o Both Ahmadinejad and Erdogan are sending their navy out Israel's way.
o Both Ahmadinejad and Erdogan are improving their ties with Egypt.
o And of course both make a point of being publicly hostile towards Israel, making threats:
- Ahmadinejad has been doing this for years--as far back as October 2005.
- Erdogan is still trying to get up to speed.
 |
Separated at birth? (Ahmadinejad is the one on the left)
|
Of course, there is some conflict, between the two--J.E. Dyer points out there is a level conflict between Iran and Turkey:
2. Turkey is rattling the naval saber around the Aegean Sea – and is planning to sign a strategic cooperation agreement with Egypt this month. The agreement will reportedly include military cooperation. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who did an interestingly-timed turn in Somalia last month, plans to visit Egypt – and, reportedly, Gaza – in mid-September. It’s no accident that Russia and Iran will be celebrating at Bushehr at the same time Erdogan is exercising Islamic leadership in post-Mubarak Egypt. Russia is using Iran (as opposed to throwing in with her) to signal the Turks that Ankara doesn’t have a free hand and will meet resistance and counter-power in the region.
Read the whole thing, as Dyer demonstrates how Turkey is trying to turn back the geo-political clock.
And of course, while Iran needs Syria and is supporting the Assad regime to crush the protests--Erdogan has taken the opposite tack, warning Assad to resolve the protests through peaceful means.
And of course, Saudi Arabia sees Turkey as an ally in countering Iranian influence in the area.
Maybe Ahmadinejad and Erdogan are getting to the point that they are not that easy to tell apart after all...
 |
I think Ahmadinejad is the one with the toothier grin
|
15 comments:
haha that's hilarious. maybe they really were separated at birth. the other possible scenario is simplly that israel's actions and violent occupation of palestinians are causing muslim leaders to think and act in similar way...
So Israel is responsible for:
o Occupying land that never belonged to "Paletinian" Arabs
o Erdogan, who dreams of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire
o Ahmadinejad who fakes his reelection and kills the protesters who don't accept it.
Got it.
~ hm, so you don't think israel is today an Occupying Force? Or maybe you see no occupation at all?
~ ofc israel is not responsible for erdogan and his ideas. israel is however responsible for killing turkish civilians in that incident. Do you think in that case israeli civilians were killed by turkish soldiers, israeli PM would just sit and watch?
~ israel is not responsible for ahmadinejad and his actions. Far from it. But neither ahmadinejad nor erdogan are blind... they see
what's happening to palestinians. We could discuss whether their worries and feelings are sincere or they just want to score some political points, but israel is definitely helping them there.
Define occupation--There has never been a "Palestinian" state or any form of "Palestinian" sovereignty.
There has been Jewish sovereignty--and an unbroken chain of a Jewish presence there.
And then of course there is the legal basis for Israel's rights, including the Balfour Declaration, San Remo, League of Nations etc
As far as Turkey--you ignore:
o the fact that the blockade of Gaza is legal
o the fact that Israel has the legal right to uphold the blockade
o the fact that there were in fact more than one ship--and only the Mavi Marmara resisted being boarded
o the fact that the people on board armed themselves
o the fact that the lives of the IDF were endangered
o fact that there were terrorist ties as well as a recording of threatening statements by those on board.
To say "israel is however responsible for killing turkish civilians" is to ignore a humongous among of fact and information.
Israel is helping Ahmadinejad?
As opposed to Russia giving them a nuclear reactor?
The US issuing idle threats and not following up?
How about North Korea.
Are you going to blame Israel for Iran's push to be the dominant force in the Middle East?
Let's not forget about Iran pulling the strings for Hezbollah--which has been accused of assassinating Hariri.
So according to you, Israel should roll over and play dead--and Iran will magically stop being a threat in the region????
~ You really think it's necessary to define it? Anyone who's not blind can see the facts on the ground. Ok so if there's no occupation please tell me who's controlling Gaza's airspace? Who's controling import/export into Gaza? Who create inhumane conditions for Palestinians to live in? Who's controlling most of Palestinian water resources? Who build on land that the UN has said they have no right to? I think we both know the answer. Sounds like an occupying force to me... but maybe it's just me.
~ I'm just curious but.. are you one of those who believe in the concept of so-called Chosen people and Chosen land?
~ So you believe it was really necessary to kill those Turkish civilians on that ship? Like there was no other options but to use guns? Hmm. Let's say your neighbour's son walks to your yard and refuses to leave after you told him so. You attack him and he resists you and fights you back. Then you shoots him. Who's responsible for his death?
