But the Israelis knew there was no real danger from the Egyptians. The blockade was very brief, and Israeli intelligence was in contact with the Johnson administration over the matter. They were assured that they would easily dominate over the Arabs. The Israelis were just waiting for a chance to strike, and it was not because Johnson dithered. Read Norman Finkelstein on this bit of history.

These kinds of false premises make it impossible for people to think about the history correctly.

And as for them not *daring* to interfere with the U.S. Navy, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty? Would the Israelis really have just sat by and let the U.S. come in? Doesn't seem plausible. They were hungry for land.

You did not put much thought into this. Even after your plan is implemented, there will still be the exact same blockade minus ships from the US and European governments. It will be a nice photo op and then nothing will have changed. Israel will still have to blockade the next flotilla from the IHH or other extremist groups.

There are only a couple of ways to explain why this cannot happen:

1. The lobby Walt writes about channels US policy in a particular direction, that is, to a place he claims is divergent with US interests. This is because the consequences that face decision makers are bad, and so they are forced to defer on the issue (to defer is simply to let Israel decide on Israel's policies, however the US decision maker feels).

Thus, US decision maker's official statements on the issue are genuine, and they have good intentions with regard to the Palestinian's, however, they choose to turn a blind eye.

2. The alternative explanation is that is that the US plays a role in and fully supports Israel's policies of occupation and expansion. That is not to say the US directly benefits from Israel's control over Palestinian's. It is simply to say that Israel still serves US strategic interests in the region, and these benefits outweigh the costs associated with funding the occupation.

Thus, the US must give a little to get whatever it is they get in return. But what is the US getting in return?!

According to Walt, the end of the Cold War commenced the sharp decline of US strategic interest in Israel. Conversely, others say that Israeli dominance is tantamount to US dominance throughout the region, and helps the US secure energy resources. Perhaps that connection is a bit too elusive. The mechanics of such a connection, though, are probably easier to grasp than explanations like the US desire to instill international norms and create a tolerance for aggressive behavior.

Stephen, you're making too much sense. Reason does not drive the "special relationship," the lobby does.

I can hardly wait for Iran to send it's own flotilla in--that should make for a good news day.

Such blockade-running by the US (and perhaps, several NATO countries) would amount to and be perceived as a severe attack upon current Israeli policy in Gaza, and by implication, criticism of Israeli conduct in the West Bank as well. It would mean the end of the Netanyahu government, and all of the preceding would open up more than a little "daylight" between US and Israel. It would be vigorously opposed by The Lobby, and would undoubtedly mean that Democrats would suffer massively in the coming elections. Obama would be painted as having yielded to Hamas "terrorists," and be a one term president. So, while I agree that although running the blockade is the right thing to do, it would be politically suicidal. Finally, the current blockade is almost certainly intended as collective punishment of a civilian population that had the temerity to choose a government that Israel and we don't like in a free election, and the talk of "security concerns" is mainly a pretext. Sooo, don't hold your breath waiting for the US to start off-loading relief supplies in Gaza.

J Thomas mentions the absence of a sensible explanation of the Iraq invasion. Several years before we invaded, I read an article that noted that several middle eastern oil producing countries might very well at some point be controlled by jihadists who are quite hostile to the US. If jihadists were to do so, the temptation might be very strong to steadily (or even, suddenly) raise the price of oil to levels that would cripple western economies. While they would be hurting themselves in the process, the damage inflicted on us might be worth it to them. The US and many other countries depend upon reasonably priced oil, and the claim that Iraq had WMDs provided the pretext for invasion. Now, we have locked up access to the oil of the country with the second greatest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia). We have also demonstrated to the jihadists the fate that might well befall them if they were to overthrow the government of some other major oil producer. They would be opening the door to western invasion.

There are many problems with this theory and many false assumptions:

1) The US and NATO would be trusted by Israel to protect Israel's security - UN Peacekeepers (including members of NATO) did not prevent Egypt from re-militarizing the Sinai in 1967 leading to war. More recently, UN peacekeepers in Lebanon (UNIFIL), including countries that are members of NATO (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain) or Western European/ Scandinavian (Finland, Sweden, Norway) have totally failed to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Hizballah is now stronger than it was before the 2006 war with Israel. Even Ban Ki Moon admitted Hizbollah has imported thousands of rockets from Syria and Iran, now estimated at over 40,000.

