PDA

View Full Version : Is Turky heading to a more Islamic stance


rh200
9th Sep 2011, 05:48
BBC News - Turkey 'to escort Gaza aid ships' amid row with Israel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14844902)

Many years ago the military was convinced not to intervene and there was no threat from a pro Islamist government. Bet there's a few people starting to think that maybe they where wrong.

I'm wondering how much of the above article is bluster for the masses or could this get out of control?

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 08:11
Is Turky heading to a more Islamic stance


oh i don't know...



Turkey (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html) Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni), other 0.2% (mostly Christians and Jews)

rh200
9th Sep 2011, 08:17
oh i don't know...

Hmmm perhaps badly worded by me, I know what I mean. Turkey has been one of the shining lights of the Islamic world, not perfect but doing its bit. And yes I know the ethnic make up of Turkey, guess I was making a generalization of going down the anti Israel path.

Cacophonix
9th Sep 2011, 08:31
Turkey is Muslim country for sure, but I suspect that it is more Turkish nationalism that is driving this deepening rift with Israel than a flare up of Muslim extremism (although the current situation certainly aids the goals of the extremists).

The current Israeli government has done little to ameliorate the situation or try and actively engage with what was likely to be a friendly country, quite the reverse in fact.

As a long-time supporter of Israel I sometimes despair of where the country seems to be heading. It could not have gone further to antagonise Turkey.
Israel may yet come to rue its current course….

Some recent examples of provocation…

A taste of humiliation - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-taste-of-humiliation-1.383395)

The security check that Turkish citizens - and passengers from other countries with a Muslim majority - experience as they travel through Israel is stringent, overbearing and humiliating. Israeli citizens have gotten used to taking off for Turkey without the need for a visa, enjoying the hospitality of Turkish tourism services and vacationing in their multitudes in Turkish cities, villages and beach resorts without any restriction. Turks seeking to come to Israel for a visit, however, have had to go through a real ordeal, beginning at the Israeli consulate, where on occasion they get turned down without explanation, and later - assuming they get a visa - ending with an exhausting and humiliating airport security check.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34825873/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/israel-snubs-turkish-ambassador-public/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34825873/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/israel-snubs-turkish-ambassador-public/)


Israel publicly snubbed Turkey's ambassador over his country's persistent criticism of the Jewish state, with a government official refusing to shake the envoy's hand and making him sit on a lower seat at a meeting.

An Israel centric point of view of the siutation...

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5501/inbar.israel_turkey.pdf (http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5501/inbar.israel_turkey.pdf)

Caco

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 08:45
RH,

i know what you mean and my response a subtle respone to that.

A significant to point to bear in mind is that BBC as a news agency is not impartial it has it's own angenda pushed by the left wing which is firmly ensconsed within the BBC. It is almost a running joke here in the UK, Clarkson parodied the left wing huggy fluff aspect quite well during a top gear piece not long ago.

Unfortunately, the BBC has an international news agency is beyond tarnished and other sources of new provide less biased news reports...

lets quickly look at the article you cited...


Mr Erdogan also said Turkey had taken steps to prevent Israel unilaterally exploiting natural resources in the eastern Mediterranean.


yet further down goes on to add...


Turkey is protesting against the exploration of gas reserves by the government of Cyprus, because it does not recognise the area as Cypriot territorial waters.


Hmm, Cyprus is not Israel and Israel is not Cyprus.. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 is not irrelevent here.


Relations between Turkey and Israel have worsened since Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara aid ship in May last year as it was heading for Gaza. Nine Turkish activists were killed during the raid.

Israel has refused to apologise and said its troops acted in self-defence.
In his comments to Al-Jazeera, Mr Erdogan said Turkish warships were "authorised to protect our ships that carry humanitarian aid to Gaza".

"From now on, we will not let these ships to be attacked by Israel, as what happened with the Freedom Flotilla," he said, referring to the Mavi Marmara incident.


So the BBC is conveniently tinting this that Israel attacked a 'humanitarian' aid ship..

yet....


