+- نادي الفكر العربي (http://www.nadyelfikr.com)
+-- المنتدى: الســــــــاحات العامـــــــة (http://www.nadyelfikr.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- المنتدى: حول الحدث (http://www.nadyelfikr.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=64)
+--- الموضوع: نتنياهو يمتلك من المؤيدين في اورقة الكابتول هيل اكثر من اوباما (/showthread.php?tid=36646)
نتنياهو يمتلك من المؤيدين في اورقة الكابتول هيل اكثر من اوباما - بسام الخوري - 03-15-2010
الاندبندنت: الاستراتيجية الاسرائيلية المحفوفة بالمخاطر
مصطفى حمو
مصطفى حمو
بي بي سي ـ لندن
ما زالت الازمة الناشبة بين الولايات المتحدة واسرائيل بسبب اعلان الاخيرة عن مخطط لبناء مئات المساكن للمستوطنين في القدس الشرقية المحتلة اثناء زيارة نائب الرئيس الامريكي جو بايدن الى اسرائي تحظى بنصيب وافر من تغطية الصحف البريطانية.
نتنياهو
نتنياهو طلب من مسؤولي حكومته التزام الهدوء
في صفحة الرأي كتبت صحيفة الاندبندنت تحت عنوان "الاستراتيجية الاسرائيلية المحفوفة بالمخاطر" عن التكتيك الذي يتبعه رئيس الحكومة الاسرائيلية بنيامين نتنياهو في تعامله مع الجهود الجهود الامريكية الرامية لاحلال السلام في الشرق الاوسط.
محفوفة بالمخاطر
تشير الصحيفة الى ان نتنياهو نجح في اغلب الاحيان في تعامله مع الجهود الامريكية الخاصة بعملية السلام في الشرق الاوسط بالحديث بلغة غامضة ولينة حول حل الدولتين الذي تدعو اليه الولايات المتحدة، لكنه كان في نفس الوقت يغدق الوعود على شركائه في الائتلاف الحكومي من اليمين الاسرائيلي المتطرف ببناء مزيد من المستوطنات في الضفة الغربية والقدس الشرقية.
لكن الازمة الحالية بين واشنطن وتل ابيبب اثبت ان هذا التكتيك لم يعد يجد نفعا اذ ان لهجة وزيرة الخارجية الامريكية هيلاري كلينتون مع نتنياهو حول الاعلان الاسرائيلي عن المستوطنة الجديدة تشير الى ان اسرائيل قد تجاوزت الخطوط الحمراء بالنسبة للادارة الامريكية.
وتضيف الصحيفة ان نتنياهو طلب من المسؤولين الاسرائيليين التحلي بضبط الاعصاب والهدوء الى ان تهدأ هذه العاصفة، ومما لا شك فيه ان الهدوء مفيد لكن العائق الاساسي الذي يمنع المباشرة بمفاوضات سلام بين اسرائيل والفلسطينيين ليس ليس له علاقة بالمشاعر وهدوء الاعصاب بل برفض القيادة الاسرائيلية الابتعاد عن الاطراف اليمينية في الائتلاف الحكومي الاسرائيلي والاعلان بشكل صريح عما ستقدمه لتحقيق السلام بين الطرفين.
قد يعول نتنياهو مثل الكثيرين في اسرائيل والاطراف اليمينية في الولايات المتحدة على ان الرئيس الامريكي اوباما قد لا يبقى في البيت لاكثر من فترة رئاسية وبالتالي التعايش معه الى ان يصل الى البيت الابيض رئيس جمهوري موال لاسرائيل وهو ما قد يفسر الاهانة المباشرة التي وجهتها اسرائيل الى اوباما.
اوباما
فشل اوباما في تحريك ملف السلام في الشرق الاوسط
ولكن النظر من فوق رأس اوباما الى الاطراف اليمينية الامريكية امر محفوف بالمخاطر لان العلاقة القوية بين الدولتين كانت سياسة مشتركة للحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي وظلت اسرائيل محايدة في الصراع بين الحزبين وتعامل اسرائيل الاخير مع الادارة الديمقراطية قد يجعل الديمقراطيين لا ينظرون الى اسرائيل باعتبارها حليفا قويا لامريكا بل حليفا قويا للجمهوريين.
