Cerca nel blog

mercoledì 29 luglio 2009

videocarta: la crisi AfPak tra Usa e Iran

Wirepullers: cambio di strategia o ammissione di sconfitta? Dopo Vietnam e Somalia, l'Afghanistan potrebbe rappresentare il teatro di una nuova sconfitta militare americana, se è vero che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero più o meno segretamente aperto al colloquio con i taliban moderati. E' comunque evidente che con le armi non si è fatta molta strada da quell'ottobre del 2002, data d'inizio dei bombardamenti su Kabul. I taliban fanno costanti progressi nel conflitto e possono contare sulla retroguardia offerta dal permeabile confine con il Pakistan. Zona, questa, letteralmente in mano ai ribelli. In Afghanistan potrebbe cadere l'ennesimo impero. La videomappa di limes. (4)

La guerra in Afghanistan diventa prioritaria per il presidente Obama. Ma il problema principale è impedire il collasso del Pakistan nucleare.

Più dell'Iran Obama teme il Pakistan e il rischio che i terroristi islamici mettano le mani sul nucleare pakistano.

Lo scenario afghano-pakistano che i generali Usa hanno illustrato al presidente è più che allarmante. Se la tendenza non venisse invertita, gli Stati Uniti rischierebbero di perdere la guerra in Afghanistan e, peggio, il controllo del Pakistan.

Obama ha dunque ridefinito l’obiettivo della guerra: sconfiggere la galassia jihadista in Pakistan e Afghanistan più che l’insurrezione talibano-pashtun.

E' dal Pakistan, inventore dei taliban che nasce il caos afghano. Frutto dell’insanabile rivalità con l’India, per cui Islamabad concepisce l’Afghanistan in chiave di “profondità strategica”: un retroterra contro un attacco indiano.

Il nucleo centrale delle crisi va dalla frontiera irano-afghano-pakistana fino al Kashmir conteso e ritorno. Qui la minaccia più grave per Obama sono il Punjab e il Balucistan.

Negli ultimi due anni la pressione jihadista dalle aree tribali e dalla Provincia del Nord-Ovest si è rivolta verso il Punjab, il cuore pulsante del Paese, quartier generale delle forze armate e dei centri nucleari più importanti. La cooperazione tra militari e jihadisti in Pakistan sembra finita.

L'altra area strategica è il Balucistan, a cavallo di Pakistan e Iran, dove sono presenti movimenti separatisti e jihadisti, dediti a ogni tipo di traffico. Di qui dovrebbe poi passare l’importante gasdotto Iran-Pakistan - estendibile all’India e forse alla Cina.

Per Teheran gli attentati nella parte iraniana non sono solo opera dei movimenti separatisti ma un'aggressione di Pakistan, Stati Uniti e Israele e minaccia di marciare contro Islamabad.Tratto dal volume di Limes 4/2009 "La rivolta d'Iran nella sfida Obama-Israele

Autori: Alfonso Desiderio - carte di Laura Canali

Our Man in Afghanistan

Wirepullers: cambio di strategia o ammissione di sconfitta? Dopo Vietnam e Somalia, l'Afghanistan potrebbe rappresentare il teatro di una nuova sconfitta militare americana, se è vero che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero più o meno segretamente aperto al colloquio con i taliban moderati. E' comunque evidente che con le armi non si è fatta molta strada da quell'ottobre del 2002, data d'inizio dei bombardamenti su Kabul. I taliban fanno costanti progressi nel conflitto e possono contare sulla retroguardia offerta dal permeabile confine con il Pakistan. Zona, questa, letteralmente in mano ai ribelli. In Afghanistan potrebbe cadere l'ennesimo impero. Vediamo un ritratto di Richard Holbrooke, inviato speciale dell'amministrazione Obama per l'Afghanistan e il Pakistan. (3)

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is a man in a hurry, working in a land that can seem to defy time. His mission, as special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is to achieve some measure of success in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to prevent a nuclear-armed country from collapsing. He feels that he's under pressure to achieve something positive by next summer. If he can't, he says, political support in the United States will slip away. The question is whether Holbrooke's relentlessness—his sheer force of -personality—will make a real difference in countries that can seem immune to progress.

"Impatience will not solve this problem," says journalist Ahmed Rashid, who has written three respected books on the region. "And Holbrooke is an impatient guy." At least one Pakistani official has felt that firsthand. "He'll call you up, and after two minutes he'll say, 'I've got to go, I've got to go,' " recalls the official, who did not want to be named discussing personal interactions. "He's always got nine other things he's working on at the same time, texting people in the middle of a conversation." One of Holbrooke's close advisers, speaking in confidence about his boss, doesn't disagree: "Yes, he does kick Pakistan's ass, and they don't like it." Holbrooke's particular head-knocking skills may not be perfectly cast for this job, the hardest of his life. On the other hand, who else has the right mixture of grandiosity and smarts to even try?