The ship was purchased in 2010 by the IHH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)), an Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) NGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO) active as a charity organization in more than 115 countries.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-BBC_01June2010a-7) The group has represented its Turkish language name in English in various ways, "IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation"[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-8) among them. It has held Special Consultative Status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Consultative_Status) with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council) since 2004, [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-ecosoc-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-ecosocNGOlist-10) and is endorsed by international figures that include South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-BBC_01June2010a-7)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-Telegraph_31May2010a-11) Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_Terrorism_Information_Center), an NGO with close ties to the Israeli Defense Forces, along with multiple Israeli governmental officials have alleged that the IHH supports terrorism, has smuggled arms on behalf of terrorist groups, and has links to al-Qaeda and other Jihadist groups.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-BBC_01June2010a-7)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-Telegraph_31May2010a-11) The IHH denies these claims, and Greta Berlin, a director of the Free Gaza Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza_Movement), called the claims "utterly scurrilous", characterizing them as an attempt by the Israeli government to discredit the movement.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-BBC_01June2010a-7)
The IHH acquired the Mavi Marmara at a cost of $800,000, to be defrayed by public donations, as no shipowner was willing to risk their vessel on the journey.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-hurriyet-turkish_rights-0) The ship took part in a flotilla of ships operated by activist groups from 37 different countries with the intention of directly confronting the Israeli blockade over Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_blockade). On 30 May 2010, while in international waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters) and en route to Gaza,Israeli Naval Forces communicated that a naval blockade over the Gaza area was in force and ordered the ships to follow them to Ashdod Port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashdod_Port) or to be boarded, the ships declined and were boarded in international waters.The boarding started at 2 a.m. on 31 May 2010 and was completed by 8. Reports from journalists on the ship and from the UN report on the incident concluded that the Israeli military opened fire with live rounds before boarding the ship.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-JPOST0531-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-APDetailsEmerge-15) In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed (according to the UN Report[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-16)), and several dozen activists were injured. Israel stated that at least seven of its IDF soldiers were injured.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-17) The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "the Mavi Marmara (passenger ship) did not carry any humanitarian aid, except for the passengers' personal belongings."They also stated that other ships in the aid convoy actually carried the aid.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-18) Turkish journalist Sefik Dink writes that "the ship carried no humanitarian aid, but had on board a large number of Islamist activists spoiling for martyrdom".[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara#cite_note-19)



one of the british passengers, Sarah Colborne, 43, of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, and one of 34 Britons, told The Times: “Everyone’s just in shock. It was a massacre that took place there.”


Aid, or politics ?

and as for the Cyprus / Turkish issue..



Turkey has allowed itself to be manoeuvred into a no-win situation over the extension of its customs union with the EU to the ten new member-states that joined in 2004, including Cyprus. Under the terms of its accession negotiations, Turkey committed itself to ratifying the protocol for the extension of the customs union, which among other things, requires the opening of its ports and airports to ships and planes registered in Cyprus.

If the Turkish government continues to block access for Cypriot vessels, it will put itself on a collision course with the EU, and it faces the risk that its accession negotiations could be held up or even suspended. If it does open the ports, it will no doubt pay a heavy price domestically, given that is has argued – not very convincingly – that this step would amount to recognising the existing (Greek Cypriot only) government of Cyprus.

Turkey is by no means the only party which is in default of its ommitments towards Cyprus. The EU, in the immediate aftermath of the Cyprus referendum upset, undertook to provide a substantial quantity of aid to Nort h e rn Cyprus and to re-establish trade links with it. The declared objective was to bring the north of the island closer to the EU. Cyprus became a party to this commitment when it joined the EU a few days
later. However, the implementation, or rather the f a i l u re to implement, this commitment has been a sorry tale of obfuscation and bad faith. Now, after two years of grinding negotiation, with the government of Cypru s
resisting every inch of the way, a reduced package of aid has been agreed. But this has only underlined the EU’s failure to make pro g ress on the more important part of the package, trade.

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_cyprus_hannay_july06.pdf

Like i said, BBC as a news source, is vastly biased and is shameful of what was once a respected news source.

It would seem that Turkey is attempting to involve Israel for leverage over the Cyprus issue within the EU. Whcih is convenient in the whole Jewish/muslim angle and the EU is heading toward using Cyprus as a baragining chip.

