What would Turkey’s NATO allies do in the case of a Turkish/Israeli throwdown?

Throw Turkey to the vultures, that’s what they’d do. One can guess where and when the next major (and I mean MAJOR!) war will emanate; but do to the complexities of U.S. duplicities, it’s nigh on impossible to guess.
But I’ll bet it’ll catch everyone by the short hairs. Fail!

Juan Cole wrote: “Historians may look back on the Marmara raid as the moment a new order began emerging in the Middle East, grouping Turkey with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Palestine rather than with Washington and Tel Aviv.” http://www.juancole.com

The Israelis are their own worst enemy, not only is the Turkey the most powerful Muslim state, its also the only one whose military cooperates with Israel’s with training exercises and overflights rights. This event reminds me of the Trent Affair, but clearly Bibi is no Lincoln (who backed down instead of risking war with Britain).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair

True or false the assumption here in the U.S. is that Israel would kick the U.K.’s and France’s butt and do it rather quickly. After all, in 1956 a much weaker Israel and a much stronger UK and France tangled at the Suez Canal and Israel won easily, essentially ending the UK’s position as a great power.

This is naval not land and Turkey has close to 20 times the population of Israel and an aggressive chip-on-its-shoulder mentality. A lot of people way over estimate Israel. It is not the second greatest military power in the world or even close to it. Israel is not built to fight prolonged wars. it failed in Lebanon and is failing in Palestine.

Americans want Israel to exist, for sure. I don’t think that this is seen as a matter of existence. Reflexively, we will back Israel. I expect Obama will back Israel at the cost of NATO if it comes to that. That will probably extend to shipping conventional weapons and supplies and providing diplomatic cover. I am not sure if it will apply to providing active use of the army, navy and marines. That decision is probably up to the joint chiefs in this administration and they will tend to be cautious. The position of liberals will be ignored and maybe actively opposed whatever it tis. The position of corporations and the wealthy will be significant.

The whole US-Israel relationship is certainly not unique. Hanover constantly dragged England into continental wars in the 1600s and 1700s much to the regret of France and the expense of England.

@ David Kowalski

I’m in the US too, and I’ve NEVER heard that assumption. The UK spends more than 5 times as much on its military as Israel does, and they could certainly ramp up spending if they started a conflict, whereas Israel pretty much constantly spends the most it can on its military.

Additionally, where did you get THAT interpretation of the Suez crisis?? The UK, France, and Israel fought ON THE SAME SIDE against Egypt. They won, militarily, but were forced to pull back by the US and USSR. THAT’s why the UK’s status as a great power was diminished–they couldn’t face down the US or USSR. It certainly wasn’t due to any military defeat, and ESPECIALLY not at the hands of the Israelis.

The Royal Navy would roll over the Israelis at sea, and they’d just squeeze Israel with a blockade until they capitulated.

FWIW, it may come down to Afghanistan. If the US wants NATO intact (in more than name only) for its Af/Pak adventure, Israel may have to back down.

The question is – are Bibi and Avidgor constitutionally capable of it, right now?

Perhaps a minor concern – but we may get a clue once the Rachel Corrie gets close enough to the Israeli Navy, over the next twenty four hours.

Harlequin,

I should probably have been a bit clearer. I don’t think it would only be about Afghanistan. It’s just that this occupation/black ops campaign (Af/Pak) is the current testing ground for American force projection, and it’s already going badly for those who run it, even on their own terms.

Without NATO, the US cannot (a) hold Afghan territory currently under American suzerainty, especially isolated forward bases dependent upon NATO personnel, (b) without considerably increasing deployment of US official and mercenary soldiers.

Respect,

Jack

Harlequin,

I don’t really need credit, but if you want to that’s fine with me. I’m just making low-information observations.

I haven’t much of a clue about how this would turn out. I just called it “fluid,” elsewhere, and that’s about the nearest fact I have to add to the discussion.

Some questions, I’ve been working up:

1. Do the Turks (the gov’t, the major companies) really still want into the failing EU? If not, do the Germans have any carrots to offer them, other than better treatment of Turkish second class citizens, in Germany proper?

2. Do the Israelis have tacit support from the US? If so, do we have to ask seriously if the Israeli state can survive a “bold move” by Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman? How far will the US state go to preserve the Israeli state, as it is?

