The Problems With The Middle East

You are confusing Jews with Israel. Israel does not equal Jews nor do Jews equal Israel. Israel is a country, Jews are a people of a religion. Jews have cohabiated in the Middle East and Muslim countries since recorded history. Israel is a nation established within the last century originally for the diaspora of Jews fleeing Christian anti-semitism. Arabs and Muslims live in Israel too. And not all Jews are in agreement with the actions of Israel. The situation is more complex than the news you watch and listen to would have you believe, even more complex than I can explain in this single paragraph.

Extremely well said. And what I say now is not meant to take away from your accurate statement.

But I think it is relevant that many, if not all, Arab states have chosen to view this issue in the exact simplistic way that you decry here. It is unfortunate that many Arab nations have failed to distinguish the difference between Jews and Zionists but it is a fact nonetheless. Many non-Zionist, non-Israeli Jews who resided in arab lands have paid a steep price for collective anger against Israel. From mindless mobs and Parliments both.

I've travelled aquite a bit in muslim nations and most people I have met make few distinctions between "Jew" and "Israeli." This is not really a criticism. Just a sad reality.

Originally posted by dbrandt


When was this agreement put into effect? If you are saying 58 years ago, then hasn't Turkey forfeited their part of the agreement since Israel has been at war on their own several times?

I fear that a simple google search of " Israel Turkish Defence Agreement " will yield most of the answers to your questions but one .



for example :




The 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement emulates a defunct secret agreement between Israel and Turkey formulated in the late 1950s at the height of the Cold War, entitled the "Peripheral Pact":

"By 1958, however, a fascinating secret agreement, sometimes referred to as the "peripheral pact", had emerged between the two nations. It’s conceptual framework can be traced back even before the founding of the state [of Israel] to the ideology of Baruch ‘Uzel [Uziel], an Israeli leader who would later become a member of the Liberal Party.

Notably, exact details of the alliance remain hidden in numerous classified Israeli documents, and are obscured by Turkish secrecy, classified documents, and insistence that there was no actually documented pact between the countries. Nonetheless, it seems the alliance had three fundamental tenets. The diplomatic tenet involved joint public relations campaigns to influence general publics. The military aspect allegedly involved the exchange of intelligence information, joint planning for mutual aid in emergencies, and Turkish support in the Pentagon and at NATO for an improved Israeli military. Some also say that “highly sensitive” scientific cooperation as well as the export of Israeli military equipment to the Republic occurred. (See Washington Institute)



[edit on 28-11-2006 by 23432]

Hey subz.. happy to see you posting nothing but the best as usual.
I take this statement to be inaccurate:
"In fact, Iran currently is home to the most Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel itself. To say that Muslims have a deep hatred for Jews is just not accurate at all."

Muslims have a deep hatred for the Jewish, in my opinion. Certainly, the colossal bombings of the innocent, children and next generation peoples of Israel -- is real. Hatred sprung from sects of the Muslim populous keep growing and suicide paks of a well uneducated Muslim factor of the young continues.
They grow hatred. They die to see others killed.

Dallas

I fear that a simple google search of " Israel Turkish Defence Agreement " will yield most of the answers to your questions but one .

Exactly where does it say that Turkey would come to Israel's aid if attacked, (and vice-versa)? I don't see ANYTHING like that in what you quoted now from google. Am I missing something here? Or was "mutual help with public relations" an old-skool code phrase for "guaranteed military support in the event of war" and everyone knows about it but me? (I am so out of the loop with this stuff.)

I think Subz's statement on supposed Muslim neutrality towards Jews (as opposed to Israelis) can best be refuted by looking at two things, both of which were touched upon. Anti-semitic propoganda/education in Arab lands and terrorist acts committed against non-Israeli Jewish civilians.

Throughout the Arab world, classics such as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "The International Jew" are taught as fact. Examples of anti-semitic (NOT anti-zionist) propaganda are far too numerous to count, but this is one of my personal faves, taken from Al-Riyadh newspaper in Saudi Arabia, 2002.

During the Purim festival [while every Jew/ess in required to dress up in fancy dress and a special cookie known traditionally as "Haman Tashen" [Haman's Ear] is baked, and made traditionally with poppy seed, to commemorate this festival] the Jews bake a cookie whose ingredients are neither expensive nor hard to come by, but one special ingredient cannot be found in local and international markets, and unfortunately it has no substitutes and cannot be omitted. The ingredient in question is human blood . In other words, [the Jews] cannot perform their holiday ceremonies without bloodletting … That fact has been proved throughout human history, and it was the main reason for the oppression of the Jews in Europe and Asia .”