Holbrooke doesn't look anything like an ornately costumed diplomat as he pads, barefoot, around his government jet, wearing yellow pj's, and eating a banana. Still, in some ways, he is a throwback to the old days of the ambassador plenipotentiary—the type of envoy whose word was imperial writ in far-flung places. True, Holbrooke is encumbered by a ubiquitous, buzzing cell phone and required to work with about eight different government agencies (State, Defense, Treasury, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and USAID). But he has a way of making everyone work for him. Last week The New York Times reported that the Defense Department had a plan to reform Afghanistan's prisons. The idea (as Holbrooke is not shy about admitting) came from him. Holbrooke had been appalled to discover that jihadists were allowed to keep their cell phones in the local jails. Upon taking his assignment last winter, Holbrooke decided that eradicating poppy crops in Afghanistan to stop the opium trade was futile and only hurt poor farmers. It was only a matter of time before USAID, intelligence, and the military changed their strategy to target only big-time opium dealers.

Holbrooke has been studying great envoys "all my life," he says. In high school, he wrote a paper on Lord Kitchener, the much-beribboned proconsul sent to Sudan by Victorian Britain. "He was a pompous windbag," jokes Holbrooke. At 21, fresh out of Brown, Holbrooke joined the Foreign Service. This was 1962, during the "twilight struggle" of the Cold War, when American hubris was peaking. As a young State Department officer in the Mekong Delta, Holbrooke encountered the CIA's Col. Edward Lansdale—the model for Colonel Hillandale in the novel The Ugly American. He says today we would describe Lansdale as "sort of a successful con man."

Holbrooke learned from watching failure. He notes that one of his heroes and role models, Ambassador Averell Harriman, whom Holbrooke admiringly describes as "tenacious," failed to get a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese. He dislikes Vietnam analogies to Afghanistan but keeps coming back to them in conversation. Choosing his words carefully, he says, "I don't feel burned by Vietnam. I feel informed by it."

The clearest lesson Holbrooke took from Vietnam is that military success is useless without winning the hearts and minds of the population. He is obsessed with the problem of civilian casualties in Afghanistan—it is "the big issue," he says, "which could cost us the war." Of the hour and a half he recently spent with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new ground commander, most of the time was consumed by Holbrooke hammering away at "civ cas," as Holbrooke calls them, using the military acronym. (An Air Force general who declined to be identified says that McChrystal was sensitive to the issue before he talked to Holbrooke.)

Holbrooke still has a bit of New Frontier swagger, and he loves the aura of power and glamour. The late columnist Joseph Alsop, an arch-hawk on Vietnam, once described Holbrooke as one of the "Young Lords of the Delta." Holbrooke's friend and fellow Young Lord, Frank Wisner Jr., introduced Holbrooke to the fancy dinner parties of his mother, Polly. A middle-class suburban kid from Scarsdale, N.Y., Holbrooke still sounds like a boy with his nose pressed against the window when he describes his first dinner party at the Wisners'. "I sat next to Teddy Roosevelt's daughter!" he exclaims. Years later, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Holbrooke and his wife began running elegant salons for movers and shakers, showbiz types, and the occasional journalist. Generally speaking off the record, Holbrooke is unusually open with journalists, whom he alternately scolds and shamelessly flatters.

Officials in Pakistan were at first wary of Holbrooke, reports NEWSWEEK's correspondent in Islamabad, Ron Moreau. The new special representative was an admitted neophyte in the region, and his reputation for heavy arm-twisting preceded him. But the Pakistani officials interviewed by Moreau give him high marks for persuading Congress to provide billions in aid, and they say he has been deft at engaging Nawaz Sharif, the popular opposition leader. The Bush administration had treated Sharif as a dangerous Islamist and did not deal with him. As we flew into Islamabad last week, Holbrooke called Sharif by phone to schmooze—but then he was careful to make sure that President Asif Ali Zardari knew that he had placed the call. "I don't go behind Zardari's back," he says.

In March, a million people had filled the streets in Pakistan, as Sharif and Zardari squared off in a power struggle. For a tense moment, it seemed likely that the military would take over the government. But Holbrooke, furiously working the phones, mobilized President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen to lean on the Pakistani leadership to step back from the brink.

