How to end the blockade of Gaza

[Michael]

This is a very interesting and intelligent idea. Which means its entirely dead in the water since there is ZERO political support in the USA for doing anything that might annoy the apartheid regime in Israel.

Back in May 1967, the Egyptian government led by Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. This action crossed a "red line" for Israel, and was a major escalatory step in the crisis that led to the Six Day War. President Lyndon Johnson considered sending U.S. warships or some sort of international flotilla to challenge the blockade and defuse the crisis. But even though the United States had previously given Israel certain assurances about protecting freedom of navigation in the straits, Johnson ultimately declined to take decisive action to defend Israel's navigation rights. The United States was already bogged down in Vietnam and Johnson feared getting trapped in another volatile conflict. So he dithered, and Israel ultimately chose to go to war instead.

Had Johnson used U.S. naval forces to challenge the blockade, the Six Day War might not have occurred. Egypt would not have dared to challenge U.S. warships, of course, and sending a U.S. fleet to break the blockade would have given Nasser a way to back down but save face (i.e., he would have been backing down to a superpower, and not to Israel). And had the Six Day War been averted, many of the problems we are wrestling with now -- including the disastrous occupation of the West Bank -- might never have arisen.

Remembering this previous failure got me thinking: why doesn't the United States use its considerable power to lift the blockade of Gaza unilaterally?


Read the whole thing: How to end the blockade of Gaza (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/07/how_to_end_the_blockade_of_gaza)

Seriously, this is brilliant and could easily work. Of course, as always, when it comes to 'peace' in the Middle East, it is always the USA standing there saying "NO".

Anyway, it is good to see some serious thinking outside the box of US foreign policy. The world of American ideas isn't braindead yet, though its government surely is.

Btw, this is one ironic word - "blockade" in this case is all about "blockaid". :lol:

[WFCY]

Remembering this previous failure got me thinking: why doesn't the United States use its considerable power to lift the blockade of Gaza unilaterally?

Because the blockade is supported in full by the US from the very start.

As soon as US stops supporting it, we don't need to send any ships there, we just tell Israel and they will lift it the next minute.

[Donkey]

That would be one of the best and ballsiest US foreign policy decisions of all time. So it won't happen.

[Americano]

I felt the article was idealistic and blaming the Johnson Administration for beginning a trend of US support of Israel rather myopic. US foreign policy is firmly committed to Israel's policy of territorial expansion regardless of world opinion, human rights or UN condemnation. In my opinion Palestine could well be substituted for ww2 Warsaw by simply changing the cast of characters.

[Michael]

I felt the article was idealistic and blaming the Johnson Administration for beginning a trend of US support of Israel rather myopic. US foreign policy is firmly committed to Israel's policy of territorial expansion regardless of world opinion, human rights or UN condemnation. In my opinion Palestine could well be substituted for ww2 Warsaw by simply changing the cast of characters.

I think the 1967 example is a good one since that is *prior* to any Israeli territorial expansion. One cannot claim that a given action was motivated or justified by a result that was not present at the time.

I think that US action at that time might have had significant effect. Alas, too late now.

[Americano]

I think the 1967 example is a good one since that is *prior* to any Israeli territorial expansion. One cannot claim that a given action was motivated or justified by a result that was not present at the time.

I think that US action at that time might have had significant effect. Alas, too late now.

In 1948 the US was the first country to extend de facto recognition to Israeli independence even though Israel had formally stated its demand that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth.

In the early 1960s the US began replacing France as the primary arms supplier to Israel.

The Johnson Administration reversed the Eisenhower Administration equal treatment to all ME nations doctrine long before the 1967 war. In my opinion when it became obvious the US would be dependent on ME oil the US decided it was in its best interests to support Israel as a hedge against those ME oil producing nations not under US/British control.

[dilettante]

Because the blockade is supported in full by the US from the very start.

As soon as US stops supporting it, we don't need to send any ships there, we just tell Israel and they will lift it the next minute.

I think you're on to something here.

The article in the OP seems to be calling for more US involvement in the region and the (potentially long-term/permanent) deployment of more US military assets to go in, dominate the region, and make everyone play nice. That strikes me as as step backwards.

I think it makes far more sense for the US to [threaten to] withdraw existing support from Israel, to become less involved, than to send in the navy to try to bully Israel into ending the blockade. We have all sorts of economic and political leverage with Israel; we should use that to its utmost before embracing a more militant/threatening solution.