Worldwide, many supposedly anti-zionist terrorist attacks have taken the form of attacks on Jewish civilians. Instances are on the rise as the Palestinian/Israel conflict heats up. While some are the result of angry youths some are co-ordinated attacks from international terrorist organizations. For example, a 1994 attack on an Argentinian Jewish community center was planned jointly by Hezbollah and Iran. If Iran has a neutral stance on Jews, why would they kill so many South American civilian ones? They probably wouldn't.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Shaktimaan]

Turkey has yet to help them in a war. Why did they not help when Hezbollah attacked recently. If there is a pact between the 2 Turkey certainly isn't living up to the agreement

yes indeed, the Greater Middle East


together with the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference)
www.iutoic-dhaka.edu...

forms a 'band' of humanity in the Eastern Hemisphere
which is geographically located close to either side of the equator

in the overview, it appears the Muslim nation(s) & culture
are in a process of 'Divide & Conquer' the planet earth

~the whole Forest is on-fire, not just individual Trees~

Originally posted by Shaktimaan

Exactly where does it say that Turkey would come to Israel's aid if attacked, (and vice-versa)? I don't see ANYTHING like that in what you quoted now from google. Am I missing something here? Or was "mutual help with public relations" an old-skool code phrase for "guaranteed military support in the event of war" and everyone knows about it but me? (I am so out of the loop with this stuff.)

Hi Shaktimaan

Palestinian and Israel conflict is TOO small for Turks to get involved i.e IDF deals with the situation as they see fit .

Should Israel come under an attack by Iran then you can expect the agreements to be acted on ; not before .

By very nature of the agreement & for the obvious reasons ; both nations will deny that it exists ( doo- ooh ! ) but if one looks into the historical ties between the two peoples ; one sees no animosity between the two .
On the contrary ; Usually , the Turk & Jew help each other .

After all ; Turks face hostile locals and Jews face hostile globals , makes sense to work together .


Iranian & Syrians worries Hebrews ; not the Anatolians .

Turks & Hebrews are friends and will remain one for a foreseeable future .


Shalom'un Aleykum .

Originally posted by dbrandt
Turkey has yet to help them in a war. Why did they not help when Hezbollah attacked recently. If there is a pact between the 2 Turkey certainly isn't living up to the agreement

Wars are fought on many fronts.

an interesting observation ; you seem to follow a familiar logic pattern ; famously utilised by Stasi chain of command .

Originally posted by St Udio
yes indeed, the Greater Middle East


together with the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference)
www.iutoic-dhaka.edu...

forms a 'band' of humanity in the Eastern Hemisphere
which is geographically located close to either side of the equator

in the overview, it appears the Muslim nation(s) & culture
are in a process of 'Divide & Conquer' the planet earth

~the whole Forest is on-fire, not just individual Trees~

so the ragtag army of the muslim nations will conquer the nuclear powers ?





convert if you want .

23432,

i'm not saying any end result, i'm just pointing out a ?curiosity?
for one's reflection and musings....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

btw, One can easily die from 10,000 paper cuts,
as well as from a Baby-Grande Piano falling on One's head....SquisH !!

then there's the cases where fire-ants swarming from all directions
can & have felled an adult human, who arrived at a E.R., totally "DOA"

23432, thanks for your response.

I'm not really questioning the positive relationship that exists between Israel and Turkey. While they are on good terms and have substantial trade ties there exists a chasm between "friendly relations" and "unconditional military ally." While I'd love to believe your theory, there are a few critical problems with it that I can't overlook.

Most importantly, Turkey has never come to Israel's aid during any of the past wars even in terms of helping with supply, let alone committing troops. Your point about the Palestinian conflict not qualifying is well taken, Israel herself considers that an internal conflict and does not wish to complicate it by requesting military aid. In fact, the IDF has little to do with the Palestinian territories. As an internal conflict it falls under the jurisdiction of the Shabak (or Shin Bet in American terms.) While many Israelis serve with the Shabak during their mandatory years of service it exists as a separate entity from the IDF.

So consider the Yom Kippur war in 1973 instead. Israel was attacked by Egyptian and Syrian forces aided by troops and equipment from Iraq, Morocco, Jordan, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Sudan, Uganda and Cuba. (In addition to enormous Soviet military re-supply aid. Just weapons and logistical help though, no troops.) Additionally, Israel was getting creamed in the first few days of the war. They were in dire need of help and on October 9th, Golda Meir placed an international call for assistance asking for any and all help possible. In short, if any war could be thought to meet the requirements you mentioned surely this one did. Yet the response from Turkey was nil. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

Heck, America didn't even help with re-supply airlifts until after a week had passed. Europe as a whole refused all calls for help, even for supplies sans delivery. It would be ludicrous for Turkey to stand alone as the one nation who would commit troops to aid Israel. And as ludicrous as it would have been then, it is positively impossible now. Not even the US has made a commitment like that to Israel. Do you honestly think that an increasingly religious Muslim Turkey would sacrifice their troops attacking another Muslim nation in defense of Israel?

Even if there were an agreement like this that we could all see and discuss I would have serious doubts as to Turkey's ability to live up to such steep demands. But in the absence of any paper trail, how can you even begin to assume that an unlikely commitment like this ever existed at all?

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Shaktimaan]

Shaktimaan,

Now that you've calmed down I feel it worthwhile to begin discussing this issue with you. I recognize that you might take offense at the things I say, that however does not equate to anti-semitism simply because you are jewish and pissed off at what I have to say. I in no way said anything antisemitic, I never said anything negative against Jews as a whole nor will I ever because I am simply not antisemitic.

However, I am out and out an anti-zionist. I wholeheartedly refute the ideals of Zionism.

Hi, I just stumbled upon this forum and have been intrigued with everyones thoughts. I haven't seen any comments regarding this in this thread and would like different opinions on. As we try to establish a democracy in Iraq and hope that it will spread throughout the Middle East, I believe one of the main stumbling blocks we face is their cultures' adherence to tribal loyalties. It may not be a prevalent as I seem to think, but in many reports and articles there is a reference to tribal loyalties, especially when talking about government on the local level.

Are there any working democratic or parliamentary governments in the world where tribal loyalties are an issue? Consider Africa, the Middle East, Asia, even parts of South America where the tribe is an integral part of the society. Are they peaceful, budding havens of democracy? There maybe some, but they are probably few and far between. Western societies abandoned the tribe a long time ago and we have evolved into where we are now (take that for what it's worth). Personally, I believe in any area where one tribe can war with another, or a tribal council is needed to resolve a dispute, there cannot be Western style government.

To quote a great Western philosopher: "What say you?"

Subz, I don't actually believe that you are anti-semitic. I was less pissed off because I am Jewish than I was because of what I perceived as a cavalier rejection of well-documented and widespread oppression that stretched over centuries. In my experience, folks who tend to downplay the systematic oppression that resides in the histories of many ethnicities do so solely as a justification (or even validation) for holding racist views.

I fail to understand how anyone could disregard all the collective accounts of severe anti-semitism in Arab lands as the equivalent of peaceful ethnic neighborhoods or speak of it as a time of desirable and equal treatment.

In addition to many individual moments of great anti-semitic violence, like the Damascus Affair, life in general for Jews in Arab lands wavered between official second class citizenship and times of widespread massacres. I assume you know how to use wikipedia, you should be able to find out more information on your own.

I am curious, are you merely unaware of this history or do you refute it for some reason?

However, I am out and out an anti-zionist. I wholeheartedly refute the ideals of Zionism.

OK, I'll bite. Why are you anti-zionist and what ideals of zionism do you wholeheartedly refute?

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Subz, I don't actually believe that you are anti-semitic. I was less pissed off because I am Jewish than I was because of what I perceived as a cavalier rejection of well-documented and widespread oppression that stretched over centuries. In my experience, folks who tend to downplay the systematic oppression that resides in the histories of many ethnicities do so solely as a justification (or even validation) for holding racist views.

Well to be quite frank the behavior you've just attested to is the epitome of the prejudice displayed with actual racism. You assumed I was something based on your preconceived notions.

My conclusions are different to yours. You cant really derive wide sweeping conclusions about my motives and beliefs from such a few paragraphs.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
I fail to understand how anyone could disregard all the collective accounts of severe anti-semitism in Arab lands as the equivalent of peaceful ethnic neighborhoods or speak of it as a time of desirable and equal treatment.

I think you'll find that if you compared the Middle East of the time you are referring to with Europe at the same time, the Middle East would of been more accommodating.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
In addition to many individual moments of great anti-semitic violence, like the Damascus Affair, life in general for Jews in Arab lands wavered between official second class citizenship and times of widespread massacres. I assume you know how to use wikipedia, you should be able to find out more information on your own.

I think the point is being lost here. I never claimed that the Middle East was some haven for Jews. I simply said that Iran has the highest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. I also commented that the situation you described in Morocco didnt sound too bad for it's time (when compared to the rest of the highly anti-semitic Western world). I confess I knew nothing of the mellahs you described, I simply read the link you quoted and contrasted it to the rest of the World at the same time and concluded it was better.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
I am curious, are you merely unaware of this history or do you refute it for some reason?

Like I said, I didnt know anything of the mellah's but dont conclude im completely ignorant. I know more than enough thanks.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
OK, I'll bite. Why are you anti-zionist and what ideals of zionism do you wholeheartedly refute?

I dont believe Jews have a biblical claim to the lands of Israel. Even if the Bible was literal and they did own the lands of Israel at the start of the first millennium I also refute their claim to be able to reacquire it at their own demand. It's like how I dont agree that native Americans or Aborigines have the right to kick Americans or Australians from their houses.

My anti-Zionist stance has nothing to do with Judaism. It simply is my view that Zionists are racial/religious bigots who literally believe they have a God given right to do what they want with a large swathe of the Middle East.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
23432, thanks for your response.

I'm not really questioning the positive relationship that exists between Israel and Turkey. While they are on good terms and have substantial trade ties there exists a chasm between "friendly relations" and "unconditional military ally." While I'd love to believe your theory, there are a few critical problems with it that I can't overlook.


I think a healthy scepticism is a good thing to have ; especially if you have lived in Israel .
The definitive terminology of the existing agreements between the 2 countries are secret ; so I can not give you the " unconditional or conditional " details but all I can tell you is that it works for both countries .



Most importantly, Turkey has never come to Israel's aid during any of the past wars even in terms of helping with supply, let alone committing troops. Your point about the Palestinian conflict not qualifying is well taken, Israel herself considers that an internal conflict and does not wish to complicate it by requesting military aid. In fact, the IDF has little to do with the Palestinian territories. As an internal conflict it falls under the jurisdiction of the Shabak (or Shin Bet in American terms.) While many Israelis serve with the Shabak during their mandatory years of service it exists as a separate entity from the IDF.


Israel is a nuclear power and Israel would NEVER ask for soldiers from Turkey while conventional war is being engaged by IDF .

However , upon insistence of Israel ; The Turkish Troops are now deployed in Lebanon and yes they there to protect Hebrews from Hizbullah .

I do not think Israel needs Turkish help in fighting her wars ; she is strong enough to tackle the problem and so she does .

I think Israel will need Turkish help in making the peace last forever ; let's face it ; in the history of man kind ; the Hebrew & Arab lived without a fight when the Turk was in between the two of them .

So consider the Yom Kippur war in 1973 instead. Israel was attacked by Egyptian and Syrian forces aided by troops and equipment from Iraq, Morocco, Jordan, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Sudan, Uganda and Cuba. (In addition to enormous Soviet military re-supply aid. Just weapons and logistical help though, no troops.) Additionally, Israel was getting creamed in the first few days of the war. They were in dire need of help and on October 9th, Golda Meir placed an international call for assistance asking for any and all help possible. In short, if any war could be thought to meet the requirements you mentioned surely this one did. Yet the response from Turkey was nil. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.


hmmm , of course there is merit in your argument in relation to 70's . Those were the years when Turks had left wing government and themselves were poised to send thousands of troops to Cyprus .

To my knowldge , there was nothing in Turkey to send and I am sure Turks knew the outcome of the war . Turks know how the Hebrew and the Arab fight .

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
23432, thanks for your response.




Heck, America didn't even help with re-supply airlifts until after a week had passed. Europe as a whole refused all calls for help, even for supplies sans delivery. It would be ludicrous for Turkey to stand alone as the one nation who would commit troops to aid Israel. And as ludicrous as it would have been then, it is positively impossible now. Not even the US has made a commitment like that to Israel. Do you honestly think that an increasingly religious Muslim Turkey would sacrifice their troops attacking another Muslim nation in defense of Israel?

Well , I am going to ask you ; you do know that Arabs were trusting in Soviets while the Mossad knew all along what the Soviets were going to " do " ?

For Turks to have send a help ; there would have to be a " real " need for it , like the one in 1500's on Spanish lands or a more recent one in Germen land .



Even if there were an agreement like this that we could all see and discuss I would have serious doubts as to Turkey's ability to live up to such steep demands. But in the absence of any paper trail, how can you even begin to assume that an unlikely commitment like this ever existed at all?


Because at any given time since it's inception , mossad has at least 2 Turkish agent within it .

