Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

Oh this truth is a curious thing,
but I can't deny all the lies it brings.

Thats incredible, how dare reuters refuse to show knives and blood , how dare they refuse to show other weapons either

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures...USRTR2EV0A#a=1
The truth is a curious thing

[caspofungin]

Don't you think it would be end of Israel considering traditions of Middle Eastern countries.
I don't feel like living in another Iraq or Jordan do you?
Letting those refuges in is smoothest and most effective way to end this country as a free Jewish state.

my point exactly -- the israelis will never let them in (although anyone with a jewish grandparent from anywhere in the world is welcomed) and so it's in their interests that the refugees become citizens of another country, and so get rid of their inconvenient wish to return to the land of their forefathers.

and that's why they aren't given citizenship -- the refugees are political footballs. but claiming that their situation is purely the making of arab countries ignores the israeli component.

[MH]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

my point exactly -- the israelis will never let them in (although anyone with a jewish grandparent from anywhere in the world is welcomed) and so it's in their interests that the refugees become citizens of another country, and so get rid of their inconvenient wish to return to the land of their forefathers.

and that's why they aren't given citizenship -- the refugees are political footballs. but claiming that their situation is purely the making of arab countries ignores the israeli component.

I don't ignore that...but it simply cant not happen.
If this was the main problem of the this conflict and not just convenient card in the political game it would be peace over here.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That isn't actually true is it.
But if you want to get into the deal done between the emerging state of Israel and Jordan fine, feel free to open that up, or even open up the deal the Hashemites got in Lieu of their claim on Syria.
Oh sorry I forgot, you think everyone thinks is purely an Israeli problem

why dont you enlighten us with your argument instead of just posting sound bites?

I took the time to lay down part of my argument (more to follow).

trading quips gets boring quickly, having a real debate is much more interesting.

Henning Mankell's interview.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...699101,00.html

[caspofungin]

now we wait for the inevitable demonization of this guy as a stooge of hamas...

trading quips gets boring quickly, having a real debate is much more interesting

there's never going to be a real debate on this thread, or any of the similar ones which have graced this board in the last several years. everyone has already made their mind up about who is right or wrong, no minds are going to be changed...

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentar...te-Linien.html

Translation:

Turkey crosses red lines

Anti-israeli policies have become Turkish state doctrin. The West, especially Europe, should stop Erdoghan on this course.

by Clemens Wergin

The most amazing thing in the Gaza-crisis is the fact, that turkey so far has not been hit by any criticism. And this although Ankara shares the major burden of responsibility in creating a dangerous escalation, which plays especially into the hands of radicals.

The Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had declared the flotilla with "aid" quite early as a national mission. and this although the turkish government knows very well that the main organisation, the IHH, supports international djihadists under while hiding this by claiming to be a wellfare organisation. 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.



That Erdogan has made the mission of Hamas his own , already worries Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and moderate Arab states, who also watch turkey'S turn towards iran with bgreat suspicion. After the Gaza war 2009, erdoghan now again competes with Ahmadinejadh for the title of who can produce the most shrilling anti-Israelic paroles.

Anti-Israelism has turned out to be the new Turkish state doctrin.
And erdoghan is in the middle of a transformation process from a former partner of the West to a strategic rival in the middle East. He flirts with the extremists, in order to anchor turkey as a strong and powerful player in the region. And Europe - stays silent. The West behaves as if all this is not of any interest for it. This passivity, and the isolation of Israel, deliver the extremiests one strong message: we can win.

Just imagine. Official Turkish and Iranian navy vessels would appear off the coast of Israel to break the blockade. the conseqeunce would be an open miolitary confrontation between Israel, and the new partners Turkey and Iran.

The united Staes and Europe finally must make it very clear now, that Turkey is crossing several red lines currently.

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.

The only good thing from all this is that the Turks make it difficult to defend a Turkish EU membership anymore.

What I worry about is that the AKP, after having successfully hijacked the political stage and the highest political offices and the administration in the country, now is trying to undermine the secular order of the Turkish army by infiltrating it's ranks and troops with Islamists that had been religiously indoctrinated even before they join the army. That way, the constitutional status of the army as guardian of the Turkish secularism could be eroded, and the last bastion of secularism in Turkey would be destroyed without needing to confront the generals openly or fearing a coup by the military. A Turkish army falling under the rule of the AKP's fundamentalists dogma would mark the final death of Atatürk's conception of a secular Turkish state.

why dont you enlighten us with your argument instead of just posting sound bites?

