Guardian: Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in

Amerikanse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
229
Reality strikes back at the One-Worlders.

* Comment is free

Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in
The president-elect's silence on the Gaza crisis is undermining his reputation in the Middle East
Comments (658)

* Simon Tisdall
*
o Simon Tisdall
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 January 2009 15.55 GMT
o Article history

Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations.

Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.

But 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.

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Obama's absence from the fray is also allowing hostile voices to exploit the vacuum. "It would appear that the president-elect has no intention of getting involved in the Gaza crisis," Iran's Resalat newspaper commented sourly. "His stances and viewpoints suggest he will follow the path taken by previous American presidents... Obama, too, will pursue policies that support the Zionist aggressions."

Whether Obama, when he does eventually engage, can successfully elucidate an Israel-Palestine policy that is substantively different from that of Bush-Cheney is wholly uncertain at present.

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.

A recent Pew Research Centre survey, for example, showed how different are US perspectives to those of Europe and the Middle East. Americans placed "finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict" at the bottom of a 12-issue list of foreign policy concerns, the poll found. And foreign policy is in any case of scant consequence to a large majority of US voters primarily worried about the economy, jobs and savings.

On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas. But at the same time, he held out the prospect of radical change in western relations with Muslims everywhere, promising to make a definitive policy speech in a "major Islamic forum" within 100 days of taking office.

"I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence," he said.

As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

I find it slightly humorous that the world expected Obama to look after them instead of his own country.

Of course, it could be that he really is just waiting to take office before pursuing a more world-oriented foreign policy, but I doubt it. Obama is looking out for #1 (the U.S. / Israel Coalition in this case) and the world-wide double-plus HopeChange crowd would do well to remember it.

I anxiously await the inauguration and this new era beginning--if indeed it is.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
Not even inaugurated yet and already Obamatologists are losing faith. Fickle bunch :eek:
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Which shows that he won't be any different from Bush, except in the skin pigment department. The realities are out there.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
Which shows that he won't be any different from Bush, except in the skin pigment department. The realities are out there.

Best they can hope for is another Tony Blair. God forbid another Mbeki :eek:
 

marine1

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
49,503
Maybe Obama understands that one cannot deal with terrorists in a humane way ;)
 

grayston

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,733
Which shows that he won't be any different from Bush, except in the skin pigment department. The realities are out there.

Obama is just another politician.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he's just another Bush.
 

grayston

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,733
Maybe Obama understands that one cannot deal with terrorists in a humane way ;)

Or he's realised that the continual Middle East crises are just a lost cause and no-one can do anything about them.
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,546
Which shows that he won't be any different from Bush, except in the skin pigment department. The realities are out there.

Maybe Obama understands that one cannot deal with terrorists in a humane way ;)

hah! The only difference is he want be as aggressive as bush and invade countries.. not that they can afford more wars anyways :p
If he doesn't support Israel he won't stay in office very long, its as simple as that.. nothing to do with his view on things.
 

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
29,734
hah! The only difference is he want be as aggressive as bush and invade countries.. not that they can afford more wars anyways :p
If he doesn't support Israel he won't stay in office very long, its as simple as that.. nothing to do with his view on things.

tinfoil hat time?
 

BrrIan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
365
He's not president yet. What action could he take? This is hardly the sort of issue in which you get involved before you're able to take any action. There is no comparison between terrorist attacks in Mumbai or the credit crisis and the thorny situation Gaza. And it's hardly like the current massacre is anything new there.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
41,758
Why? There are more Jewish people in the USA than in Israel, and more so than in any other country.

For once I agree with Rwenzori. The Jewish people are very influential in the USA because most of them hold top positions in big companies and as such, often meet the US President to talk "business". Also, if I'm not mistaken, a few Jews control most of the media (TV channel, newspapers, radio) in the US, so if you do not support the Jewish cause, there'll be a media onslaught and you'll be out come election time.
 

brilliantt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
405
I think it shows how smart Obama is. By staying silent, he will be blamed, but he can easily defend himself. And by the time he gets inaugurated, the current situation may have somewhat stabilized: One less problem on his plate.

A fool goes looking for trouble while a wise man goes on holiday:D
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
People assume decisions are easy to implement with limited information. I am sure Bush and Obama have people who present as much information as possible but some things just can't be avoided.
If you play chess, you win through sacrificing the pieces to accomplish the best possible outcome, not the ideal outcome because that just won't happen in the real world.
 
Top