The continuing silence of Mr Obama

All those primarily concerned about the loss of life in the Gaza strip as a result of the Israeli mililtary action will be dismayed by Mr Obama’s silence. All those who see the Hamas rockets as the main issue will be disappointed that Mr Obama has not recently condemned those either, leaving that task to Mr Bush.

I do not offer a better way forward with this problem as I have insufficient knowledge of all the complications. I have never visited Gaza. I just mention the silence of Mr Obama, as his views and approach generally is so important to us all. It is difficult to sustain his claim to usher in an age of change, when on this collosal issue where the USA is the most important power apart from the protagonists in the conflict, he remains silent. In effect he is backing the Bush strategy, but lacks the courage or the conviction to say so. He is certainly not offering a different one.


  1. Mark Wadsworth
    January 6, 2009

    Ah. From the headline, I thought you might be talking about the missing birth certificate episode. That’s much more fun.

  2. Guido Fawkes
    January 6, 2009

    Isn’t there a minor constitutional problem in that there is still a president called George Bush?

    I think there can only be one president at a time.

    Reply: That is the Obama spin, but it does not apply to economic policy. We have had several announcements and news conferences, including this week’s with the leaders in the House.

  3. alan jutson
    January 6, 2009

    The words of wisdom from MR Blair “The Peace Envoy” to the Middle East are defening.

    Does anyone know what he is doing or getting paid for !!!!!

    1. alan jutson
      January 6, 2009

      Just found out Tony Blair awarded the US Presidential Medal for Freedom by George Bush today.

      Well thats alright then !!!!!!

      Shame that in the UK our freedom is being eroded by the State day by Day

  4. Lola
    January 6, 2009

    There’ll have to be ‘changes’.

  5. Robert Eve
    January 6, 2009

    I have to say that I agree with Guido – one president at a time.

    Just because the chosen one has pronounced on economic policy before he gets to 20 Jan does not mean that he should be doing so.

    Frankly I can wait a lot longer than a fortnight to see Obama in place.

  6. Stuart Fairney
    January 6, 2009

    Whilst one can only condemn the Hamas rocket attacks during the ceasefire (and I absolutely do, there is no place for this whatsoever), we should also bear in mind that also during the ceasefire the Israelis killed 35 Palestinians.

    It seems to me that peace can only come with the abandonment of violence (this seems trite but bear with me) by the Palestinians. An adoption of the strategy of the later ANC or Ghandi would surely pay dividends, but the truth is, the militant Islamists don’t want this, and neither do some of the more hawkish Israelis who have built political careers on “security”

  7. Alan Wheatley
    January 6, 2009

    I agree with Guido and Robert Eve. It is not Obama’s fault that he is, in effect, in limbo as “President Elect”.

    Even if he speaks out now he can not act now. When he is in a position to act he may then find, at a time when he would have the full resources of the president available to him directly, what he had said previously was inappropriate, and he can not know that until the time comes.

    This is a very long term problem, with its origins going back thousands of years. It is not going to be solved quickly, and a few days is not going to make any difference. Better he says the right thing at the right time.

  8. mikestallard
    January 6, 2009

    New Year Resolution: As an Englishman, I must try not to comment on American politics.
    According to the excellent and indeed prescient Christopher Booker, our troops have suffered sheer humiliation in Iraq. There has not been enough proper kit (Snatch Land Rovers were death traps) and not enough soldiers to keep order in Basra. the result was the humiliation of our soldiers being left in Basra while the Iraqis and Americans did our work for us.
    Put up or shut up: if we haven’t got the soldiers on the ground and are not prepared to do anything much about it, what right have we got to comment on the Middle East?
    And that goes for the EU in spades: despite the fact that they seem to be pouring money into Gaza which mainly pays for Hamas officialdom.

  9. Tapestry
    January 7, 2009

    The Obama silence is so extreme you wonder if he’s facing personal security threats from inside the system.

    Or if he’s another Gordon Brown, whose main tactic faced with crisis is as follows – When shit hits fan, hide.

    1. Stuart Fairney
      January 7, 2009

      Possibly too busy posing for shirtless photograph in the gym… (Mr Obama not Mr Brown)

  10. ali
    January 25, 2009

    I am surprised that people are not aware that Obama commented on the Mumbai events when he was not presented, yet for Palestine there was a loud silence.

    It shows how much people , even presidents, are scared to talk about the Palestine Israel issue.

    And it is funny how Obama had to go to the Zionist Lobby in the US before he could be ‘ratified’ as a valid president for election. It shows the control the Israelis have on the world today.

    The BBC says it is careful about its impartiality for a humanitarian charity appeal, but its coverage was very biased. If people had watched Aljazeera English or looked at thier website one could more easily see the stark differences. And when even now the government is critisizing the BBC it still seems to be completely scared about ACTUALLY being impartial. Its as if it was given orders by Israel to be biased and is dutifully following them, day and night.


Comments are closed.