Turkish troops cross into north Iraq

[kaya'08]

First of all post some sources for the legality issues, I haven't seen those so far.
Secondly it could be legal and a violation of sovereignity, yes, as I said I completely support the act and it is justified, I just point out at the obvious hypocrisy presented by Erdogan when he condemns Israel for committing raids in Gaza, saying that it's unjustified.

Alexa posted the resolutions that permit Turkey as a NATO ally to manoeuvre in Northern Iraq, i believe in either this thread or the other one we both posted in.
Me as a Turk, i do not think the Gaza incursions are unjustified for as long as Israel doesn't do a 10 day offensive like they did last time and then occupy the territory or use large amounts of force in a highly populated area of civilians. This does not mean that the Gaza incursions are legal, however this is where we differ, because you claim Gaza is not a territory.
My point here is to merely point out that any suggestions of Turkey's activities in Northern Iraq to be illegal needs to be subject to review by the accuser.

Then you're an enemy of reality, since that is far from being the definition of sovereignity.
Gaza is not independent hence not sovereign.
No actual, existing state is owning or claiming the land of the Gaza Strip.

You are correct. But what does this change?

 

[kaya'08]

FWIW, my views on the various issues raised in this thread are:

1. When Turkey's interests are at stake, especially vital ones concerning security, it will not hesitate to take such actions as it feels are appropriate to defend those interests e.g., crossing Iraq's boundaries. If Iraq fails to address Turkey's security needs, I have no objections to its acting on its own to secure them.

2. Israel, like Turkey and any other sovereign state, enjoys the same inherent right of self-defense. The Erdogan government's double-standard is that even as Turkey demonstrates repeatedly through actions its willingness to defend its core interests and needs, it demands that Israel refrain from doing so. That is an inconsistent standard.

3. Terrorist organizations do not have identical structures nor do they all act alike. Some can be highly centralized, hence an operatio that decapitates its senior leadership effectively brings an end to their operational capabilities. Others are highly decentralized. Some are between those two poles. In terms of operational tactics, the PKK often operates in relatively remote areas. In contrast, Hamas operates in close proximity to civilians. The Taliban do both. Hence, in the latter two cases, civilian casualties are inevitably going to be higher than they would be in the first case.

4. That civilian casualties occur during military or counterterrorism operations does not mean that those casualties are deliberate. All states have a duty to avoid deliberately targeting civilians. However, international law does not assume perfection and it is well understood that targeting military objectives can still lead to civilian casualties. Hence, the standard expected of states is that the anticipated civilian casualties should not be excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be derived from targeting the military objectives.

5. There has been a revisionist tendency to twist that principle of international law into one that the casualties on the enemy side should be roughly comparable to those the enemy inflicts. That perverted definition of proportionality has no basis in international law. Proportionality concerns only whether anticipated civilian casualties are excessive relative to the expected military advantage. Nothing more.

6. Humans err and technology is not infallible. One can, in good faith, make calculations that are consistent with international law. Yet, there could be some unforeseen situation that leads to substantially more civilian casualties than anticipated e.g., unknown to planners, far more civilians were packed into a military objective in a case of human shielding. In that case, responsibility belongs not to the planners who acted in good faith, but those who engaged in the practice of human shielding. Missiles can go astray. Errors in judgment can occur.

I think that is a fair judgement. I do believe that the Gaza blockade should be mentioned here, and how such a policy needs to be revised. Today's decision to ease the blockade shows me that Israel is not willing to risk its neck in light of renewed pressure, and that it is possible in cooperating with both sides to achieve peace.

 

[alexa]

I've never claimed such thing.

you said

No, you can take it that the civilians who died in the operation were not targeted.
Did Britain target civilians when it got so many of them killed during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Bloody hypocrisy.
.

trying to deflect from addressing what was asked by instead criticising the UK, just as these two threads have been put up simply as propaganda against Turkey rather than as threads in their own right.

Pete replies to this

Britain never killed 300 children in one operation mate.

so that is the background, that is what you are talking about. Britain killing over 300 children.

You then up the stakes

I compare between the Gaza War and the Afghanistan war, so once more that's not an excuse.
It just shows how unwilling you are to claim that Brits have deliberately killed civilians.
Yet more bloody hypocrisy.

