The real reason Obama isn't speaking out on Gaza.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

It's not, of course, anything to do with the fact that he's not president yet - he's spoken out contradicting Bush's positions on many other issues already.

The real reason is that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict splits Democrats more than any other issue except possibly gun control or gay marriage.

Anything Obama says on the issue - either condemning Israel, or not doing so - will make at least some of his supporters very angry.

So he's chosen to keep quiet, and to use the line about "not being president yet" as a fig leaf.

That's certainly savvy politics, and it will "keep his powder dry", but I for one wish that he'd condemn the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians by Israel before it's too late, even though it would make a lot of people angry.

[AllexxisF1]

1. Oh Brother.

Do you honestly believe that Obama will not say anything about this issue in a couple of weeks?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. I *know* that even if he does, by then it will be too late for many people.

And while I'm sure he will say something at that point, I don't know what - I worry that he will equivocate or even condone Israel's actions.

[ShortnFiery]

12. I don't get it - Our "leaders" do NOT reflect the will of the people - could it be our War Machine

and Military Industrial Complex that are RUNNING this Nation?!?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Actually, the problem here is that they *do* represent the will of the people.

Never make the mistake of confusing "yourself" with "the people".

More Americans are pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian.

Among Obama's supporters, I don't know who's in the majority, but there are lots of both.

So not condemning Israel *is* reflecting the will of the people. That doesn't mean it's not wrong, though.

[ShortnFiery]

26. I'm having serious doubts. Every time CSPAN discusses the ME the calls are 5 to 1 against incursion

I believe that a good 65-70 % of democrats seriously question Israel's ACTIONS and wish that they could be "talked down."

[yardwork]

83. And the corporations. That would be correct.

[graywarrior]

2. I can't believe how many experts there are here

[Political Tiger]

3. That doesn't make any sense. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. It means that he's not a leader but a coward. Funny...he has no problem

alienating the LGBT community by speaking out on that and inviting Warren because it's o.k. to hate gay people. But, people are looking to Obama to be a leader, not to do what is politically expedient. We don't need another politician, we need a leader!

[babylonsister]

6. Yea, that makes sense.

Cause Obama really thinks it's ok to hate gay people. FAIL. :eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. I didn't say that Obama hates gay people. I said that LGBT are a group of people

that people feel is o.k. to hate. Obama had no problem being a leader and alienating gays/lesbians. He didn't care how many people he hurt or pissed off by inviting Warren. Yet he doesn't say anything about Gaza? He also doesn't seem to understand that the Republicans, the media and Bush-Cheney are setting him up to be blamed for the mess that they created. Again, we need a leader, not a politician who does what is politically expedient.

[Political Tiger]

8. Obama hates the gays.....

:sarcasm:

[firedupdem]

10. Every issue ties into the fact that he hates gay people. It's amazing

how that works around here.

[BeFree]

11. Gawd

A 'Coward'? Do you even desire a shred of credibility? It seems not.

A real good leader makes no decision until he weighs out the consequences of far reaching statements.
Obama is showing that he is no knee-jerking 'Liberal' when it comes to profound and serious problems of which he, at present, has so very little control.

Really, you should apologize for your knee-jerking, eh?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. I am still behind Obama 100% and want him to do well, but this isn't about being a

liberal. I criticize him because I think he's wrong, not because I think he's not liberal enough. I knew that he wasn't a liberal during the primaries and still voted for him. And no, I should not apologize for voicing my opinion. We are not Republicans, we are Democrats. We don't all fall in line and think the same way. Go to Freeperville if you wish to stifle dissent.

[BeFree]

48. Calling Obama a coward?

And then advising that I go to freeperville because I disagree with you?

Are you lost? You have zero credibility.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. I believe he is a coward because he refuses to stand up. That is my opinion.

Because that is my opinion, you question my credibility. Sounds "freeperish" to me. ;)

[Orsino]

23. It means that Congress is too cowardly for him to risk dividing them now.

As President, he will be more able to lead.

