BEHIND THE SNAFU AT SEA? BRUCE KESLER
Click here: Behind The SNAFU At Sea? – Maggie’s Farm http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/14671-Behind-The-SNAFU-At-Sea.html
Wednesday, June 9. 2010
Behind The SNAFU At Sea?
There is every reason to believe that the Obama administration pressured the Netanyahu government and that it complied to go lightly, too lightly as it turned out, in boarding the blockade running Marvi Marmara. It is consistent with the known attitudes and behavior of the Obama administration vis a vis Israel and toward being firm in foreign policy.
So far, the only hard evidence is the admission by the US State Department’s spokesman that “through multiple channels many times†the Obama administration before the boarding urged Israel to “restrain†itself. (See this earlier post.)
Yesterday, an article in the World Tribune provides corroboration and further details. HOWEVER, the article relies on “diplomatic sources†without further identification or other indicators of reliability. So, it must be taken with journalistic caution.
The article, “White House rejected Israeli intel, blocked use of anti-riot gear against flotilla†possibly adds details, as follows:
Diplomatic sources said the White House rejected Israeli intelligence assessments that the six-ship flotilla contained weapons and Islamist fighters trained to resist any boarding operation. The sources, privy to Israeli-U.S. government communications, said Obama and his leading aides pressed Israel against any act that would be deemed excessive force.
“The White House demanded that Israel exercise extreme caution and restraint in any scenario,” a diplomatic source said.
The Obama administration demands were relayed through Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, the sources said. They said Barak, who has sought advanced weapons from Washington, persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree that the Israel Navy would not use anti-riot equipment, including tear gas, to stop the flotilla….
The sources said Barak and Netanyahu decided on the details of the interception without consulting a seven-member security Cabinet committee. Later, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, a former chief of staff, asserted that the naval operation had endangered the commandos.
“The prime minister decided to settle everything with the defense minister,” Ya’alon was quoted as saying. “Netanyahu shouldn’t have left such fateful decisions to an irresponsible defense minister drunk with power.”
The implications of exactly whether, what, who, when, how will reveal to a wide international, US and Israeli audience the extent, or not, of the Obama administration’s culpability in the snafu at sea and of the why and extent of Israeli compliance.
The importance goes well beyond this particular snafu to shed vital illumination upon how (again if as to specifics in this case) US foreign policy is on course to “restrain†or – purposefully or coincident with a fantasy world view – harm allies. It also sheds light how a small country can be pressured by the US to endanger its own national interests and comply.
Israeli politics can be a labyrinth of multiple competing parties and politicians, the paths winding and morphing, making it extremely difficult to navigate without reliable knowledge, even dangerous without knowing who the Minotaur is at a particular time and where.
Israel’s current government is a national coalition of Likud and Labor. Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, a former Foreign Minister, is outside the government. She may join the coalition.
Or, the coalition could fall apart if and as any particular leading member of the coalition is reliably tied to poor decisions in the snafu at sea.
In the US, President Obama is already on the rocks for many reasons, not least his lack of constructive leadership at home and abroad.
Full, or at least adequate, revelation of the exact role of specific individuals in the Obama administration  – and at whose direction – could be the conclusive straw affecting the 2010 and 2012 elections, and US standing in the world among allies and waverers. Further, foes may be encouraged to be bolder, possibly leading to graver consequences and armed conflicts.
Both in Jerusalem and in Washington, there may be a common interest in keeping the lid on the details.
Neither in Jerusalem nor Washington can those who want a more secure peace be acquiescent in keeping the lid on. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a matter of politics but of national security, for the US, for Israel, and for other affected countries.
Posted by Bruce Kesler at 13:12 |
Bruce N. Kesler ChFC REBC RHU CLU
BNKSD1@aol.com
760-942-1759
Comments are closed.