Also, these European countries totally mishandled the Iraqi oil for food blockade/embargo program, resulting in massive corruption and problems on all levels. Not exactly a trust setting precedent.

2) There is no assumption that the US or the moderate Arab allies even want an end to the blockade. Open borders in Gaza threaten Egypt. Mubarak doesn't want a Pro-Iranian Hamas (muslim brotherhood) regime destabilizing Sinai and his government. Hamas has supported anti-mubarak elements. The US also has a significant force presence in Sinai (peacekeeping force after Camp David Accords). Lots of Hamas members and allied bedouin tribes running around Sinai posing a risk to our peacekeeping forces does not sound appealing.

Moreover, Hamas harming our forces in Gaza or near it is also not a great prospect. They (and their allies) bombed a US State Department convoy there to find Fulbright scholars. These people are not friendly towards us.

In addition, the US and moderate arab states don't necessarily want to support Hamas. Gaza is firmly in the hands of Hamas and Hamas is firmly in the hands of Iran and Syria. The "moderate" Arab bloc have no interest in seeing this radical bloc gain ground or power.

3) "But wait a minute: wouldn't bringing relief aid to Gaza end up strengthening Hamas? Not if we arrange for the relief aid to be distributed through the United Nations or other independent relief agencies. Some of it might end up in Hamas's hands indirectly but most of it won't, and reducing the level of deprivation and suffering would undercut the influence Hamas gains as a provider of social services. "

This is a pipe dream. Almost all the aide getting to gaza is currently distributed though the UNRWA. Rather than depend on Hamas "social services" 4 out of 5 gazans already depend on UN aide. At the same time, Hamas has strengthened its grip over the area. The UN and aide agencies also provide for most of the jobs in Gaza. None of this has diminished Hamas's appeal. And, keep in mind who has the final say on social services being provided. When the U.N. set up a children's camp that competed with Hamas's children's camp, Hamas and its affiliates simply destroyed (blew up, burned, shot) the camp until it was gone.

Moreover, it horribly patronizing to the Palestinians in Gaza. It is possible that these people actually believe in Hamas and what it says? To think that they just vote with their mouths is foolish. Is it not possible they actually like the Hamas platform?

4) "And while we're at it, we can tell them to get busy fixing that Charter of theirs and take a humanitarian gesture or two of their own, such as releasing captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit."

And while we're at it, lets turn Hamas into the Salvation Army. Or maybe turn them into a boy scout troupe. This is patronizing. These people believe in what they say and have, to a large extent done what they say. They have had numerous times to change their charter. They know it would end the isolation both from the US and Europe. They don't care. This is what they believe. How about someone go tell you to change your religion or your politics or you stance on abortion?

Walt views Hamas as what he wants them to be, rather than what they are. At least Mashaal is honest. He is totally despicable and a murderer, but he's been consistent in what he says and he does, or tries to do what he says.

And then ask this what is Hamas getting now? It can stay as it is, receive millions in money and weapons from Iran and Syria, receive logistical support from them, military training, and never have to worry about changing its views or charter.

What will it get from the US? Some food that it already gets from the UN along with massive pressure to reform itself, demilitarize, and moderate itself, possibly causing itself to spit into a civil war (the radicals - especially led by the Damascus members vs. the more moderate members).

All political concerns aside, this seems incredibly naive if you think about the mechanics of it.
In order for this actually work, there would have to be NATO escorts of the relief ships right up to the docks, as well as protection for whatever aid organization you find to distribute the supplies to the people who need it. Without those two, the Israelis would find a way to block ships before they docked, and Hamas would appropriate whatever supplies you brought to disperse as they see fit.
Good luck having the Europeans doing that part, and I doubt the Israelis would take too kindly to a Turkish military presence in such proximity to Gaza at this point. So you would basically end up with US military personnel on the ground, in Gaza, to make this work. I can't even begin to think of all the ways that this idea could go wrong from an operational perspective. It's heady stuff, but I imagine if you got down into the nitty-gritty details of working this, it would soon become impossible. The idea of having an American military presence so close to such extremists (both sides) and not running into trouble sounds too much like our 2003 planning for post war Iraq. Someone would eventually take a shot at us, be it Israeli non state actors or any number of Islamic militant groups in the region who wouldn't care what we were doing there besides presenting nice big targets. USS Cole anyone?

"But wait a minute: wouldn't bringing relief aid to Gaza end up strengthening Hamas?"

