It’s the old chestnut: does a person in possession of power speak out now and risk losing that power, or do they keep silent in the hope that they can use that power to actually make more of a difference in the long run?

Whilst fully aware of Obama’s stance on Israel for at least the duration of his campaign, and the attacks laid upon him by certain sectors of the media and business in the US, attempting to link him with Hamas, question his support for Israel, and so on – I still think if Obama cannot condemn what is going on now then he will in fact not be able do so in the future.

Yes, it would not be politically expedient for him to speak out: I understand that. But it’s the right thing for him to do; and there is absolutely NO way Israel could sever its links with America based on criticisms he chooses to make of them. Israel needs the US too much: if anything, I think they need reminding that without the US, they wouldn’t be in a position to bomb and kill Palestinians.

I don’t know if I’m the only one who doesn’t want to have to wait till the next President or the one after that to see a major figure in the US establishment start speaking out against Israel whilst still in office. The US can no longer go on trying to micromanage the Middle East, and at some point its CiC is going to have to be honest about that: I would’ve thought Obama could stretch to that.

This article is bloody spot on. I’m surprised, and annoyed I guess, more people don’t see it.

And that video is excellent. ‘Embarassingly superficial’ – no other words for it. But then, that’s half the commentariot in the UK, especially on the right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/obama-gaza-israel

“To maintain the hardline US posture of placing the blame for all current troubles squarely on Hamas, to the extent of repeatedly blocking limited UN security council ceasefire moves, would be to end all realistic hopes of winning back Arab opinion – and could have negative, knock-on consequences for US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf.

Yet if Obama were to take a tougher (some would say more balanced) line with Israel, for example by demanding a permanent end to its blockade of Gaza, or by opening a path to talks with Hamas, he risks provoking a rightwing backlash in Israel, giving encouragement to Israel’s enemies, and losing support at home for little political advantage.”

Excellent and thoughtful post.

I agree. This side of January 20th, the ‘one President at a time’ rule has to be central on this issue. Yes, Obama has been prepared to speak openly about what he will do on the economy. That has made sense, and he is repeating and developing his campaign positions and critique of current policy.

But foreign policy is different, because the goal is to affect and influence the policy of foreign governments and that can not be done in crisis situations during a transition. The only impact of any non-platitudinous Obama statement before the transition would be for US government and public debate to be about the process issues of whether he was right to do so; and the potential diplomatic and political embarassment to the United States of being publicly divided. This would massively devalue the impact of any intervention – indeed enabling other international actors to seek to play up and across these divisions – and it could do much damage to perceptions of a ‘rookie’ president, etc in terms of building unified US support for Obama’s foreign policy goals in the middle east and elsewhere. (If the highly unlikely event that he were to adopt a rhetorical position on the Middle East now it would be very likely a sign that he was not going to be substantively engaged with the issue).

2. I think Neil may well be right too about what Obama’s public position would be if it was now the end of January. That is a different issue to the issue of pre-Jan 20th.

I would also be pretty confident this is about a strategy for how to impact change, and that both Obama and Clinton’s positions are essentially for a fair two state solution (while there is some political pressure to be fairly hawkish and pro-Israeli and a sense that this is needed to secure US political, elite and public opinion). We have seen a constructive shift in the detail, langauge and tone of the UK government’s position contrasting now to the summer of 2006 and the Lebanon crisis – my sense is that the US will move in a broadly similar direction to that, if perhaps more cautiously and more slowly than would be ideal for the reasons Neil gives.

On the detail of this, I recommend this ‘Prospects for Peace’ blog from Daniel Levy for some astute, detailed analysis of the choices facing the Obama administration, and the constructive steps they could take.
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/

Particularly this pre-crisis (December 19th) post outlining and challenging the foreign policy consensus in Washington about this, something which will be strengthened by the crisis
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2008/12/pursuing_peace_amid_pessimism.html

Its highly unlikely Obama, being such an inexperienced leader, will be goaded into issuing criticisms of Israel until he has established his security credentials whilst there the lame duck is still in the Oval Office.

So this make it a good time for Israel to push as hard as they can in the hope it will set a pattern of compliance by Obama’s administration. Israel are using this window of opportunity to plough on ahead with their campaign of total destruction of Hamas, come what may in the way of civilian deaths in the knowledge that Obama’s hands are tied. Israel’s ruse is that if he’s forced to remain silent in the face of Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip, he’ll hardly be in the position to condemn lesser transgressions (the odd blockade or two, more extra-judicial killings, more starvation of civilians) further on down.

