Following up on Mala’s post about the relative silence from Obama about Gaza comes this article by the BBC News which explains possible reasons why Obama may be staying silent on this issue–at least for now:

Gaza is a political minefield for Mr Obama.

If he makes a statement that suggests he would pursue a different Middle East policy from that of the Bush team, it would pull the rug from under the current administration’s diplomatic efforts in the region.

It would also cost him Republican goodwill at home if he were to undermine President Bush in that way.

If he issues a statement which puts him in lock step with the Bush team’s approach, then he loses flexibility when the issue arrives in his in-tray in two weeks time.

Whatever he says now will be regarded as policy, but the political landscape in the Middle East could be quite different when he is sworn in.

I think the essay offers some really great reasoning–but I also think that it’s vitally important to question why so many people seem to think that there are no connections to be made between Gaza and Puerto Rico. Does taking different paths on the road of resistance make situation of colonialism less present? Does a colonial country “giving” your country to another country really make colonialism “ok”? In a more abstract sense–does Puerto Rico (or Mexico or any other (former) colonial outpost) really not suffer from the effects of colonialism today as we speak? Is there a reason why so many former colonial outposts in Latin America are so unconscionably poor, politically unstable, and chronically dealing with guerrilla warfare? Is it really because Latin@s (along with Gazans/Arabs apparently) are inherently violent and unable to civilized? Or are the effects of colonialism perhaps more devastating than we are willing to admit?