As some people know I was against both the Afghan and Iraq war and in their rightful place have been critical of them. This however is not the place.

There above is where you claimed that the UK had deliberately killed children. That by your inability to prove it and your attempt to deny you even said it, was nothing other than a lie.

I've simply stated the obvious, if Israel deliberately kills civilians then so does Britain.

There is no obvious about it. From what I hear certainly in Iraq where we had out own space, British soldiers are much more careful of civilians than the US which would certainly mean much more careful of civilians than Israel. Israel has been found by the UN not to take care not to target civilians. No such thing has been found of the UK.....and the suggestion that our soldiers would target and deliberately kill children is just sick.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Bloody hypocrisy for breakfast, bloody hypocrisy for lunch, bloody hypocrisy for dinner.

Bloody hypocrisy, anyone?

Haha - way to prove my point ater all this time, Turkey *woot woot* :shrug:
I had to listen to everyone yammer on for so long about our involvement in Iraq and how we weren't suppose to be there, blah blah blah. How our presence there was unacceptable, a waste of time, lives and money, yada yada.

So - we're OUT - O U T - because that's what everyone with a loudmouth wanted. Nevermind that the Kurdish people were still under threat, nevermind that they were granted a degree of independence - and wanted to just live peacefully but couldn't because other douches kept pissing in their wheaties. Nevermind that.

Thus, I no longer pipe up my mouth for Iraq, their safety and security, or the Kurds or anyone else . . . let them be taken over, again, and **** on by Turkey and Iran. I saw that coming a mile away, we could be there to lend some support right now but no one wanted us, anymore . . . so we gave Iraq some big boy pants and now it's time they learn how to wear them. They have a democracy going on, now, and a uniformed military - *you're welcome* - so use it.

They wanted us gone - so we're gone *poof*
G O N E

Over and Out.

And so - people cry out about us being "big brother" and "policing everyone" all the time and how they don't want us all over the world . . . well, there you go, we're not there and can't do anything, now. So I don't want to hear a single peace-talker complain about this situation. NOPE. Nicht ein einzelnes

The hypocrisy I see is that when we AREN'T involved in someone's war - people DEMAND that we DO something.
When we DO something then they DEMAND that we BACK OFF.

:shrug: We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[Apocalypse]

Alexa posted the resolutions that permit Turkey as a NATO ally to manoeuvre in Northern Iraq, i believe in either this thread or the other one we both posted in.

Refer to it.
I've just searched all of the threads in the first page of this sub-forum (Middle East) that have either the word "Erdogan" or the word" Turkey" in their title and couldn't find any of alexa's posts there that gives such a link.

Me as a Turk, i do not think the Gaza incursions are unjustified for as long as Israel doesn't do a 10 day offensive like they did last time

You're conditioning the justification of the operation (which in my eyes is completely justified) with its running time. That's irrational and makes no sense, no offense.

and then occupy the territory

Israel didn't occupy Gaza after or during the 2008-2009 Gaza War.

or use large amounts of force in a highly populated area of civilians.

Large is a relative word.

This does not mean that the Gaza incursions are legal

They are. Fully legal. If you don't think so, point towards the laws that are being violated.

however this is where we differ, because you claim Gaza is not a territory.

Never said that, I said it's not a sovereign territory.
To say that it's not a territory, a piece of land, would be ridiculously stupid and would not even support any of my arguments.

My point here is to merely point out that any suggestions of Turkey's activities in Northern Iraq to be illegal needs to be subject to review by the accuser.

WHO SAID THEY'RE ILLEGAL?
I completely support those actions, I think they're ****ing necessary.

I do however object to Erdogan's hypocrisy.

You are correct. But what does this change?

It means that Israel doesn't have to ask for Hamas' approval before it conducts raids within the territory it governs, the non-sovereign territory it governs, against Hamas.

 

[Apocalypse]

you said



trying to deflect from addressing what was asked by instead criticising the UK, just as these two threads have been put up simply as propaganda against Turkey rather than as threads in their own right.

Pete replies to this



so that is the background, that is what you are talking about. Britain killing over 300 children.

You then up the stakes



As some people know I was against both the Afghan and Iraq war and in their rightful place have been critical of them. This however is not the place.

There above is where you claimed that the UK had deliberately killed children. That by your inability to prove it and your attempt to deny you even said it, was nothing other than a lie.

