Israel apologizes to Turkey

[Hudson Jones]

In your opinion, when will Turkey apologize for the Armenian genocide and provide compensation in a similar manner?

I have no problem acknowledging Turkey's role and double standards. I know about Turkey's role in the Armenian genocide and the atrocities they've committed towards the Kurds. I'm not going to defend it and would not stand it if someone tries to.

Do you see anyone in this forum defending Syria's actions? No.

Do you see anyone here defending Iran's actions against its own people? No.

Do you see anyone here defending the Armenian genocide? No.

Do you see anyone here defending Israel's human rights violations against the people in the occupied territories? Yes.

Just because you have a need to pick teams and give unconditional support for the team, it doesn't mean others should too. If someone commits human rights violations and breaks international law, they should be condemned. Especially if my country, Canada, decides to succumb to Israeli lobby and fail to treat Israel with the standard that it should.

[Shady]

I have no problem acknowledging Turkey's role and double standards. I know about Turkey's role in the Armenian genocide and the atrocities they've committed towards the Kurds. I'm not going to defend it and would not stand it if someone tries to.

Do you see anyone in this forum defending Syria's actions? No.

Do you see anyone here defending Iran's actions against its own people? No.

Do you see anyone here defending the Armenian genocide? No.

Do you see anyone here defending Israel's human rights violations against the people in the occupied territories? Yes.

Just because you have a need to pick teams and give unconditional support for the team, it doesn't mean others should too. If someone commits human rights violations and breaks international law, they should be condemned. Especially if my country, Canada, decides to succumb to Israeli lobby and fail to treat Israel with the standard that it should.

Which incident do you think is the worst of the two? And which country has handled it better? Israel or Turkey?

[Hudson Jones]

Which incident do you think is the worst of the two? And which country has handled it better? Israel or Turkey?

Two different topics in two different centuries. Israel wasn't even in existence when the Armenian genocide happened under the Ottomans.

[Shady]

Two different topics in two different centuries. Israel wasn't even in existence when the Armenian genocide happened under the Ottomans.

So what?

[DogOnPorch]

So what?

Indeed, so what? The Grand Mufti was knee deep in the Armenian genocide as a Turkish artillery officer. Practice makes perfect, after all. He's your man, Hudson. I'd get to know him better if I were you.

Edited April 5, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Hudson Jones]

So what?

What do you mean so what?

You are asking me to compare something that happened a century ago to something that is happening now. What's next? Compare Israel's actions towards Palestinians to Germany's actions towards the Jews?

I have a feeling that you didn't even know the Armenian genocide happened a century ago until today.

[DogOnPorch]

What do you mean so what?

You are asking me to compare something that happened a century ago to something that is happening now. What's next? Compare Israel's actions towards Palestinians to Germany's actions towards the Jews?

I have a feeling that you didn't even know the Armenian genocide happened a century ago until today.

It's hardly ancient history. The Mufti participated in both Holocausts...then went on to say NO in 1947. You can't draw a line in the sand with history. It doesn't start or end.

[The_Squid]

Oh, please. It was, as Hudson Jones initially said, "political." Governments do all sorts of things for political reasons, and in that vein, the apology was clearly, I'm sure quite purposely, not an "admission of guilt for the deaths." "An admission of some culpability/responsibility/guilt for whatever one is apologizing for" is quite different from an admission of guilt for the deaths! Which is what Hudson Jones is saying it is. Which it is not. For the bajillionth time now.

Guilt/culpability/responsibility

You are playing with semantics. They apologized and paid a monetary retribution. Clearly they were guilty of something!! Or we're they merely culpable? LOL

[Rue]

Needless to say in the 'Hudson Jones" responses to American Women, his reference to Israeli actions in "international waters" completely ignores why they were enforcing a blockade. In the "Hudson Jones" script one does not look at the actual cause and effect-they are to selectively censor anything

in the actual cause and effect to the event he raises that does not suit his agenda.

In the real world outside the b.s. propoganda script, Israel's navy has been forced to implement and enforce an embargo because as "Hudson Jones" has never and will never acknowledge, Hamas, a terrorist group is in a declared state of war with Israel and tries to smuggle in weapons by sea.

The embargo intercepts, examines and then releases the cargoes impounded at sea after determining their are no goods that can be used against

israel as weapons.

