.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Where is Barack Obama? I know he’s in Hawaii soaking up those rays of glorious sunshine. But that’s not what I mean? Where IS he? Gaza is in flames. Bush is doing worse than nothing. He’s actually making the situation worse with his nonsense about calling Hamas thugs and claiming the Palestinian movement caused the Israeli violence and can end it.
Obama’s response is becoming less and less satisfactory as the killing mounts:
“The fact is that there is only one president at a time,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, reiterating a phrase that has become a mantra of the transition. “And that president now is George Bush.”
Mr. Obama, vacationing in Hawaii, talked to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday. “But the Bush administration has to speak for America now,” Mr. Axelrod said. “And it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to opine on these matters.” As the fighting in Gaza shows, however, events in the world do not necessarily wait for Inauguration Day in the United States.
I’m finding lots of narischkeit to write about these days in covering this story. This is yet another example. I can understand that the Gaza massacre is not nearly as important to the American people as the Wall Street collapse. But when the economy imploded you didn’t hear Obama’s people deferring to Bush. He consulted with Bush. They worked out a common strategy. They each tried to look energetic, diligent and thoughtful.
What about now? If the Middle East explodes in flames will Axelrod be content to mouth yet more platitudes about only having one president at a time? Obama’s people aren’t stupid. They know that George Bush is doing absolutely nothing useful about virtually anything these days. They know there is a policy vacuum as far as Gaza is concerned. They’re just taking a wild gamble that Gaza won’t go up in flames before January 20th. That’s a gamble I wouldn’t lay odds on.
In today’s Times, its reporters summarize the conundrum facing Obama:
Mr. Obama might have little to gain from setting out an ambitious agenda for an issue as intractable as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But the conflict in Gaza, like the building tensions between India and Pakistan, suggests that he may have no choice. “You can ignore it, you can put it on the back burner, but it will always come up to bite you,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian peace negotiator.
For Mr. Obama, the conundrum is particularly intense since he won election in part on promises of restoring America’s image around the world. He will assume office with high expectations, particularly among Muslims around the world, that he will make an effort at dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Daniel Levy makes a good case for action in his blog:
Arabs and Jews are killing each other – so what’s new? And why on earth would America want to be involved?
Here’s the bad news folks – America is involved, up to its eyeballs actually. Today, after Israeli air-strikes that killed over 200 Palestinians in Gaza, the Middle East is again seething with rage. Recruiters to the most radical of causes are again cashing in. If Osama Bin Laden is indeed a cave-dweller these days then U.S. intel should be listening out for a booming echo of laughter. Demonstrations across the Arab world and contributors to the ever-proliferating Arabic language news media and blogosphere hold the U.S., and not just Israel, responsible for what happened today (and that is a position taken, for good reasons, by sensible folk, not hard-liners). America’s allies in the region are again running for cover. America’s standing, its interests and security are all deeply affected.
…There is a bigger picture – and it is staring at the incoming Obama administration. Today’s events should be ‘exhibit A’ in why the next U.S. Government cannot leave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester or try to ‘manage’ it – as long as it remains unresolved, it has a nasty habit of forcing itself onto the agenda. That can happen on terms dictated to the U.S. by the region (bad) or the U.S. can seek to set its own terms (far preferable). The new administration needs to embark upon a course of forceful regional diplomacy that breaks fundamentally from past efforts.
So far, the Obama response has been: “Don’t just do something, stand there.” This won’t do for much longer.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
The quote from Obama reads:
“If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” he told reporters in Sderot, a small city on the edge of Gaza that has been hit repeatedly by rocket fire. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”
then the Myers/Cooper report in the NYT goes on to say…..
“Now, Mr. Obama’s presidency will begin facing the consequences of just such a counterattack, one of Israel’s deadliest against Palestinians in decades, presenting him with yet another foreign crisis to deal with the moment he steps into the White House on Jan. 20, even as he and his advisers have struggled mightily to focus on the country’s economic problems.”
Others here have said that Obama thus gave the “green light” for this attack.
Talk about wisdom and nonsense….. Obama said what he said: “I am going to do everything in my power to stop that”. So how does this somehow mean a green light for this attack? We know that Obama is FOR talking to your enemies right? Does “everything in my power to stop this” mean getting out the guns and bombs? If Obama means this then we once again elected the wrong person. I prefer to think that he was deliberately neutral and the sentiment was one of solidarity with those who were terrorized by the rockets AND it was during the campaign. We have yet to see what Obama’s idea is of how to stop this. And he is totally correct in not even saying something like ” this will not bring peace or security to Israel”. He is not in office yet and should not interfere with foreign policy in the last days of Bush.
As far as Barack making use of this quote- of course it is despicable, and if I were Obama I would say something regarding using that quote. I think that would be fair and not crossing the line.
Obama is turning out to be a routine US politician; why are you surprised?
Bush et al. are hoping for the Rapture.
