The flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip might not have arrived safely in Gaza, but they did accomplish something. Most of the world has now come out in opposition to Israel's Gaza blockade, and Israel has already begun to ease the blockade.

The calls to end the blockade have been widespread. The EU has called for Israel to lift the blockade, as has the Arab League, and the Red Cross. The US has increased pressure on the Netanyahu government to lift the blockade.

Israel is easing the blockade, promising to make "adjustments" in the policy. These adjustments will be considered by the security cabinet, but are likely to be passed. The new policy would allow "all goods except for weapons and materials that can be used to make them."

But the world shouldn't be too eager to declare the Gaza blockade over, or the Flotilla a success. The language used by Israel, of "easing" the blockade rather than ending it, has been seen by the Arab press as the Israeli version of putting lipstick on a pig. Clearly, taking steps to "ease" the blockade is different than lifting it. And the details of the new Israeli policy remain to be seen. So-called "dual-use" items will still be banned, with Israel to define what constitutes such an item. An overly broad definition of dual-use would still have a severe effect on the people of the Gaza Strip.

I wasn't planning to comment on the recent events involving Israel and the flotilla of humanitarian aid.  The event has received saturation media coverage and, as an expert neither on the Middle East nor international law, I didn't feel I had anything new or valuable to contribute.  However, readers have requested we address the topic, so I have no choice but to bow to their wishes (the customer is always right!) and add my two cents.

First of all, the fact that this ended with multiple deaths is tragic and was utterly avoidable.  I'm not adequately equipped to wade into debate over the legality of Israel's actions, so I'll hold my tongue - but do check out the excellent discussion taking place over at Opinio Juris.

I do, however, feel sufficiently qualified to share the sentiments put forward by Stephen Walt and Dan Drezner - what the f*** were the Israelis thinking?  They had to understand that this overreaction would have overwhelmingly negative consequences for them, and that having commandos forcibly board would inevitably lead to bloodshed.  As the ever-astute Jon Stewart put it, perhaps those on board the ship thought the Israelis were greeting them with "commando-shaped pinatas." (Clip starts at 3:45)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Clusterf#&k to the War House - Korean Peninsula & Middle East
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Furthermore, I am disappointed in the response from the Obama Administration, which refused to condemn the incident and watered down the UN Security Council statement.  The Administration could potentially use this tragedy to bring about meaningful change in Israel, by privately pressuring Netanyahu to make serious concessions while publicly protecting the Israeli government to offer political breathing space.  That would be a delicate balancing act, and unfortunately I have yet to see any evidence to support that theory.

In addition to not being qualified to debate the legality of the incident, I also think that discussion is a bit of a sideshow.  This was not an isolated incident; it is symptomatic of and caused by the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian deadlock.  Immersing ourselves in the minutiae of international law may be missing the forest for a single tree, because the relevant issue isn't this incident, it's the situation as a whole.  There can be no resolution to this tragedy nor a way to prevent future iterations without a comprehensive peace process, involving and satisfying all relevant parties.

Perhaps the fallout from this shoot-out will be the catalyst for breaking the decades of regional stalemate.  But the overall situation is static: the Netanyahu government remains intransigent, Hamas refuses to recognizes Israel's right to exist, regional governments use the issue as a soapbox to enhance their "pro-Muslim" and "anti-West" credentials among their own radicals, and pro-Israel groups in America retain their influence.  I'm not holding my breath for change. 

The feud between the U.S. and Israel escalated another notch yesterday, with a report that the U.S. would consider abstaining from a United Nations Security Council vote critical of Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem.

As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S. can veto any issue that comes before the Council.  The U.S. has traditionally killed any attempt to use the UN as a platform for criticizing Israel.  If America were to abstain, the resolution condemning Israel for constructing settlements in east Jerusalem could pass.  This would be a significant break from past practice and clear evidence of a fissure between Obama and Netanyahu.

I don't actually expect the U.S. to abstain.  This story is based on an unsubstantiated report, not a declaration from the U.S. government, and could be nothing more than a rumor.  Furthermore, this would be a major deterioration in the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I don't believe President Obama is interested in taking that step.

Instead, I read this as a clear warning from Washington to Israelis.  It would appear that Obama is heeding the advice from the George Mitchell camp over the Dennis Ross camp, and taking a harder line.  The situation brings to mind the oft-quoted quip allegedly uttered by President Clinton after a meeting with Netanyahu in the 1990s, recounted by Andrew Exum earlier today

He thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.

In short, this is a subtle message from Obama to Netanyahu - we hold the power here, and don't you forget that.

Politico's Laura Rozen has a behind-the-scenes piece up about the debate within the Obama Administration on Israel policy.

Sources say within the inter-agency process, White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross is staking out a position that Washington needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints including over the issue of building in East Jerusalem in order to not raise new Arab demands, while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to preserve the Obama administration's credibility.

I think it's a mistake to portray this as a dichotomous choice between supporting Netanyahu and holding his feet to the fire.  Both sides here have merit.  Israel is a functioning democracy, and only an old-fashioned realist would entirely disregard the domestic political forces that impact Netanyahu's decision-making process.  Conversely, if Israel continues to blatantly disregard American requests without punishment, any remaining credibility the U.S. has in the region as an honest broker will be lost.

Obviously there is no easy solution.  But Mitchell's point cannot be disregarded - the Obama Administration must extract some concessions from Israel, particularly regarding settlements, or any hope of progress towards peace will be damaged.
   

On Sunday the Israeli military revealed the latest in a long line of drone technology to come out of this small but extremely well armed nation. As reported by the My Way blog,

"The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads."

In news reports released today, the most highly touted fact concerning the Heron TP line of drones is that due to their large size and fuel capacity that they are in fact capable of reaching the Persian Gulf (ie Iran) from Israel. While I am sure that hinting at proof that Israel is gearing up to carry out a military strike against Iran sells newspapers, this is certainly not any such proof. Drones are ideally suited for the irregular warfare that the US and Israel find itself fighting today. Drones (aka unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)/ unmanned aerial Systems (UAS)) are capable of providing real time video surveillance of the battle space and can alert troops to obstacles and ambushes. They have been especially effective in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan where insurgents may be able to detect them overhead if its a clear day, but simply do not possess the firepower to bring them down. Israel has similarly used drones in Gaza and Lebanon to increase their surveillance of insurgent movements and even to assassinate the occasional terrorist.

Where drones have not proven effective has been in wars against actual states that possess actual militaries.

UPDATE at 2:00 PM EST
Iran has informed the IAEA that they will begin enriching uranium to 20% starting tomorrow.

UPDATE at 1:24 PM EST
Iran's supreme leader has threatened violence if planned opposition marches lead by Mir Houssein Musavi are carried out this week. Iranians will "punch [them] in the mouth to shock them" Ayatollah Khamenei promised -- though he demurred over who "them" is -- the protesters, their leadership, or the "western puppet-masters" he claims are instigating their "counter-revolutionary" behavior.

News on Iran's next move continues below.
From Reuters India:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will soon unveil a domestically-made air defence system with at least the same capability as Russia's S-300 anti-aircraft hardware, an Iranian air force commander was quoted as saying on Monday.

For months, Iran has been attempting to...