The views expressed in your editorial "What Are Friends For" would be farcical if they were not also dangerous. The sensibility that informs the article can be summed up by the adage "Peace at Any Price."
Israel's raid on the Turkish ship trying to break the blockade was an interdiction; it only turned deadly when Turkish ruffians and activists assaulted the Iraeli soldiers Video clearly supports that interpretation of events.
Then, the editorial conflates the Israeli action as "useless." I don't think so. How is trying to prevent munitions and weaponry from reaching an avowed enemy who has threatened to exterminate you useless? Moreover, there was a designated port that the Turkish ship could have gone to if the main purpose was to deliver supplies of food and medicine. No, that was not the intent; rather, it was to foment an international crisis and they succeeded. By the way, since when is self-defense morally questionable?
The repugnance of other Middleeast and western European nations towards Israel is not surprising. So, because these countries have a negative view of Israel's actions, must the U.S. capitulate to their inane views? Intelligent Israelis will place little stock in Obama's commitment to Israel's security. Furthermore, why should the U.S. join in a condemnation of Israel? Just because Hillary Clinton thinks the blockade unsustainable does that make it so? She thinks pretty much everything unsustainable, from preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons to shoring up Bill's fidelity.
The views expressed in your editorial "What Are Friends For" would be farcical if they were not also dangerous. The sensibility that informs the article can be summed up by the adage "Peace at Any Price."
Israel's raid on the Turkish ship trying to break the blockade was an interdiction; it only turned deadly when Turkish ruffians and activists assaulted the Iraeli soldiers Video clearly supports that interpretation of events.
Then, the editorial conflates the Israeli action as "useless." I don't think so. How is trying to prevent munitions and weaponry from reaching an avowed enemy who has threatened to exterminate you useless? Moreover, there was a designated port that the Turkish ship could have gone to if the main purpose was to deliver supplies of food and medicine. No, that was not the intent; rather, it was to foment an international crisis and they succeeded. By the way, since when is self-defense morally questionable?
The repugnance of other Middleeast and western European nations towards Israel is not surprising. So, because these countries have a negative view of Israel's actions, must the U.S. capitulate to their inane views? Intelligent Israelis will place little stock in Obama's commitment to Israel's security. Furthermore, why should the U.S. join in a condemnation of Israel? Just because Hillary Clinton thinks the blockade unsustainable does that make it so? She thinks pretty much everything unsustainable, from preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons to shoring up Bill's fidelity.