West Asia News and Discussions

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 01 Jun 2010 20:27

Turkish navy is a hand me down navy and without US support can do jack shit. If they are dreaming of going up against the IDAF or Israeli Navy they can kiss their ships good bye. This rhetoric is only for local consumption. Turkish military is not stupid enough to attempt suicide.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Jun 2010 20:52

IMO this episode help Turkish military convince the society that Islamic govts are not in the national interests and reassert their constitutional positioning.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Jun 2010 21:04

Why do you feel AKP's actions have not been in Turkey's national interest? Because I think this gamble of breaking with Israel has been part of a very succesful FP for Turkey.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Jun 2010 21:06

vavinash wrote:Turkish navy is a hand me down navy and without US support can do jack shit. If they are dreaming of going up against the IDAF or Israeli Navy they can kiss their ships good bye. This rhetoric is only for local consumption. Turkish military is not stupid enough to attempt suicide.

mraghu · Post by **mraghu** » 01 Jun 2010 21:15

Turkey might win some palestanians as friends it will definately loose a lot more in europe and arab nations, it's euro dream will be sourer by atleast 20+ years. Without European integration Turkey will not be a nation that can challenge Oil Rich arab states push into CAR. It would be foolish on Turkey's leaders to try to take the role of the leader of Muslims. This Diplomatic squeak from Turkey is nothing but for local consumption

Arab nations wouldn't want one more middle power to meddle in their business

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Jun 2010 21:16

Carl_T wrote:Why do you feel AKP's actions have not been in Turkey's national interest? Because I think this gamble of breaking with Israel has been part of a very succesful FP for Turkey.

Because the other islamic players will not like another player to claim the leadership and the internal (islamic world not turkey) tussle will not allow Turkey win this issue. Imagine the internal repercussions when AKP is seen as a wannabe without real capabilities...

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Jun 2010 21:22

That is certain that other players will not like it, but the players are the governments in question, I think the common people living in Muslim nations will respect Turkey while their governments will remain wary.

As for real capabilities, I think that is exactly what they want to show - how Turkey is able to seriously threaten Israel...

mraghu · Post by **mraghu** » 01 Jun 2010 21:22

CNN-IBN interviewed Israeli Amb and it was surprising to see a full 5 min slot allotted to him on the 9 PM News... Infact Sardesai at one moment even indicated he agreed that there could have been some arms to the hamas folks on that ship

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Jun 2010 22:10

Carl_T garu,

Turky's political govt created few enemies in its armed forces in the past year or so. Now the govt has to rely on the same military. We do not know how the secular military want to play...

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 01 Jun 2010 22:12

arun wrote: Israel’s attack on the flotilla took place in international waters, not territorial waters nor even disputed territorial waters. That makes it piracy.

Territory on either side of the LOC is a completely different kettle of fish.

Israel’s arrogance has gone to far in this case and they deserve whatever boots that contact their backside.

You are wrong, here is why :-

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... 1f002d49ce

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States [such a Turkey in this case] 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

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jun 2010 22:18

Suppiah wrote:when you say 'this' you mean a military confrontation with Israel? I doubt if Turkey is keen on that...its Army perhaps would not be half enthusiastic...if you are talking about diplomatic noise, it cant make much difference, only goes to reduce whatever little credibility turkey has left as a possible mediator and a lone sensible voice of sanity in fanatic barbarian ME....as I posted many months ago on the Turkey thread, the world is not running short of rabid ME regimes shouting from rooftop for Palestine primarily to satisfy domestic street audience.

of course I mean the military confrontation, the diplomatic noises are old hat.

prad ji, I see it more as a case of turkey trying to prepare a base for itself in ME, before it moves in whichever direction. rather than a downgradation of its relations with europe it probably hopes to rise up in the world as ME's spokesperson and the cheif go-between the west/israel and ME. since the US is increasingly discredited in ME's eyes as a mediator.
the efforts on now is to establish its credentials in front of the world as representative of palestine and the voice of ME.

vavinash, turkish navy is no pushover, it is well trained, modern and significantly larger than IDFSC. most of its inventory is of non-US origin. if the military wants to fight this battle is of course a different question. it would be interesting to see if erdogan is powerful enough for a showdown with the military.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 01 Jun 2010 22:21

Where is our Strategy PhD when we need him!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Jun 2010 23:10

arun wrote:Let me now add some more of my own “uninformed BS” and say that the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas permits interdiction on the high seas only in the limited cases of drug smuggling, arms smuggling, involvement in the slave trade etc.

Interdicting a shipment of humanitarian aid on the high seas is not a permitted activity despite the sleight of hand that the Government of Israeli is trying to palm off to the disbelieving most of the rest of the world via the link you posted.

It will be this belief of an arrogant Israeli disregard for international law that will result in the International community, including the bulk on those who are not members of the OIC, landing a firm kick on Israel’s backside unless the boot is expressly headed off by a US Veto.

arun-ji
During peacetime and in the *absence of a blockade*, Interdiction on the high seas is not normally permitted. That is piracy. That is because the international waters are nobody's territory, anybody is allowed to freely pass. (though there are some exceptions such as interdicting ships suspected of carrying smuggled nuclear material for example). You are right on that count.

On the other hand, anybody - irrespective of civilian, merchant or military - who attempts to breach a *blockade* can be interdicted. The question is, should they be interdicted only when they enter the blockaded area? The answer is no. Anybody with a stated intention of breaching a blockade can be interdicted as soon as he leaves the port. For example, if India were to blockade Karachi, anybody on the high seas, commercial, military and civilian with a stated intention of going to Karachi can be interdicted. The "flotilla" on several occasions stated their intention to breach the blockade. They had been informed in advance and when they were sailing about the existence and coordinates of the blockade. Hence it is undeniable that they were knowingly trying to breach the blockade and could be interdicted in international waters.

Now there are two questions which are valid

1. Is it moral for Israel to blockade Gaza?
2. Should they have used less force, maybe other methods like tear gas?

But that is not what is being discussed here.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 01 Jun 2010 23:32

laltoo wrote:The following link reasonably conveys the Israeli side of the story.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 96,00.html

This article confirms that the assault was done by S-13 commandos and not regular Navy sailors. Gotta be pretty rare pics of them in action - hope someone at militaryphotos.net is archiving them all.

...where a helicopter was to deploy the first team of the elite Flotilla 13 unit...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2010 00:58

Rahul M wrote:
<SNIP>

vavinash, turkish navy is no pushover, it is well trained, modern and significantly larger than IDFSC. most of its inventory is of non-US origin. if the military wants to fight this battle is of course a different question. it would be interesting to see if erdogan is powerful enough for a showdown with the military.

Rahul da, unless the Turkish Navy gets 100% backing from their AF, those escort ships are not coming back - whatever be the state of Turkish Navy. The Israel AF is going to make micemeat of those ships. BTW, such an open show of force is challenging the sovereignity of a nation state. The dimensions are totally different.

The problem with these bombastic statements is defining the escalation ladder - at what level do you step down? As I said earlier, without topcover, TN Ships are toast. And if Turkish Generals prepare to provide top cover, which they should, then they would also need to prepapre for a fast and high-intensity air battle over mediterranean - you're bound to see another Bekka Valley (although with different results). It means mobilizing the whole gamut of your (Turkish Air Force) capabilities.

Another thing - who has made the statement about Turkish Navy ships escorting these flotillas? The government? Could this be an attempt to force the hand of Turkish Armed Forces by making a public announcement of support? Non-cooperation from Turkish Armed Forces will show them in bad light, no? JMT.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Jun 2010 01:02

Fourteen fundamental facts about Israel and Palestine

By David G. Littman

t's time to look back on 14 fundamental geographical, historical, and diplomatic facts from the last century relating to the Middle East. These basic facts and figures were stressed in recent statements to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and its subcommission, to the surprise of representatives of both states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

1) After World War I Great Britain accepted the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, and then — with League of Nations approval — used its article 25 to create two distinct entities within the Mandate-designated area.

