Will Obama's public silence on Israel's military response to Hamas translate into complicity?

[bigtree]

This article in the Chicago Tribune suggests that some Arabs believe it does . . .


Barack Obama's silence on Gaza bombings is galling to Arabs

A region that had high hopes for him now feels he's condoning Israeli attack

By Liz Sly | Tribune correspondent
January 4, 2009

BEIRUT — President-elect Barack Obama's silence on the weeklong conflict in Gaza is drawing criticism among Arabs who have grown skeptical about hopes that his administration will break with the Mideast policies of the Bush era.

Obama, who is moving to Washington this weekend, was on vacation in Hawaii when the crisis erupted and has made no statements, either about Israel's bombing of Gaza or Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel. His aides say that he does not wish to address foreign-policy issues in any way that could send "confusing signals" about U.S. policy as long as President George W. Bush is in office.

"President-elect Obama is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time," said Brooke Anderson, chief national security spokeswoman for the Obama transition team.

Arab commentators maintain, however, that Obama did comment on foreign affairs when he issued a statement condemning the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and that he has given several news conferences outlining his economic proposals. They suggest that his refusal to speak out on Gaza—where more than 400 Palestinians have died in the Israeli airstrikes, compared with four Israeli deaths from the rockets—implies indifference to the plight of Palestinians or even complicity with Israel's bombing campaign.

read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gaza-obama_slyjan04,0,3493387.story

(I'm raising this because I really don't have a firm view on whether he should speak up. I know I want him to . . .)

[spanone]

1. damned if he does, damned if he doesn't....he's not the president as of now

maybe these folks need a civics lesson....he won't be silent after he becomes president

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

2. I concur.

[bigtree]

3. yep, that's a bitch

. . . the future effects of the U.S. posture over the next 17 days are in the hands of an ignorant buffoon.

[madokie]

4. and not a thing that Obama can do to change that

[cali]

5. no, it's not complicity

He should stay out of this until he's sworn in. There's absolutely nothing he could say or do at this time that would improve matters, and he might well make things worse by speaking about it.

[madokie]

7. for some reason some just can't see that

[spanone]

10. 'some' = media

[bigtree]

11. I think this article is addressing the views of folks who aren't invested in Obama's presidency

. . . like we in the U.S. are . . . and what the effect of those perceptions will be on the Obama administration's efforts to influence these groups and individuals to some resolution.

[Sensitivity]

22. Muslim world is not agreeing to our "rules" as to when Obama may speak

[bigtree]

I'm inclined to agree with that

not entirely, but mostly.

[GoesTo11]

6. Complicity in what?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Israel daring to defend herself

[Jefferson23]

16. The occupation in and of itself is illegal, unless you, like the Unites States

"diplomacy policy", believe that the IJC advisory ruling of 2004 was just a bogus piece of nonsense. So convenient for the US to ignore this and most unfortunate for the Palestinians that they have no leadership to help them when they clearly won an enormous victory 4 years ago. As an American I am sickened by our presidents words on this assault on Gaza that he made yesterday.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. The Palestinians have the laedership which they elected

Those chose to pet terrorists in power, and are now reaping what they have sown.

[Jefferson23]

26. And your response indicates you do not appreciate or perhaps understand WHY that has happened.

The longer the US ignores the ICJ advisory ruling of 2004 in its dealings with Israel, the longer Israel occupies Gaza, the longer this will continue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Because the Palestinian voters wanted the destruction is Israel rather than peace

[Jefferson23]

30. Consider reading the ICJ ruling of 2004 sometime.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Let the IJC try to enforce their ruling

[Jefferson23]

32. It is an advisory ruling, you would benefit from reading it through.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. So you're saying Israelis are responsible for the war criminals they elected?

Or are you applying a double standard?

[bigtree]

9. I do believe some of the military attacks in response to Hamas are illegal

. . . under provisions of the Geneva Convention:

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application

Article 48: Basic Rule

1. In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.


Article 54: Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.


