Obama breaks silence on Gaza, voices concern

[merh]

06 Jan 2009 18:06:10 GMT
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.

(Reporting by Steve Holland, Editing by Sandra Maler)

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

====================================

[redstate_democrat]

1. Obama is the man.

Glad he said something. He knows how to navigate these sticky kinds of situations, but still maintain his core principles.

[apnu]

2. I'm glad he spoke out and reminded us that there is one President at a time.

Which translates to me: Bush owns this one, its his pile of dog shit, and he can eat the son-of-a-bitch.

I also suspect there will be a swift and bewildering change on this conflict come January 20th. Which is probably why Isreal is pushing to have this completed prior to Inauguration Day -- they know there will be a new leash and it will be short indeed.

[firedupdem]

3. I already knew he had deep concern for the loss of lives in both

places. Now he'll be attacked for even saying this much.

[merh]

4. yeah, but folks had to read about it

they couldn't trust the fact that the man ran for office at the worst time in history to be in charge because he has concerns for a whole host of things - maybe now they will be content - I doubt it.

He isn't president and to some, he isn't doing enough.

I personally want him to change my water to wine. I'll settle for a pleasant zinfandel the first batch or two.

:eyes:

[firedupdem]

6. I love your posts and responses!

If he would just call somebody and have them hire me. I would even take half my former salary!

[merh]

8. Hell

I'm considering getting a job as a census taker just so I can say I served under the man.

;)




thanks for the kind words about my posts :hi:

[firedupdem]

9. Thats actually a good idea! I'm going to check into it here...I just

don't want to do the door to door canvassing. I guess beggars shouldn't be choosy! :)

[merh]

10. who knows, maybe if we sign up early enough

we can get the stationery posts and not have to do door to door.

I always wanted a gubment job and working for "the one" would be a icing on the cake. :patriot:

[firedupdem]

11. Yes it would! I would love it! n/t

[JayMusgrove]

14. Can he change my water to a fine rare single malt Scotch? LOL

I think he's wonderful, and always does the right thing!

Maybe I should just drink water anyway.

[merh]

17. Stick to water

He is human and will make mistakes that are sure to piss me off. I'll wait until he is president to get all outraged about it.

[Connie_Corleone]

5. It's already started.

Whether we like it or not, Bush is still president and Obama can't go around contradicting Bush on this. Being a candidate for President and being President-Elect are two different roles.

Obama can't say more than this until Jan. 20th.

[firedupdem]

7. Exactly! I have to start using the hide thread button more liberally! n/t

[ananda]

19. No person of humanity and concscience can stay silent on this one.

It would be like staying silent during
the Nazi Holocaust.

[Uzybone]

12. A non-statement statement, as it should be

until he is the president he should not make big declarations about this issue. I like how he said that we should look at statements from his campaign to guide us as to what he is going to do. He also said come 1/20/09, he will have plenty to say about this issue.

[EFerrari]

13. Ow, ow, oooooooowwwwwww -- leggo of my ear!

lol

I'm glad Obama agreed with ME ME ME that he needed to say something.

:yoiks:

[merh]

15. And this means what, exactly

He agrees with me, there is one president at this time and he will have more to say on the subject when he holds that office.

If you needed him to say he was "concerned" then you do underestimate the man.

[EFerrari]

16. When did I assert that there are two presidents at a time?

And, it's not my job to trust politicians. It's my job to try to support the better ones and to try to get them elected.

That doesn't make even my choices candidates for sainthood. That just makes them the best choice I have.

[merh]

18. But you want him to try to reach sainthood

In your views posted yesterday, if he just said the word it could change things and stop the violence - that was the impression your words left.

What on earth difference does it make to anyone that Obama said "I am concerned"?

He will have trouble enough making a difference in that region when he is president. The complexities of the situation which are tied to the foreign policies of the GWB administration will take time and serious efforts to shift through, let alone to be able to adjust to bring about some sort of peaceful co-existence.

The only certainty about this situation is that for all those pleased with the path he takes there will be an even number opposed to it. It is truly the "you are either with us or against" issue of our times.

[EFerrari]

20. I beg your pardon. I think you may be confusing me with some other poster

that mixes up the current president elect with coins now on sale on the cable channels.

And if you don't recognize that public statements matter, you might want to check with the Obama team who apparently agreed with me that they do and who made one today.

Are some of you still keeping track of who agrees with Obama? That's not democracy, really, is it? That's hero worship.

[merh]

21. Well, to be honest with you, the way you have been hoping and

expecting him to say something, I was thinking I could get you that coin set for your birthday and get them blessed before I shipped them to you. :silly:

What he said mattered to you and others who believe he should say something, it made no difference in the Gaza/Israel conflict because he said nothing relative to the conflict.

As I said, if you didn't know he had concern for those who are suffering and who have been killed in the hell then you do underestimate him.

[Arkana]

22. That's kinda all he's allowed to do until he takes the Oath of Office.

Some folks here don't seem to get that.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, but doing so would be stupid

Obama is going to be heavily involved in negotiating a settlement between all of the players involved here. To use a poker analogy, making a statement before he is inaugurated would be like giving the other players a glance at his hand before the first round of betting even takes place.

Once he has all of his bargaining chips he can simultaneously make statements and take action to make those statements a lot more forceful.

[Arkana]

26. There was a West Wing episode about something like this.

It was right after the Santos/Vinick election, and President-elect Santos contradicted President Bartlet on the Kazakhstan matter they were currently working through...and he got in a lot of trouble.

[EraOfResponsibility]

23. It ain't like Obama DOESN'T want to say anything, believe me

I'll bet he is bursting at the SEAMS to say something. He wants to so bad, but he can't. But it's coming. (And then whatever says, half of you will be unhappy with that) LOL

[Colobo]

24. Obama will take over quite soon. So let's relax and let the man lay low for this next week.

[AtomicKitten]

27. He said after 1-20, he'll have "plenty to say." n/t

[merh]

28. He didn't have to tell me that.

I kinda figured that was the case.

His inauguration speech is going to be something.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Can't wait!!

:hi:

[merh]

30. Me either!

:hi:

[liberalpragmatist]

31. I think this strongly hints at a much more even-handed posture

Obviously, we won't know till the new Administration is in place, but diplomatic statements are always fairly enigmatic. You have to parse them, and look at subtle differences to tell you where the speaker's sympathies actually lie.

In this case, what is significant is that when Obama *DID* choose to speak out, his personal statement wasn't a simple "Israel has a right to defend itself" or the textbook defend-Israel-then-say-Palestinians-are-suffering-but-its-Hamas'-fault.

Instead, the first statement was about civilian deaths. And he named Gaza before Israel.

Already, they're parsing this in Israel to suggest this indicates that Obama will take a more humanitarian approach to the Palestinians:

Obama made it clear that starting on January 20 the rules of American involvement in the region will change, and his administration will be a lot more active in pushing the diplomatic process between Israel and the Arabs forward.

Obama's timing, after the strike on the school, signals the direction the U.S. will turn in its attitude to the region: It will support Israel, but will oppose any harming of Palestinian civilians. This means that Israel will find it difficult to close the crossings into the Gaza Strip at will.

> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053404.html