Fragmente dintr-un articol de Dore Gold, fostul ambasador al Israelului la ONU, despre schimbarea dramatica a politicii externe americane sub Obama. Articolul a aparut astazi in Israel Hayom.
...
Any recommendations of how to make US-Israeli relations work again must correctly diagnose what exactly has changed on the American side. To accomplish this, it is sometimes necssary to get out of the limited context of Israel and the Palestinians and look more broadly at how US policy towards the world is changing under President Barack Obama. One of America's leading commentators on international relations from the Carnegie Foundation, Robert Kagan, noted in the Washington Post on March 17 that other American allies fear that Obama is changing the relationship of the United States with them. These include Britain, France, Japan, and India. In 2008, for example, Obama suggested that India needed to resolve the Kashmir question with Pakistan, so that the Pakistanis can shift their troops from the Indian border to the Pakistani border with Afghanistan. India regards Kashmir as being under Indian sovereignty, and does not want the US meddling in this issue. A year later Obama welcomed China having a role in South Asia, which India viewed as Washington recognizing the intrusion of Beijing into its backyard.
But the the British case is the most dramatic. In early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed in Buenos Aires, that Britain begin negotiating the future of its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands with Argentina. This was a major change in US policy and it angered many British officials in London. This shift has only accelerated debate in the British parliament over the future of the "special relationship" with the US, with a parliamentary committee calling on the British government to reconsider the extent to which it should closely coordinate with Washington. This came after the decision of President Obama to snub British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who made five requests for a bilateral meeting at the opening of the UN General Assembly in September 2009, but was turned down by Washington.
Israel should not seek comfort in the troubles of others, but it should understand that it is part of a wider pattern. President Obama does not see himself changing the status quo either internationally or domestically at the margins. His domestic focus on health care, instead of a safer goal of creating jobs, was part of his ambitious vision of transforming American society as a whole. Equally, in foreign policy, Obama is not just interested in following the initiatives of his predecessors but in providing his own design for the world in the future. As Robert Kagan wrote, Obama is departing from a 60-year old grand strategy that the US adopted in the past, and is hoping to replace it with something entirely new.
Since his June 4, 2009 address in Cairo, Obama has made it clear that he seeks to fundamentally transform the relations of the West with the Islamic World. He connected the 9/11 attacks to the historic tensions between the Islamic states and the West, which he explained, al-Qaeda exploited. By changing the relationship, Obama believes he is also removing the motivation for the next attack. He also may see his own personal role as a historical figure who can bridge between the two civilizations.
In short, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Obama believes that by creating a Palestinian state as soon as possible, his administration would be transforming the relations of the West with the Arab world and the Islamic countries, as well. If that is the case, then establishing a Palestinian state may be more important to the administration than creating the conditions for the parties to negotiate the issue among themselves. President Bill Clinton opposed the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state in 1999, but will that still be the policy of President Obama in 2011?
What the Obama administration's grand design for the Middle East, aside from the Palestinian state is not clear. But if his administration seeks to re-fashion America's alliance system, the Arab states should not automatically celebrate the new direction of US Middle East policy. Who will be America's main partner in its outreach to the Islamic world? Will it be the old allies like Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Or will there be a new regional partner instead? The Gulf states have been seriously concerned that the US will develop new realtions with Iran at their expense, should the Iranian leadership agree at some point to Obama's offer of engagement. They know that Washington's top priority is to withdraw successfully from Iraq and Afghanistan without chaos ensuing. To achieve this goal, Obama will need cooperation from Iran rather than escalation.
...
*May 12*
940: Sixty-two-year-old Eutychius of Alexandria, the Greek who wrote *Nazm
al-Jauhar*, a history, of what some may consider of dubious accuracy ...
11 comments:
Spune-mi cu cine mergi,ca sa-ti spun cine esti
Cred ca e o gluma de prost gust....nachon???
What To Do With Jerusalem
o opinie a lui Yoram Peri ...
o alta opinie:
U.S.-Israeli Ties: What’s Really Happening?
by Robert O. Freedman
Articolul lui Freedman demonstreaza ca "criza" care a izbucnit in timpul vizitei lui Baiden si care a luat mega-proportii in stilul cunoscut al administratiilor americane (am mai trecut mega-crize din astea si in alte administratii - arma favorita era tot folosirea de catzelusi din presa de felul lui Tom Fridman) nu a fost intamplatoare ci a servit ca pretext.
Articolul lui Freedman are cateva greseli, una care bate la ochi vorbeste de politica de colonizare a lui Netanyahu uitand ca asta se facea si sub Olmert-Livni.
Administratia Obama face doua greseli de baza: prima este ca ea crede ca dand palestinienilor ceva, ii multumeste.
Chiar daca Netanyahu ar sista complet colonizarea, imediat palestinienii ar cere altceva. Asta este felul lor de a fi: niciodata multumiti. Cu cat capata mai mult, cer mai mult.
In Liban si in Gaza, au primit "pe gratis" retragerea Israelului si stim urmarea.
A doua problema este ca astazi exista palestinieni de Est si Vest. Israelului i se cere sa poarte tratative cu o entitate divizata, intrebarea este cu cine va semna Israelul acorduri si care este garantia ca vor fi respectate de toti palestinienii.
Tovaraselul de la Casa Alba tace din gura, stie foarte bine ca nu exista solutie la problema asta, insa prefera sa explice impotenta administratiei la punctul iranian pe seama lipsei de tratatative dintre Israel si palestinieni. Ceac-pac!