In the "Hudson Jones" script we ignore that Hamas exists, is engaged in a war with Israel and by doing what it does creates the need for that embargo.

In the "Hudson Jones" script, we only selectively look at certain actions, not all actions.

Its a tiresome script and its why I wrote another thread criticizing this kind of approach to conflict and when one reader questioned whether I was a pro Israel agent I said, lol, sure why not, if questioning this kind of script makes me Mossad, be my guest call me that.

However I now ask again, how is it "Hudson Jones" can acknowledge Turkey is no angel and has done far worse than what "Hudson Jones" accuses Israel of, how can he suddenly acknowledge what Turkey did, but not Hamas.

How is it not once in all "his" visits for this forum, 'Hudson Jones" has not once acknowledged Hamas is a terrorist group engaged in a declared state of war with Israel. How does he not acknowledge Syria is in a state of declared war against Israel? How does he not acknowledge Iran and Hezbollah are in an open declared state of war with Israel?

How can he not acknowledge the terror cells operating on the West Bank and in Gaza let alone Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Iran?

What magic causes his script to suddenly remember Armenia but not Hamas?

Lol.

if it smells like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck. When a script is this blatant, repetitive and obvious you tell me why its so blatantly

selective when it comes to Hamas and Iran.

I have asked "Hudson Jones" and I ask "him" again, is the reason his scripts contain no reference to Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah Hawks or the funding of terrorists by Iran because "he" is not allowed in his scripts to acknowledge this? Is his sudden awareness of Turkey's autrocities coincidence as at about the time of this apology Iran's government openly criticized Turkey? Hmmmmmm?

Is it coincidental at about the time of this apology, the Kurd militia fighting Turkey called a truce with it enraging Iran?

Is it coincidence Turkey's concern of Syria has trumped its concern of how it deals with the Kurds? Is it possible the Kurds whose only is Israel got

a deal done with Turkey through Israel because of the need for everyone to cool it between Iran, the Kurds and Israel because the situation in Syria

is causing a flood of refugees into Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey which is a concern to all those nations as well as Israel and the Kurds?

Could it be the Iranian government's support of Syria through Hezbollah, necessarily is more of a threat to Turkey than the Kurds?

Could it be as much as the Turkish leader likes to sound tough and anti Israeli he can't afford to and needs them and the Kurds to cool it because

the Syrian situation is far worse for them then the Kurds desire for independence. Could the Kurds desire for indepedence, and Israeli's

security needs as well as Turkey's all coincide? Of course they do.

To understand Middle East conflicts is to understand that today's ally is tomorrow's enemy is the dy after's ally again. Alliances come and go like sand formations in the wind as I have stated many times.

The repetitive, selective, rigidly censored, narrow formula "Hudson Jones" presents is scripted. It comes right from the archives of the Syrian Ministry of Information now recycled by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian government.

That script in fact was originally written by ex Nazis who moved to Damascus and supported the Nazi bath Party and ran its communications and armed forces. Interestingly these ex Nazis flourished in Damascus as Syrian government civil servants and would later incorporate the great Soviet myth of rewriting history to suggest Egypt, Iraaq and Syria were not Nazi regimes supportive of Hitlerian Nazism but suddenly socialist regimes struggling to free the third world from imperialist colonialists. It was the Soviet script that rewrote Jewish refugees escpaing European colonialism as European colonialists and that script prevails today as can be seen in the scripts provided on this forum.

Oh "Hudson Jones" do you really want someone to believe you can acknowledge Turkey's autrocities but not those of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran?

Hmmmmmmm?

[The_Squid]

That's a long diatribe "Rue".

[Shady]

What do you mean so what?

You are asking me to compare something that happened a century ago to something that is happening now. What's next? Compare Israel's actions towards Palestinians to Germany's actions towards the Jews?

I have a feeling that you didn't even know the Armenian genocide happened a century ago until today.

So what? The holocaust happened before Israel even existed. So did slavery, so did our treatment of natives, so did Stalin's gulags, so did Mao's mass murder.

Anyways, what's your overall point? That Israel apologized and offered compensation? Isn't that a good thing? And why your concern for just Israel?

[Guest American Woman]

Guilt/culpability/responsibility

You are playing with semantics. They apologized and paid a monetary retribution. Clearly they were guilty of something!! Or we're they merely culpable? LOL

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Seriously. Again. People pay compensation in out of court settlements, and it doesn't mean that they are admitting guilt. There are many reasons one would settle out of court, and again, it's not an admission of guilt.

