Should Obama Remain Silent on Middle East Conflict?
Posted: Monday, January 05, 2009
by Mogama
http://www.mogama.info
If you believe Israelis' claim, Hamas has been
firing rockets into their homeland, and thus endangering, injuring,
and killing Israeli civilians for more than 6 months. Accordingly,
the Israelis say they had to respond to the national security threat posed by
the hostile regime in Gaza.
If Israel is telling the truth in their claim, then, in light of such a severe security
danger, one can't help but ask, "Why did Israel wait that long
to take action against Hamas?"
One plausible answer might be that the
Israelis were reluctant to endure a repeat of the Lebanon debacle,
where the elite military all but got its butt kicked by Hezbollah in 2006,
probably because Israel sought to fight a politically correct war, according to some pundits.
Another explanation for the Israeli
longsuffering towards Hamas could have been the time needed by Israel
to thoroughly study and fully understand what Hamas is capable of.
Can Hamas fighters really go head to head with the Israeli military
in Gaza as Hezbollah did in Lebanon?
But those deep answers and others like
them may be an over-attempt to drum up something profound, when the
real answer is much more obvious than that: international opinion.
Israel knows that the international community would not accord the
Jewish nation the same nose-up treatment they gave Hamas and its
weapons against Israeli civilian targets.
Sure enough, the vast majority of the
world community has come down on the side of Hamas. In the name of
humanitarian concern, of course. Already we've seen marches around
European cities, calling on Israel to stop the carnage. Europeans
leaders demand that Israel stop the humanitarian disaster that Gaza
has become.
For his part, President G.W. Bush,
backed by Mayor Bloomberg of New York remain strongly on the side of
Israel, almost encouraging the Israelis to finish Hamas off, so that
the world does not see a repeat of this vicious cycle of Hamas provocation followed by Israeli response. President Bush's take reflects his usual
simplistic outlook: "Israel has the right to defend her citizens
from terrorist attacks."
What surprises me is that some people
are surprised American President-elect Barack Obama has observed
the silent oath since the dawn of the latest bloodshed between
Israelis and Palestinians. "Why doesn't Obama say something?"
they lament.
Frankly, I think Mr. Obama is handling
(or not handling) this one just right. Regardless of what our Arab
neighbors think, Obama was not elected to "save the world"
or to speak "peace be still" to the trouble waters of
Israeli-Palestinian turbulence. Jews and Arabs alike must understand
that they are the ones who have chosen to trade in violence in a
perpetual merry-go-round. Every American president in recent memory
has inherited this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it has always
taken precious time away from American business.
In lieu of the
daunting task facing America this time around, the in-coming
president does not have the luxury of investing any considerable
amount of time in the political quicksand of Middle Eastern war
negotiations, apart from the expected involvement of the US Secretary of State, which will be Mrs. Hillary Clinton.
Besides, what makes some world leaders
think that just a word or sentence from Obama is certainly and suddenly going to
bring peace to the Middle East, a bastion of ancient hatred and cradle of unburied hostility?
Barack Obama has rightly said America
has one president at a time, and until January 20, 2009, that one
president of the United States is Mr. George W. Bush. Since President
Bush and his State Department are somewhat on the ball, there is no
need for Obama to say a word, especially if he wants to walk the
middle path in the Middle East conflict. Is there any other path for
a fair-minded president when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian
blood sport, that proven land mines known in the past to eat American
presidents alive? Even worse if any American president takes on this mess at the start of his term, and the in-coming president would be a fool to begin his regime with Palestine on his mind.
Americans elected Obama to put together
a competent team to take on the massive, crumbling twin tower that is the
American economy and the collapse of character on Wall Street coupled with the near-absent of oversight on the part of the SEC, et al. America has single handedly pulled and plunged the global economy
into a severe recession, and it's America's moral duty to reverse this. That's Obama's mandate. If Palestinians, Arabs or Israelis think
President Obama will take his eyes off the ball to voluntarily bury the prospects of his presidential prospects beneath the
rubble of their never-ending battles, then let them keep whining.
The Arab leaders that are now faulting
Obama for not speaking up... how much speaking up did they do during
those months when Israel says Hamas made a recreation out of launching rockets
into Israeli towns? And if Obama did not speak up against Hamas when
they were harassing their Jewish foes, why should Obama now denounce
Israel for returning the bloody favor?
