LiveWire

A post by Maynard

Obama, like many politicians, got elected by being all things to all people. As the fantasy clashes with reality, some are bound to be disappointed.

Thus far, Obama has been vague in his comments about the Israeli incursion into Gaza:

President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday he is “very concerned” about the loss of life in Israel and Gaza and is closely monitoring the situation, but he once again deferred to President Bush on the matter, saying when it comes to foreign policy the U.S. has just one president at a time.

Ideally, I’d want a clear statement from him. The blatant double standard that’s applied to Israel says a lot about the moral state of our planet, and we should work to change it. But this is a touchy situation, so it’s fair to question whether plain speaking would yield a good real-world result. Obama’s deeds as president will come to matter more than today’s words. I guess we all wonder what those deeds will be.

But the odd fact remains that Obama somehow managed to ride to victory with support from both Jews and Jew-haters. At the moment, neither side is pleased with him. This analysis in The Guardian may speak for many in Europe:

…evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama’s detachment – and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush’s strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush’s bias or simply does not care.

…and Al-Qaida agrees:

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader lashed out at President-elect Barack Obama in a new audio message Tuesday, accusing him of not doing anything to stop Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip… “This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America,” al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE. “He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection.”

Students in Gaza had once set up phone banks to call American voters on Obama’s behalf; now the Palestinian Authority is complaining about him.

On the other hand, this editorial expresses disappointment from the other side:

So why not ease the current international turmoil by offering a simple, succinct statement of support for Israel’s efforts, something along the lines of “while President Bush speaks for America until I take office, I want to reiterate our president’s strong support for Israel’s right to defend herself and to strongly encourage Hamas to cease its destabilizing rocket fire.” Such a statement would bolster Bush’s final efforts to secure a durable cease-fire in the region. It would reassure Israelis that the incoming administration will continue the outgoing one’s backing for the Jewish State, even in the face of a hostile “international community.” And it would squelch any Hamas fantasies that, if they can only hold out until late January, help will be on the way for them, too.

Instead, by remaining silent, Obama and company have left things ambiguous, thus possibly forcing Israel to act too hastily to ensure success before Bush leaves office.

I suppose it’s encouraging that the bad guys aren’t loving Obama. And if you want to get legalistic about the thing, you might argue that silence indicates consent, and that’s good. But really, at this point we’re just reading tea leaves. We don’t have reason to believe Obama will do the right thing, which is a big reason I couldn’t vote for him. But it’s too early to declare failure (as the Democrats did regarding the surge). They say the election was about hope, so I’ll hope for the best.