Obama “talks” about “not talking” on Gaza…

Boy, I really hate delving back into this “talking” about Obama’s “not talking” business… After all, I am on record that frankly, I’m enjoying any silence from Obama I can get after a few years of Obama overload from the press.

But now, we have a few tidbits. No opinion, mind you. Just tidbits about his notable “silence” on Gaza… a direct 180 degrees from his open statements about Mumbai.

Truthfully, what llittle expounding Obama *has* done on his Gaza silence – being “deeply concerned – gives us little to go on as to what the new admin has in mind as a 21st century foreign policy. And I am also on record that, IMHO, his silence does not necessarily bode well.

Evidently, Tim Harper, the Washington Bureau Chief at The Star, might be feeling the same way I do… that Obama’s foreign policy for Israel just may not follow the traditional support of previous admins.

Why can a president-elect deal with a domestic crisis but not a foreign crisis?

According to Obama, it would not be “safe” for Americans if the world believed there were two different administrations conducting foreign policy.

“Until I take office, it would be imprudent of me to start sending out signals that somehow we are running foreign policy when I am not legally authorized to do,” he told a press conference yesterday.

Experts on transitional politics here say he is right.

“He’s not the commander-in-chief,” said David O. Jones of the Washington-based Brookings Institution. “That is different from being a president with a domestic agenda.”

Let me repeat that. Obama says it’s “safe” if the world doesn’t believe there are two different administrations conducting foreign policy.

Does that still hold true if the foreign policy between the outgoing administration remains essentially the same as the incoming administration?

In short… no.

As I’ve said many times, for Obama to repeat his campaign talking points about Israel would hardly give the impression he is “running foreign policy”. Afterall, his comments to AIPAC and statements about Israel’s right to defend herself are already public, and consistent with current US foreign policy.

And, as I’ve pointed out, the only logical reason I can see for Obama’s silence is he does *not* intend to continue the same level of support as the current policy.

If Obama plans to back down on support for the US’s largest ally in the Middle East, he is wise to stay silent. But that does not let my heart take flight with “hope” for future conflicts. Nor will this enhance his ability to act as a mediator. Obama’s attempts to “straddle the fence” as a neutral “Switzerland” between factions like Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran and Israel will result in less influence over Israeli leadership.

In keeping with the theme that Obama may just be embarking on such a diminished support for Israel, Harper again quotes Jones from Brookings Institution, citing the dangers of a POTUS speaking out during a transition period about the upcoming changes, and the events that transpired before Inauguration.

Jones recalls Bill Clinton making a comment about accepting Haitian refugees before taking office in January 1993, and having to quickly dial back his statement because Haitians were taking to their boats, believing they had a green light to head to this country.

“There is a huge anticipation outside the country on foreign issues,” Jones said.

“But there is a danger in speaking before the entire context is understood or the context is being misinterpreted.”

~~~

“Obviously, I am deeply concerned about the status of what’s been taking place in Gaza,” he [Obama] said.

“I am doing everything we have to do to make sure that the day I take office, we are prepared to engage immediately in trying to deal with the situation there, and not only the short-term situation but building a process whereby we can achieve a more lasting peace in the region.”

He rejected a question that Palestinians should interpret anything from his silence.

“The silence is not as a consequence of a lack of concern,” he said.

“In fact, it’s not silence. I’ve explained very clearly exactly what institutional constraints I’m under when it comes to this issue.”

I’m not sure how you would interpret this, but I do not consider reiterating support for the current policy of Israeli support … as per his campaign rhetoric… as a “constraint”. And interesting that when Obama was worred his silence meant lack of “concern”, he specifically addressed Hamas (aka Palestinians, as said here). Apparently he was less concerned how his silence was perceived by Israeli leadership. Otherwise why not include them in his response?

But at least he’s said *something* about saying nothing… and that is an improvement (sorta..) on the communication/transparency level. A promise that has been fraught with failure during the transition period already, exampled with his handling of Panetta as CIA pick.

Now all that remains to be seen is just what his silence translates to for Israel after Jan 20th.