Although Israel's bloody Gaza operations have effectively placed the last nails in the coffin of the Bush administration's efforts at peace, they have no choice but to defend them. Bush has not yet spoken, but his spokesmen put the whole blame on the Palestinian side, which is Hamas in this particular case. Who cares what Bush says, anyway? The man will be history on Jan. 20, leaving his post to President-elect Barack Obama. What's interesting is the fact that so far, we haven't heard anything from Obama, either, despite the scope and depth of the crisis, probably with major ramifications for his foreign policy tenure at the White House.
Obama people explain their boss' silence with his "one president at a time" principle. That is hardly convincing. The economic crisis has compelled Obama to break that principle. He occasionally speaks about his plans to help the economy recover. The recent mass killings in Mumbai led him to condemn terrorism and express solidarity with India. Could it be that the Gaza crisis, resulting in the deadliest attacks against Arab soil by Israel in decades, was not provocative enough for Obama, so he fell short of using this as an opportunity to lay out his vision for recovery in the Middle East? I don't think so. The latest events definitely call for any world leader, including Obama, to say and do something. But he has deliberately chosen to maintain a very low profile.
Before attempting to explain why, let me ask the following questions: Had Obama spoken, could his statements be similar to even-handed leaders such as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who condemned "the indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas militants and the disproportionality of the continuing Israeli military operation"? Would he join Israel's critics in the region and the world? Or would he essentially utter what the Bush administration had to say? I believe the third option would have been realized and that his public position would not be so much different than the Bush White House's stance.
During the election campaign and as a US senator, Obama repeatedly talked about "Israel's right to defend itself," a common excuse in Washington for their strategic ally's often excessive reactions to perceived national security threats. I also respect and support Israel's right to defend itself. But that right must be exercised in full accordance with international law, UN resolutions and the principles of human rights, better befitting a democratic regime. However, you don't hear such qualifications from most political leaders in the US. So far, there has been no indication that Obama's transformational messages would apply to the favorable biases of America's official approach vis-à-vis the Israeli government. Even if he wants, many of his close colleagues, including future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, would most likely make sure that doesn't happen.
Yes, it's clear that Obama, as president-elect or president, cannot dramatically depart from the long-held policy of siding with Israel. It's also clear that his message of "change," which has resonated among not only Americans but also billions in the world including Muslims, could be at stake when he does that. In a way, Israel's timing made it possible for the Obama team to preserve its positive image for now.
Imagine if all this happened in the early days of the Obama administration. Obama would have sided with Israel and immediately disappointed most Muslims, a strategically important targeted community lost by the Bush administration, who have invested high hopes in him. I'm assuming Israel is smart enough to have sought the consent of the incoming US president through intermediaries before such a huge move. It may also very well be the case that Obama sent the following message to the Israeli government: "If you really have to do this, do it before we come to power."
To cut a long story short, Obama has preferred keeping silent on the Gaza conflict as long as possible at least until the heat of it goes away, mainly because if he speaks, he will have to passionately side with Israel in compliance with America's political tradition. He knows that if he sides with Israel, he will lose people who had high hopes that he would become a more objective president when it comes to the Middle East conflict. At the end of the day, those who expect a dramatic change in rhetoric from Obama will most probably be disappointed. As for the actions -- behind the scenes and overt -- time will tell whether he can come up with an establishment-shocker approach about the Arab-Israeli question. Personally, I'm not very optimistic about that.