~ no, i have no intention to blame Israel for Iran's or Tukey's push to be the dominant force in the Middle East. But like i said, israel is helping hardliners in those two countries in some ways. How? By continuing occupying Palestinians, killing civilians, killing iranian scientists, threatening iran with attack etc. And no, there's no need for israel to roll over and play dead. There are other options too. As for Iran being "being a threat in the region", i'd say israel is in fact bigger threat to the region than iran. Israel has nukes, israel is stealing land and build illegal settlements, her violent occupation and millitary actions have killed much more innocent civilians in the last decade than iran. I'm not saying iranians are angels, though.
You really think it's necessary to define it?
No, you're right: why know the facts when you can just spew warmed-over rhetoric.
Stick to the facts?
What was I thinking?
~ Listen. Go to Gaza and live there for a week or two... and then tell me if you still believe there's no occupation there. Oh wait, you can't go there. Israel wouldn't let you in, they control the borders... but hey, they're not occupation force, they're just... hmm... normal neighbour country?
I kinda hoped you'd respond to my other points rather than just focusing on a term "occupation" and its definition. What was I thinking?
Oh come on.
Because of your inability to define terms, you call this "occupation" when Israel in fact does not "occupy" the area you are talking about.
Can you identify another political situation where this is done?sr
You claim Israel controls Gazan airspace, but the only use of that airspace by Hamas is for firing rockets at Israeli civilians--who would laugh at your claim.
Of course, completely missing from your posts is the fact that there is a war on, declared by Hamas, and that the measures you complain about are not from decades ago but in direct reaction from the bloody coup by which Hamas kicked out Fatah.
Inhumane conditions--the new hotels or the parks or the malls?
Sounds like an occupying force to me... but maybe it's just me.
Yeah we already settle
~ I'm just curious but.. are you one of those who believe in the concept of so-called Chosen people and Chosen land?
There's a distraction. Define the concept first--because I don't think you understand it.
~ So you believe it was really necessary to kill those Turkish civilians on that ship?
Civilians? A loaded term to deny, or ignore, their actions, statements, and connections to a terrorist-affiliated group.
Like there was no other options but to use guns? Hmm. Let's say your neighbour's son walks to your yard and refuses to leave after you told him so. You attack him and he resists you and fights you back. Then you shoots him. Who's responsible for his death?
Are you so unfamiliar with the facts that you have to resort to such an absurd, contrived example?
I addressed this, you fail to ignore the facts and the best you can do is make up this?
(continued)
~ no, i have no intention to blame Israel for Iran's or Tukey's push to be the dominant force in the Middle East. But like i said, israel is helping hardliners in those two countries in some ways. How? By continuing occupying Palestinians, killing civilians, killing iranian scientists, threatening iran with attack etc.
What an assortment of nonsense.
So Israel is responsible for every despot in the region:
o because it defends itself from terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians
o because civilians are killed--which most people would normally blame those who intentionally started the conflict--whether in war or attempting to break a legal blockade aimed at preventing arms from coming into Gaza.
o Iran is controlled by a regime that kills its own people while acquiring nuclear power and threatening for years to wipe Israel off the map--and you say Israel should not defend itself?
And no, there's no need for israel to roll over and play dead. There are other options too.
How inane.
Name two.
You claim to be arguing a point, so don't waste my time using terms you show no indication of understanding and claiming options that you do not even describe.
As for Iran being "being a threat in the region", i'd say israel is in fact bigger threat to the region than iran. Israel has nukes, israel is stealing land and build illegal settlements, her violent occupation and millitary actions have killed much more innocent civilians in the last decade than iran. I'm not saying iranians are angels, though.
This is supposed to be a comparison????
o Does Israel openly threaten the Arab world with nuclear attack?
o Where are the indications that those weapons are meant as anything but defensive purposes?
o "IS stealing"? where? As for settlements in general, I already pointed you to the legal arguments. (Those would be actual arguments, where facts are actually sourced).
o "military actions"? Again (and again) you resort to warmed-over rhetoric. Which non-defensive actions are you referring to???
have killed much more innocent civilians in the last decade than iran.
Really? Give some numbers.
Bottom line, what you call "an argument" is nothing but rhetorical flourishes lacking facts, sourcing and context.
There is no indication you have any idea what is going on in the region.
~Ok, I agree... better term for situation in Gaza would be "remote control kind of occupation", because Israel does not "occupy" the area, but she does control the strip's airspace (for whatever reason), border exists, seaports, airport, access to food, access to work, doesn't she? Not to mention lack of freedom of movement, military checkpoints, political incarceration, home demolition, disturbance of socio-economic life.
~Sure, there's a war going on... noone likes to live in a big prison camp called Gaza. Btw, I it's not just me; David Cameron described Gaza as a "prison camp" (last summer) first.