Sid, glad to see someone saying it, I considered the same while others where just throwing themselves at the election in Israel angle…

The big problem for Obama, despite the defence given in this post, is the perception in the Arab/Muslim world. He may be heamoraging good will and political capital by his silence. There’s a reason for the term silence is complicity. And in this context that could be damaging.

I think Obama is cleverer and better than that .There was no question of the US commanding Israel’s operational strategy anyway and there is the possibility that, the long-term prospects for peace in the region will have been considerably improved by swift decisive action. How nice if Bush takes the blame with Israel . leaving the one with clean hands for dirty work ahead
Renta mob stuff aside most accept that the Israeli government had to launch a military offensive after Hamas took no action to prevent Islamic militants from firing home-made rockets at the Jewish state. Hamas has always wanted this bloodshed .It encouraged its activists to wage a campaign of terror and undermined Mahmoud Abbas precisely to get here but Israel have trumped them with ferocious and appalling savagery .It may be an over reaction to the rocket firing but then it is not just a reaction to today`s batch . It is also because Hamas and Israel cannot coexist
Irael’s military offensive in Gaza is aimed as much at destroying Hamas’s political infrastructure as guaranteeing the security of Israeli residents If they succeed ,Obama has a good chance of achieving his goal of resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever they say regime change is a great idea for all concerned especially the Palestinians .Many of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so mostly as a protest vote against the endemic corruption of Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority Hamas has set about dismantled Palestinian democratic institutions, replacing them with an Iranian-style, autocratic administration .
Hamas’s links to other radical Islamist means that it attracts little support from moderate, pro-Western states which regard it as a threat . The Egyptian government, in particular ,loathes Hamas.Obamah may not like what he sees , nobody does , but he will be quietly supporting a swift and crippling strike as the only way to give him a chance of building peace in the region.

Renta mob stuff aside most accept that the Israeli government had to launch a military offensive after Hamas took no action to prevent Islamic militants from firing home-made rockets at the Jewish state.

“Most” of who?

Alan, you know better than to feed the troll…

Israel are using this window of opportunity to plough on ahead with their campaign of total destruction

Yes, maybe.

he’ll hardly be in the position to condemn lesser transgressions (the odd blockade or two, more extra-judicial killings, more starvation of civilians) further on down.

Not necessarily. Right now, the ‘there’s only one president’ issue is very important. I don’t see why people expect him to say much… there is a real danger he exceeds his authority when he’s not prez. He’s already had more press conferences than any other president.

If her over reaches himself without authority, it could very easily backfire in his face.

I don’t know what to think, apart from: wow, the guy in that video is AWESOME.

Where can I see more of him?

Here’s a simpler view…forget the romantic crap. Obama is silent because he wouldn’t be a president if he didn’t kiss Israeli butt. He pledged his full support to Israel just before the election.

Whatever Obama said, he would be sure to piss some people off. So Obama’s silence is, in part, a tactic to remain popular.

Alan, you know better than to feed the troll…

Or do not feed the rats ?

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Oddly, I don’t think I’ve much else to add to what’s already been written, so instead I’ll just share this interesting piece by State Dept. adviser Aaron David Miller on what form the next administration’s dealings with Israel need to take:

Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of America’s exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it’s serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking. The departure point for a viable peace deal–either with Syria or the Palestinians–must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides….

Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity–including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions–does to the peacemaking process.

Like Sunder, I can also recommend Daniel Levy’s blog, though he doesn’t update it nearly as often as my obsessive RSS feed reading demands.

oh these politicians, they’re so, so, so above us….

i might join a lodge, act the right way, and get a ticket to the inevitable bunker

Do not feed the twats, I’d say.

What a cop out! Lefties ought to stop covering for Obama’s right-wing policies. Stop making excuses. He’s not going to change anything. He’s still obsessed with forging “America’s empire.”

He’s made comments previously in support of Israel and he’s got one of the most Zionist Democrats, Clinton as Secretary of State. He’s only shutting up because he was elected on an anti-war basis, and those who marched against the attacks on Gaza probably voted for him. So he doesn’t want to piss of those guys.