I wouldn't quite call this cowardice on his part. He understands that he gained a lot of political capital, but he will try to spend it as efficiently as he can. While I'd like to see more leadership from him now, on this and other matters, I'm still waiting for Inauguration Day to start the meter running, so to speak.

[Beacool]

61. Not a coward, an appeaser.

That's one of the reasons why I always preferred Hillary. She's a fighter for what she believes and has more guts than most men I've met.

:-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Leader, in German, is Fuhrer. We don't need a 'leader'. That's what

we have had for the past 8 years.

We need a liberal pragmatic politician who can reflect the will of the people and develop policies that will act on that will.

Fuck leaders. I don't need some guy on a white horse telling me what to do.

[cboy4]

5. I'd like to know why in the hell gay marriage splits Democrats.

The other issues I can at least understand.

But gay marriage? :wtf:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. One word: religion.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism all explicitly condemn homosexuality.

[cboy4]

29. Your answer impies that a majority of Democrats are

Christians, Muslims and Jews and that they agree with their faiths to the letter about the teachings of homosexuality when it comes to same sex marriage.

A majority of Democrats are clearly pro choice.

How can this be when religion condemns abortion?

Do you recognize the conflict? The hypocritical conflict, I might add.

[ShortnFiery]

36. RELIGION does not inherently "condemn abortion. In fact the Vatican used to say it was OK until...

"until quickening" (around 6 months in the womb).

It's man's patriarchal USE and ABUSE of "religion" a blunt force instrument of MASS hate. Not the pure, usually humble, tenets of most religions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Because most people are hypocrites.

Most Democrats are members of religions that condemn abortion, but don't follow the teachings of their religions on that issue.

If I were to be converted to Christianity, Islam or Judaism then I would become a social conservative, because that's what those religions teach God wants us to do.

However, most Democrats choose to ignore those teachings, because they're clearly immoral.

I think that that makes them worse christians, but better people, than their more consistent opposite numbers.

[cboy4]

46. I think Christians who follow Christianity to the letter of the law

are some of the worst people in the world.

[uponit7771]

65. They dont' follow Gods take on religion (which is VERY well spelled out) but someons view of it then

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Leviticus says that both shrimp and homosexuality are sins

So if I have sex with men but don't eat shrimp am I equally as good of a Christian as another man who eats shrimp but has sex with women. And if not, why not?

[ShortnFiery]

16. Hey, I do NOT understand this = Obama's silence. Not at all. eom

[Orsino]

17. America is too conservative.

Equality in civil rights is a liberal position.

[ShortnFiery]

7. "That's certainly savvy politics" No it's NOT. The world sees though the thin veil of this RUSE.

And so do I and many peace loving Israeli supporters. (peaceful - political solution).

If Obama allows this to continue through the 20th, I, and many other liberals within the democratic party, will lose a hell-of-a-lot of respect for him. :thumbsdown:

The right wing "warmongering" part of OUR party has insulted us from the start. This is close to the breaking point of my tolerance.

Damn WARMONGERS! :grr:

[Political Tiger]

13. If Obama "allows?"

LOL! Obama is NOT president yet! He can't "allow" or stop anything going on in Israel! For God's sake, people, THINK! Use your heads!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Nonsense.

The fact that Obama would have to wait a fornight to carry out anything he threatens does not in any way weaken the power of those threats.

"I will cut off your aid next month" is just as good a threat as "I will cut off your aid tomorrow"

At this stage, Obama already wields more influence than Bush, because Bush's decisions will have consequences for a fortnight, while Obama's will have consequences for years.

[Political Tiger]

32. Yeah, it's not like we have a Constitution or anything......

For Obama to say anything now would just undermine, or perhaps even bolster Bush.

Look at it this way. Say it's January 5th, 2001, and Bill Clinton is still in office about to replaced by Bush in two weeks, and Israel invades Gaza. Would we really want Bush to speak out while Clinton is still in office?? No! We'd want him to keep his mouth shut until he's president!