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 08:57
Caco,

I have to agree with you on that, however, Turkey has also gone to certain levels to antagonise Israel also. There is also the Key issue of Cyprus and i find interesting the the BBC report notes that Turkey has taken steps to prevent Israel's exploitation of reserves, yet Turkey is protesting the Cyprus government exploration of reserves, yet fails to recognise the Cypriot government, yet conversely blocks access to Cypriot ships in contravention to the EU.

hmmmmm.

Turkish Provocation ?

Cacophonix
9th Sep 2011, 09:03
Stuckgear

No doubt there is an element of Turkish real politik at work here (ref. Cypress) but I suspect it is in both countries interests (i.e. Turkey and Israel) to have cordial relations in the longer term. Petty reactions from either side are not helpful.

Turkey-Israel: toward a decoupling of economics from politics - Hurriyet Daily News (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-israel-toward-a-decoupling-of-economics-from-politics-2011-09-07)

Caco

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 09:08
No doubt there is an element of Turkisk real politik at work here (ref. Cypress)


What does botany have to do with it ?

:p

Cypress is the name applied to many plants in the cypress family Cupressaceae, which is a conifer of northern temperate regions.

Cyprus officially the Republic of Cyprus is a Eurasian island country in the Eastern Mediterranean

Just bustin' your balls fella! :}

rh200
9th Sep 2011, 09:11
The Cyprus situation is standard nation resources issue, and religion has no bearing on it, well that's the way I see it. On the other hand taken with the other issues it could lead to a perfect storm.

The security check that Turkish citizens - and passengers from other countries with a Muslim majority - experience as they travel through Israel is stringent
etc

On the face of it the disparity between the two would seem unjust. But this is the sign of a mature nation, or once was. In effect The probability of a person from Israel going to commit a terrorist act in Turkey is low, whilst the chance of one going to the other is not.

It should be a example of how understanding the people of Turkey are, and not be viewed as a personal insult. It should be understanding that there are people who are in their midst who would use their passports to gain entry to Israel and commit terrorist acts.

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 09:12
I suspect it is in both countries interests (i.e. Turkey and Israel) to have cordial relations in the longer term


oh i agree, however, religion and politics are equal issues in this case and cannot be separated.

What would be shameful is the long term result that the Republic of Cyprus is sacrificed on the altar of the EU for middle east politics and EU appeasement of Turkey.

Cacophonix
9th Sep 2011, 09:13
StuckGear

More haste, on my part, less speed... I couldn't see the wood for the Cypress trees. :ok:

Caco - now not allowed in Cyprus

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 09:15
The Cyprus situation is standard nation resources issue, and religion has no bearing on it, well that's the way I see it. On the other hand taken with the other issues it could lead to a perfect storm.



rh, i can only agree with you 100% on both of those points.


On the face of it the disparity between the two would seem unjust. But this is the sign of a mature nation, or once was. In effect The probability of a person from Israel going to commit a terrorist act in Turkey is low, whilst the chance of one going to the other is not.

It should be a example of how understanding the people of Turkey are, and not be viewed as a personal insult. It should be understanding that there are people who are in their midst who would use their passports to gain entry to Israel and commit terrorist acts.


Again, with all pragmatism, i can only agree 100% with that.

dead_pan
9th Sep 2011, 09:39
Erdogan is a tough and wily operator, that's for sure. Witness his sacking of the country's military chiefs of staff earlier this year - that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. He and his wife also visited Mogadishu last month...

The country has come to the fore this year, with its handling of the Libya crisis and their stance against Syria. This spat with Israel is the latest has been manufactured to some extent to further curry favour with the wider Muslim world.

PanPanYourself
9th Sep 2011, 10:40
Turkey Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni)
I wonder about the veracity of this 99.8% figure, what exactly does it mean to be a Muslim?

My Turkish ID card says "Religion: Islam", although I am about as non-Muslim as they come. I am a fan of Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, so that should tell you all you need to know. I wonder if I am included in that 99.8% figure. Most of the people I encounter in Turkey are Muslim in name only, and I think they are the fastest growing demographic.

