Obama Gaza Drama
It may seem unfair to expect a man without a practical base of power — Obama is currently “between jobs” so to speak — to buck propriety and wrest the reigns of foreign policy from the current White House occupant. There are certainly Constitutional constraints that should be honored, so I don’t suggest premature usurpation. But would it be too much to ask for him to stake out a rhetorical path toward resolving the crisis?
The Wall Street Journal is not alone among mainstream publications reporting how the current power vacuum, or “transition” has hampered the U.S.’s ability to address the Israeli siege and the Hamas provocations.
Some foreign diplomats in Europe and the Middle East said they have been frustrated by how strictly the Obama transition team has adhered to its mantra of there being “one U.S. president at a time,” when it comes to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Mr. Obama and his senior aides have declined briefings from the Israeli government on the current crisis, said two people familiar with the Israeli outreach. Some foreign diplomats said Mr. Obama’s apparent reluctance to speak out on the Middle East is feeding uncertainty over how the international community should move forward on Gaza in the months ahead.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama’s transition team said the president-elect has ruled out virtually all contact with foreign governments ahead of the inauguration so as not to give conflicting signals on U.S. policy.
Israel is looking for support, or “diplomatic cover” from the U.S. The Arab states are looking to see if Obama will reign in the aggressor client state and get the ball rolling on the “two state solution” that, to be honest, I really doubt Saudi Arabia and Syria support beyond rhetoric.
For me the real urgency is saving lives of innocent civilians caught between Israeli forces and Hamas militants. Palestinians have suffered the overwhelming share of the casualties, but Israeli citizens deserve peace and security, too. Two more weeks until the inauguration is, in war terms, much too long.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
i don’t know if “staking out a rhetorical path toward resolving the crisis” now would actually help him when he actually has to face it. A statement now might be irrelevant when he’s inaugurated, i can’t imagine how it would change the drive of bombers from bombing bombers (and civilians), and plus, it might make enemies.
But, I don’t view him as president in any capacity currently, and hold my verdict to see what he actually does.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Kevin, it’s exactly this kind of bleeding-heart equivocating that gives liberalism a bad name. Israel is fully justified in destroying both in form and spirit the despicable sham government of Hamas. If a ship was 3 miles off the coast of NYC and firing rockets into Saks Fifth Avenue, what would you consider a proportional response?
We don’t have to think how our nation would respond. We’d sink the ship with all hands dying tortuously. We’d then go to its point of origin and destroy it, and everything in sight.
Israel is beset on all sides by enemies who will stop at nothing to destroy them. It’s a tragedy that women and children and innocent civilians are adversely affected in this conflict. But they should turn their vitriol (as should the media) towards the thugs of Hamas who put them in this situation in the first place.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
But Hamas isn’t on a ship, they are in a densely populated area that, along with the West Bank, has suffered disproportionate casualties due to Israeli aggression in the past. As I say, Israeli civilians deserve to go about their lives without violence, too, and Hamas is by no means off the hook. Indiscriminate bombing from either side is not the answer, though.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
And I should also add that the Palestinians initially turned to Hamas because Fatah had proven so unbelievably inept. That Hamas has turned out to be even worse is something we could have guessed – but how responsible do you hold the American people for the rogue actions of the Bush administration? If Iraq had had the capability to retaliate against targets on American soil, incurring inevitable civilian casualties, would that too have been acceptable?
January 6th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
What if the ship is an aircraft carrier with 3000 souls? Not to carry the analogy too far, but there are no such thing as acceptable losses. All losses are tragic.
What is Israel to do, when Hamas deliberately fires their rockets from schools, from hospitals? From the densely populated slums where hopeless, jobless families go hungry? Should Israel accept this, and simply allow the rocket attacks to continue?
Hamas has shown greater contempt and disregard for its own population than the Israeli army ever could. Might does not make right, but it’s damn effective when the goal is to win.