Since then, an uneasy truce has prevailed. When we arrived in Islamabad, the streets had been cleared so Holbrooke's armored convoy could career between government offices. Meeting with Pakistan's hostile, conspiracy-minded press, he was firm without getting sucked into debate (he may have learned a lesson from an earlier trip, when he made headlines by chastising a Pakistani news network for -anti--American reports). At another gathering with a group of Pakistanis who had been driven from their homes by the Taliban, he was polite, patient, even gentle with a 12-year-old girl whose school had been destroyed.

That evening, on the ride to have dinner with Zardari, I asked Holbrooke if he was patient enough for the job. "It isn't me that's impatient," he replied. "It's Congress. They want results." At the president's house, Holbrooke, who is 6 feet 2, gave the dapper, coiffed Zardari a big bearhug. "Every time I see you, things are a little better," said Holbrooke. Zar-dari beamed. "It's the karma. You send good stars to us," he said. I asked Zardari if he agreed that things were better, and he launched into a speech that Pakistan needed a $50 billion Marshall Plan. Holbrooke interjected that he agreed, but didn't think the United States should have to pay for it.

When Holbrooke was negotiating with Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic to end the Balkan war in the mid-'90s, he earned his nickname, "the Bulldozer," by threatening to bomb Serbia if Milosevic did not come to the bargaining table. Now he's pushing the Pakistanis to expand military pressure on the Taliban. But Holbrooke's bluster is largely gone. "You have to suit your method to the moment, and your style to the situation," he says. Holbrooke "feels the pressure" to succeed in "AfPak," as he calls the region. But he doesn't seem all that burdened. His staffers say they've heard the stories of his bullying but that he never tries that with them. "He's the easiest man I've ever worked with," says his chief of staff, Rosemarie Pauli, who has been with Holbrooke off and on for more than 15 years. (She laughs as she says this.)

"This is my last job in government," says Holbrooke, who is 68. Maybe, but Holbrooke, who doesn't hide his disappointment that he was never appointed secretary of state, doesn't seem like the retiring type. In David Halberstam's Vietnam chronicle, an anonymous government official is quoted as saying that Averell Harriman is "the only ambitious seventy-seven-year-old I've ever met." Holbrooke told me he was the anonymous source. In about 10 years, that's probably what they'll be saying about him.

Autore: Michael Hirsh

America’s new-old military thinking

Wirepullers: cambio di strategia o ammissione di sconfitta? Dopo Vietnam e Somalia, l'Afghanistan potrebbe rappresentare il teatro di una nuova sconfitta militare americana, se è vero che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero più o meno segretamente aperto al colloquio con i taliban moderati. E' comunque evidente che con le armi non si è fatta molta strada da quell'ottobre del 2002, data d'inizio dei bombardamenti su Kabul. I taliban fanno costanti progressi nel conflitto e possono contare sulla retroguardia offerta dal permeabile confine con il Pakistan. Zona, questa, letteralmente in mano ai ribelli. In Afghanistan potrebbe cadere l'ennesimo impero. (2)

From Somalia to Iraq, Afghanistan to Lebanon, an emerging global landscape of variable security threats is provoking United States military analysts into an intense process of reflection.

The centre of the wars that the western powers, principally the United States and Britain, are involved in has moved east. Afghanistan, where the "war on terror" was launched in October 2001, has replaced Iraq as the site of their principal military effort. But as the campaign there becomes increasingly mired in difficult local terrain, a larger effort is being made to use this shift in the major theatre of war to think about the fundamental purposes of what these powers are engaged in.

Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001Bradford's peace-studies department now broadcasts regular podcasts on its work, including a regular commentary from Paul Rogers on international-security issues. Listen/watch here

What are the wars and local insurgencies the United States and Britain are seeking to win, manage or contain now about? How are the different "small" conflicts around the world related to each other? How do military analysts now understand the current security threats faced by western states? Such questions shadow the increasingly fraught atmospherics of the anti-Taliban effort in Afghanistan.

The Afghan dilemma
A tough summer campaign by British forces in Afghanistan's southern province of Helmand is incurring almost daily casualties that are widely reported by the media. There is a fairly even split of public opinion between those supporting and those opposing a continued presence in the country; while overall backing for the troops is often accompanied by doubts over their mission and military strategy. What is most striking about mid-2009 is that these doubts and concerns have been voiced by senior military and political figures (see "Afghanistan's lost decade", 16 July 2009).

The British government has been on the defensive in a controversy over equipment limitations. This itself can become a diversion from the reality on the ground, namely the unexpectedly strong resistance that the Taliban and other paramilitaries are offering in Helmand. Moreover, in many ways the experience of the British troops is little different to that of the other national contingents (Canadian, Dutch or American) that have been heavily involved in direct combat. All forces in southern Afghanistan have been struggling with the same problem: how to bring in larger numbers of heavily armoured vehicles and helicopters, as they face paramilitaries adept at disrupting road patrols.

