[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not see europe and the US in a position to impress turkey that much anymore, however, if NATO member Turkey provokes a military confrontation with Israel, Europe and the US should make it clear that this would result in NATO standing up aganst Turkey, politically and militarily. Of course such events would also need to end Turkish NATO membership - and German weapons deliveries that I find unacceptable since many years.

Regardless of your feelings towards Muslims, wouldn't the NATO treaty actually compel the NATO states, regardless of their "personal" feelings toward this incident, to stand by Turkey?

Originally Posted by Clemens Wirgin as translated by Skybird

That in itself already is an extremely unfriendly act against the former ally. Even more so since international law rules that the breaking of a military blockade is an act of military aggression itself.

How can it be military aggression when no military forces were even employed? And wouldn't a blockade be itself a form of aggression?

Originally Posted by Skybird

You exaggerate. While anti-semites will always criticise Israel for no matter what it does or does not, and will attack it just because it is there, non-anti-semites certainly can criticise it, too, without necessarily becoming anti-semites that way - it depends on the issue, and the criticism. Just when you start to deny them any means and any right to defend themselves - that I would call a form of anti-semitism indeed, becasue denying somebody the right of self-defence when he is being attacked,implies that he should better accept self-destruction and simply dissappear.

IN respect to the current case being discussed, I don't see how Israel's existence, or even right to self-defence would be threatened by extra cement, even if they did go to build extra bunkers. Bunkers, after all, are defensive existences no matter how well you make them.

The truth is, on either the societal or international level, in order to achieve harmony, the extent of permissible self-defence MUST be limited, even if it means sometimes tolerating something unpleasant.

I don't think I have too much against Jews, but I don't have a lot of sympathy towards Israel. Muslims and the Palestinians may be thugs, but even accepting that, one must accept that the Jews basically asked for it when they wanted their "Jewish state" to be forcibly installed (what happened to self-determination, one wonders) in a area where they are hardly dominant.

You don't need to be a Muslim to get aggressive or show intolerance to societal law and peace when "law and peace" means you have to give half your house to this newcomer, and when you try to evict him, the forces of "law and peace" actually supplies him with guns to shoot at you, and now you hold the shack part of the house, and the newcomer keeps intruding into your place in the name of "self-defense", and when you fight back the forces of "law and peace" actually judge you to be in the wrong...