There's no need to be sarcastic. We can keep this respectful. I didn't claim that, but I certainly haven't seen where you've credited Obama for any meaningful accomplishments vis-a-vis Israel, which, again, puts you at odds with everyone who's published anything I've seen about this. I'm amazed that you still insist the apology was irrelevant. It led directly to the restoration of diplomatic ties between Turkey and Israel. Which reasons would those be? It's not clear to me. And what exactly is the meaningful distinction between Obama's actions and his speech, as far as both being attributable to Obama? Again, all I'm interested in is the question whether the restoration (clearly caused by diplomacy on Obama's part) of diplomatic ties between Turkey and Israel, arguably our most important allies in the Middle East, represents a significant accomplishment by Obama. Here you're saying it's "meaningless." As this is an uncommon opinion, I would appreciate elaboration.
Maybe he should try giving a speech to the Palestinians where the real trouble lies. I have said it before and will say it again, if the Palestinians laid down their arms today there would be immediate peace and in short order two states. If Israel laid down their arms they would be driven into the Mediterranean sea.
You can say it but it doesn't make it true. The times when the Palestinians have followed the peace agreements Israel only increased the amount of settlements, and the Palestinians got nothing but taken advantage of. I agree that the Palestinians should take up non violent protest against the huge amount of injustices they face at the hands of Israel.
On a per capita basis they are. Arab oil pays for a lot more of River Oaks and Smith Street than their own infrastructure or economic diversification.
No **** sherlock. This is the nature of occupation. If you have succeeded in occupying/invading some place, you are going to be more willing to come to a peace. Peace does not necessarily mean justice. Everyone's goal on all sides is peace and justice. Here's an easy example to follow: imagine I stab you in the chest and then ask for peace and stability in response without justice being served. Is that a desirable peace for you? Of course not. You would want justice, reimbursement and THEN peace. If Palestinians were stealing Israeli land for decades, would Israelis accept peace and stability after all that land is stolen? Of course not.
which means what exactly? You have failed to mention any meaning in any of this. I have answered your question multiple times. No it doesn't. Do you really think Turkey was putting their foot down saying 'We won't talk to Israel until they give us an apology' . Rly? IF Turkey really cared about the incident (they don't) they would demand Israel explain why it happened, what measures are being taken to insure it doesn't happen again, and what restitution Israel will provide. Turkey would not ask for an apology as that is childish dribble that holds no value.
Say we presented you with evidence that Turkey demanded an explanation, remedial measures and revision of Israeli policies in this respect... would that change your opinion?
[bolded by me] Yes, of course I think that, because it's simply true. We don't need to speculate about what Turkey "would do" because we have facts. Turkey did demand an apology as a a condition for restoring relations, and they restored relations immediately after they got the apology. Haaretz, February 15, 2011: Turkey: Israel must apologize for flotilla raid regardless of UN findings Reuters, March 22, 2013: Turkey says all main demands met with Israeli apology As for restitution, that's on the way as well: Globes, today: Israeli and Turkish diplomats to meet on compensation
Bucket, I just want to give you props for how well you're handling a debate. Eloquent, researched, never emotional or insulting. This is a model for how discussions in D&D should go.
No it is just posturing. That is the point. Erdogan doesn't really care. Why would he care about an apology? MY opinion about what? That the apology is meaningless? NO, why would it? que? both are insults There is an easy way to settle this. Why don't we wait a year and you can tell me what fruits grew from this 'historic' speech. What do you think will come from this awesome, meaningful speech bucket?
Good question. I don't know why he would. I don't think he should. It makes no sense. However, leaders are people and sometimes emotions overtake logic. What we do know is that he specifically demanded an apology and resumed diplomatic relations once he received the apology. That indicates to me that he really did want the apology. Was the speech historic? Too early to tell. If it is followed up with a real peace process that works, then yes. If not, then it was a nice speech, but will not be pointed to in any history books. Anybody who knows me knows that I am not the biggest fan of the President. However, you have to look at things he does and opine objectively. You come across as though if Obama found a cure for cancer, you would complain about how he did it and that he should have been doing something else.
I mean, doesn't everyone know that this guy, bigtexas, basso, and such - these guys are not hear to debate but rather to irritate? They either are brainwashed or they don't care...and it doesn't matter if it's Obama, Clinton, Kerry, or whomever. If there is a D next to their name, they will only attack and criticize. There is no capability of critical objective thought from these folks. Whatever republicans there are that are capable of objective thinking - they are not here that's for sure.
Non-violent protest has been the rule rather than the exception in the West Bank for the last decade, since the Second Intifada didn't win them too many friends. In Bil'in alone, they organize protests every week. The fact that this is isn't common knowledge only underscores why terrorism is still valued, and it's incredibly depressing. As for the speech, it was a good one, all cynicism aside. Not as epic as some are giving Obama credit for, since it is only reiterating what has been US policy all along, but still a welcome change. The world has a short memory. US policy has been clear and unchanging, and nothing Obama said is at all at odds with this legacy: Johnson Administration April 8, 1968 September 10, 1968 Nixon Administration July 1, 1969 September 1971 Ford Administraion March 23, 1976 Carter Administration July 29, 1977 Reagan Administration August 2, 1983 Bush Administration March 3, 1990 May 22, 1991 Clinton Administration Jan 7, 2001 Bush II Administration April 4, 2002 May 01, 2002 June 26, 2005 Source The reconciliation between Turkey and Israel also IS a big deal, should be given credit to Obama's administration, and probably even more so to the State Department and John Kerry.
Link, please? You say he doesn't care. Prove it. You can't. Why? Because, with all due respect, you clearly don't know jack about Turkey and Israeli/Turkish relations. Turkey and Israel have been allies for a very long time. Turkey recognized the Jewish state in 1949. Israel has very large contracts with Turkey to modernize their military, upgrading hundreds of Turkish tanks (Israel makes one of the best tanks in the world) and many American made jet fighters with Israeli made technology. They have trade measured in the billions of dollars a year. Israelis have been able to vacation in Turkey for years, and do. Israel and Turkey previously cooperated closely in security matters, sharing intelligence on countries that share borders with Turkey, like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, countries that can and do present problems for Turkey. You seem to dismiss the importance of Turkey as an ally and member of NATO, and the difficulties an estrangement between Turkey and Israel has presented for both NATO and the US. Turkey has a very powerful military. They are a linchpin of NATO defense strategy. Just bother to look at a map. This estrangement between Israel and Turkey, which has been deteriorating and affecting all aspects of their relationship, as you should be able to figure out with some facts, has been a huge problem for American foreign policy, Israeli foreign policy, NATO, and our European allies. So yeah, President Obama's ability to push Israel's government into making that apology, a requirement for normalizing relations that Turkey's government has never wavered from after several of its citizens were killed when their ship was boarded by the IDF on the high seas, is a big deal. I hope some information was helpful.
Whether the apology matters much to Edrogan personally isn't the issue but apologies matter diplomatically. A lot of you are downplaying the importance of official apologies when these are very importance in diplomacy. Consider during the Aries EP-3 incident with the PRC the GW Bush Admin. issued an apology to the the PRC that allowed for the return of the plane's crew and plane.
As far as Obama's speech I think it is an important speech but as for historic I think that is yet to be seen. I agree with the other posters actions will have to be seen and at the moment Obama made no commitments to anything concrete that will change the situation in the region.
Must truly suck to be so irrelevant to the political landscape. I think a useful quote from Ronald Reagan applies here... "You can disagree without being disagreeable." Unfortunately there are no Ronald Reagans anymore in the Republican party...
