As Israel was blanketing the Gaza Strip with high-powered explosives and white phosphorous in January of 2009, I wrote:
I have little doubt that Israel notified the Bush administration of their attack plans, but I'm equally confident they informed Obama's team. The Israelis want to have a good relationship with the incoming administration, and I can't believe they'd have blindsided them.
And sure enough:
One FBI post passed by Leibowitz to Silverstein indicated that the Israeli Embassy in the United States provided "regular written briefings" on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza intended for "President Obama in the weeks between his election and inauguration."
In the same posting I predicted the Israelis would provide Obama with a "January surprise" by terminating their attack before his inauguration day, which of course they did—and though it was apparent at the time that that was coordinated, the fact that we now know Obama was getting regular updates from the Israeli government puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. To put it another way: one of Obama's first acts as president—before he'd even been inaugurated—was to give the Israelis both approval and political cover to turn Gaza into a free-fire zone as long as they agreed to pull back from Guernica levels of mayhem to a less obtrusive Jack the Ripper style before his inauguration, thus sparing him the embarrassment of openly backing mass murder on his first day in office.
Figuring that out didn't require ESP any more than it does to guess what's going to happen when you throw an egg at the ground—just a willingness to ignore Obama's totally exciting yeswecanitudes and instead pay attention to tedious minutiae like his speeches to AIPAC, his articles in foreign policy journals, his pledges of undying loyalty to Israel on his campaign website, his Likudnik cabinet appointments, decades of lockstep US policy by both Democrats and Republicans, etc etc ad nauseum. Yawn. Nonetheless, Glenn Greenwald wrote at the time that "reliably predicting" whether or not Obama was going to continue the standard US policy of blind support for Israel "requires a clairvoyance which I believe people lack"—just one example of the misguided but depressingly universal wait-and-see attitude among Democratic-voting progressives after the election.
Why couldn't so many informed, intelligent and otherwise skeptical people "predict" something so obvious? Because they didn't want to, of course. Because seeing what was already so clear—among many other things, that Obama was a willing accomplice in Israel's orgy of killing and destruction in Gaza, with all that implied—would have harshed their pre-inaugural buzz by forcing them to accept the fact that they hadn't elected a champion of liberal values and human rights, but just another standard-issue imperial manager and corporate errand boy. The number of Obama voters who were even open to hearing the facts (much less accepting them) may have exceeded the world's unicorn population, but not by much.
They did Obama a real favor by giving him the benefit of the doubt in spite of the ample evidence that he didn't deserve it, since it made it just that much easier for him to do all the wonderful things he's done. And as much as I'd love to believe otherwise, I'm sure many of them will keep waiting to see the real Barack Obama—"the Obama we elected", as they often call him, as though their illusions still carry more weight than the unwelcome reality—right to the bitter end.