The majority of the Turkish population is extremely worried about the direction Erdogan is taking us, and in the last election if the two opposition parties hadn't diluted the vote, AKP would have lost.

Erdogan is a national embarrassment, I don't agree with everything Israel does, but there are ways to resolve differences without acting like a petulant child.

parabellum
9th Sep 2011, 13:41
Israel is far more use to Turkey in the military equipment and 'know how' sense than the other way round, Israel is not an enemy of Turkey and are in no way a threat. Turkey does, however, share borders with real potential enemies.

Turkey are obliged to engage in a certain amount of Sabre rattling to pacify some of the more extreme elements within and without their borders.

Yellow & Blue Baron
9th Sep 2011, 13:59
I have been told that the Muslims are peace loving people.

Hell Man
9th Sep 2011, 14:06
I have been told that the Muslims are peace loving people.
Wake up Yellow Puss!

This is what some Muslims teach their kids, they're talkin about your neighbor Denmark as well as my homeland!

Muslim Palestinians teach children to hate in cartoons 1 - YouTube

PanPanYourself
9th Sep 2011, 14:42
Hell man, I'm pretty sure Mr. Yellow was being facetious, so there really is no need for your off-topic and irrelevant video on this thread.

Scandinavians killed by Turks: 0
Scandinavians killed by people who love to leave anti-Muslim comments online: 77

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 17:44
Scandinavians killed by Turks: 0
Scandinavians killed by people who love to leave anti-Muslim comments online: 77


Scandinavians killed in airline accidents 2001: 118+4

Scandinavians killed by prostate cancer in 2006: 5,547

fitliker
9th Sep 2011, 18:56
Hitchens may be right. This may be a continuation of the Crimea campaign.Same players ,same arguements,different century.
Lets hope our side wins agains as when the other side wins it costs a fortune in Ransoms.

Lonewolf_50
9th Sep 2011, 20:47
PanPan, thanks for your insight. :ok:

Comment on Turkey and regional leadership: in a geostrategic sense, the Turks would benefit from the demise of Israel, though in the short term it might hurt economically as the region found a way to recenter itself.
Their current NATO link would make Turkey more important as a counter to certain regional interests, no less.

That said, so long as the Arabs have the Israelis to hate, as number one to be hated party, the old friction between Turks and Arabs gets put farther back into the queue.

It is to my view in Turkey's interest to leave Israel intact, from a strategic sense. That doesn't mean that Turkey won't still play such games as amuse them, since Turkey is in every way, shape, and form a Power in the region. They get to play such games because they can.

rh200
9th Sep 2011, 23:40
Hopefully its all bluster, but the long term trend isn't looking good. It would be interesting to see where the Americans would fall on the conflict, and then the Europeans. Turkey is part of NATO, but I'm not sure if that was only due to conveinence, due to the Soviets, hence how much that would help. On the other hand there is a bit of mistrust of Turkey in some European quarters, as is evident by some players attitude to them entering the Union.

Mike X
10th Sep 2011, 00:09
Is Turky (sic) heading to a more Islamic stance

Dunno, what spices are they using ?

rh200
13th Sep 2011, 02:56
Turkey Says Israel's Flotilla Raid Was 'Cause For War' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/12/turkey-says-israels-flotilla-raid-was-cause-for-war/)

I really don't like the way this is heading, it seems like instead of toning things down, he just wants to escalate things more!

Not being one who knows the strategic balance of all forces, but it seems like Israel is heading towards the situation of having two powerful states on either side of it who aren't exactly friendly. Yes I know Turkey isn't exactly on the other side. Any country that could give Israel a bloody nose would look real good to the rest of the Islamic world.

El Grifo
13th Sep 2011, 13:12
Bit late to the fray, but this is something that interests me Stuckgear :-

Like i said, BBC as a news source, is vastly biased and is shameful of what was once a respected news source

Any actual solid background to that would be gratefully received !

El G.

vulcanised
13th Sep 2011, 15:39
It's going to be an interesting year ahead in the Middle East.


It certainly is, it seems as ever.

Can't help wondering what the scene there would be if the West had never interfered throughout the years, starting with Israel in 1946?

con-pilot
13th Sep 2011, 17:59
Can't help wondering what the scene there would be if the West had never interfered throughout the years, starting with Israel in 1946?

