It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US Lawmakers Warn Turkey on Mideast (Israel)

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by heyJude

And there's a difference between Pre-Emptive strikes, and "being the aggressor and the one to strike first." as you put it.

The difference between pre-emptive strikes and "being the aggressor", really only boils down to one's own perception. It's the same with "freedom-fighter" or "insurgent". Ones man's garbage is another man's treasure.

They only attacked, when there was an immediate threat to their country, and not acting, would spell disaster.

The truth is, both Israel and Egypt were amassing troops along their respective borders. Egypt had done nothing except sever a few diplomatic ties with Israel, due to clashes that were mainly the fault of Israel. Egypt respond to these acts of aggression with purely diplomatic responses, nothing that would be considered an act of war. Then, out of the blue Israel launches an air-raid during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, catching Egypt completely off-guard and decimating their air force. This attack on Egypt was an act of war and was all but condemned by the entire world. In fact, as a response, the USSR, the US and several other countries moved war-ships and battle fleets into the area. It is argued that the USSR would have stepped in on behalf of Egypt, if it wasn't for the US. This is where the USS Liberty comes into play. Many historians believe, including myself, that the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel in an effort to draw the US into the war for the sole purpose of keeping the USSR out of the war. In fact, it is because of the USSR that the Liberty did not go to the bottom. A Russian war-ship, hearing distress calls from the Liberty, steamed over to investigate, causing Israel to cease their attacks due to the presence of the Russian war-ship as a witness. It's kind of an ironic twist, don't you think? It was clear that Israel did not want any survivors of the USS Liberty, by the way they were machine-gunning the life-boats and napalming the decks of the ship.

The other Arabic countries joined in the fighting due to the alliances that they had with each-other. The only reason why Israel won in the way that they did, was because of their sneak attack or sucker punch that they delivered to Egypt's air force, on an Islamic "holiday" where most Muslims were fasting. Egypt's air force was one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in the region at that time.

Also, why Israel was receiving major support from the US, Egypt and her allies were receiving minimal support, at best, from the Soviets.

So, in sum, it was Israel who acted first on Egypt, sort of a Pearl Harbor type event on Egypt, but less justified. You may call it pre-emptive, but that's only because of your obvious biases. Egypt posed no threat, other than a diplomatic threat and possibly economic. Israel committed the act of war and their is hardly a historian, Jewish or otherwise, that does not agree. The war ended, in part, due to the world being horrified at Israel's initial actions against Egypt.

There is a strong case that Israel didn't think war was imminent with Egypt. In fact, Moshe Dayan, an Israeli military leader and politician, along with many other military leaders, argued that war was not likely with Egypt in the hours before the Israeli surprise air attack. Even Israel's Prime Minister had decided against an initial attack, fearing that the US would cut off supplies if the Israelis attacked first. Israel then decided to send a message to then Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, stating that all efforts will be used for diplomatic efforts and the Israelis would not attack first. According to records, Kissinger sent a message back to Israel simply stating "Don't preempt", meaning don't attack first, not necessarily meaning that any attack would be pre-emptive in nature.

Out of nowhere, "Dado" Elazar, an Israeli military leader, started to mobilize the Israeli military for a strike on Egypt and the strike went forward, to the surprise of the world.

After the war, within months, anger erupted and a large protest against the Israel government took place by Israelis who were steamed at their government's actions that lead to war.

When Israel was created, the neighboring Muslim nations immediately declared war on Israel.

This is entirely inaccurate. At first, Jews and Arabs got along. In fact, Jewish kids would be babysat by Muslim families and vice versa. It wasn't until the massive land grab and displacement of the Palestinians by the Zionists, that hostilities erupted. Because of the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Zionists, the Arab countries started to get a bad taste in their mouths for the Zionists. After all, Palestinians are considered the "holy Arabs" by other Arabs in the region. The Arabic countries in the region were simply concerned with the treatment and displacement of the Palestinians, as any other country would be if their neighbors were going through the same thing.

Here is the "thing". You think you know what took place in that region that has lead to this current crisis but it is clear that you don't. You are letting your biases influence your conclusions. You shouldn't manipulate the facts to suit your view, as your ignorance of the situation only grows stronger. I'm not trying to talk down on you by any means, rather I'm trying to help you. The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” --Elbert Hubbard


Note: I corrected the spelling errors in the quotes from your post.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:52 PM
Yet again the u.s fails to do the right thing... Nothing new there.. One more example why most of the world has a low opinion of the u.s..

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by Logarock

Dude no offence but you are just making stuff up or you are to ingnorant to be commenting on this topic. Just all the way around.

But my favorite today is Turkey-moral-genocide.
You got some nerve.

no offence

To ingnorant



Ironic, don't you think?

