“…and now it is up to the world, and particularly the Obama administration, to respond.”

No it is not. The world and Obama should keep their snouts out of Israel. The Israelis have elected the people they want; and they certainly don’t want ‘peace-makers’. They want people who will get on with the job of doing themselves and the rest of the world a favour: wiping out Hamas terrorists.

The elections are “devastating” only to the likes of this author, who is a bit like the dead Australian Democrats, telling voters they don’t know what they are doing.

Yes, there are few peacemakers in Israel's Knesset, because that is the way Israel has become with America nursing her.

But of course, the main problem is that America has not only been protecting what has become a nasty little Israel, but has deliberately knocked out any multilaterism that was the idea of a UN in the first place.

"The world and Obama should keep their snouts out of Israel. The Israelis have elected the people they want.."

The people in Gaza also elected the people they wanted too.

These two group just hate each other, that is why they do not want peace with each other. Both have elected for extremist to do their deeds

Isreal is supported by all the Jews around the world. Hamas is supported by Iran and other Muslim nations

It is really time for the rest of the world to step in.

Yes, Dovit, but how are we to know who's honest these days, even with Obama, who still has to run the big global test gauntlet?

Don't know whether to get down on my knees, or curse and
swear to the Heavens.

Oh for multipolarity with really no one in charge but a book showing the true rudiments of decent democratic commonsense.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Maybe, seeing Israel is very reliant on it's major ally, the USA, for US tax-payer funded discounts on military hardware and other generous forms of US aid, President Obama is entitled to put his "snout" in israel's affairs.

Perhaps even more so, given the possible ramifications of a blow-out in the Middle East, should Israel continue with it's insane threats to nuke Iran. Such a move by the majority of Hawks in Knesset would not only threatening Middle Eastern security, but cause a lot of problems farther afield.

Should Israel go ahead with its plan, it would very quickly be looking for the USA to underwrite its expedition. It is doubtful Israel could succeed without strong US support, maybe even direct military involvement.

Once again, it is hard to argue teh USA should keep its snout out and just allow Israel carte' blanch.

It is this writer's view that whilst the Hawks prevail in BOTH the Knesset and Hamas, there is little chance of peace. Someone, somewhere has to bring these war-mongers to their senses. If it falls to Obama, then so be it. Bring It On, I say, for the sakes of all the innocents being slaughtered on both sides, and the rest of the world.

Like the US, we in Australia got a great orator to talk us out of any crisis.

Obama is just a great orator, who can talk people into voting for him. But he is still a politician, quite simply. you cannot trust a politician as far as you can throw them. They all just have their own interest at heart.

So Obama will do what benefits him. If that is to supply Isreal with weapon he will. If it is to appease Iran/Egypt he will

It is suggested that an Agenda for Obama should contain an extract of Immanual Kant’s Agenda for Perpetual Peace, published after Kant’s disappointment with Napoleon for forsaking the Libertinian principles that the young Napleon had earlier mostly gained his Military Honours for.

From this day on, quoted Kant, not one personage, nor even one personage alone representing the Good Lord, should ever be allowed to make final decisions ahead of what he called a Federation of libertinian nations to preserve Perpetual Peace.

Thus it was that the League of Nations was eventually founded, followed by the United Nations but both failing because of the very thing that Kant warned against, single party authority or virtually the same political behaviour, letting a single authority like an American President have the last say.

As any young political student is amazed at after leaning all the rudiments of true democracy, that the American Constitution similar to the archaic Britsh Law System still allows the elected leader to have the last say without the asking of the public ‘s consent as any decent democracy should.

Much of this was discussed so much during the Korean War with challenges against former war leaders like Macarthur having too much to say, when there should have been more consensus.

Certainly there was consensus even near the end of WW2 with the Bretton Woods Agreement, from where it is said that though he only was allowed to speak for Great Britain at the time, wonderful ideas such as the Marshal Plan where derived from suggestions by an aging Maynard Keynes.

The end of the Cold War was attained also not so much by direct authority but much informal discussion, Reagan and Gorbachev virtually playing their parts but more as figureheads.

Not so with George W Bush, however thus any budding politician these days should only hope that Obama will have a good peruse at the US Constitution and have all ancient Absolutism concerning the President scrubbed out replaciing it with the wisdom and understanding that only a fair-minded United Nations can give.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Regards, BB, WA.

I find it amusing that a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University has the gall to tell Barack Obama what he must do. Obama is the President of the USA, not of the world. And he is answerable to Americans, not to foreigners.

Certainly, the USA has previously intervened in all sorts of global strife and it is arguable that the Americans are, at least in part, responsible for much of the trouble in the Middle East today. However, it is certainly more in keeping with the UN's role in the world that they, rather than the US, deal with these sorts of issues.

As for the rest of the world - well, what response would you like? It is easy for those sitting in Israel to assume that their plight is of pivotal importance to the world, but the reality is that my life goes on regardless of the Middle Eastern conflict. I think I can safely say that I have never been affected by it in any way. Most Australians are probably very similar. I would suspect that the same applies to Tongans, Fijians, Congolese and so on. So why is it up to the rest of the world to respond?