If I were Barack Obama, I'll head to
Hawaii for a second vacation in so many weeks. And I'll wait until my
second term before I risk any serious involvement in Middle East
peace. Then from the start I'll limit my involvement to the State Department.
Is it any wonder that Jews, Muslims and Christians all agree
that it will take "the Messiah", by whatever name he's
called, to bring peace to the Middle East? Well, Obama is not that Messiah, though many wish he were.
Yes, if I'm Obama I'm biting the
pacifier on this one. It's too early to burn up political capital on
a known bottomless pit of ever-meandering negotiations that never cease to end up on the battlefield. Well, except for one nagging bother that
results from every serious gory Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the price of
gasoline is headed back up, by as much as 30 cents since Israel
started hitting back at Hamas, and it's guaranteed to remain on the
upswing if the ground war lingers. Should that hit Obama on the head to disturb his presidential snooze? A weak perhaps, if you ask me.
hi mogama,you write very well. this was an interesting article, and i agree with what you were saying. Obama is not the President YET, so why should he speak on anything that is the President's responsibility?we'll see in 2 weeks what he may have to say.thanks for a good article,my best regards,sueYes, and I suggest that in 2 weeks he says not much more than, "The Secretary of State is on the ball." I appreciate your positive comments. ~mogama~
Mogama makes some good points, however I am not sure I completely agree with all of his commentary.Truth be known, I believe that are many who would like to see Hamas disappear, but are not saying so publicly. Egypt for example is no great friend of the Hamas organization, whom they view as radical fundamentalists dedicated to toppling Egypt's more moderate western friendly government. The Palestinian authority would love to see Hamas destroyed, as they are the primary threat to their power in the Palestinian government. The public statements by the various Arab government officials, in my opinion are mainly for public consumption, that is to quell the anger in the "Arab Street" and divert it away from themselves and towards Israel, the popular common enemy. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are a major source of worry for the Sunni Arabs states like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and while these countries have no great love for Israel, I really believe they would sooner see these radical elements disappear from the scene. If you recall during the internal Palestinian conflict between The Palestinian Authority and Hamas, many of the Fatah fighters sought protection from Israel against the wrath of their more fundamentalist brethren! It is also widely accepted that the presence of the IDF was the only reason Hamas did not also take over the West Bank as well.As far as the incoming President is concerned, I believe he is right to stay mum on this situation. As Mogama expounded upon, this conflict has really not been good for many Presidents during the last several decades. Politically, Obama has nothing to gain by saying much. If he makes a strong statement in support of Israel, then the entire Arab and Muslim world would instantly become enraged, and would take away some of his credibility before he even takes office. If he makes a statement critical of Israel and more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, then he will alienate the very strong, and influential support he received from American Jews during the election, not to mention raise the ire of much of pro-Israel America, and their various constituencies. Clearly he has everything to lose, and nothing to gain to say anything of much substance right now. I also believe that Obama's silence says more than words can say. In my view, Obama would like to see Hamas either destroyed, or seriously marginalized, as they are a direct threat to any American mediated settlement that might possibly be achieved in his administration. Hamas is officially deemed a "terrorist organization", and there can be no negotiations or settlements with such an entity. In my view, Obama's silence is his tacit approval of Israel's military operation. In just a few more weeks, President Obama will have many opportunities to make statements and direct policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Right now, it just doesn't make much political sense for him to say very much if at all.If I could take just a brief "stab" at the nature of the conflict itself, I wanted to make just a few points. Firstly, the statements that I have heard made by individuals representing different countries and organizations such as the President of France, and the EU regarding this issue of the "disproportionate" use of force by Israel, are at best completely ignorant of military strategy, and at worst are genuine hypocrites. Israel has been subjected to thousands of rocket, mortar, and missile attacks over a span of 8 years from the radicals in Gaza. The attacks intensified after Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from Gaza. A "tit for tat" back and forth response would accomplish absolutely nothing of any real substance. Hamas would rain down rockets on southern Israel's cities, the IDF would respond, kill a few Hamas fighters with a lightening fast air strike, or a brief ground incursion, and Hamas would again send more rockets and missiles to rain down on Israel's cities and