Many observers, including Max Boot and even JE Dyer, have argued or implicitly acknowledged that Israel could have handled the events in a way that didn’t lead to bloodshed and an “incident.” That Israel gave its opponents what apparently was being sought may be forgivable and understandable, but it doesn’t suspend the law of physics mentioned in the top piece. There’s even a conspiracy theory in Turkey among regime opponents that Erdogan or operatives falsely informed the IDF that the flotilla “activists” were unarmed – which would make Israel guilty of letting itself get suckered. That may be much harder to forgive than the killings of 9 wanna-be martyrs – worse than a crime…
This is indeed the problem--Israel lets itself get suckered. And why? Because it is overly concerned with not giving even a pretext for even unfair criticism, etc. Playing defense makes it easier to get suckered. I would be very happy to see not only the kind of PR offensive you suggest but a broader political offensive of the kind Caroline Glick keeps calling for. Obviously there's nothing I can do to make it happen.
It's interesting, though, the way you pass over and neutralize the question of what happened. We need to be God to agree on the facts of the case--an intriguing claim! But, as long as your on the topic, what does Israel think is important, and what do its enemies think is important?
@ CK MacLeod:
OK, to be less metaphorical, the international strategy is to South Africanize Israel--to make more and more of its policies, especially self-defense policies, intrinsically criminal. The establishment of an I have read, the Israelis are planning to invite international participants to their own commission of inquiry, which is very different from an international commission of inquiry. There is no debate about how international vs. how Israeli the commission should be--to support and international commission is already to presume its legitimacy will be greater than any Israeli commission will be. Your brief discussion seems to make my point but, of course, one could also say that it simply reveals incommensurable assumptions--after all, what you call "failure to adopt the Israeli line" is what I call "refusal to see what obviously happened."
@ CK MacLeod:
Obviously I don't see it as very subjective. To show that, you might mention one place, aside from a (shrinking, but still solid, and mostly conservative) majority in American public opinion, Israel is presented as something other than a villain or, more precisely, war criminal, in any one of these events. There was a very brief moment in both the Hizbollah war and the Hamas war where Israel was seen, even in Europe, as the aggrieved party, but that was only until Israel's response became "disproportionate"--i.e., until they fought back.
@ CK MacLeod:
Yes, but Israel is never implicated in this as a complex symbol befitting all these entanglements--it is more the target of a global lynch mob.
Your post addresses the issue of the amount of attention paid to Israel, not the question of the uniquely evil intentions and manipulative power attributed to the Israelis and their Jewish supporters.
@ CK MacLeod:
This is indeed the problem--Israel lets itself get suckered. And why? Because it is overly concerned with not giving even a pretext for even unfair criticism, etc. Playing defense makes it easier to get suckered. I would be very happy to see not only the kind of PR offensive you suggest but a broader political offensive of the kind Caroline Glick keeps calling for. Obviously there's nothing I can do to make it happen.
It's interesting, though, the way you pass over and neutralize the question of what happened. We need to be God to agree on the facts of the case--an intriguing claim! But, as long as your on the topic, what does Israel think is important, and what do its enemies think is important?
@ CK MacLeod:
OK, to be less metaphorical, the international strategy is to South Africanize Israel--to make more and more of its policies, especially self-defense policies, intrinsically criminal. The establishment of an I have read, the Israelis are planning to invite international participants to their own commission of inquiry, which is very different from an international commission of inquiry. There is no debate about how international vs. how Israeli the commission should be--to support and international commission is already to presume its legitimacy will be greater than any Israeli commission will be. Your brief discussion seems to make my point but, of course, one could also say that it simply reveals incommensurable assumptions--after all, what you call "failure to adopt the Israeli line" is what I call "refusal to see what obviously happened."
@ CK MacLeod:
Obviously I don't see it as very subjective. To show that, you might mention one place, aside from a (shrinking, but still solid, and mostly conservative) majority in American public opinion, Israel is presented as something other than a villain or, more precisely, war criminal, in any one of these events. There was a very brief moment in both the Hizbollah war and the Hamas war where Israel was seen, even in Europe, as the aggrieved party, but that was only until Israel's response became "disproportionate"--i.e., until they fought back.
@ CK MacLeod:
Yes, but Israel is never implicated in this as a complex symbol befitting all these entanglements--it is more the target of a global lynch mob.
Your post addresses the issue of the amount of attention paid to Israel, not the question of the uniquely evil intentions and manipulative power attributed to the Israelis and their Jewish supporters.