The purpose of the Disengagement Plan is to reduce terrorism as much as possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security. The process of disengagement will lead to an improvement in the quality of life, and will help strengthen the Israeli economy. . . . These steps will increase security for the residents of Israel and relieve the pressure on the IDF and security forces in fulfilling the difficult tasks they are faced with. The Disengagement Plan is meant to grant maximum security and minimize friction between Israelis and Palestinians.Of course, it did not. None of those things happened. Instead, the communities in the Negev got thousands of Kassams blasting into their homes, their streets, their schools. Instead, Hamas took over Gaza and used it as a base for terror war against Israel. Instead, with the Gaza port in the hands of Hamas, the "peace boats" started making their runs. What happened today was not a matter of if, but when.
Some of Israel's friends are upset. Embarrassed. Not happy with the headlines they have to defend. Israel should have been prepared, they say. Israel should have known better. Israel fell into a trap.
Well, maybe. We'll see. The Free Gaza spokesmouth made sure to publicize that the "peace activists" on the boats wouldn't be armed and wouldn't fight if boarded. She lied. But in light of that representation, the Israeli navy took care not to bring heavy weapons with them and not to use the light weapons they had until it was clear their lives were in danger. And their lives were most certainly in danger.
And if they had boarded with guns instead of paintball rifles? It's not improbable that all of those knives and pipes would have remained securely tucked into galley drawers and tool boxes, and an incident in which one or more "activists" were killed would nonetheless have "spontaneously" erupted. That's a trap, and a well-laid one.
This much is crystal clear. The people on that boat intended to either reach Gaza or be "martyred." They didn't seem to care much which way it went, because they would either bust the blockade or set Israel up for major international rebuke.
Jonathan Tobin says: "Liberal Zionists" Must Choose: Hamas or Israel.
Americans who are looking to excuse themselves from the more difficult task of explaining the truth of Israel's dilemma to a hostile world may seize upon the convoy deaths as a fresh rationale for quitting the ranks of country's supporters. But if that is what amounts to liberal Zionism these days, then its adherents must be judged as, at best, fair-weather friends and, at worst, little different from open anti-Zionists who implicitly support the Palestinian terror organization's goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If liberal Zionism in 2010 amounts to the backing of Hamas's propaganda campaign and the delegitimization of Israeli self-defense, then it is time to admit that such liberals have left the Zionist camp altogether.I'm afraid it's not only liberals who are going to be faced with this choice in the coming days.