SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Abbas Doesn't Want the Embargo Lifted Either

THE SPINE JUNE 13, 2010

Abbas Doesn't Want the Embargo Lifted Either

BY MARTIN PERETZ

There's a fascinating dispatch in Ha'aretz reporting that Palestinian
Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has made it clear to President Obama that he doesn't want Israel's naval blockade against Hamas lifted. This
should be no surprise, and it raises difficult questions for both America
and the meddlesome Europeans who can produce nothing diplomatically but hot air. In fact, why doesn't Europe attend to its own terrible problems, among
which are the survival of the Eurozone itself and the very liquidity of
Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland? What does that mean? Leave Israel alone. But it won't. An article in this morning's Jerusalem Post
reports that Spain—poor, impoverished, pretentious and powerless Spain—has initiated a proposal for the European Union to monitor goods going into
Gaza. Their model presumably is the UNIFIL operation which has failed in each and every one of its missions from 1978 on. It is a phantasy world.



As you will see from the Ha'aretz article, Abbas wants it both ways. He
wants Israel to ease up on barring items that won't help Hamas, his mortal enemy and a threat to Egypt, as well. But he wants Jerusalem, if anything,
to stiffen its rules against seaborne commerce with Gaza. The Palestinian Authority was not taken in by the ever more jihadist regime in Turkey
which, allied now with Iran, has become comrade with Muslim fundamentalists everywhere. This discourse is done in shadows.



Almost nobody noticed that Egypt also didn't want to cave to the Islamist
pirates out of Ankara and Istanbul. And it doesn't want to now. Cairo understands the game. It has relaxed its own land blockade against
Gaza. But my guess (an informed guess) is that the loosening of the grip
will loosen very little. If anything.



So the question is: What will President Obama demand? He has no reason to
reward Istanbul. Still, Turkey was a key element in his global design. I
'm not sure that he realizes it is an utter failure. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 51 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

51 comments

Impossible to keep track of what Mahmoud Abbas says to who - he is like Woody Allen's Zelig these days. What he said at the Brookings luncheon last week is even more contradictory: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/hazony/312936 What seems to be going on is the Arabs (Egypt, Arab League) are trying to wrest the Hamas/Gaza issue back from the Turks. Spain holds the rotating presidency of the EU. Belgium takes over on July 1. Latest Haaretz update 17:10 13.06.10: "...However, Abbas' spokesman [Nabil Abu Rudaina] issued a denial on Sunday in response to the morning's report, explaining to the Palestinain Wafa news agency that the Palestinian president had told Obama that the lifting of the blockade on Gaza was like the peace process in the sense that "the president [Abbas] has raised the demand to lift the blockade in all his meetings with world leaders."

- K2K

June 13, 2010 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Abbas is for it, then it must be good for the Jews.

- roidubouloi

June 13, 2010 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What, Abbas is not good for the Jews? Still, President Obama makes love to him publicly! What can it mean? http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/upload/obama_en_abbas.jpg

- noga1

June 13, 2010 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: "What can it mean?" 1) job offer (barrista?) in Ramallah, or 2) iteration of "who's your Daddy?" jokes? if the EU stalls on the blockade-embargo-seige resolution until Belgium gets the rotating presidency, Israel may need to lead Belgium in indirect talks to get the Flemish and the Walloons to decide who will lead Belgium... the twenty-first century is looking a lot like a series of imperial un-do-overs.

- K2K

June 13, 2010 at 9:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What can it mean? Well, 43 years of occupation has worked out so well, we should shoot for at least another 50. If Israel can actually succeed in turning itself into an apartheid state, things should smooth out nicely.