3. How close will the Turkish state draw to Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas? As Ian notes above, to Syria? Is this, in part, a Turkish move to join Iran as a regional dominant couplet – especially as Europe’s economy unravels?

4. Will the Russians involve themselves, especially since they already have effective control of the Black Sea?

5. What about all those pipeline end points in Turkey? How much oil and natgas do the Israelis get from those sources? How much do they use to keep their still formidable ground and air wings fueled and battle ready?

6. What about India?

@David Kowalski

That decision [to use US forces in support of Israel] is probably up to the joint chiefs in this administration

No. The President is in charge of the armed forces (commander-in-chief, in fact). The military, for obvious reasons, does not get to decide when or where they get to be used. Which isn’t to say that they couldn’t make problems for Obama.

I don’t see Obama sending US troops against Turkey. He might be politically tone deaf, but he’s not a grade A moron.

I think it’s sheer folly to second guess what Obama thinks or feels, because he is a seething ball of narcissism, opportunism and ambition. HE DOESN’T THINK OR FEEL, not as most folks do.

If the confrontation between Turkey and Israel grows, Obama will back Israel. He may try to pull of what he pulled off in Honduras (pretending to back Zelayas while actually backing the coupsters), or what Britain and the US pulled off during the Spanish Civil War (pretending neutrality but effectively supporting the fascists): Obama may overtly support Turkey while covertly supporting Israel. But be sure, he WILL support Israel no matter what.

Regarding nukes, I believe Turkey effectively has nukes at its command. It holds Nato nukes, and I believe a country that holds Nato nukes has command over them.

With tacit approval of ruling elites of USA/Canada/European countries Israel has been stealing ideas/ R and D /research info from UNIVERSITIES and companies and causing billions of dollars worth damage to these countries
Why nobody talks about!

NATO SecGeneral adds his voice:

“Today the North Atlantic Council (NAC) met for an extraordinary meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound for Gaza. There was an extensive exchange of views among Allies on all aspects of this tragic event.

I would like to express my deep regret over the loss of lives and the other casualties resulting from the use of force during the incident involving the convoy sailing to Gaza. I offer sincere condolences to the families of all victims and condemn the acts which have led to this tragedy. I add my voice to the calls by the United Nations and the European Union for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the incident.

As a matter of urgency, I also request the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel.”

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_63983.htm?mode=pressrelease

There is some ludicrous wishful thinking going here that any rational person should be ashamed of, and the bloodthirsty salivation over hurting Israel is really creepy as well coming from people who probably consider themselves pacifistic. So Europe should fight its first large war after ww2 not against Iran or any such power, but against Israel? THIS is what the “pacifistic” set thinks is what would be worth returning to bloodshed for? Really creepy!

And good God, have you people even noticed what Europe has become over the past 50 years? Are we living on the same planet?

So lets see here. Britain and France are so afraid of the possible bloodshed their internal Muslim populations will cause that they will take an anti-Israel stance, but WON’T be afraid of the thousands of dead soldiers and wrecked equipement a non-essential war with Israel would cause, a war where no vital British or French interest was at stake?

Post-modern, hyper-pacifist Britain and France will agree to suffer God knows how many dead soldiers and damage for…what, exactly? Turkeys “right” to send cement to Hamas so it can fortify its positions?

Lets assume for a moment that simply by dint of superior numbers and equipement, Britain and France could defeat Israel – an assumption that is by no means clear since wars depend on morale, and the Europeans countries would be suffering dead soldiers with no vital interests at stake, whereas Israel would be fighting with its back to the wall, and small armies with high morale regularly defeat larger ones with low motivation – but lets say the European powers could indeed win, you’re telling me modern Europe has the cajones to fight a war against a modern, highly effective army and endure horrendous casualties?

Is this really your reading of the modern European pysche? Have you been completely unaware of the European pacifistic, casualty averse mentality that has been in existence, for oh, 60 years or so?

As for Turkey, lets be realistic. Turkey does not have a chance in a conventional war against Israel, even if it has more people and more equipment. Turkey is essentially a third rate, third world power, and Israel has proven itself superb at conventional warfare. Israel has faltered only in asymmetric warfare where they cannot deploy their full power because of the constraints of international opinion. With the gloves off, a third world power like Turkey has no chance in a conventional format.

