Turkey announces warships to back next aid boat to Israel

Last night an Egyptian mob stormed the Israeli embassy and the defense minister had to call the US to help get the Egyptians to restore security. The Turks are no longer ruled by the army, and politicians see gain in taking a tougher line. Israel’s going to have to make peace with democracies, or, at least, maintain a peace that isn’t going to roil the neighbors (any more than bad regimes already attempt for their own purposes). There seems to be little reason to expect that past practices will do the trick.

[quote=“NYT”] Israel evacuated most of its embassy staff here at dawn Saturday after six members had been trapped in the embassy for hours by a mob of protesters who attacked and invaded its offices overnight.

The attack was the second time in a month that an angry mob stormed the Cairo embassy and tore down its flag. Coming a week after Turkey expelled Israel’s ambassador over its refusal to apologize for a deadly raid on a Turkish ship, it left Israel was facing crises in relations with its two most important regional allies, with ambassadors in neither country.[/quote]

Apparently, Robert Gates spoke for much of the administration back in May, before retiring as Sec. Defense

[quote=“Jerusalem Post”]
Freshly retired US defense secretary Robert Gates was highly critical of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, calling him an ungrateful ally and blaming him for diplomatically isolating Israel and hurting American interests, a Bloomberg column revealed Tuesday.

The criticism, reported in a piece by Jeffrey Goldberg, apparently peaked after Netanyahu met with US President Barack Obama last May, lecturing him in front of the cameras on the Israeli security situation with a level of “impudence” that shocked many in the White House, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to Goldberg, Gates later told the president that despite the many steps the US had taken to guarantee Israel’s security - assistance with weapons, defense systems and intelligence sharing, it had received nothing in return, “particularly in regards to the peace process.”

Netanyahu, Gates told Obama, was "not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank."

Gates’s statments, Goldberg wrote, “articulated bluntly” what many in the administration believe

The column added that Netanyahu had peeved Gates before, lecturing him during a meeting in March on the dangers posed to Israel by US arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Gates reminded him then, Goldberg stated, that the sales were carried out after consultation with Israel and pro-Israel members of Congress.[/quote]Now that Egypt’s iffy, and Turkey’s pissed (did you read about tit-for-tat body cavity searches at the Istanbul airport?), Israel may have to start depending on the Saudi’s and remaining monarchies, if it’s going to continue to follow Netanyahu’s road map to more of the same. So much for complaining about US arms sales there.

So, those advocating more of the same, don’t tell me how does this end; tell me how it even starts to get better. And please, don’t tell me that it’ll get better when the Palestinians turn into perfect neighbors/angels/sheep. What can Israel – the party with the resources, institutions, and functioning political system – do to improve it’s own situation? Waiting for action from the Palestinians, who appear collectively capable of little more than escalation, would seem a bad idea.

Knowing that is all the more reason not to use rockets fired from helicopters.[/quote]

So what is your suggestion?

Sending in ground troops where it is likely more will get killed on both sides?

A missile does not need to fight its way through a hostile population to its target.
Ground troops do. A hostile population with Hamas hiding within means many more people will get killed.

The missile means a lot less collateral damage.

Keep in mind that the Israelis actually warn the civilian population, either by dropping leaflets telling them a building will be destroyed, letting off a siren, and even phoning them up warning them.

When do Hamas?

Possibly Israel should simply let Hamas build up arms???

Knowing that is all the more reason not to use rockets fired from helicopters.[/quote]

So what is your suggestion?

Sending in ground troops where it is likely more will get killed on both sides?

A missile does not need to fight its way through a hostile population to its target.
Ground troops do. A hostile population with Hamas hiding within means many more people will get killed.

The missile means a lot less collateral damage.

Keep in mind that the Israelis actually warn the civilian population, either by dropping leaflets telling them a building will be destroyed, letting off a siren, and even phoning them up warning them.

When do Hamas?

Possibly Israel should simply let Hamas build up arms???[/quote]

The best option would be a realistic attempt at peace, although with an extremist like Bibi in power that’s unlikely. Second best would be to simply have any ground troops not fire at little old ladies, babies and other non-combatants.

I had a long conversation with an Israeli deserter a number of years ago and one of the key reasons he gave for his desertion was that there weren’t adequate safeguards to protect civilians, and that soldiers knew that if they killed the wrong person, it ultimately wouldn’t matter. That breeds a carelessness among the troops and a corresponding increase in civilian deaths. Hold the Israeli soldiers accountable for civilian deaths in the same way that you demand Hamas soldiers are accountable for civilian deaths. Alternatively, continue with [strike]collateral damage[/strike] killing non-combatants and it’ll just serve as a recruitment ad for Hamas and the cycle will continue.

