Jusqu’où ira l’alliance Israël-USA ?

La question de l’alliance entre Israël et les USA est un autre aspect de l’essai de Gabriel Kolko dont nous parlons ci-dessus, et c’en est même l’aspect principal.

La thèse implicite de Kolko, à laquelle nous souscrivons, est que Israël est manipulé par les USA et nullement le contraire, et conduit par cette manipulation à une politique contraire à ses intérêts, aujourd’hui aux limites du supportable. Cette thèse rencontre le schéma selon lequel la direction israélienne a été ces 20 dernières années totalement aux mains du complexe militaro-industriel US, et particulièrement du Pentagone.

Se plaçant dans la logique qu’on a indiquée de la fin de la guerre comme instrument utile de la politique, observant que l’Amérique n’a aujourd’hui que la guerre comme politique, Kolko en conclut qu’Israël souffre de plus en plus et va être peut-être poussé à choisir une autre voie que son alliance actuelle. Le grand argument est évidemment que l’actuelle politique israélienne ne conduit qu’à une chose : supporter les conséquences des erreurs US («Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Foreign Minister, […] argued that it is “too important” for Israel to endorse yet “another failure in the U.S. strategy.”»)

Un problème tactique-clé où s’exprime ce différend stratégique, c’est la paix avec la Syrie. Les Israéliens sont arrivés à un accord sérieux avec les Syriens mais ont dû l’abandonner, ou le laisser en suspens c’est selon, sous la pression US, et en fait d’un seul homme, le vice-président Cheney. La chose est très moyennement appréciée par l’establishment israélien. Cette situation est aujourd’hui le nœud de la destinée d’Israël.

«These nominally secret talks were made public on January 8, 2007 when Egypt president Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview with an Israeli paper of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria.

»Ha'aretz' Akiva Eldar then published a series of extremely detailed accounts, including the draft accord, confirming that Syria 'offered a far reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel's security and is comprehensive – and divorce Syria from Iran and even create a crucial distance between it and Hezbollah and Hamas. The Bush Administration's role in scuttling any peace accord was decisive. C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, sat in at the final meeting, and two former senior CIA officials were present in all of these meetings and sent regular reports to Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The press has been full of details on how the American role was decisive because it has war, not peace, at the top of its agenda.

»Most of the Israeli Establishment favors it. On January 28 important Israelis met publicly in Jaffa and called the Israeli response “an irresponsible gamble with the State of Israel” since it made Cheney arbiter of Israeli national interests. They included former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak, former Shin Bet chief Ya'akov Perry, former directors of the Foreign Ministry David Kimche and Alon Liel (who negotiated the deal and believes it is very serious), and the like. Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Foreign Minister, has since supported their position and argued that it is “too important” for Israel to endorse yet “another failure in the U.S. strategy.”

»But Olmert has explicitly said that the Bush Administration opposes a negotiated peace with Syria. Therefore he is opposed to it also. Olmert's contradiction is that he wants to remain closely allied to the U.S., whatever its policies, yet he is now one of the most unpopular prime ministers in Israel's history and in power only because of Sharon's stroke. Israel is a crucial pillar of American policy in the entire region but this policy is failing. An alliance with America is Olmert's recipe for political defeat when the inevitable election is called. That is his problem.

»Israel's power after 1947 was based on its military supremacy over its weaker neighbors. It is in the process of losing it – if it has not already. Lesser problems, mainly demographic, will only be aggravated if tension persists. It simply cannot survive allied with the United States, because the Americans will either leave the region or embark on a war that risks Israel's very existence. It is time for it to become ‘normal’ and make peace with its neighbors, and that will require it to make major concessions. It can do that if it embarks upon an independent foreign policy, and it can start immediately to do so with Syria.

Mis en ligne le 11 février 2007 à 12H07