« "World Rallies around Palestinians amid Gaza offensive" | Main | A Promise Obama Can Make Good on Now »

Another goofy Gaza headline

Via Instapundit, from the New York Times: Obama Defers to Bush, for Now, on Gaza Crisis

Why would Obama do this? What could be more important than ... oh yes, how quickly we forget -- George W. Bush is still President. In my entire lifetime, I have never seen the press so anxious for a President-Elect to take office. It's just incredible.

Fortunately we already know Barack Obama's position regarding the Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot and other Israeli towns and settlements bordering Gaza:

"I don't think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on its citizens," said Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, during a visit to the southern Israeli city of Sderot on Wednesday.

Sderot has been plagued by rockets fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

"If someone was sending rockets on my house where my daughters were sleeping at night, I would do everything to stop it," added the US senator from Illinois, who spoke in front of book shelves filled with mangled Kassam rockets that had been fired into the area.

"And I encourage Israel to do the same."(emphasis added)

John Bolton and others have warned that Israel will undertake aggressive military action before Barack Obama is sworn in. But what is the advantage in Israel attacking Hamas now instead of Iran, since -- unless he has changed his mind -- Barack Obama apparently supports Israeli military action to stop the Hamas rocket attacks?

Or does Israel have something else bigger in mind, now that the world's attention is being diverted to Gaza?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/33740.

Comments (6)

"Or does Israel have so... (Below threshold)
Marc:

"Or does Israel have something else bigger in mind, now that the world's attention is being diverted to Gaza?"

You had your answer with the Bolton prediction.

Israel, along with many others, are unsure of obama's plans for the Middle East. Better to act now.

But I'm afraid they have set the bar too high by stating they plan to dismantle hamas. Nothing short of a complete occupation of Palestinian will accomplish that.

That will never happen.

Nothing short of complete

In my entire lifetime, I... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In my entire lifetime, I have never seen the press so anxious for a President-Elect to take office. It's just incredible.

That's because you apparently forgot that the media is comprised of citizens, and the citizenry is more anxious than you have seen in your entire lifetime for Bush to get out.

Regardless, this post is just another volley in Wizbang's whiplash "why isn't Obama saying anything about this yet?" slash "why is Obama saying anything about this; he's not president yet!" schizophrenic anything-to-criticize-Obama series.

Brian - "That's because... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Brian - "That's because you apparently forgot that the media is comprised of citizens, and the citizenry is more anxious than you have seen in your entire lifetime for Bush to get out."

And you apparently forgot the media are supposed to be professional, ya know, as in non-partisan, not cheer leaders wearing the pink tutus and pulling for one side against the other.

I'm hardly surprised.

It's amazing. I got into an... (Below threshold)
SpideyTerry:

It's amazing. I got into an arguement with my dad -- who voted for Obama -- about this just today. I told him Obama had yet to comment on this issue. His defense was that Bush was still president and makes the foreign policy, so it would be improper for Obama to make any comment. I said that Obama saw fit to mouth off on foreign policy while he was running, but my dad said that was different. I then pointed out that Obama also saw fit to mouth off on issues like the economy since election day, but my dad again said that was different. How? Who knows? He certainly wasn't willing to tell me, so I correctly called him on his blatant double-standard. (Oh, and just because I love to embarass my dad so much, he's one of those people that thinks Israel could one day negotiate with the likes of Hamas and Iran. He fails to understand that Hamas, Iran and many of Israel's other neighbors are dedicated to its destruction.)

Look, Bush makes the policy so long as he occupies the White House. That's a given. We can't have one person doing something in stark difference to the established policy - particularly when they don't have the power to change it themselves yet. To do so would be as bone-headed as Pelosi's Syrian adventure. (BTW, my dad again exhibited a double-standard when I pointed out that that was in contrast to Bush's foreign policy.)

Nonetheless, I fail to see the problem with Obama simply standing up and voicing support for Israel. Where is the problem with publicly agreeing with Bush and standing in support of Israel? I didn't know Obama said those things back in July (I wonder how my dad would've responded had it come up.) There are only two ways I could see why Obama won't talk:

1) He disagrees with Bush and doesn't support Israel's defensive actions against Hamas (which seems unlikely).

2) He realizes that this is something he will have to deal with, and -- contrary to his campaign rhetoric -- he has no idea what to do about it (which seems incredibly likely).

"Or does Israel have something else bigger in mind, now that the world's attention is being diverted to Gaza?"

One can only (and I swear this wasn't meant as a pun) hope.

Thanks for sharing your fam... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Thanks for sharing your family's dysfunction with the rest of us. Really, none of our business.
As for negotiations, wasn't the Soviet Union "dedicated to our destruction"? I seem to remember some guy pounding a shoe on a table at the UN and shouting "We will bury you!", while pointing about a jillion nukes at us. Well, we negotiated with them, and guess what? 50 years later, we're here and they're gone!
Whatever anyone says in speeches, charters, or in their own internal propaganda, they often can be, and usually should be, negotiated with.

"And you apparently forgot ... (Below threshold)
daniel rotter:

"And you apparently forgot the media are supposed to be professional, ya know, as in non-partisan, not cheer leaders wearing the pink tutus and pulling for one side against the other."

Too bad someone forgot to tell Roger Ailes and the rest of the folks this at the F(R)NC.

As to the NYT headline, I don't see the bias that Instapundit and Laprarie sees. Obama has been asked about this situation, and he has deferred the matter to President Bush. The NYT headline was simply reporting a fact.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy