Today President-Elect Obama had this to say on the continuing conflict between Israel and Gaza:
"'The loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me, and after January 20 I'm going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to be engaged effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East,' [Obama[ said. 'That's something I am committed to.'"
So Obama is waiting until he becomes President to take a more substantive stance. He has been criticized for not speaking out earlier, considering his comment on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and now he will be criticized for not saying enough - probably by both sides. So was there any point, any purpose in today's announcement?
I would argue there is a definite purpose in Obama's comment today. In substance, it says a fairly simple thing: "I am troubled by civilian casualties." He takes no sides, he places no blame. While this may seem like less than other politicians have been willing to offer, I would argue it is actually more.
For one thing Obama's not about to get burned by this particular hot potato.
The relevant factor is simply the complexity of the issue at hand. Different news sources report different origin-myths as to how the current cease-fire sublimated into nothingness. Neither side is blameless and neither side is trusted. It seems presumptuous for politicians, or indeed anyone, to take the side of Israel or of Gaza wholeheartedly, without acknowledging that the other side has a legitimate point.
Note that I distinguish between Gaza and Hamas here. I believe it's possible to support the Palestinian people, who overwhelm the Israelis in sheer suffering alone, without supporting Hamas, who in turn bring a world of suffering to so many Israelis.
Israel has not heeded any calls for a cease-fire thus far; why would they listen to a not-even President should he call for one? To have any call for a cease-fire or cessation of hostilities rebuffed would be one of those stains the Obama Transition team is looking to avoid - and for good reason. Why notch up an unnecessary loss? This is similar to how Obama did not appear in support of Jim Martin against Saxby Chambliss in Georgia - it was never going to help, so why bother trying?
Finally, there is a key difference between this conflict and the Mumbai attacks. Those attacks were carried out against a nation, India, by terrorists. This current conflict is between two nations - Israel and Palestine - or at least two autonomous regions (though Gaza's autonomy is in doubt considering its dependence on foreign aid). Obama can speak for himself but cannot yet speak for America, at least not while respecting the previously-established One President At A Time policy. He has some justification perhaps but little or no right in using his clout as America's president-elect to dictate or even suggest current foreign policy. Alas.
UPDATED: FULL COMMENT
"As I've said before, when it comes to foreign policy, I think the need to adhere to One President At A Time is particularly important. In domestic policy, Democrats, Republicans, we can have arguments back and forth about what tax policies are going to be. When it comes to international affairs, other countries are looking to see who speaks for America. Right now, President George Bush, as President of the United States, speaks on behalf of the U.S. government and the American people when it comes to international affairs.
Obviously I am deeply concerned about the conflict that's taking place there. I'm being fully briefed and monitored, monitoring the situation on a day-to-day basis. The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern for me, and after January 20th I am going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign: starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East. That's something that I'm committed to. I think it's not only right for the people in that region; most importantly it's right for the national security of the American people and the stability that is so important to this country.
So on January 20th you will be hearing directly from me and my opinions on this issue. Until then my job is to monitor the situation and put together the best possible national security team so that we hit the ground running once we are responsible for national security issues."