| Comment on the Blog

The New York Times, that oh-so-respected rag that never bothered to question President George Bush's headlong rush to war, and that apparently saw no discrepancy between what the U.N. weapons inspectors were finding in Iraq (nothing), and what Mr. Bush said was there (enough chemical weapons to threaten the existence of the planet), has once again pontificated about world events. Let us look at one short sentence from its editorial page of January 6 of this year:

"Israel, aided by the United States, Europe and moderate Arab states, must try to end this conflict as soon as possible and in a way that increases the chances for negotiating a broad regional peace."

Israel, says the Times, 'must try to end this conflict.' Well, why didn't someone else think of that? How thankful the world can be for such words of wisdom from the New York Times.

There are, however, a few troubling items in this pronouncement. First, one must note that there is no condemnation of Israel's attack on Gaza. It is a very weak call for an end to the Israeli incursion. The article does state that, up to that point (Jan. 6), 550 Palestinians and 5 Israelis had died. This seems to smack of some degree of inequality between the various warriors. Israel, backed and financed by the might of the U.S. military, is bombing and invading Palestinian population centers and has killed 550 people. Hamas, which is basically in charge of Gaza, continues to launch rockets into Israel and, according to the Times, has killed 5 people. One has to wonder if the current Israeli assault on Gaza is not a genuine effort to prevent rocket attacks on Israel, but rather the most recent manifestation of generations of mutual deadly hatred, with the people who have more power taking the fatal lead.

The second puzzling aspect of this statement is the notion that Israel 'must try to end this conflict as soon as possible.' Cannot Israel end it immediately? Would it take more than stopping the bombing and removing its troops from Gaza? Certainly measures must be taken to assure that the Palestinians have the basic needs - food, shelter and clothing - which they have been deprived of for so long, and Hamas needs to stop annoying Israel with rocket launches. But despite what the U.S. Congress may be willing to sit still for, the annihilation of the Palestinian people is not a viable solution to this problem.

Thirdly, the Times suggests that the U.S. assist in finding a solution. One might expect the Times to ask the fox to go clear up that commotion in the hen house. Any individual would look far and wide for any sterling examples of the U.S. serving successfully in the role of peacekeeper. Before the readers rushes off to consult his or her history books, pleased be reminded that the term 'war monger' is a far more apt description of the U.S. than 'peacemaker'. So why the Times wants the U.S. to assist Israel in trying to find a peaceful solution to the current deadly situation is quite a mystery.

The silence from the U.S. Congress regarding the suffering of the Palestinians has been deafening. Not only since the current Israeli offensive began, but for the years of isolation and oppression that the Palestinian people have experienced. On January 4, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- NV) endorsed the current invasion. Interviewed on 'Meet the Press, he said this: "I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away. They've got to come to their senses."

(Article Continues Below)

Who it is who must 'come to their senses' is unclear. For the Palestinian people, Hamas, the duly elected legislative council in the Palestinian National Authority, provides hospitals, educational and social services, in addition to attempting to defend the people living in the Gaza Strip from Israeli aggression. So the reason for its popularity can hardly be questioned.

One is naïve indeed, however, if one sees Hamas as a benign organization, quietly tending to the needs of the Palestinian people. Certainly, Hamas has called for the extinction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its stead. Yet any realistic assessment of Hamas' power to ever accomplish such a thing surely indicates it as a complete impossibility.

When Russia and Georgia were in conflict in the latter half of 2008, the U.S. did not hesitate to voice its support for the people of Georgia. Why this same support has not been shown for the people within the Gaza Strip is puzzling.

The United States seems to perpetuate hostilities within the world, rather than doing anything to ease them. For example, for over fifty years the U.S. has attempted to ostracize Cuba, for no other reason than that nation's overthrow of a cruel, U.S.-backed dictator, which was replaced by a Communist state. Nine U.S. presidents have apparently sought to bring that small, Caribbean island nation to its knees, yet Cuba seems to manage somehow without much interference from its neighbor to the north. One might reasonably think that opening the doors of communication with Cuba might be in everyone's best interest, but the U.S. needs 'enemies' to keep its own citizens in line.

Similarly, the U.S. could provide financial aid to the people living under horrendous conditions within the Gaza Strip, rather than continuing unabated support for their main oppressor. Aid to the Palestinians would not negate aid to Israel; the U.S. could provide aid to both, which would have the advantage of protecting Israeli sovereignty while also preventing some of the most unspeakable human rights abuses being perpetrated in the world today.

President-elect Barack Obama has refrained from making any substantive statement about Israel's brutal assault on Gaza. The U.S. has, he rightly stated, only one president at a time, such as he is, and that currently is Mr. Bush. Yet the entire world looks to Mr. Obama for solutions to a wide and diverse variety of extremely serious problems that plague it, from the global economic downturn to the situation in the Gaza Strip. The 'only one president' will be Mr. Obama in two weeks; there is no need for such discretion at this late stage in the game. It is time for Mr. Obama to speak out forcefully in opposition to the murderous invasion of Gaza, and signal that he is willing to work to prevent it by exerting U.S. influence over Israel. Doing anything less compromises the promise that his election has brought to the world. One hopes that that compromise is not made so early in his administration.