1946? Try about thirty or forty years earlier when France and England carved up nations into new nations in that region.

We could go around and around on this forever. What it is, is what it is.

Sir George Cayley
13th Sep 2011, 18:00
Has it not served the West that Israel has been on Iran's nuclear case?

I recall the IAF dropping a bomb on a building in Iran a few years ago as part of their defence strategy. I think the US want's to clip Iran's wings via Israel and bearing in mind the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill, domestic support for this appears assured even if it is in effect tacit.

President Askmydinnerjacket can't ignore the Arab Spring and must be viewing the events in Syria with growing concern. Don't forget some of his statements about Israel in the past and his apparent impotence now.

I can't muster any sympathy for Israel's politicians at the moment because I think if anyone's spoiling for a fight it's them.

Sir George Cayley

Cleaning wipes
13th Sep 2011, 22:01
Oh yes, what an inflated ego to dream of ruling the ME and of being a member of the EU at the same time. That Turkey's policy with regard to the Kurds is abhorrent and that the genocide of the Armenians has not even been acknowledged by them, never mind apologised for doesn't seem to matter to their ardent supporters, just as long as they're against the same baddies as others are, all is forgiven.

dead_pan
14th Sep 2011, 08:53
President Askmydinnerjacket can't ignore the Arab Spring and must be viewing the events in Syria with growing concern


Iran's unwavering support for the Syrian regime, backed with several billions dollars a month in aid, has so far been instrumental in keeping the Assad regime in power. The Saudis are countering this with their own support to the Sunni protestors, which is ironic given the short shrift given to protestors in the Kingdom and Bahrain earlier this year.

SMT Member
14th Sep 2011, 09:18
I recall the IAF dropping a bomb on a building in Iran a few years ago as part of their defence strategy.

Do believe your memory is playing tricks with you mate, either that or your geography is a bit off.

The IAF did bomb Saddam's nuclear ambitions, but that's closer to 20 than a few years ago. They also rearranged some of the Syrian countryside in a similar move, which did take place not that long ago. But I don't think they've subjected Iran to the same treatment, at least not yet.

Matari
14th Sep 2011, 13:43
El Grifo:

Quote:
Like i said, BBC as a news source, is vastly biased and is shameful of what was once a respected news source

Any actual solid background to that would be gratefully received !

Here you go: We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html)

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. 'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

AFP: BBC had "massive bias to left:" director general (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i20YSxiW73kUeCPDSbnZJbE6v4Tg)

rh200
14th Sep 2011, 23:55
Over here you can just substitute the first B with and A, I actually call them the VOR (Voice Of the Resistance).

hellsbrink
15th Sep 2011, 05:22
Truth seekers must probe the internet for their balance of information.

And that is a worrying thing when you see what a certain poster keeps pouring out when you see his/her posts............

rh200
15th Sep 2011, 05:38
And that is a worrying thing when you see what a certain poster keeps pouring out when you see his/her posts............

And that's the big worry, when you type in certain subjects in Google, and the response you get is frighting on some of them.

Espada III
15th Sep 2011, 13:35
Being Jewish and a supporter of the State of Israel, albeit one who does not agree with every policy decision, I am delighted to find such a sensible group of people on this forum. In other fora I have visited, there are always people who demonise Israel and the USA, and would gladly see them destroyed, irrespective on the effect that would have on our existing western society.

The attack on Israel by the Turkish Prime Minister is more than ironic. It was made by a man who leads a country that not only attacked and continues to control parts of Cyprus, but regularly sends its own war planes against its Kurdish minority population. The Kurds are denied even the opportunity to talk about a separate state, whereas at least Israel recognises that a separate Palestinian state would be a reasonable thing. It is not principle at stake in the Israel/Arab conflict; it is whether Israel would be free from constant attacks if it relinquished control of the so called 'occupied territories'. (There is a legal basis for my using the phrase 'so called'.)

Anyway thank you to all who, whilst not necessarily actively supporting Israel, at least use theirs brains to consider the situation in the Middle East and recognise that peace is a two way street and at the moment, Israel is the only party moving.