Delusional.
At the first quoted passage I am asking if he thinks that Britain deliberately kills innocent civilians, and at the second one I am saying that his unwillingness to claim that Britain deliberately kills innocent civilians is showing, while he's fully willing to claim that Israeli soldiers do so, exposing his hypocrisy.
In neither of those statements am I actually saying that British soldiers are killing innocent civilians, and my words as quoted by you prove this.

There is no obvious about it.

As obvious as the sun.

From what I hear certainly in Iraq where we had out own space, British soldiers are much more careful of civilians than the US which would certainly mean much more careful of civilians than Israel. Israel has been found by the UN not to take care not to target civilians. No such thing has been found of the UK.....

Israel does more than both the US and Britain to avoid civilian casualties.
I've given you an example, Israel phones Palestinian homes and warns them to avoid entering attacked areas.
Does Britain or the US do the same? No they do not, and I don't blame them for that(at all).
In fact, I do not doubt that Israel itself wouldn't engage in such procedures if it wasn't for the double standards against her.

and the suggestion that our soldiers would target and deliberately kill children is just sick.

Finally I can say that I'm completely and strongly in an agreement with you alexa.
Claiming that Israeli/British/American soldiers target and deliberately kill children is just sick.

 

[alexa]

So - we're OUT - O U T - because that's what everyone with a loudmouth wanted. Nevermind that the Kurdish people were still under threat, nevermind that they were granted a degree of independence - and wanted to just live peacefully but couldn't because other douches kept pissing in their wheaties. Nevermind that.

Aunt Spiker do not the kurds in Iraq have a safe autonomous zone. I remember reading at one time that they were the happiest with the invasion.

Who are the fighters who Turkey has problems with. Are they attacking Turkey?

 

[kaya'08]

Refer to it.
I've just searched all of the threads in the first page of this sub-forum (Middle East) that have either the word "Erdogan" or the word" Turkey" in their title and couldn't find any of alexa's posts there that gives such a link.

You are quiet right, sorry. UN Resolution 688.

You're conditioning the justification of the operation (which in my eyes is completely justified) with its running time. That's irrational and makes no sense, no offense.
Israel didn't occupy Gaza after or during the 2008-2009 Gaza War.

You have completely misunderstood my post! Sorry for not being clearer!
I said i support what they do for as long as they dont do the 10 day war they did last time (which is ok and justifiable) and THEN occupy it (that never happened but hypothetically speaking if it did, that is not cool).

Large is a relative word.

Necessary force should be used only, is that better? The nature of our incursions into N Iraq is different to Gaza in how they are carried out because thankfully the PKK operates in remote area's. The Israeli's need to think of a more "key-hole" strategy.

They are. Fully legal. If you don't think so, point towards the laws that are being violated.
Never said that, I said it's not a sovereign territory.

I still believe Gaza is a sovereign in its own right. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't give Israel the right to step over its boarders whenever it wants. But i am undecided on this issue and i do not yet know what the UN's view on the territory is regarding its sovereign (or lack thereof). Do you know?

Even then, do you realize Israel is preventing Gaza from establishing its own sovereign? The necessary materials it needs to build a basic economy that can be independent (as you claim the basis of all sovereign territory) has been confiscated. Therefore Israel is denying a very basic right to the people of Gaza, hence i cannot see where the double standard lays.

To say that it's not a territory, a piece of land, would be ridiculously stupid and would not even support any of my arguments.

I meant sovereign territory.

WHO SAID THEY'RE ILLEGAL?
I completely support those actions, I think they're ****ing necessary.

I do however object to Erdogan's hypocrisy.
It means that Israel doesn't have to ask for Hamas' approval before it conducts raids within the territory it governs, the non-sovereign territory it governs, against Hamas.

No, the UN, not hamas. That's where the problem lies. And the blockade. Erdogan is a hypocrite, nobody is saying you are wrong. I just have to say i am finding it hard to say he does not have the right to condemn some Israeli policies and the killing of Turkish citizens. The raid was carried out too far, in international waters, and to landing on the boat in helicopters was stupid. The ship should have been surrounded by Israeli military ships and forcefully turned back.

