Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Confirming What We Already Knew

Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 10, 2010

The Israeli blockade of Gaza isn’t about security, it’s about cruelty:

Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

“A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using ‘economic warfare,'” the government said.

McClatchy obtained the government’s written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn’t imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.

Collective punishment. Or the Ledeen Doctrine.

12 Responses to “Confirming What We Already Knew”

  1. brantl said

    Can’t we simplify that and just call it the cocksucker doctrine? Saves time, and more to the point.

  2. Stormcrow said

    I think Bashi misses the alternative rationale: elimination of the remaining Palestinian population from Gaza.

    By whatever means the Israeli government thinks it can get away with.

    If most everybody hadn’t screamed bloody murder (literally) about Sabra and Shatila in 1982, they might quite possibly have ordered the IDF to simply exterminate the entire local population in the recent war in Gaza, rather than kill a mere 1400 or so.

  3. Charles II said

    What this really confirms is the stupidity and arrogance that has engulfed the Israeli leadership. Everyone knew it was economic warfare. But there are certain things one simply doesn’t say. A government that was not soaked in hubris would have said, “economic pressure”. It’s still illegal, it’s still collective punishment, but it is not stick-in-the-eye arrogant.

    As the saying goes, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

  4. Like their claims of self-defense, the exercise of rights is the exclusive domain of Israel. Others only have obligations.

  5. Batocchio said

    As I recall, the Ledeen Doctrine is basically, “Be a dick and lie about it when questioned.”

  6. Powers said

    its about natural gas.

    The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

    The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680 · Cached page

    • Stormcrow said

      I also recall hearing that the Vietnam War was all about oil. That assertion smelled like bullshit at the time, and so it proved.

      Try checking your sources. That piece at globalresearch.ca was written by Michel Chossudovsky. Do the obvious Google search.

      He’s a troofer.

      Then spend about 30 seconds at the parent site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/. What you’ll see is something just as hysterical as Counterpunch, but a lot more wordy.

      Not all the nuts are on the Right Wing. We’ve got our share, and as the country continues to disintegrate, we’re going to see many, many more. This is what desperation can do to people: it drives them right out of their minds.

      Two points in conclusion:

      1. Oil is not the One Big Simple Reason For Everything We Don’t Understand.

      2. A note to PW and the other regulars here: This is another data point in support of the thesis that human “sanity” is an increasingly precarious equilibrium. And that our primitive brains are not up to the task of managing a technical civilization.

      • Charles II said

        Careful about judging books by their covers, Stormcrow. The Gaza gas field is a very large find, very important to Israel, belongs to Gaza, and has not been exploited because Israel wants to control the revenues. These are facts not from Chossudovsky, but from:

        The Guardian
        The London Telegraph and
        Haaretz

        Added: You can read a perspective drawn from right-wing Israeli leadership here)

        Whether that is the specific cause of the Gaza siege is a matter for historians. I don’t think it is, because the Tamar-1 find is in waters that are probably undisputed. Chossudovsky wrote before Tamar-1 was publicly known, I believe. But the point is that basing a judgment solely on the source is ad hominem. I imagine Chossudovsky is right on the specifics he uses to make the argument that ownership of the gas field is driving conflict, just wrong because things changed after he published.

        The same goes for Counterpunch. During the Honduran crisis, several good articles were published on Counterpunch. It’s a topic the major world media simply refuses to discuss.

        Well, discuss honestly, anyway.

        The only place that authors have a chance to publish their work is sometimes in fringe publications.

        And we need to let people hold unpopular opinions, respectfully. As I have said many times, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories about 911, but since there has never been a genuinely professional, full, and impartial investigation, I cannot fault anyone for what they may believe. When governments try to manipulate investigations, as Bush certainly did with the 911 Commission, they inspire suspicion.

  7. Stormcrow said

    Powers’ claim for motive is extraordinary, given the history of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, going all the way back to 1948. So I subjected it to severe scrutiny.

    The same goes for Counterpunch. During the Honduran crisis, several good articles were published on Counterpunch.

    And they’ve also published so much obviously non-fact-checked crap, including GW denialism, that nobody who takes any care with information inputs will take them seriously without external corroboration.

    The only place that authors have a chance to publish their work is sometimes in fringe publications.

    I just cited the major problem with publishing this way. If this isn’t seen as a major problem by the author, then what does that tell you?

    When I take all of the numerous red flags into consideration, I end up with a very high reading on my bullshit meter.

    In other words, I think you’re concentrating on the trees and missing the forest here.

    • Charles II said

      Stormcrow says, “I just cited the major problem with publishing this way [in fringe publications]. If this isn’t seen as a major problem by the author, then what does that tell you?”

      That they believe that the information is sufficiently important that they are willing to be looked down upon because they’re not publishing in a well-regarded forum.

      With the Honduras coup, there were by my count seven outlets worldwide willing to publish pieces contradicting the conventional wisdom that the coup was a necessary strike against nascent communism which would be rectified by elections (not counting blogs, non-profits, and Latin American papers): The Nation, UpsideDown World, NACLA, FPIF, In These Times, NarcoNews, and Counterpunch. Even The Nation only carried a couple of pieces. This despite the fact that the OAS and the UN both made it clear that the conventional wisdom was wrong. And so some very good writing, by people like Professors Greg Grandin, Adrienne Pine, and Rosemary Joyce, all experts on Central America, ended up in fringe media. Conclusion: it tells you nothing about the author except that their opinion is unpopular.

      I don’t think it’s nuts to believe that control of resources drives a lot of policy. I do think that issues get oversimplified by focusing exclusively on resources. I agree with you that Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians are not just resource-driven; there’s a long and destructive history. But I hope you’ll agree that when one’s enemy has something of value, that makes it just that much more attractive to take away.

  8. Wow, I didn’t know there were any of you folks left in the States… I thought we’d lost you all. :)

    • Charles II said

      If you’re speaking of Americans who would like to retain membership in the human race, LP, there are lots of us. Unfortunately, the media are heavily censored, such that most people have a very distorted view of the world. When one talks to them, one realizes that people have good intentions, but since they don’t know what’s going on, those intentions are misused and manipulated. But it’s true that those of us who can even “see through a glass darkly” are rare enough that it sometimes feels like being an endangered species.

      So, welcome to the zoo. :-)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: