Obama’s silence of convenience on Gaza risks Muslim anger

It was just yesterday that I noted Obama’s silence on the Gaza conflict left questions as to what his admin’s stance would be towards Israel – a longtime US ally – and Hamas, a US designated terror group. His refusal to make a public comment – supporting our current POTUS’s official statements [or not] – save thru mouthpiece David Axelrod on the Sunday morning talking head shows, could indicate to Israel that US support was not so forthcoming in the future.

In the past 24 hours, more are noticing Obama’s silence of convenience… including Paul Thompston in the UK’s Daily Mail today.

Barack Obama has risked alienating Muslims by choosing to sit on the sidelines as Israel continued its air attacks on Gaza over the weekend, Washington analysts warned today.

Many people within the Muslim world were looking to the American president-elect to offer a fresh view on the Middle East and the cycle of violence.

But three days after the Israeli assault began, he has remained silent.

~~~

When asked if the president-elect would be just as supportive of Israel as the Bush administration has been, Mr Axelrod said that Obama ‘recognises the special relationship between the United States and Israel.’

He said the president-elect would work closely with the Israelis ‘in a way that will promote the cause of peace’.

Well now… that’s a bumble of words that says nothing. Certainly there is nothing there to give Israel a sense of assurance that the US support will remain strong.

Instead, senior advisors are touting the “one President at a time” excuse on Obama’s behalf: saying “‘He wants to get a handle on the situation so that, when he becomes president on 20 January, he has the advantage of all the facts and information leading up to that point.’

This strikes me as cherry picking the phrase for political convenience. He has no problems speaking out on his administration’s plans for the economy via tax cuts. Nor does he shy away from announcing his policy change for Cuba, relaxing travel rules to the country.

He has not held back in lecturing the auto industry to “not squander this chance to reform bad management practices” on the heels of the Bush admin $17.4 bill short term loan in exchange for restructuring…. a stop gap measure to bridge into the new administration.

Evidently Iran doesn’t fall into that “one President at a time” off limits arena either, when he announced the creation of a new position to coordinate outreach to, and relations with Iran… a policy in direct conflict with the current administration’s.

When Obama was nothing more than a mere candidate for POTUS… and a sitting and occasionally serving Senator… he never had a problem with public statements about everything from Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russian and Georgia, to the subprime crisis.

As a matter of fact, with the exception of the traditionally conservative policy of tax cuts, pretty much everything out of Obama’s mouth as a candidate, a nominee and PEBO, has been in direct conflict with the Bush administration policies.

So why the coy “only one President at a time” dodge now?

As one can read into Axelrod’s carefully worded statements, Obama plans to seek middle ground for peace by backing off the historic and unmitigated support for Israel, and not riling the Muslim leadership by condeming actions like the Hamas bombing. Or, more simply put… pull back a little support for the ally, and ease up on criticizing the enemy.

When the going gets tough, we may well find ourselves under a President who responds as he has done too many times before – a leader who does not make clear, decisive decisions, but instead votes “present”.

Under this, and prior Presidents, we let the world know who our ally was. We chose sides… part of the difficult position a leader must do. Obama is instead effectively backing himself into a diplomatic corner with both sides eyeing him warily.

His attempt to straddle the fence will accomplish nothing. The Muslim leaders who support Hamas, Hezbollah and other entrenched terror groups will demand more positive lip service from the new US President who promised “change”. Our Israeli ally will become less influenced by a US President who refuses to go out on a limb with public support.

Obama had planned to deliver a major speech from an Islamic country within the first 100 days of his administration.

He had previously said that mediating in the conflict from ‘day one’ of his administration was his main target. But with the death toll now rising above 300, and a ground invasion by Israeli troops increasingly likely, that aim appears all but lost.

Aaron David Miller, a veteran US peace negotiator, said the fighting made ‘a difficult situation even tougher’ and reduced the likelihood that Obama could create an impact. He said the violence would speak louder to many Muslims about the United states ‘than any words Obama could utter’.

Mr Miller added that the US government’s condemnation of Hamas for provoking the air raids would also do little to signal to the Arab world that Obama offers an alternative to the hard line adopted by the Bush administration.

Wonder which Islamic country he was planning on picking?

Dang that Hamas… ruining a good PR moment for “that one” to speak from a Muslim nation. All staged as a lifting visual moment to encourage peace between states and ideology that, thru time, have never had a peaceful co-existance. Nor is it likely they will in the future. Not unless you can eradicate any and every global jihad movement hiding out in caves and universities.

If Aaron Miller thinks that the current violence “speaks louder” than Obama’s utterings, how far across the world does he believe Obama’s silence will echo?