 

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, my understanding of Apocalypse's comments concerning British troops was not an allegation that the UK was deliberately targeting civilians. Instead, he was seeking to make the point that those inferring or arguing that the occurrence of civilian casualties automatically means that civilians were targeted, by their own logic would need to reach a similar conclusion concerning the relatively high number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Apocalypse has strongly disagreed with that kind of ill-placed logic in the past. Therefore, he was merely trying to illustrate that there is an inconsistent standard applied by those making such allegations against Israel. They accuse Israel on account of the occurrence of civilian casualties, rejecting any notions that the casualties were not deliberate, but are unwilling to consistently apply that same reasoning to the occurrence of civilian casualties.

In the larger scheme of things and in international law, intent matters. That civilian casualties occur does not mean that such casualties were deliberate, much less that civilians were targeted. My understanding is that Apocalypse rejects accusations that automatically infer that the occurrence of civilian casualties means that civilians were targeted.

 

[kaya'08]

FWIW, my understanding of Apocalypse's comments concerning British troops was not an allegation that the UK was deliberately targeting civilians. Instead, he was seeking to make the point that those inferring or arguing that the occurrence of civilian casualties automatically means that civilians were targeted, by their own logic would need to reach a similar conclusion concerning the relatively high number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Apocalypse has strongly disagreed with that kind of ill-placed logic in the past. Therefore, he was merely trying to illustrate that there is an inconsistent standard applied by those making such allegations against Israel. They accuse Israel on account of the occurrence of civilian casualties, rejecting any notions that the casualties were not deliberate, but are unwilling to consistently apply that same reasoning to the occurrence of civilian casualties.

In the larger scheme of things and in international law, intent matters. That civilian casualties occur does not mean that such casualties were deliberate, much less that civilians were targeted. My understanding is that Apocalypse rejects accusations that automatically infer that the occurrence of civilian casualties means that civilians were targeted.

Nobody said they where deliberately targeted. Neither did Erdogan, nor Alexa, nor me for that matter.

 

[Gardener]

I still believe Gaza is a sovereign in its own right. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't give Israel the right to step over its boarders whenever it wants. But i am undecided on this issue and i do not yet know what the UN's view on the territory is regarding its sovereign (or lack thereof). Do you know?

The Gazan citizenry elected a terrorist organization to lead them by a very wide majority. Here in America we call that a mandate. This terrorist organization lists genocide of Jews in its very charter, is active in collaborating with the sponsors of terror towards that desire and is seeking to arm itself to the degree it can increase the effectiveness of its attempts to follow through. If Gaza is sovereign, they have declared war through their very manifesto. If they aren't sovereign, they are nevertheless operating as a terrorist group, so if there was ever ANY justification for one country stepping over its borders, you would have a tough time arguing that any other country has it to a degree greater than Israel's.

 

[alexa]

FWIW, my understanding of Apocalypse's comments concerning British troops was not an allegation that the UK was deliberatly targeting civilians. Instead, he was seeking to make the point that those inferring or arguing that the occurrence of civilian casualties automatically means that civilians were targeted, by their own logic would need to reach a similar conclusion concerning the relatively high number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Apocalypse has strongly disagreed with that kind of ill-placed logic in the past. Therefore, he was merely trying to illustrate that there is an inconsistent standard applied by those making such allegations against Israel. They accuse Israel on account of the occurrence of civilian casualties, rejecting any notions that the casualties were not deliberate, but are unwilling to consistently apply that same reasoning to the occurrence of civilian casualties.

Well as I said I did not support either of these wars and have criticised the US for not taking proper care to avoid civilian deaths from the start. It has probably lost them the war.

Apocalypse would still need to be proved that 1/3 of all those killed in Iraq by the British are children and possibly most importantly, it would not make either right.

In the larger scheme of things and in international law, intent matters. That civilian casualties occur does not mean that such casualties were deliberate, much less that civilians were targeted. My understanding is that Apocalypse rejects accusations that automatically infer that the occurrence of civilian casualties means that civilians were targeted.

I think International Law does demand that countries do all they can to avoid civilian deaths. If you target somewhere where there are civilians, where they will definitely be killed, then they are being targeted. After that I think it is just semantics. Israel knew it was going to kill mainly civilians if it took the action it did. Israel chose to take the action.

