Gaza: American Nuances
Published in Norte de Castilla
(Spain) on 5 June 2010
by Enrique Vázquez (link to original)
(Spain) on 5 June 2010
by Enrique Vázquez (link to original)
Translated from
by Patricia Gonzalez Darriba.
Edited by Stefanie Carignan.
Many observers think the American government's opinion about the Israeli attack against the Freedom Flotilla is too accommodating. Apparently its aim was, as they say, to save face with universal condemnation while, in fact, extending the usual wide protective shield once again: the sinner is absolved and the iron alliance between the parties imposes its law again.
And they may be right, but since the Democratic administration started to run the country fifteen months ago, the White House is slowly reorienting its relationship with Israel and the collectors of nuances already have a good variety that, if read all together, explains something very suggestive: Obama is not greatly valued among the Israeli public and his management of the Middle East crisis is approved by less than 10 percent of the people in the polls.
You can find a limited enumeration of those nuances below:
Advisers: Three days after taking his place in the White House, Obama designated George Mitchell, an important personality with Lebanese roots, as his personal envoy to reactivate negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis and has taken extreme care to treat both parties as equals concerning protocol matters, visits, etcetera…
Nuclear policy: Washington no longer assumes the ambiguous Israeli nuclear policy and refers to Israel in official documents as what it is, an atomic military power. Thus, during the five-year review of the NPT, the U.S. called on Israel to sign the treaty, accept the control of the AIEA and above all, to attend the nuclear-free Middle East conference in 2012.
Syria: The reality of the Syrian factor is being accepted as crucial in the region, the boycott of the Bashar al-Assad regime has ended, high-ranking government officials (Jeffrey Feltman and Dan Shapiro) have already visited Damascus and an ambassador will be soon be posted there.
Gestures: The president has visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but has not set foot on Israeli soil yet.
Combating terrorism: The strategic speech about the regional crisis has now included the Arab view. “The conflict ferments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region,” General Petraeus said in the Senate.
Gaza: Last Thursday, the New York Times cited an official source to confirm that Obama’s administration views the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and will try to change it.
In this context, updated with many precautions (including the constant repetition of the imperturbable commitment to Israel’s security), Obama has opted for what he could: first, to approve the U.N. Security Council condemnation that Turkey also voted on, having been greatly offended by the crisis in Gaza and its resultant deaths. And secondly, the request of foreign observers in every single Israeli investigation commission. Where is the old trust now?
The best summary of what’s happening has been said by a very well-informed Israeli: “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.” This statement was issued by none other than Mr. Meir Dagan. He is the Mossad Chief...I have nothing else to say.
And they may be right, but since the Democratic administration started to run the country fifteen months ago, the White House is slowly reorienting its relationship with Israel and the collectors of nuances already have a good variety that, if read all together, explains something very suggestive: Obama is not greatly valued among the Israeli public and his management of the Middle East crisis is approved by less than 10 percent of the people in the polls.
You can find a limited enumeration of those nuances below:
Advisers: Three days after taking his place in the White House, Obama designated George Mitchell, an important personality with Lebanese roots, as his personal envoy to reactivate negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis and has taken extreme care to treat both parties as equals concerning protocol matters, visits, etcetera…
Nuclear policy: Washington no longer assumes the ambiguous Israeli nuclear policy and refers to Israel in official documents as what it is, an atomic military power. Thus, during the five-year review of the NPT, the U.S. called on Israel to sign the treaty, accept the control of the AIEA and above all, to attend the nuclear-free Middle East conference in 2012.
Syria: The reality of the Syrian factor is being accepted as crucial in the region, the boycott of the Bashar al-Assad regime has ended, high-ranking government officials (Jeffrey Feltman and Dan Shapiro) have already visited Damascus and an ambassador will be soon be posted there.
Gestures: The president has visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but has not set foot on Israeli soil yet.
Combating terrorism: The strategic speech about the regional crisis has now included the Arab view. “The conflict ferments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region,” General Petraeus said in the Senate.
Gaza: Last Thursday, the New York Times cited an official source to confirm that Obama’s administration views the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and will try to change it.
In this context, updated with many precautions (including the constant repetition of the imperturbable commitment to Israel’s security), Obama has opted for what he could: first, to approve the U.N. Security Council condemnation that Turkey also voted on, having been greatly offended by the crisis in Gaza and its resultant deaths. And secondly, the request of foreign observers in every single Israeli investigation commission. Where is the old trust now?
The best summary of what’s happening has been said by a very well-informed Israeli: “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.” This statement was issued by none other than Mr. Meir Dagan. He is the Mossad Chief...I have nothing else to say.