How can such nonsense even be remotely considered SANE? Do you people realize how crazy your ideas of Europe suffering enormous casualties so that Turkey gets to re-arm Hamas sounds? Do you people realize how your blood-lust to hurt Israel at any cost makes you sound like absolute idiots? Do you realize how creepy it is to support Europe turn away from its newly minted pacifist tradition and return to bloodletting and war simply to hurt Israel, of all countries, for Christs sake?

This is laughable.

Britain and France ain’t going to war for Turkey. That’s drivel. Turkey might or might not start a war, but it would be kicked out of NATO, lose any chance of ever joining the EU, and downgrade its US ties, and be badly beaten as well in a conventional war. You think Turkey doesn’t know this? The Turks like to talk big but they aren’t as insane as you bloodsthirsty goons.

Greg, excuse me, but no one is calling for Israel to be invaded here. What we’re saying is that Israel has put itself in a very dangerous situation. It’s effectively declared war against arguably the largest regional power in the Middle East, and one which is a NATO member. That may not mean anything to you, but this has nothing to do with “defending Turkey’s right to arm Hamas,” and to suggest it is anything of the sort is delusional. The fact is, Israel attacked a civilian Turkish ship in international waters. If Turkey chooses not to interpret this as an act of war (and the signs are, given that they didn’t ask for communal action at the NATO meeting today, that they won’t) it means Israel has been very fortunate, and that cool heads are prevailing. I would point out to you that the justification for the US to enter Vietnam due to the Gulf of Tonkin incident was MUCH less clear than this, and yet it was considered an acceptable justification by Congress.

The clear point here is the preservation of the NATO system if Turkey did ask for communal action. NATO was effective throughout the Cold War because there never was any doubt in the minds of the Warsaw Pact nations, or others, that all of NATO would react immediately to an attack on any one of them. The Cold War may be over, but NATO is still probably the most valuable tool in the national security policies of each member state, and I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that they would fight to protect it. Now, this incident is certainly too small to lead to war, but my point was that if Turkey claimed it had been attacked, there would be a series of very powerful nations which would certainly exert enormous pressure on Israel (perhaps even up to backing a Turkish blockade if more of their ships are attacked). Let’s not forget that the next ship to attempt to break the Israeli blockade is going to be flying the Irish flag–let’s see what happens if THAT ship is attacked violently.

But what clearly shows you to be delusional here is your underestimation of Turkey. “As for Turkey, lets be realistic. Turkey does not have a chance in a conventional war against Israel, even if it has more people and more equipment. Turkey is essentially a third rate, third world power, and Israel has proven itself superb at conventional warfare.” This is a joke, and clearly shows you know nothing about Turkey. Turkey has an economy that is more than 4 times the size of Israels (at PPP, nominally, it’s just under 4 times the size), and military expenditures annually that are double that of Israel’s (even including US military assistance). As a NATO member, Turkey has access to the same equipment that the Israelis do, and there’s been a lively trade in military equipment between the two for some time now. Turkey is also licensed to build F-15s and F-16s by the United States, so their air force is on par with Israel’s, and significantly larger. Israel has maintained a reputation (and a deserved one) for a powerful and effective military, but they’ve been fighting what you refer to as ‘third world powers’ since the forties. Turkey is in the big leagues, whether you choose to admit it or not, and Israel’s playing with fire if they don’t acknowledge it.

Again, my point is not that any of these nations would drive Israel into the sea, or some drivel. My point is that they have more than the necessary capacity to force Israel to back down, even without US support. And if Turkey asks, most of them will come running because the NATO system is too valuable to let erode away. Israel’s delusional if they think otherwise, and while delusions are enjoyable, when they run into reality, reality rarely is the one to budge. It’s in the best interests of all if the Israelis realize this in the near future.

As an aside on Turkish military capabilities, read: http://cep.rhul.ac.uk/cep-blog/2008/11/14/turkey-key-to-the-eu-punching-its-weight.html. The author argues that bringing Turkey into the EU would add a military capacity almost equal to that provided by the United Kingdom and France, and discusses Turkey’s capabilities in terms of regional force projection.

Again, this is just to convince people that discounting Turkey as a “third rate, third world” power is ridiculous.

@harlequinn.

