Obama vows 'plenty' to say on Mideast after swearing-in

[bemildred]

Source: Yahoo

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US president-elect Barack Obama Tuesday vowed to speak out about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once he takes office, but insisted until then only President George W. Bush can speak for the US.

"After January 20 I am going to have plenty to say about the issue," Obama told reporters, fending off criticism that he has failed to forcefully address the Israeli military onslaught on the Gaza Strip.

Obama said he was sticking by his campaign pledge that "at the beginning of our administration, we are going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict that existed in the Middle East.

---

"So on January 20, you will be hearing directly from me," he vowed.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/pl_afp/mideastconflictgazaobama_newsmlmmd

[Ian David]

1. Better than Bush's plan to "get them on the phone and say 'cut that shit out.'"

Remember when Bush got caught with an open microphone and a mouth full of food?

[ohio2007]

2. and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginnin

snip
"After January 20 I'm going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to be engaged effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East," he said. "That's something I am committed to..
snip

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5055N420090106

and remember....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYwxpzbU8w&feature=related

denial is a river in Egypt



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfZSiHl6Ugg

[sabra]

3. Obama breaks silence on Gaza, voices concern

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, breaking his silence about the Gaza war, expressed deep concern on Tuesday about the loss of civilian lives in Gaza and in Israel.

Speaking after Israeli tank shells killed at least 40 Palestinians at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, Obama told reporters "the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me."

But Obama otherwise said he would adhere to his principle that only U.S. President George W. Bush would speak for American foreign policy at this time, but said he would have plenty more to say after his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT010721.htm

[rug]

4. Thank him for his concern.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Should he be barking out orders to all parties via a bullhorn instead.....

From his hotel room? :shrug:

[subsuelo]

14. at least...

at least he didn't blabber on about Israel's right to defend itself from vicious Arabs, or whatever the current official script is

[Delphinus]

20. Agreed.

It sure would be nice to hear something other than what's being passed around.

[dflprincess]

47. Speaking of that attitude

did anyone catch the ad on MSNBC during Countdown that pretty much took the attitude described in subsuelo's post? If you didn't know anything about what was going on over there, you'd swear nuclear bombs were raining down on a totally defenseless Israel. The ad was made by some joint Christian/Jewish group. I'm afraid I was so aghast at what I was hearing I didn't retain all the details. I'm guessing the Christians involved in this group are among the nuts waiting for Jesus to return.

[StudsT]

40. The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[subsuelo]

43. which the U.S has the power to implement at a moment's notice

[RCinBrooklyn]

6. He enjoys havng the diverse views of Israelis & Palestinians on the world stage.

[chucktaylor]

7. Concern duly noted, strong worded letter to follow.

[fla nocount]

8. BO might be alright, I'm deeply concerned as well.

It's nice to share so much with such a staunch observer of protocol and political correctness. Finally, a return on my efforts to get him elected.

[Jefferson23]

9. I pray for you President Obama that you have the courage that others have not shown.

[Cronopio]

10. "... George W. Bush would speak for American foreign policy at this time ..."

GW Bush is saying and doing the exact same thing that Obama is right now. So where does that leave US "leadership".

His "one President at a time" just doesn't wash with me. It's political rationalization disguised as realpolitik. As President-elect, he doesn't have the authority to speak for current American policy, but he can save lives (and must) by signaling future American policy.

[MadMaddie]

48. So let's say that Obama said he would hold talks directly

with Israel and Palestine right today 01/06/09 as the President Elect of the free world.

1. How would that go over in America?
2. Let's say he brokered a deal between the two parties, would he be able to back up the deal as President Elect today?

Don't forget if Obama lays out his plan on how he is going to deal with Negotiations don't you think it would be sabatoged by the current admin?

You should not be holding Barack Obama responsible for the lack of American involvement. You and others are letting the current sitting President and Condi get away with deriliction of duty.

13 days and counting down....

