i joined NATO and all i got was this lousy t-shirt

Israel has never defined it's borders.

Israel has never signed the NPT.

Israel is not a member of NATO.

Israel is a junkie, addicted to power.

Not beautiful. Not talented. Not special.

Pretending to have a soul.

Just a pathetic junkie, hideous and wasted.

Famous for all the wrong reasons.

"The only thing she cared about was her crack pipe."

(source)

But Israel wants to rule the world.

"greater" "Israel"(source)

Is anyone going to do anything about this problem??!!??

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

See the list of 28 NATO countries here. You'll notice that TURKEY is on the list, but that shitty little country ISRAEL is not.

The Israeli apologists are out in force, the corporate media very dutifully looking the other way at Sarah Palin's fence, Bill Clinton in Haiti, they'd even rather talk about the scale of devastation in the Gulf of Mexico... anything to avoid facing the facts about Israel.

So what is the point of any country bothering with NATO, having their foreign policies controlled and making sacrifices for NATO, if our president can't even open his mouth to defend Turkey, a fellow NATO member, against Israeli commandos murdering unarmed Turkish nationals in international waters while they attempt to break an illegal Israeli blockade, Israeli commandos seizing ships illegally (piracy), and kidnapping members of an international aid delegation carrying humanitarian supplies?

What kind of deal is that?

A collective security organization settles disputes among its members. In contrast, a collective defense organization assists a member state under attack by an outside country. NATO is a collective defense organization. Article V states that NATO members must consider coming to the aid of an ally under attack. However, it does not guarantee assistance. Article V is the Treaty's key provision and the linchpin binding the United States to its NATO allies. It states, in part, that "an armed attack against one or more [allies] shall be considered an attack against them all." Additional language makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather, each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force ......"

How about can he open his mouth? Because if he can't, I don't see why any other NATO country should have any confidence that NATO works as advertised.

According to Craig Murray, the people at NATO in Brussels have furrowed brows.

What I was being told last night was very interesting indeed. NATO HQ in Brussels is today a very unhappy place. There is a strong understanding among the various national militaries that an attack by Israel on a NATO member flagged ship in international waters is an event to which NATO is obliged - legally obliged, as a matter of treaty - to react.

I must be plain - nobody wants or expects military action against Israel. But there is an uneasy recognition that in theory that ought to be on the table, and that NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey. Mutual military support of each other is the entire raison d'etre of NATO. You must also remember that to the NATO military the freedom of the high seas guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a vital alliance interest which officers have been conditioned to uphold their whole career.

That is why Turkey was extremely shrewd in reacting immediately to the Israeli attack by calling an emergency NATO meeting. It is why, after the appalling US reaction to the attack with its refusal to name Israel, President Obama has now made a point of phoning President Erdogan to condole.

...But what kind of mutual support organisation is NATO when members must make decades long commitments, at huge expense and some loss of life, to support the United States, but cannot make even a gesture to support Turkey when Turkey is attacked by a non-member?

Well exactly. What is NATO all about anyway? I guess Israel doesn't need to be in NATO because Israel has it's sock puppet, the USA, in NATO. But now it's becoming really really obvious.

^^^^^^^


"Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel had "no other choice" but to stop the flotilla of ships which tried to break the Gaza blockade on Monday." (BBC: Israeli PM Netanyahu stands by ship raid)

Reports from people on board:

"[The attack] was a surprise, because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters. Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked. All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people."... "They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war. They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor." "We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. "Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."

NO CHOICE?

From another story, note all the things that transpired *before* the commandos came in on helicopters.

"The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said. "There were sound and smoke bombs and later they used gas bombs. Following the bombings they started to come on board from helicopters."


..."We continuously told them we did not have weapons, we came here to bring humanitarian help and not to fight," he said. "The attack on the Mavi Marmara came in an instant: they attacked it with 12 or 13 attack boats and also with commandos from helicopters. We heard the gunshots over our portable radio handsets, which we used to communicate with the Mavi Marmara, because our ship communication system was disrupted. There were three or four helicopters also used in the attack. We were told by Mavi Marmara their crew and civilians were being shot at and windows and doors were being broken by Israelis." Six Greek activists who returned to Athens accused Israeli commandos of using electric shocks during the raid.

NO CHOICE?

Back to you, Bibi...

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech to the nation that "the State of Israel faces an international hypocritical assault once again. The aim of the blockade is to prevent weapons from entering Gaza. The aim of the flotilla was to violate the blockade."

According to Netanyahu, "endless amounts of arms can be smuggled on each boat. Our duty is to check each and every boat, remove the weapon and allow other supplies in. if we don't do that, the result will be an Iranian port in Gaza." (Ynet)

Watch the Mossad agent Michael Oren, hmm I think he is "mistaken" about a few things. Yeah. He tries to be very convincing, but even he seems to have a little trouble keeping it all straight. (via Kenny)