[MeMyselfAndI]

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are ready to provide a military escort to cargo ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards naval forces are fully prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys to Gaza with all their powers and capabilities," Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's representative inside the Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Any intervention by the Iranian military would be considered highly provocative by Israel which accuses Iran of supplying weapons to Hamas, the Islamist movement which rules Gaza.

Iran does not recognize the Israeli state and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often predicted its imminent demise.

Israel and its ally the United States decline to rule out military action against Iran if it looks like acquiring nuclear arms capability, something Israel sees as a threat to its survival.

Tehran says its nuclear program is for energy generation and medical purposes and calls its nuclear-armed adversaries hypocrites for trying to block its technological progress.

The Iranian state news agency IRNA said Sunday Iran would try to send humanitarian aid to Gaza in ships under an Iranian flag. It said Iran had decided to ditch previous plans to send its aid in ships flying the flag of another state.

"The Iranian humanitarian assistance will include foodstuffs, medicines and medical equipment," the head of Iran's Red Crescent Society, Abdolraouf Abidzadeh, was quoted as saying. He gave no more details.

Last Monday Israeli troops killed nine activists on board one ship in a convoy trying to deliver aid to Gaza, sparking international outrage, especially in Muslim countries.

Another ship was boarded Saturday and pro-Palestinian activists have promised more as they challenge the blockade imposed four years ago with the stated aim of stopping arms getting to Hamas.

Shirazi said Iran should encourage more international efforts to break the blockade. "We should expose our enemies to a spontaneous global action and not let them achieve their heinous goals," he said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would continue to stop ships reaching the shore and creating "an Iranian port in Gaza," a reference to Iran's support for Hamas.

The Revolutionary Guards, with their own navy, air force and command structure separate from the regular armed forces, are seen as fiercely loyal to the supreme leader.

"If the supreme leader issues an order for this then the Revolutionary Guard naval forces will do their best to secure the ships," Shirazi said. "It is Iran's duty to defend the innocent people of Gaza."

(Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Andrew Dobbie)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100606/wl_nm/us_israel_flotilla_iran

[WFCY]

I think you're on to something here.

The article in the OP seems to be calling for more US involvement in the region and the (potentially long-term/permanent) deployment of more US military assets to go in, dominate the region, and make everyone play nice. That strikes me as as step backwards.

I think it makes far more sense for the US to [threaten to] withdraw existing support from Israel, to become less involved, than to send in the navy to try to bully Israel into ending the blockade. We have all sorts of economic and political leverage with Israel; we should use that to its utmost before embracing a more militant/threatening solution.

exactly, I completely agree.

Furthermore, all US has to do is to back international law, ICJ rulings, and UN Security Resolution 242. Go with the world community on these issues. Israel will immediatly hold its settlements, remove the segregation walls, and lift the blockade. There is no question about Israel's security here- Hamas, Iran, the entire Arab League have for decades agreed to recognize Israel, make complete peace, given that they withdraw to the 1967 borders and follow the Resolution 242. Israel is the one who continues to defy them at the expense of the security of its own citizens. US only needs to back these rulings, and Israel will immediate take clue.

[Americano]

exactly, I completely agree.

Furthermore, all US has to do is to back international law, ICJ rulings, and UN Security Resolution 242. Go with the world community on these issues. Israel will immediatly hold its settlements, remove the segregation walls, and lift the blockade. There is no question about Israel's security here- Hamas, Iran, the entire Arab League have for decades agreed to recognize Israel, make complete peace, given that they withdraw to the 1967 borders and follow the Resolution 242. Israel is the one who continues to defy them at the expense of the security of its own citizens. US only needs to back these rulings, and Israel will immediate take clue.

Unless significant changes transpire in US foreign policy, there will be no change in US support of Israeli real estate policy. Israeli citizens face far fewer threats than Palestinians and I have yet to determine what other ME country could be considered a danger to Israel with Israel being supported US foreign policy backed by the US military.

[Michael]

Unless significant changes transpire in US foreign policy, there will be no change in US support of Israeli real estate policy. Israeli citizens face far fewer threats than Palestinians and I have yet to determine what other ME country could be considered a danger to Israel with Israel being supported US foreign policy backed by the US military.

Israel - backed by nuclear weapons, US taxpayers and US military - is a danger to every nation in the Middle East.

That's one reason why the Middle East is so politically unstable and will remain so.