~Oh, so there should be no hotels and parks in whole Gaza? Of course you will never mention the blockade, power cuts, fuel crisis and (drinking) water problems. One more thing: if the life in Gaza is so normal and good, why do they need those tunnels for?
~Right, so let me ask you this way: Do you think that Israel can claim Palestinian territory as its promised land citing the Bible to justify its occupation and the expulsion of Palestinians? Do you accept the concept of "biblical birthright" to the occupied West Bank, which Israeli Zionists call Judea and Samaria, and regard it as part of ancient Israel given to the Jews by God?
~Yes civilians, better yet: peace activists. The Free Gaza flotilla was an international aid convoy made up of nationals of 32 countries. Among the ships' 600 activists were Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, European lawmakers, journalists, business leaders and even an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor. What a dangerous people! Even if some of their statements might be seen as radical, you can't say their goal was to harm Israel. Besides, in any democratic country, people have freedom of expression, don't they? If Israeli commandos didn't attack them, they'd never use any violence.
As for my example, I agree it maybe wasn't the best one possible, but I think it had a point. Kind of.
~Ah. I never said Israel is responsible "for every despot in the region". But with her actions, Israel is helping those hardlines to score some easy points at home and among muslims in general. You know, similar as Castro in Cuba (or Kim Jong Il in N Korea) can easily portray Americans as evil and responsible for miserable conditions in Cuba (N Korea) because of Americans politics and sanctions against them. Easy points.
~Yes, there are other options. The best one would be to:
- end the occupation (or whatever you call it)
- stop building illegal settlements
- start serious negotiations with Palestinians and Syria
That way Palestinian militant movements would lose their main argument for their fight against Israel- you cannot call yourself a resistance movement if there is no occupation to resist. And mentioning Palestinians, needless to say they have their own obligations as well. I'm not saying Israel is alone responsible for the current situation. It always takes two to tango. :)
(continued)
~ Does Israel openly threaten the Arab world with nuclear attack? No. There's also no indications that those weapons are meant as anything but defensive purposes. However, I think we both know there are other benefits of Nuclear Weapons. One of them is a negotiation tool. They are considered as one of the best negotiation tools available in the international political circuit. Nobody wants to argue with someone who holds the power of complete destruction. North Korea is a perfect example of that.
Btw, i think you (as many others) misunderstood Ahmadinejad and his words about "wiping Israel off the map". The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. He has nothing against jews and he never demanded the elimination or annihilation of Israel, he only suggested the changes (regime or system changes) will come in the future (without Iranian actions). The Shah-Regime being supported by the U.S. has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Those are two examples of what he wanted to say.
~the fact is that israeli wall and some settlements are considered illegal by the UN and many credible international lawyers and experts all around the world. I see no reason why I shouldn't believe them.
~non-defensive actions? I think most of Israeli millitary actions in Gaza could be at least called "disproportionate use of force". While Israel has right to defend herself, we should all condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children and women. Killing about 350 children in one big millitary operation can not be called pure self-defence in my opinion.
~Hmm I don't have exact numbers but at least we can conclude Iran hasn't attack anyone in the last 10 years while Israel did.
This is becoming tedious.
Your sloppiness is epitomized by the fact that the only thing you are able to provide documentation for is a metaphor--that Cameron describes Gaza as "a prison camp": a description that you yourself admit is not to be taken literally, and so it can mean anything to anybody.
For the rest, you continue to repeat rhetoric without knowledge of the facts.
You write about what Israel does "for whatever reason"--you cannot even bring yourself to admit that Israel is protecting itself in a war declared by a terrorist entity that targets unarmed civilians.
"Sure, there's a war going on... noone likes to live in a big prison camp called Gaza."
Apparently, you are ignorant of the simple fact that the blockade is in response to Hamas terrorist attacks and did not precipitate them.
Of course you will never mention the blockade
No point discussing when clearly you are not reading what I write, since I have been mentioning and addressing this point all along.
...power cuts, fuel crisis and (drinking) water problems.
You are also not up on the extent to which these problems are due to Hamas failure to pay for services.
For that matter, you take it as axiomatic that Israel has an obligation to provide good a services to an area under the rule of terrorists.
(continued)
One more thing: if the life in Gaza is so normal and good, why do they need those tunnels for?
So you don't know about the arms being transferred via the tunnels?What colossal ignorance on your part.
~Right, so let me ask you this way: Do you think that Israel can claim Palestinian territory as its promised land...
Again, I note your inability to actually explain what makes this Palestinian territory to begin with.
...citing the Bible to justify its occupation and the expulsion of Palestinians?
