Israel's new enemy: Turkey

[Nightshade]

I decided to post a different thread because the other has become a theological discussion.

Anyway, new developments are coming and are worth keeping a wary eye on:

Shock and Awe on the Marmara
June 3rd, 2010

The Jerusalem Post is reporting on an interview with one of the Israeli soldiers who rappelled onto the Marmara.

The 15th and last naval commando from Flotilla 13 (the Shayetet) to rappel down onto the ship from the helicopter, S. said on Thursday that he was immediately attacked by what the IDF has called “the mob of mercenaries” aboard the vessel, just like the soldiers who had boarded just before him.

Looking to his side, he saw three of his commanders lying wounded – one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee. A third was lying unconscious; his skull was fractured by a devastating blow with a metal bar.

Please read the entire article for more important information.

Analysis. I seriously doubt that this interview will get the attention it deserves outside of Israel. That would be counter to the story line that the Israeli soldiers shot poor, defenseless humanitarian workers. Bovine excrement. This boat was a setup from the word go. The next one will be too.

Anybody who expects that the Rachel Corrie will not be filled with terrorists is deluding themselves. Yes, there will be humanitarian workers. There must be sheep to hide the wolves. If the Rachel Corrie had gone directly to Gaza from its last port, I would be inclined to accept that it might be at least a quasi-legitimate carrier of relief supplies. Now that it is going to a Turkish port, all bets are off.

There is no good way out of this for Israel and that is the idea. If they let the ship in without at least searching it, the arms flood gates are open. Then Israel is faced with rocket barrages from both ends. This is their short range nightmare. Israel has always fought its enemies one at a time. Defeat the most dangerous enemy first while holding the others off then go to the next one. The most dangerous enemy has always been Egypt.

If there is an incident aboard the Rachel Currie, and there will be, Erdogan will have little choice but to react. He has staked his reputation on breaking the Gaza blockade. The Turkish population is incensed as evidenced by articles in Hurriyet detailing the funeral for the deceased terrorists. Convincing Turkey to go to war against Israel may not be a difficult task. Turkey will be the most formidable enemy Israel has ever faced.

It is highly doubtful that Turkey will be the only enemy. I am reasonably sure that Iran has a finger in this pie. The evidence is the attempted Turkey-Brazil-Iran nuclear materials deal. In which case we can presume that Syria and Hezbollah will play. Iran could play but only with missiles.

What will Egypt and Jordan do? Jordan will do its best to stay out of the war as they did the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They may even fight the Syrians if they attempt to use Jordanian territory to try and outflank the Golan. Besides, King Abdullah II has been looking for an excuse to separate Bashar Assad from his head for several years now. Something about a sarin gas attack on Amman the night of the new Millennium.

Egypt is another question, I saw a story that indicated that the Egyptians had just completed an exercise that included an assault crossing of the Suez canal. I do not remember the source so I will put that in the category of rumor only. We should remember that Egypt is also blockading the Gaza. They know full well that Hamas, as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, would just as soon destroy the current government of Egypt as that of Israel.

If Turkey goes to war against Israel, what does NATO do if Turkey invokes Article Five of the NATO Treaty: an attack against one is an attack against all? That is only the first of many question that people had better start asking and hopefully finding answers to.

http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=2573

If Turkey goes to war with Israel, what will NATO do when Turkey invokes Article Five? Will Obama fall in line and take out Israel?

[flip]

I'm pretty sure Israel will become a bargaining chip for peace in the middle east, and America, in this days economy, cannot afford to stand on it's own anymore.

[Duper]

saw the President with Larry King tonight. What a joke. Obama seems to think that Israel's neighbors are wanting to work toward a \"peaceful relationship\". ... He forgot the part about \"right after they blow Israel off the map!\"

Like most Recent democratic Presidents, they are clueless when it comes to foreign relations. ... and you guys were worried about Palin.

