Unrest in Turkey and Syria

There are those, who say that Erdogan should be voted out by peaceful means in a democratic election. When a leader was voted in by democratic elections, becomes autocratic and oblivious to his voters needs, imprisons his opponents, the Turkish people have no patience to wait until the next elections.
They take to the streets. Violence resulting in death and injury as well as vandalism must be avoided and condemned. The Mohatma Gandhi approach is the best.
PM Erdogan had done much for Turkey. He is a charismatic leader and has widespread support from most of the Turkish Electorate. Turkey has become a powerful economic power and Erdpgan must be given credit for achieving this.
The demonstrations over the park for economic devolopment and the uprooting of trees is just an excuse or perhaps a catalyst for violent demonstrations against Erdogan and a push for change.
There is a lesson from the past that we should never forget. This may or may not be true in Turkey's case. Time will tell when more information becomes available about Erdogan's leadership and his human rights record despite the fact that Turkish leadership Turkey as the only democratic state in the Middle East with a Muslim Leadership.
In the early 1930s, Germany was considered one of the most democratic states in Europe. There were General Elections in 1933 and the Nazi Party used the democratic process to gain power. Adolph Hitler received an overwhelming majority and the Holocaust was the result. Much has been written about this bleak period in Germany under Hitler's barbaric regime. A question that comes up - although hypothetical - should the Germans have had violent demonstrations against Hitler to ovrrthrow him and his Nazi Party or wait patiently for the next general elections while democracy in Germany was being destroyed. Obviously, with hindsight, the former would have been justified.
Bearing this in mind, there is an unknown factor about Erdogan, whether he is using Turkish democracy to consolidate his power base by packing his party with burocrats and corrupt croneys. It looks as if Turkey is in a kind of a delemma over the future of its democracy.
We cannot be sure about this. The demonstrations started from the Gezi Park being developed for industry and trees being chopped down. It seems a rather insignificant reason to initiate violence on a national scale. There must be more to that than meets the eye. Turkey's constitution is secular. There is no Sharia law that is binding on a largely secular population. The question is whether Erdogan's party is trying to make Turkey into a religious Muslim state at the expense of the reforms of Kemal Ataturk to make Turkey secular is unclear.
Turkey is a pluralistic society ranging in views from the conservative religious to the secular. In between this are many groups in Turkish society that are between the two. The hard core demonstrators who wish to continue their fight against Erdogan have pledged to carry on the battle despite Erdogan's appeal to negotiate. There does not seem to be any unity in what the demonstrators want to achieve. There are communists and right wingers all having a free for all in the streets. There is no leadership that represents the demonstrators. This is what makes the situation volatile.
Not even the most democratic country on earth would tolerate demonstrations that Turkey has had. The police would come in with tear gas, water canons and even ribber bullets. Israel would not tolerate it. So the use of the term excess police force is relative. One cannot have rampaging demonstrators setting fire to public property and destroying everything in their path. This would lead to total destruction of Turkey's economy and only the Turkish people will suffer.
This is not a Turkish Spring as there is no united motive in an alternative government to Erdogan. The demonstrations will decrease in its violence apart from a few hard core demonstrators. There has been loss of life and many injuries but this is nothing compared to what is happening in Syria.
Where are the "humanists" who are the first to condenn Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians? There is a dearth of these humanists who have united with anti-Semites and pseudo communists who are no less racist than nazis and facists in their hate for Israel and the Jewish people. They do not condemn the massacres of Syrians who are being slaughtered in their tens of thousands. Even the UN is conspicious by its absence in condemning the slaughter in Syria. These double standard hypocritical, anti-Semitic "humanists" are silent over human rights abuses in Iran, Hamas-controlled Gaza, Hezbollah controlled parts of Lenanon under the "great humanist" Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Why this double standard towards Israel? The occupation and the abuses of Palestinians in Israel has not reached the epidemic proportions of the torture of Bashar Al Assad of his own people, creating a severe refugee problem of Syrians fleeing their country of birth to neighbouring Arab countries like Jordan as well as Turkey. Not a word uttered by the "humanists" condemning this gross inhumanity. These g"reat watchdogs of human rights" subscribe to the same ideology as their "humanist mentors" in Hamas, Hezbollah and possibly other "benefactors of mankind" in Iran.
Oh! I forgot to mention the "wonderful regimes" in Darfur in Sudan' where slaughter carries on unabated with hardly a blip on our TV screens. The anti-Semitic "humanists "of the various NGOs dedicated to human rights are notoriously silent.
While the occupation is morally unjustifiable there is no wholescale massacre or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as these hypocritical, double standard "humanists" claim. No human rights abuse should be conveniently over looked or condoned by sucking up to the Jihadists which is what the watch dog of human rights are doing by their reactions and hate for Israel. Eventually they themselves will be the victims of their own follies and naivity.