Chapter IV: Precautionary Measures
Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

1. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

1. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

2. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

3. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

2. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

3. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

full list of provisions: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

[Duckhunter935]

12. Hamas has been violating this, darn those regulations

Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

1. In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Article 57: Precautions in Attack


1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

3. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

More apply, do I need to continue?

[bigtree]

13. using the provisions

the response would be . . .

Chapter IV: Precautionary Measures
Article 57: Precautions in Attack

(5.) No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

[Duckhunter935]

15. So I guess Hamas and Israel are wrong

Hamas is targeting civilians and Israel is blockading supplies and fuel

[bigtree]

17. oh yes. both are wrong and in violation of these provisions

Are they just untenable and unreasonable for either side to observe?

Somehow, I'd expect more adherence to the law from the Israeli government than I would from Hamas combatants.

[Occam Bandage]

14. "Complicity" is a very loaded word.

All American presidents are in a very difficult position when it comes to I/P. Obama is, of course, doubly so as a man who is not yet President.

It is easy to say "unprovoked terrorist attacks on civilians are bad," as he did regarding Mumbai. Most everyone agrees on that. But for him to come down hard on either side of an enormously complex, morally-ambiguous issue would lead to an absolute PR disaster, both at home and in the middle east, and would result in only inflaming tempers all around. Either he's approving of a bombing and starvation campaign against innocent Palestinian civilians, or he's giving a thumbs-up to a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Either he's approving of brutal retaliation, or brutal counter-retaliation. Neither the IDF nor Hamas can be safely endorsed, and yet even speaking up for the innocents in Israel or in Palestine would sound like an endorsement of their "protectors." Without the cover of a firm policy to say "this is what I fully mean," anything he would say would only lead to wild speculation and premature response. For chrissake, even a complete lack of a statement is here resulting in wild speculation and premature charges of "complicity."

It is becoming cliché to say "there is only one President." When it comes to foreign affairs--and especially knotty, brutal foreign affairs such as I/P--there really is only one President. And it isn't Obama. Yet.

[Sensitivity]

18. Whether he likes it or not, Israel has found a way to sully his inauguration and hobble any Obama

diplomatic initiative to the Muslim world.

[bigtree]

19. I agree

. . . about them hobbling his 'diplomatic initiative to the Muslim world.'

deliberately, I think.

[Jennicut]

28. And yet everyone attacked Biden for saying Obama will be tested

I think they are deliberately doing this now to see how Obama will react. I would not say a darn thing until I am president though. Let Bush look like the incompetent fool he is.

[Occam Bandage]

20. They excel at that, don't they?

Nowhere does George Washington's prescience in warning against "entangling alliances" seem more relevant.

[Sensitivity]

21. Sadly, good reason to believe that Israel is "neutralizing" the preceived threat of Obama's

more open-minded perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He was regarded as a threat despite his efforts to prove other-wise by pro-Israel appointments. IMHO Obama is the real target not the relatively impotent Hamas militants.

[Are_grits_groceries]

23. Actually, I don't believe Obama is hobbled yet.

However, what happens as soon as he is sworn in will immediately shape the perceptions in the Middle East. This in turn will probably limit how much room Obama's government has to maneuver. They will have to move quickly, forcefully, and carefully. Not an easy thing to do.

The Hamas leaders are trying to box him in with their provocative statements about his silence. However, he is not being called out by governments in the Middle East. I believe there is hope that Obama will bring a different vision, and this in turn will shift the region somewhat.

If this stays confined to Israel/Gaza which is bad enough then Obama can work with other governments. If other players get directly drawn in then it becomes extremely difficult to maneuver. Obama will have to address this horrible situation, but it doesn't have to hamstring him. He is perceived as "NOT BUSH." That is a tremendous asset that he has to use wisely.

[bigtree]

24. I do think there is a degree of 'hope' out there

. . . that he'll act in the interest of Arabs - tempered with the same sort of cynicism Israelis themselves must feel about the effects of U.S. support and guidance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. He had no hesitation in speaking out about the Mumbai attack.

Even though there's "only one president at a time".