Zhu Bajie
Tzvee: “the israelis do whatever they can to avoid indiscriminate bombing.”
Reality: “A couple of months ago, journalist Amos Harel quoted an article of a leading military figure regarding Israel’s next war policy, be it in Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza: “Using power without any proportion to the enemy’s threat and actions, in order to damage and punish to an extent that would require long and expensive rehabilitation processes.” Another Israeli general explained that villages from which shots are fired will be devastated; “we consider them as military bases” (Ha’aretz, Oct. 5; the names of the two generals – for The Hague’s ICC – are Gaby Siboni and Gadi Eisenkot). Once the war started, Maj.-Gen. (Reserve) Giora Island – former head of the National Security Council – spelled it all out on television, without a shade of shame: Israel should not confine its attacks to military facilities, he said, but must hit civilian targets as well. The damage to the civil population should be maximized, because the worse the humanitarian crisis is, the better and the sooner the operation would end. It’s the same major-general, by the way, who just a year ago caused outrage by urging the Israeli government to negotiate directly with Hamas. Do not to look for consistency, integrity, or intelligence where war criminals are involved.”
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=13970
Compared with nearly 400 dead and around 1700 injured in only 4 days, the latter is being executed. If the IAF really trys to “avoid indiscriminate bombing” it copes with this job pretty poorly.
Walter, accepting a Palestinian state is not the same as recognizing a Jewish one.
There’s really nothing worse than a self-hating Jew( and that’s the mentality of some the posters to this blog, based on their comments)
Those that would attempt to deny Israel the right to defend itself are not living in reality. If you want to be a martyr do so with your own life and the lives of your own loved ones, but don’t ask Israel to cower in order to appease those that won’t be satisfied until all Jews are driven into the Dead Sea.
@len: Who’s claiming Israel has no right to defend itself. This is a chimera you’ve invented. Israel has a right to defend itself. But the pt is that Israel would not HAVE TO defend itself if it lifted the Gaza siege & allowed the enclave to be free of the suffocating blockade.
I’m disappointed at the quality of the hasbaraniks. If anything, their comments are of even lower quality than when there’s no war happening. Perhaps that’s a sign of the inferior quality of the new recruits who come to the fold only during military crises like this one. Really, folks can’t you do better than that old saw “they won’t be happy till all Jews are pushed into the Dead Sea.” That goes back to 1967 you realize, don’t you? What about something a little fresher & original fr. the hasbara crowd?
Amir wrote: “Walter, accepting a Palestinian state is not the same as recognizing a Jewish one.”
Amir, You’re just talking and not reading. Read this article. If the link doesn’t work here, copy and paste it into your web browser http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F02%2F24%2FAR2006022402317_pf.html&ei=sR9fSaKmO5KasAPB-t2ZDQ&usg=AFQjCNGV4IFEZjORZtHNMigArBSzVNPd6w&sig2=DgPlr9gEn1bBeTonA6qf6w Haniyeh will agree to a Jewish and Palestinian state. I will say that as has been said before here, if Israel with U.S. support insists on continuing the occupation and oppression and is not willing to settle this dispute, then it won’t be long when the Palestinians will insist on a one-state solution as opposed to a two-state one. Israel cannot exist much longer being an occupier, as there will be more Palestinians than Israelis.
len wrote: “There’s really nothing worse than a self-hating Jew( and that’s the mentality of some the posters to this blog, based on their comments)”
len, you have a ghetto mentality. I agree with what Richard said, and I also want to add that the words that you use “self-hating Jews” as well as those Jews who refer to people who disagree with our government’s UNCONDITIONAL support for Israel with its occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, as “anti-semitic.” This is a ghetto mentality, and these phrases are meant to SILENCE people, and no we will not be silent! As Jews have been oppressed over the centuries, it is wrong when Jews act as oppressors and we must stand up against oppression everywhere.
Walter, I read that article and it says that Israel should withdraw to the 67 border and then Hamas will think about it. Even in the article you linked to Haniyeh was retracting his statements “Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza Sunday that he “did not tackle the issue of recognizing [Israel] in my interview with the Washington Post.” Rather, he restated the Hamas position that was outlined by the group’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and which other senior members of the organization have repeated in the weeks since the group’s surprise victory on Jan. 25: If Israel withdraws from land it captured in the 1967 war to make way for a Palestinian state and allows Palestinian refugees to return, Hamas would consider a long-term truce, or hudna.”
barry obama’s silence should clue you in on where his administration will stand.
the Palestinians elected Hamas(a terrorist organization). Hamas has proven time and again their goal is the death of the Jewish state.
If the Palestinians want to live in peace in the future they would do themselves a favor to elect leaders whom have peaceful intentions at heart.
Why is that Israel turned a desert into a lush, viable land for its people while much of the middle east is totalitarian and hate filled? why is it that Arab states will not allow Palestinians to emigrate?
it’s a peculiar thing that the world is Not outraged when Hamas continually breaks the cease fire, yet the world is outraged when Israel finally begins to defend itself with some intensity.