Lol. Well it doesnt change the point. Turkey-moral-genocide.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Logarock]

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by airspoon

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by heyJude

Mark my words, Israel will not let themselves be surprise attacked by cowards again.

I'm sorry, when exactly did Israel ever get "attacked"? In the history of Israel's wars, Israel has been the aggressor and the one to strike first.


Dude no offence but you are just making stuff up or you are to ignorant to be commenting on this topic. Just all the way around.

But my favorite today is Turkey-moral-genocide.
You got some nerve.

Are you serious? Can you accurately answer the questioned posed? I sure didn't see it in your post.

As far as morality, it is definitely arguable that taking the side of aid workers being murdered in an incident that could be considered an act of war, is taking the moral high-ground.

Moving along to genocide, the very definition of the term according to Merriam-Webster: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Given that you now can not claim ignorance as to the definition of genocide, which part of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians could not be considered genocide or directly relating to genocide? Might you claim that Merriam-Webster is now an anti-semitic organization?

It appears from your post that ignorance can be found closer to home that you think. Of course those stung by the spell of ignorance, can't even realize it.

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” --Confucius


Easy enough. Have you ever heard of the Armenian Genocide perpetrate by the Turks? Look into it. Their are folk to this day that protest our involvement in any way with the Turks because of this. A real high water mark there in Turkish morality.

My point is the Turks mentioned in conjunction with these words is just a gas.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by airspoon

Egad, Israel was attacked first by other countries in 1948, 1973, and 1991.

You say you were in the military, you should know this. Especially the 73 war. They were surprise attacked by over 2 million troops from most of the Arab League. In less than a month Israel and its small army had pushed them back almost all the way to Damascus and Cairo. They would have gone into Damascus and Cairo, but the USSR threatened to intervene. Nixon mobilized our military and it looked like WW3 was about to break out. We managed to get Israel to reach a ceasefire and less than ten years later a peace treaty was signed with Egypt.

As for Turkey, they better watch their behinds.The US government has ignored the Armenian Genocide for political reasons, but if they get on our bad side we won't do that anymore. Turkey has done things that makes what Israel has done, pale in comparison.

[edit on 18/6/10 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 07:20 AM
I think what really pissed off Israel was Turkey and Brazil stepping in to broker a fuel swap deal with Iran, thus nixing the excuse for an attack or hard sanctions.
Of course, the sanctions were voted through anyway, but a very much watered down version that China and Russia agreed to, again nixing the excuse for an attack.

Israel realises too late they will not get their lapdog Americans to go attack Iran for some tine and naturally, and as expected, throw a hissy fit against Turkey. The US lapdogs go along as usual and blame Turkey for everything, doing the bidding of their masters in Tel Aviv.

It's such a predictable pattern.

One day soon, Israel is going to make wrong move and they'll get hit hard from all sides before the US can step in to save their arses.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Britguy]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Britguy

One day soon, Israel is going to make wrong move and they'll get hit hard from all sides before the US can step in to save their arses.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Britguy]

The US have never had to save thier ass.

But really...surrounded with thier backs against Jerusalem...with the type of army they have and the mentality of the a defensive posture...that believe they will be slaughtered if not victorius...a people that believe they have a national messiah coming one day...and when they fight they fight for God....I pity the fools that go into that horrnets nest.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:12 AM
I'm sorry but this is just pathetic. I read on What Really Happened yesterday a comparison. It compared Japan and Pearl Harbor to American's being attacked on the flotilla.

The bottom line was, what if our Government just apologized away Japans actions at Pearl Harbor? "Oh whats the big deal?" etc etc etc. People would not have stood for it. But today... somehow it is acceptable to sweep it under the rug. I guess the government forgot that a US citizen was assassinated on that boat. I guess the government forgot that US citizens were kidnapped on that boat. But hey... as long as the traitorous politicians keep putting Israel first its ok. As long as we can send OUR troops to die for Israel, its ok. As long as we can continue to turn our heads to Israels aggression not only towards the rest of the world, but towards us... its OK. Money talks.

Every single politician... every single one, who takes a dime from AIPAC should be voted out of office. You can not represent America when you put Israels interest in front of ours. You can not represent the people who elected you when Israels wants / needs constantly come before our own. Enough is enough.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Do US citizens get a vote in Israel? If they don't they should as they seem to rule US policy.

It totally escapes me why most of the world seems to hate both nations.

I don't know why we bother having the UN and international treaties because the US just does what it wants regardless.

[edit on 5/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:32 PM
Turkey has the right to take any position they wish in the Middle East. Whereas, Israel, Syria, Jordan, or even Iran has a right to take a position of their own. However, with any position their are often consequences included. In the case of Turkey cooling ties with its former ally Israel and taking a step against US sanctions on Iran, it is their choice.

