As of today, Turkey could force NATO into war against Israel. ~Legal proof.~

NATO official text

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:


on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

So if Israel were to attack Turkish vessels, then Turkey could legally call upon NATO for an immediate discussion upon the subject and it could call for a decleration of war by all member nations. As of today June 2, 2010, if Turkey decided to they could legally demand war against the nation of Israel.

So they are being leniant on Israel, but they sent another ship and this time it is protected by the Turkish military.

List of NATO members A.K.A Turkey war partners against Israel.

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Wouldn't that be ironic? Germany in a war against Jews again?

www.dailykos.com...:-An-attack-on-one-is-an-attack-on-all.

[edit on 6/2/10 by Misoir]

Thing is, NATO need to have a consensus to do something. No way in hell the other members will say YES to that.

What Israel did to that Turkish aid ship was an act of war since all ships in international territory is sovereign territory.

Attacking a ship in international waters is like attacking a embassy. It's an act of war.

If the US government does not want to go to war with Israel they will find a loophole.

A loophole may be available if the fight takes place in Israeli waters.

My knowledge is in history rather than law, but I suspect that sending an armed vessel into the waters of another country could be counted as an act of war, which could make Turkey the aggressors and therefore ineligable for NATO assistance.

Very good point. It is totally absurd and paradoxical but you are right. I'm pacifist but I think everybody have right to forcefully repel aggression. Israel government is criminal mafia - my Jewish friends say it and my knowledge of Israel history confirm it. For sure I'm not calling for war - just boycott Israel.

A war will never happen thankfully. Turkey knows Israel will let it pass without much difficulty. In fact i think Turkey should start doing this more often and not just in a defiant manner over the recent attack on the aid ships.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Basically the only way to not have a consensus is to say that Turkey was not attacked. And that would be a 100% lie.

I do believe that if you fail to uphold the rules of NATO you could be kicked out of the UN Security Council. I'm trying to find that binding law.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
If the US government does not want to go to war with Israel they will find a loophole.

A loophole may be available if the fight takes place in Israeli waters.

My knowledge is in history rather than law, but I suspect that sending an armed vessel into the waters of another country could be counted as an act of war, which could make Turkey the aggressors and therefore ineligable for NATO assistance.

I think Turkey knows that. My bet is that they escort the ship to the end of international waters, and if Israel attacks it then Turkey could call for an immediate meeting and start talking about war.

I do believe that if you fail to uphold the rules of NATO you could be kicked out of the UN Security Council. I'm trying to find that binding law.

I think you mean the NATO security council?

Basically the only way to not have a consensus is to say that Turkey was not attacked. And that would be a 100% lie.

So you're saying that the US and others governments will NOT LIE to protect Israel? You're asking the impossible there my friend.

Turkey should do a blockade of Israel... Israel loves blockades, GIVE THEM ONE.

Originally posted by Misoir

I do believe that if you fail to uphold the rules of NATO you could be kicked out of the UN Security Council. I'm trying to find that binding law.

There is no point in getting legalistic about this.
Decisions are not going to be made on the basis of arguments in court, they're going to be made on the basis of "Realpolitik".
We must think realistically rather than romantically-the NATO governments are not going to be made to do something they don't want to do.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Thing is, NATO need to have a consensus to do something. No way in hell the other members will say YES to that.

What Israel did to that Turkish aid ship was an act of war since all ships in international territory is sovereign territory.

Attacking a ship in international waters is like attacking a embassy. It's an act of war.

Thanks for that you just switched the light on.

You will all know that Europe has been under incresing presure over the euro in recent weeks so what better way to introduce the amero then to divide and conqure europe.

The zionists could always turn the light back off again with a false flag attack all blamed on muslim terrorists to divert attension once more.

The same people that control iserail control the banks and if you see them all making a dash for switchland then you know it's about to kick off.

The world might see combat between the Israelis and the Turks soon enough.

If the Israelis decide to engage the flotilla which is arriving at the end of the week we will either see NATO and Turkey begin taking action against the Israelis or we will see nations forming new alliances outside of NATO.

In a conflict with NATO, the smart Israelis will agree to surrender and be disarmed, the nutcases will opt for a nuclear exchange irregardless of the fact their own destruction will result.

No matter what happens, Israel can expect to face some real consequences for its belligerence.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Thing is, NATO need to have a consensus to do something. No way in hell the other members will say YES to that.

What Israel did to that Turkish aid ship was an act of war since all ships in international territory is sovereign territory.

Attacking a ship in international waters is like attacking a embassy. It's an act of war.

On two counts I may be wrong but....

