I don't get the connection between your two paragraphs: The U.S. debated the Iraq war even though it was consistent with what it's done in the past, but what Israel did is completely new. Are you suggesting that the U.S. might break with Israel because of this? or saying that the U.S. and Israel are one but engaging in a new policy? I fail to understand the connection.
>One informed observer seems to think
> so:
>
> "What happened with the Gaza flotilla was not an accident. You have to
> remember that the Israeli cabinet met for fully a week. All the cabinet
> ministers discussed and deliberated how they would handle the flotilla.
Not really. According to this article <http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-ministers-fume-after-gaza-flotilla-operation-goes-ahead-without-their-approval-1.293414>, which is consistent with other stuff I've read, most of the cabinet, including the bodies that traditionally have ratified military actions, was excluded from the deliberations altogether. The plan was hatched by Netanyahu, Barak, and five other people, and ex post facto most of the rest of the cabinet seems to have disagreed with it, probably mostly for bad and/or CYA reasons, but disagreed nonetheless.
Considering the action was decided on with such secrecy by such a small group of people, it seems a stretch to call Israel a lunatic state because of it. Besides, it was a brilliant, not crazy, strategy. Now when the next flotillas come, Israel's actions, which will mostly fall short of massacre but will most certainly include imprisonment, trials, and deportations, will look sane, measured, and (that word) proportionate. There's nothing lunatical about any of that.