It would be interesting to hear off the record comments by the leaders from Jordan, Egypt , Kuwait , Qatar , Bahrain and Saudi Arabia . Hamas and Hizbollah are funded by Iran whose increased influence is threat to these countries . Afte all Khomeini threatened the leadership of all these countries. The uncle of the King of Jordan has warned about the arc of shia influence running from Iran Qatar.as well as the Israel / Hamas conlict there is the Fatah/Hamas conflict , the shia /Sunni conflict. The rise of Hamas is in part due to the corruption and incompetence of Arafat. When Arafat died there were large numbers of accounts which he controlled in which there were funds which should have gone to Palestinian People. Arafat alienated much of the Arabic /Muslim world . The last example was supporting Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait which resulted in the expulsion of many Palestians from well paid jobs in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries.

The extremists in Israel and Hamas have achieved their goals , which is war.
In some ways it imay be better for Obama not to become involved until he has a grasp of all the various , often deeply hiddden influences at work. if Syria and Iran continue to fund Hamas is there any hope for peace? Why has Hizbollah not started to send it’s rockets into Israel? Was it more damaged than previously realised?

It may be necessary to wait until Hamas and the extremists in Israel are weary of fighting before Obama can do any good. There is no indication that the Israeli settlers and Hamas want to listen to reason. While Hamas and Iran state a desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth , I cannot see any moderates in Israel gaining ground.

Perhaps it is time to ask the various protaganists as whether they want Armageddon or peace. If it is Amageddon they want why not delineate a suitable area; provide sufficient arms and allow those who wish to commit slaughter to do so. Everyone else can live in peace and try to create a better life .

Charlie, your comments regarding boths sides wanting war misses the point. Israel want war to eliminate the Palestinians, expand their territory and the US support it to advance their interest in the region. Hamas and the Palestinians are defending themselves against this aggression.

Do you expect Palestinian people to stand idle and be killed?

Benjamin, not true. All the Israelis I know are ready for peace tomorrow. Most would even be prepared to leave all the currently disputed territories in return for peace. The problem is they are far from convinced that peace is possible and with that in mind, taking or handing back territory becomes a strategic consideration. I am not claiming anything about the justice of the situation but the idea that the State of Israel (around the size of Wales) is expansionist is just damn wrong and needs to be challenged wherever it emerges as a trope.

Firstly the whole place is “disputed” because the whole state is Palestinian land. And secondly, what do you call the Lebanon war? Ever single incursion from Israel’s “borders” has been an attempt to extend its borders, whether it was into Egypt, Lebanon or Syria.

Well when I speak of disputed, I mean Gaza and the Westbank. As I said, the taking of some territories proved strategically necessary. Israelis have no ideological interest in expansion and those territories would be freely given up in return for peace. But obviously, if consider all of Israel to be ‘disputed’ then peace is not on your agenda. So ongoing war it is.

Pallestine didn’t exist before Israel so what you are claiming is that one group of people have a greater claim over one bit of territory than another.* I don’t see how you can substantiate that considering the territory has been disputed for centuries and has been held by numerous empires before it became a nation state, but that Jews and Muslims have been living their concurrently all the time. Sure, nationalism has an unfortunate way of leading to dividing territories along racial/ethnic/religious whatever lines but to say Israel is disputed is rather like saying that Greece is disputed – i.e. that Turks or whoever have a claim on it. I don’t think ANY state has a principle from whicht derive legitimacy. It is just the way it is and without abolishing nation states (an ideal worth pursuing perhaps), those interested in peace between peoples will just have to work with the situation as it stands.

*Ironically, there is some evidence that both groups are mostly Jews anyway, but that modern day Pallestinians are descendants of those successfully converted to Islam.

Er… can I mention official protocols? Obama is still President-elect for a couple more weeks and has no mandate for front-line policy contributions until that point in time.

This problem highlights just one more problem with the US system of government – any diplomatic influence they have is undercut by the lame duck presidency which leaves the door open for external influences and powers to seize the initiative, just as Israel has.

The US has lost the power to control its own diplomatic agenda since the election so why are we be surprised that Israel has taken this action at this point in time? They’re simply using the transitional gap to drive a wedge between Obama and his chosen foreign policy course in the hope of gaining a transient advantage – it’s pure cynicism and it doesn’t win them any new friends.

Benjamin Solah,

How do you square this:

Charlie, your comments regarding boths sides wanting war misses the point. Israel want war to eliminate the Palestinians, expand their territory and the US support it to advance their interest in the region. Hamas and the Palestinians are defending themselves against this aggression.

with the return of Sinai to Egypt?

I think we can take Israeli statements of intent at face value – and still condemn them – without claiming a geographical imperialism that seems to me to be largely absent.