Not having read the treaty, I don’t know, but if the quoted part of the treaty is correct, ie. it covers attacks in Europe and North America, then Israeli actions against Turkey in Asia wouldn’t trigger NATO treaty obligations. FWIW, I don’t believe that the UK tried to invoke the NATO treaty when attacked in the Falklands by Argentina. Wouldn’t that be a similar situation?
Sure. Remember, though, that the Charter was written in 1949 but Turkey didn't join NATO until 1952 (along with Greece).
It would be reasonable to assume that it would not cover territories such as the Falklands or French Indo-China.
Article 6 clarifies the meaning of Article 5:
Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
(In reading that, you have to remember that the treaty was signed in 1949, but Turkey did not join until 1952)
Think about it logically: why would Turkey even join NATO if they couldn't count on NATO to come to their defense?