The Israeli war on Gaza has entered its third week and there is no respite in the ferocity of the air and ground campaign in the Palestinian territory. The Israeli war machine has massacred more than 1,000 Palestinians, including more than 300 children. Despite some efforts by the international community and some Arab nations to end the Israeli incursion, a united stance against the Jewish state is not forthcoming. In the Arab world, the division is more visible as multiple summits are proposed, but without a concrete agenda. With the Arab street flexing its muscle by holding demonstrations and calling on governments to act now in the interest of the Arab nation, the pressure is also mounting on the US to rein in its ally, Israel. US president-elect Barack Obama has expressed his "concern" over the conflict, and all eyes are now set on the 44th president of America who is due to take office next week. These are the events that were contemplated, analysed and commented on this week. We present here excerpts of editorials from the regional and the international press.
Taking a rather pragmatic view of the situation, The Los Angeles Times suggested that Hamas should be included in a negotiation for a ceasefire. "Demonstrations against Israel around the world - including one 50,000-strong in Alexandria, Egypt, on [last] Friday - make it more difficult for Palestinian and Arab moderates to win support. The battering of Hamas and Gaza also weakens Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel's West Bank negotiating partners in Fatah. That's not good for Israel. Unpleasant as it may be, directly or indirectly, Hamas must be included in a negotiation for a cease-fire. Then the two sides must turn to the issues that gave rise to the fighting: The smuggling tunnels have to be closed for good. Israel has to open Gaza's borders, even if Hamas remains in power," it said.
Commenting on the reaction to Barack Obama's stance, Lebanon's The Daily Star remarked that although the US president-elect has been heavily criticised for not commenting on Israel's senseless war against the Gaza Strip, he has reiterated his determination to engage with Iran, a key regional actor with more ability than any other to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. "Obama's apparent willingness to jettison a dogma that has guided every US administration since Ronald Reagan's means his presidency will start several steps ahead in terms of a rational approach to the Middle East. He will face domestic opposition, however, making it incumbent on his would-be partners and their allies to avoid handing the nay-sayers anything that pumps up the volume of their tired cries of 'appeasement'."
It also stated that far from suffocating Obama's plans in the cradle, as many initially predicted, the Gaza onslaught has eliciting an unprecedented reaction among the Zionist state's most important source of support, American Jewry, affording a unique opportunity. "This opens up new routes via which the entire Middle East might find its way to a new era of stability," it said. Moreover, it added: "The Gaza blitz has been a horrific ordeal. If its victims - and all of the martyrs who have fallen in the name of resistance -are not to have died in vain, the ideal of a full and fair peace must be the common goal that finally unites all those who profess to care about Palestine, about the refugees, about grieving mothers and orphaned children, and about the holy city of Jerusalem. To do otherwise would be to jeopardise that for which so many have sacrificed so much for so long, and just when the prize - justice - may be closer than ever before.
The Times of India too touched on Obama's Middle East policy. It said: "Obama has said that he will break from Bush's Middle East policy and begin fresh discussions with Iran. He is reported to be open to opening a dialogue with Hamas in an effort to find a breakthrough in the vexed Israel-Palestine conflict. The strands of the Middle East crisis are so knotted up that unravelling them will not be a quick or easy affair. But a renewed effort, which brings more players to the negotiating table, is an urgent necessity."
As the pressure mounts on Obama to undo Bush's Middle East policies, and his foreign policies in general, The Christian Science Monitor sympathised with the US president and the decision that he took during his tenure. "If future historians are kind to George W. Bush, they will judge his presidency more in the context of his times than by his blunders and triumphs. Their verdict may still be harsh, but they could soften it by considering that the task of governing America is now so big and complex that it is difficult for one person to handle it without making major mistakes. A modern president's plate is too stacked with demands, posing a threat of burnout or miscue. Barack Obama, after receiving his first CIA briefing about hot spots, reportedly said (hopefully in jest): 'Why would anyone want this job?' No wonder he ran on 'hope'," it remarked.
Qatar's Gulf Times, however, was quick to point out the bais in Bush's supposedly last speech as president. "True to form, Bush glossed over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza that has led to the abject desperation of 1.5 million people and spoke only of Israel's 'right to defend itself'.
"The roots of reality did not propagate on the coiffured White House lawns during the reign of Bush. A week from today we must hope they do," it stated.
