For one he made it clear in every speech in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt that secular democracy was the way to go (that brings up another advantage of our strategic partnership with any country in the ME except Israel - when do you think Netanyahu will be visiting the Arab Spring countries? When will Netanyahu be able to carry our wishes to the Arab people? Never?).
He did not make any errors over the Mavi Marmara incident. He is standing for his own people just like Netanyahu. Diplomatically, he can throw Israel under the bus because the Israeli government has never done shit to boost his political aspirations. That decision on his part was clear after the breakdown in Turkey-mediated Israel/Syria talks and his behavior at Davos.
What kind of spineless leader would trade insults with a nation, watch his people be killed and then back military cooperation with that nation in the alliance he relies on to help protect his people? Only a moron would do that.
Anyway, I have watched the unfolding of the Turkish-Israeli spat for years now and in that time I see Turkey ascending on almost every way growth can be measured - economically, democratically, diplomatically, militarily. It’s proof of concept that downgrading our alliance with Israel (not get in a fight with them, but being less chummy) would mean we lose nothing except maybe the latest cherry tomato tech.
Gee, some ‘activists’ assault and torture IDF soldiers as they attempt to bring ‘aid’ (broken toys and old medical supplies) and break a legal naval blockade. Turkey’s response? Threaten war on Israel if Israel decides to protect itself again.
Even if this tale had any truth to it whatsoever, it doesn’t change the fact that Turkey is doing well despite its diminishing ties with Israel. Indicating that Israel, in its current state, brings nothing to the strategic table.
You keep telling yourself that. Less than 10% of the seats in the ruling coalition make them pretty important, hell they practically are the government.
Well since they have, you can provide me a cite of the government of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon calling for Israel to be driven into the sea post '67, right? I’m not closing my eyes; you’re still batting 0 for 4.
Funny, if you thought this much was obvious then why did you say
Being a message board, you do realize that everyone can see what you wrote, right? You seem to have gained an understanding of the phrase between these two posts; the elimination of its borders or the affiliation of the Jewish people is not what the phrase has historically meant. It’s been a call to destroy Israel and expel its people wholesale from the region.
OK, now we’re swinging the other way in terms of bullshit.
Yes, there are lots of shacks like you’ve shown in Soweto. But most of Soweto (and most Black townships) looks like this and always has. And the commercial heart of it looks like this and this.
And by the same token, lots of Palestinians live like this or this, both inside and outside the Palestinian territories. And before, most lived in tents.
The relationship between Israel and WB is not like the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, it is more like the (old) relationship between South Africa and kwaZulu.
Both of your links are about places outside of Israel. And what do you mean, ‘most lived in tents’? I’m grossly confused here. You mean that before '67, most Palestinians lived in tents? Cite? That’s a re-write of history if I’ve ever seen one.
And? So is Ramallah. One is in Lebanon and one is in the Gaza territories. Ramallah is in the West Bank. All 3 are places Palestinians live. The point is to show the conditions Palestinians live under in comparison to how Black south Africans live.
You were all “Hey, Palestinians live in this pretty green square while SA Blacks live in tin shacks”. I’ve shown that to be bullshit, but rather than admit you cherry-picked the pictures, you’re going down swinging…
I mean they lived in refugee camps. Places like this
Well,in 1950, best I can make out, there were between 1.2 -1.5 million* Palestinians overall. The UN says 914,000 of those were in refugee camps in 1950. So yes, I’d say “most” pretty much covers it. And no, I didn’t say “before '67”, I said “before”, meaning “before they upgraded the camps from tents to houses”
No, it’s looking at the numbers put out by the UN and others.
Well so has drip irrigation but I think we agree that getting cherry tomatoes is not contingent on providing israel with billions in foreign aid and using our un veto whenever they want us to.
Arab Israelis are not excluded from service. They generally choose not to serve (for obvious reasons). Non-Jewish citizens of the region are typically referred to as Arabs, either because they identify as such or because of their language or region.
There are Druze and Bedouin in the IDF. Muslim and Christian Israelis are most definitely allowed. Arabs can volunteer for military or national service – they are just released from obligatory service.
So if anyone is upholding an apartheid state, it’s Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, nu?
Are you telling me that Palestinians under Israeli jurisdiction have worse or equal conditions to that of SA blacks? You can’t possibly blame Israel for Lebanon’s treatment of Palestinians. You claim Israel is an apartheid state. I’m rejecting your claim.
Oh, REFUGEES lived in refugee tents and now they have formal housing. Thanks for the clear-up.
While some Palestinians do still live in squalor and temporary housing, they are typically in non-Israeli, Hamas, or PA controlled areas. You* really *can’t blame Israel for the fact that Lebanon restricts Palestinians into ghettos, refuses to give them citizenship or freedom of movement or jobs or education.
The SA blacks were directly under White control. What a Palestinian does in Lebanon is not Israel’s responsibility. Israel and the US swallowed up Jewish Arabs after the wars (so much that half of Israel’s Jewish population in the early years were Arab) and no one calls them ‘refugees’. :rolleyes: It’s called a population transfer.
Egypt and Jordan are the only members of the Arab League that no longer adhere to the "3 No"s of the Khartoum Resolution, which is still a matter of consternation to their erstwhile allies.
Diplomatically speaking, all of the other signatories still call for exactly that as they haven’t repudiated it nor have they engaged in diplomacy with Israel, and there is no doubt that they would attack Israel if they had a militarily advantageous position. Your quibbling over the exact nature of their stated position doesn’t change that.
Of course not. But I can blame the Israelis for not allowing some of those Palestinians into Israel. Like the Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arab citizens, for instance. And I can (partly) blame Israel for the situation in the territories, especially the settlements.
Actually, the homeland ones were nominally under their own governments (for all the good it did them) - kind of like the territories in that respect. It’s all well and good to say you have a government, but if you don’t control your own borders and ports, you’re not much of a real country, IMO.