- roidubouloi

June 13, 2010 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course Israel's occupation is to blame for the fact that Obama does not know who America's friends are. I have been reading some real bristling from the Brits, as well: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/06/special-relationship-americas-still-itching-to-bash-us-in-the-snoot.html

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel is not America's friend. It is its client. And if one judged by the comments of Israelis here, America and Americans are despised by Israelis for it. The Brits bristle? The same Brits whom the usual suspects describe as nothing but a bunch of anti-Semites? One would think that Israelis would be delighted at any sign of estrangement between the US and Britain.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: I could only view the photo from the source webpage. such a Dutch website must have scorched roid's delicate liberal eyes :) http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/index.php?r=1&id=486426&tbl_archief= The Indians are way ahead of the British on real bristling. The recent European elections (Netherlands, Hungary, and now the Flemish separatists in Belgium) have certainly slowed the road to united-kumbaya-land.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israel is not America's friend. It is its client. And if one judged by the comments of Israelis here, America and Americans are despised by Israelis for it." I call bullshit...... Press that one real hard roi and your favorite President and party will definitely see very troubled waters reelection time.

- jacko

June 14, 2010 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, and Israel were America's closest, most dependable ALLIES before the Age of Obama. Well, we still have the Phillipines, and Chicago.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good gracious, K2K, you're suggesting that we've lost those countries as allies and if so it's because of Obama? Reading little billly kristol again? I think you've o.d.ed on neocon drivel. The damage that the policies of those jerks wrought on this country (geo-politically AND economically) will probably take a decade to overcome.

- OscarPeck

June 14, 2010 at 1:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: maybe Obama and Abbas had just watched, as an example of how the PA had made progress on incitement issues, the video from "...The Palestinian Third Culture and Education Festival held this week in Ramallah included dancers holding rifles, while dancing to a song that glorified violence against Israel. The song included the words: "There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand," and "He who offers his blood doesn't care if his blood flows upon the ground." The annual festival is sponsored by the PLO National Committee for Education, Science and Culture. This dance performance with rifles was broadcast on the Palestinian Authority's official TV and was held in the presence of the PA Minister of Culture and Minister of Women's Affairs. ..." http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2376 peck: I do not read Kristol. I read major newspapers from numerous countries, with the New York Times my daily read for international news. All of these countries have been bristling over their treatment by Obama or Hillary. Not as bad as the "Death to America" protests in Afghanistan, but bristling.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the recent Charlie Rose's interview with the Syrian president, however, Americans can draw consolation from the fact that Obama continues to be a great favourite American president with the Arabs. Assad was not as explicit as Ghaddafi in the UN last year but was just as affectionate and sympathetic towards Obama, saying something like: We know Obama means well but in YOUR system there is not much he can do about because the congress and the media (that is, the Jews) prevent him from acting upon his good intentions. Look up the hour long interview on the Charlie Rose website. (Please note how the American democratic system is posited as the reason why Obama cannot do good...) For some reason Syrians especially have much affection for Obama and refer to him as "Abu Hussein". I wonder what they actually read into his name, his words and gestures of buttery appeasement.

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 7:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shucks, jacko, which part didn't you like? The part about Israel not being our friend? Well then, please enlighten me. Explain to me all or even the most important manifestations of Israel's friendship. For extra credit, explain their value to the United States. Or maybe your point was that campaign rhetoric should not be the same as what is said on internet blogs. Excellent point. The next time I run for president, or even Congress, I will not say that Israel is a client of the US, not its friend.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi.Don't be a twit. If your favorite party presses that particular angle as a means of coercion, I'll say right here and now that Obama et al will pay a heavy price for it.

- jacko

June 14, 2010 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But jacko, I am merely pointing out to you that there are many, many things, some of them indisputable, that cannot be said or even intimated in the context of a political campaign. That is hardly the standard by which we should measure opinions in the context of policy debate or TNR blogs.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But jacko, I am merely pointing out to you that there are many, many things, some of them indisputable," Typical royal reversals. This time he was not using his more common "I only meant it ironically" defense. He was merely looking to educate others about how the real world works. Anything will do, to score a point. One wonders who exactly is a bit delusional about how the real world works.

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, hopefully your question about Israel's usefulness as a friend of America was just a bit of rhetorical posturing. But, in any case, here's Michael Oren's short answer: "Indeed, among other things, the Mavi Marmara incident revealed that the Turks are not the friends of Washington that they once were, leaving only Israel as capable, and willing, to stand by the United States as a reliable ally in the Middle East. The U.S. can leave Vietnam confident that North Vietnamese tanks are not going to roll through U.S. cities. But with the Middle East you’re not going anywhere because it will follow you—to Times Square, to the airspace over Detroit. Israel is described as the U.S.’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Israel is the only democratic American ally in the Middle East that can field a highly trained combat-proven army in 12 hours.” I also seem to recall that Iran was a dependable U.S. ally back when I was a kid. But I guess some friends are more reliable and steadfast than others...