What you said isn't true because it isn't true.
Egypt declared a "palestinian" state when they occupied the territory didn't they, no one recognised it.
On the other stuff you quoted
Why would Jordan declare a Palestinian state? they had done a backroom deal with the emerging Israeli State over the land already.
As for the status of Jordan, that predates the creation of Israel and is a matter of contention not least because it was done against the wishes of the locals and implimented by force, but also that it flew in the face of all the agreements.
But as you think everyone thinks the crap in the middle east is purely an Israeli problem then maybe you havn't thought much.

I took the time to lay down part of my argument

And I took time to address many parts of your arguement.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentar...tler-sein.html

Translation

Erdogan wants to be a power, not a mediator

The behavior of turkey during the Gaza conflict is a slap in the face of europeans - and evidence for the ongoing islamisation of Turkey'S internal power relations

by Michael Stürmer

When Israelis stopped the "peace" flotilla for Gaza, more things went overboard than just Israel'S reputation of perfect operations. What also became evident was the deep-rooting re-orientation of
Turkey in the region, and beyond that in it's relations to europe and NATO.

The Turkey the West has to deal with today, is not the Turkey of the cold war era. The religious orientation backwards, which the Islamic world embarked on 30 years ago - return of the
Chomenei - , now also has embraced turkey, is decisive in forming it'S powerstructures and policies. The EU, on the other hand, cannot afford to act as if just nothing had happened.

Erdogan, the strong man, is at the same time a man who drives, and also is driven. The drama offcoast Gaza, is a schoolbook lesson second to none. No matter what could be said about military
wisdom in Jerusalem - the turkish government must accept full responsibility for what has happened. It must have known that the israelis did not just joke about Gaza, that the naval blockade was
meant bitterly serious, and that it could, no: must lead to armed confrotnation., and that the decision makers of that flotilla really wanted things to escalate this way, according to the principle of
Hamas: the worse, the better.

The Turks also know that low intensity conflicts like in Gaza not so much get decided on the ground, at location, but on the TV screens of the global public. they also cared little for the conservative
Arabic regimes in the region, who - like Egypt - wish that Gaza would just disappear. Nobody should say Erdogan'S government did not know what it was doing and stumbled blindly into an
adventure. They knew precisily what they were doing.

But the politicians in Ankara obviosuyl do not have the suitable sensors for the mood in the West (or they do not care, what is more likely - Skybird). But they have competent, non-prissily (?) security
services who miss little of ewhat is happening in the country and especially in the harbours. They must have known of the alienating mixture of Hamas-activists, djihadists, peace messengers,
utopians and arsonists. That they did not stop the operation, but even let a Turkish-flagged ship take the lead of the flotilla, was more than just an unfriendly act.

It was a slap into the face of europeans and Americans, while these, currently difficult eough, try to run negotiations between israel and the Palestinians. But especially it was the termination of a
long lasting cooperation with the state of Israel - a cooperation that especially in military affairs was maintained by the Kemalist elites, and that had survived crisis and wars before, while standing on
a large basis in trade, modernisation, tourism, and technology transfer.

If there was any doubt left regarding the role of the turkish government, then Erdoghan had completely deleted that dohbt in his speech from Tuesday (last week, Skybird), when he ranted and raved for half an hour against Israel and accused the Jewish stae of "state terrorism". He should have made it clear for everybody, that the Gaza incident is part of and tool for a fundamental strategic change in this country at the Bosporus.

the cultural battle in tukey between the heirs of Attatürk's kemalistic heritage and the followers of Erdogan, is a battle for the soul and the future of the nation. the kemalistic revolution went deeper than the French revolution did, it chnaged space and time, religion and living styles. Until today, for a majority it is a trauma of saying farewell, while for a minority it was the promise of a start/departure that not has gotten stuck. Both sides have instrumentalised the negotiations with the EU, for their according purposes. The supporters of a "deep state" and the establishement wanted more secularism and Westernisation, the islamists wanted a return to region and religion. The latter have won.

The islamisation of the power structures corresponds to the change in foreign policies, since turkey changed position from the flank of the Western alliance into the centre of interest of the Middle East. Supoorting Iran, is part of this reorientation - "My friend Ahmadinejadh" is original tone of Erdoghan.

"A bridge to Islam" Turkey was called by supporters of it's EU-membership. but when have the turks used it, except for their own interest? In Brussel, the negotiations with Ankara since long are seen as a process with no end in sight, heading into directions of mutual excessive demands.

Just to update
Skybird posted....