 

[kaya'08]

The Gazan citizenry elected a terrorist organization to lead them by a very wide majority. Here in America we call that a mandate. This terrorist organization lists genocide of Jews in its very charter, is active in collaborating with the sponsors of terror towards that desire and is seeking to arm itself to the degree it can increase the effectiveness of its attempts to follow through. If Gaza is sovereign, they have declared war through their very manifesto. If they aren't sovereign, they are nevertheless operating as a terrorist group, so if there was ever ANY justification for one country stepping over its borders, you would have a tough time arguing that any other country has it to a degree greater than Israel's.

I wouldn't call this a war.
What it is, however, is the radicalization of Gazan's due to the increasing deterioration of the situation there.
Ease the blockade, ease the religious nationalism. Policy changes need to come from one side for it to come from the other.

I think Israel has every right to be concerned with Hamas. My purpose here is to distance the unfair comparisons between Gaza and Kirkuk, and show people that a blockade is not a taxi for Israeli peace.

In the mean time, of course Hamas rocket attacks should be met with more hostility.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Aunt Spiker do not the kurds in Iraq have a safe autonomous zone. I remember reading at one time that they were the happiest with the invasion.

Yes, they have been granted a portion of northern Iraq to operate as a Kurdish territory - I think it might be a similar comparison as is a Native American reservation to the USA. . . a territoy within a nation. (it doesn't function the same way - but it's the same idea). They are still *part* of Iraq, though, and are governed by some of the country's rules and laws. The problem, here, is that I don't think they really worked out the logistics of military and political sharing - who is responsible for who, what is responsible for what.

Who are the fighters who Turkey has problems with. Are they attacking Turkey?

They're fighting the rebels - well, what is defined as the "Kurdish rebels" to Turkey. These rebels are taking advantage of this autonomous Kurdish region to roost, grow and organize. It's like a safehaven - a Kabrini Green of Rebel activity, if you will.
They roost acroos the border - in Iraq and in Turkey. No one wants them, all they are is a gang of thugs and want to constantly start some ****. . . "fight the establishment" or what have you.
The respectful Kurdish people (who have been granted this autonomous region) have been relatively cooperative with Turkey on divulging info as to where the rebels are and such . . . So, because of these cross-border thugs (the Kurdish Rebels) Turkey has now entered into Iraqi territory in efforts to fight them off.

Now this brings the Iraqi people into the fray - the government in particular. They are responsible for their territory. They cannot have Turkey and Iran coming into their country through this Kurdish-region corridor. It's unsafe and volitile.

A good way to explain this odd situation is to pretend that a Native American Reservation is right on the border of the US (say, in the state of Arizona) and Mexico. . . bumps right up to the edge.
Now pretend that a gang decides to move into this Reservation to use the autonomy of the Reservation to roost across the border - in the USA and in Mexico . . . and then they use this location to start some **** IN Mexico and IN the Reservation.

However, let's pretend that instead of our country being capable of doing something about it - instead - we can't do anything, we've gone through a crisis and our military and politicial pool isn't up to snuff . . . so the gang just sits on the border, randomly picks on people, and no one likes them.

And so then pretend that, in an effort to fight off this USA/native American Reservation thug gang, Mexico comes into the USA/NAR territory in order to fight them off. . . imagine how pissed we would be.

That's pretty much what's going on right now in northern Iraq.

Now, when we were there we would have done what we could do to help - that was our purpose while stationed there. Sure, we were initially there for other reasons - but while there we took on the role of "helper" in situations. Well, we're not there to help, anymore . . . we're now gone. The Kurdish people liked us in that region and now their territory is being occupied by Turkey with the assistance of Iran.

With us gone - Iran and Turkey can unit and infiltrate Iraq, as they are currently doing, and cause problems. What would happen if the Iraqi government decides to wage war on this Turkey presence to get them to go away? That surely would not be a simple, peaceful tiff - it would poke at Iran and encourage a further escalation of unrest in this entire area which is already tense.

Future lesson to be learned? If you're going to grant autonomy to anyone without giving them a portion of your country to have as your own don't PUT THEM ON THE BORDER!

 

[Apocalypse]

Nobody said they where deliberately targeted. Neither did Erdogan, nor Alexa, nor me for that matter.

I'm not 100% certain about alexa but Erdogan did say that Israel murders (deliberately killing) children in Gaza.