فشل اوباما
كما كتب بروس اندرسن في صفحة الرأي في الاندبندنت تحت عنوان "فشل اوباما في تحقيق السلام في الشرق الاوسط" ان العديد من المسؤولين الامريكيين يشعرون بان اسرئيل مست بهم شخصيا ومن بين هؤلاء هيلاري كلينتون صاحبة المزاح الحاد ولو كانت الادارة الامريكية تجد وسيلة سهلة لمعاقبة اسرائيل على فعلتها لقامت بذلك، لكنها عاجزة عن القيام بذلك فالعديد من المسؤولين الاسرائيليين لديهم من الاطلاع على دقائق السياسية الداخلية في الولايات المتحدة اكثر من الامور الداخلية الاسرائيلية.
وللدلالة على مدى التغلغل الاسرائيلي في دقائق السياسية الامريكية يورد الكاتب ما قاله رئيس الحكومة الاسرائيلية الراحل مناحيم بيجين للرئيس الامريكي رونالد ريجان عام 1982 عندما ابدى الاخير قلقه من استمرار العملية الاسرائيلية العسكرية في لبنان وتحذيره من ان عددا من اعضاء مجلس الشيوخ الامريكي بدأوا يبدون عدم ارتياحهم من سير هذه العملية.
فما كان من بيجين الا ان قال له "سوف اتولى امر هؤلاء" فشعر ريجان صاحب الطبع الهادىء والجمهوري الموالي لاسرائيل حتى النخاع بالغضب وقال "وغد، ماذا يعني بانه سيتولى امرهم هل هو مواطن امريكي؟".
هولبروك
هبروك هو من مؤسسي الجماعة
وينقل اندرسن رد المفكر والاستاذ الجامعي الامريكي فيليب بيجوت على عدد من المهتمين البريطانيين الذين يرون ان اوباما قادر بسهولة على اقامة دولة فلسطينية اذا اراد، "ان نتنياهو يمتلك من المؤيدين في اورقة الكابتول هيل اكثر من اوباما".
RE: نتنياهو يمتلك من المؤيدين في اورقة الكابتول هيل اكثر من اوباما - بسام الخوري - 03-15-2010
Bruce Anderson: Obama has failed to bring peace to the Middle East
When it comes to peace terms, most Israelis are wholly unrealistic
Monday, 15 March 2010
There are worse threats than five more years of Gordon Brown. In the Middle East, tension is growing. In Amman, Beirut, Damascus and Jerusalem, anxious voices are prophesying war while the West seems powerless. The UK has no clear position. Neither does the US. There is a general gabbling burble: "These are dangerous times... time for all men of goodwill...important that all sides show restraint". There is nothing with any purchase on the situation; nothing beyond Cathy Ashton's level of competence. She is the EU's foreign minister: a good joke, in circumstances that are beyond a joke.
A year ago, there did seem to be grounds for cautious optimism. Barack Obama had been swept to office on a cloud of liberal afflatus. It had been less of a campaign than an outbreak of religious mania. Even so, despite his inexperience, his naiveté and his left-wing instincts, there was one reason to welcome the new President. His prestige gave him leverage. Outside Iran and North Korea, noone was queuing up to be the first head of government to fall out with him. It did not seem impossible that he could re-animate the Middle East peace process. Although George Bush had talked about a Palestinian state, there had been no progress. Perhaps that would change.
There has been no change, as the Biden visit demonstrated. Intellectually, Joe Biden is unimpressive; just a folksy version of Cathy Ashton, not remotely on a par with Dick Cheney. But the Vice-President of the United States is entitled to diplomatic respect, if only ex officio. Mr Biden arrived in Israel to kick-start the peace process. Instead, his hosts kicked him. By announcing the latest batch of settlements, the Israelis were treating the Americans with contempt. Eighteenth-Century diplomats fought duels over lesser insults. The Palestinians responded by withdrawing from the proposed indirect talks. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, had no choice. He has one consolation. The Israelis made a bigger fool of the US Vice-President.
It was surprising that the Israelis should have snubbed the Americans quite so brutally. They are normally more circumspect. After all, there are lots of American passport holders in Israel, yet none of their documents was finagled for the Dubai escapade. The Israelis usually know when and at whom they can safely thumb their noses, and super-powers do not like being made fools of. In official Washington, there are a lot of bruised egos with angry owners. One of them is Hillary Clinton, who has a temper on her, as they would say in Ireland. If there were some easy way for this Administration to punish Israel, that would be done. But there is no such option, especially in an election year; especially when the President's prestige has proved so evanescent and most of the levers have broken in his hands.