It's the same thing here, the same principal.

Simply put, we don't have dual governments.

[ShortnFiery]

39. "Simply put, we don't have dual governments."

And people continue to be slaughtered ... while we remain SILENT. :grr: :nuke:

[Political Tiger]

45. Like the 400 people slaughtered in Congo

over Christmas?

Funny, nobody was worried about that.

Nobody demanded Obama speak out about that?

Why is that?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. Because we only care about human suffering when it impacts our own

social, political and economic interests. We only respond when our closest allies are harmed. It's moral relativity and it's abhorrent. Again, I am hoping that Obama doesn't cave to special interests for fear of hurting people's feelings. He needs to be a leader not a politician.

[ShortnFiery]

63. The difference, an regional war breaking out in the ME will soon spill out into WWIII.

Murder is murder but if you wish to open up "the gates of hell" fuel the fires of hate in the ME until it blows up in our faces. :nuke:

[BlueMTexpat]

73. Perhaps because there is not such a direct link between

US policy, encouragement, funding and arms in Congo as there is in connection with Israeli actions in Gaza.

That's the crux of the matter for me.

Both slaughters are wrong. We are simply more complicit in the latter.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. Because the agressor wasn't dependant on US state funding.

There are lots of countries out there where people are doing things immeasurably worse than Israel is.

However, Israel is unique in that it is dependent upon US financial and political support, and so the US president can exert influence there simply by stopping doing something (which is far easier than starting doing something).

[ShortnFiery]

24. Why is it that Bush could say ANY DAMN THING ?!? Obama can express an opinion.

I'm seriously concerned that Obama will be another STOOGE for the Pentagon's Military Industrial WAR MAKING Complex.

He CAN speak out.

WTF is up with all the GUTLESS democratic leaders?!?

It's vile and immoral NOT to speak out.

[Political Tiger]

37. You really want Obama to set this precedent?

Unfortunately, right now, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, and to undermine him now would set precedent for the next Republican President-Elect to do the same thing to the current sitting Democratic President.

For instance, say in 2016 Sarah Palin is elected to replace Obama as president.....would we want her sticking her nose in Obama's business before she is sworn in?

[ShortnFiery]

47. You TWIST everything because you're scared to death of speaking out against this ...

Sometimes HUMANITY should trump POLITICAL WRANGLING. If ever there were times when this should be it was during "shock and awe" and NOW. We can't make up for the invasion of Iraq but WE CAN HELP prevent continued carnage in Gaza.

There's NO EXCUSE for remaining silent because it's not OUR FAMILY that's getting bombed to kibbles and bits.

If we continue to "remain silent" we better hope and pray that karma doesn't come back to bite us in our amoral, chickenshit asses. :(

[Political Tiger]

53. Why aren't you demanding

Obama speak out about all the other atrocities going on in the world????

You think the world is one big peaceful planet except for Gaza??

You really don't know that innocent people are getting "getting bombed to kibbles and bits" in other places in the world?

[ShortnFiery]

60. You wanted a REASON for American Interest - I gave you one - do you wish to be run by the Pentagon?

To give up future children to be "sucked into the intake" of the WAR MACHINE?

Again, if the ME blows up, we will *all* serve the Demigods within the Military Industrial Complex for generations to come.

[babylonsister]

14. Isn't peace loving and Israel oxymoronic? nt

[ShortnFiery]

25. No, there are many supporters of a "peaceful Israel" ... to be horrified by the carnage does NOT

mean that we don't want Israel to acheive peace with it's neighbors.

[BeFree]

20. Lose respect?

What? You want a knee-jerker? That would make you happy?
Even if Obama did jerk-a-knee he would not accomplish one bit of momentum toward ending this situation.

Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing, while waiting until your words can have an effect.
After Jan. 20, and for at least the next 3 years, Obama will have an effect on a problem that is older than he.

And he will listen to us express our anti-war, peaceful message. Together, we will fix this... we must.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Condemning the Israeli invasion of Palestine would *not* be a knee-jerk.