2) The territory lying between the Jordan River and the eastern desert boundary "of that part of Palestine which was known as Trans-Jordan" (nearly 78 percent) thus became the Emirate of Transjordan. This new entity was put under the rule of Emir Abdullah, the eldest son of the Sharif of Mecca, as a recompense for his support in the war against the Turks, and of Ibn Saud's seizure of Arabia (Faisal, Abdullah's brother, later received the even vaster Mandate area of Iraq).

3) Turning a blind eye to article 15, Great Britain also decided that no Jews could reside or buy land in the newly created Emirate. This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan's law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963. It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.

4) The remaining area west of the Jordan River (comprising about 22 percent of the original Mandate) was then officially designated "Palestine" by Great Britain. As stated in the 1937 Royal Commission Report, "the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home." This was now greatly restricted.

5) U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947) authorized a Partition Plan in this area: for an Arab and a Jewish state — and for a corpus separatum for Jerusalem. The plan was rejected by both the Arab League and the Arab-Palestinian leadership. Aided and abetted by the neighboring Arab countries, local armed Arab Palestinian forces immediately began attacking Jews, who counterattacked. On May 15, 1948, the armies of five Arab League states joined these militias in the invasion of Israel, but their armies failed in their goal of eradicating the fledgling state.

6) The armistice boundaries (1949-1967) left Israel with roughly 16.5 percent, or 8,000 sq. miles, of the original 1922 Mandate area (about 48,000 sq. miles), while about five percent — less Gaza, which was occupied by the Egyptians — was conquered and occupied in 1948 by British General Glubb Pasha, the commander of Abdullah's Arab Legion. The historic regions of "Judea and Samaria" — their official names as indicated on all British mandate maps until 1948 — were annexed and became the "West Bank" of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1950. All the Jews were expelled from the area and from the Old City of Jerusalem; their synagogues, and even tombstones on the Mount of Olives, were destroyed.

7) Until King Hussein attacked Israel on June 6, 1967, Jordan's recognized de facto boundaries covered 83 percent of Palestine (78 percent east of the Jordan river, and five percent to the west). Following its military defeat in the Six Day War, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan lost the "West Bank," which it had illegally annexed 19 years earlier, retaining the huge "Transjordan" portion (78 percent) of the original League of Nations territory.

8 ) Of Jordan's current population of five million, about two-thirds (over three million) consider themselves "Arab Palestinians." They are the descendants either of the original Arab Palestinian inhabitants of the Trans-Jordan region, or of roughly 550,000 Arab refugees from west Palestine who lost their homes after the Arab League armies failed to eradicate Israel first in 1948, and again in 1967. Nearly two million Jordanian Bedouin citizens and others do not identify themselves as Palestinians.

9) After the 1967 disaster, an Arab League Summit Conference held in Khartoum that November reacted negatively to U.N. Security Council Resolution 247: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no concessions on the questions of Palestinian national rights." This was also the determined position of the PLO. Apart from Egypt's 1981 peace treaty with Israel, there was little change, for the next two decades, in this refusal to negotiate according to U.N. Resolution 242.

10) In those "West Bank and Gaza" areas, designated by the Oslo Accords of 1994 to be placed under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (covering about 5.5 percent of the "Greater Palestine" area on both sides of the Jordan), there is now a population of over 3,200,000, of whom about 35,000 are Christians, but none are Jews.

11) The population of the Jewish state — a state envisaged in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, and confirmed by the U.N.'s 1947 decision — is now roughly 6,500,000, of whom roughly 20 percent are Arabs (120,000 Christians), Druze, and Bedouin citizens of Israel. Of the more than five million Jewish citizens, about one-half are those Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and their descendants, who fled or left their ancient homeland when massacres, arrests, and ostracism made life impossible (a further 300,000 emigrated to Europe and the Americas, where they number over a million).

12) Today, a tiny, vulnerable Jewish remnant — scarcely 5,000 persons — remains in all the Arab world, less than half of one percent from the near million who were there in 1948 (this does not include the 50,000 in Turkey and Iran, left of about 200,000 in 1945). These are the forgotten Jewish refugees from Arab lands, from countries that will soon be totally judenrein just as Jordan has been since 1922.

