The Gaza Blockade: Arguments and Reality 06/02/2010
On Bibi's Summer Reading List?
My disagreements with Israel’s actions on Monday will seem reasonable to most people. But to some people, especially to my Jewish friends, my comments might seem treasonous, especially on the wrongfulness of the Gaza blockade. To counter me, they will likely deploy some variation of the following three arguments: Israel is simply defending itself, Israel needs to blockade Gaza to prevent Iran from arming Hamas, and Israel is unfairly being held to double standards. I will try to refute these three arguments below.
In my case, these arguments will also be backed by the emotional idea that Israel is so besieged, and anti-Semitism so rampant, that I as a Jew must defend everything Israel does, even if its policies are counterproductive. I understand the idea of my people, right or wrong, but as a liberal I cannot accept it.
Anyway, here are the arguments:
Click "Read More" to Continue------------->
In my case, these arguments will also be backed by the emotional idea that Israel is so besieged, and anti-Semitism so rampant, that I as a Jew must defend everything Israel does, even if its policies are counterproductive. I understand the idea of my people, right or wrong, but as a liberal I cannot accept it.
Anyway, here are the arguments:
Click "Read More" to Continue------------->
Israel is simply defending itself by blockading Hamas, a terrorist group devoted to destroying Israel, as any other country would do under similar circumstances.
This is simply not true. South Korea just lost 40+ men in an unprovoked attack on its warship. In 2008, militants supported by segments of the Pakistani state massacred hundreds of people in Mumbai. In both cases, these were unprovoked attacks by existential enemies.
And guess what? Both South Korea and India decided that it was in their best interest not to retaliate—retaliation would only play into their enemies’ hands.
Israel has a right to defend itself, and nobody doubts its willingness to do so. But smart defense involves picking your battles. The attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah are not capable of destroying Israel. Neither is the aid flotilla (this is so ridiculous that I can't believe that I'm typing this sentence). They are instead designed to provoke an Israeli response for media consumption. And Israel obliges every time.
Israel is forced to blockade Hamas, otherwise Hamas would re-arm with advanced weaponry from Iran and launch intolerable rocket attacks.
Would it re-arm? Definitely. Would it launch more deadly rocket attacks? Certainly. In the near-term, Israel would likely suffer more casualties. But then Israel would attack Gaza in response, and people would understand. Israel would reestablish deterrence, and that would be that.
Don’t believe me? Hezbollah isn’t blockaded—it has unfettered access to Iranian arms. It has launched deadly missiles into Israel, and Israel has responded with force. Since then, the northern border has been relatively quiet. This is called deterrence. It works, and it means that you do not have to reply to every attack.
Why the double standards? Palestinians in Gaza just suicide-bombed a UN summer camp. Not to mention Turkey’s treatment of Kurds, Armenians, Greeks…
This is pure rhetoric. Injustice in one place doesn’t legitimize injustice in another. The Soviet Union loved using the same trick against the US during the Cold War—highlighting America’s sordid treatment of blacks, for instance, to deflect criticism of its own (far graver) human rights abuses. The US held itself to a higher standard, and Israel should too.
More generally, I understand that states sometimes do need to use disproportionate force and/or ignore international opinion in order to protect themselves effectively. If that sounds offensive to some, so be it. War means killing people, which is never moral. But if it’s going to happen, let it be short and definitive.
The Gaza blockade, however, is both immoral and ineffective. It has failed at both of its main objectives- forcing Hamas to recognize Israel and release Gilad Shalit. Instead, the blockade has stopped all criticism of Hamas while sabotaging Israel’s foreign relations. Lastly, the policy is unsustainable: In some fashion, either by the actions of protestors, post-Mubarak Egypt, or a nuclear Iran, the blockade will end. And a lot of Gazans are going to want their revenge.
Over the past 5 years, it seems that flagrantly disregarding foreign opinion has become a keystone of Israeli policy—as if the level of international opprobrium is somehow correlated to the righteousness of Israel’s actions. That’s a losing strategy, even for a superpower. For a little country with an uncertain future, it's suicide.
- Jon
This is simply not true. South Korea just lost 40+ men in an unprovoked attack on its warship. In 2008, militants supported by segments of the Pakistani state massacred hundreds of people in Mumbai. In both cases, these were unprovoked attacks by existential enemies.
And guess what? Both South Korea and India decided that it was in their best interest not to retaliate—retaliation would only play into their enemies’ hands.
Israel has a right to defend itself, and nobody doubts its willingness to do so. But smart defense involves picking your battles. The attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah are not capable of destroying Israel. Neither is the aid flotilla (this is so ridiculous that I can't believe that I'm typing this sentence). They are instead designed to provoke an Israeli response for media consumption. And Israel obliges every time.
Israel is forced to blockade Hamas, otherwise Hamas would re-arm with advanced weaponry from Iran and launch intolerable rocket attacks.
Would it re-arm? Definitely. Would it launch more deadly rocket attacks? Certainly. In the near-term, Israel would likely suffer more casualties. But then Israel would attack Gaza in response, and people would understand. Israel would reestablish deterrence, and that would be that.
Don’t believe me? Hezbollah isn’t blockaded—it has unfettered access to Iranian arms. It has launched deadly missiles into Israel, and Israel has responded with force. Since then, the northern border has been relatively quiet. This is called deterrence. It works, and it means that you do not have to reply to every attack.
Why the double standards? Palestinians in Gaza just suicide-bombed a UN summer camp. Not to mention Turkey’s treatment of Kurds, Armenians, Greeks…
This is pure rhetoric. Injustice in one place doesn’t legitimize injustice in another. The Soviet Union loved using the same trick against the US during the Cold War—highlighting America’s sordid treatment of blacks, for instance, to deflect criticism of its own (far graver) human rights abuses. The US held itself to a higher standard, and Israel should too.
More generally, I understand that states sometimes do need to use disproportionate force and/or ignore international opinion in order to protect themselves effectively. If that sounds offensive to some, so be it. War means killing people, which is never moral. But if it’s going to happen, let it be short and definitive.
The Gaza blockade, however, is both immoral and ineffective. It has failed at both of its main objectives- forcing Hamas to recognize Israel and release Gilad Shalit. Instead, the blockade has stopped all criticism of Hamas while sabotaging Israel’s foreign relations. Lastly, the policy is unsustainable: In some fashion, either by the actions of protestors, post-Mubarak Egypt, or a nuclear Iran, the blockade will end. And a lot of Gazans are going to want their revenge.
Over the past 5 years, it seems that flagrantly disregarding foreign opinion has become a keystone of Israeli policy—as if the level of international opprobrium is somehow correlated to the righteousness of Israel’s actions. That’s a losing strategy, even for a superpower. For a little country with an uncertain future, it's suicide.
- Jon
Comments
Leave a Reply
Loading