This is what I understand your point(s) to be. One, Israel is the aggressor against Turkey. But this is wrong. Turkey is the aggressor against Israel. Two, that regardless of who is right or who is wrong, it is dangerous for Israel to get on Turkeys bad side because it is a powerful country. But this is wrong. It is more dangerous for Israel to submit to Turkeys “conditions” for remaining “friendly”, as those conditions are seemingly that Israel cease defending itself. Further, it never seems to occur to you that it is extremely dangerous for Turkey to try and fight Israel, as even if it would win it would emerge heavily mauled, seriously weakened, possibly wrecked, and easy prey for its enemies Syria, the Kurds, etc. Would Turkey survive a war with Israel, even a victory, as a serious power? No. And third, you seem to think that again, regardless of the rights or wrongs, Turkey can marshall the full power of NATO, so again, Israel is the one who should be watching out regardless of wether it is justified or not. This is wrong, as NATO cannot be invoked when a member country attacks without provocation, as Turkey did when it sent a violent flotilla with the intention of arming Hamas and breaking Israel’s legal blockade. NATO is not a cover for one country initiating a war of aggression and then demanding all NATO members assist it. Furthermore, NATO is increasingly irrelevant in a world without the USSR and it is questionable if France or Britain would take any risks to sustain such a chimera, and Europe is far too pacifistic these days to fight any serious wars over anything less than vital interests, and even then maybe not.

The problem with analyses such as yours is that you seem to think Turkey, France, Britain, or whoever, can simply do as they wish with Israel because they are stronger, in combination or alone, and that all the deterrence is on their side. By failing to give weight to Israel’s ability to do damage to these players you create a completely distorted picture; even granting all your (highly questionable) “suppositions”, Israel still has considerable detterence at its disposal, and all these countries would suffer terribly over things that simply aren’t vital interests for them whereas Israel IS dealing with something that is a vital interest to it.

It’s similar to the fear of Iran that permeates some people in the US – sure, Iran can do some damage to us. But good God, we can do just a bit more damage to Iran, so the idea that we need fear any action on Iran because we are terrified of a few pinpricks is the result of a distorted image created in the brain where the menace of the other side looms grotesquely large, and the capabilities of the US and Israel seem to have no proportionate value in the equation.

Ultimately, such scenarios are driven by wishful thinking. Since you WANT Israel to be humbled, you concot preposterous scenarios where it will be. Since many WANT the US to be humbled, they make Iran into a fearsome enemy. Since you WANT Israel to feel fear, you pretend that Turkey has no need to feel an equal or possibly even greater fear.

If Israel had any balls at all, it would withdraw its ambassador from Turkey, jail all members of the flotilla who engaged in violence – with LONG jail terms – and warn Turkey of military consequences if it pulls this kind of crap again. But since Israel can’t even bring itself to punish Syria for arming Hezbollah, and Syria is a joke of a military power, and the US cravenly permits Syria and Iran to sponser attacks against American troops with nary a peep even though both Iran and Syria (or anyone, really) are laughably incapable of dealing with US military might, it seems unlikely that Israel, or any Western power, has the kind of common-sensical self-respect and fortitude to stand up for themselves.

That kind of self-respect seems to be something only the Muslims have these days, sadly. Encouragingly, the over the top actions of Turkey, and the hostility of the EU, are slowly forcing Israelis, little by little, to man up and grow a bit of spine here and there.

If Turkey goes a bit insane and goes even further, which is admittedly possible, I foresee an even greater stiffening of the spine in Israel, and a greater turn towards a proper self-regard and appropriate self-defense which has been so sorely lacking in Israel (and the US, and the West) lately, because it has no choice. It’s back is to the wall. If Turkey sends a naval escort, they will be sunk by Israel, because Turkey will be essentially declaring war on Israel. Israel cannot let it go through, because this will be a massive display of weakness and a provoke Hezbolla, Hamas, Syria, and God knows who else to attack it, as they do when Israel allows its detterence to be massively and ruinously degraded.

Then what? Turkey fights a war with Israel after forcing it to the wall? OK, maybe Turkey is that insane. Maybe. Israel has nukes so Turkey CANNOT win utterly, even if Turkey has nukes as well. At best, mutual destruction. Is all this worth it to Turkey when no vital interests are at stake, when Israel does have vital interests at stake? I give great credit to Thucydian “honor” as a prod to war, but few nations are quite that suicidal for so little cause.