towns. Clearly this strategy hasn't worked, and could potentially go on for many more years without a resolution. Israel clearly needed a strong, and brutal but necessary military option, to once and for all end the continued attacks on her citizens. The idea is that every rocket or missile that is sent over to Israel will cost something to the Hamas regime. Thus Israel chose to use obliterating, and overpowering force to defeat, or at the very least deter their enemy from considering further attacks. I believe Israel has made her point very clear to the Hamas regime.If the "disproportionate" use of force comments made aren't in ignorance of military strategy, then they are perhaps made by genuine hypocrites. How long would the President of France tolerate continued rocket and missile bombardments if hypothetically terrorists attacked French cities and towns along the border with Spain? How long would any nation tolerate such continued harassment? In my view, the first responsibility of any sovereign nation is to protect their own citizens. Israel is doing that.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is both tragic, and complicated, but I do not make a moral equivalence as some in the media seem to do between a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations, and a band of murderous thugs, who are deemed by much of the world to be a terrorist entity. The suffering of the Palestinian people of Gaza is very sad, and tragic, but as long as they allow themselves to be ruled by extremists, co-existence and peace is simply not possible.Thanks, Peter, for pointing out that some Arab nations want Hamas wiped out or severely weakened. In your other points, you've shed much light on this discussion. I appreciate your input. ~mogama~
Mogama he has. He came out strongly on the side of Israel just the other day in saying he would take similar action if rockets were being fired at his children. In fact he said he would place a Nuclear Umbrella over her to protect her about three weeks ago. In fact the Muslim world in mnay places has done an about face on him. Check it out. Best wishes,Did Mr. Obama make those comments AFTER the start of the current Israeli response to Hamas attacks? If so, he must have done so after I wrote this article. Thanks, Robert, for your comments. ~mogama~I saw the news clip but I suspect it was before? Yet as far as I know his position hasn't changed and I have not ehard to the contrary. I could be wroing on the timing. The resonse from the Muslim nations was on last evenings news. Robert.
Obama made those referenced statements during the campaign last year when he was in Sderot, Israel. I personally believe that President Obama strongly supports Israel's right to defend itself, but there will be much pressure to appear to be the "honest broker" in this conflict. I believe his personal sympathies are with Israel, but the conflict is so complex, and there are so many political and strategic ramifications and pressures, that he will not be a President that gives Israel a "blank check" to do whatever they want. Israel's security, however is sacrosanct, and Obama has said so publicly many times during the campaign. Hillary Clinton is very solidly pro-Israel, and has the mental toughness to deal with that very troubled region. I believe she will make a very effective Secretary of state.To comment just a little further on this situation in the middle east, the unfortunate reality is that I really do not see a peaceful settlement anytime soon, perhaps not even in our lifetimes. Let me elaborate. The crisis in the middle east is ancient and visceral. Ever since Ishmael and Issac, the enmity between these two sons of Abraham and their offspring is a biblical and historical fact for thousands of years.The modern state of Israel was created mainly as a response to the atrocities of the Nazi holocaust. While Israel is certainly not perfect, history is very clear regarding which side really is to blame for all of the misery, death and suffering that has certainly gone on far too long. Time and time again, Israel has held out her hand in peace to her Arab cousins, only to be met with hatred, violence, and bloodthirsty rallying cries for her destruction. Israel has become a military power by necessity. If not for her military prowess, Israel would have been destroyed long ago. If you listen clearly and carefully, and with objectivity to what the Arab side has consistently said, it is apparent that driving the Jews into the sea is more important than anything, more important even than the creation of a Palestinian State.Here are some of the points that seem to bear this out. The Palestinians want the "right of return" to be implemented, meaning that all those who were displaced in the 1948 war, and all of their descendants which would now be numbered in several million people total, be allowed to enter Israel. This right there would be more effective in destroying Israel than any military attack. The demographics of Israel at that point would be irreversibly altered, to where Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. A large hostile voting bloc would then destroy the state of Israel. Anyone who knows anything about the middle east knows this to be true, and yet, the Arab side will not budge on this point, even though it would be tantamount to national suicide for the state of Israel. The Arab side is also calling for a complete return to the pre-1967 borders, which most military experts state would be indefensible for Israel based on current