[Nightshade]

Flotilla passengers: Go back to Auschwitz



Audio: IDF soldiers warn flotilla vessels they are nearing area under naval blockade, latter respond with anti-Semitic slurs

Ynet Published: 06.04.10, 19:56 / Israel News



The IDF released on Friday an audio reproduction of the moments before Monday's raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.



In it, the soldiers can be heard warning the flotilla that its vessels are nearing an area under naval blockade. They are answered by calls of \"Shut up..... Go back to Auschwitz\" and \"We are helping the Arabs..... Don't forget 9/11 guys\".

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 31,00.html

[Nightshade]

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ching.html

Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Whole World Is Watching

By Daniel Jackson

While it may be the case that Israel's intelligence community misread the indicators revolving around Turkey's breakneck pace to radical Islam, the American counterpart has been clueless. Erdogan has been blatant in his thumbing his nose at the US since 2003 when he refused to allow the US led coalition access to Turkey from which to stage the invasion of Iraq. His most recent role as the facilitator of the Brazil Iran nuclear material scam was completely in Obama's face. The O-Meister did not even twitch.

It is clear that Erdogan has no intention of pulling back from the brink. He means what he says that he intends to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Now, the Jerusalem Post reports that Iran's Revolutionary Guard says they want to go along for a ride. He has islamified his control of the Army and Intelligence upper ranks with loyal cronies so a coup from secular forces is a pipe dream.

It would appear that Admiral Mullen's concern for \"unintended consequences\" has now materialized. Deploying US ships to the Persian Gulf would appear to open the sealanes to Israel from Turkey. The prospect of a Turkish Iranian force \"escorting\" a peace flotilla to Gaza is nothing short of an invasion--a provocation to war.

This is not a game theory scenario. This is real. Already Erdogan is spending millions to prepare new ships to head to Israel. The man is spoiling for a fight. His verbiage makes absolutely no sense to Western circles; but, it is perfectly clear to his audience and their normative system. The pragmatic objective is to destroy Israel. This is not paranoia. He is not interested in a \"fair\" inquiry; in fact, he is loathe to anything of the sort. The man means war.

Israel has many aces up its sleave. It has gone round and round with Turkey in war games so both sides know what to expect. The stakes are higher now because Israel's strike will be followed by the missile barrages from Gaza and Lebanon. Everyone will be involved.

Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama MUST determine which side he is on. He has been elected to the post of commander in chief. War is coming in no uncertain terms. How will Mr. President react? Will he hold back and let Iran take out a carrier or two? Will he permit a Turkish Iranian invasion of Gaza? How much destruction of Israeli cities and population will he permit before he can behoove himself to act?

Turkey and Iran are betting the farm that Mr. President is all talk and no action. It is time for Mr. President to make Turkey know in no uncertain terms that setting sail to attack Israel is unacceptible. He could even ask his friends at NATO if they would help out.

The first step is to censure Turkey as a NATO member for financing the \"hate boat\" and for its war build up against Israel.

The second step, simultaneous with the first, is to deploy US naval forces to the south of Cyprus.

The third step is let Mr. Putin know VERY CLEARLY, in your best communication oratory style, to stay out of this mess completely. Use the teleprompter.

Finally, forget the oil spill and focus on the blood spilling that is to come. BP and the USCG can handle the spill, as messy as it is. If action is not taken soon, it will be on the beaches of Tel Aviv that Mr. President will be walking to sift the sand for evidence of carnage for photo-ops.

Mr. President--the whole world is watching which way you turn. This is your D-Day--your day of decision. Israelis will pay for their freedom with their blood. But you, Mr. President, will pay with your name. History will not be kind. We will never forget.

[Duper]

interesting entry. I read it with a weary eye, but if it comes down like he says (or similar) I expect the Pres to run, duck, and cover.

If he DOES take a stance (in Israel's defense) I would be quick to speculate that some \"outside interest\" (none of his cabinet or party) will have twisted his arm soundly with something more than a \"convincing argument\".

