Bloodless Coup

by bringing the democracy-related issues into this i feel as though you miss the point, somewhat sui generis in this context. it doesn't matter whether the palestinians have made a democratic choice, an undemocratic choice, or simply had leadership foisted upon them by those with superior power (which, of course, we call democracy, and successful democracy at that, if we're the ones doing the foisting) -- we simply will not seriously (and i mean seriously -- our occasional casual tut-tutting doesn't count) criticize israel, no matter how disproportionate their conduct, no matter how dangerous to civilians, to children, no matter how ill-advised or short-sighted.

i happen to think israel tends to behave much better than the palestinians on balance, more in line with norms of international law, and i'm often on the side of israel; i certainly agree with its right to exist. but in something as complicated as international policy, it seems to me that one surefire way to guarantee that you'll screw up is by determining at the outset that this or that ally or partner is above reproach. and that's where we are with israel these days and for some time now. to ever ever ever not take their part would be to take the part of the terrorists who are our adversaries (a question-begging characterization, but that doesn't stop anyone), end of story. and thus once again we see the utter ineffectuality of our heedlessly manichean worldview.

I agree with most of what you've written. I'm just noting that this is yet another area in which el presidente likes to huff and puff and seem all honorable, dignified and noble - and yet, as is so often the case, his actions don't match his words - even when they are words that he's used repeatedly to define the very (supposed) essence of his foreign policy.

And while I also tend to view Israel rather favorably, and as a substantive matter can see some merit in what it's doing here, the degree to which this White House gives Israel a free hand is striking, and probably not good for US interests. Ah, yet another area in which one yearns for the return of the first President Bush.

honestly, i have no idea what they're doing here. that's not to opine, and it's not meant derisively, but i'm not sure why this instance, this time, given substantial progress in the past year or three, has provoked behavior that everyone must know is going to set back whatever passes for negotiation five or ten years, regardless of who supposedly prevails in the immediate standoff. i just don't see the point. but as with so much of what goes on in the region, i find it too vexing to educate myself more thoroughly, so it's possible there's some dimension of this i'm missing, something that makes the kidnapping so extraordinary that the extraordinary response is called for. i just don't get it from the limited coverage i've seen. but that's no surprise.