A view that has quickly acquired the status of an orthodoxy is that the answer is "more helicopters". This too is misleading, on two counts. The first is that any enduring presence by western forces, intended as a medium-term prelude to a handover to a rebuilt Afghan national army, requires numerous small units entrenched in towns across the province and able to conduct frequent foot-patrols. This presence cannot be provided by helicopters, and even robust armoured road vehicles have limited relevance.

The second point is that any greater reliance on helicopters will be met by paramilitary attempts to acquire shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. It was the introduction of these weapons that inflicted so much damage on the Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, even arguably creating a military turning-point in the war. They could once again become a major threat.

Turn, and turn again
A wider view of the evolving conflict entails recognition that the war in Afghanistan is closely linked both with what has happened in Iraq and current developments in Somalia. The impact of the "insurgency knowledge" gained by paramilitaries in Iraq is clear enough, as is its translation into both countries. What has happened is that Iraq has been a six-year combat-training zone for young paramilitaries from across the middle east and north Africa, a process that will have an enduring impact (see "Iraq's gift to Afghanistan", 20 November 2008).

In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click herePaul Rogers's books include Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed. A third edition of his Losing Control: Global Security in the 21st Century (Pluto Press, 2009) is forthcoming
These trends are part of a more general change in military circumstances, as a worldwide security environment emerges that is markedly different to what was anticipated as recently as 2000. This evolving environment is provoking intense rethinking within the US armed forces - though to some extent what they are engaged is less new thinking than a recovery of ideas that were common currency in the 1990s but receded to the background when George W Bush came to power in January 2001.

For example, a notion that was common in the US navy in the early 1990s was that its post-cold-war function would be to "keep the violent peace" and protect US interests across the world (see Paul Rogers & Malcolm Dando, A Violent Peace: Global Security After the Cold War[Brasseys, 1992]). A more colourful way of expressing the same point was used in 1993 by Bill Clinton's first CIA director James Woolsey, when he said that the United States had slain the dragon (the Soviet Union) but now lived in a jungle full of poisonous snakes.

This perspective was embodied in the mid-1990s in an emphasis on special forces and amphibious-warfare capabilities, but their moment passed when the Bush administration's neo-conservative agenda revealed itself to have other priorities. The idea of "taming the jungle" was essentially defensive; now, in 2001, a much more aggressive and proactive project - creating the "new American century", in which global security is guaranteed by a single, unrivalled superpower - came to the forefront.

This worldview regarded 9/11 with utter shock and dismay. It reacted with fury and the appearance of certitude, and prepared its military for what was intended to be a definitive and awesome demonstration of unchallengeable military might. But the outcomes of this policy choice - two bitter and lengthy wars, the risk of deep instability in Pakistan, and the continuing risk of al-Qaida attacks - only deepened its predicament and exposed its inner fragility.

The response has been a bout of serious reflection within the US military as to its future direction. The debates that are occurring are made even more sombre by the spreading acknowledgment that the routinely huge increases in military budgets under the Bush administration cannot be maintained in an era of more constrained American power (see "The costs of America's long war", 8 March 2007).

The militant mix
A conventional digest of these debates sees them in terms of two broad views: arguing that the United States's main military emphasis should either be on preparation for counterinsurgency campaigns, or on conventional wars (most likely involving Iran, or in the longer term China or a renewed Russia).

A recent study concludes that this is too much of a simplification (see Frank G Hoffman, "Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict", Strategic Forum, April 2009 [Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington]).

Frank G Hoffman identifies four, rather than two, schools of thought:

* Counterinsurgents - who focus heavily on irregular forces as the main threat

* Traditionalists - who are concerned very much with conventional warfare

* Utility infielders - who say the answer is to create forces that are sufficiently agile and well-trained to handle any threat

* Division-of-labour people - who want forces divided into different categories to meet the different threats.

These varied currents tend to be complicated by inter-service rivalry, with the army and the marines emphasising counterinsurgency and the air force and navy much more geared to conventional war. These divisions are not absolute, and there is certainly some overlap; but they still run deep. They are also accentuated by the sheer costs and timescales involved in expensive projects such as aircraft-carriers and new strike-aircraft, as well as the need for senior officers to protect their own careers.

There is nonetheless a sense in which military analysts are going beyond these institutional limitations to focus on what are increasingly being termed "hybrid threats". This approach recognises that in the reasonably near future the the United States and its allies will face opponents - non-state movements, and possibly states - that according to circumstances employ a combination of guerrilla tactics and conventional war. These opponents may be all the more challenging in their versatile capacity to recognise the overwhelming conventional military power available to the United States and its allies without being in any way cowed by it.