13) The 22 Arab League countries cover a global surface of over six million square miles, over ten percent of the land surface on earth. Israel, by contrast, covers barely 8,000 sq. miles.

14) Security Council Resolution 242 has now become the panacea for Arab states, yet their interpretation of its key operative paragraph does not correspond to the English original, which version alone is binding. In March 2002, a Saudi "peace plan" was approved by the Arab League in Beirut, but behind it lurks the former 1981 "Fahd Plan" — with a facelift — that would leave Israel with impossible borders. After the Iraqi menace has been resolved one way or another, what is needed for the "Middle East peace process" is a concerted effort to support the Mitchell plan, which could one day lead to true peace and reconciliation for the whole region. But the Palestinian Authority will only become a genuine partner with Israel, alongside Jordan and Egypt, if there is a radical break with the past, and a new spirit of mutual acceptance prevails between the Arab world and Israel — with individual and collective security and dignity for all. This will only be feasible if democratic institutions and a respect for human rights and the rule of law become the norm, as they now are not. And it will only be feasible if the Arab world recognizes the inalienable legitimacy of Israel's existence in a part of its historical land.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Jun 2010 01:13

Could this be an attempt to force the hand of Turkish Armed Forces by making a public announcement of support? Non-cooperation from Turkish Armed Forces will show them in bad light, no?

This is exactly what I am saying. What if TAF comes out and says that the Govt approach is immature and lacks any understanding of repurcussions and that it is trying to create political space for itself at the cost of Turkish longterm national interests?

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita gives an interesting definition of National Interests. Many people assume that it is the majority opinion of a given country; but could it really be true? What if a nation has two or three focus groups with each one having a different definition of National Interest?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Jun 2010 02:33

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_ ... lestinians

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke to his Turkish counterpart Tuesday, and they agreed the raid wouldn't affect weapons deals, defense officials said. Among them is the planned delivery to Turkey of $183 million in Israeli drones this summer. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing sensitive military ties.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jun 2010 02:58

I don't think TN will be sending escorts to Israel. Israel may make mincemeat of them, but uh I think Turkey is more than capable of escalating and standing up to Israel, Turkey isn't Hamas or Hezbollah. Furthermore I don't think it should be taking as gospel the idea that the army is "secularist" and opposed to the AKP. While that was true in the past, over the last 8 years, surely AKP friendly officers have come up the ranks and noncompliant officers would have been removed, this Ergenekon concoction shows who is now boss in the govt-military relationship.

I think this will die down, I don't think they have any intention of going to war against Israel, this is a ploy to gain prominence and leadership in the ME, at the end of the day they still buy Israeli weapons.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Jun 2010 02:59

Also note that if a war breaks out, Turkey can invoke the NATO charter (attack against one of us is equal to attack against all of us), which will cause the pakistaniyat to hit the fan. Then either US/UK-stan and others should fight on behalf of Turkey or expel them from NATO.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 02 Jun 2010 04:49

Israeli Commando describes the mob that hit them:

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jun 2010 05:00

So what will Turkey do if somebody decides to send a flotilla to Turkish-occupied Eastern Cyprus?
Or to Turkish-occupied Kurdistan?

Israel was stupid to invest its strategic future in Turkey as a longterm ally. That country was once the seat of the Caliphate.

Personally, I'll be glad if Turkey goes back to Islamic rule, because this will put the Atlanticists on the back foot, as they'll have to contend with Islamic assertiveness on their Southeastern periphery - Gates of Vienna and all that. Their country is pretty mediocre anyway.

Let Turkey go back to the Caliphate - Israel will be better off without them. Russia would be a much better ally by far. If Kurdistan were freed, it could lead to a chain reaction that would liberate Balochistan as well.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jun 2010 05:17

Russia and Israel aren't going to be allies anytime soon. Israel is a US-propped state which pre-empts it from getting too close to Russia.

Out of curiosity, why do you link Kurdish and Baloch separatism? We have to remember that these uprisings can quickly become Islamic uprisings, or if they don't, after they are free, they can just as easily become Islamist states. PKK is socialist, but the Kurds are 99% Muslim.

