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.
![The truth at last, or at least some of it, about Peter Rathjen, the U of Adelaide, the U of Melbourne, the U of Tasmania, etc. [Updated Sept 3, 2020: University of Melbourne "leader" finally speaks]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTTYlLfJJPciFfe5iknlB2hbK8jYC5SDgoJTGaFKZBvgKVDAjUHzXjHFifYPzrixQgmQPW0Udsk6Y3OMLjmJd4rCxY352IA9Nwt2DlSscScArhuGqGpsiLozqx1A2xzK2I0_u_HOjwQlfn/w680/Rathjen.jpg)
10 Comments
I knew the Palestinians were still in trouble, even if Obama won the Presidency, after I'd heard that Samantha Power had been sacked after the BBC interview. Her sacking had nothing whatsoever to do with her comments regarding Mrs. Clinton, but everything to do with the fact she argued for dialogue with Hamas, and with the Iranian leaders.
Try any provincial newspaper in France or Spain (not just the big ones like Le Monde or El Pais) and you'll find a surprising sophistication and attention to real detail.
Para 1 - Yes
Para 2 - Interesting news to me, but par for the course.
Obama will be perfectly useless on the Middle East, but may get some publicity for something - like Clinton (Part 1).
Whatever progress is made will be firmly stopped by Clinton (Par t2)
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Martin Niemoller
You've got a word processor. Just change the labels.
Regarding your partial answers to my questions, one still remains. WHY are most governments so supportive of whatever Israel does?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ziykixN-M
What we have now may be a combination of force of habit and currying favor with Jewish voters, certainly in the US, who although small in numbers are critical to winning elections. But given the extent of Jewish opposition to Israeli policies these days, which is considerable, that factor may be changing soon.
And this short excerpt was also interesting to me: Kay Griggs on US-Israel
What Kay Griggs says may be too conspiracy minded for some though...