And do you think the EU, the US, etc, won’t have any problems at all with Turkey if it acts like this? Who knows, we live in interesting times.

Greg,

I clearly won’t be writing to you again, because you appear to have no idea how international relations work. How can you POSSIBLY claim Turkey is the aggressor here? Even if you are so fully ready to buy into the Israeli delusion that those ships somehow were an act of aggression, they certainly are not instruments of the Turkish government. That would be like saying that if a US citizen attempts to smuggle goods into Israel, that’s an act of aggression by the United States against Israel. It’s absurd. The only relation those ships had to the Turkish government was that they were flying the Turkish flag (you do realize that ALL vessels, both military, government-owned, AND civilian, fly the flags of a nation, right?) and thus, while on international waters, were bound by Turkish law, and under Turkish protection.

Israel flagrantly violated international law by attacking Turkish interests on the open sea and killing Turkish citizens, and you think you can spin that into Turkey acting as an aggressor? The mind boggles at the thought. And with regards to NATO, the original charter specifically mentions attacks on private shipping in the Mediterranean as being cause for communal response by the entire Organization as though each member state had been attacked–so yes, Turkey could have asked for the help of all nations today, and they would have been bound to respond. Turkey was attacked, it was certainly not the aggressor, and I don’t think even the Israeli government would argue that Turkey attacked them.

The fact is, you think I’m coming in here with an agenda that wants to see Israel humbled, when what I really want to see is a return to rationality. Those people didn’t have to die. The Middle East peace process didn’t have to be deferred yet again, and the influence of the United States in the Middle East didn’t have to be weakened that much further, but all of those things happened because of massive stupidity on the part of all involved. Israel, as a nation-state, has greater obligations than individuals, and it failed to uphold them. If it gets out of this with nothing more than massive international condemnation, it will have been fortunate, but ultimately, that will only prolong this cycle and encourage more needless violence. That benefits no one in the long term.

But to suggest that Turkey “pulled this crap” blows my mind. That’s factually incorrect on so many different levels, and makes a mockery of your entire argument.

Remember, ultimately, force backs a nation’s capacity for action and pressure on the international stage. Israel is isolated already, and alienating its remaining allies is a poor way to move forward. And using Israel’s nuclear capacity as a deterrent may be effective against Syria, the Lebanon, and Egypt, but it’s not a concern to nation’s under NATO’s umbrella. NATO deterred the USSR for fifty years, you think Israel would risk its own annihilation to hurt Turkey? Please. This is a ridiculous conversation, and one far too filled with hypotheticals.

Ultimately, the true question is what will the US do. My argument was that if Turkey invoked NATO’s self-defence doctrine, and demanded US assistance, the US would be forced to put pressure on Israel to back down. And there is no doubt that if that pressure materialized, either the Netanyahu government would back down, or the one that would shortly replace it would. And that’s why I said Israel was playing with fire. The rest is needless hypothetical, because you don’t get nuclear war from an incident like this. But rest assured, if Turkey wanted to push this badly enough, they’d get what they wanted. And Israel would have only themselves to blame.

Hah, the big myth of the mighty IDF. Good stuff, Greg. It might be worth your time to look at the immigration pattern for Israel over the last couple of decades, the immigration pattern that’s created neo-Nazi groups in Israel proper. It’s a small nation with a conscription army; it may be well equipped, but that’s about it.

Turkey isn’t going to invade Israel. It has no reason to invade Israel and i’m sure that Turkish leaders are capable of seeing how damaging such a war would be. Turkey has plenty of other ways to damage Israel if it wants and those are more likely.

What this does do is push the question of Israel’s general behavior into the forefront of international relations. The elephant in the room has finally gone and pissed off another regional power (an ally even). Turkey now has good reason to push the breaking of the blockade. And Turkey has a lot to win by being the nation that breaks the blockade.

You do know that Britain tabled a proposal at the UN in 2009 to force the end of the blockade, right? US abstention kept it from passing. Our unconditional relationship with Israel hurts us, Israel and the entire middle East far more than it helps.

Perhaps the people of Gaza need some fortification if Israel continues to drop white phosphorus rounds on the civilian population. But more to your point of Turkey aiding Hamas, let’s not forget that Israel created Hamas as a counterbalance to the PLO. So Israel can just shut the fuck up about the problems it has with its personal Frankenstein.

