Originally Posted by hiredgun

I think the 'international waters' bit is also kind of a red herring, for two reasons.

1) Historically, it has been acceptable for countries to enforce blockades outside of their own territorial waters. (The distinction, of course, is that this blockade is not widely recognized as legitimate - but the precise location of the incident is not really the issue.) Interception of goods en route is routine in a blockade.

2) Consider the counterfactual - if precisely the same incident had taken place a few miles east, in Israeli (or really Gazan) territorial waters, would it really change your mind about the meaning of the event? Would it have played out any differently? For me, the answer is a resounding no.


If you look at the list of goods restricted, it is obvious for anyone with eyes to see - really, truly obvious, and I dare you to say otherwise - that a primary purpose of the blockade (along with keeping out weapons) is to deprive the Gazan population as political leverage. Make of this whatever you will. Many sanctions regimes work this way, and sometimes they are preferable to the alternatives. But please do not deny it or offer 'weapons' as a misdirection.

For my part, I would argue that this blockade of deprivation - as opposed to the blockade of arms - is counter-productive. It might seem like a good idea to prevent Hamas from succeeding, but the audiences that matter believe that the Gaza crisis is Israel's fault, and the suffering of the Gazans is hurting rather than helping Abbas/Fayyad in the PA. So why continue? I appreciate that it is politically difficult for Israel to lift the blockade on its own without losing face - which is why I think the US could facilitate the change.