(1) I don't think the agreement to go to the aid of other NATO countries relates to civilian craft, only military or territory, and

(2) Attacking a ship in international waters is only an act of war if it is a naval vessel or other military vessel, otherwise it is an act of piracy which would appear to be the situation here.

This is not supporting them but one should also remember that Israel is not the only country to stop and detain ships outside their territorial waters. Pot and Kettle?

reply to post by PuterMan

(2) Attacking a ship in international waters is only an act of war if it is a naval vessel or other military vessel, otherwise it is an act of piracy which would appear to be the situation here.

Wouldn't a precedent for this be the "Lusitania" incident, Which must have been declared an act of war, which brought the US into WW1 ?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by ken10]

Originally posted by PuterMan

On two counts I may be wrong but....

Yeah... You're wrong.

But don't let that stop you.

Let's all pretend that Israelis storming aboard a vessel flagged under a sovereign nation in international waters is legal and is not an Act of War.

Maybe if we pretend hard enough it will become true!







[edit on 2-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

Currently there is enough doubt around the incident to make the military option unwise. Should the IDF attack a Turkish military vessel, hese member states would be COMPELLED by law to stand by Turkey, who would also be compelled to respond militarily.

This is a minefield. NATO obligations have always been taking seriously, in fact it's NATO that averted the USSR from doing anything rash. Isreal is HARDLY as influential or powerful as the USSR ever was.

Originally posted by ken10

Wouldn't a precedent for this be the "Lusitania" incident, Which must have been declared an act of war, which brought the US into WW2 ?

The Lusitania may have helped bring the US into war, but only two years after the actual sinking. At that time, the US government did not want war, so they did not use the excuse the Lusitania might have provided.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by PuterMan

On two counts I may be wrong but....

Yeah... You're wrong.

But don't let that stop you.

Let's all pretend that Israelis storming aboard a vessel flagged under a sovereign nation in international waters is legal and is not an Act of War.

Maybe if we pretend hard enough it will become true!

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

Perhaps you can point out to me where in my post I said it was legal?

You should remove the scales from your eyes and read the posts before replying in such a ridiculously emotional outburst.

Either way as an act of war or as an act or piracy it is wrong. I have not disputed that.

reply to post by ken10

The Lusitania was ready to sail. She had loaded her cargo, and victualled for the voyage to Liverpool. In her cargo holds were contraband goods, including munitions, which had been not been disclosed to the port authorities, and even more damning a warning had been issued on behalf of the German Embassy warning passengers of the danger in sailing aboard her.

Source

Also from the same source:

February 1915: Germany declares the waters around Britain to be an Unrestricted War Zone. Any ship within the area is fair game. This meant that ships would no longer be boarded, they would be sunk without warning. The submarine was the main beneficiary of this approach.

and

Initially Britain requisitioned the Mauretania for service, leaving the Lusitania to continue on her commercial run. The amount of Atlantic crossings she made was reduced back to one a month and a boiler room closed, reducing her speed to 21 knots.

Lusitania was given a code book so in order to translate radio transmissions from the Admiralty, orders on how to use zig-zagging to confound the enemy guns and orders to ram any submarine that entered its path, among the many instructions for a merchant cruiser while operating in a war zone.

I do of course understand what you are saying but it would appear that the Lusitania was in fact part of the Merchant Navy Fleet at the time and therefore in effect part of the armed forces or war machinery. This would then give rise to it being an act or war when the vessel was sunk.

With the current situation this ship was a civilian vessel in international waters when she was boarded, and that to my mind makes it an act of piracy.

It matters not which it actually was, it is more a question of what is going to be done about it. There would be more support I feel for taking Israel to task over piracy than attempting to start a war over this.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
What Israel did to that Turkish aid ship was an act of war since all ships in international territory is sovereign territory.

Attacking a ship in international waters is like attacking a embassy. It's an act of war.

No, you are wrong. Regardless of what the Israeli forces were trying to do and the consequences, the boarding of a ship running a blockade is not an illegal act. Let's try to keep this as factual as possible.

Sure, if the ship was not seeking to run a blockade and was engaged in purely legal actions, then that would be another matter.

In fact, under international law Israel was compelled to act, because for a blockade to be deemed legal it must be effective. In theory, had Israel left the flotilla alone then the blockade would have been shown as ineffective and thus not legal.

Before you get into a huff, I am not condoning Israeli actions - just trying to state the law on blockade.

Also, Gaza is blockaded by Israel AND Egypt.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


I would agree with you if Israel had boarded the ships in Israel waters. They did not. That's why I disagree.

Even former Mossad chief said it was utter BS...

Israel could have done this a thousand times better without killing anyone, but they choose not to to send a message.

Killing people to send a message is something that GANGSTERS do.