I don’t want to see a shooting war between Turkey and Israel or NATO and Israel. What i do want to see is a sane reaction to this situation that forces Israel to finally act like a grown up instead of a spoiled, violent child.

And keep in mind that it wasn’t just dirty Muslims that were going to run that blockade. There were plenty of Europeans and even Israelis (including a Holocaust survivor). They were all rounded up and put in prison after being taken from international waters.

Designed to insure an incident.

Ian Walsh — CEMENT can be used to fortify positions. The flotilla was brining in cement. Why?

Israel OFFERED all genuinely humanitarian supplies could go in to Gaza through Israel. Not cement. Not anything that can be used for military purposes, but baby formula, sure, bring it in. The organizers said no. Why? All that wonderful baby formula could have EASILY gone through, but the organizers didn’t want THAT. WHY???? If they cared about anemic babies, WHY?

Why didn’t they want Israel to INSPECT the cargo but insisted they had the right to deliver anything they wished, and Israel had no right to deny military provisions, when ships used to supply arms to Hamas all the time?

The flotilla organizers themselves said it was not about delivering supplies, it was making clear that they could deliver whatever they wished, whenever they wished, and that Israel had no right to either inspect cargo to make sure no weapons were being brought in.

Yet it is I who am being Orwellian. Can you possibly be so ignorant of such basic facts regarding this incident that gets you so passionate?

Finally, no one is starving in Gaza because food is regularly sent through.

It is worth looking at
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

No, Greg, i said that because Israel boarded a Turkish flagged ship in international waters it set itself up for Turkey (the nation, not activist groups within the nation) to want to break the blockade.

I’m not so sure that paintball guns with pepper ammunition can be considered “non-violent”. Or has “non-lethal” become the same as “non-violent”. (ever been hit with a paintball gun? It hurts, sometimes quite a lot.)

The ships were not attempting to run the blockade when they were boarded. That’s how Israel fucked up the operation. If Israel had waited until the ships actually ran the blockade and were in Israeli waters (not blockade waters) then the reaction to the boardings might well have been different.

See, Greg, a lot of people like seeing a bully stood up to and that’s pretty much what this was (premeditated or not). What makes me gleeful, because i have a dark sense of humor, is the way that Israel is complaining about its commandos getting beat up…as if it was some sort of unfair fight.

Israeli commandos should be able to handle themselves pretty well, they’re commandos. The point people are making about the IDF is that it is not all top-notch commandos by a long shot.

The greater point in all this is that a people who know all too well what violent persecution is like have come to behave as violent persecutors. I have no argument against Israel’s right to exist, but i’ll argue all day long that it has a responsibility to be a good neighbor and that the Palestinians have a right to a state too.

the US will back Israel for one simple reason: the global ‘war on terror’ is based upon the same right of extraterritorial action that Israel’s suppression of Palestinian self-determination is

the US cannot back Turkey without repudiating its own global national security policy

will there be serious consequences, including the possible collapse of NATO? sure, but the US remains confident of cobbling together ‘coalitions of the willing’ as required, and, hence, will not be constrained by these concerns

There is zero possibility that the US will not back Israel. Zero.

Dear Greg, maybe (just maybe) people in Gaza need some CEMENT for rebuild all the houses and the mosques that the IDF razed during the 2008/2009 Gaza War
:-\

Second that nomination for the Orwell award.

Greg has dug himself a mighty hole as far as credibility is concerned. Never again shall that commentator be given credence, rather the question of dissemblance, misdirection and motivation to divert attention will be associated with this person’s remarks. It is probably easy when either the commentator is a pathological liar or so ill educated and ill informed that the capability to discern fact from fiction is impaired, as is the case with mental illnesses. Because one holds an opinion, validity is not automatic, no matter the length of the presentation of that opinion.

Reading Greg is like stepping in dog dirt, one wishes afterward it didn’t happen.

Richard,

It is ironic that it may be the US who cares least about NATO in all of this (which is not to say it cares little, especially in light of Af-Pak), given how hard the US worked to expand NATO. France and Germany and to some extent the UK have the most reason to care about keeping some sort of unifying defense of Europe together and to try to keep Turkey in the fold. Europe has enough problems right now with an economic meltdown, it does not need tension with a fellow NATO member.