You tell me. Why do you think Israel said "may have" in the apology?

[Guest American Woman]

Yes. Yes. We may have contributed to the deaths.

Nope. That's not what Israel said, either.

Do you think the people on the flotilla could have done things differently that would have resulted in a different outcome; ie: no deaths?

[Hudson Jones]

Anyways, what's your overall point? That Israel apologized and offered compensation? Isn't that a good thing? And why your concern for just Israel?

What's your point for bringing up the Armenian genocide from a century ago? Like somehow it cancels Israel's continuous atrocities?

Of course it's a good thing that Israel apologized and is paying compensation for the people it killed. It's newsworthy because it's an admission by Israel that it made a mistake. It's also a chance to look into the reasons why this apology and admission was made and each side's positions and strategies around the issue.

[DogOnPorch]

What's your point for bringing up the Armenian genocide from a century ago? Like somehow it cancels Israel's continuous atrocities?

Of course it's a good thing that Israel apologized and is paying compensation for the people it killed. It's newsworthy because it's an admission by Israel that it made a mistake. It's also a chance to look into the reasons why this apology and admission was made and each side's positions and strategies around the issue.

As mentioned, the Palestinian leadership was knee deep in that genocide, too.

[Guest American Woman]

There would have been no deaths on the Mavi Marmara, just as there were no deaths on the other ships in the flotilla, had the crew notbeen sworn to fight and had not attacked the Israeli soldiers - who were enforcing a legal blockade. Had the Israeli soldiers not been attacked, they would not have fired back.

[DogOnPorch]

There would have been no deaths on the Mavi Marmara, just as there were no deaths on the other ships in the flotilla, had the crew notbeen sworn to fight and had not attacked the Israeli soldiers - who were enforcing a legal blockade. Had the Israeli soldiers not been attacked, they would not have fired back.

This is where the words 'innocent civilians' gets tossed around like the words 'jumbo shrimp' and 'new and improved'. A meaningless statement as used in advertizing to imply value where there really is none.

[Guest American Woman]

If the anti-Israel brigade couldn't twist and turn Israel's apology into something it's not, they'd be the first to be all over Israel for what was, in effect, more of an "I'm sorry it happened" statement than an apology - and it certainly wasn't an admission of guilt . I'm sorry lots of things happened, which I had absolutely nothing to do with. Re: the compensation, it's "humanitarian," not an admission of guilt.

[DogOnPorch]

If the anti-Israel brigade couldn't twist and turn Israel's apology into something it's not, they'd be the first to be all over Israel for what was, in effect, more of an "I'm sorry it happened" statement than an apology - and it certainly wasn't an admission of guilt . I'm sorry lots of things happened, which I had absolutely nothing to do with. Re: the compensation, it's "humanitarian," not an admission of guilt.

They knew full well what they were doing and the Free Gaza Movement has publicly outed themselves as Anti-Semites.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/marni-soupcoff-free-gaza-movement-leader-has-outed-herself-as-the-anti-semitic-she-truly-is/

[Guest American Woman]

They knew full well what they were doing and the Free Gaza Movement has publicly outed themselves as Anti-Semites.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/marni-soupcoff-free-gaza-movement-leader-has-outed-herself-as-the-anti-semitic-she-truly-is/

They absolutely did know full well what they were doing ... and interesting article!

[Hudson Jones]

Nope. That's not what Israel said, either.

Do you think the people on the flotilla could have done things differently that would have resulted in a different outcome; ie: no deaths?

They could have layed down and accepted the piracy in international waters. Then it's 'possible' that they would not have been killed.

It's like a home owner who is being robbed; He has a choice of accepting thieves entering his home and not do anything or show resistance.

So, was their resistance to invaders justified? Of course it was. Were they at fault that they were killed by trigger happy Israeli soldiers, who admittedly, made operational mistakes? Of course not.

[Guest American Woman]

They could have layed down and accepted the piracy in international waters. Then it's 'possible' that they would not have been killed.

Do you deny that they were trying to run the blockade? A blockade that's been declared both legal and appropriate? Do you deny that they were organized, armed, and prepared to fight?

It's like a home owner who is being robbed; He has a choice of accepting thieves entering his home and not do anything or show resistance.