- willjames77

June 14, 2010 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most popular criticism of the blockade is not taht it exists, but that it applies hamhandedly not only to weapons and bombs, but also to food and medicine. That's what has most people upset who are upset.

- miceelf

June 14, 2010 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this entire "Ask Spengler" is spot on satire. Nice reminder of who supplies Obama's drones. David Goldman channelling Spengler: advice to "Baffled from Belfast", "Anxious in Ankara", "Rattled in Ramallah, and "Jittery in Jerusalem" in: "ASK SPENGLER: The state we're in" the last bit of Spengler's response to "Jittery in Jerusalem": "...The Russians believe that America needs you as an ally in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the president of the United States seeks to reduce rather than aggrandize America's influence in the world; apart from his sentimental predilection for Islam, he is in principle against allies that strengthen America. Therefore the Russians will do everything in their power to wreck your relationship with Washington, the better to hurt America. If by chance you survive, they will be happy to buy your drones and sell you military aircraft. My advice is to defend yourselves as you see fit. You only have to make sure to win. And remember: No good deed goes unpunished. " http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF15Ak01.html

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, noga, can you not read English? Jacko makes what he thinks is the telling point that describing Israel as a client, not a friend, would be bad campaign rhetoric, might cost even cost the Dems an election. So it would. And so what? Very little of what is said here would make good campaign rhetoric, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion or any other discussion unless it is about what would be good campaign rhetoric. Are the opinions expressed here somehow limited to what would sound good on the campaign trail? You are utterly tone deaf. ________________ willjames, read what Oren said carefully and note that it is either devoid of meaning or surely does not describe any value to the US derived from Israeli friendship. It is just obligatory rhetoric, applause lines for speeches at the local JCC. 1. Israel is useful to the US because Turkey is not (assuming this is so). Huh, say what? Turkey is not useful to the US therefore Israel is? I cannot even make sense out of that. 2. Stand by the United States as a reliable ally in the Middle East. Okay, but to what purpose? What do we gain from this "alliance" other than, well, we have an ally that makes claims upon us? 3. The Middle East will follow us to Detroit. And how exactly is Israel helping to defend Detroit? 4. Its highly trained, combat-proven army. Where is the IDF supposed to deploy our behalf or at our behest? Turkey? 4. Ah yes, the "aircraft carrier in the Middle East." Who hasn't heard this wonderful phrase. Leaving aside that we have actual aircraft carriers, long-range cruise missiles, strategic missiles, long-range bombers, aerial refueling capabilities, and an airbase at Diego Garcia, just which nation are we going to attack from our aircraft carrier in the Middle East? Turkey again? Iraq, our aircraft carrier in Iraq? Iran? More directly to my point, however, how does any of this make Israel into something more than a client state? What would a nation-state "friend" be? In what way does Israel express its "friendship" in contra-distinction to its clientage? Pissing on the shoes of the Vice President?

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops, 5.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...it applies hamhandedly not only to weapons and bombs, but also to food and medicine. " There is no shortage of food and medicine in Gaza. That is why we are seeing a shift from the "humanitarian crisis" meme (that characterized the propaganda spiels by NGO's until the flotilla incident burst that bubble open) to another rationale for struggling against Israel's legitimate interests in maintaining its security needs. The main point is that the anti-Israel activists are forever re-inventing the excuses for their "peace' interventions. And if one excuse is exposed and refuted then they are ready with another one, just as good, just as righteous, for their purpose. So now that they can no longer claim starvation and malnutrition as necessitating their urgent attention they try to claim that chocolate, cilantro and paper are just as much a deprivation as food and medicine. No doubt it is much funner to play "peace activists" in the Mediterranean sea, with comfort and media attention on hand, than to rush to the real places where real deprivation takes place. Such as Darfur, or the many other places in Africa where there is not even enough medicine to prevent malaria or enough food to feed emaciated orphaned children.