Which is not to say that I think any of this will end with war – although when you have a country behaving like a petulant 2-year-old, lashing out even at friends, it’s hard to be sure – just that I agree with those who think that, even if the US will not abandon Israel, Israel may still have taken on more than it can deal with if the Turks decide to push it.

As Ian has pointed out, with its changing demographics, Israel has some very hard decisions to make about its future. Instead of making those, it seems intent on just pissing off its friends. Why it would want to alienate Turkey, a power in the region and one of its few Muslim allies, is baffling? Or perhaps its just human nature to avoid dealing with old problems by creating new ones.

I wonder if Greg is part of the Israeli govt.’s paid hasbara squad? I must say, he’s certainly an improvement over the usual ones who just scream “Anti-Semites! Haters!” at every comment critical of Israel, but have pity on him. Attempting to defend a psychopathic, murderous, apartheid settler state with a habit of murdering civilians…Well, it takes far more rhetorical twisting than any of us can imagine–thus the inevitable descent into Orwellian gobbledygook.

Justin Raimondo says Israel has descended into madness: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/06/01/the-mediterranean-massacre/

So does Norman Finkelstein, who says it’s become “a lunatic state”: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/292775

Achille Lauro. Words that all American Jews 50 years of age know very well.
What people don’t appear to know too well, are this;

under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.

The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach. One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defence if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence.

In other words, according to international law, the actions of the Israeli military were beyond the law and those involved should be treated no differently than, say, the Somali pirates who are also in the habit of boarding ships by force.

Any rights to self defence in such dramatic circumstances rests purely with the passengers and crew on board. Under international maritime law you are legally entitled to resist unlawful capture, abduction and detention.

What those on board the Freedom Flotilla did was perfectly legal. I believe they acted with great courage in the face of heavily armed IDF commandos, while others might have thought their actions reckless.

Says it all IMHO.
Moreover, can’t let the bit about Israel’s top notch Commando terrorist experts go unmentioned. This gave me one hell of a good laugh, that such a force would take on what they claimed were dangerous terrorists with…………………….wait for it………………………..PAINTBALL GUNS ????
I mean seriously, do the Israeli officials who came up with this explanation really expect anyone to BELIEVE this shite ? LOL.

@ djhenrya

I see the toads are still in chorus. Everything you propose has been disproved countless time before so addressing your delusions is a waste of effort and time. Go home, get an education, and do your wanking while you are at a mirror.

Ah there it is! I knew we wouldn’t have to wait long for the “antisemeticism” canard, not to mention the “Israel has no nukes” line. Whew! I thought the hasbara brigade was asleep…or maybe just too busy making up more excuses for killing innocent civilians.

Hey, just heard that one of the people killed was an American citizen. Think this will penetrate the skulls of our fearless leaders?

Well this just got more interesting…

One of the nine people killed in the Israeli raid on an aid flotilla in the eastern Mediterranean was a 19-year-old man with dual U.S.-Turkish citizenship, the State Department said Thursday.

Asked whether the FBI was involved, Crowley replied, “At this point, no.”
“Anytime an American is killed overseas we have the option of evaluating the circumstances and if we think a crime has been committed, then working with the host government we have the option of our own investigation,” Crowley added.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isAKh8QC0tqYG5gzrDQpY8PFZnmwD9G3UEVO0

Hmm, wonder if State realizes the “host government” here is Turkey and not Israel.

Western terrorist states will always support their little terrorist brother; the illegal Zionist entity. However, they will eventually be defeated.

@djhenrya
The blockade will be broken soon (praise allah) by the turks or by iran. BUT THEY DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT PALESTINIANS! All they want to do is to look like they are the ones that decides what’s going on in the arab world. Arduan already stated that he wants turkey in her glory days (uttoman empire), and Iran already stated it is not a state, but an islam republic who will spread the word of islam at all costs (even at the cost of nuking europe?).

@Jack
The proposal is not enforced, for example, in the caribeans. you know why? because the ships there are hostile ships by definition.

@Formerly T-Bear
As a palestinian I can see that you flourish on hate and on the belief that a war is going on. The real picture is more complex. I can see why around the world people think of HAMAS as a terrorist group. I really do. They killed my family because they were PATAH officers the minute israel got out of the strip. They tell us what to think here.

One more note: Do not credit the UN. They are a bunch on nobodys that can do nothing. You people already forgot why the UN was created in the first place.