Something tells me that Mr...wait, what's his name...? Ah, right. Mr. Pollyanna may want to rethink this nonsense. The biggest argument for not allowing in ANYTHING is that ANYTHING brought in helps Hamas. Reportedly 80% of Gazans rely upon some handouts which shows that Hamas is not able to feed/clothe their own people, even after their thousands of tunnels which they build and tax. If they cared, they'd make sure that a) food and clothes were brought through and b) that they were not sold for exorbitant rates.

The issue here is that ANYTHING that Israel does to help the Gazans helps Hamas and thus helps Hamas kill Israelis. Now, to enact a blockade such as this constitutes a war crime - but it takes one hell of an enlightened society to help those that are trying to kill you, which is what Israel needs to do. Israel is going to get attacked anyway no matter how nice or not so nice that they are, so they may as well take the high road on this one and let in all non-dual-use items.

"...and reducing the level of deprivation and suffering would undercut the influence Hamas gains as a provider of social services."

That won't matter really in the short/medium-term. Hamas has an iron-fist grip on Gaza, and nothing short of a bullet to the head will stop such a grip.

I keep going back and forth on if it would be good for America to get so actively involved. The problem there is that then political pressure can be put upon America to allow in dual-use items which would then be used to kill Israelis. That said, it would make America look much better...but does that matter? Many people in this region hate America, and the US actively helping the blockade I do not think is going to help anything...

But, maybe Mr. Pollyanna thinks differently? Apparently so.

There is no way that US will send warships to Gaza right now because: A) Obama doesnt have the balls to do it, and B) The amount of money that israelis pay to US makes whole thing impossible to approve by Congress

is just picking this article apart. Not worthy of a Harvard professor of foreign policy. More worthy of an undergrad student op-ed. A lot of people have echoed the same basic problems that should be apparent to anybody reading this article.

Israel can finally seal the border, permanently close all the crossings, end the ridiculous customs and banking agreements.

The US can control the seas, and of course build a port for ships since there is no such infrastructure at present. The one land border crossing will be Egypt.

The big losers the PA, Egypt and the broader Arab world that wanted Hamas hemmed in, following the coup. It will really be great fun to see how Egypt reacts.

And what will happen when Hamas, or other 'militants' turn on the US, killing soldiers when they still find themselves unable to control the port or flow of goods?

So many problems but hey it's your brilliant idea LOL

Israel can also stop having to supply Gaza with water and electric. Let the 6th fleet and the Egyptians worry about it.

What Walt is fantasizing about here is some sort of dramatic Battleship Potemkin moment, where the US suddenly switches sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal is incredibly unrealistic – even romantically melodramatic.

The US has supported the quarantine of Gaza, and even helped organize it following the Hamas takeover in 2007. And the government has so far only issued tepid indications that it is thinking of changing that policy. So surely before it engages in blockade-running with the insertion of US force, it should begin with more obvious and more modest steps - like simply asking Israel to end it?

The sudden insertion of US troops into a theater where they are mostly despised and unwanted would be a reckless invitation for trouble. The result would likely be similar to Reagan's dispatch of troops to Lebanon: some US ships would get bombed - by either Israeli commandos or Palestinian provocateurs - and a bunch of US servicemen would get killed. Oh and of course it might touch off WWIII in the process. I can’t imagine why Walt finds this high-flying, risk-fraught move so appealing.

And there are a variety of much more diplomatically plausible options for getting the Israelis out of the business of quarantining and directly controlling the world’s commerce with Gaza – like taking the French and British up on their offer to take over the job of policing shipments into Gaza, in response to an end to the Israeli blockade.

The US is a party to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not a bystander or outside observer. And as much as I am also entertained by fantasies of sticking it to the haughty Israelis, for the US to engage in such a melodramatic, public back-stabbing would be a dreadful blow to our image as a dependable ally. If the US is going to change its posture toward Israel, surely it needs to do so with more tact and less in-your-face, militant fanfare. Suddenly jumping on a freedom ride into Gaza, and loudly tooting our horn with this kind of “Look at us! Here we are to save the day!” flamboyance would be hypocritical, treacherous and politically ham-handed – as well as not a little ridiculous.

Had the US been opposed to the blockade historically, and had it been on record as asking the Israelis repeatedly to lift it, then this kind of blockade-running might make sense as last-recourse option. But since the US has so far has been a supporter of the blockade, has not yet taken a position against the blockade, and hasn't even asked the Israelis to lift it, I don't see what purpose is accomplished by suddenly jumping several moves ahead and attempting to break the blockade by force, while publicly pissing on an ally.