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About "kvetching": "Israel certainly - like any other player in a serious political dispute - needs to know how and when to compromise. It needs something more important than this as well: a government sensitive to the mistakes and wrongs of past Israeli policy, amongst these the long occupation of Palestinian land and the allowing of Jewish settlements there. But, for the rest, Goldberg's recommendation is not to be taken seriously. It is no kind of serious political strategy to accept the world simply as it is when that world includes a volume of prejudice, hatred and lies directed against yourself. In this as in virtually every other matter, the truth matters. Understanding how to navigate safely in an imperfect world includes knowing when and how to respond to abusive speech." http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/not-kvetching-but-doing-battle.html According to roi, this is exactly what Jews, Israelis and Americans, should be doing : "accept the world simply as it is when that world includes a volume of prejudice, hatred and lies directed against yourself."

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel has made quite clear that its blockade has two distinct purposes, preventing Hamas from obtaining weapons or materials with military value and immiserating the population so that it will reject Hamas. If is rather coy all of a sudden to pretend that the second of these has not been the purpose all along. In terms of the degree of misery, it is not about starvation or disease, but about preventing any sort of normal commercial and economic life from evolving. As to that, the blockade is certainly successful. Just how that success serves Israel's interests is not clear to me. It seems quite counter-productive.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"According to roi, this is exactly what Jews, Israelis and Americans, should be doing : 'accept the world simply as it is when that world includes a volume of prejudice, hatred and lies directed against yourself.'" Quite so, but I don't advocate passivity or indifference, rather, adroit policy that maximizes all opportunities. Noga prefers to kvetch, as if kvetching is somehow an aid to national security. I rather doubt that Goldberg intends anything other than I do. "Understanding how to navigate safely in an imperfect world includes knowing when and how to respond to abusive speech." By complaining? Is this the best that can be done? And it is therefore okay to make one policy blunder after another because there is a high volume of kvetching in response to abusive speech? Utter nonsense. This stuff is for children.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It [Israel] needs something more important than this as well: a government sensitive to the mistakes and wrongs of past Israeli policy, amongst these the long occupation of Palestinian land and the allowing of Jewish settlements there." Ah yes, a little sensitivity should be just the thing. Build, but be sensitive.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Talk about "client states:" Abbas just schnorred $400 million out of Obama last week. He is only the latest in a long line of losers that our foreign policy mavens have foisted on American taxpayers. Remember Nguyen Van Thieu?

- NR114746

June 14, 2010 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I also seem to recall that Iran was a dependable U.S. ally back when I was a kid. But I guess some friends are more reliable and steadfast than others..." They had a dependable dictator that was handpicked by Great Britain and installed and kept in power by the CIA...dependable, that is, until the population could take no more and threw him out. Supporting that dictator til the end was brilliant. Samoza, Batista...we were real good at that sort of thing at one time. Nobody was closer to the Saudis than the Bushies. Israel will always be our great ally. But just because we hold them (and should hold them) to a higher standard than the conduct of Syria or Saudi Arabia, doesn't mean we hate Israel, hate Jews and all of the nonsense yapped in these parts. We criticize allies all the time. Yes, Pat Robertson and his theocratic dream accepts Israel uconditionally.....the nutball fundamentalists are another wonderful gift of the modern day republican party.

- OscarPeck

June 14, 2010 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, chocolate, pasta, canned fruit, shoes, lentils, fruit juice, toilet paper, cigarettes, no, none of these are necessary for life, it's true. But what isn't clear to me, and what no one is willing to explain, is what purpose there is in banning those items? Is it not intended to punish the entire population? if not, what is the intention? What military use can be made of toilet paper? And, that's of course leaving aside the issue of building materials. But, let's focus on foodstuffs- what's the purpose in banning some foodstuffs? How does doing so improve the security situation for Israel?

- miceelf

June 14, 2010 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, noga, there are places in the world where more rockets have fallen than in Israel. This doesn't negate israel's right to self-defense. Similarly, Somalia doesn't negate the fact that Israel is imposing suffering for no particular reason whatsoever.

