The seventh day of Israel's air offensive on Hamas and infrastructure in Gaza has passed, and still no word from Barack Obama. A transition spokesperson, in response to growing calls for Obama to speak up, released a statement that recycles the President-elect's typical response to issues he wants to avoid, "President-elect Obama is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time."
This Boilerplate statement is a cop-out, and the press needs to start calling Obama on his selective respect for Bush's non-existent presidential authority. If there is only one president at a time, why is Obama heading to Capitol Hill on Monday to negotiate with lawmakers on his economic agenda? Last I checked, his inauguration is not until the 20th.
I am on Obama's case because Gaza affects us all, and could matter as much to his presidency as his stimulus plan. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is central to explaining global terrorism and middle east instability. As Bush quickly learned (remember his 2000 campaign? international disengagement, education, compassionate conservatism), international events often occupy presidencies, and if Obama is serious about tackling international terrorism, the peace process, or the potential for wider instability in the middle east, it would serve him well to start engaging the Israeli/Palestinian conflict now.
Let me be clear that I am not calling for Obama to speak out against Israel's action (silence is often tacit approval in politics). I do not advocate a particular side in this conflict; I advocate a solution. And I do not pretend to know what that would be. I simply know that the status quo hasn't solved anything.
I do, however, believe that a cessation of hostilities is preferable to a prolonged Israeli ground invasion, and would make a new truce agreement more likely. Toppling a democratically elected government (no matter how despicable Hamas is, its political wing was legitimately and democratically elected in a US sponsored election) and the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure is not in Israeli, or US, interests. The backlash in Palestine and the Muslim world would be immense, and likely result in a third intifada. Problem is, the only party with the leverage to push the parties toward a truce, the US, remains on the sideline.
Rice's
press conference today was disappointing (but unsurprising), echoing the administration's stance on the 2006 war in Lebanon. To borrow her words, a "durable and sustainable" cease-fire is achieved one of two ways: a total defeat of one side (which, given the structure of Hamas and Israel's experience in Lebanon, policymakers shouldn't count on), or an agreement that appeals to the interests of both (no matter how disproportionate). It is difficult to envision Israel achieving either of these two outcomes with a full invasion of Gaza, which is exactly what the Bush administration is supporting (at least publicly). This is why Obama should intervene. Not officially, rather by speaking on the subject and setting out his general intentions for the peace process. Even in abstract, an indication of Obama's middle east policy would temper Israeli actions. Admittedly, a ground operation looks unavoidable at this point. But, Obama can limit the operation's duration and damage to civilians and public infrastructure.
This might be critical to providing the conditions under which a truce or eventual peace agreement can be negotiated. The Israeli leadership will listen; they serve no interest by crossing the President-elect. Palestinians will listen too; not Hamas, but a civilian population that must feel like the world has left them behind. If alternatives to Hamas begin to look "durable and sustainable", the sentiment and support that swept Hamas into power will begin to fade. And that might just be the key to ultimately ending rocket attacks on Israel. It would also help boost Fatah, who could fill the vacuum, and are more prepared to negotiate with Israel. If anyone should appreciate the power of "hope", Obama
should. Furthermore, if Israel and the US seek to build up Fatah as a partner for peace, actions that bolster the credibility and appeal of Hamas should be avoided. Unfortunately, a prolonged ground war in Gaza will do just that.
Obama has an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the next 4 years of middle east policy. He can't be expected to prevent tomorrow's events in Gaza, but he can affect their duration and damage. US leadership has been, and will be, key to a lasting peace agreement. Obama's silence is helping no one, and only complicates his future efforts towards that end.