With that said, an Iraqi Kurdistan, backed by the US may be viable.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Jun 2010 05:34

The standards of purity demanded on a leader of Islamic world is much higher than current levels of AKP-Turkey. AKP has been careful to pretend that all the Islamisation it has been doing so far (lift ban on veil, etc) are merely 'democratisation' steps that reverse past mistakes which went too far. But that is not enough to be seen as a leader of a bunch that is essentially living in 17th century...you have to go lot further. If and when AKP does that, it will not only put itself in conflict with its own Army but also with Europe. There goes the 'special' status of Turkey....

and finally when it does win the 'crown' it may find itself not much different from KSA, Iran etc., and not exactly a model world looks to.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Jun 2010 05:43

The current status of the Dubai assassination affair may provide good indication of where this affair would end up in a month's time.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 02 Jun 2010 06:53

If all this is serious and not some conspiracy natak by Tharkee....the west and EU can safely paint green from tharkee to paki... Russia(chechen) and China(Uighur) may also join west and EU in singling out the Islamic countries .....India-no idea.....this is 2012phobia

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jun 2010 06:56

Carl_T wrote:Russia and Israel aren't going to be allies anytime soon. Israel is a US-propped state which pre-empts it from getting too close to Russia.

Out of curiosity, why do you link Kurdish and Baloch separatism? We have to remember that these uprisings can quickly become Islamic uprisings, or if they don't, after they are free, they can just as easily become Islamist states. PKK is socialist, but the Kurds are 99% Muslim.

With that said, an Iraqi Kurdistan, backed by the US may be viable.

Kurds are ethnically related to the Baloch, but more importantly both Kurds and Baloch have claims on Iranian territory. Once a Kurdish state gets off the ground, it would exert reunification pressure on all the surrounding regions - Iraqi and Iranian Kurds would naturally move to reunify with them. Baloch could benefit from the domino effect.

I feel that ethnic nationalism and pan-Islamic unificationism are inherently in conflict. Pak always tries to use pan-Islamism to combat ethnic separatism in its midst - that's what they've done in Bangladesh, in NWFP, Balochistan, etc.

Let the Kurds have their own territory, and pan-Islamism will be weakened. Kurds are like the Pathans of Anatolia.

Israel should act as mediator between Russia and the US, to broker better relations between the two, just as Brzezinski tries to foster better relations and more power-sharing between the US and China (aka. 'G2') in order to undermine his blood-enemy Russia.

If Israel doesn't hurry up and rationalize its strategic outlook soon, then they will simply be overtaken by the pace of events. They don't have a whole lot of margin to begin with, so they'd better figure it out soon.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 08:19

Turkish Funds Helped Group of Activists to Test Blockade

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world ... vists.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 08:22

After Raid, Videos Carry On the Fight

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world ... media.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 08:24

After Israel Raids Flotilla, U.S. Is Torn Between Allies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world ... olicy.html

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Jun 2010 08:29

Somehow I have this wierd feeling that this whole floatilla episode is unkil's message to lil-brother. Could it be related to lil-brother's eagerness to pee in troublesome neighborhood before he acquires the danda?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jun 2010 08:40

abhishek_sharma wrote:After Israel Raids Flotilla, U.S. Is Torn Between Allies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world ... olicy.html

It is far from clear that these efforts will mollify Turkey, which accused Israel of state-sponsored terrorism and likened the psychological impact of the raid to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. “No one should think we will keep quiet in the face of this,” Mr. Erdogan declared during a visit to Chile.

These conceited fools are comparing 9/11 to the deaths of a few self-styled activists who deliberately went looking for trouble?
Haha, the world is truly in a state of global entropy. The US is really losing rapport with its traditional 'allies'.

It's time for the West to write off Turkey.

Time to dismantle Churchill's patchwork state known as Iraq, and let the Kurds go free.
Then if Turkey tries to occupy that place, they'll be bogged down so badly they won't have any time to play politics with Israel, because they'll be too busy eating crow.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Jun 2010 08:46

Read this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 915852.htm

Arab-Israeli parliamentarian Hanin Zoabi was also on the Turkish ship when it was boarded by the Israeli commandos.

