Israel X Hamas: Obama Uses Empty Rhetoric

It was necessary that more than 600 civil deaths at Gaza, at least 40 of them at a UN school, and an important local university destroyed, to make the President-elect, Barack Obama, break his silence about the conflict there, where the Israeli government, against the Supreme Court in that country, continues to block access to foreign journalists – essential to stop Human Rights violations – and promotes a massacre, according to messages posted online. Obama, elected based on a promise of changes to American foreign policies, said only that he was “worried about civilian deaths in Gaza and Israel.”

Weird, really weird. The long silence of the President-elect of the United States, arguing that there’s only one president at a time, means that it’s still George W. Bush’s turn. In the meanwhile, Obama jumps into negotiations with Congress to approve policies to improve the economic situation.

Well, if his argument is valid for the conflict in the Middle East, it’s natural to be valid for the economic plan as well, but the telegenic American president avoids problems such as he used to do with his votes in the Congress, preferring to find common ground with his opponents on opposing points (which is actually incomprehensible). It was perhaps a lack of qualification, like some opponents point out, which seems to be more probably.

The argument in favor of Obama is that there are too many problems and a president should solve them one at a time. But Obama himself defended that a president should be ready to manage many problems at the same time, such as when his opponent John McCain suggested a break from the campaign last October to discuss the bailout in Congress, a proposal refused by the Democrat.

The tricky situation will be a problem for the future Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, since the current one, Condoleezza Rice, tried to manage the conflict by phone, according to the “New York Times”’ “Incursion into Gaza,” published this week, while the French president headed to some countries in that region to try and broker a cease-fire. Probably Condoleezza, as opposed to Obama, thinks that it’s almost impossible to have an agreement at this point towards the end of an unpopular administration.

It would be then Obama’s turn, not Bush’s. It would be obvious that Mr. Obama, like the “Times” calls him, should have done a minimal act to calm down the region. But Mr. Obama seems to be more worried about the unemployment statistics in the last year, which will probably be around 2.5 million, according to the report to be released this week by the Department of Labor.

The “New York Times says” it hopes that “Mr. Obama and his team are prepared for whatever faces them in this immediate crisis, and that they are working on a broader strategy for the region.” If they are already working on it, why not publicize it, like they did about the stimulus plan which promises $800USD billions investments in infra-structure, although it’s surrounded by skepticism about the efficiency to improve and maintain employment in the short term, and about the resources for that amount of money?

Crisis in the Middle East is not new to the United States to justify the absence of study and strategies to improve the situation. It’s actually an old problem in American foreign policy to which Mr. Obama seems not to have anything new to add, the probable reason for his silence – besides what has been planned for two years by the White House, I mean George W. Bush: the creation of a nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against the one which is pointed as the chief of terrorists from Hamas: Iran. That policy will probably increase the anti-Americanism in the region, stimulating terrorism against the United States and its coalition.

Israeli attempts to shut Hamas up in the short term is “highly unlikely to succeed,” said the “Times.” On the other hand, in its editorial page, an analysis says that it could increase the terrorist group’s popularity, which will shoot Bush’s “War Against Terror” in the foot, a war which Obama will continue because American leadership in the world depends on its success according to experts. The conflict also increases the regional instability and makes it harder for the next administration to negotiate peace after January 20.

All those arguments are enough for the President-elect to manifest himself further through the empty rhetoric.