a historical and legal lens. The occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967 brought with it a legal culture in which the Israeli judiciary mobilised to provide a legal framework for military measures and land seizures in occupied territory, while offering protection to generals and soldiers.
In 1979, for example, Israel’s High Court provided an interpretation of an Ottoman-era law, arguing that public land not under private ownership or active use could be classified as “state land” - despite the fact that Israel has no right to declare occupied territory that is not privately owned or cultivated as its own.
It is no longer a question of whether it is possible to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank, when faced with the legal and military realities on the ground
Fast-forward to the Oslo Accords and the division of the occupied West Bank into Areas A, B and C, the former two of which constitute only 40 percent of the West Bank’s territory while housing around three million Palestinians. Area C, meanwhile, constitutes 60 percent of the territory and is home to around 300,000 Palestinians.
Today, as Israel moves to complete the annexation of Area C and continue on towards the remaining areas, a broad historical perspective shows that the current government is merely accelerating an old Israeli strategy. The only thing that has changed is how the international arena operates.
In the first decades of the occupation, the global community gave greater weight to international law, and Israel’s policy was more calculated - especially amid the First Intifada, which emerged during a global campaign against one of Israel’s closest allies at the time, the apartheid regime of South Africa, and coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
These international developments reshaped the global order, which became less militarised, as global discourse increasingly shifted towards liberal-democratic language and economic growth.
If we examine Oslo through this lens, it can be understood as a historic Israeli achievement. Since then, the number of Israeli settlers has risen from around 300,000 to roughly 800,000 today.
Through the agreement, more and more Arab states strengthened ties with Israel through normalisation processes. The Palestinian Authority (PA) assumed responsibility for administering Palestinian civil life, and for policing society in close coordination with Israel. And the same figure portrayed globally as a dove of peace - former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin - proposed the construction of the apartheid wall, later used by the occupation to seize more land.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Systematic violations
The current discourse on annexation, including the international condemnations, deliberately ignores the past three decades. The current Israeli government understands very well that there is no reason to even attempt to legally justify its actions in the occupied West Bank - because there is simply no need.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a 2024 advisory opinion, ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was no longer a temporary and “legitimate” situation under the law of occupation. Instead, it has become a prolonged regime accompanied by systematic violations of international law.
The court noted that Israel’s settlement policy, de facto annexation, demographic and legal transformation, and denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination rendered its presence unlawful. The ICJ thus found that Israel has an obligation to end the occupation, while other states have a duty not to aid in maintaining it.
Explained: The Israeli measures imposing de facto annexation in the West Bank
Read More »
But nothing fundamentally changed after the ruling. While the Arab world remains stagnant in its response, Israel is dynamic in its decisions. Again, this is not only about the current government, but about a consistent Israeli policy that adapts itself to the world and to the present moment - with broad public support.
When we look at the number of Israelis living in occupied territory - roughly 10 percent of the state’s citizens - it is no longer a matter of a small religious-nationalist minority. Settlers come from across Israeli society: religious Zionists, Haredim, secular Israelis, Mizrahim, and Ashkenazim.
Israel also understands the economic importance of this project. If in the past Israel hesitated for fear of triggering boycotts or the suspension of trade or arms deals, such concerns no longer drive its decisions. Amid two years of genocide in Gaza, the US supplied roughly $22bn in military aid, and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange soared to record highs last year, outperforming global markets.
Israel’s genocide aims to destroy the very idea of national rights for the Palestinian people, from Gaza to the occupied West Bank. It is no longer a question of whether it is possible to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank, when faced with the legal and military realities on the ground.
With hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers spread across the occupied West Bank, and countless legal complications surrounding land ownership, the latest steps are designed to cement the fact that this is not temporary - and the state will not be able to reverse the measures already taken.
The dismantling of the Oslo framework and the prevention of Palestinian statehood create an important political opening for the Palestinian political imagination. Rooted in decades of promises of statehood, the current imagination can no longer hold, especially in light of the PA’s collapse. We need a serious internal Palestinian discourse about the future, and about the guiding principles of future leadership.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Occupation
Opinion
Post Date Override
0
Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29
Update Date Override
0