Skip to main content

After President Obama's reelection, foreign policy watchers wondered aloud whether the White House – free of electoral concerns – would become a more engaged, more balanced player in (among other arenas) Middle East peace efforts.

This week, that question became immediate as Israel launched its expanding "Pillar of Defense" military campaign against Gaza. And the answer came quickly.

With rockets raining on Israel and missiles pummeling Gaza, the Obama administration's first responses indicated that, just as before, the U.S. would back Israel at the Palestinians' expense, forgoing even the appearance of a balanced approach. For initial statements showed full support for Israel's right to defend itself, and placed full culpability on Hamas to end the violence.

In fact, with Israeli tanks amassing along the border and reservists being called up for a possible ground campaign, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes appeared to publicly green-light any Israeli military response when he said:

The Israelis are going to make decisions about their own military tactics and operations. What we want is the same thing the Israelis want, which is an end to the rocket fire coming out of Gaza.
However, President Obama yesterday seemed to hedge a bit on giving carte blanche to an Israeli ground invasion:
Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory...If that can be accomplished without a ramping up of military activity in Gaza, that's preferable.
The "ramping up" of which Obama spoke was an Israeli ground campaign, and while his words were publicly mild, reports are that the White House expressed more forcefull concerns behind closed doors.

So why would Obama and the White House express that Israel has the freedom to choose how it will respond to Hamas militarily when a full-scale bombing campaign was underway, but hedge now that a ground invasion appears possible?

Obviously, it has much to do with a fear of destabilization in a region that can ill-afford more. However, the Gaza bombing campaign itself, disproportionate being condemned both by regional and international players, has already created a regionally destabilizing force.

So why has Obama been unwilling to critique Israel's bombing campaign, which has inflicted untold civilian casualties in Gaza, particularly when President George W. Bush was quick to use harsh words in a similar situation in 2002 (in a post-9/11 America no less)?

One answer is America's drone program. While the Obama administration cannot be happy with developments between Israel and Gaza, it has also been unwilling to critique Israel's bombing campaign. Why? With America's drone program engaging in targeted assassinations in Pakistan and elsewhere, breaching the sovereign airspace of other nations to do so, the U.S. is in no place to critique Israel on its own bombing campaigns.

And this puts America in a bind, at least publicly.

Now, one might argue that Hamas, as a listed terror organization, is reason enough for America to hold off on critiquing Israel's bombing of Gaza. But if such were the case, there would be little reason to resist a ground campaign as well.

With civilian casualties mounting in both Gaza and Israel as the rockets and missiles continue to fall, Obama has held his tongue, because he must.

If Israel launches a ground offensive, however, this may change.


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site