Israeli tanks pummelling the Gaza Strip form a miserable coda to the presidency of George Bush. No country embraced more enthusiastically his "war on terror" after 9/11 than Israel. And, despite ample evidence to the contrary in the intervening years, Israel, above all nations, has clung to the peculiarly American notion that one's enemies somehow can be bombed into submission.
Israeli tanks pummelling the Gaza Strip form a miserable coda to the presidency of George Bush. No country embraced more enthusiastically his "war on terror" after 9/11 than Israel. And, despite ample evidence to the contrary in the intervening years, Israel, above all nations, has clung to the peculiarly American notion that one's enemies somehow can be bombed into submission.
For President-elect Barack Obama, the war in Gaza adds another major item to the "to-do" list for January 21, a list dominated by America's economic crisis. Already commentators are pointing up the difference between campaigning - where the candidate largely chooses what to respond to - and government, where he is forced to respond to events as they unfold. How effectively will the world's most inspirational political orator translate into the world's most powerful political leader? Is he capable of implementing the change of which he speaks so eloquently?
His appointments to date suggest there may be as much continuity as change but in foreign policy Obama's instinct is for the soft skills of diplomacy and building consensus, rather than military action. So it is hard to imagine him giving the Israeli ground attack the same unqualified support received from the departing Bush administration. Quoting tradition (the convention of "one President at a time" in relation to foreign affairs), the President-to-be has been, until last night, silent regarding Gaza. This has been interpreted as indifference at best and complicity at worst. His statement yesterday evening that the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is "a source of deep concern" is a welcome, although belated, intervention.
Obama's largely muted reaction over the past few days, however, has fed uncertainty over the response of the international community at a time when escalation suits the political agenda of both protagonists, with disastrous consequences for Gaza's 1.5m population. The Israeli government should beware what it wishes for. Gaza without Hamas could be more like Somalia.
The President-elect's reluctance to fully outline his views undermines his plans for an American image make-over in the Muslim world. The plan was to unveil his new approach in a speech in a Muslim country - within his first 100 days. But recently there has been a growing chorus of Arab disappointment at what al Jazeera called Obama's "deafening silence", as it broadcast footage of him playing golf in Hawaii alongside scenes of blood and chaos in Gaza. And while he was quick to condemn the "hateful ideology" of the Mumbai terrorists, the absence of a quick response to the Gaza attacks could have been interpreted as tacit assent, especially following his visit to the Israeli settlement of Sderot last July to placate American Jewish voters.
Mr Obama has spoken of tackling the Israel-Palestinian issue "from day one" of his presidency. He should start today by reaffirming his support for a two-state solution based on the frameworks laid out by Bill Clinton in 2000 and the Arab League in 2002. And, without usurping the present incumbent, the next US President could recognise the suffering of the people of Gaza while welcoming the destruction of the tunnels used to smuggle arms to Hamas.
