Here’s a statement from our State Department’s statement concerning Mohamed Morsi’s power grab (coup?) in Egypt:

The decisions and declarations announced on November 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community.  One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution.  The current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt’s international commitments.  We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.

This wishy-washy set of remarks is another example a foreign policy of leading from behind—which is to say following, and being influenced by the events ahead.

The answer to the question, then, seems to be…yes.  We just haven’t seen it yet.

Here are some thoughts on the cease fire just…negotiated…between Israel and Hamas.  These thoughts come against the backdrop of two concerns.  For one, how is it possible to negotiate with terrorists?  Their behavior makes them fundamentally untrustworthy.  This is illustrated by Hamas’ own behavior in the past: every cease fire to which they’ve pretended to agree has been broken by their own terrorism, most often by a simple renewal of rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and their children.  For another, I listened to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech announcing to his country the current cease fire.  His diction and tone of voice were that of a defeated man.  He knows Israel lost this latest overt war.

Now let’s read between the lines of Jennifer Griffin’s article for Fox News.

…Hamas spokesmen had leaked to the press that the cease-fire would begin at 9 pm local time on Tuesday, but that was before [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton had landed in Jerusalem.  It would take another 24 hours for the deal to be finalized.

Not even Hamas’ MFWIC, Ismail Haniyah, would have been foolish enough to make such a claim in the absence of an agreement.  Doing so, far from pressuring Israel, would have been seen for the blatant desperation that an empty claim would have been.  There was a cease fire agreement in place; its announcement and implementation were delayed for 24 hours—and for one more Hamas act of terrorism, a bus bombing in Tel Aviv—so that our own Secretary of State could arrive in country [emphasis added]:

In the official statement released by the White House Wednesday

The President commended the Prime Minister [of Israel] for agreeing to the Egyptian cease-fire proposal—which the President recommended the Prime Minister do.

Moreover, the Israelis were prevented from responding to the bus bombing, even to the extent of delaying for another day or two implementation of the cease fire.  Instead, the US pushed Israel into agreeing just hours after that atrocity.  This was a cessation of fighting for which Israel was not ready and which Israel was pressured to accept, hence Netanyahu’s air of defeat.

What came out of this foisted cease fire?

There was no talk of disarming Hamas or preventing the re-arming of Hamas….

And

The deal elevates Iranian proxy groups such as Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committees who can serve as spoilers and decide to fire more rockets into Israel.

And

…this truce really elevates Hamas as a power player as opposed to an underground terror movement.

On a practical level, Hamas is left with some 8,000 rockets and associated launch facilities intact, its Command and Control facilities and personnel damaged but functional, and its cottage industry of in-Gaza rocket and launcher manufactury still functional.  The Israeli goal of crippling Hamas’ war fighting capacity was cut off midgame.

On the other hand,

“The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike,” Clinton said in Cairo.  “We appreciate President Morsi’s personal leadership and Egypt’s efforts thus far.

Egypt’s president, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, now will be held accountable if Hamas or anyone else fires rockets from Gaza into Israel.  On the line is $1.5 billion dollars in U.S. aid to Egypt.

But what is the value of such an accountability and of this particular example of moral equivalence?  Islamic governments have a long and venerable history of putting their own interests above those of their people: we’ll cut off Egypt’s aid?  Pssh.  On the other hand, this “accountability” of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi Isa El-Ayyat can work to his favor.  With the Muslim Brotherhood universally and lethally anti-Israel (if there’s one thing these guys agree with Persian mullahs about, it’s that Israel must be destroyed), the rearming and refitting of Hamas through the Sinai and the Egyptian border with Gaza will simply make Morsi look good in the shower where it counts, the anti-Israel community.

On top of this, as Spiegel Online International reports, the Israelis were forced to elevate Morsi themselves in the eyes of anti-Israeli terrorists for helping the Israelis with Hamas:

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman saw it necessary to thank Morsi for his role in bringing about a truce.

And the US now accepts Israel and terrorists on the same plane.

So again, what has come out of this cease fire?  Increased danger to Israel, with an increasingly uncertain ally standing near it.