Then this fine communication tape, of which I do not know what to make of it, since I found only one single IDF blog entry on it. I do not rule out, therefore, that it is a fake, but on the other hand: I also have no hint that it is a fake. Decide yourself, but take it with caution - just in case.

His hesitancy was correct, the IDF have said sorry for issuing a fake version of what it claimed were radio communications between the convoy and itself.
Its amazing how many of their "justifications" the IDF and government are retracting.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Egypt declared a "palestinian" state when they occupied the territory didn't they, no one recognised it.

no, they just took it over.

Why would Jordan declare a Palestinian state? they had done a backroom deal with the emerging Israeli State over the land already.
As for the status of Jordan, that predates the creation of Israel and is a matter of contention not least because it was done against the wishes of the locals and implimented by force, but also that it flew in the face of all the agreements.

wrong again, they just annexed the west bank.

[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...

[Skybird]

Kazuaki,

I think no NATO memeber is fulfilling the treaty and the spirit of NATO anymore when it provokes military incidents intentionally and by that is the agressor. Turkey behavinglike that would not be in a psoiton to call others for help over a case of being attacked. It would be the aggressor in that it provokes the incident.

NATO waging war against Israel to cover a Turksh provocation? Not with me.

I just translated the article "as is", and the german original indeed mentions intenrational law ruling that the breaking of a military blockade is a military act in itself. This apparently is not the only source thinking so, but some days ago, if you go back several pages, you will see that somewhere out there again I quoted, "on the fly", another source. And persnally, if just thinking with my own mind about it: I too think that the breaking of a military blockade, or the eattempt to do so, is a military action itself. That'S why I labelled all those activists onboard those ships as combatants, passive combatants. If it would not have been able to board the ships and they would not have stopped all by themselves, and the Isaeli navy therefore would have opened fire with ship guns and "activists" would have gotten killed, I would not see them as collateral losses, but as killed combatants. Becasue - a blockade is a blockade, and trying to break thorugh it is indeed an act of force - like is enforcing such a blockade. Is a blockade an aggression, you ask. Of course it is. hamas has declared war against Israel, and Israel reacts to that and treats Hamas as an enemy in war. In war you commit acts of aggression. If you ask wether or not the blockade is justified or not, I would say that it is simple logic trying to isolate your enemy from his supply lines, and that Israel imposed the blockade not in an act of provocation but reaction to the threats it is confronted with.

and bunkers, you mentioned. Well, not wanting to be rude, but there you really show great naivety when saying a bunker is adefensive installation and thus is of no harm in war. If the enemy uses bunkers not to give shelter to civilian population, but to store his ammo and weapons, his command posts and combatants, and uses bunkers to hide himself and put himself out of reach from hostile counterfire and uses them as firing platforms from which to strike against the enemy, then they are hardly to be described that harmelss as you did. In fact they strengthen the offensive capabilties of those using them the way I descriobed. And we know that Hamas is doing it, we also know that Hamas copies tactics, procedures and tries to copy the armament of Hezbollah which is adivsing Hamas since the end of the Lebanon war. Tunnels and bunker networks gave the Israelis great troubles in Lebanon.

One rule of war: you shall not allow your enemy any hideouts, untouchable supply lines and safe havens. What you identitfy to be of use for the fighting and propaganda capacity of your enemy - kill and destroy it. Only this way wars against determined enemies are being won. And Hamas is determined to destroy Israel. Can't get any more determined, I would say.

Special to paranoid people, i can`t speak in the name of entire population but i can speak for my self on Turkish matter.

I as a Israeli citizen (another world zionist) i don`t wish harm (or worse) to entire Turkish population, keep your crazy fantasies to your self please and don`t drag me to your level. However i think Turkish government will repeat the unpleasant story with Islam once again (boom!!! backstab in the back- TH style). I don`t expect hugs and kisses but at least some common sense, be so kind .

no, they just took it over.

Wrong, try again.
It was in existance for 11 years.
Though I did make a mistake there as 4 countries apart from Egypt recognised it.

wrong again, they just annexed the west bank.

For a start there are two seperate events there in what you quoted and they are decades apart.
But on the one you are on about you are again surprisingly very wrong. Meir and Abdullah had already negotiated the deal where Transjordan would sieze the areas of the west bank allocated to the proposed Palestinian Arab State under partition. The origins of that deal go back to before WW2, though the Hashemite dream of a greater Syria went far beyond the just adding the west bank to Transjordan
When the war finally came Jordan took that land and illegally "annexed" it, the only other people to recognise it were the british who had sponsored the kingdom from the outset.