realities. Still the Arab side will not settle for anything less. No country in the history of the world, that I am aware of that has been consistently victorious on the battlefield as Israel has, been forced to surrender territory to those that have lost. In war, it is the victor that calls the shots, as the United States did in accepting Japan's surrender during the second world war. Also if you listen to Arab, and Palestinian commentators, they seem to truly believe that only THEY have the right to Palestine, and that the Jews are outside invaders that came from other places. They do not seem to even want to acknowledge the thousands of years of history that the Jews have in this place called Israel, or Palestine. The truth is that both sides have valid claims to this land, however I only see one side, and that is Israel, who is consistently willing to offer compromises even to the detriment of their own country. It is the intransigence of the Arab side that keeps this conflict going perpetually. If the Palestinians would truly be reasonable, then perhaps there could be a chance for peace. But their version of "peace" is for Israel to commit national suicide.Your comments reflect a historically informed opinion. It would be interesting to read a response from a pro-Palestinian reader. Thanks, Peter, for your valuable comments. ~mogama~I tend to agree and disagree as I pointed out in some of my writings. There are key prophecies that Christians are well aware of that could never have been even 100 years ago. I do agree time will tell. Best wishes and keep up the good work. I just love this dialog. It helps us all to realize the varied perspectives, opinions and to become informed. Robert.
Regarding the current conflict between the Israel Defense Forces, and Hamas, I wanted to make another comment. Notice how Hamas specifically targets civilians when launching their rockets, and missiles. The missiles and rockets do not have a military value, as they are not intended to strike Israeli military sites. This is clearly terrorism, which is designed to not defeat your enemy militarily, but to demoralize the populace, so they eventually lose their desire to fight, and give up. So therefor, Hamas is directly targeting schools, hospitals, kindergartens, houses, and places of business, and worship, to eventual cause the population to retreat further away. Israel on the other hand does not directly target civilians. The casualties we see today in Gaza are the direct result of several factors.#1. It is a well known Hamas terrorist technique to place their fighters among the civilian population, and fire from hospitals and schools, so that when the Israeli forces return fire, there will be many Palestinian casualties, which can be used in the media against Israel.#2. there is no such thing as a completely "antiseptic" war. When there is war, especially in a densely populated area like Gaza, there are going to be casualties. People die in wars. I do not believe it is the intent of the Israeli forces to kill anyone other than the terrorist enemies that they are pursuing.#3. Mistakes will be made. There was a friendly fire incident several days ago, where several Israeli soldiers lost their lives. Israel is known to have one of the best military forces in the world. They however are still human, and mistakes in the field during the confusion of battle sometimes results in unintended consequences. Many of the Hamas fighters have donned civilian clothes to blend in with the greater population. War, and military strategy is more an art than an exact science. It is literally impossible to eliminate all civilian casualties in a war time setting.One last point. It has not been widely reported in the general media, that Israel has actually been using robo-calls, and text messages by the thousands to warn residents of an impending attack. They are told that the area that they are in has been used as a staging area for rocket and missile attacks. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have never heard of any nation doing anything like this before, that is effectively warning the enemy that an attack is coming. Hamas mainly fires it's rockets from mobile launchers, so if they get the word that an Israeli strike is coming, they can quickly relocate.While I grieve for the innocent loss of life on both sides, I find it hard to have much sympathy for the Palestinian side. They have basically brought this hell upon themselves. The ones that I grieve for are the young children that are caught in the cross fire. But the population of Gaza inviting disaster when they both voted for and supported an extremist terrorist organization. Eventually Hamas was going to provoke Israel to the point of a major military response.Thanks, Peter, for your valuable input. It is a given that every time there is a clash between Hamas or any such organization and the Israel i military, the publicity war will almost always favor the Hamas' side. This reflects Western media bias that automatically treats Israel as the bully of the Middle East. The fact that the terrorists intentionally use civilians to engender this exact PR response never seems to dawn on the typical media. Having said that, I must admit that Israel usually bows to this pressure and ceases fire. It always comes down to negative PR defeating Israel. ~mogama~
Mogama,Israel now has the opportunity to crush Hamas once and for all. Hopefully for their sake, they will not stop short of the goal of destroying this murderous entity once and for all.