[NeroASERCH]

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=2111

The New York Times has a reputation for providing extensive coverage of international events. So if the Turkish-Kurdish conflict were to receive coverage anywhere in the mainstream media, one might expect to find it in the New York Times. A Lexis-Nexis search on New York Times articles using key words "Kurds" or "Kurdish" and "Turkey" or "Turkish" - turned up 77 articles between Sept. 13, 2010 and Sept. 13, 2011. About 2/3 of these articles dealt with the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds.
In comparison, a similar search on New York Times articles using key words "Palestinians" and "Israel" or "Israelis" turned up 785 articles. About 2/3 of these articles, approximately 500 in number, prominently featured the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So the Times publishes about 10 times more articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than on the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. The time period selected is not an aberration, a search on "Israel" or "Israelis" and "Palestinians" covering the past five years of Times coverage turned up 4,317 items compared to 506 for a search on "Kurds" or "Kurdish" and "Turkey" or "Turkish."

The eight to ten times more frequent coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inverse to the relative levels of violence in each respective conflict. Since 1984, when the violent phase of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict began, minimum estimates put the death toll at over 40,000. By contrast, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over that same period has produced less than 10,000 Palestinian and Israeli fatalities.

Two recent events, the abortive 2011 Gaza flotilla that got stranded in Greece, and the recent escalation of violence along the Turkish-Iraqi border, offer an example of the imbalance in coverage relative to the level of violence.

A Lexis-Nexis search of New York Times articles dealing with the grounded flotilla found 51 articles focusing on the topic. Not a single life was lost in the several weeks during June and July 2011 that the drama played out.

The Turkish bombardment of suspected Kurdish bases in Iraq in mid-August, which killed a reported 100-150 people, resulted in just five separate reports, four of which were perfunctory dispatches, like the 103-word item that read as follows:
The Turkish military said Monday that it had killed more than 150 Kurdish separatists this month with artillery fire and airstrikes in northern Iraq that were carried out in retaliation for increased cross-border violence. The rebels, who are fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey, often operate out of bases in northern Iraq, where the Iraqi Kurds have achieved a level of autonomy of their own. The rebels -- from the P.K.K., or Kurdistan Workers Party -- have refused to stop fighting unless demands like the release of a jailed leader and public education in the Kurdish language are met by the Turkish government.

It cannot be argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets more attention because of its allegedly high civilian toll. A large portion of the dead and maimed in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict are civilians, mostly Kurds.

[Peptobismol]

This is totally wrong. I understand the anger, I understand Israelis are being insulted and heart broken by a mad evil but comparing kurdish-arabstinian issue is totally wrong. Often two sides make this mistake.

Why?
1-Military agreements in near past
2-Military technology used by Turks today
3-Armed-Civilian target difference

Yes, Israel has a very bad (sad but true) reputation when it comes to suppress terrorism. Too many civilians die; like them or not it will always count against Israel.

Turkey doesn't have same image and never will.

Why?

Turkey fights against PKK with Kurds. AKP has 50% Kurdish members in the parliament, national TV and radio transmits Kurdish only activities, too many Kurdish elites in the society, armed Kurdish legions in the mountains, horrifying amount of Kurdish soldiers in the army and countless more. Turkish military provides education, healthcare and restoration in Kurdish villages.

Let me note also the PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan can't speak Kurdish and he told several times he's a Kemalist.

I know Israel's aim and it would be damn stupid to ask IDF to follow same strategy but it's very useful when it comes to deal with PR and UN.

Now what? There is a risk of a new born Arabstinian state, right inside ISRAELI soil.

Why?

Israel is following wrong path.

What is the right path?

Apparently, very few. E.G. fix the horrible PR.

How?

Suppress the UN vote for a Arabstine, fix the PR, decrease civilian casualties, tell mossad to take care of Gaza.

West Bank? Looks like, already nobody cares about settlers.

[Beerinkol]

Let me add that PKK demands apology from Israel

[Beerinkol]

There is no coming back to Turkey. Period. End of myth. Turkey sees itself as THE IMPERIAL power in the region and will do anything to achieve that. Why does anyone think that Turkey is reaching out to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia now? Because those 3 countries are anarchic and weak. Turkey will attempt to rule them as colonies or vassal states. That's a given. And the fact that Erdogan is essentially parroting the same line as genocidal maniacs toward Israel means he's doing it for more than political reasons. Relations with Turkey are finished. Forever. He's planning on military strikes against Israel anyway so there's no point in kissing up to him. He doesn't want and can't use Jews as an Ottoman colony, yet. He has to destroy the country first then he can rule over whatever's left. It's classic imperialism.

[9mm_fan]

Turkey won't be able to rule the arabs countries you listed above. Just yesterday the muslim brotherhood (same kids welcomed erdogan at airport) condemned erdogan for his speech about secularism. Erdogan is a big time loser when it comes to deal with other countries. And he knows that a military action against Israel would cost a lot. He doesn't have balls to take a military action against Israel. He knows he will lose his voters (people who voted for a strong economy) because a possible war will damage the economy. I think Turkey as an imperialist ruler would be less realistic than Ahmedinejad would become a gay.

[PhillipHer]

I think Turkey as an imperialist ruler would be less realistic than Ahmedinejad would become a gay. Isn't he?

[TorryJens]

Soon Erdogan won't need to worry about votes. Turkey will devolve into a lightweight version of Iranian governance. That's when Supreme Leader gets 99.984% of the vote the day before elections. If he gets only 99% then it's clearly a call for the army to boil into the streets to suppress the 'zionists'. Everyone knows that. That's exactly what Algeria is doing for the "September 17 Group". Look it up. If nothing else, Muslim states play their one and only card very predictably.

As far as Egypts Muslim Brotherhood is concerned, so far the Army is running things, they've called off elections indefinitely. The Muslim Brotherhood won't be able to steal the government through the ballot box they'll have to try to kill their way to the top. Then Maximum Ottoman Erdogan will step in to 'restore order'. Anschluss.

[Slonopotam845]

Isn't he?

No he's a lawn gnome.