- miceelf

June 14, 2010 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid on Hamastan: "Just how that success serves Israel's interests is not clear to me. It seems quite counter-productive." The Gaza blockade was fully supported by Egypt and the Quartet in response to Hamas' violent expulsion of the Fatah government faction. Since used as a tool to force Hamas-Fatah conciliation while propping up Abbas since his elected term expired, and Abbas' appointee Fayyad, so that Israel actually has a Palestinian for direct talks not blatantly insisting on an Islamic Caliphate of Palestine. Israel bears the brunt of enforcing the Gaza blockade while waiting for a legitimate Palestinian 'peace partner'.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

miceelf: "...what no one is willing to explain, is what purpose there is in banning those items?..." the original intention was the hope that the people of Gaza would see the contrast between Hamas-rule in Gaza, and Abbas-Fayyad-rule in the West Bank, and hopefully support for Hamas among all Palestinians would dwindle. I would like to know how much influence Egypt had in that original list, since Egypt fears legitimacy of Hamas, and Egypt certainly does not want Gaza, where Egypt used to relocate the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood to get them out of Cairo.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But, let's focus on foodstuffs- what's the purpose in banning some foodstuffs? How does doing so improve the security situation for Israel?" The point is that the rationale against the blockade was that it caused humanitarian crisis. Israel insisted all along that this was a lie but the world, including maybe you would refuse to listen. So now it is proven that Israel was telling the truth. But what a surprise, without so much as a blink the usual suspects turn from one argument (stravation) to another (shortage of chocolate), in order to continue to villify Israel as the fascist bully on the block. One wonders what Egypt's justification is for not allowing the same items into the strip? Does anyone care? http://www.raymondcook.net/blog/index.php/2010/06/14/gaza-aid-blocked-by-egypt/

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I can always count on you to have a non-answer. it was a pretty straightforward question. K2K, I guess I just wonder at what point people revisit whether it's working or not. And in practical terms, it seems to amount to collective punishment AND allow Hamas to have a ready-made rationale for their failure to make life better in gaza.

- miceelf

June 14, 2010 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

micee: Clearly you want to change the subject, or distract from my main point, by asking a different question from the one I posited and then pretending that your question has been at the centre of discussion all along. Which is why you may ask questions which I shall not choose to answer. I will make my point again: There is no shortage of food and medicine in Gaza. That is why we are seeing a shift from the "humanitarian crisis" meme (that characterized the propaganda spiels by NGO's until the flotilla incident burst that bubble open) to another rationale for struggling against Israel's legitimate interests in maintaining its security needs. The main point is that the anti-Israel activists are forever re-inventing the excuses for their "peace' interventions. And if one excuse is exposed and refuted then they are ready with another one, just as good, just as righteous, for their purpose. So now that they can no longer claim starvation and malnutrition as necessitating their urgent attention they try to claim that chocolate, cilantro and paper are just as much a deprivation as food and medicine. Why should they be taken seriously? Here is the latest report about the high moral standards of the Marmara travelers: "First-class reporting from German broadcaster Südwestrundfunk below. The members of the German leftist party Die Linke don’t seem remotely bothered that they were traveling with the Islamist IHH “charity,” nor with the fascist, antisemitic BBP Party. Once again, the sordid nature of the alliance between Islamists and so-called leftists is plain for all to see." http://blog.z-word.com/2010/06/german-tv-exposes-fascists-and-islamists-aboard-mavi-marmara/

- noga1

June 14, 2010 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you're such a joke, noga. If you didn't intend to answer my question, you could have simply NOT quoted it, as if what followed was in any way responsive. But, yeah, keep repeating yourself and pretending that chocolate is the biggest issue. Good luck with that.

