Gaza is Obama's first big foreign policy headache

In just twelve days' time Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States of America.  Much of the world expects big changes in foreign policy.  Those expectations will meet their first test with the incoming administration's handling of the Gaza crisis.  Up until now Mr Obama has said that there is only one President and one Secretary of State at a time and it is not for him to send out different messages from the current administration.  Al-Jazeera has criticised this as a "deafening silence".  The silence ends after Obama's Inauguration, however.  This is what he said on Tuesday (our emphasis):

"The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern to me, and after January 20th I’ll have plenty to say about the issue."

Many supporters of Israel are hopeful that American policy will remain broadly supportive.  Visiting Sderot last July - an Israeli town that is particularly vulnerable to Hamas' rocket attacks - Obama said that "no country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens."  He went on top say that it would be "very hard to negotiate" with Hamas because it does not recognize Israel's right to exist, has a record of terrorist activity and has been supplied with weapons from other nations hostile to Israel.

In the speech below - again from last year (June) - he promised an audience of American Jews that he "would never compromise when it comes to Israel's security":

There will be some change, however, from the Bush administration. Obama has already promised to engage more directly with problem states such as Iran and one of the people - Richard Haass - tipped to be part of his Middle East team advocated low level contact with Hamas in an article written before the current outbreak of hostilities.  Don't be surprised, however, if policy is more notable for continuity than change.

Comments

[Sally Roberts]

He is not yet the President - of course he has to stay silent until 20th January. It's still in Bush's In-Tray until then.

[Babs]

I have to say that just like many others I swallowed Obama's campaign rhetoric hook, line and sinker. So Malcolm, maybe you were right that I hadn't a clue what Obama was all about.
Having said that, I now think the world will be brought up short on his feel good rhetoric. I base this on the picks he made for his foreign policy and security team; a surprise to me!
I would still support the disengagement that Obama espoused during the campaign. "You and him - go kill each other. We will stand over here and denounce both of you!"
I wonder what the world would look like if he actually did that? I really can't make up my mind if things would be better or worse. Nature abhors a vacuum. Would the Chinese step up and demand free trade routes, etc. through their military power?

[Old Cynic]

Not to worry, I'm sure that, by the 21st January, The One will have brought peace to the Middle East (he'll have got there on foot of course - Atlantic crossing and all!)

[Edward, Albuquerque NM, USA]

Babs - I'm a bit surprised to hear that you feel like you were sold a "bill of goods" regarding the President Elect's campaign rhetoric. After all he's not even taken office yet - time will tell what he actually does.

Despite the purpose of this site (which, as an aside, I find as interesting as it is hard to believe. I mean the very idea that individuals in the UK are sponsoring it without support from the US government is too fantastic), I think we would agree that the US should lead the world by example only. As a conservative, I look to my first President who warned against "foreign entanglements." What business is it of ours (the US) who or how China does business with. The world has long clamored for the "Pax Americana" to pass. I for one am glad it is. Let the rest of the world deal with China or Russia or Iran or whomever else. This US citizen is tired of spending blood, treasure, and influence on other peoples' problems. I hope Mr. Obama looks to the US issues first and the rest of the world should be left to work out their issues on their own.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Who really know what will happen? But I suspect that Obama may grant to some extent you your wish Edward. It's too early to say whether that will be good or bad for the world.

[Super Blue]

So there we have it. The Arabists of the British Foreign Office, BBC (aka alJabeeba) and the Left plus the Islamists all expected Obama to handcuff Israel while Hamas tried to drive into the sea.
He didn't. Shock, horror!

[Steevo]

And here's what the Guardian have to say...

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon President Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas - which could be initiated through the US intelligence services - would represent a definitive break with the Bush presidency's ostracising of the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp.

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on in his administration, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

A tested course would be to start contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services - similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

[Adrian Butterworth]

Its been funny to see you interventionists rushing to defend Israel's reaction to foreign attack. Funny because only a few months ago you were condemning Russia for her 'disproportionate' reaction to Georgian aggression. Well, I suppose double standards are bound to arise when you take sides in wars that are none of you bloody business!

The Gazan sandpit is irrelevant to American interests. IRRELEVANT

While you lunatics concern yourself with the Israeli invasion of Gaza, the Mexican invasion of America continues unabated.
This site seems more concerned about squabbles taking place on a little strip of sand in the Mediterranean than it is about the greatest threat to the integrity of United States there has ever been. You consider yourselves to be pro-American when you are in fact the enemies of America.

[Steevo]

Funny how weird you are Adrian. Tho I can agree we've got a serious border problem, the rest of your relativism is not relevant.

[mamapajamas]

Adrian, Georgia did not spend more than 6 months lobbing more than 3000 missiles and mortar shells into Russian cities.

As an American, I look at it this way.

Suppose Cuba spent 6 months lobbing more than 3000 shells into Florida cities.

On missile might be dismissed as an accident (although a diplomatic problem). A second missile would verifiy malevolent intent.

Do you think they would have gotten to even the THIRD missile, never mind the 3000th, before the US flattened Cuba's ability to lob missiles as us?

You see, that is the situation in Israel/Gaza. The 3000+ shells being lobbed into Israeli cities is what happened. Only the fact that they have excellent anti-missile defences-- and that they were EXPECTING trouble from Gaza-- kept Israel from being seriously damaged. Not much blood, so not much news about it in the Western press. The Israelis showed incredible restraint in not flattening Gaza before the 3rd missile hit them.

[Adrian]

"As an American, I look at it this way.

Suppose Cuba spent 6 months lobbing more than 3000 shells into Florida
cities..."

Ok fine. Except that Gaza isn't Cuba is it?

And Florida has not been shelled, has it? and no American citizens are dead,
are they?

No; Israeli towns have been shelled and Israeli civilians have been killed.
Now Gaza has been bombed and Palestinian civilians have been killed.

That's because it's their religious war, not ours.

It is a war that almost certainly has no solution. Ask yourself: what have these aerial attacks achieved?

Do you actually think that any militants who have been killed will not
quickly be replaced?

Don't you think that Israel has lost even more moral authority in the mind
of the Arabs?

Then ask yourself: 'As an American' why should the fact of two religions
fighting to the death over a barren sand-pit matter to you?

'As an American' why is it in your country's interests to pick sides in this
irresolvable never-ending conflict? Do you seriously think it does your country
more good than harm?

Israel and Palestine are irrelevant to the national interests of the United
States. But your willingness to see America and Israel as one in the same has
come to rule the minds of Israel's enemies who are now your enemies.

[mamapajamas]

Adrian, it was YOU who tsk-tsked at us for not coming down on Georgia. Georgia isn't Gaza, either.