El Grifo
15th Sep 2011, 17:29
If the truth were to be told Espada111, we are forbidden to discuss, amongst other things, subjects relating to Israel on threat of a ban.

Any comment or criticism is almost always met by accusations of anti-semitism, irrespective of validity.

Safer to stick to the rules in that particular area !

con-pilot
15th Sep 2011, 17:53
I think over the years we've been reasonably allowed to discuss the geopolitical, strategic and other dynamic issues surrounding Israel so long as it doesn't descend into blatant bigotry.

Agree, too soon and too often when Israel is the subject, a few here fall into blatant bigotry and the moderators are forced to close the thread.

con-pilot
15th Sep 2011, 17:55
Hmm, again I've become physic, I knew what BandAide was going to post before he did. :p

Now, lets see if did it to myself. :p

con-pilot
15th Sep 2011, 17:57
Oh, Great One, you apparently posted your reply to my post before I posted it.

Apperently so did you. :p

You last post is ahead of your first post. :D

BarbiesBoyfriend
15th Sep 2011, 18:07
One thing's for sure.

Israel was well served by the status quo in the ME.

For example, Egypt was no threat as long as the US kept the hated Mubarak in power.

The poulations of other ME countries, Syria, Libya, Tunisia etc. were gripped by various dictators and utterly unable to do (or say) anything.

The situation was not exactly ideal for Israel, but it was very managable especially with heavy 'influence' in all its forms from Uncle Sam.

Now all bets are utterly off.

The Arab spring is truly liberating for the Arabs and the best thing that's happened to them ever. It even saps strength from AQ. Bonus!

For Israel on the other hand.......

stuckgear
15th Sep 2011, 18:09
Lets stick to facts ; Republic of Cyprus which created in 1960 London Agreements had one peculiar article, it stated if one of the communities did not toe the line protector of the other community had right to intervene.


In 1878 as a result of the Cyprus Convention, the United Kingdom received as a protectorate, the island of Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire in exchange for United Kingdoms military support to the Ottoman Empire if Russia would attempt to take possession of territories of the Ottomans in Asia.

Cyprus' status as a protectorate of the British Empire ended in 1914 when the Ottoman Empire declared war against the Entente powers, which included Britain. Cyprus was then annexed by the British Empire on November the 2nd. During the course of the First World War Britain offered to cede Cyprus to Greece if they would fulfill treaty obligations to attack Bulgaria, but Greece declined. As a result of this, Britain proclaimed Cyprus a Crown Colony in 1925 under an undemocratic constitution.

After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the new Turkish government formally recognized Britain's sovereignty over Cyprus.

The United Kingdom had promised Greece unification with Cyprus if Greece would enter World War I on the side of the Allies; but the Greeks declined this invitation and therefore the promise was never realised.

In the 1950s, EOKA (Εθνική Οργάνωσις Κυπρίων Αγωνιστών, Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston (Greek for National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) a Greek Cypriot nationalist military resistance organisation that fought a violent campaign for the end of British rule of Cyprus, as well as for self-determination and for union with Greece, organised to free the Greek Cypriots from British rule.

The leadership of AKEL at the time (a political party with communist roots), opposed EOKA's military action, advocating the Gandhiesque approach of civil disobedience such as workers' strikes and demonstrations. This came into direct contrast with the previous leadership who some five years previously had organised the plebiscite of 1950, where the vast majority of Greek Cypriots who voted were for the union with Greece (98%).

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus, launched on 20 July 1974, was a Turkish military invasion in response to a Greek military junta backed coup in Cyprus. It is known in Turkey as the Cyprus Peace Operation (Turkish: Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı), Cyprus Operation (Kıbrıs Harekâtı) or by its Turkish Armed Forces code name Operation Atilla (Atilla Harekâtı).

The coup, staged by the Cypriot National in conjunction with EOKA B, deposed the Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios III and installed Nikos Sampson.

More than one quarter of the population of Cyprus was expelled from the occupied northern part of the island where Greek Cypriots constituted 80% of the population. There was also a flow of roughly 60,000 Turkish Cypriots from the south to the north after the conflict. The Turkish invasion ended in the partition of Cyprus along the UN-monitored Green Line which still divides Cyprus today. In 1983 the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared independence, although Turkey is the only country which recognises it.