I *do* want America to have a president who is capable of providing a (carefully-thought-through) response rapidly to rapidly-occurring foreign developements, though.

The man who in a fortnight is going to be president of the country that bankrolls Israel condemning its invasion of Palestine would not merely accomplish "one bit" of momentum towards ending this situation; it would accomplish more momentum than any other possible single event.

In *this* case, letting the invasion go on, get worse and become a fair accompli, and waiting while yet more innocent people die and saying nothing is *not* the best thing to do.

And I don't think your confidence that Obama will have an effect on the Middle East peace process is entirely merited. If he really wanted to do so, the best approach would have been to have started now; that he hasn't done so suggests that he intends to continue equivocating.

[BeFree]

42. Continue?

You have your reasons, and ours' are similar. Where we part is just now at this moment.

Thing you don't seem to grok is that we are a minority and hold the minority opinion on this matter.
A matter that has been going down for longer than I have been alive. Older than Obama, too.

At this moment, Obama is very wise to not say anything. Bush has him boxed in.

The reality is this: He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. And you are one of those damning him. Bad move.

[ShortnFiery]

52. History will DAMN him if he remains silent ...

You can bet on that one. There's NO EXCUSE for getting wobbly on us now ... while people are being blown to bits by the score, Obama says NOTHING?!?

[ShortnFiery]

30. Gawd, Obama will be INEFFECTIVE in the ME if he chooses to remain silent until the 20th.

Don't you see, people are being massacred and he says NOTHING? It's just NOT moral ... it's immoral and not what I served my country for ... not for THIS disgusting SILENCE. :thumbsdown:

[BeFree]

51. Heh

Actually, it is interesting that the other, already in office, heads of states are being allowed to work on this problem without being overshadowed by Obama. And Obama is watching them, waiting to see what change they are bringing to bear on this situation.

ShortnFiery, it looks like your candle is burning at both ends?

[ShortnFiery]

54. They are NOT working on this problem but receiving tentative approval for continued carnage ...

by the IDF every moment Obama chooses to remain silent. I'm beginning to become ashamed of MOST of our politicians. Shame on them! :thumbsdown:

[lazer47]

22. Why is it Obamas fault??

"And so do I and many peace loving Israeli supporters. (peaceful - political solution)." If in fact this is what you believe, and you are "peace loving", then why do you not condemn Hamas or the violent Palestinians that brought this on themselves??

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I do condemn Hamas. The Palestinians did not bring this upon themselves.

I unreservedly condemn Hamas; they are a bunch of terrorists who have killed large numbers of innocent civilians.

I also unreservedly condemn the Israeli government; they are a bunch of terrorists who have killed (many times) larger numbers of innocent civilians.

The root of the conflict is Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, not Palestinian resistance to that occupation. The Israeli government and settlers brought the Palestinian attacks upon their compatriots; the Palestinians did not bring Israel's attacks upon themselves.


And while the conflict is not Obama's fault, it *is* his responsibility, because he's the president elect of the country that bankrolls Israel.

[lazer47]

43. The "Key word" here is President Elect,, he is not in a position

of leadership yet,,,Give the man a chance, before judgment or condemnation.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Then you condemn "The Palestinian People" too because Hamas is an integral part of their social ...

services as well as political structure. Hamas is ENMESHED in Gaza - they are inseparable. :shrug:

[Jennicut]

35. Everything is Obama's fault per some in the world

Its easy to blame others for a conflict in which both sides have some blame to carry. However, Israel's reaction has gone so overboard to what Hamas was doing to the point where they now risk having the world turn against them and are creating future terrorists every day. However, Obama speaking up now or later is not going to change anything. Israel will not listen to anyone. What he does once he is in office, will. We have to question whether aid to Israel is now allowing them to use terrible violence against others. Jews were once persecuted terribly and yet don't seem to get that violence against others by them is unacceptable as well. Cutting off their aid would be a good start but there are many in the Dem party that are very reliant on money from Jewish groups and won't like the idea. We shall see what happens.