[Cronopio]

51. As P-E he can't broker a deal or hold talks.

My point was that he can deal with the situation constructively signal future American policy. If Bush were being proactive about this situation (and if Condi doing something more than warming a seat at the UN), I'd agree that Obama signaling future policy might be the wrong move.

The Bush administration would be pissed off, but they're out in two weeks, so this can and would be seen as a transitional move. The Mideast and economic situations are on their own timetable, so stepping outside protocol would be the responsible thing for Obama. With Bush's help preferably, but even without his help - if Bush insists on that course.

[marshall]

11. Interesting that he mentions deaths in Gaza AND Israel

He isn't taking a side at this point--which is the wise thing to do.

[High Plains]

13. I think that should be singular: The one death in Israel.

The other dead Israelis died as invading aggressors.

[marshall]

22. Actually he uses singular in both cases

I assume he is referring to the deaths that lead up to this recent activity, not just the current circumstance.

[Chulanowa]

49. Five, actually

Five dead IDF soldiers.

Four killed by friendly fire. Go figure

[High Plains]

12. Concern duly noted. Meanwhile, Gaza burns.

Well, at least he said SOMETHING.

[closeupready]

15. He did. And personally, I do appreciate that.

At least we now know that he doesn't intend to delve deeper into it until after his inauguration.

We don't have to be happy about it, but at least he's not playing us for fools, playing with words, "there is only one president at a time" nonsense.

[StudsT]

16. how quaint - while other dem leaders speak out against a cease-fire :puke:

using the very same logic of the bush mis-administration :crazy:

I guess mass murder never goes out of style for the elite.

and so it goes...

StudsT

[subsuelo]

17. depends who's doing the murdering, actually n/t

[fla nocount]

18. This might actually be good thing.

The entire Hill, with exception of Paul and Kucinich, is singing in chorus through the MSM but the American public and the world at large just aren't buying the Israeli leadership's line of bullshit anymore. Credibility for their position statements and rationale is nil at influencing opinion. Our politicians are viewed as complicit and the shooting of pigs in a barrel is seen as murder. Decades old talking points are seen as the weak excuses that they are and always were. The results of occupation, acquisition and forced removal are stark and obvious.

When our elected representatives realize that they dancing before an empty house, and they are, we will see some policy changes.

[StudsT]

19. i have seen some reports on that and it does give me some hope however

in the short term we are stuck watching the ongoing mass murder on our teeVees :cry:

the thing that gives me more hope is the younger generation and future generations getting their information online where it is much more democratic.

hopefully these insensitive murderers are digging their own graves in the long run by being so blatant in their crimes.

:hi:

StudsT

[fla nocount]

26. Damn studs. You need to turn off the TV.

Pull the AM knobs off the radio too, throw them both in the deep end of the pool.

[StudsT]

28. i do, i am mostly an www and print person =)

but i do occasionally tune in to see what is being dished out, which sure is a bore more often than not :P

StudsT

[Turborama]

21. Good points, well made.

Let this be the 1st Rec of many...


:kick:

[totodeinhere]

24. American public not buying the Israeli leadership's line of bullshit anymore?

Americans, while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip.

Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/americans_closely_divided_over_israel_s_gaza_attacks

According to this poll, they are closely divided over the military action "while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians." It also says that 55% blame the Palestinians for the situation. Only 13% blame the Israelis.

So at least according to this poll it is incorrect to say that Americans are not buying Israel's bullshit. Only 13% blame Israel.

[fla nocount]

29. Not knowing the date of the poll nor the demographics...

or source of exposure for the catchment population I can't say much about the accuracy of the poll. Fifty/fifty on methods is progress though. This crap is just plain wrong.

[Zodiak]

33. In the face of a one-sided propaganda blitz, that's just about a rejection of this invasion

There is only one side told on american TV...and so a nearly 50/50 split indicates to me that the Pravda approach isn't working any more.

