Akiva Eldar : Perché così tanti presidenti degli Stati Uniti non sono riusciti a portare la pace in Medio Oriente
Attempts
by a long line of American presidents, both Democrats and Republicans,
to broker an accord between Israelis and Palestinians or promote
initiatives to end…
al-monitor.com
Sintesi personale
Nelle primarie repubblicane degli Stati Uniti niente esemplifica la natura della connessione di Israele con il discorso
politico americano meglio del senatore Marco Rubio che ha
intenzione di provare a fare la pace tra Israele e i palestinesi. Nel dibattito di febbraio Trump ha osato dire che un mediatore non deve dichiarare il sostegno incrollabile per uno dei due lati.
Shultz quasi 30 anni fa aveva cercato di promuovere l' iniziativa di pace di Shimon Peres , allora ministro degli Esteri in un governo di unità con la Likud, e il re di Giordania Hussein bin Talal.
L'iniziativa, nota come Accordo di Londra, avrebbe dovuto iniziare con
una convenzione internazionale, dopo di che le parti avrebbero avviato i
negoziati per risolvere il conflitto arabo-israeliano sulla base delle risoluzioni ONU 242 e 338
. Nonostante gli appelli del presidente degli Stati Uniti Ronald
Reagan il ministro Yitzhak Shamir sabotò l'iniziativa. Scrisse a Shultz che alcune proposte del piano" non erano coerenti con gli interessi nazionali ."
Alla fine del 1988
Shultz incoraggiò Yasser Arafat a far adottare al Consiglio nazionale palestinese le risoluzioni
ONU 242 e 338 e ad abbandonare la lotta armata. permettendo l'apertura di un dialogo ufficiale tra l'amministrazione Reagan e la leadership dell'OLP.
Questo ha avuto luogo nel periodo di transizione tra le
elezioni presidenziali e l'arrivo di George H. Bush alla
Casa Bianca. Shultz non è mai riuscito a raccogliere i frutti dei suoi sforzi.
L'amministrazione Bush li ha usati per trascinare Shamir e il vice ministro degli Esteri Benjamin
Netanyahu alla Conferenza di Madrid del 1991. Ma, ahimè, nessun progresso è emerso da questa conferenza.
Uri Savir ha scritto questa settimana che secondo una importante fonte che visita spesso la regione, l'amministrazione americana vuole
consolidare una diplomatica piattaforma per la soluzione dei due Stati .
Sarà l'amministrazione Obama ad approfittare di questo periodo di
transizione per spianare
la strada a una iniziativa diplomatica perla prossima amministrazione ?
Elie Podeh, un professore del Dipartimento di Studi Islamici e del
Medio Oriente presso l'Università Ebraica di Gerusalemme, ha
recentemente pubblicato un libro sulle opportunità mancate nel conflitto arabo-israeliano.
Egli ha detto ad Al-Monitor proprio questa settimana che la sua ricerca
mostra che una iniziativa di pace introdotta all'inizio del mandato di
un presidente americano in carica ha maggiori possibilità di successo.
Uno degli esempi citati da Podeh è quello dell'ex presidente Jimmy
Carter, che ha aperto un dialogo diplomatico con Israele e l'Egitto nel
suo primo anno in carica, riuscendo a raggiungere un accordo di
pace entro due anni. Al contrario il disegno di legge di Clinton parametri e i colloqui tra Siria e Israele , entrambi i quali sono avvenuti al termine della sua amministrazione, si sono conclusi con un' amara delusione.
In sintesi, è importante ricordare che tutti i presidenti americani -
da Richard Nixon a Obama, democratici e repubblicani, liberali e
conservatori allo stesso modo hanno provato a porre fine
al conflitto arabo-israeliano.
I loro sforzi non hanno alcun collegamento con le lusinghiere parole,
ipocrite pronunciate nei dibattiti televisivi.
Why so many US presidents have failed to bring Middle East peace
In the US Republican primaries, nothing
exemplifies the nature of the Israeli connection to American political
discourse better than Sen. Marco Rubio's
tempest-in-a-teapot over leading Republican candidate Donald Trump
saying that he intends to try to make peace between Israel and the
Palestinians. And if that weren’t enough, in the Feb. 18 debate, Trump dared to say that it's not efficacious for a mediator in negotiations to declare unswerving support for one of the sides.
