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/...21812.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/wo...063214.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