Of course the honours are mutual , Hebrew spy network operates within Turkey with " full " knowledge and permit of local authorities .

Currently Turkish and Israeli governments are planning an underwater passage between the 2 countries . Aim of this project is to create a direct link between Turkish port of Ceyhan & Israeli port of Haifa .

I know the channel tunnel example is there for anyone to see but I beg to differ in this case .

sorry about the looooong time it took fo rme to reply .


23432

Subz, using your logic...and I quote...
"I dont believe Jews have a biblical claim to the lands of Israel. Even if the Bible was literal and they did own the lands of Israel at the start of the first millennium I also refute their claim to be able to reacquire it at their own demand. It's like how I dont agree that native Americans or Aborigines have the right to kick Americans or Australians from their houses."

If the American Indians (cannot speak to Aboriginies, not Aussie) do not have a right to re-acquire lands, and I assue it would be because they lost the lands in wars...then why would the Israeli's not have a right to the lands they now hold...they have fought at least 5 wars to hold that land. I realize your point is they were given the land in a political compromise...but having held off Arab armies through 5 wars would by your argument mean they now have a right to it...

It belongs to them fair and square!.

deadbang, I appreciate your point of view here. But my stance on official Israel (as opposed to Eretz Israel) is not that the land should be given back to the Palestinians. The people who live in Israel now, and who were born there, have a right to live there and it would be unjust to evict them now. Whats done is done. This stance however does not change my opinion that the Jews had no right to claim that land in the first place.

What I would change though is the Israeli occupation, and illegal settlement, of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

You assumed I was something based on your preconceived notions.
My conclusions are different to yours. You cant really derive wide sweeping conclusions about my motives and beliefs from such a few paragraphs.

I disagree subz. I had no preconceived notions of you at all. While I do appreciate that this thread may not have given me enough information about you to make a sweeping accusation, my assumption was based solely on your writing and not on anything else. I am not one of those folks who'll wildly accuse others of bigotry just because they criticize Israel. Hopefully we can move on from here.

if you compared the Middle East of the time you are referring to with Europe at the same time, the Middle East would of been more accommodating.

Well, in that case we are in agreement. However, it is telling that one could consider the oppression that occurred in the ME tolerable only because it pales in comparison to the atrocities that happened in Europe. I think it adds credence to the idea that there existed a real need for Jews worldwide to find a lasting solution to centuries of persecution.

My anti-Zionist stance has nothing to do with Judaism. It simply is my view that Zionists are racial/religious bigots who literally believe they have a God given right to do what they want with a large swathe of the Middle East.

Interesting. I had been wondering what it was about the basic tenets of Zionism that could make you so resolutely anti-Zionist and refute the movement so wholeheartedly. I think we've gotten to the root of the mystery though.

Unfortunately, I think you are probably guilty of making the same kind of assumptions based on limited evidence that you just accused me of. While there are certainly religious Zionists in existence who stake their claim to Palestine on the notion that it was divinely bequeathed to them they are in no way representative of the vast majority of modern Zionists. More importantly, this view was completely absent from the philosophy that the original Zionists created in their quest for self-determination. In fact, the historical figures who played key roles in defining the Zionist philosophy and turning it into a viable movement were not only generally secular, but Socialist. The Socialist underpinnings of Zionism are evident in the governing philosophy of the Kibbutzes and collective farms that served as the backbone of the Zionist movement in British Mandated Palestine.

Even the father of Zionism, Hertzl, originally did not care to make a Jewish state in Palestine, preferring an alternate plan to base the nation in Uganda. To say that the ideals of Zionism lie in the belief that Israel was bestowed upon the Jews by God is just completely incorrect.

In fact, within the Jewish community there remains one group who resolutely disagree with Zionism and it is no coincidence that they are ultra-Orthodox. The very religious believe that only God himself can give Israel back to the Jews. To try and take it back by force before the Messiah comes is tantamount to blasphemy.

There is a religious Zionist movement who are outspoken in their belief that Israel is theirs by divine right, they unsurprisingly make up a large percentage of the settler movement. But to say that the belief of this small, fringe group is shared by most Israelis or is the dominant reasoning behind Zionism shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the motives behind Israel's creation and the history of how Zionism came into being.

I am blown away that there are people out there who really think that religious zealotry was the driving force behind Zionism. Where have you been learning about Israel's history that you would accept this kind of gross distortion as an accepted fact? Really, I am genuinely curious, what kind of stuff do you read on this topic? Is this view of Zionism something specific you learned somewhere or is it a conclusion that you came to yourself?