Gaza Flotilla

My first reaction to the IDF attack on the Palestinian aide vessel was annoyance mixed with utter despair and concern.  Just another insult on the way to the inevitable breakout of WWIII that Israel seems to welcome.  As I've been perusing left and right blogosphere though I'm left more confused than anything.    I think Chait breaks it down the best (after ample prodding by Sullivan, of course.

First, is the underlying blockade of Gaza humanely constructed? No it is not:

Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets. It’s why Israel bans virtually all exports from Gaza, a policy that has helped to destroy the Strip’s agriculture, contributed to the closing of some 95 percent of its factories, and left more 80 percent of its population dependent on food aid. It’s why Gaza’s fishermen are not allowed to travel more than three miles from the coast, which dramatically reduces their catch. And it’s why Israel prevents Gazan students from studying in the West Bank, a policy recently denounced by 10 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize. There’s a name for all this: collective punishment.

Second, given that the blockade was in place, was Israel militarily justified in responding as it did? Yes, it was:

We have no sympathy for the motives of the participants in the flotilla -- a motley collection that included European sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, Israeli Arab leaders and Turkish Islamic activists. Israel says that some of the organizers have ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda. What's plain is that the group's nominal purpose, delivering "humanitarian" supplies to Gaza, was secondary to the aim of provoking a confrontation. The flotilla turned down an Israeli offer to unload the six boats and deliver the goods to Gaza by truck; it ignored repeated warnings that it would not be allowed to reach Gaza. Its spokesmen said they would insist on "breaking Israel's siege," as one of them put it.

Third, given that Israel had a right to stop the ship and reply to the lethal force used against its soldiers, was it wise to respond as it did? No, it was not:

Better information was needed. The commandos didn't know they were going to face an angry mob armed with knives and bats. Different equipment was needed: The raiders apparently didn't have enough nonlethal weapons on hand. A more creative approach was needed: Maybe a way to stop the ship without having to board it. But these are all just technical details of an operation gone sour.

This level-headed perspective is why I like reading Chait.  The Blockade is inhumane; the Israeli's had a right to deter the ship from breaking the blockade; the Israeli's used excessive force.   In the end it seems the Flotilla's main goal of bringing political attention to the Gaza blockade was wildly successful in that it put Israel's inhumane blockade in the forefront of world news.  The whole ordeal also gave us a glimpse into the future of Western border security, should the right ever get their wish to turn the US into a isolated giant.    Excessive force?   Sure!  As long as we protect our borders!!

But I digress.  Where I'm most disappointed in all this is Obama's response, which to me was like the equivalent of a soccer mom threatening to pull the minivan over.  Now now kids, mommy's trying to concentrate here. When nine civilians are murdered on an aide vessel by your supposed ally, you should come right out and denounce the damn action.  Plain and simple. Stop being a pussy about it and put your foot down, Mr. President.