Author: Andrew Sullivan

Nicely captured by Dave Coverly (more cartoons of his here):

Reihan argues that naming an Oil Spill Czar might "help the public simmer down." But it wouldn't help any:

It's hardly surprising that all the president's czars are devoted to the most hopeless tasks, from fighting an unwinnable drug war—Bill Bennett and Barry McCaffrey didn't convince America's youth that cocaine would permanently melt their brains, and no one else will either—to cyber security. Far from a sign that the president is taking charge of a tough situation, the naming of a czar strongly suggests that he is declaring it a lost cause.

So we got an admiral. What we need is patience, a very well-organized clean-up, and re-regulation.

Today on the Dish we focused most of our attention on the flotilla fiasco. Reax here. Passengers spoke out, a commando was quoted, the Turkish PM fumed, Israel's foreign minister stood firm, Washington went along, Bibi's cabinet appeared in disarray, the Mossad chief chimed in, Ahmadi smirked, Sarah Palin twittered, and Ha'aretz huffed. Andrew raged against the necon response, David Grossman anguished over the actions of Israel, Bernard Henri-Levy lamented the media fallout, Packer piled on, Beinart blamed the embargo, Jim Henley acknowledged US impotence, and Michael Rubin shrugged at the death toll. Chait mostly concurred with the Dish, McArdle did as well, and a reader not so much. Drezner compared Israel to North Korea, Robert Mackey brought up the Exodus, and Exum provided some dark humor.

Oil leak updates here, here, and here. Joyner assessed the latest death of al-Qaeda's No. 3, Exum protested over the perception of drone kills in Pakistan, Joel Wing saw some signs of optimism in Iraq, and Michael Yon was not hopeful about Afghanistan. The Malawi couple was pardoned but still in peril.  Al and Tipper split.

Jesse Zwick gushed over Jindal, Greenwald went after Ron Paul's critics, and rapper M.I.A. went to war with a journalist. A reader shared some expertise on job hunting. This photo of a sinkhole in Guatemala City is unbelievable. Malkin Award here, epic SATC2 review here, MHB here, and incredible stunt here. More Dishness here and a dose of Ptown here.

— C.B.

Tunisians protest on June 1, 2010 against Israel after the Israeli navy stormed a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in international waters, killing several pro-Palestinian activists in a pre-dawn raid that sparked global outrage. By Fethi Belaid/AFP/Getty Images.

There have been reports that women are playing a large role in the tea parties. Bernstein hopes so:

I'm pretty skeptical that there's a Tea Party "movement," so I wouldn't really start talking about how it will affect American politics going forward. As far as I can tell, most of the Tea Party momentum is probably best seen as Republican Party discontent with unified Democratic government. But there are Tea Party events, and Tea Party organizers, and it is no doubt true that some people are becoming involved in politics for the first time, or increasing their level of involvement, through Tea Party activity. If it's true that a lot of the organizers are women, I think it's likely that some of those women will eventually forge serious political careers, and look back to the early Obama years as the spark that got them started. I hope that it's true; I tend to think it's not very healthy for the nation for one party's pols to be overwhelmingly white men while the other party is far more inclusive. So don't expect 2010 to be a good year for women in politics, but perhaps it will be the year that the Republican Party starts catching up to the Democrats and most of the rest of the world by nominating and electing women.

Hanna Rosin investigated the trend last month.

Via Exum:

An interesting account:

"I was the second to be lowered in by rope," said Captain R. "My comrade who had already been dropped in was surrounded by a bunch of people. It started off as a one-on-one fight, but then more and more people started jumping us. I had to fight against quite a few terrorists who were armed with knives and batons."

I note two things. It began with a one-on-one fight. This was not a lynch mob primed to kill. It was a reaction that spread as more soldiers arrived. The second thing I note is that the captain describes the passengers as "terrorists."

The Economist provides a graphic:

 

I understand the need to deploy a blockade to prevent serious weaponry getting in to Hamas. But when you look at the full range of blockaded goods, you realize that this is a de facto act of collective punishment, depriving Gazans of the ability to feed themselves, rebuild their shattered infrastructure, or construct a functioning state. Has it weakened Hamas' grip? Not so far as one can tell.

In fact, if you'd contrived to give Hamas a real, deep advantage, you could do far worse than Netanyahu's incompetence and rigidity. Fred Kaplan explains how lucky Hamas is to have such a clueless enemy here.

And he basically agrees with the Dish. Except he describes the point of the flotilla as "provoking a confrontation." Well, yes, in as much as they clearly wanted to go where they were told they couldn't and force Israel to stop them, it was indeed designed to provoke a response. This is also called civil disobedience, designed for p.r. in a long war of ideas. It is not warfare; and it need not be deflected by tactics much more lethal than Bull Connor's. Couldn't they disable the rudder and guide the ship to port? Or did they once again have to prove who's the man?

Moreover, Chait regards the decision to assault the ship rather than disable it a "technical" matter, rather than a core misjudgment, or a sign of Israel's trigger-happy impunity. He cites Shmuel Rosner:

The commandos didn't know they were going to face an angry mob armed with knives and bats.

You mean the IDF sent commandos to take over a ship packed with opponents of Israel's blockade in international waters and thought everyone would just wave the white flag (which, by some accounts, they did). This was either truly dangerous incompetence or Cheney-esque bravado. Or both. And, yes, the US doesn't have a strong moral position on this after the Bush-Cheney years. Netanyahu is simply being Israel's Cheney. Comforting thought, no?

What I learn from this is that Israel under its current government is quite capable of attacking Iran – against US wishes – and failing to gain anything but a brief breathing space and deeper and deeper isolation.

A reader writes:

Apropos your belief that the "violence [of the 'activists'] was not fatal to anyone" and their weapons were mere "bric a brac" — In fact, the "activists" attacked with knives and lead pipes. These weapons were not, to reply to another of your clever evasions, banal implements of the homestead used improvisationally as defensive weapons, e.g., "pitchforks" from the ol' barn. The "activists" were prepared for a bloody struggle, and surely wanted one — they just hadn't thought through how badly it might go for them. Oh well. They now know Jewish blood, and radical glory, are not cheap after all.

One commando was hurled thirty feet downward from the ship. Several others were stabbed, and one was brained by a pipe. This preceded the use of Israeli firearms. Even you, before your residual Jew hatred took over, were willing to characterize the "activists'" behavior as abhorrent.

The "activists," if in fact they merely wanted to deliver soap and potato chips to the poor Gazans, and not provoke a crisis, could have submitted to a brief inspection and then been on their way. They refused this option offered by the Israelis, because they expected to be lionized by preening anti-semites like yourself. Foolish them. Shameful you.

Their blood is on your hands more than Bibi's. It won't wash off easily.

The activists were not Gandhians. But they were trying to make a legitimate political point about the blockade of Gaza. They did defend their ship from attack in international waters with weapons that may well have been kept on board in case of conflict. None of this can excuse the disproportionate violence unleashed upon them, the death of ten or more, and the inability of the Netanyahu government to operate under any measure of restraint, wisdom, prudence or proportion.