[blindpig]

27. Obama will do nothing to upset AIPAC.

Nothing at all.

Of course, neither would Hillary, nor anyone else vetted by the ruling class.

[acmavm]

31. So are you saying he's a moral coward? I am.

[ShortnFiery]

40. I believe he is ... we we're SOLD a paper tiger. Hell, I don't TRUST any politician. eom

[dionysus]

67. boy did you turn on him in record time... he isn't even in office yet, jesus...

:eyes:

[acmavm]

78. That is the BIG mystery of Barack Obama. Why did so many

people see so any liberal tendencies in this guy? Was it the campaign promises? Did people REALLY believe all that shit? I campaigned for the guy. But I always knew what kind of man he is. He's a politician. A self-serving one. But he was so much better than what we were facing even I got off my ass and walked for miles to make sure the guy got in the White House.

[dionysus]

80. people maybe see what they want to see. he never advertised himself as an uber-liberal

i'm a pretty liberal guy but i'm not ready to start complaining before we even get a chance to see results.

:shrug:

[Political Tiger]

50. Because he didn't speak out about what happened in Congo?

Oh, that's right, nobody cares what just happened in Congo (look it up).

It's amazing how these people calling Obama a "coward" don't have the courage or the convictions themselves to speak out about all the other atrocities going on in the world.

Let's just keep our blinders on and pretend everything else is just fine and dandy in the world.....except in Gaza.

[ShortnFiery]

55. Because if the ME blows up, the Military Industrial Complex truly will RULE OUR NATION.

Don't you see that this is just another attempt to keep that God Almighty War Machine all fired up? :shrug:

[Political Tiger]

62. The sky is falling!

Relax! The world is not coming to an end. This shit in the ME has been going on for decades.

There's nothing Obama can do about it anyway. He is not the president.

And there's not going to be any quick fix, even after Obama becomes president. Obama can't just snap his fingers and make it all right.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Tiger]

72. This article is from 2002

and 7 years later the world is still intact and no nukes have gone off, so maybe, just maybe, the world will survive this latest conflict.

I'm not saying there isn't reason to be concerned, but at the same time I see no reason to believe this current conflict in Gaza is about to lead to WWIII.

[acmavm]

77. You are absolutely full of yourself. Either that, or you don't read

DU very often. And people will talk about what they want to talk about and no one really gives a shit if you like it or you don't.

You say the Congo? Try Rawanda. 900,000 people died in 100 days.

[dbmk]

34. There is a huge difference between domestic and foreign policy

When it comes to foreign policy noone is allowed to muddy the waters. Its controlled MUCH more strictly than internal bickering. That goes for basically any country.

[flpoljunkie]

38. According to this FT article, Dems oppose Israeli invasion of Gaza by 22 points.

Israel’s self-defeating Gaza offensive

By Gideon Rachman

Published: January 5 2009 19:04 | Last updated: January 5 2009 19:04

Ingram Pinn illustration

By sending ground troops into the Gaza Strip, Israel has crossed a line that brings it perilously close to strategic failure.

Just as with the Lebanon war of 2006, an air bombardment has failed to stop rocket fire into Israel – and has been followed by a ground invasion. The Israeli government says it has learnt the lessons of its stalemated war with Hizbollah, the Lebanese militia. Gaza is more hospitable terrain than southern Lebanon; Hamas is militarily weaker than Hizbollah; Israel is better prepared and is using new tactics.

Maybe so. But what are Israel’s strategic needs? The first is the protection of Israeli citizens; the second is the re-establishment of Israel’s deterrent power; the third is the preservation of international support; and the fourth some prospect of durable peace. Each one of these objectives is now in peril.

By sending the army into Gaza, Israel has probably ensured it will lose many more lives than the four killed by Hamas rockets in the year before the conflict started. It is, of course, the job of the military to take casualties to protect civilians. But Israel’s is a citizen army. The point has not been lost on the Israeli public. A poll taken early in the conflict found more than 70 per cent support for bombing Gaza – but just 20 per cent support for a ground invasion.