- miceelf

June 14, 2010 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga is totally clear on her point on the 'shifting goalposts' of those who condemn Israel for the Gaza blockade. The flotilla exposed the reality that there is no humanitarian crisis of 1.5 million actually-starving-to-death Gazans, so the revised attack (meme) is now to question why, e.g., Fareed Zakaria's favorites "jam, cilantro, and chocolate", are banned. noga: Ray Cook's blogpost fails to note that the reason Egypt blocked the actual Algerian aid convoy of loaded trucks is that the Egyptian crossing into Gaza has never been used for trucks requiring inspection since the blockade, only for people. Still leaves one to wonder if Egypt, U.S., and EU, who all still consider Hamas a terrorist org, were involved in compiling the original list of banned products. In a parallel universe, Turkey closed it's land border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan in the now frozen conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh. Where are the humanitarians? from April 23, 2010 for anyone who thinks Armenians do not deserve to be under siege: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704830404575200191373628642.html Really is hard to keep track of all of Turkey's 'enemies'. Have the Turks EVER forgiven Egypt for breaking free of Ottamn rule?

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid on Hamastan: "Just how that success serves Israel's interests is not clear to me. It seems quite counter-productive." K2K: "The Gaza blockade was fully supported by Egypt and the Quartet in response to Hamas' violent expulsion of the Fatah government faction. Since used as a tool to force Hamas-Fatah conciliation while propping up Abbas since his elected term expired, and Abbas' appointee Fayyad, so that Israel actually has a Palestinian for direct talks not blatantly insisting on an Islamic Caliphate of Palestine. Israel bears the brunt of enforcing the Gaza blockade while waiting for a legitimate Palestinian 'peace partner'." ______________________ Well, at least we have here the candid admission that the purpose of the blockade is both to deny war materiel to Hamas AND regime change in Gaza. Now, as a general matter, the US has not had a lot of success with using economic isolation as a means of forcing regime change going back to, oh, let's say the Cuban revolution. Nor have we had great results propping up unpopular regimes. See, e.g., Vietnam and Iran. Why this sort of thing suddenly had appeal for Israel is beyond me. Perhaps it is beguiling to find oneself amongst the imperial powers even though the world as a whole is still struggling to sort out the after-math of their imperial mis-adventures. Israel should stick to self-defense in the large sense of doing what is essential to its own security, whether it is blowing up the Iraqi nuclear reactor or imposing a military blockade in Gaza. It is when Israel, a small power, starts to develop imperial ambitions, be they settling the West Bank or regime change in Gaza, that it gets itself into trouble. If it sticks to what its plausibly related to self-defense, it tends to find support. When it apes the imperial powers, who themselves have no great record with their imperial adventures, it loses support, even from the imperial powers themselves. Some games are meant to be played by the big guys and they don't take to it when smaller powers step out of line. See, e.g., First Gulf War. One can lament, as noga does, that there is one set of rules for the powerful and another set of rules for everyone else, but there are. Small powers that ignore the rules sooner or later find themselves in great difficulty. Israel should deprive Hamas of anything of mlitary value, doing what is necessary to that end, and insist that it will not tolerate any attacks on it, doing what is necessary to that end, while allowing the Gazans to develop what commercial life they can within those constraints (which in no sense requires Israel to trade with Gaza itself or open its border beyond what may be necessary for permitted imports and exports). The threat can be made either implicitly or explicitly that, if Hamas does not observe these redlines, thereby acting as a belligerent, Israel may at any time invade and remove Hamas and/or reoccupy Gaza, as any nation under attack by a neighbor may do in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense. That would be a good place to stop. If and when Hamas agrees to respect prior Palestinian agreements with Israel, including the Oslo accords, then it can be recognized as a partner for discussion. In the meantime, if the government of the West Bank can be turned into a success, so much the better.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We see above the standard ploy of Israel's defenders which is, as soon as possible, to divert any discussion of Israel and its policies to a discussion of Israel's critics and enemies and their failings or worse behavior. I now call this the, "Look over there! Cows.", defense or gambit. Stage two is to accuse of anti-Israel or ant-Semitic sentiment anyone who refuses to participate in this loyalty oath game but sticks to the subject of Isreali policy. In the context of TNR blogs, this behavior is trivial. Unfortunately, it seems actually to have a role in the formulation of Israeli policy. Israeli policymakers appear unwilling to reflect on the wisdom and efficacy of their policies as long as they can persuade themselves and/or the Israeli public that critics are evil. Thus, for example, if the blockade-runners were in fact bad characters trying to provoke or create violence (and succeeding), Israel's policy in Gaza is deemed justified. Logically, of course, this does not follow. Worse, by focusing on what is bad or wanting in enemies rather than what is good and advantageous for oneself leads to errors precisely because this does not logically follow.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you roi for explaining for us the ploys of Israel's defenders. We were not conscious of our own crimes and errors and we appreciate your kindness in dealing with us. By the way, who accused you of being anti Israeli or anti semitic? In fact, I thought that everybody were sticking to the subject of "Israeli policy". No, rather you were accused of being wrong, arrogant, bombastic and a noodnick.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 14, 2010 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the wroidsmith strikes, transforming my words "used as a tool to force Hamas-Fatah conciliation" into "regime change". and then blames the idea solely on Israel, as if the PA, Egypt, the EU, and the U.S. were not at all involved in the decision to blockade Gaza.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sometimes self-defense requires changing an enemy regime. Once upon a time, we went to war demanding the enemy's unconditional surrender. Now that phrase has been banished from all polite conversation. Yet that doesn't erase the necessity of imposing it on an implacable foe, such as Al-Qaeda, or even Hamas, as a last resort.