This sentence made Trump an unfair mediator in Rubio’s eyes, and he swore not to be neutral, saying, “I will be on Israel’s side every single day, because they are the only pro-American, free enterprise democracy in the entire Middle East.”
Several days earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
warmly welcomed former US Secretary of State George Shultz, who visited
Jerusalem. In a speech in the Israel Democracy Institute, Netanyahu
complimented the retired diplomat on his “vision and integrity”
and ended with lofty words about Israel and the Jewish people never
having a better friend. Yet according to the "Rubio index," Shultz’
friendship is questionable. Al-Monitor has discovered that the
95-year-old diplomat has recently consolidated a group of Israeli,
Palestinian and American experts to discuss alternatives to the two-state solution,
according to the Oslo Accord model. In the discussions, he has not
concealed his disappointment in the policies of Israel’s right-wing
government.
In terms of commitment to peace, Shultz is a visionary and
also a real friend of Israel. Almost 30 years ago, he tried to promote
a peace initiative crafted by Shimon Peres,
then foreign minister in a unity government with the Likud, and
Jordan's King Hussein bin Talal. The initiative, known as the London
Agreement, was supposed to commence with an international convention,
after which the sides would begin negotiations for resolving the
Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.
Despite US President Ronald Reagan’s pleas, Prime Minister Yitzhak
Shamir sabotaged the initiative. He wrote to Shultz on May 15 of
that year that parts of the plan were “not consistent with our national interests.” As far as Shamir was concerned, Shultz was too neutral a mediator.
At the end of 1988, Shultz settled his account with Shamir.
Shultz encouraged PLO head Yasser Arafat to pass a resolution in the
Palestine National Council to adopt UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and
abandon the armed struggle. Thus the path was paved for opening an
official dialogue between the Reagan administration and the PLO
leadership. This took place in the lame-duck transition period between
presidential elections and the arrival of successor George H. Bush to
the White House. Shultz never managed to reap the fruits of his efforts.
The Bush administration used them (and the attainments of the First
Gulf War) to drag Shamir and Deputy Foreign Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to the international Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. But alas, no progress emerged from that conference.
Uri Savir wrote this week that according to a high-placed
source who visits the region frequently, the US administration wants to
consolidate a diplomatic platform for the two-state solution
with an eye toward the post-President Barack Obama era. Will the Obama
administration take advantage of this transitional lame-duck period,
free of electoral considerations, to pave the way for a diplomatic
initiative for the coming administration, on this 25th anniversary of
the Madrid Peace Conference?
Elie Podeh, a professor with the Department of Islamic and
Middle East Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recently
published the book "Chances for Peace: Missed Opportunities in the
Arab-Israeli Conflict." He told Al-Monitor just this week that his
research shows that a peace initiative introduced at the beginning of an
American president’s term of office has higher chances of success than
one that emerges later on.
One of the examples cited by Podeh is that of former
President Jimmy Carter, who opened a diplomatic dialogue with Israel and
Egypt in his first year of office that led to the signing of a peace
agreement within two years. By contrast, the Bill Clinton Parameters and talks between Syria and Israel, both
of which took place at the end of his administration, ended in bitter
disappointment. Therefore, Podeh advises the coming president to adopt a
diplomatic initiative immediately after entering the White House.
Podeh, a senior research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the
Advancement of Peace, noted that all the peace agreements — those with
Egypt and Jordan along with the Oslo Accord — would never have seen the
light of day if not for the drive and resolve of the local players.
“However, since the odds are low that Israel will come out with a peace
initiative, the only way to try to jump-start the process is via an
American initiative,” he added.
According to Podeh, there is an opportunity for peace in
the juncture between historical turning points — such as wars,
revolutions or the rise of new governments — and the existence of an
attractive proposal on the table. “The election of a new president who
will come out with a new initiative creates a new opportunity for the
sides,” Podeh said. “If we connect that to elements of the Arab Peace
Initiative and incentives offered by the European Union, it is possible
to create such a proposal.”
In summary, it is important to remind ourselves that all
the American presidents — from Richard Nixon to Obama, Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike — have tried their hands
at ending the Israeli-Arab conflict. Their efforts have no connection to
the flattering, hypocritical words fed to right-wing ears of Israelis
and Jews in television debates.
Commenti
Posta un commento