Ms Zoabi has diplomatic immunity from prosecution and was one of the first passengers freed.

She said she watched what was happening from below deck and saw no provocation from those on board.

"The Israeli soldiers began to shoot before the helicopter, while the helicopter was approaching," Ms Zoabi said.

She says that as far as she knows, none of the passengers were armed.

"Most of the passengers, 90 per cent were inside their rooms and were terrified," Ms Zoabi said.

Hah, typical Islamic free rider, talking about "those Israelis" when she is protected by the same citizenship. "What's mine is mine, what's yours we share"

She should be put under arrest.

I wonder what we would do if some Indian Muslim parliamentarian tried this approach with J&K?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 08:53

Israel Faces Pressure on Gaza After Raid

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world ... tilla.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 09:00

Israel's flotilla raid revives questions of international law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02934.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 09:07

Turkey: All options are on the table

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _the_table

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jun 2010 09:16

Sanjay M wrote:
Kurds are ethnically related to the Baloch, but more importantly both Kurds and Baloch have claims on Iranian territory. Once a Kurdish state gets off the ground, it would exert reunification pressure on all the surrounding regions - Iraqi and Iranian Kurds would naturally move to reunify with them. Baloch could benefit from the domino effect.

I feel that ethnic nationalism and pan-Islamic unificationism are inherently in conflict. Pak always tries to use pan-Islamism to combat ethnic separatism in its midst - that's what they've done in Bangladesh, in NWFP, Balochistan, etc.

Let the Kurds have their own territory, and pan-Islamism will be weakened. Kurds are like the Pathans of Anatolia.

Israel should act as mediator between Russia and the US, to broker better relations between the two, just as Brzezinski tries to foster better relations and more power-sharing between the US and China (aka. 'G2') in order to undermine his blood-enemy Russia.

If Israel doesn't hurry up and rationalize its strategic outlook soon, then they will simply be overtaken by the pace of events. They don't have a whole lot of margin to begin with, so they'd better figure it out soon.

IMHO ethnic nationalism is always present in the background even in the face of Islamic unificationism. If the enemy is nonislamic, the movement has an islamic face and if the enemy is Islamic, the movement has an ethnic face.

I think an independent Kurdistan would be a brilliant move for the US if Turkey keeps up this charade. The tradeoff is that by default then Russia may end up backing Islamists in the ME and cause major threats to US oil supply. The key for Kurdistan would be to make sure it is a strongly western friendly democracy like SoKo/Japan/Germany after WWII. The Arabs will be running around like a gaggle of chickens if that were to happen.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 09:30

Israel's latest brutal blunder

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... al_blunder

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 09:35

The Existential threat in the mirror: Regarding the Gaza flotilla debacle, the facts don't matter

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... the_facts_

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jun 2010 09:50

Israel's increasingly untenable situation

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _situation

There are three particular angles for the Israelis to worry about. First, that there will be some sort of new intifada.
Second, the continued deterioration in their relationship with Turkey. Third, their fraying ties with the Obama administration.

There is a word in Yiddish, seichel, which means wisdom, but it also means more than that: It connotes ingenuity, creativity, subtlety, nuance. ....

I'm trying to figure out this story for myself. But I will say this: What I know already makes me worried for the future of Israel, a worry I feel in a deeper way than I think I have ever felt before. The Jewish people have survived this long in part because of the vision of their leaders, men and women who were able to intuit what was possible and what was impossible. Where is this vision today? Israel may face, in the coming year, a threat to its existence the likes of which it has not experienced before: A theologically-motivated regional superpower with a nuclear arsenal. It faces another existential threat as well, from forces arguing that Israel's morally disastrous settlement policy fatally undermines the very idea of a Jewish state. Is Israel ready to deploy seichel in these battles, rather than mere force?

The Obama administration has reacted to this incident in remarkably similar ways to China's reaction to the Cheonan incident -- with a call for more information. Rachman wonders if there will be a quid pro quo on Iran and Israel at the Security Council. I wonder if the quid pro quo will involve Jerusalem and Pyongyang.