Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, who notes there are three basic questions that must be asked on the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which is the crux of this most recent incident in which 10 individuals were killed by Israeli military forces:
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.
I’m inclined to agree with Chait’s assessment that there’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this incident.
Recent Comments