- NR114746

June 14, 2010 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never underestimate the power of popular culture. More people, certainly more Americans, see Hamas as an enemy of the United States because Hamas assassin Ari Haswari killed Kate in his plan to kill NCIS Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs in his own home. More people watch one new episode of “NCIS” than all the nightly news programs combined. USA channel keeps airing the two part "Kill Ari" episodes in between their normal NCIS marathons.

- K2K

June 14, 2010 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, makover, I am constantly accused by the thugs of being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. That's where we came in. Me calling to your attention that it was on one of those occasions that I decided to answer the thug in question by accusing him of being and anti-American racist and traitor. Don't remember much, do you? Try to improve your behavior in the future and there will be no reason for criticism or comment. As for your consciousness of what you now want to describe, rather dramatically, as "crimes and errors" (how about just avoiding the issue because you have no sensible answer and are embarrassed about it?), you have only to read these threads for a while to notice that my description is perfectly accurate. Read up above in this very thread. __________________ No, the idea of using embargo to force regime change is not Israel's alone. But just because the PA, Egypt, the EU and the US think it is a good idea doesn't make it one. Are we suddenly great admirers of their foreign policies? And it was, of course, under Bush-the-Idiot that the US backed this idea. Has it not occurred to anyone in Israel that if Bush thinks something is a good idea there is, for that reason alone, an excellent chance that it is anything but? And, sure enough, everyone else, except the PA, is backing away and blaming Israel. It was a stupid idea from the start and Israel is the one that will take the blame. That was my point about what happens when you try to get in bed with imperial powers. At some point they kick you out because you are not allowed to play their games. Being left with just the PA as company isn't much to brag about. ___________________ Yes, regime change is a perfectly legitimate object of war. It is a lot less clear that it is a legitimate object short of war. And whether it is likely to succeed or be self-defeating in the particular circumstances is a whole other question. In this case, it seems self-defeating and opens Israel to opprobrium. Of course, the usual suspects will get involved in their discussion of the justice of embargo. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The question should be whether the tactic is efficacious and serves Israel's interest, not whether it is justly imposed.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 9:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must also point out, yet again, that the record on regime change achieved by embargo is rather dismal. Typically, it just entrenches the government you want to get rid of, and that has happened here. Some people simply never learn a thing.

- roidubouloi

June 14, 2010 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, please tell that to Obama in dealing with Iran.

- NR114746

June 15, 2010 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: Thank you daddy, me improve my behaviour in the future.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

June 15, 2010 at 6:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's good, makover. You have potential. Obama is not taking my calls right now, NR. I cannot imagine why.

- roidubouloi

June 15, 2010 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was thinking, it sure would be nice if The New Republic would do a better job editing articles before posting them. This is almost indecipherable.

- caseykap

June 15, 2010 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, good point about pop culture, seriously. caseykap, no one edits the Peretz!!! That's one of the chief advantages of being the boss.

- miceelf

June 15, 2010 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close