In comments, SteveB said stuff I like so much that I want to repost it here:
________________________
I wonder how far Obama is willing to go with this collective punishment idea. Obviously, denying Palestinians access to food and medicine isn't intended to directly prevent the missile attacks (unless Obama lives in a magical world in which missiles are constructed of pita bread and fueled by aspirin). So the only "strategy" here is to inflict enough pain on the Palestinians to cause them to rethink their support of Hamas.
But if it's really about bringing the pain to people who aren't attacking Israel, in the hope they'll turn on the guys who are attacking Israel, then why stop with cutting off food? Why not give them food, but put poison in it? Too extreme? Okay, how about putting something in the food that gives them really, really bad stomachaches? I mean, they have to be shown there's a cost for their "support" of terrorists, right?
And can anyone think of a historical example where a "strategy" of this sort actually worked? Where it didn't cause people to rally around exactly the leadership we don't want them to support? Did the blitz cause Londoners to turn against Churchill, did 9/11 cause Americans to turn against Bush?
But sometimes I forget, they're not like us.
________________________
I responded there (and you can follow that link if you want to comment too). But I just want to repeat that I really, really want to visit the magical world where missiles are constructed of pita bread and fueled by aspirin. And I'm pretty sure I won't be coming back.