Imagining the US engaging in this kind of stunt would be like imagining Leonid Brezhnev riding into Czechoslovakia on a sleigh, dressed as Santa Claus and dispensing canned hams to the denizens of Prague.

While claiming to be a realist, Prof. Walt decides that he would rather sprinkle fairy dust on the situation in Gaza rather than come up with a realistic solution.
.
Reality is, Not only the United States, but the entire Quartet, are behind the blockade. Of course, to end the blockade requires several modest steps by Gaza's rulers, HAMAS.
.
For the ending of the blockade, HAMAS needs to end its campaign of violence, end its incitement to violence, accept previous agreements signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and release its Israeli hostage, Gilad Shalit.
.
We're not talking some form of horrible pressure here folks. We're talking about bringing a violent extremist group back to the point of the rest of the Palestinian Authority. We're not even talking a demand that HAMAS makes peace, God forbid, with Israel.
.
Several months ago, the Journal of Foreign Affairs raised the problems of HAMAS noting how after five years, and wishful thinking on the part of the Western world that HAMAS would learn to moderate its words and deeds, that it has not done so, and the world cannot figure out how to deal with this group of fanatical rejectionists that leads Gaza.
.
Unfortunately, we still haven't. The reality is, no one knows, short of walking into Gaza and taking HAMAS down, how to deal with them.
.
However, the reality is, HAMAS clings to its extreme and violent views, and that means, its followers in Gaza suffer for their own, not Israel's, reasons.
.

Obviously we aren't remembering the USS Liberty here. Israel has shown time and again that it will kill Americans, including American servicemen and women to advance it's own agenda.

Israel is not an ally of the United States. The blockade should be broken but only if we confront the reality that Israel is only interested in collective punishment and will attack and kill anyone (allies included) that try to curb their ethnic cleansing of 'Eretz Yisrael'

Congratulations Steve, you are now in the running for the Helen Thomas prize.

Dear Mr. Walt,

Your articles are always fun to read....

The "probable" trigger for the 1967 war was not the Egyptian blockade as you state. The main goal of the 67 war was to take the Golan heights for reasons that go way beyond military or strategic reasons. And the trigger for it all came from Syria. Israel had a "survivalist" reason for grabbing the Golan and will never give it back to Syria. For the same reason Israel occupied south Lebanon for 20+ years. And no, it wasn't about PLO, not about repelling the terrorist away from its northern border... or any of that. Can you see the connection?

But alas, even if this idea was put on the U. S. agenda, (which is not very probable), PM Netanyahu would never accept it. Because for many years by now, he is used to be the tail wagging the dog, and would never switch roles with the U.S.

But if he could be ousted, and replaced with someone more clever than he?

Steve Walt must be killing himself laughing at the comments - if he wastes the time to read them.
The last sentence makes it perfectly clear that he is putting a rational moral case that is impossible, given the constants on the freedom of action of any administration. It is not possible to have a rational debate on any subject relating to Israel within the United States. There has been partisan reporting of the subject for so long anyone born and brought up in the US media bubble over the last two generations can not have an objective opinion, at least not without making a considerable effort to read outside the US and preferably not just in English. The kind of sane suggestion he is making would mean an admission by the US State department that it had been wrong for decades on dozens of issues and needed to reappraise not just its relationship with Israel but Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and many others. While badly needed this could never happen the US is far too blinkered to consider letting reality cloud the clarity of its vision.

Amira Bernadette Dibdy, lead singer of CultureShoc, called out to the crowd in a mix of Arabic and English. The band was Snowbar’s live Thursday performance, a ritual that has made the club the hottest spot in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the West Bank. Though Yasser Arafat’s floodlit tomb loomed nearby, no one was talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at Snowbar. They were too focused on the music.

The barrier walls here are certainly intimidating, and Ramallah doesn’t have the holy mystique of Bethlehem, but this city on the West Bank has become a destination for thousands of young North Americans, Europeans and offspring of the Palestinian replica TAG elite. Some work for locally based non-governmental organizations or new businesses; others are visiting. Many of the hot spots are set in restored Ottoman buildings, streamlined Art Deco houses that date from the British mandate, or atop new high-rises. Some residents say the scene is an undiscovered challenge to what Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Amman, Jordan — each a few miles but a psychological world away — offer young people in the Middle East.