[Duper]

The more I hear, the more I wonder if the oil spill thing was really an accident.

Call me paranoid...

(WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE POSTING PROBLEM?)
The editing function does not function.

[VonVulcan]

Israel and the Surrender of the West
One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again.

* By SHELBY STEELE

The most interesting voice in all the fallout surrounding the Gaza flotilla incident is that sanctimonious and meddling voice known as \"world opinion.\" At every turn \"world opinion,\" like a school marm, takes offense and condemns Israel for yet another infraction of the world's moral sensibility. And this voice has achieved an international political legitimacy so that even the silliest condemnation of Israel is an opportunity for self-congratulation.



Rock bands now find moral imprimatur in canceling their summer tour stops in Israel (Elvis Costello, the Pixies, the Gorillaz, the Klaxons). A demonstrator at an anti-Israel rally in New York carries a sign depicting the skull and crossbones drawn over the word \"Israel.\" White House correspondent Helen Thomas, in one of the ugliest incarnations of this voice, calls on Jews to move back to Poland. And of course the United Nations and other international organizations smugly pass one condemnatory resolution after another against Israel while the Obama administration either joins in or demurs with a wink.



This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation? There is a chilling familiarity in all this. One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again.



\"World opinion\" labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era—a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow \"world opinion\" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the \"occupation\" of a beleaguered Third World people.



Israel announces it's partially lifting its land blockade of Gaza. The move follows international criticism of the Jewish state after last month's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship bound for Palestinian territory.This is now—figuratively in some quarters and literally in others—the moral template through which Israel is seen. It doesn't matter that much of the world may actually know better. This template has become propriety itself, a form of good manners, a political correctness. Thus it is good manners to be outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza, and it is bad manners to be outraged at Hamas's recent attack on a school because it educated girls, or at the thousands of rockets Hamas has fired into Israeli towns—or even at the fact that Hamas is armed and funded by Iran. The world wants independent investigations of Israel, not of Hamas.



One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.



When the Israeli commandos boarded that last boat in the flotilla and, after being attacked with metal rods, killed nine of their attackers, they were acting in a world without the moral authority to give them the benefit of the doubt. By appearances they were shock troopers from a largely white First World nation willing to slaughter even \"peace activists\" in order to enforce a blockade against the impoverished brown people of Gaza. Thus the irony: In the eyes of a morally compromised Western world, the Israelis looked like the Gestapo.

This, of course, is not the reality of modern Israel. Israel does not seek to oppress or occupy—and certainly not to annihilate—the Palestinians in the pursuit of some atavistic Jewish supremacy. But the merest echo of the shameful Western past is enough to chill support for Israel in the West.



The West also lacks the self-assurance to see the Palestinians accurately. Here again it is safer in the white West to see the Palestinians as they advertise themselves—as an \"occupied\" people denied sovereignty and simple human dignity by a white Western colonizer. The West is simply too vulnerable to the racist stigma to object to this \"neo-colonial\" characterization.



Our problem in the West is understandable. We don't want to lose more moral authority than we already have. So we choose not to see certain things that are right in front of us. For example, we ignore that the Palestinians—and for that matter much of the Middle East—are driven to militancy and war not by legitimate complaints against Israel or the West but by an internalized sense of inferiority. If the Palestinians got everything they want—a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon—they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man.



And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity—no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity.



In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem. This must have much to do with why Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's famous Camp David offer of 2000 in which Israel offered more than 90% of what the Palestinians had demanded. To have accepted that offer would have been to forgo hatred as consolation and meaning. Thus it would have plunged the Palestinians—and by implication the broader Muslim world—into a confrontation with their inferiority relative to modernity. Arafat knew that without the Jews to hate an all-defining cohesion would leave the Muslim world. So he said no to peace.



And this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today—whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel—admonish it to behave better—so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.