Who was it that said “There will be peace in Israel when the Palestinians LOVE their children MORE than they HATE the Jews” (?) I a can’t remember who said that, but obviously it hasn’t happened yet.
@amir: No, Hamas hasn’t said it would “think about” peace with Israel. Whatever reporter wrote the text you quote above got it wrong. Numberous sources have reported Hamas statements verbatim that it flat out would institute a long term (decades long) ceasefire in return for withdrawal.
And this is what it’s said publicly without any negotiations. Parties always concede issues when there are serious negotiations. I believe Hamas would further soften its position if Israel were willing to engage in serious negotiations with Hamas, which it has so far refused to do.
@len:
THanks for showing your racist neocon colors by using the same tired stupid insults Republicans attempted to use (& failed) during the election campaign. If you think my comment threads are a place to rehash this crap you’re mistaken. Call our future president by his proper name or go peddle your trash somewhere else.
Taken right out of the hasbara handbook. Hamas leaders have consistenly offered Israel a long term end of hostilities in return for 1967 borders. Doesn’t sound like “death of the Jewish state” to me. Where have you been reading these things? Frontpagemagazine, Maariv & Jpost?
Your comment contains unfounded out & out racism. This is unacceptable in this blog (read the comment rules). If you want to use overbroad generalizations & stereotypes you should find somewhere else to do so. Your next comment violation will result in losing yr privileges.
Why is it that Israel will not allow Gazans to emigrate? And besides, the solution is not for Palestinians to emigrate unless you favor transfer (do you?). THe solution is for there to be peace & 2 states living in peace.
Question Richard: Why , in your opinion, doesn’t the Hamas just say they are interested in a two state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side? Why do they say that they will only grant israel a Hudna in return for Israel withdrawing to ‘67 border?
richard,
me racist? no dear, i’m black myself and a woman and proud of it, thank you. nothing i stated was racist, but liberals are infamous for throwing the rrrrrrracist card around when they hear or see something that’s not pc enough for them to digest. sorry, i don’t share your diversified sensibilities(nor do i want to) and i will call barry whatever i chose.
best to you.
and by the way i’ll resign my ‘privileges’ and save you the trouble.
@len:
You’re about as much a black and a woman as my grandpa was the pope himself. When you state such patently false things it makes you look like an utter fraud & charlatan, which indeed you must be.
Thanks for resigning yr privileges as well. This site is clearly not racist enough for you but I can recommend many where you’d be more comfortable.
@amir: Let me throw it back at you: why doesn’t Israel state clearly that it is willing to negotiate with Hamas or that it is willing to accept Hamas as a legitimate political party for the Palestinians as long as it renounces terror, etc.???
You can’t place the onus all on Hamas. There are 2 equally stubborn parties here.
For Hamas, the only really valuable card it has is recognition. Why play the card even before there are serious negotiations? When a negotiating party has only a single card to play they save it for the dramatic moment in the negotiation & then they play the card as long as they feel they will gain something by playing it. In other words, I’m relatively sure if Israel were to negotiate in good faith with Hamas on comprehensive issues that Hamas would either be willing to recognize Israel or accept enough security guarantees that Israel could feel it would be safe even w/o such recognition. But Israel will never know this because it refuses to enter into such negotiations.
Do you even know where the middle east is, because you obviously dont know anything that were doing there or the recent history of that area. The only thing i think you understand about the middle east is that “bad stuff happens there”, i would go further but by the list of comments it looks like its all been said before.
A very slick comment fella. Fully of substantive ideas that are terribly hard to refute. Regarding whether “it’s all been said before”…I wouldn’t know since you didn’t “say” anything except snark.
Israel has already accepted a two-state solution at the Annapolis conference. By accepting a two-state solution Hamas is not giving up any cards. If you go into negotiatins, you should know what the goal of negotiatins are. Hamas has said if Israel withdraws to ‘67 borders they will offer a long term Hudna, this is nothing but a mockery. “land for hudna” is a non-starter.
That’s saying nothing. If you go into negotiations you know where you’d like to end up, but you don’t know how you’ll get there & you don’t have certainty you’ll get there; & both parties know that neither will end up precisely where IT would like to be. That’s why neither side reveals fully what it’s willing to give up BEFORE neogiations begin. That in effect concedes to the other party what you’re holding in reserve in order to seal a deal.
Haven’t you ever bargained in a shouk?? Do you tell the seller what the absolute highest price you’ll pay is BEFORE you begin haggling?
When you haggle at the market you know what the goal is: to buy a shirt, for example, and you haggle over the price. The seller doesn’t start off by saying: pay the full price for the shirt and I’ll lend it to you “for a really long time.”
At the very least Hamas should honor, at least in principle, agreement reached by Fatah before them.