Obama Breaks Silence on Gaza

Obama had been taking plenty of criticism for not speaking out on Gaza, mostly from the left flank of his party and the world, which wishes him to signal the “change” he promised by condemning Israel. The Guardian bemoaned his silence this week, and noted the negative response of some Arab media:

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… “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.”

Today, Obama offered a few sentences, which will be overanalyzed all the more due to their brevity and their delay in coming.

“I’m very concerned with the conflict taking place there,” Obama said. “I’m monitoring the situation on a day to day basis. “The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern to me, and after January 20th I’ll have plenty to say about the issue.” Obama said he was “not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign” and that “starting at the beginning of our administration, we’re going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East.”

It’s calculated to be an inoffensive nod to civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict, the separation from the White House embodied in what he does not say. Hamas and the threat of terrorism go unmentioned, relieving Obama of the duty of making moral judgments while assuring supporters of imminent nebulous change in the Middle East. There was a time when he had no problem with the possibility of Israeli self-defense against Gaza- when the only rockets were coming from Gaza and the only civilians under threat were Israelis. In July, while visiting Sderot in southern Israel, Obama said forcefully:

“If somebody is sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that – and I’d expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

“Everything in my power to stop that.” Was it classic, lyrical Obama overstatement, from a man who had the luxury of pulling heart strings without ever pulling the trigger on policy? If it wasn’t, why didn’t he offer a cursory mention of self-defense, terror, or the threat to Israel in today’s short statement? Whether there’s one president at a time or not, he knew the world was listening. Today’s statement is vaguely reminiscent of his signature miss-the-point moment on Georgia this summer, when he called upon both sides to show restraint, deploring violence itself instead of the violator. The clear aggression of one party against a sovereign, democratic state seemed not to weigh heavily in his assessment. Now as then, many will wish the leader of the free world made it more clear he stands with free people when they must defend themselves from thugs. But he’ll have much more to say about it after January 20. Stay tuned. Update: Meanwhile, Democratic leaders are working on a pro-Israel congressional resolution, about which they’re being more forthcoming than Obama is about his thoughts.

“Certainly it would not demand a cease-fire,” Hoyer said. “It would speak to the conditions that would justify a cease-fire. A cease-fire is not a just cease-fire when it’s just Israel” holding fire.

Related Content