Following the second Turkish invasion of Cyprus in August 1974, the United Nations Security Council challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs. The aftermath of Turkey's invasion did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect: the de facto partitioning of the Republic, the creation of a separate political entity in the north On 13 February 1975, Turkey declared the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus to be a "Federated Turkish State" to the universal condemnation of the international community (UN Security Council Resolution 367(1975)). The United Nations recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus according to the terms of its independence in 1960.

As a result of the Turkish invasion, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, stated that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turks.

UN Resolution 1987/19 (1987) of the "Sub-Commission On Prevention Of Discrimination And Protection Of Minorities" which was adopted on 2 September 1987 demanded "the full restoration of all human rights to the whole population of Cyprus, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property" and also expressed "its concern also at the policy and practice of the implantation of settlers in the occupied territories of Cyprus which constitute a form of colonialism and attempt to change illegally the demographic structure of Cyprus".

Espada III
15th Sep 2011, 18:11
The thing is, Israel does not want to 'bitch-slap' anyone. It simply wants to exist as the spiritual homeland for Jews, in a small corner of the middle east. It is not prime territory - there is precious little if any oil and water is a scare resource.

If the Arabs only realised that 100 Jews = 110 opinions. There is so much political and religious infighting in Israel, it is only the threat of war that keeps us together. If they left us alone they may well get their wish..............

Espada III
15th Sep 2011, 18:12
The thing is, Israel does not want to 'bitch-slap' anyone. It simply wants to exist as the spiritual homeland for Jews, in a small corner of the middle east. It is not prime territory - there is precious little if any oil and water is a scare resource.

If the Arabs only realised that 100 Jews = 110 opinions. There is so much political and religious infighting in Israel, it is only the threat of war that keeps us together. If they left us alone they may well get their wish..............

El Grifo
15th Sep 2011, 18:26
Thanks Matari. I think your first link helps to confirm that the BBC take a middle view on matters. I think the word used is "liberal"

The second link confirms what I believe. Thanks for that !

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster

Nothing from you Stuckgear ? Your assertion was pretty unambiguous and uncharacteristic. You normally have a pretty balance view !

stuckgear
15th Sep 2011, 18:42
Side Note:

hey Grif,

been out and about a lot.. i figured Matari covered it.

however...


The Question Time audience is often derided for being out of touch with mainstream public opinion and clapping contradictory arguments, but sometimes they cross the line. Back in 2001, just four days after the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, the BBC was hit by one mighty PR disaster when their carefully selected, and oh so balanced, audience almost reduced a former US Ambassador to tears by repeatedly blaming America for the attacks, while the ruins were still smouldering. Director General Greg Dyke said at the time:
“…despite the best efforts of David Dimbleby and the panel, there were times in the programme when the tone was not appropriate, given the terrible events of this week. I have today spoken to Phillip Lader, the former US Ambassador to the UK who was on the panel, and apologised for any distress the programme may have caused him.”


THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

Thank's Grif, I do try to see a wider persepctive which is why i have distatse for publicly funded bias being shoved down my throat.

Biased BBC (http://tinyurl.com/9ylrx)

El Grifo
15th Sep 2011, 18:43
Thanks Stuck !

Really and trully, I believe that which is considered "Lefty" is simply balanced content when viewed from a "Righty" perspective, in exactly the same way as critical comments on USA or Israel are seen as Anti-American or Anti- Semetic here on Pprune.

Whaddayathunk ??

El Grifo
15th Sep 2011, 19:07
I take your point and cannot claim to source my information from such a wide field, however as Matari (possibly inadvertently) pointed out, the left wing bias was something of the past and is claimed to have been dealt with in recent times.

This is made all the more intersting when you claim that the bias is much worse now than in the good old days of broadcasting.

I believe that the limited resources of the BBC is/are one reason why it is unable to cover stories that other news outlets cover.