The Israeli government may feel that the loss of life, on both sides, is justified if it can stop the rockets and restore the deterrent power that was damaged in Lebanon. But this is a gamble that could easily backfire. As Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, put it a couple of days ago: “Let’s say we unilaterally stopped and four days from now a barrage fell on Ashkelon ... Do you understand the consequences for Israeli deterrence?” But that means that a battered Hamas just has to find a way to keep firing rockets into Israel to claim some sort of victory. And even if Israel succeeds in stopping the rockets for now, any future regional enemy now knows how best to taunt Israel and delight its enemies: rockets.

Then, there is international opinion. In the early stages of the campaign, Israel got a relatively easy ride. Among western governments there was widespread acceptance of the argument that no state can tolerate regular assaults of the sort that peppered southern Israel. And Hamas has few friends among Arab governments.

But international sympathy is predictably crumbling away as the death toll mounts. Arguments about what is a “proportional” response to Hamas’s rockets seem legalistic, next to the simple fact that more than 500 Palestinians have died so far, compared with five Israelis. The European Union is now demanding a ceasefire. Arab governments are responding to outrage at home.

Israel has so far been able to rely on the usual rock-solid support from the US government. But even that could eventually change. A recent opinion poll showed that Democratic party voters were opposed to the Israeli attack on Gaza by a margin of 22 per cent. It is not inevitable that Barack Obama, president-elect, will reflect the views of the rank and file of his party. But neither is it inevitable that he will ignore them.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34c5a426-db49-11dd-be53-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

[amoreena]

56. If Obama Speaks Out...

and opposes Israel's invasion what then? Does Israel then accelerate the bloodbath knowing that the new president will not condone what they are doing.

[acmavm]

79. Than that would be on Israel. It would at least show that we have

a president with some sense of morality and who isn't in AIPAC's pocket.

[Beacool]

57. Well, he can't stay above the fray for much longer.

As of the 20th he better gird up his shorts and emit his position on the subject.

:eyes:

[brianna69]

68. Beacool - spare us your righteous indignation

to Obama.Your girl Hillary would be doing the same thing herself right now if she was president elect. No way she would go up against Israel so spare us the shame on you Obama. Your girl would be doing the exact same thing. Israel is the key alley of the US in the middle east. That is the bottomline. She is just as pro Israel as almost all politicans in the US whether they be republican or democrat. You acting like Hillary would now be the champion of the palestinians and speaking up for them is a freaking joke.

[Beacool]

70. Who mentioned my "girl" in all of this?

My girl would not have stayed above the fray, it's not her style. She probably would have spoken up for the right of Israel to defend itself, but would have deplored the loss of life and recommended a toning down of the attacks on densely populated areas.

BTW, it's all about your "guy" for the next 4 years. So, he better be up for the job and come down to the mud pit and get dirty.

:eyes:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. They'll probably have a ceasefire on Jan 21st

[Marie26]

66. I highly doubt his position will be much different from Bush's. nt

[blindpig]

69. Bingo.

They both beholden to the same interests.

[JuniperLea]

76. LOL!!

I certainly hope you didn't lose sleep coming up with this tripe.

[yardwork]

82. Obama is going to use this approach with all highly polarized issues.

Obama is not going to wade into anything very controversial, certainly not something that even Democrats are divided over.

Obama will indeed keep his powder dry to work out bipartisan approaches to regulation, the economy, the war. It will all be conducted in a very right-center, calm, no-drama sort of way.

Dull, but an improvement over the past eight years, no doubt about that.

[spanone]

84. he said today he will have plenty to say once he's the president

i'm sure israel will wrap their little war up just in time for obama to take office

[yardwork]

85. Diplomacy will be handled much better under Obama than under the maniacs currently in charge.

I doubt that Obama will say a lot publicly about I/P, though.