printIs it a prelude to an act of war? If I didn’t know better, that’s what I’d call the threat Iran has issued to send its Iranian Revolutionary Guard to escort ships attempting to break through the blockade of Gaza. Were I a resident of Israel, I’d be nervous.
But of course, I know better. After all, it would be perfectly proper, and in keeping with US sovereignty, were Turkish “activists,” escorted by the Iranian military, to wash up on American shores. I’m glad I got that straightened out in my own mind.
Israel will do “whatever it takes” to defend itself from terrorism, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. said Sunday, without elaborating what actions would be taken in the face of a potential Iranian Revolutionary Guard escort of ships to break through the blockade of Gaza.
Ambassador Michael Oren said Israel is “open to any ideas to somehow deal with the Gaza situation” but dropping the blockade is unlikely since that would mean allowing thousands of rockets to arrive in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
UPDATE I (June 7): WINNING THROUGH WEAKNESS. Daniel Pipes’ keen analysis of the strategy involving the “Amity Armada” is particularly insightful:
“One of the most important rules for a strategist is not to be put on the defensive. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, developed this concept into a doctrine of forward defense that brilliantly served his state in its early years.
Eventually, however, Israel’s enemies realized that they could not win a conventional war. Instead of launching planes, tanks, and ships at the Jewish state, they turned to other means – weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and (most recently) political delegitimization. Delegitimization turns the rules of war upside down: in particular strength is weakness and public opinion has supreme importance.
Israel’s command structure, having mastered the old ways of war (the ones that lasted to 1973), has shown utter strategic incompetence at the new ways of war (in place since 1982). The new rules require an agile sense of public relations, which means that a powerful state never physically harms, even inadvertently, its rag-tag political adversaries.”…
[snip]
Where Pipes and I depart is in that, finally, after decades of bumbling, I see an Israeli public-relations sea change. Michael Oren accounts for 90 percent of it.
UPDATE II: Nebojsa Malic’s take on the winning-through-weakness strategy:
“Israel has a powerful conventional army, navy, air force, and most likely even nuclear weapons (though not officially acknowledged). It has defeated Arab armies on numerous occasions in open warfare, and has successfully fought terrorism and insurgency through special operations. So those who wish it destroyed came up with a way of turning that strength into a weakness: cast themselves as innocent, unarmed, helpless victims and howl as loud as possible about being abused by that very Israel whose strength no one can dispute.”
UPDATE III (June 8): Fox News reports:
“In one photo, an Israeli commando is shown lying on the deck of the ship, surrounded by activists. The uncut photo released by IHH shows the hand of an unidentified activist holding a knife. But in the Reuters photo, the hand is visible but the knife has been edited out.”
The blog ‘Little Green Footballs’ challenged Reuters’ editing of the photo.
‘That’s a very interesting way to crop the photo. Most people would consider that knife an important part of the context. There was a huge controversy over whether the activists were armed. Cropping out a knife, in a picture showing a soldier who’s apparently been stabbed, seems like a very odd editorial decision. Unless someone was trying to hide it,’ the blog stated.”
Just a question. If it does hit the fan, which countries (country) would come to the aid of Israel. Would the USA or will Israel once again be on her own? I know our country would not as they side with terrorists.
It’s just bravado. Egypt will never let them through the Suez even if they muster up the ships and men necessary.
I expect the Israelis to stand their ground no matter who comes. If it was the American navy they would probably be required to give the invaders a sponge bath and finger sandwiches.
Both the Israeli and Iranian navies have the same amount of patrol boats, but the Israel forces have Corvettes and land based helicopters. Iran’s C802 missiles are only good against a full sized ship so it’s down to machine gun and its Iranian 30 caliber vs Israel’s 30 Millimeter. That’s assuming Iran would use a naval escort. If they put soldiers on undefendable freighters, Israel will be able to increase its underwater hatcheries. So unless I transposed a number somewhere Iran has to be bluffing.