Over the years, official Israel has developed an acute, subtle and wholly unsentimental insight into American politics. Many senior Israelis have a better grasp of the US system than of their own – hardly surprising, given the fractious complexity of Israeli politics. The lack of sentiment is important. Vis-à-vis the US, Israel is like a pussy-cat with a fond owner, who beams down as the moggy purrs and strokes its fur around his calves. A charming scene for humans, but the cat is thinking that if it knew how to open fridges and tins, it would not need humans. Although it would be absurd to regard Israel as a glove-puppet waiting for a strong American hand, the Israelis know that ultimately, they are dependent on America. Like most dependents, they occasionally resent that status. They have also learned how to organise matters so that the dependency is rarely irksome.
It is the Americans who often feel irked. Back in 1982, when the Israeli campaign in Lebanon was beginning to bog down, Ronald Reagan expressed his concerns to Menachem Begin. It was good advice. Everyone would have been better off if Mr Begin had taken it. He failed to do so. President Reagan warned the Israeli Premier that some Congressmen were becoming uneasy. "Don't worry about the Hill, Ron" said Mr Begin; "I'll take care of that". Mr Reagan was serene by temperament and pro-Israeli by long and deep conviction. But that was too much. Suddenly, he had a temper on him. "Sonofabitch. What's he mean he'll fix the Hill? He's not American". As if that mattered. Last February, just after the God-President's apotheosis, some London liberals were assuming that Mr Obama just had to stretch forth his right arm and there would be a Palestinian state. Philip Bobbitt, the author, has a powerful synoptic intelligence and – remarkable in a life-long Democrat – a profound understanding of America. He urged caution: "Netanyahu has more votes on the Hill than Obama does". Mr Bobbitt was right then, and has become more so since.
A year ago, we were dreaming about a Palestinian state. Now, it is: "Please, Israel, must you build even more settlements – and even if you do, why must you ruin Mr Biden's visit?" It is hard not to admire the Israelis' chutzpah, dealing with the Obama Aministration as if they were flicking a fly off their sleeve. But the outcome could be tragic.
Most Israelis want peace. They long for the day when they would no longer have to worry about their children travelling about the place: the day when military service might become less onerous, and would become less dangerous. But when it comes to the peace terms, most Israelis are wholly unrealistic. They almost want the Palestinians to go under the yoke and to crawl to an attenuated statehood at the price of national humiliation. In large part, this is the Palestinians' fault. Any nation prepared to be led by that corrupt wretch Arafat almost deserves the Palestinians' fate. There were tactics which would have enabled the Palestinians to secure widespread sympathy and to put Israel under pressure. Passive resistance was one, as was an offer to relinquish all Palestinian claims to statehood in exchange for Israeli citizenship. Either of those could have been a route to the moral high ground. But that was never part of Arafat's route-map.
The Palestinians preferred suicide bombers. At moments, the Israelis have been guilty of exploiting the Holocaust for the purposes of emotional blackmail. But one can understand why their reaction to the suicide bombings was Holocaust-conditioned, especially when children were the murderers and Israeli children their victims. There arose an Israeli refrain: "What kind of a people is this who send their children to kill our children"?
As a result of the suicide bombings, a lot of Israelis came to despise Palestinians, and who can blame them? But it is not a helpful reaction. It encourages that chronic Israeli unreality, entirely understandable and equally entirely unreasonable: the desire for a risk-free peace. That cannot be. The Israelis are condemned to live in a dangerous neighbourhood. Even if there is a Palestinian state including almost all of the pre-1967 West Bank, plus a presence in Jerusalem, plus generous support from the US and the EU – a fair number of Palestinians will hate Israel and Israelis. Some individuals will let that hatred consume them, until they become diabolical agents of fire and death. Israelis will always have to live under threat.
There is only one hope of mitigating that threat. Most Palestinians also want to live in peace. If they had a state where they and their children could prosper and in which they could take pride, they would not permit it to become a cockpit of terrorism and war. This does not mean that all terrorism would be instantly eliminated. But it could mean co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian security services, thus reducing the risk. That is the only sane option for Israel. Yet there is little hope that the Israelis will take it.