[totodeinhere]

34. Not true.

CNN has been running pro Palestinian spokespeople ever since the crisis started. Also, CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour is totally biased against Israel.

[StudsT]

38. there are metrics out there on the M$M U.S. coverage and it is heavily slanted towards Israel POV

though there are sure to be extremist who will only see what they will.

StudsT

[provis99]

44. on what basis do you say Amanpour is biased? Because she tells the truth?

[StudsT]

36. the matrix like saturation of the elite's MSG to americans is not as effective as days gone by =)

thank gore he 'invented' the internet's, eh :bounce:

:hi:

StudsT

[KoKo]

25. When they realize they are "dancing before an empty house..."

Well Said... It's taking them longer than one would have thought, though. But, then, they've been slow to see anything the folks out here have been telling them to open their eyes to for so long, it's not surprising, I guess.

[totodeinhere]

37. Yes, almost all Dem leaders support Israel. But you wouldn't know it from reading DU.

DU needs to change it's name to Hamas Underground.

I am taking the queue for my support of Israel from one of our greatest Democratic presidents, Harry Truman, who was instrumental in the formation of the Jewish state, and who staunchly defended Israel to his dying day.

[StudsT]

39. of course, as mostly all of DU does, too... the massacre at hand is what is in dispute now

anyone painting any people as all bad should be recognized as an extremist and treated accordingly (in debate -> ignore, in action -> isolate)

i fully support the Israeli people and the Palestinian people and i believe I am in the majority, and the majority must demand this mass murder to cease, immediately.

the blame game is simply and endless loop of destruction and seeing as both states are to blame in doesn't make any sense to be pointing fingers right now while millions are being TERRORIZED and MURDERERD on a scale that any terrorist group named by our nations today could only dream of.

it is time to ISOLATE the EXTREMIST minority and IMPOSE peace.

see this for a good read on what i think sounds like an adult attitude to this problem which i hope the new admin starts to articulate as well.

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[totodeinhere]

41. Israel's supporters do not "paint any people as all bad."

Their quarrel is with a small group of extremists leading Hamas. They have no quarrel with the people of Gaza.

BTW, your proposals are a good starting point for negotiations. But first Hamas has got to stop firing rockets at Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist.

[StudsT]

42. some do, but they are in the minority is my point

as are the extremist on the other-side.

we the majority need to put our foot down and say, enough.

BTW: Both need to stop... and a cease-fire should be demand, immediately by the U.S. hopefully we wont need to wait until Jan 20th

StudsT

[provis99]

45. no, first Israel has to stop constantly breaking ceasefires

Israel started this attack, not Hamas.

[WriteDown]

52. This sounds like the WriteDown plan....

Gaza is given to Egypt, The West Bank is given to Jordan. Peace follows.

[Dover]

23. The timing of this incursion is an attempt to force Obama's hand...

Hamas has been lobbing those homemade missiles for awhile, so why is Israel responding now?

Several reasons:


Gaza is one of the world's most-densely populated places, a vast outdoor prison camp filled with desperate people. In the past, they threw stones at their Israeli occupiers; now they launch home-made rockets.

Call it a prison riot, writ large.

Eyeing the elections

When the so-called truce between Tel Aviv and Hamas expired on December 19, Israeli politicians were in the throes of preparing for the February 10 national elections.

Israeli politics are playing a key role in this crisis.

Ehud Barak, the defence minister and leader of the Labour party, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and leader of the Kadima party, are trying to prove themselves tougher than Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line Likud party - and one another.

Israel's elections are only six weeks away, and Likud was leading until the air raids on Gaza began. Kadima and Labour are now up in the polls.

The heavy attacks on Gaza are also designed to intimidate Israel's Arab neighbours, and make up for Israel's humiliating 2006 defeat in Lebanon, which still haunts the country's politicians and generals.

A fait accompli

When the air raids on Gaza began, Barak said: "We have totally changed the rules of the game."