What ever happened to the negotiating with the Iranians that Hussein Obama & Biden were talking about? That was supposed to cure this problem. That is very palatable for this Muslim-sympathizing president. He likes that idea a lot because these are his “brothers”. In the real world of dealing with Hezbollah, unfortunately, all they understand is force. They do understand that. That is all they understand however. If you take a pit viper such as a Cobra, play a flute to charm it. Take that same Cobra and agitate it with a stick and it will strike you every time. Hezbollah is just like that pit viper. If you try to charm it, still it remains a wicked viper. Another example from the animal kingdom. Take a vicious dog. From time to time, not always, talk to a mean dog and it will calm down. Take that same dog infected with rabies and no matter what you say or how nice you are, or if you give it a medium rare T-bone steak, it is futile to try to calm the dog down.It is impossible. The same goes for Hezbollah.Anyone saying that we need to “talk” with Hezbollah, are greatly deluded.I would pay money to see the look on Barbara Streisand’s face if the Iranian Revolutionary guards stormed her Malibu beach front home.Would she call her President and say,”didn’t you sweet talk them enough Barack”? ~Martin Berrow
We are living Jean Raspail’s Camp Of The Saints; which may have been widely read but taken seriously only by those technologically unarmed but still itching for a fight. The global brinkmanship of third world countries armed with their ‘masses’ as fodder now constitutes postmodern warfare. And our only solution is to play with, amending, reworking, refining, revising, and adapting, our rules of engagement.
Palestinians face 3 “enemies” – in order of least to greatest: (1) the Israelis for obvious reasons, (2) the Moslem/Arab world who fighting Israel to the last Palestinian to distract their population from their corrupt governments, and (3) their own “leaders” – professional terrorist gangster-leeches who know only how to destroy and whose power comes from a permanent state of misery and war.
I don’t see how to win the “Public Relations War” when you have:
1.3 Billion Moslems with 57 nations as a voting bloc, oil, residual anti-Semitism in the rest of the world, and an unlimited supply of “Palestinian misery” to be displayed. Hamas or Fatah or Hezbollah is free to “tug on Superman’s cape” and get the desired Israeli “overreaction” – even a few deaths get magnified into a “genocide” or “massacre”. Arguably, most of the Western politicians may know its bulls**t but they’ll react like Reagan did to the Orisak bombing. Reagan commented privately, “boy, they (Israel) did a really good job” and continued “I guess we have to go and denounce it”. Fine, even if the West knows the “outrage” is phony – it’s politically expedient to issue the “I’m shocked, shocked” political statements whenever Israel defends itself.
Agreed on Michael Oren. I thought he was a boy from Nebraska before reading that he was born in upstate N. Y.. I’d also note that Israel made a great PR move very early in its (modern) history by selecting Abba Eban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Eban to fill the crucial role of U. N. Ambassador. Presentation style and communication ability make huge differences where PR is concerned.
As I said last Tuesday, it’s all about “winning by losing.” It is a strategy calibrated to target self-hating postmodern transnational progressivists. Not sure how many of those live in Israel, but the West is full of them.
I’m sure the Israeli navy can sink just about any vessel before it reaches the shore; but the trick here is to not have to.
“…send its Iranian Revolutionary Guard to escort ships attempting to break through the blockade of Gaza” – If only Israel would be so lucky, that would probably justify an armed defense by Israel.
More problematic for Israel would be a large civilian flotilla. I read somewhere that some Scandinavian country (if I remember correctly) planned a large fleet of about 60 ships to “break” the blockade. Will Israel have the ability to peacefully stop all these ships?
I believe we may be seeing a “watershed” period for nations and their allegiances over the next few months.
I just hope the Israelis don’t become too “Americanized” and give away the game because they believe that timidity is the way to defend against a ruthless enemy.
I was under the impression that wars were fought for *practical* gain, not political.
Political means of winning wars gives us strange truces, bedfellows, and most of the time, ‘cold’ wars and murky morals.
You said for yourself, a long time ago, that nations (such as Israel) fight because they have to, while nations such as our unfortunately dis-United States fight because they want to…
I am guessing you are making the statement that Israel must win the political war in order to win the practical one as well. I can see the value in this, but … well, I think this has more to do with the current political climate of these toxic nations (U.S. included) than politics..
Iran, Canada, the United States, and other countries are truly involved in the Age of the Idiot, where emotions > logic and reality. Until a Return to Reason is established, it will always be nearly impossible to win even a political war because the mindset of said people that we are arguing with is so base.
Sometimes, being blunt and saying ‘Bullsh*t’ to something absurd is worth more than a thousand words, or even a Michael Moren.
Prior to 1600, wars were a matter of practical,political and religious gain. After 1648, the nations of Europe agreed to make war only between nations and under rules of practical gain. However the Muslim and Muslim nations did not sign the treaty. The Muslims and copyists are waging a type of war called “4th generation war” This is a return to the fifteenth century but with new technology, including the camera and spin doctors. William S. Lind, 1-15-04 submitted an article on it at “http://www.antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702” In today’s warfare, the press corps are front line.