In the weeks leading up to the relocation of the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,
supporters of the Trump administration argued that his decision
exemplifies "America First" foreign policy, and that previous
administrations - going back to the time of Harry Truman - subordinated
U.S. interests for the sake of internationalism, by not recognizing
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
While
as the executive director of a Christian peacemaking organization,
Churches for Middle East Peace, I am no proponent of an America First
foreign policy, this argument is deeply flawed.
Recognizing
Jerusalem as the unilateral capital of Israel, while ignoring the
presence and aspirations of more than 300,000 Palestinian residents of
Jerusalem, the ties of more than two and a half million Palestinians in
the West Bank, and the millions of diaspora Palestinians around the
world, is not in America’s national interest.
U.S. Vice
President Mike Pence stands by as U.S. President Donald Trump signs a
proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel during an
address from the White House in Washington on DeceKevin Lamarque
An
"America First" foreign policy in the Middle East must surely rely on
the close cooperation of our regional allies. Our allies in the region
not only include Israel, but nations that deeply sympathize with the
plight of the Palestinians and their struggle for self-determination. An
unabashedly unilateral approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
compromises our relations with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the GCC
nations and Turkey.
I
assert that it is never in the best interests of the United States to
pursue policies that will exacerbate tensions between Israel and the
Islamic world.
Seventy years of U.S. foreign policy have
painstakingly attempted to maintain this delicate coalition, and to
characterize this policy as subordinating American interests to
internationalism, compromise, and multilateralism vastly misjudges the
complexities of conducting foreign policy in this region.
As
a Christian peace advocate, I fervently hope that the U.S. will broaden
its foreign policy objectives beyond pure self-interest and take into
account the wellbeing of all peoples around the globe.
But
even the most self-interested of foreign policy makers can clearly see
how the decision to unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital
will prove detrimental to U.S. interests.
William Rogers, Secretary of State during the
Nixon administration - whose foreign policy was the epitome of "America
First" realpolitik - wrote in 1969: "Our policy is and will continue to
be a balanced one. We have friendly ties with both Arabs and
Israelis.Therefore, our policy is to encourage the Arabs to accept a
permanent peace based on a binding agreement and to urge the Israelis to
withdraw from occupied territory when their territorial integrity is
assured as envisaged by the Security Council Resolution."
Withdrawing from occupied territory, as envisioned by the UN Security
Council, includes East Jerusalem. Nixon’s policy of U.S. support for a
peace based on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories came
from an administration that can hardly be characterized as "subservient
to internationalism."
This
is not to say that the Jewish residents of Jerusalem and Israel do not
have unique ties to the city, historically, religiously, and
politically. I in no way oppose Israeli aspirations to see West
Jerusalem serve as their capital.
But when the United States recognizes the claims
of Israel without any regard for the claims of the Palestinians, the
message we send as a nation is that we see no political profit in a
negotiated resolution to this conflict. That is a very dangerous message
to send in the current political climate of the Middle East.
Writing-off
such warnings as the baseless hand wringing of an "Arabophile" State
Department, as many of this administration’s defenders have, completely
ignores the connection between U.S. foreign policy, anti-American
sentiment, and its ultimate consequence - radicalization.
Lives do indeed hang in the balance with this decision: Palestinian lives, Israeli lives - and yes - even American lives.
Rev.
Dr. Mae Elise Cannon is the Executive Director at Churches for Middle
East Peace (CMEP), a coalition of 27 Church denominations working to
encourage U.S. policies promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace. She is an
ordained pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church.
La differenza tra quelli israeliani e quelli palestinesi. L'opinione di Gideon Levy di Gideon Levy Dopo il primo bambino, nessuno ha battuto ciglio. Dopo il cinquantesimo, sull'ala di un aereo non si è avvertito neppure un lieve tremore. Dopo il centesimo, hanno smesso di contare. Dopo il duecentesimo, hanno accusato Hamas. Dopo il trecentesimo, hanno accusato i genitori. Dopo il quattrocentesimo bambino, hanno inventato scuse. Dopo (i primi) 478, sembra che non importi a nessuno. Poi è arrivato il nostro primo bambino e per Israele è stato uno shock. Piange il cuore a pensare a Daniel Tragerman, quattro anni, ucciso venerdì sera nella sua casa a Sha'ar Hanegev. Un bel bambino, che una volta si era fatto fare una foto mentre indossava la maglia della squadra di calcio argentina, blu e bianca, quella con il numero 10. Il cuore di chiunque si spezzerebbe alla vista di questa foto, chiunque piangerebbe per com'è stato brutalmente ucciso. “Ehi ...
Mentre le proteste infuriavano di nuovo in Medio Oriente, Benjamin Netanyahu, primo ministro d’Israele, ha offerto la settimana scorso la sua valutazione della Primavera Araba. Era, ha detto, una “ondata islamica, antioccidentale, antiliberale, anti-israeliana e antidemocratica”, aggiungendo che i vicini arabi di Israele si stavano “muovendo non in avanti, bensì all’indietro”. Ci vuole una bella insolenza – o, al minimo, un’epica autoillusione – perché il primo ministro d’Israele dia in questo momento al mondo arabo lezioni di liberalismo e di democrazia. Nelle settimane recenti, una piena di misure antidemocratiche si è guadagnata il sostegno del governo di destra di Netanyahu, giustificata da una nuova dottrina della sicurezza: non vedere il male, non ascoltare il male e non parlare male di Israele. Se le proposte di legge saranno approvate i tribunali israeliani, i gruppi per i diritti umani e i media israeliani e la comunità internazionale saranno trasformati nelle tre prover...
*** HAARETZ.COM Many will take credit, but this is the real reason Netanyahu delayed his annexation plan *** Benjamin Netanyahu may be a Litvak, but 17 months ago, facing a deadlocked election, he followed the advice of the Hasidic rabbi in the old story: He brought in a goat. You know the story. The Hasid goes to his rabbi to complain about his living conditions in a tiny stuffy cottage, with a complaining wife, noisy children, in-laws. The rabbi advises him to bring a goat into the house and next week the Hasid is back complaining that on top of it all, he now has a goat bleating, shitting everywhere and chewing up whatever it can get hold of. Remove the goat, the rabbi says, and you’ll finally appreciate your home as it is. Since he first brought it up in a Channel 12 interview on the eve of the first of the three consecutive elections, annexation has been Netanyahu’s goat. It has been and continues to be an excellent diversion for the Israeli electorate from the prime mi...
Visualizza traduzione Sintesi personale Yehuda Bauer Is Israel’s Government anti-Semitic? Nel mondo occidentale la violazione dei diritti degli ebrei religiosi di pregare secondo la propria tradizione è considerata un chiaro segno dell'antisemitismo . Come è noto, il governo israeliano si è ritirato dall'accordo di consentire agli ebrei non ortodossi di pregare all'estremità meridionale del Muro Occidentale che non fa parte dello spazio controllato dagli ortodossi e dagli ultra-ortodossi. Possiamo quindi dire che il governo israeliano ha adottato una politica antisemita? È vero che la questione è complicata. In ogni caso, la decisione di impedire agli ebrei di pregare è uno schiaffo in faccia da parte di un governo che presume essere ebraico, ma è controllato dagli Hionti e dai sionisti religiosi . Qual è lo sfondo politico di questa situazione? I sionisti ortodossi e Haredim insi...
Commenti
Posta un commento