In Honduras, there are T-shirts being sold on the streets that read “The Little Country That Could.” The San Francisco Examiner editorializes that the denouement there represents “the culmination of the administration’s mystifying diplomacy”:
Even if Zelaya returns to power for a meaningless month, Micheletti has won the battle. . . . [Micheletti] deprived Zelaya of power for five critical months and thus blocked his illegal attempt to seek another term, something that is definitively banned by the Honduran Constitution. Micheletti also guaranteed that constitutional elections will be held to replace Zelaya, no matter who is interim president. . . . Still, this happy ending in no way justifies Obama’s bone-headed interference in Honduran internal affairs, which destabilized that nation’s political institutions and caused totally unnecessary violence and deaths.
Obama converted the attempt by the Honduran Supreme Court and Honduran Congress to enforce the Honduran constitution into a “crisis” by declaring — less than 24 hours after it happened — that it was a “military coup.” But military coups rarely leave civilians in control, much less ones chosen by a democratically elected Congress. Even less often do such coups proceed with previously scheduled elections between candidates chosen prior to the “coup.”
The State Department lawyers, to their credit, found they could not conclude that there was a “military coup” in Honduras, and Hillary Clinton was left to announce that it was a “coup” of some undetermined kind. One of the “Senior Administration Officials” who briefed the press asserted that there were all kinds of coups. Asked for an example of a non-military one, he said he thought there had been a “legislative” coup back in Panama in the 1990s.
The Examiner argues that Obama did not understand that the threat to Latin American democracy these days emerges not from the guerrillas or generals but from presidents elected under one-term constitutional limits who then try to make themselves presidents for life. But the problem may rather have been a breakdown in the Obama administration foreign-policy decision-making system, which allowed the president to make an ill-informed judgment in 24 hours and then permitted him to stick with it months after it was apparent that it had been wrong.
It is the same system that allowed him to base his Middle East peace process on reneging on a six-year understanding with Israel and to continue in that vein for months after the entire Israeli public had been alienated. It is the same system that allowed him to continue with his Iran policy months after it became apparent that Iran had been hiding secret nuclear facilities and secretly shipping massive amounts of weaponry while he “engages.” It is the same system that is now approaching 100 days of seminars reviewing the “comprehensive new policy” for Afghanistan he announced on March 27 and no longer likes. It is the same system that treats allies as adversaries, or vice versa, and substitutes videos, buttons, private messages, feel-good speeches, and other emblems of goodwill for serious policy.
There is a very serious problem with the American foreign-policy decision-making process, and it needs to be corrected soon.
Israel will soon find itself alone…
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371056157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Yaalon on Obama.
“we too believe that friends should be candid with each other”
Moe, Larry and Curly stayed together and so will Israel’s governing coalition.
He’s an arrogant s.o.b. It’s part of the national character.
I think the times are far too serious to even consider domestic politics. Netanyahu has to be mindful of the long sweep of history, and in all of that history, other than the early 1940s, Jews have never been in such danger.
And we all know exactly where the main source of that danger originates from.
That being the case, I think Netanyahu had better be mindful of his place in history, and entirely ignore what the Kenyan/Indonesian is doing. Netanyahu needs to take care of business; he needs to stop waiting, stop all other nonsensical delusions about diplomacy or economic sanctions, he needs to drop all of that and take care of business.
And if that means relations with the Kenyan/Indonesian-in-chief blows up, —— then let it blow up.
Let relations with the present American government wholly collapse, let it all fall apart, for at the end of the day the days of a foreign policy that isn’t American are numbered. The Kenyan/Indonesian/Cosmopolitian will be but a bizarre aberration in history.
Israel’s existence is at stake. Everything else, EVERYTHING else must fall by the wayside.
#4: “He’s an arrogant s.o.b. It’s part of the national character.”
I agree with G. O. M. that B. H. O. is an arrogant S. O. B. -
arrogant to the point of megalomania.
His unprecedented diktat to Israel, his shameless scrapping
of previous written commitments, are instances of that.
I do not see, however, how this arrogance can be ascribed to his
(notoriously cosmopolitan) national character!
I also believe that BHO’s arrogance is not matched with
either true courage or stamina – and that in the end he
will always take a firm NO for an answer – a NO from
Congress, a NO from an adversary nation,
and even a NO from an ally like Israel.
The claim that Shamir fell because of his opposition to US policy is obviously false, although, as Rosner says, understanding what really happened requires more profound study than the clown from Foreign Policy has done. Shamir’s natural coalition, the national and religious parties [called the National Camp], actually won more of the popular vote in the 1992 election than the bloc of “socialist” and “leftist” parties. However, there was a minimal threshold percentage of the vote that all parties had to cross in order to get any Knesset seats. The National Camp was divided into more small parties that did not cross the threshold than was the “leftist” camp. So all the votes of those parties [such as Tehiya, Taxidrivers, Rabbi Mizrahi, etc] were lost. Those votes if combined into one party list would have been worth two or three or maybe even four seats. Hence, the “left,” Labor and Meretz, were able to form a government, but even this was only possible with the crossover of Shas to the “left.”
