Barack Obama is an eloquent man. Sometimes even his silences are eloquent. After two long years on the campaign trail, when his many statements on US foreign policy resonated with a great many people, the President-elect had embraced the ways of the Trappist. Of Gaza, Israel and the Palestinians, he was silent for too long. Even the word on the world's lips - ceasefire - was beyond him.
Barack Obama is an eloquent man. Sometimes even his silences are eloquent. After two long years on the campaign trail, when his many statements on US foreign policy resonated with a great many people, the President-elect had embraced the ways of the Trappist. Of Gaza, Israel and the Palestinians, he was silent for too long. Even the word on the world's lips - ceasefire - was beyond him.
Brooke Anderson, Mr Obama's spokeswoman on national security matters, had explained this reticence almost daily for the benefit of dim-witted reporters. The President-elect was monitoring global events closely, she said, and was being briefed on the situation in Gaza, "but there is one President at a time". In other words, until he took the oath of office on January 20, it was not Mr Obama's place to speak.
You can see the problem. Were the new man flatly to contradict George W Bush in his unwavering (and unthinking) support for Israel, a small row would follow. America's ability to "lead the free world" would be called into question amid the hubbub. There are protocols.
Still, it's odd. Unless there is an impersonator on the loose, a certain Barack Obama has had plenty to say about world affairs recently. That Mr Obama has barely stopped talking, inauguration or no inauguration, about the global financial crisis and how he intends to fix the problem. He also stepped on Mr Bush's shoes, quite rightly, to condemn the Mumbai atrocities. He has not always been inhibited by alleged precedents.
But of Gaza, until yesterday there had not been a thing. Then there was an anodyne remark expressing pity for victims. Perhaps the President-elect was saving his words. He says he will have plenty to say after January 20. And perhaps, by that date, Israel will have completed the military tasks it has set itself. Try not to be astonished by the coincidence.
It may be that Mr Obama found the idea of obstructing a US government in its chosen course repugnant. Very patriotic. But that worry did not apply when he was demanding an end to the Iraq occupation. An Arab world itself divided over Hamas has noted the contradiction and begun to interpret the President-elect's reticence. Either he was holding his tongue while America endorsed and encouraged a great wrong, or he believed that Israel was right. Neither possibility offered much hope for the Middle East.
Mr Obama's attitude was only one element, nevertheless - albeit a hugely significant one - in a pattern of abject western failure. The UN, the EU, the US, sundry other governments, sundry other leaders and a roving gentleman named Blair: none has offered a significant obstacle to Israeli actions.
Some, conspicuously Mr Bush, are openly allied to an attempt to smash a terrorist/democratically-elected Gazan administration. Some appear to accept that Israel can justifiably respond to attacks on its civilians only by killing other civilians while blaming its opponents for each and every death. And some are outraged by the crimes, the humanitarian disaster, or simply by the refusal to contemplate a ceasefire.
The UN has failed, yet again. It turns out that the Bush administration was right in scorning the world's forum and mocking the ease with which it is paralysed. But the incumbent should know: his administration, standing alone, has just prevented the Security Council even from adopting a position on Gaza. American policy is simply this: Israel will do whatever Israel chooses to do until such time as it is ready to stop. And the UN's highest body will say not a word to the contrary, least of all the word ceasefire.
Historians will have plenty to say, no doubt, when it is too late for Gaza. They will remember how Mr Bush and Mr Blair hid behind spurious interpretations of UN resolutions when they were struggling to justify the Iraq occupation. They will remember how often the US has blocked attempts to hold Israel to numerous other such resolutions. This time, America has simply blocked the deliberations of the Security Council itself. So the UN fails.
Europeans, if disgusted, can hardly talk. France's President Sarkozy condemns Israel and takes it upon himself to engage in Middle East shuttle diplomacy. Meanwhile, from the new Czech presidency of the EU emerges the whisper that Israel's actions have been "defensive". Others, especially the Swedes, demand that such remarks be disowned, yet the Dutch are supportive.
In Britain, Gordon Brown earns headlines for "breaking with the US" simply by saying that this is a dangerous moment, and adding that a ceasefire would be welcome. An EU delegation heads for Israel while protests break out all over Europe only to discover, as though surprised, that the Israelis are not listening. They have only one patron, and it is not the EU.
In these matters, Europe prefers not to know its own strength, particularly its economic strength. America, meanwhile, persists with the delusion that its power is unanswerable, even after the Iraq debacle, and that there is only one sort of terrorist, only one war on terror and only one way to fight such a war. The idea that an Israeli military victory could be a lasting defeat for US policy still does not penetrate.
Does Mr Obama understand? I doubt it. Perhaps, then, he should review Mr Blair's efforts as a Middle East "peace envoy" on behalf of the "Quartet" (the UN, the EU, the US and Russia). Until yesterday, our former Prime Minister had said about as much on the subject of Gaza as the President-elect. And he has still to say a single coherent word about the manner in which his vaunted work for peace relates to Israel's assault.
According to Mr Blair, the trick is to stop rockets coming out of Gaza while preventing Israeli bombs from going in. Genius. To this end, he would have Egypt close the tunnels used by Hamas to bring in military supplies. In short, he would disarm the Islamists and hope that Israel would then leave them alone. I don't believe, and not for the first time, that he means a word of it.
If anyone understands the relationship between Israel and American politics, it is Mr Blair. The axis is the heart of the Palestinian tragedy. The US cannot possibly act as an honest broker in the Middle East while there is an absolute community of interest between Washington and Jerusalem, yet only the US can restrain Israel. Neither the UN nor the EU can square that circle. There is no sign whatever that Mr Obama intends to make the attempt. No change there, then.
Ironies must do in place of political logic. None of the Arab states rejoices in the destruction of Gaza and the killing of Muslims, but only two - Syria and Iran - have any time whatever for Hamas. Israel, meanwhile, has peace treaties in place with Egypt and Jordan; Lebanon is (for now) quiet; Saddam's Iraq is out of business. Was there a need for war, or just an opportunity to ensure that Palestinians will think hard, in future, before electing another non-approved government?
If Gaza still has time for ironies, it might ask, in return, who it was who fully supported the founding of Hamas in 1987 as a counterweight to Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel knows the answer. Mr Obama should be told.