No, it's nothing like that - since homes aren't trying to break into areas they don't belong and the Israeli military wasn't intending to rob the crew members. Nothing bad happened to anyone in the other ships in the flotilla. You know, the ships who didn't attack the Israeli soldiers?

So, was their resistance to invaders justified? Of course it was.

No, it was not. Organized, violent resistance was not justified.

Were they at fault that they were killed by trigger happy Israeli soldiers, who admittedly, made operational mistakes? Of course not.

Those "trigger happy" Israeli soldiers were defending themselves against organized, violent resistance. The ship was planning on running the blockade. A legal blockade. We both know that. If you think the Israeli soldiers had to stand by and take it, guess again. And. one. more. time. Just because no one involved with the flotilla admitted to making mistakes, it doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes. Planning on running the blockade was their first mistake. Organizing a violent resistance - and carrying it out - was their second mistake. For starters.

[Hudson Jones]

Do you deny that they were trying to run the blockade?

So what? They were still in international waters when it happened.

A blockade that's been declared both legal and appropriate?

Let's back up. Lets look at what has been said about the blockade. Red says that the blockade is illegal, and green says that blockade is legal:

1. In August 2009, U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay criticised Israel for the blockade in a 34-page report, calling it a violation of the rules of war.^[167]
2. A UN Fact Finding mission in September 2009 led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone (the Goldstone report) concluded that the blockade was possibly a crime against humanity, and recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court if the situation has not improved in six months.
3. In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed since the imposition of the blockade.^[169] They also stated that the "restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."^[170]
4. In June 2010, United Nations envoy to the Middle East and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that "The policy of Gaza is counter-productive and what [israel] should be doing is allow material in to rebuild homes and sanitation and power and water systems and allow business to flourish. Nor do we in fact do damage to the position of Hamas by harming people in Gaza. People are harmed when the quality of service is poor and people cannot work." He also called for Hamas to stop the "terrorism coming out of Gaza".^[171] In the same month, Robert Serry, the UN special envoy for Middle East peace process, also said that "The flotilla crisis is the latest symptom of a failed policy. The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and the current policy is unacceptable and counter-productive, and requires a different, more positive strategy. The closure and blockade of the Gaza Strip needs to come to an end. There is now a welcome international consensus on Gaza."^[172]
5. In the September 2011 Palmer Report, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza said that the Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law, but that "the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view."^[19][20]

Try again.

Do you deny that they were organized, armed, and prepared to fight?

I have a bat in my house and I'm prepared to fight any intruder who tries to enter my home.

No, it's nothing like that - since homes aren't trying to break into areas they don't belong and the Israeli military wasn't intending to rob the crew members. Nothing bad happened to anyone in the other ships in the flotilla. You know, the ships who didn't attack the Israeli soldiers?

They didn't board the other ships like they did with the Mavi. They entered this particular ship because they knew who was on board. They had a list of names and were going after them. When the Israelis noticed that people were resisting the invasion of their ship, they did what Israeli does best: Kill.

No, it was not. Organized, violent resistance was not justified.

Thanks for your opinion.

Those "trigger happy" Israeli soldiers were defending themselves against organized, violent resistance.

You make funny comments. The pirates were defending themselves with guns against the people on a ship they were invading in international waters.

The ship was planning on running the blockade. A legal blockade. We both know that.

You apparently do not know. Look above in regards to the legality of Israel's blockade. Most expert opinions and reports have called the blockade illegal.

If you think the Israeli soldiers had to stand by and take it, guess again.

Israel invaded the ship in international waters. If you think the people on the ship had to stand by and take being invaded, think again.

Israel made mistakes and they finally admitted to it. Their admission included apologizing for the mistakes and paying compensation to the families of the people who they killed. One day you will have to face these facts.

[Guest American Woman]

So what? They were still in international waters when it happened.

So what? They were going to run the blockade. That's a fact. But for the fact that they were planning on running the blockade, attempting to run the blockade, none of this would have happened. But for the fact that there was organized, violent resistance, the Israeli troops would not have shot at them.

Let's back up. Lets look at what has been said about the blockade.

Let's not. The U.N. report said it's legal and appropriate. Since you love to quote the U.N., let's leave it at that. You don't get to pick and choose.

Try again.

I have a bat in my house and I'm prepared to fight any intruder who tries to enter my home.

