George Stephanopoulos tried hard to get Obama to spell out his views on Gaza. Obama dodged specifics but here is what happened.Optimistic, yes. But in such a time of bad news I like to at least be aware of the best-case scenarios.
One, he was utterly evenhanded. Asked if he would repeat his remarks in Israel this summer about Israel having the right to defend itself, Obama said yes. Of course, no one disputes that.
But, unlike other politicians, he offered no special love for Israel. He made clear that he is committed to helping Palestinians and Israelis. And he said he will pursue the peace process from day 1. Also, unlike Bush, Mc Cain and Congressional hawks, he discussed Iran without mentioning Israel. He is worried about the nukes but he intends to talk, not rattle his saber on Israel's behalf.
On Gaza specifics, he punted.
So how come he insists that there is "only one President" when it comes to Gaza but he spoke plenty about Mumbai. Here is what he is saying.
On issues, like Mumbai, where I agree with the current President, I will say so. That is entirely appropriate.
On issues, like Israel/Palestine, on which I have a very entirely different view, I am not free to speak.
In other words, he is sticking to tradition. He will vocally agree with the outgoing President on areas in which there is agreement. But he will not attack the incumbent where he has profound differences.
If George had asked about Bush's support for the Gaza cease-fire, he would have praised Bush. If he had asked about the refusal to consider talking to Hamas or Iran, he would invoke "one President at a time."
His message is pretty clear. He views the Middle East through an entirely American prism. Following a landslide victory, owning Congress and 80% of the Jewish vote, he is a free man.
Get ready for a clean break.
1 hour ago
No comments:
Post a Comment