Obama chooses his words carefully on Gaza
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 by Jon Clements
Talk about a rock and a hard place.
US President elect, Barack Obama, has finally spoken out about the crisis in Gaza, saying: “The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern for me.” But, for some, his comments are too little and too late.
The Guardian’s Simon Tisdall - not one for rash pronouncements - had already questioned the Obama’s ”keep shtum” strategy, suggesting that his silence may give the impression he either “shares [George] Bush’s bias [in favour of Israel] or simply does not care.” This image, surely, would be unthinkable for the man voted in on a platform of “change” and of reaching out to a world divided by US foreign policy. And how would Obama’s delayed response play in the Arab world?
Middle East-based English language news source, Al Jazeera, was on Obama’s case before the close of 2008, quoting Mark Perry, Washington Director of the Conflicts Forum group with the damning: “Silence sounds like complicity”.
According not only to protocol but, apparently, also to the US constitutution, there is ”only one president at at time”, so hampering anything Obama may actually want to say on the Gaza situation.
Problem is, those looking for the soon-to-be leader of the free world to take action - or at least take a stance - are not interested in presidential protocol.
Saying something or saying nothing: before he has the elected authority to do anything about it, neither is a palatable option for Obama on an issue as complex as Israel and the Palestinians.
But from his 20 January inauguration, his credibility and fulfilling of the promise he presented at election time will hang on talking and acting clearly and quickly.
