Hurriyet daily news

[arpad]

Daily reading : Hurriyet daily news - a Turkish newspaper in English

It is sickening to watch how Turkish government officials take turns in slandering Israel.

Sometimes they get too pompous for their own good:
"Last year we exported agricultural products of 180-190 million dollars to Israel and bought only around one fifth or one fourth of that amount [mostly seeds]," Eker told reporters, adding that Turkey is not dependent on Israeli agricultural products.
Well, Turkey is not an only country where agriculture minister has a weak grasp of economics.

But humor aside - even complete breaking ties with Israel economy won't harm Ankara much. Trade volume with Israel is below 3% of overall Turkish import/export. Military will be hit harder - contracts with Israel covered there some sensitive areas, but the gap is not critical and can be filled by a different supplier.

The loss of Turkey as a strategic ally is a blow. But it is a result of what Turkey has become, not what Israel has – or has not – done.

And frankly - I am glad that we aren't friendly with this new Turkey. It would be a shame to harbor such friends.

Comments

[ascir.livejournal.com]

Well, it would be a brave act, but its political implications might be... ah... serious. Turkey is a NATO member, after all.

[0qwerty0.livejournal.com]

then it's up to the rest of NATO to take actions against its member that goes to war against NATO decisions... which they did, and which caused Edrogan to take a VERY fast Uturn

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

NATO is a defensive alliance. We are not obligated to shield Turkey's acts of aggression. The anti-Semites in Europe might cheer the Turks on, but I doubt they would be eager to go to war against a nuclear Power when they have such an easy way of bowing out while still honoring the treaty.

This has happened before. Remember when Turkey attacked Cyprus in the 1970's?

[ascir.livejournal.com]

NATO is a defensive alliance

Very funny. Tell it Serbs, Libyans etc.

BTW, if a NATO country is attacked (and you are suggesting to do exactly that, may the Israelis shoot straight), other countries are obliged to help.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

NATO is, in fact, a "defensive alliance," in that NATO Powers are only obliged to come to the aid of another NATO Power which is under unprovked attack. NATO members can, of course, choose to intervene under other circumstances, but they are not obliged to do so.

In the case of Serbia, the cause was humanitarian: NATO intervened to stop the Serbs from killing the Bosnians and Croats. In the case of Libya, several NATO Powers were attacked -- Gaddafi attacked America, Britain, Germany and Italy at various points in the mid-1980's. Admittedly, it would have been better had NATO explicitly acted on that basis, but those who have been following the history of the last few decades well-remember the bombing of the German disco, the bombardment of Pantallera, and the Lockerbie atrocity.

If Turkey sends forces to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza, and Israel resists this attempt by force, then Turkey has started a war with Israel -- Turkey would be the aggressor state in that instance. NATO members are not obliged to support the aggressor. As for America, since both Israel and Turkey are our allies, we would probably remain netural in that eventuality.

[0qwerty0.livejournal.com]

afair there is a little subclause that a NATO member should not *start* a war without NATO approval