Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
549Steve Clemons estime que l’initiative des négociations de paix Israël-Palestine d’Obama, qui est saluée par un pessimisme général quant à son issue, risque également de conduire à un nouvel affrontement entre le président américain et le Premier ministre israélien Neytanyahou. Mais, cette fois, comme dans la confrontation entre Kennedy et Krouchtchev en 1961-1962, le président US doit sortir nettement vainqueur de la confrontation pour assurer son prestige et son autorité.
(Dans The Washington Note, le 26 août 2010.)
«Despite the flurry of initial applause from groups ranging from AIPAC to J Street to the Israel Project to the American Task Force for Palestine that direct negotiations were resuming between Israel and Palestine, pessimism has been the order of the day since. As one senior White House official recently told me, this just gets us back to the previously messy status quo. […]
«By cajoling the Palestinians and Israelis to engage, Barack Obama is again putting himself in the vulnerable position of another potential battle with Israel's Prime Minister – and this time Obama can't afford to lose.
»As with Khrushchev and Kennedy, the Soviet premier took the first couple of rounds – but Kennedy came out on top. Beyond what ultimately happens in these peace talks, Obama needs to prevail over any pugnacious obstinacy by Netanyahu.»
Un des lecteurs de Clemons (“John H”) est en désaccord avec l’analogie Kennedy-Krouchtchev de Steve Clermons. Il l’exprime en donnant notamment un excellent résumé de la politique “naturelle” d’Israël, à la fois parasitaire et maximaliste, et de la position et de la psychologie de Netanyahou, notamment le poids psychologique de ses rapports avec son père.
«The Khrushchev-Kennedy analogy is a poor one. After a couple rounds, Khrushchev and Kennedy became secret allies in the interest of peace and reducing the threat of nuclear war. Both realized that letting their military establishments dominate policy would lead to war and mutually assured destruction.
»Nowhere has Netanyahu ever indicated any serious interest in peace. His primary interest is in the territorial integrity of Eretz Israel, a country without clear boundaries and without goyim. For Netanyahu and most Israeli leaders, terrorism is an annoyance that can and has been managed successfully to bring enormous benefits to Israel – foreign aid, diaspora aid, and a burgeoning homeland security industry that has its tentacles deep within the world's telecommunications infrastructure.
»Netanyahu is no Khrushchev. He is rather more like Bush 43, still trying to measure up to his father, former executive director of the New Zionist Organization of America, which was distinguished primarily from other ideologies within Zionism by its territorial maximalism.»
dedefensa.org
-