 

[Gardener]

I wouldn't call this a war.
What it is, however, is the radicalization of Gazan's due to the increasing deterioration of the situation there.
Ease the blockade, ease the religious nationalism. Policy changes need to come from one side for it to come from the other.

I think Israel has every right to be concerned with Hamas. My purpose here is to distance the unfair comparisons between Gaza and Kirkuk, and show people that a blockade is not a taxi for Israeli peace.

In the mean time, of course Hamas rocket attacks should be met with more hostility.

If Israel eased the blockade today, Hamas would still be in Gaza tomorrow, in place to receive the shipment of arms they desire to increase the bloodshed they wish to inflict. With unfettered access to Gaza, the shipment of arms will only increase, thus increasing the likelihood they can inflict the sort of damage upon Israel that Israel would have no choice but to engage in all out war.

You seem to place the cart before the horse in your expectation that it is up to Israel to somehow prevent the radicalization that has been present in the society of Arabs who began calling themselves Palestinian in recent times. As far as policy change, the one that would actually lead towards peace would be for these genocidal Arabs to abandon their ethnic hatred of Jews and actually strive for peaceful coexistence rather than devote themselves to pure hatred.

 

[alexa]

I'm not 100% certain about alexa but Erdogan did say that Israel murders (deliberately killing) children in Gaza.

It was you Apocalypse who asserted that British soldiers were deliberately killing children in Afghanistan.

 

[kaya'08]

I'm not 100% certain about alexa but Erdogan did say that Israel murders (deliberately killing) children in Gaza.

You mean at Davos? He said Israel killed children, which is true. Not deliberately, but then again he did not say deliberately. He reacted angrily to the Gaza incursion. He claimed too much force was used, he didn't claim it should not have taken place. He also expressed a humanitarian concern regarding the situation, and walking out was just a vote booster. He links the situation to the Gaza blockade and is furious about the strict nature of this blockade. Many people in both the West and East would agree that the blockade is wrong and he is merely reiterating that stance. He needs to moderate his Israel bashing, opposition parties know this, everybody knows this. It also deeply shocked many when he said Hamas was not a terrorist group. He has his flaws, he has his hypocritical tendencies but he isn't always wrong, and Israel is far from perfect itself.

That doesn't make Turkey hypocrites for there Kirkuk operation.

 

[Apocalypse]

You mean at Davos? He said Israel killed children, which is true. Not deliberately, but then again he did not say deliberately.

Turkish PM: We cannot ignore murder of Gaza's children - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[kaya'08]

Turkish PM: We cannot ignore murder of Gaza's children - Israel News, Ynetnews

He doesn't say the IDF "deliberately hand picked Arab kids and killed them". This is in reference to the force the IDF used in Gaza and the humanitarian concerns associated with it. I could bet most of it was inevitable, as in any war, but we will never know.

 

[Gardener]

He doesn't say the IDF "deliberately hand picked Arab kids and killed them". This is in reference to the force the IDF used in Gaza and the humanitarian concerns associated with it. I could bet most of it was inevitable, as in any war, but we will never know.

The word "murder" carries certain implications. Should we assume Mr. E is unaware of these implications or that they are lost on you as well?

The word "murder" by very definition involves intent.

 

[Andalublue]

A good way to explain this odd situation is to pretend that a Native American Reservation is right on the border of the US (say, in the state of Arizona) and Mexico. . . bumps right up to the edge.
Now pretend that a gang decides to move into this Reservation to use the autonomy of the Reservation to roost across the border - in the USA and in Mexico . . . and then they use this location to start some **** IN Mexico and IN the Reservation.

However, let's pretend that instead of our country being capable of doing something about it - instead - we can't do anything, we've gone through a crisis and our military and politicial pool isn't up to snuff . . . so the gang just sits on the border, randomly picks on people, and no one likes them.

And so then pretend that, in an effort to fight off this USA/native American Reservation thug gang, Mexico comes into the USA/NAR territory in order to fight them off. . . imagine how pissed we would be.

That's pretty much what's going on right now in northern Iraq.

That's not a very good analogy.

Imagine the Mexican drug cartels were operating with impunity across the Mexican/US border. The Mexican authorities are either unwilling or incapable of doing anything to prevent the free passage of gang members carying out drug running and assassinations in the US.