This approach is could be costly for Turkey and its bid for EU membership, trade, military training, and diplomatic clout in the region. They are playing with fire on this one, and essentially destroying the accomplishments of their revered leader Kemal Attaturk. He fought long and hard to see that Turkey would become a largely moderate and secular nation in the Middle East. Moreover, the country would be governed on the principles of democracy and judicial law, rather than Sharia Law. It was quite an effort!

Now, the current leadership has taken a step backward and has been embracing more now than ever before their Islamic heritage. I see a shift taking place and it appears the Turkish government is in the process of siding more with powers in the region more so than the EU and the US. The flotilla raid was a disaster.

However, is cutting ties with Israel reasonable? The two nations have had long equitable relationship with trade, tourism, military exchanges, and other perks of having an alliance with another nation. It has also indirectly strengthened Turkey's ties with the US. The rift started before the flotilla incident. The humanitarian situation in Gaza along with the Gaza War (2006) has fueled the distaste between the two powers.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan heavily criticized Israel's conduct in the Gaza war at the 2009 World Economic Forum conference in Davos.

On October 11, 2009, relations were strained even further when Israel was barred from Anatolian Eagle military exercise in Turkey. . .
. . . Turkey refused to allow Israel to attend. In response, the United States pulled out of the exercise . . .

. . . Another deterioration in October 2009 was noted following the TV debut of Ayrılık (Farewell), a prime-time serial on Turkish state-sponsored television channel TRT 1 featuring fictionalized scenes of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian children and mistreating elderly Arabs . . .

. . . January 2010 Israeli politicians and media outlets condemned an episode of the popular Turkish soap opera, "Valley of the Wolves: Ambush," on private Star television that depicted the Israeli intelligence service Mossad spying inside Turkey and kidnapping Turkish babies. The program also showed Mossad attacking the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv and taking the ambassador and his family hostage. On 11 January 2010 Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador Ahmet Oguz Celikkol to a meeting, At the session, Celikkol was seated below Ayalon. With cameras rolling, Ayalon turned to his aide (without knowing the television crews were filming) and said, "The main thing is that you see that he is seated low and that we are high ... that there is one flag on the table (the Israeli flag) and that we are not smiling . . .

The rift has been festering for some time, and the flotilla incident might as well be the crescendo in the deterioration of relations between the two allies. However this rift may have began even further with the elections of Prime Minister, Recip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul. Their party, Justice and Development Party(APK), has been accused by the opposition of derailing secularism in Turkey.

Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya filed a court request for the closure of the AKP, accusing it of "being a hotbed of anti-secular activities." The party won 47 percent of the votes in last year's general election.

In addition to the AKP's disbanding, the prosecutor demanded a five-year ban from involvement in politics for 71 senior AKP administrators, including Prime Minister Erdoğan and President Abdullah Gül . . .

The Constitutional Court of Turkey ruled in favor of the AKP, but not entirely. There put restrictions on the party.

The court rejected most of the demands of the prosecutor and did not ban the party; however, it halved its public funding as a penalty, and issued a "serious warning".

With what has been mentioned above, it seems their is concern in Turkey over the the Islamic leanings of both the President and Prime Minister's party. Furthermore, the party platform may attribute to Turkey's new found interest in Middle Eastern affairs and strengthening ties with regional powers.

The relationship between the US and Israel has been chilling as of late as well. There has even been allegations of Israel knowingly putting US combat forces operating region and in Afghanistan/Pakistan at risk over their settlement construction in East Jerusalem and heavy handed approach in dealing with Hamas in Gaza.

The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that at a meeting between the two men, Biden angrily accused Israel's prime minister of jeopardising US soldiers by continuing to tighten the Jewish state's grip on Jerusalem.

"This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace," Biden told Netanyahu.

It a appears their is a rift taking place between Israel and the US? The visit by Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is most likely a damage control session between his government and the US government. Moreover, a watering down of the blockade seems to be a step at appeasing the Turks and others in the region. They seem to be making concessions with their opposition, but are the genuine attempts at goodwill? Or are they baseless, and nothing more than diplomatic smoking mirrors? The true intention behind Israel change of heart remains to be seen?

As for Turkey looking to strengthen ties with the its neighbors in the region, and distancing itself from Israel and the West? It seems that may very well be the case, but it seems to premature to make judgments on what the Turks may be up to. On a side note, today, Secretary of State, Hillery Clinton, is in the Caucus meeting with the Georgian President. This area is on the doorstep of Turkey, and the visit may have something to do with concerns by Washington about losing an ally in Turkey. Big meetings taking place today.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in