El Grifo
15th Sep 2011, 19:08
The reverse sequence post bug is abroad among us again :ugh:

stuckgear
15th Sep 2011, 19:11
The thing for is Grif is that when a news agency omits facts, cause and circumstance for an inherent viewpoint it is not only biased it is also distorting facts for an agenda, which when repeated and for those less inclined to seek out and research the true facts without bias, then the news agency become rhetorical and that is the case for both left and right side of the political viewpoint, while i read the telegraph, i also use as a news source Russia Today www.RT.com (http://www.RT.com), Al Jazeera and also NHK, of all things (good for technology !), as well as some industry press (excuse the aviation related content) i do not want to be told what to think, and I want to determine what facts are relevant, not to be dictated to by inherent agenda.

And for me, the BBC fails in this regard and it is a pity as it was once considered a gold standard for news, yet today i see many breaking stories not only omitted from it's headline but altogether if it does not fit with the 'institutional agenda' and to me smacks of propaganda.

stuckgear
15th Sep 2011, 19:52
indeed grif, the BBc bias issue has been an ongoing issue for some time, but the BBC's own report into it's bias was only some three and a half years ago, and an inherent institutional change will take many years to change as staffers leave, retire and move on and new staff come in and the bias starts to dilute.

even as recently as the riots, the BBC changed the stance from riots to 'civil disturbance' and 'protest'. this week alone a discussion on R4 was centered around the riots cause as being the 'bankers and banking crisis' and the fault of tory policy (we have a coalition government!), yet failed to address the stark fact that the UK banking problems were derivative of labour policy during the balir/brown years. so still the bias is there.

anyway we are digressing from the thread and we'll be accused of hijacking the thread

yes the reverse posting is !gniyonna

stuckgear
15th Sep 2011, 20:07
BA, i'm testing my Cypriot/Israeli Time Travelling device :E

Lonewolf_50
15th Sep 2011, 20:23
dead pan

Iran's unwavering support for the Syrian regime, backed with several billions dollars a month in aid ...
Methinks your overstate by an order of magnitude or two.
Got a source for that estimate of billions per month (which head into tens of billions per year)?

I don't think the Persians are quite that free with their largess, though they do subsidize Hasad significantly.

If your estimate is more substance than hyperbole, it would be news indeed. :) Care to enlighten?

grizzled
16th Sep 2011, 06:34
Re Israel "bitch slapping" opponents in the past...

If it came to Turkey and Israel squaring off militarily, the fighting and the results would likely be quite different than previous Israeli wars or battles. The following excerpt from an article published last week by military historian and columnist Gwynne Dyer is of interest.


Turkey recognized Israel in 1950, and in recent decades the two countries have been major trading partners and closely linked militarily. Only two or three years ago Israeli warplanes were still conducting military exercises in Turkey, and the latter was a major customer for Israeli weapons. But relations have cooled rapidly since Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel, and the attack on the aid flotilla last year was the last straw.
Early this month Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador, and Prime Minister Erdogan’s announcement that the Turkish navy will escort future aid convoys raises the prospect of actual military clashes between the two.
Erdogan cannot stand by and let any more Turkish citizens be killed, nor can he stop future convoys from seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Israel’s refusal to apologize for killing Turkish citizens makes it politically impossible for him to defy Turkish public opinion on this. And yet if Turkish warships escort the next convoy, it’s easy to imagine an outbreak of shooting.
All Israel’s wars hitherto have been with poorly armed and badly led Arab armies in non-industrialized countries; a war with Turkey would be a very different matter, even if it remained a purely maritime conflict. But Israeli politics will not let Netanyahu back down either—and because it’s at sea, nobody really knows where the red lines are.
Israel attacked last year’s aid flotilla (http://www.straight.com/article-326677/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-israels-response-aid-flotilla-worse-crime) well beyond the limits of the blockade zone it had declared around Gaza, and might do so again. Israel would have local air superiority, but the Turkish warships would be on hair-trigger alert for an attack. This could end very badly.

Espada III
16th Sep 2011, 08:58
Certainly worrying, but given that Israel has the support of the UN for stopping such flotillas the only problem is that the last flotilla was attacked well outside territorial waters. Israel only has to wait for the boats get closer to the shore to stop it and Turkey would then be up the creek.