Would the US be justified in making raids on the gangs bases in northern Mexico? If they did, would the Mexican government be justified in complaining about the raids or claiming an infringement of their sovereignty? If they did complain, would the US withdraw, apologise and cease all cross-border activity, knowing that nothing would be done to put a halt to the activities that threaten US citizens and that pose a clear and present danger to the maintenance of law and order WITHIN the US?

 

[Demon of Light]

There wouldn't be even one.
Kurds are not launching rockets into Turkish civilian populations while hiding behind civilian populations.

It wouldn't matter. No one was killed and I don't even think there were many injuries on Israel's side in the months leading to the Gaza War. Yet Israel decided it was ok to attack everything and anything it could possibly construe as a strategic target. There are enough plausible targets that Israel would have killed hundreds of civilians by now if they were in Turkey's shoes in this incident. Israel showed no consideration for Lebanon's sovereignty and Lebanese civilians paid the price more than anyone. If Turkey retaliated the way Israel retaliated I assure you there would be far more dead civilians right now.

Those flotilla activists have attacked the soldiers and the soldiers have eventually resisted.
But that is off-topic, I'm speaking, as don pointed out, about Turkey's criticism of Israel's self-defense practicing against Hamas.

The hell it's off-topic. You don't honestly expect anyone to believe you are screaming "bloody hypocrisy" over Turkey's criticism from a year and a half ago do you? The soldiers didn't "eventually resist" they were cracking down from the start and simply escalated their actions.

4. That civilian casualties occur during military or counterterrorism operations does not mean that those casualties are deliberate. All states have a duty to avoid deliberately targeting civilians. However, international law does not assume perfection and it is well understood that targeting military objectives can still lead to civilian casualties. Hence, the standard expected of states is that the anticipated civilian casualties should not be excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be derived from targeting the military objectives.

5. There has been a revisionist tendency to twist that principle of international law into one that the casualties on the enemy side should be roughly comparable to those the enemy inflicts. That perverted definition of proportionality has no basis in international law. Proportionality concerns only whether anticipated civilian casualties are excessive relative to the expected military advantage. Nothing more.

I'm sure Israel wants people to think it is unintentional, but it seems every time they attack civilians die. It has been a consistent policy of Israel dating back to independence and hell even back to the British Mandate to use disproportionate force. That inevitably means more civilians die so I say Israel does deliberately target civilians.

 

[kaya'08]

If Israel eased the blockade today, Hamas would still be in Gaza tomorrow, in place to receive the shipment of arms they desire to increase the bloodshed they wish to inflict. With unfettered access to Gaza, the shipment of arms will only increase, thus increasing the likelihood they can inflict the sort of damage upon Israel that Israel would have no choice but to engage in all out war.

The UN should take the neccessary steps to search all shipments into Gaza and if not the UN, then the IDF. It still has nothing to do with a complete blockade of Gaza. Hell, tell me, how will banning computers, razors and chocolate remove Hamas? How will placing a land blockade between Gaza and Israel solve anything? Why have you been thus far unable to provide a valid reason?

You seem to place the cart before the horse in your expectation that it is up to Israel to somehow prevent the radicalization that has been present in the society of Arabs who began calling themselves Palestinian in recent times.

No, i am merely advocating Israel stop supporting it.

As far as policy change, the one that would actually lead towards peace would be for these genocidal Arabs to abandon their ethnic hatred of Jews and actually strive for peaceful coexistence rather than devote themselves to pure hatred.

There is no ethnic hatred toward Jews. They love the ultra-orthodox ones, apparently.
This is a religious war, not an ethnic one. To them, at least.
Also, give them a reason to cooperate. You still have no substantial reasons to keep the blockade in place.

 

[kaya'08]

The word "murder" carries certain implications. Should we assume Mr. E is unaware of these implications or that they are lost on you as well?

The word "murder" by very definition involves intent.

They where murdered by rockets and missiles, yes. Intentionally or not. In some area's it could have been avoided, in others, it could not have. Erdogan has a particular way with words and i do not support such harsh anti-Israel condemnation. Im a Kemalist and do not support his fascist attempts at integrating Turkey with the Arabs. I have no intention moving towards the Ottoman empire, but towards the West.