Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 4, 2010; A19 
 
The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey 
denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The  usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama  administration dithers. 
But as 
Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign  Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is  perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a  declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli  civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency,  Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas  from arming itself with still more rockets. 
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States  blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis,  we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to  Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would  either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international  criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval  blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry. 
Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian  relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted 
Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port,  be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel  into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other  humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza. 
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted,  the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the  blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean  unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas. 
Israel has already 
twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined  for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that? 
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade?  Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically  de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and  active defense. 
(1) 
Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country  surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century,  adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the  Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own. 
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for  peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the  territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small  strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel.  And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns  to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a  grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to  fight them here. 
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis  were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the  anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the  cause, would bring peace. 
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the  land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it  get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the  enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza,  years of unrelenting rocket attack. 
(2) 
Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense  -- military action to 
disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President  Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda)  the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon  and Gaza after Israel withdrew. 
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They  were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the  same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace  Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the 
U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized  Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the 
casus  belli -- the 
preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war --  effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its  self-declared terror enemies. 
(3) 
Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is  left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade  to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is  headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now  moving toward having it abolished. 
But, if none of these is permissible, what's left? 
Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the  blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by  the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic  anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine  Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem. 
What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international  campaign is to deprive Israel of 
any legitimate form of  self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the  jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by 
signing onto a consensus document that singles out  Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's  very last line of defense: deterrence. 
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number  again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to  national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized  and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed  anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final  solution. 
letters@  charleskrauthammer.com