RE: نتنياهو يمتلك من المؤيدين في اورقة الكابتول هيل اكثر من اوباما - بسام الخوري - 03-16-2010
الاندبندنت: صبر أوباما مع إسرائيل بدأ ينفد
أوباما
هل بدأ صبر أوباما ينفد ؟
شغل التوتر الذي يسود العلاقات الأمريكية الإسرائيلية بسبب إعلان خطة لبناء 1600 وحدة سكنية في القدس الشرقية حيزا من صفحات الصحف البريطانية الصادرة صباح الثلاثاء.
ففي صحيفة الاندبندنت نجد تقريرا بعنوان "صبر أوباما مع إسرائيل بدأ ينفد" أعده مراسل الصحيفة في القدس دونالد ماكنتاير ومراسلها في الدوحة هيو ماكلويد.
ويتطرق التقرير الى سلوك رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو الذي يشوبه التحدي، بالرغم من أن العلاقات بين الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل وصلت أسوأ حالة لها منذ أكثر من ثلاثة عقود حسب تقدير أحد كبار الدبلوماسيين الإسرائيليين، وهو السفير الاسرائيلي في واشنطن.
إذن يصر نتنياهو على الدفاع عن سياسته الاستيطانية، تقول الصحيفة، ويقول إن التوسع في حي رامات شلومو لن يؤثر على السكان العرب لمدينة القدس.
وزير الخارجية الفلسطيني السابق نبيل شعث لا يتفق معه، فهو يرد على هذا الرأي من العاصمة القطرية الدوحة قائلا إن خطوات تهويد القدس بلغت وتيرة غير مسبوقة، وهذا يجعل من غير المقبول للسلطة الفلسطينية أن تمنح هذه الخطوات غطاء شرعيا باستئنافها المفاوضات مع الجانب الإسرائيلي، كما نقلت عنه الصحيفة.
الإدارة الأمريكية تطالب الجانب الإسرائيلي بمجموعة خطوات للتخفيف من حدة الأثر الذي تركه إعلان خطة توسيع الحي الاستيطاني، منها الافراج عن سجناء فلسطينيين والتعهد بأن تشمل المحادثات مع الجانب الفلسطيني حين استئنافها بحث قضايا الحل النهائي ومنها الحدود واللاجئين ومستقبل القدس، حسب ما ورد في الصحافة الإسرائيلية، وإن كانت إسرائيل لم تؤكد ذلك رسميا.
وتقول الصحيفة إن أحد أسباب الموقف الأمريكي الصارم هو ضغوط تمارسها المؤسسة العسكرية الأمريكية لحل النزاع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي من أجل تخفيف حدة عداء العالم الإسلامي للولايات المتحدة.
وتنسب الصحيفة لصحيفة يديعوت أحرونوت الإسرائيلية القول إن إن نائب الرئيس الأمريكي جو بايدن قال لنتنياهو: ما تفعله يقوض أمن قواتنا في العراق وأفغانستان".
"هل إسرائيل مهمة إستراتيجيا ؟"
نتنياهو
نتنياهو يتحدى الاعتراضات الأمريكية، إلى متى ؟
صحيفة التايمز أيضا تناولت الموضوع في أكثر من شكل.
أحد المقالات التي عالجت الموضوع حمل عنوان "للمرة الأولى هناك أصوات تشكك في قيمة إسرائيل الاستراتيجية" أعده ريتشارد بيستون.
يستهل بيستون مقاله بالقول انه أينما جلست الى مائدة عشاء في العالم العربي فستستمع الى نفس التساؤلات حول سر الدعم الأمريكي لإسرائيل، وهو سؤال يشغل الناس في المنطقة، ويسود الاعتقاد أن نفوذ اللوبي المؤيد لإسرائيل هو السبب.
ويتابع كاتب المقال القول إن إسرائيل هي حليف استراتيجي للولايات المتحدة، وتحظى بدعمها على هذا الأساس، ولكن في المرات القلائل التي تسبب سلوك إسرائيل بأذى لمصالح الإسرائيل كان خيار الولايات المتحدة حماية مصالحها، ويذكر الكاتب هنا حرب السويس كمثال.