I have never done this, but then again you cannot deal with the facts I do present, can you.
Do you accept the concept of "biblical birthright" to the occupied West Bank, which Israeli Zionists call Judea and Samaria...
Those are the actual Biblical names, so why not call those areas by those names? Are you so uptight when the later Arabic names are used?
and regard it as part of ancient Israel given to the Jews by God?
That part is indisputeably written in the Bible
~Yes civilians, better yet: peace activists.
Putting aside the fact that none of the other boats had this problem, putting aside the fact that Israel has the legal right to blockade Gaza because Hamas is attacking Israel, putting aside the fact that Israel also has the right to defend the blockade, putting aside the fact that many of those Turks were associated with IHH (which has terrorist connections), putting aside that the boat was warned before being boarded, putting aside the video evidence that the passengers attacked the IDF...but why go on: you clearly have no grasp of the facts.
The Free Gaza flotilla was an international aid convoy made up of nationals of 32 countries. Among the ships' 600 activists were Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, European lawmakers, journalists, business leaders and even an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor
Quoting Namik Tan? Even when you quote something have factual, you don't source it, because it reveals your ignorance of the facts.
(continued)
Even if some of their statements might be seen as radical, you can't say their goal was to harm Israel.
Huh? If you don't read what you write, why should I???
Besides, in any democratic country, people have freedom of expression, don't they? If Israeli commandos didn't attack them, they'd never use any violence.
The videos, of course, prove you wrong.
~Ah. I never said Israel is responsible "for every despot in the region". But with her actions, Israel is helping those hardlines to score some easy points at home and among muslims in general. You know, similar as Castro in Cuba (or Kim Jong Il in N Korea) can easily portray Americans as evil and responsible for miserable conditions in Cuba (N Korea) because of Americans politics and sanctions against them. Easy points.
By all means then, let Israel, the US and the rest of the Western world roll over and play dead.
~Yes, there are other options. The best one would be to:
- end the occupation (or whatever you call it)
- stop building illegal settlements
- start serious negotiations with Palestinians and Syria
If you knew what you were talking about, at least you might mention that Hamas should end its war first and stop firing rockets--but talking to you is pointless.
That way Palestinian militant movements would lose their main argument for their fight against Israel- you cannot call yourself a resistance movement if there is no occupation to resist.
But since this is a war, Hamas is not going to stop. You also are apparently blissfully unaware that Hamas has specifically refused even a ceasefire, accepting a Hudna at best.
(continued)
And mentioning Palestinians, needless to say they have their own obligations as well. I'm not saying Israel is alone responsible for the current situation. It always takes two to tango. :)
But of course you do not specify what those obligations are.
~ Does Israel openly threaten the Arab world with nuclear attack? No. There's also no indications that those weapons are meant as anything but defensive purposes. However, I think we both know there are other benefits of Nuclear Weapons. One of them is a negotiation tool. They are considered as one of the best negotiation tools available in the international political circuit. Nobody wants to argue with someone who holds the power of complete destruction. North Korea is a perfect example of that.
There you go again, quoting a source without giving it credit.
Btw, i think you (as many others) misunderstood Ahmadinejad and his words about "wiping Israel off the map". The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. He has nothing against jews and he never demanded the elimination or annihilation of Israel, he only suggested the changes (regime or system changes) will come in the future (without Iranian actions). The Shah-Regime being supported by the U.S. has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Those are two examples of what he wanted to say.
Considering how Iran backs terrorist groups, what those puppets are doing and Iran's own expansionism outside of the Middle East as far away as Venezuela--what you say makes no sense (again).
~the fact is that israeli wall and some settlements are considered illegal by the UN and many credible international lawyers and experts all around the world.
And found legal by other legal expert. Those in the UN who do not consider them legal are not legal experts, so their opinion is irrelevant.
I see no reason why I shouldn't believe them.
I don't care what you believe.
~non-defensive actions? I think most of Israeli millitary actions in Gaza could be at least called "disproportionate use of force".
Define "disproportionate force" ;-)
While Israel has right to defend herself, we should all condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children and women. Killing about 350 children in one big millitary operation can not be called pure self-defence in my opinion.
Then you have no idea how messy war can be, even if one assumes the source for your info is accurate. The fact that you do not put any blame--anywhere--on the terrorists who precipitated all this is telling.
~Hmm I don't have exact numbers but at least we can conclude Iran hasn't attack anyone in the last 10 years while Israel did.
You are absolutely right--if we ignore the Iranian murder of its own civilians and their support of weapons to Iraqis for killing US soldiers.
Again, you just don't know what's going on in the Middle East.
Post a Comment