Obama's silence on Gaza is complicity with war crimes

Barack Obama has been very outspoken on the economy and what needs to be done to fix it. There is no "one president at a time" rhetoric on the issues he chooses to speak out on.

But on Israel's attack on Gaza, which has caused dozens of civilian lives--by definition a violation of international law--Obama is silent. With just a sentence or two of disapproval, Obama could signal to Israel and the world that his election will make a difference on the world stage. He could save lives--many of them.

George W. Bush is a lame duck president for whom only a small minority of Americans have any remaining respect, and his international reputation is much worse. There is too much at stake to let his administration continue to stain and shame America's reputation in the world. Bush has abdicated any serious responsibility for domestic and international affairs and he has de facto given up his role as America's leader to Barack Obama.

Obama promised us change, domestically and internationally. We are waiting for him to take a stand--one way or the other.

Obama speaks. According to the New York Times, Jan 6: Barack Obama, the United States president-elect, broke his silence about the Israeli assault on Gaza on Tuesday, saying “the loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern for me." He did not comment more, repeating his statement that the United States has only one president at a time.
Obama will be leader of the "free world" in two weeks. Let's hope he does better then.

U.S. stands in the way of peace. The New York Times reports what we all should have suspected, that the U.S. was the primary obstacle to a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire.

Shame on the New York Times. Another day in Israel's assault on Gaza has passed, and that's another day that the Times has taken no editorial position on the matter. But today (Jan 5) we do find a William Kristol column, "Why Israel Fights," which is in full support of the war. Perhaps the editors feel that their front page story on civilian casualties in Gaza says it all, but if so, what are editorial pages for? The Times needs to tell us where it stands, unless, as I suggested earlier, it can't make up its collective mind.

Voices from Gaza. From the receiving end of Israel's attack, on the BBC Web site.

Giving away other peoples' countries. Former U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, in an opinion piece in the Washington Post, suggests that Egypt take over Gaza and Jordan take over the West Bank. No further comment needed.