A Prediction: Obama's Stance on [EDIT FOR POLITICAL NEUTRALITY] the Gaza Situation

A Michel de Nostradame I am not....but I'm going to venture a prediction about Obama's stance, that he has not fully disclosed because he is not the president, and the reaction...

He will probably come out in favor of a pro-Israeli stance, upon doing so, his critics will moan and complain that this goes in opposition to his mantra of change...

...but if he happens, by chance, to take a stand and come in with a more "anti-Israeli" stance, IE a more hardline withdrawl of financial, militaristic and/or diplomatic support for them, the same people critics will, undoubtedly moan and complain that he is a pro-Muslim sympathizer.

[The original last words for the title were "Israeli Aggression". Sorry for the lack of political neutrality...]

[edit on 9/1/09 by madhatr137]

You seem to resemble Obama by playing both side of the fences with your prediction. I am sure Obama will play both sides as well but will lean more toward the Palestinians so that the world will like us more.

Yeah he's definitely in a precarious position on this one. It's no wonder mum's the word when it comes to his thoughts right now. If you take either side in this one there will be a lot of detractors either way. I hope he's not afraid to do the right thing out of fear of the backlash of siding with the muslims.

Maybe he won't take a side and will make them work it out on their own. He may support the Palestinians and urge Hamas to give up control of the area.

Either way critics will moan and complain and accuse.

To begin, I am neither Jew nor of any sort of Middle East descent.
I have no real dog in this fight, except the Oil Mastiff.
That being said, I will respectfully disagree with your premise of "Israeli aggression". Your argument is therefore moot.

Obama has historically supported Israel, but I would sure like to see him take a more neutral stance. Jam, neutral doesn't mean "playing both sides". It means not playing at all.

People are going to moan and complain no matter what he does.

He doesn't have to "take sides" in this. I think that's counter productive. Both sides are at fault and it's going to take efforts on both sides to stop it. It's up to them, not us. I'd dearly LOVE to hear Obama say that. But I have the feeling he's going to come out in support of Israel.

Please, Mr. President. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama has historically supported Israel, but I would sure like to see him take a more neutral stance. Jam, neutral doesn't mean "playing both sides". It means not playing at all.

People are going to moan and complain no matter what he does.

He doesn't have to "take sides" in this. I think that's counter productive. Both sides are at fault and it's going to take efforts on both sides to stop it. It's up to them, not us. I'd dearly LOVE to hear Obama say that. But I have the feeling he's going to come out in support of Israel.

Please, Mr. President. Prove me wrong.

The U.S. is allied with Israel. As the elected leader of the U.S., Obama had better be ready to stand by Israel unless he wants to put that alliance in jeopardy. I don't think he wants to do that. And I really don't think the PTB want him to do that, either.

Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
That being said, I will respectfully disagree with your premise of "Israeli aggression". Your argument is therefore moot.

Okay, how about if we edit the title to create more neutrality in terms...."Israel's attack on Gaza"....is that neutral enough? No, probably not, because it implies the disproportionate use of force by Israeli against Gaza..."the Gaza situation," that's neutral enough....

In any case, though it seems only a few have picked up on it....my intention for this thread is not actually about what Obama's policy will or will not be. Rather, it is a pre-empting of the criticism that he will undoubtedly receive when his position, and suggested resolution for the "situation", are made clear - pointing out, that this is a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" situation to which there will likely be no satisfactory response from his critics; and in doing so, mildly, subtly, and gadflyishly criticising them.

reply to post by madhatr137

now we're talking
how does it feel to be a NEO_CON

I believe his stance is :

- "1 President at a time.."
- "uhhh"
- "errr"
- "ummm"
- "I had no prior knowledge .... "

and my favorite..

- "I mispoke.."