Apropo, ca vorbim de Obama: reforma sanatatzii i-a adus o ridicare in polluri de foarte scurat durata, si iarasi a scazut la nivelul dinainte. Daca tzin minte bine, am vazut si un poll care nu prevesteste bine democratilor la alegerile din Noiembrie.
Pentru toamna, administratia anuntza prin intermediul catzelusilor de presa ca vine cu un nou plan de pace pentru regiune. Doar ca pe majoritatea americanilor ii intereseaza alte subiecte in alegeri.
(1) stiu ca au existat si in trecut "mega-conflicte" intre US si Israel...
si sub administratii democrate si sub cele republicane ...
Chiar si cu precedenta administratie Netanyahu. Asa ca nu are rost sa-l "single-out" pe "tovaraselul" tau.
Problema este ce te faci cu "status-QUO" ??
Israel trebuie sa-si respecte caracteristica de stat democratic, de aia nu poate pune betze in roate lui "2 state solution".
(2) Cit despre "poll"urile de popularitate a lui Obama legate de "Health Care", inclin sa cred ca ele nu sint reprezentative ...
Este o mare realizare a lui Obama ca reusit sa inlocuiasca un Health Care falit si mincator de bani, cu un "Health Care for ALL". Toate tarile civilizate se bucura de un asemenea sistem.
Republicanii se oftica ca au ramas pe margine fatza de aceasta istorica realizare (pe veci legata de numele lui Obama) ...,
Ei in schimb vor ramine pe veci in istorie ca au votat la unison "NU" fatza de acest proiect care beneficiaza intreaga populatia americana.
In plus ...
republicanii nu au nici un candidat credibil. Inca se mai joaca cu ideea Sarah Palin, sau Newt Gingrich.
ca tot sintem la Health Care.
Si in Israel oamenii beneficiaza de un sistem universal.
Sau vrei sa spui ca si Israel este o tara comunista ?
"Health care in Israel is both universal and compulsory, and is administered by a small number of organizations with funding from the government. All Israeli citizens are entitled to the same Uniform Benefits Package, regardless of which organization they are a member of, and treatment under this package is funded for all citizens regardless of their financial means. According to a 2000 study by the World Health Organization, Israel has the 28th best health care in the world."
sehe,
1. m-am referit la administratia Obama pentru ca ea este la ora actuala pe scena. Bineinteles ca si administratiile trecute, printre el cele republicane -au facut greseli.
De exemplu administratia Bush a silit Israelul sa accepte alegerile din PA la care Sharon se impotrivea pentru ca urmau sa aduca la putere Hamasul - care se impotriveste existentei Israelui.
Acordurile de la Oslo prevedeau ca nici un partid care nu accepta existenta Israelului nu poate candida in alegeri. Administratia lui Bush a preferat sa inchida ochii la acest punct.
Administratia lui Obama merge insa si mai departe si sunt raportiri cum ca a propus sa devina mediator in cazul Shalit, pentru ca sa recunoasca mai tarziu Hamasul.
Nu exista insa dovezi, dar e foarte posibil ca sa recunoasca un corp absolut terorist. Ii cred capabili de asta.
2. Nu stiu de cei ai inceput cu sistemul de sanatate israelian - nu am scris nimic despre cel american - m-am referit numai la coborarea in polluri a lui Obama.
Roy, eu doar incerc sa "parez" sagetutele pe care eu personal, le consider extrem de nedrepte la adresa presedintelui Obama.
Iata un articol care prezinta cum anumite factiuni atit din USA cit si din Israel, din anumite motive legate de o agenda politica, au "ales" sa-l priveasca pe Obama cu o neincredere nejustificata, sa-l prezinte in cel mai bun caz, drept "indiferent" fatza de Israel si partinitor cu cauza palestiniana, cu toate ca el nu face nimic diferit de administratiile trecute:
"Most Israelis were convinced of Bill Clinton’s capacity to reconcile a deep admiration for Israel with a desire to end the occupation of the conquered territories and the suffering of the Palestinians.
The Israeli right certainly appreciated George W. Bush for his unquestioning embrace, though most Israeli politicians say they would have preferred that more attention had been paid to the nuclear plants in Iran than to the phantom weapons in Baghdad.
In Obama, however, many Israelis think that they are dealing with an American leader who, as one official put it, "has no special feeling for us." Obama’s customary cool feels icy.
Ey cred ca tu ai o problema cu sagetutele mele.
Eu pot sa critic la fel de bine si administratia Bush, asa cum de altfel am facut-o.
Deocamdata la Obama ma intereseaza ce face pe plan international si nu local. Politica lui interna nu ma intereseaza si desigur nu reforma sanatatzii (de care de altfel nu sunt multumiti multi americani - insa nu sunt in stare sa apreciez cat e de buna sau proasta. De altfel asta o sa se vada doar peste cativa ani si nu cred ca e cazul sa i se decearma in avans inca un premiu Nobel pentru ceva cu rezultate viitoare)
Insa pe plan international, vad ce a facut pana acum si mai ales la punctul Iran. Obama o ia peste bot (sau cum spune Ahmedinajad o sa-si sparga dintii) si de la rusi si de la chinezi cu nemiluita, in schimb a pus-o pe Clintoneasa sa raga la Netaniahu 45 de minute fara oprire.
S-a gasit sa fac pe marele, deocamdata e foarte mic.
Ei, cu asa niste realizari, nu o sa ajunga departe. Sper ca totusi sa se scjimbe ceva... altfel o sa fie cotat chiar mai prost decat Carter.
Daca Obama are in plan sa se implice in problema Shalit, asta este ocazia...
Post a Comment