والآن، يقول الكاتب، هناك أصوات ذات نفوذ منها صوت الجنرال ديفيد باتريوس، تشكك في الأهمية الاسترالتيجية لإسرائيل.
ترى تلك الأصوات أن إثارة غضب العالم الإسلامي من خلال إجحاف الفلسطينيين سيدفع ثمنه جنود أمريكيون في العراق وأفغانستان.
ويختتم الكاتب مقاله بالقول إن أوباما سيزور إندونيسيا التي قضى فيها طفولته، وهي البلد المسلم ذي العدد الأكبر للسكان، ومن هناك سيمد يده من جديد الى العالم الإسلامي، وهو لذلك يريد أن يكون واثقا أن إسرائيل ستسهل مهمته بسلوكها لا ستصعبها.
Obama runs out of patience with Israel
Settlement issue provokes 'biggest crisis in relations for 35 years'
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem and Hugh MacLeod in Doha
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday strongly defended Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem in the face of US pressure and what one of his own top diplomats described as the worst crisis in relations with Washington for more than three decades.
A defiant Mr Netanyahu appeared to be digging in despite clear indications that the Obama administration is now demanding the scrapping of plans for 1,600 new Jewish homes, whose announcement overshadowed last week's visit to Israel by the US Vice-President Joe Biden. Mr Netanyahu's stance appeared to guarantee, after a highly charged week, the protraction of a stand-off in which a full-scale diplomatic row blew up at the start of Mr Biden's visit and appeared to abate at the end of it. But it was then reignited by demands from Hillary Clinton and an angry White House that Israel make amends for the "insulting" announcement just as indirect negotiations with the Palestinians had finally been arranged.
The US is now said to be demanding substantive concessions from Israel after a warning by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would not take part in talks if the plan to expand the mainly ultra-orthodox Ramat Shlomo settlement went ahead. The row has appeared finally to bring to a head the year-long tensions between the two governments since Barack Obama tried in vain to persuade the Israeli Prime Minister to agree to a total settlement freeze. He was thwarted by Mr Netanyahu who agreed only to a partial 10-month freeze, which did not include East Jerusalem.
Related articles
* Rupert Cornwell: There's no sign that Obama will punish his ally
* Search the news archive for more stories
The Israeli Prime Minister insisted yesterday that construction would continue "in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years". He added: "The building of those Jewish neighbourhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."
But a prominent Fatah figure and former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, told The Independent that the prospect of talks resuming had been sabotaged by Israel's action. Speaking in Qatar yesterday ahead of reconciliation talks with Hamas, which governs Gaza, he added: "The speed at which Jerusalem is being Judaised and de-Arabised has surpassed any period in the history of the peace process and is so alarming that we cannot possibly continue giving cover to Mr Netanyahu that we are still negotiating while he is doing this."
Mr Netanyahu avoided direct reference to the plans at the heart of the row for expanding the Ramat Shlomo settlement. But the Prime Minister, who has apologised for the timing of last week's announcement, showed no sign of abandoning it altogether.
There was no official confirmation of reports in the Israeli press that the US was also demanding other measures, including an early release of Palestinian prisoners and a clear Israeli promise that talks, if and when they begin, would genuinely deal with the core issues between the two sides: borders, Palestinian refugees, and the future of Jerusalem. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Israeli Army Radio reported meanwhile that in a conference call with Israeli consuls across the US on Saturday night, Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to Washington, said that the crisis was one of "historic proportions". Summoned to the State Department on Friday, he reportedly urged the consuls, on instructions "from the highest level", to lobby Congress, Jewish community groups and the media to make Israel's case. Mr Oren, a historian, apparently recalled a previous stand-off in 1975 between Henry Kissinger and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin over US demands in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai.
One explanation canvassed in Israel for Washington's tough stance is that pressure is being exerted by the US military for early progress in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as means of reducing Muslim hostility to the US. During the height of the row last week, Mr Biden was reported by Yedhiot Ahronot to have told Mr Netanyahu: "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."
Asked on Sunday whether Israeli "intransigence" was putting US "troops' lives at risk", David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr Obama, said "that region and that issue is a flare point throughout the region so I'm not going to put it in those terms". But he then added that it "was absolutely imperative" not only for "the security of Israel and the Palestinian people2 but "for our own security that ... we resolve this very difficult issue".