The National Camp won the popular vote in the 1992 election.
“complex stories unfolded … from which one can draw contradict[ory] conclusions.”
Ah, so!
Happy days.
#7 is absolutely correct.
The fairly even split with a slight advantage to Shamir was the same as in previous elections, but the split amoung the parties of the right and the unification of three small left parties were what made the difference.
#6 – écrasez l’infâme Says:
“I also believe that BHO’s arrogance is not matched with
either true courage or stamina – and that in the end he
will always take a firm NO for an answer – a NO from
Congress, a NO from an adversary nation,
and even a NO from an ally like Israel.”
============================
I am a 67 year old American real conservative, not a ‘neo-conservative’, and I -despise- everything that Obama stands for, except his (apparent) policy towards Israel and the Palis. I don’t know how tough BHO is, but he has hard-core thugs as advisors (Rahm, etc). He also spent a lot of time in the south side of Chicago. It doesn’t get much ‘tougher’. I think Israel schemes against and challenges BHO at their peril. I could be wrong, but I, personally, wouldn’t want to push BHO too far. He may be looking for a chance to prove his toughness. Just a feeling I have, so take it for what its worth.
Have a good one.
Ed
Yes, it is Israel where Barak Hussein will make his bones as a ‘tough guy’.
Ed, if the ballerina pulled that steak knife act on me, there isn’t a jury in this country that wouldn’t acquit me for blowing his brains out. But O, as his accomplice, would be guilty of felony murder.
Just a thought.
#10, Ed:
Recall the Freeman appointment. In matters like this,
Obama can’t gain any political poits in the USA – and his henchmen
like Emmanuel are likely to understand it.
As for Israel, it is not “scheming against” Obama per se,
but only against his rash and impractical plans for radically
changing the status quo in the area and in US-Israel
relations – changing it against Israel’s basic security.
Such scheming is necessary – and it need not be provocative.
What Israel needs to do is not to confront, but to deflect,
delay, derail – which is relatively easy.
typo: “any political points”
Seems to me B. Obama is engaged in the kind of meddling in Israel he promised he would not do to any country in the world.
Why he is expending so much diplomatic capiatal on this is beyond me
-he ought to let the 2 sides hash it out for themselves, and take America’s focus off this.
It is bizare and disturbing to see Obama bow to the King of Saudi Arabia,
apologize to Muslims and Arabs that the U.S.A. has never actually attacked
(when were we ever at war with Egypt? Indonesia?
we have made the Saudi’s rich-why apologize?),
I have no idea why he is supplicating the USA and the Office of President to the Third World.
Israel should understand that accepting $3 Billion/year of welfare money (i.e., foreign aid)
gives American Presidents the idea they can dictate Israeli policy.
If Israel wants to call her own shots, decline the $3 billion, and do what you think is best for yourselves.
In fact, that’s what I would do.
I would not want to feel so indebted to someone, so dependent,
that they can cajole me into doing things I don’t want to do.
Netanyahu has learned from experience that he can’t ignore the right and hope that diplomatic concessions to the Arabs will somehow be swallowed by the Knesset and the public. I’m sure Netanyahu has told Obama that he can’t make concessions without the will of the people. Obama knows that without being told.
Obama is tougher than anyone has given him credit for – both parents were adventure-seekers and rule-breakers. He’s clever enough to mislead those who depend on deception. Keep your eye on the ball.
The negotiations Obama is asking for are about Saudi Arabia; the Saudis know the Palestinian Authority is too weak to be a negotiating partner. The Saudis lose as Iran’s influence in Lebanon and Gaza grows. The Palestinians may have been a pawn for the status quo on the Arabian Peninsula from 1947 -2007. But now the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict turns back against the Monarchy. The Monarchy withstood the fundamentalism that led to the battle beneath Mecca. But the compromise the royal family made has been falling apart as their support for Islamic fundamentalism runs into cross-currents of global warming and an appetite for democracy. Oil is becoming distasteful and the Monarchy cannot stand against the population growth all around it.
If Israel stands its ground about the realities of 2009 – no more population translocations like the Gaza evacuation or an impractical Palestinian return – it helps Obama with the Saudis.
For the Saudis the fallback issue is not final borders, not the right of return, not contiguity of the West Bank and Gaza, not arms control in the Palestinian territory. The fallback issue is Jerusalem. Olmert/Lipni’s concession of East Jerusalem as a West Bank capital in trade for the major settlements, the forego of return, and a treaty on Palestinian demilitarization is the deal.
The lack of a unified Palestinian government is no impediment to dealmaking with the Saudis. Their need is symbolic and an Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem will buy them another decade of misdirection against the Muslim tide.
The United States cannot impose a deal on Israel. But the Saudis can impose a deal on the West Bank and bring the Arab and non-Arab Muslim states along, leaving Gaza to stew. Abbas’ government cannot stand contiguity with Gaza and Hamas rule. The same is true for unlimited right of return from Lebanon and Jordan where Hezbollah and Al Queda have range.
Dividing Jerusalem would be a bitter pill for Israel and the Jewish people. But if it were the only concession made then the deal would be done again under Netanyahu and taken to plebiscite.