EDIT - From today’s NYT. nytimes.com/2011/09/11/world … srael.html

All good and well. So how do you avoid killing civilians if hamas is hiding within the civilian population and wearing civilian clothes?
That kind old grandmother could be a suicide bomber or have an AK 47 in her batman cloak.

Maybe Hamas should stop hiding in the civilian population.

Simple. KILL ALL THE GRANDMAS.

Now, there’s a T-shirt slogan for ya!

I really don’t understand the minset of people here. If you were living back in your own country and the country next door was randomly bombing and blowing up things all the time, I doubt you would be spinning the same tune.

I guarantee if “freedom fighters” in mexico started pulling the same shit against the USA, the war would not last long.

[quote=“pqkdzrwt”]I really don’t understand the minset of people here. If you were living back in your own country and the country next door was randomly bombing and blowing up things all the time, I doubt you would be spinning the same tune.

I guarantee if “freedom fighters” in mexico started pulling the same shit against the USA, the war would not last long.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Some of the rubbish posted here is completely appalling. I’ve lived there. I’ve dealt with people involved in the conflict from almost every angle.

Repeating propaganda does not demonstrate an ability to think. The situation in the Middle East is not helped by pandering to corrupt, self-interested organizations perpetuating a conflict for selfish purposes.

[quote=“pqkdzrwt”]I really don’t understand the minset of people here. If you were living back in your own country and the country next door was randomly bombing and blowing up things all the time, I doubt you would be spinning the same tune.

I guarantee if “freedom fighters” in mexico started pulling the same shit against the USA, the war would not last long.[/quote]

The thing is, it’s happening on both sides. Israel bombs stuff in Palestine and Palestine bombs stuff in Israel. And the cycle of violence continues.

I believe there is not a country called Palestine.

You have just hi lighted a good past of the problem. Legitimizing a non state.

Palestinian territory then. Same thing.

A legitimate UN-recognized Palestinian state assigned to 1967 borders would go a long way to solving many of the problems.

One of the biggest differences between supporters of the two sides seems to be the pro-Israel side sees all the blame as lying with the Palestinians whereas the pro-Palestinian supporters see the blame lying on both sides and are not blind to the fault that lies with the Palestinians as well.

Even if Turkish warships do escort the next aid flotilla, which they have every right to do, there is that Still last 12 mile stretch to the Gaza coast inside which they cannot escort.

there 's a lot of interdiction possible within 12 miles.

the UN even found for Israel in terms of their right to search and detain vessels.

and as for the Gazans only wanting peace, that’s crap. They want a new state and no Jewish neighbours, bugger any peace that might interfere with that…

[quote=“cfimages”]Palestinian territory then. Same thing.

A legitimate UN-recognized Palestinian state assigned to 1967 borders would go a long way to solving many of the problems.

One of the biggest differences between supporters of the two sides seems to be the pro-Israel side sees all the blame as lying with the Palestinians whereas the pro-Palestinian supporters see the blame lying on both sides and are not blind to the fault that lies with the Palestinians as well.[/quote]

No, it is not the same thing. Stick to your statement.

It is irresponsible comments like the one you made, that are the cause for a lot of the trouble in the middle east. Comments not based on any facts.
By giving legitimacy you are basically saying that they can have a state, despite not meeting reasonable criteria for statehood, such as;
1-responsible government
2-Respecting neighbors
3-recognizing that their neighbors also have a legitimate state
4-Ensuring border security

If they were capable of this they would already have a state.

Also keep in mind there is no such thing as pre 1967 borders. This is a fallacy. There is disputed territory, that the Israelis have as much claim too as anyone else.

The West Bank was initially part of an Arab state, but was captured by Trans Jordan (Jordan today) . The 1949 armistace agreement recognized it’s interim boundary. Not borders. A big difference.

The Israeli Jordan agreement stated:
“no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (Art. II.2), “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

This was at Arab insistence, not Israeli.
Jordan annexed the area after the war, with no mention a pal state.

When Israel went to war with Egypt in 1967, its intention was to avoid war on two fronts. However, Jordan started shelling civilian targets in Israel. Despite this Israel told Jordan that it would not start any military action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war.
Jordan attacked, was defeated, and lost the area.

Also, UN resolution 242, states that
“the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” to be achieved by “the application of both the following principles:” “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and: “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.

Therefore until Israel has secure and recognised boundaries all bets are off.

[quote=“bigduke6”][quote=“cfimages”]Palestinian territory then. Same thing.

A legitimate UN-recognized Palestinian state assigned to 1967 borders would go a long way to solving many of the problems.