He was right. By blitzing Hamas-run Gaza, Barak presented the incoming US administration with a fait accompli, and neatly checkmated the newest player in the Middle East Great Game - Barack Obama, the US president-elect - before he could even take a seat at the table.

IN DEPTH

Latest news and analysis from Gaza and Israel

Send us your views and videos

Watch our coverage of the war on Gaza
The Israeli offensive into Gaza now looks likely to short-circuit any plans Obama might have had to press Israel into withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders and sharing Jerusalem.

This has pleased Israel's supporters in North America who have been cheering the war in Gaza and have been backing away from their earlier tentative support for a land-for-peace deal.

Israel's successes in having Western media portray the Gaza offensive as an 'anti-terrorist operation' will also diminish hopes of peace talks any time soon.

Obama inherits this mess in a few weeks. During the elections, Obama bowed to the Israel lobby, offering a new US carte blanche to Israel and even accepting Israel's permanent monopoly of all of Jerusalem.

As he concludes forming his cabinet, his Middle East team looks like it may be top-heavy with friends of Israel's Labour party.

Obama keeps saying he must remain silent on policy issues until George Bush, the outgoing US president, leaves office, but his staff appear happy to avoid having to make statements about Gaza that would antagonise Israel's American supporters.

Obama will take office facing a Middle East up in arms over Gaza and the entire Muslim world blaming the US for the carnage in Gaza.

Unless he moves swiftly to distance himself from the policies of the Bush administration, he will soon find himself facing the same problems and anger as the Bush White House.

Arab deal killed..cont'd

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200914102257130539.html

[uppityperson]

27. Good. I am glad he issued a statement. Not a lot else he can do for the next 2 wks.

"But Obama otherwise said he would adhere to his principle that only U.S. President George W. Bush would speak for American foreign policy at this time, but said he would have plenty more to say after his Jan. 20 inauguration."

[1776Forever]

30. Obama breaks silence on Gaza, voices concern

Source: Reuters

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, breaking his silence about the Gaza war, expressed deep concern on Tuesday about civilian deaths in Gaza and in Israel and vowed to push for Middle East peace when he takes power.

Speaking after Israeli tank shells killed at least 40 Palestinians at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, Obama said "the loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern for me."

Obama otherwise said he would adhere to his principle that only U.S. President George W. Bush would speak for American foreign policy at this time, but said he would have plenty more to say after his January 20 inauguration.

He expressed deep concern about the conflict but made no mention of a "durable, sustainable and not time-limited" cease-fire sought by the Bush administration.

Nonetheless, he gave his most extensive comments about the Gaza conflict, responding to criticism from some commentators in the region that he had been too quiet about a top foreign policy challenge that will greet him as soon as he walks into the White House.

Obama was accused by critics both of siding with Israel with his silence or of failing to stand with the Jewish state as it seeks to repel rocket attacks from the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Speaking to reporters, Obama pledged to work for a resolution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has bedevilled several American presidents.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE5055N420090106

[Warpy]

31. That's about all he can say right now

and I imagine this is deeply frustrating for him.

The transition period between two governments is a necessary one. I just wish we could shorten it when the outgoing government are a bunch of self serving, half witted, ignorant, ideology blinded jackasses.

[1776Forever]

32. Well said - n/t

[yava]

35. upstaging the new CEO?

Who knows what Obama thinks?
For now he is packing celebrities into his admin, down to Sanjay Gupta.
But one thing is sure: he will remember that the israeli leadership treated him like a stooge even before he became president. He won't like it and will remember. Unless he is a real stooge and puppet, this will cost the israeli leadership something. But then again, Ram, Billary and the others are there to comfort him. Gobama!

[provis99]

46. No, he's just wimping out

He's perfectly entitled to say any damn thing he wants about policy; he yapped about it for two years when running for President, and no suddenly he shuts up?

He won't comment because he's being sucked into the AIPAC black hole, just like every other US President, not because he's being principled.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

50. there is a very big difference between candidate and president-elect n/t