Also, why isn’t the world outraged by the wholesale deprivation we’re inflicting on the North Koreans? Why do we even bother talking about sanctions against Iran, which will surely hurt the average Iranian more than the mullahs and the kleptocrats running the Revolutionary Guard. We’ve been maintaining an embargo against Cuba for half a century. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the supposed voices of peace and sanity argued for “giving the sanctions time to work” and “keeping Iraq in the box” — the “box” being a stiff sanctions regime. What was so great about the sanctions against South Africa if they too were a form of collective punishment?

Only one blockade is deemed indefensibly beyond the pale: Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Why? Because it imposes “collective punishment.” ~Jonah Goldberg

When I first read this, I thought Goldberg couldn’t be serious. On the whole, the strongest Western critics of the blockade of Gaza don’t believe that sanctions regimes usually achieve their stated objectives, or at least they don’t do so without inflicting enormous unjustifiable suffering on the civilian population that directly undermines any “regime change” goals the sanctions-imposing governments have. Economic sanctions directed at “punishing” a regime for its behavior hurt the civilian population far more and tend to reinforce the regime’s hold on power. We have been arguing this for years in every relevant debate.

Opponents of the Gaza blockade typically object to all policies of collective punishment, whether they are military or economic. It is the hawks who want to keep immiserating Gaza who also want to inflict economic ruin on the Iranian population with “crippling” sanctions, and it is the hawks defending the indefensible in Gaza who never batted an eye at the suffering of Iraqi civilians between 1991 and 2003. For that matter, they never batted an eye at the suffering of Iraqi civilians between 2003 and now. They are among the first to call for imposing sanctions, and they are among the first to say that the sanctions are insufficient and military action is required.

If the Gaza blockade is supposed to drive a wedge between the Gazan population and Hamas, it has failed. If the blockade is supposed to force Hamas to become more accommodating, it has failed. If it is supposed to compel the release of Gilad Shalit, it has failed. Gaza is Exhibit A in the case against the political effectiveness of sanctions. Whenever hawks say that a policy “works,” it means that it has temporarily achieved tactical success in exchange for massive civilian suffering and strategic failure. So, yes, by that awful standard the blockade has “worked.” As The Wall Street Journal reports today, and as we already knew, the blockade has devastated the economy of Gaza and made it into an aid-dependent basketcase. An arms embargo could be enforced without inflicting deprivation and malnutrition on an overwhelmingly underaged population. The limited goal of preventing Hamas from acquiring weapons could be reached without the immiseration of over a million people.

At least eleven years ago, I remember that Pat Buchanan was arguing that Iraq sanctions should be ended because they served no purpose and were contributing to the deaths of tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. There were many other people in the U.S. and abroad long before that pointing to the horrible human costs of the sanctions on Iraq. Iraq hawks insisted that containing the Iraqi “threat” was “worth it.” Only when Iraq hawks wanted to escalate to a full-scale invasion did the horrible sanctions policy seem like a barely preferable option, but for the most part opponents of the war did not favor continuing sanctions on Iraq.

Sanctions on North Korea have had no effect on the regime’s behavior. These are not sanctions that most of the world wanted. These are sanctions that American hawks pushed to impose. The push for Iran sanctions is running into concerted opposition from most governments around the world, which is why the draft resolution on Iran sanctions the U.S. has proposed is so “watered-down” and therefore dissatisfying to American hawks. Once again, most other governments want to avoid sanctions. That was a large part of the reason for Turkish and Brazilian efforts to negotiate a fuel-swap deal that could avoid the need to impose sanctions. No doubt Goldberg thinks that this was also an “outrageous insult” by Turkey. It was the U.S. and a few allies that kept Iraq sanctions going long after most of the rest of the world wanted them lifted. Most of the world regards our Cuba policy as ridiculous, outdated and pointless.

Opponents of the Gaza blockade have understood the futility and counterproductivity of sanctions for years. We have also objected to the toll sanctions take on the civilian population in all of these cases. There has been no double standard applied here, and Goldberg’s attempt to claim that there is one is not even remotely persuasive. Until last week, it was the standard hawkish view that the mere phrase “collective punishment” was an outrageous distortion of the Gaza blockade policy. Now we’re supposed to listen to defenders of the blockade complain that the blockade’s opponents are supposedly sanctions enthusiasts who are perfectly fine with collective punishment in all other situations? I know Goldberg specializes in this “Hey! Look over there!” style of argument, but even by his standards this is pathetic.

Goldberg is so preoccupied with the U.S. and Israel not losing face that he wants to keep the inhumane blockade in place:

But this is a terrible moment to consider abandoning the blockade.

Why? Because it would rightly be seen as giving the organizers and supporters of this seaborne propaganda stunt a victory. It would signal that America can be conned. It would reward Turkey’s outrageous insult to us (a NATO ally) and to Israel, a longtime friend of Turkey. It would undermine Egypt and other Arab governments (including Fatah) that don’t want Iran’s clients in Hamas strengthened (their propaganda notwithstanding). And it would signal that Iran is the most important power in the Middle East.

In other words, making an appropriate substantive change in policy to eliminate indefensible practices is a bad idea because it might send the wrong “signal,” and this is coming from the person complaining that blockade critics are too concerned with symbolism! Of course, the flotilla activists have already won a political victory thanks to Israel’s response. The Gaza blockade went from being a back-burner issue to the one at the center of the world’s attention. Turkey has already received its reward by assuming a position of regional leadership over one of the region’s most contentious issues, and for the moment it has won the support and admiration of most people throughout the Near East. Perpetuating the blockade will simply give the flotilla activists and Erdogan new reasons to criticize and isolate Israel.

Until now, Goldberg hasn’t shown any concern that Israeli military excesses might undermine “moderate” Arab regimes or Fatah and empower radical forces in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. When it comes to keeping an inhumane blockade in place, he is suddenly very concerned to alleviate the political problems of Salam Fayyad and Hosni Mubarak. Somehow I don’t find any of this very convincing.

The reality is that Israeli actions have created opportunities for new regional leaders, such as Turkey and Qatar, to seize the role that was once held by Egypt, and to a large extent it has been Israeli recklessness and excesses that have already undermined the credibility of its “moderate” Arab partners. One of these excesses has been the Gaza blockade. Continuing the blockade would only accelerate the process I’ve just described and would isolate Israel even more.

Apparently, as long as Israel and the U.S. keep sending the right “signals” of strength, it doesn’t matter to the hawks that they are steadily, consistently weakening the position of both governments in the region.