One of the biggest differences between supporters of the two sides seems to be the pro-Israel side sees all the blame as lying with the Palestinians whereas the pro-Palestinian supporters see the blame lying on both sides and are not blind to the fault that lies with the Palestinians as well.[/quote]

No, it is not the same thing. Stick to your statement.[/quote]

That’s what my statement meant. Country / state / territory call it what you will. I meant the same thing. What is irresponsible is the continual denial of the rights of the Palestinians and the collective punishment of the innocent. Israel of all nations should know this better than most. Even Israeli members of Parliament and former defense ministers recognize this. Here’s the quote again.

[quote]The world is tired of this conflict and angry at us because we are viewed as conquerors, ruling over another people,” said Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a Labor Party member of Parliament and a former defense minister. “If I were Bibi Netanyahu, I would recognize a Palestinian state. We would then negotiate borders and security. Instead nothing is happening. We are left with one ally, America, and that relationship is strained, too[/quote].

If more time was spent listening to those who want peace, and realize that peace must include recognizing a Palestinian state, there’d be a much greater chance of a lasting settlement. If not, then it’s business as usual, the cycle of violence continues and the situation stays the same. Is that what people really want? Do they like living under a constant threat?

In one of those embarassing situations where democracy appears to actually represent the will of the people, the Palestinian people elected Hamas. Hamas doesn’t want peace. Indeed, it wants to drive the Israelis into the sea. It’s not unreasonable then to conclude that the Palestinian people don’t want peace and that they want to drive the Israelis into the sea. That (and what would replace Israel) would be the world’s loss. Just look at the ratio of Nobel Laureates (and if we exclude the Peace Prize, which is a complete PC nonsense, then the Palestinians have zero).

They’ve had almost all their land taken away from them, lost their homes and been forced to live in refugee camps with no facilities. Is it surprising that they don’t love the Israelis?

If Indonesia took over 90% of Australia and forced all Australians to live in poverty and squalor, would the people of Australia simply accept it or would they want to wipe Indonesia off the face of the earth?

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]That (and what would replace Israel) would be the world’s loss. Just look at the ratio of Nobel Laureates (and if we exclude the Peace Prize, which is a complete PC nonsense, then the Palestinians have zero).[/quote]That’s not a bad recasting of Aristotelian chauvinism: the proper object for political consideration is the Greek male household head, because everyone knows that barbarians, landless men, women and slaves are constitutionally unfit to govern themselves, and others, and therefore not even worthy of consideration. Best to take yourself off to serve Alexander, Rome, or whoever happens to be top dog/ producing today’s beauties.

cfimages: The Palestinians have the option to not live in squalor. Firstly, Arabs living within Israeli areas do considerably better because they understand which side their bread is buttered on. Secondly, and related to that, a massive amount of foreign aid flows into Palestinian hands which is then squandered and/or spirited away by corrupt leaders.

Jaboney: Sounds good to me!

If Palestinians were Swedes or Swiss, then they’d be Swedes or Swiss, and their territories would be Sweden or Switzerland. They’re not though. Thus, the question becomes whether it is that they don’t want to be Swedes or Swiss (which is fine, but then they can’t complain that they’re not living in another Sweden or Switzerland), or can’t be Swedes or Swiss. After all, Hamas was elected, so it can hardly be claimed that they’re living under unrepresentative dictators, unless we admit that democracy itself (or their form of it) is a flawed concept.

We are talking about land that has been fought over since the beginning of civilisation. Now that the Israelis, with big brother America and the mass media on their side, control it, they are all about status quo and keeping the peace. Off course they would. If I stole your wife, your house and your car and then said “Hey mate, chill out, let’s just be friends” we’d all just hop off to the next pub for a pint, right?

Here we go again.

Remember that those who choose to ignore history will be doomed to repeat it.

Israel has been on the defensive since the first Jewish refugee arrived in Israel almost a thousand years ago. It was the incessant attacks on Jewish neighborhoods in Palestine that convinced the Jewish leadership to form a state.

If the Arabs had just left the Jews alone, there would be no Israel.

What does it take for y’all to get it?

What numerous posters also continue to forget is that all this shit started when Israel was formed in 48 and the Arabs attacked.
This was one of three major wars of Arab aggression with the aim of destroying Israel and driving the Jews out of the area. Well we all know what happened. The Israelis destroyed their armies again and again, and now are labelled as aggressors for defending themselves against this aggression to this day.

If the situation was reversed and the Arabs won one of the wars, would anyone be crying out in the defense of the Israelis?
And what about the Jews expelled from Arab countries who had their property stolen with no repatriation?
Not a peep.