YOU try again. You cannot liken this situation to a home invasion - unless it's a mobile home, and you are knowingly in the process of trespassing - and you violently resist when confronted by the property owner. I doubt a court of law would see you as an entirely innocent victim.

They didn't board the other ships like they did with the Mavi. They entered this particular ship because they knew who was on board. They had a list of names and were going after them. When the Israelis noticed that people were resisting the invasion of their ship, they did what Israeli does best: Kill.

"When the Israelis noticed that people were resisting the invasion of their ship??" Are you serious? That would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Yeah, I suppose they did "notice" that they were being attacked. Hard not to "notice" that. And they fought back.

Thanks for your opinion.

You make funny comments. The pirates were defending themselves with guns against the people on a ship they were invading in international waters.

Then the U.N. panel makes funny comments, too, since it found that the Israeli soldiers were using force for their own protection. The soldiers were defending themselves against an organization that was in the act of running its blockade. You can keep trying to gloss over that fact, but it doesn't change the facts.

You apparently do not know. Look above in regards to the legality of Israel's blockade. Most expert opinions and reports have called the blockade illegal.

Apparently I do know, since the U.N. panel found the blockade to be a legitimate security measure.

Israel invaded the ship in international waters. If you think the people on the ship had to stand by and take being invaded, think again.

I don't think they "had" to, but I think they are accountable for their choices and actions. You, apparently, think only one side should be held accountable. It was their choice to take Israel on; to actively interfere in the conflict.

Israel made mistakes and they finally admitted to it. Their admission included apologizing for the mistakes and paying compensation to the families of the people who they killed. One day you will have to face these facts.

I don't deny the facts. I deny what you make up. We've been through this how many times now?

Edited April 6, 2013 by American Woman

[Hudson Jones]

So what? They were going to run the blockade. That's a fact. But for the fact that they were planning on running the blockade, attempting to run the blockade, none of this would have happened. But for the fact that there was organized, violent resistance, the Israeli troops would not have shot at them.

They were going to go in with humanitarian aid. Get the guns out! Humanitarian aid is coming to help people in need!

Let's not. The U.N. report said it's legal and appropriate. Since you love to quote the U.N., let's leave it at that. You don't get to pick and choose.

You need to pay attention to the information I have given you. The UN has had a few different reports. Most of them say that the blockade is illegal. It's cute to see you are finally agree with one thing that the UN has said and tightly holding onto the only 'view' which says it's legal, while dismissing and pretending all the other conclusions which say that the blockade is illegal and a violation of international.

Are you going to deny that majority of the conclusions by the expert panels say that the blockade is illegal?

YOU try again. You cannot liken this situation to a home invasion - unless it's a mobile home, and you are knowingly in the process of trespassing

I can compare it since Israel had no authority to invade the ship. The ships were not trespassing, since they were in international waters and approaching a blockade deemed illegal by most expert panels.

- and you violently resist when confronted by the property owner. I doubt a court of law would see you as an entirely innocent victim.

I don't care what you doubt. Israel has already admitted that it has made mistakes. Even the report that you are holding onto recognizes the mistakes Israel has made.

"When the Israelis noticed that people were resisting the invasion of their ship??" Are you serious? That would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Yeah, I suppose they did "notice" that they were being attacked. Hard not to "notice" that. And they fought back.

"Your honour. Please accept my explanation that I shot and killed the people after I invaded their ships with guns and they tried to resist our piracy. Oh and I had to assassinate some of them by emptying bullets into their bodies from close range."

Then the U.N. panel makes funny comments, too, since it found that the Israeli soldiers were using force for their own protection. The soldiers were defending themselves against an organization that was in the act of running its blockade. You can keep trying to gloss over that fact, but it doesn't change the facts.

Glossing over is the fact that most of the UN conclusions say that the blockade is "illegal".

Apparently I do know, since the U.N. panel found the blockade to be a legitimate security measure.

There you go again. Most of the conclusions say that the blockade is illegal. Yes, I have to keep reminding you.

I don't think they "had" to, but I think they are accountable for their choices and actions. You, apparently, think only one side should be held accountable. It was their choice to take Israel on; to actively interfere in the conflict.

Their actions did not warrant having bullets emptied into them from close range. Even this extremely biased and worthless report acknowledges that the Israeli soldiers used "excessive and unreasonable force" and the loss of life is "unacceptable". Do you deny that the Palmer report says this?