I think it's a perfectly understandable reaction. But, that doesn't mean some of what the embargo "accomplishes" is reasonable. It really doesn't justify, as far as I remember from my limited chemistry knowledge , not allowing ginger, fresh meat, and newspapers. I've always thought that one of the ways the "international community"/thoughtful defenders could use to justify the killing of Israeli civilians in the "war in the Middle East" is that the civilians voted in the government that did the IDF actions that killed the Palestinian Arabs. Hopefully it's not just the "the powerless versus those with power" justifies anything "the powerless" does logic. So, the civilians were "at fault" for what the IDF did, and hence could be "blamed" (a.k.a. killed/injured). It looks like the Israelis are starting to use that logic (a.k.a. collective punishment). Obviously, not in the same way, as the Israelis seem to be doing enough to make the Palestinians miserable, to hopefully "turn" on Hamas, but not killing the Palestinians, at this point. I'm not really sure what to make of it morally. It's not equivalency, but it does seem close.I get notes all the time from family and friends in Israel. These are generally liberal, secular people. None of them are settlers. None of them vote for Likud, to say nothing of parties further to the right. Overwhelmingly, the sentiment among people I know in Israel was in favor of the Gaza war, in favor of the embargo and blockade, in favor of a policy of collective punishment against the people of Gaza.The reason is simple. From the perspective not only of the Israeli center but of people who consider themselves basically on the left, though not the far left, when Israel unilaterally left Gaza that meant the Gazans “got what they wanted” and left no basis for continued hostilities. The fact that, after the withdrawal, Hamas rained mortars and rockets down on Israeli territory, proved that Hamas had no “legitimate” political goals but was simply interested in destroying Israel and killing Jews. After that, whatever Gaza got, from their perspective, they had coming to them, and there’s nothing more to say.
Of course lots of people think it's a survival thing, and that's how they justify it, at least in theory, if not necessarily in practice.
A couple more notes. One, I've read in a couple places that the embargo has led to lower popularity for Hamas, but neither place provided a poll or source for that assumption. Not sure what this flotilla thing will mean for that. I'm pretty sure the whole Helen Thomas kerfuffle won't affect anything in the Middle East. Maybe in the West intellectual discussions, as confirmation bias. I don't think she should have been fired. Silly comments, yes, but just how silly? Israel's claims are roughly similar to Mexico's claim on the Southwest of America (historical claims of ruling the area, still living there currently and continuously, etc.). I say roughly because there is no real place for Jews to "go back to" the way Mexico obviously is for Mexicans who live in the American Southwest. I think Germany, Poland, etc. would be ok with taking jews "back", but what about the Jews from the Middle East or northern Africa? I do think, as I've said before, that ideally, Germany et al. should have made a "Jewish state" within it's borders, if Israel was created as guilt over the Holocaust. But, now that we're dealing with the imperfect solution/world, we have to do what's "most right". I also read on the comments on one of the blogs I've been reading on this issue that the attacks from Gaza dropped 90% between 2008 and 2009. Early 2009 was when Israel invaded Gaza. Probably not a coincidence.
