It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
looking at israels economy, most of its imports come from NATO members, so the most they might do is cut all trades. which will harm both countries




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

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


It is irrelevant whether the ships were in Israeli territorial waters or not. Israel has the right to board blockade runners wherever they like. That is the nature of blockade.

I agree that Israel has made a pig's ear, but they have been put in a poor position, mostly of their own making. For a starters, they should have been more sensitive to Turkish (and international) opinion about Gaza. Clearly, most of the civilised world dislikes Hamas as they are linked with terrorism, but Israel have just made a mess of how to deal with them and this latest debacle is testament to that.

On topic. All those war mongering armchair kids who would love to see a war in the Middle East between Israel and Turkey will be sadly disappointed. It won’t happen. For a start both Israel and Turkey are democracies and they have mechanisms which tend to result in diplomacy being rolled out to defuse. Secondly, such a war would be very serious as both militaries are highly capable. Besides, although Turkey is clearly miffed, they have not broken off military co-operation.

Regards



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
actually , events of 1982 demonstrate that NATO is not compelled to be " forced into war "



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
actually , events of 1982 demonstrate that NATO is not compelled to be " forced into war "


The North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5 obligates members to defend against attack in Europe or North America. From a NATO perspective, the Falkland Islands are off the map and no member was compelled to help.

Regards



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Israel attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, supposedly believing it to be an Egyptian ship. Whatever side of the story you believe, the fact is that Israel attacked a ship in international waters, a ship that was from a country not involved in the war.

So, no, nothing is going to happen to israel. if they can get away with bombing the crap out of a naval ship belonging to the good ol US of A, then do you really think much will happen to Turkey?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

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 WW1 ?



The sinking of the Lusitania DID NOT bring the USA into WW1, it was the Zimmerman telegram which did and likewise this could now.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
>>>> IMPORTANT



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
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.


I have to disagree with your conclusion, the rest is spot on. The Zionist lobby in Washington is VERY strong. And if you have the ear of the biggest boy at the table....................

I can see this being the end of NATO.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
[edit on 2-6-2010 by slane69]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I doubt that Israel will attack Turkish warships in international waters.

I do think that Israel will offer that any aid ships may unload at an Israeli port and after inspection, the cargo will be delivered to the Gaza strip.

I think that if the aid ships won't agree to this, that Israel will wait until the ships are within Israel's waters, stop them and force them to a different port.

Hopefully, this will be accomplished with minimal loss of life.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The problem with the arguments that is coming out, is that all of the facts are not known. All of the parties and the natures of those parties are not known either. From the video, the group of "peaceful" protestors on the one ship, seemed to be beating and resisting by force against the Israelie's, and if I was a member nation of Nato, it would weight heavy against Turkey. Then there are the rules of State, and the reasons for such. If you use the reason, that Israel did an act of Piracy against a ship from Turkey, then the question is why have we not attacked and pacified Somalia? Pirates from that country have been doing the exact same thing for years, taking and gathering billions in ransom from different countries in the world, to include those member nations of NATO. From what I have heard, and there are some facts not exactly brought out, but if they were intent on delivering aid to Gaza, then why did they not follow protocals for such, working with the Israles or the Egyptians? After all Egypt has a blockaide on Gaza from their end. From what I understand, the island of Cypress refuesed to let those ships dock at their island. They could have easily gone to the port of Adan, or to Egypt and have ensured the aid was brought to Gaza from there. If anything Israeli's were played, by not only the 6 ships, but by those who would seek to force a confrontation with Israel. And if the so called peaceful blockade runners throw a fist or a weapon, only leads to a lack of crediability that they are there in a peaceful nature, rather they are there to cause trouble.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I have to agree with you that this was not so much an aid shipment as a provocation.

Since the public opinion was so against Israel, there will be more attempts to run the blockade.

Israel needs to find a way to allow aid to reach Gaza but not allow more weapons.

Personally, I think that Israel needs to appeal to the world to work on a solution to the problem of providing aid to the Gazan's.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


is gaza in europe ? by any stretch of the imagination ???????



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

The Irish Government has asked Israel to ensure that the Irish-flagged ship ‘complete its journey unimpeded and discharge its humanitarian cargo in Gaza’. The Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, has warned Israel that it will face

‘the most serious consequences’

in the event that any harm comes to Irish citizens on board the humanitarian relief vessel.
[]
the Rachel Corrie should reach the Gaza Exclusion Zone some time between Friday night (4th June) and Saturday morning (5th June).


forargyll.com...

This would place Ireland alongside Turkey firing shots at Israel with Hamas, Iran, and Syria cheering in the background.

...a plausible reality within the next 48 hours; all it takes is one cocky Israeli commando.



The board is set and the pieces are certainly in motion.

Sri



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Realistically, it would tear NATO apart.

Turkey could gripe and moan, but most of NATO doesn't want any part of the IDF.

Germany would flat out leave NATO if pushed. I can't imagine France, Italy or the UK being very supportive either. The US would laugh at Turkey.

Taking on the IDF would take a war of epic proportions, far beyond Iraq 1991 and far more costly than any potential war with Iran or North Korea.

In light of that, it simply wouldn't be worth it.
The ends would not justify the means.
There would be nothing to gain from it and in the real world as opposed to ATS fantasies, realpolitik dominates foreign policy.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Good points.


If we don't see a regional conflagration, we will probably see economic and other boycotts of Israel on a much larger scale than before.

If the reason we don't see a regional conflagration is because of NATO nations refusing to back up their ally if/when they invoke Article V, then we will probably see NATO start to disintegrate and new alliances formed.






[edit on 4-6-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


You make an excellent point there. I'm not too sure though. The US only has European support for it's antimissile systems thanks to NATO.

It needs NATO to counter the resurgence of Russia. If NATO falls apart, so will the stranglehold the US currently has on the region.

Fast becoming a choice between Israel and everyone else. And from what we're seeing, it's going to be Israel.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by intrepid
 


Fast becoming a choice between Israel and everyone else. And from what we're seeing, it's going to be Israel.



There are probably men in our military hoping it doesn't come to that.

I hate to think what they might be thinking about should such a choice be forced on the U.S.

From a strategic defense standpoint NATO is far more important to us than Israel. Anyone who would sacrifice that alliance for one with a belligerent parasite of a state is quite dangerous, should they have the power actually sacrifice that alliance.

These are scary times we live in.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by paraphi
 


is gaza in europe ? by any stretch of the imagination ???????


Er, it depends on your angle. Israel are in the Eurovision Song Contest!

Regards



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join