Mr Netanyahu can at least expect a warm reception in Washington when next week he addresses the annual conference of AIPAC, the staunchly right-of-centre pro-Israel lobby group which is trying to mobilise opposition to the stance taken by Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama.
Jerusalem remained tense yesterday, with hundreds of police deployed around the Old City for a fourth day in case of Palestinian unrest, including a possible protest against the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter destroyed in the 1948 war. A closure of the West Bank to prevent most Palestinians reaching the city was also still in force.
Dozens of young men burned tyres and threw stones at Israeli forces at the Qalandiya checkpoint north of Jerusalem. Palestinian medics said one Palestinian youth was shot in the jaw and another in the chest as troops dispersed protesters
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/obama-runs-out-of-patience-with-israel-1921812.html
For the first time there are voices questioning Israel’s strategic value
Richard Beeston: Commentary
* 17 Comments
Recommend? (13)
Sit down at any dinner table in the Arab world and the conversation will inevitably turn to one of the enduring mysteries of the region. How is it that America has shown such unwavering support for Israel over the decades?
The answer provokes all manner of tortured conspiracy theories about the power of the Israel lobby, the influence of right-wing Christian groups and varied explanations for the gravity-defying trick that enables a tiny tail to wag such a big dog.
Few accept a simpler answer. America supported Israel during the Cold War and built the Jewish state into the most formidable military power in one of the world’s most strategic regions.
While America enjoys strong relations with various Arab regimes, none has come close to matching Israel as a stable democracy and regional superpower.
Related Links
* Washington stands firm amid US-Israel 'crisis'
* Anger in Ramat Shlomo as settlement row grows
* Ashton fights to assert herself in Middle East
When America’s direct interests have been threatened by Israeli actions — for instance in the Suez Crisis — Washington has intervened robustly and Israel has backed away.
That is why Israeli leaders need to be particularly careful about how they handle relations with Washington in the current row. Distracted by their own internal politics and accustomed to dealing with two uncritical administrations — Clinton and Bush — the Israelis took Vice-President Biden for granted when he visited Israel last week. Instead of helping him to put in place modest peace proposals with the Palestinians, they announced plans for 1,600 Jewish homes in Arab east Jerusalem.
The Palestinians refused to negotiate under these circumstances and Mr Biden, a strong supporter of Israel, went home humiliated and empty-handed.
This scenario has happened before. But for the first time there are other voices — in this case General David Petraeus, the hugely influential head of US Central Command — openly questioning Israel’s value as a strategic ally. His defining experiences as a soldier, and those of most Americans in uniform, have been Iraq and Afghanistan.
As America becomes more deeply involved in the Arab and Muslim worlds, with nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan, it will challenge anything that may threaten US lives.
The Pentagon may be coming to the conclusion that the failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace deal is the best recruiting sergeant for militant Islam. Live footage of Palestinians being beaten or shot by Israeli troops are beamed around the region on satellite news channels. They can whip up public fury and angry sermons from Cairo to Kabul. America may not be directly involved in these incidents but it is blamed for arming and funding Israel and providing the Jewish state with diplomatic cover at the United Nations. If America’s unwavering support for Israel is endangering the lives of US troops in Kandahar or Baghdad, then the Jewish state has a problem.
Later this week President Obama will return to Indonesia, his childhood home and the world’s most populous Muslim country. This should be an occasion when he can reach out to the Islamic world and heal the wounds caused by the September 11, 2001, attacks. For that he needs to know that his ally Israel is willing to help make that job easier, not harder.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7063214.ece
you can put your commentary in englisch if you want
like this man
Don Hebert wrote:
Not for the first time. At least not at the dining table of non-Jewish/non-fundamentalist Christian Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public. There's always been a question of why we so blindly support Israel. And there's always been talk, whispered rather than spoken, that it causes us more grief than it's worth. But everyone "makes nice" and doesn't do it openly for fear of offending presuming the gov't knows what's best. But the talk is getting louder. The public is tired of shoveling its hard-earned tax dollars at an "ally" which gives nothing but trouble in return. Americans have a lot of patience and stick-to-it-tiveness, But we have our limits and those limits are beginning to show.
March 16, 2010 11:42 AM GM