Thus, Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006 used a complex mix of strategies - ranging from sophisticated anti-ship missiles acquired from Iran to guerrilla tactics close to the Israeli border. In Iraq, the conventional forces of the special republican guard (SRG) military units were the backbone of the military units that initially fought the US after 2003. These rapidly evolved into effective guerrilla forces; in turn, they attracted young paramilitaries from across the region, and the tactics and weapons developed in Iraq have since turned up in other war-zones.

Frank G Hoffman cites intelligence sources suggesting that several middle-eastern states, most likely including Iran and Syria, are purposely developing irregular units on a substantial scale while retaining conventional forces. The latter may have a defensive function; they may be no match for the US military, but could combine with irregular warfare in any future confrontation to create real damage.

Hoffman concludes that the United States:
"must maintain the ability to wage successful campaigns against both large, conventionally armed states and their militaries and against widely dispersed terrorists - and against everything in between. We must be smart about our force posture and lean towards agile, rigorously multipurpose forces capable of being adaptive in approach to the unique conditions each conflict poses."

The far horizon
In its own way, such thinking is typical of the intelligent analysis being conducted in some of the United States's military-research centres. It is all a long way from the immediacy of Washington's politics, and all the more interesting for that. But it also remains limited by a basic premise: that the world is a jungle and that jungle has to be tamed.

This analysis thus says very little about the underlying causes of conflict; and still less about why states and sub-state groups may be antagonistic to US interests in particular and western power in general. Moreover, it shows no recognition of any wider understanding of security, one that could raise awareness of the need to address two major global issues: the widening socio-economic divide and the likely impact of climate change (see "A tale of two paradigms", 25 June 2009).

But it does at least recognise what the eight years since 9/11 have made unavoidably clear: that the world is changing. The best military analysts have the habit of thinking long term. It is as good a reason as any for engaging with them on these much wider and more fundamental security issues.
Autore: Paul Rogers

We should not be afraid to talk to the Taliban

Wirepullers: cambio di strategia o ammissione di sconfitta? Dopo Vietnam e Somalia, l'Afghanistan potrebbe rappresentare il teatro di una nuova sconfitta militare americana, se è vero che gli Stati Uniti avrebbero più o meno segretamente aperto al colloquio con i taliban moderati. E' comunque evidente che con le armi non si è fatta molta strada da quell'ottobre del 2002, data d'inizio dei bombardamenti su Kabul. I taliban fanno costanti progressi nel conflitto e possono contare sulla retroguardia offerta dal permeabile confine con il Pakistan. Zona, questa, letteralmente in mano ai ribelli. In Afghanistan potrebbe cadere l'ennesimo impero. (1)

Is it credible to expect elements within the Afghan Taliban to beat their weapons into ploughshares? David Miliband certainly believes so. The Foreign Secretary gave a speech at Nato headquarters in Brussels yesterday urging Afghanistan's leaders to reach out to more moderate Taliban insurgents. This echoes sentiments expressed earlier this year by Barack Obama and his top general, David Petraeus, suggesting that there is scope for offering an amnesty to less committed fighters if it helps to end the insurgency.

Taking the fight to the militants of Afghanistan while simultaneously offering truce terms appears contradictory, but it makes sense given the incoherent nature of the Taliban. The insurgents are not a solid bloc, but rather a motley mixture of hardcore Islamists, mercenaries, drug traffickers and others who fight the Afghan government in the belief that the Taliban will ultimately prevail.

It is sensible to attempt to split off the moderates from the hardcore elements with offers of amnesty and incorporation into Afghanistan's conventional security forces. Indeed, it seems that Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul is already cutting such deals. Yesterday it announced the signing of a truce with insurgents in Badghis province in the north-west of the country.
Yet such overtures remain politically sensitive. Two Western diplomats (one working for the United Nations, the other for the European Union) were expelled by the Karzai government in late 2007 for engaging in informal contacts with the Taliban. There is a danger that Western governments, in pushing for engagement, will make Karzai look like a puppet ruler. Such a perception would be the kiss of death, not only for President Karzai, but also Western hopes of stabilising Afghanistan.

There is no shortage of reasons to dislike the Karzai regime. In recent years it has proven itself corrupt, incompetent and soft on human rights abuses. President Karzai has made one brutal Tajik warlord, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, his running mate for next month's elections. But if Nato is to have any chance of convincing ordinary Afghans that it is working in their interests, rather than its own, it has no alternative but to work with Karzai's administration. Any initiative to talk with insurgents must be seen to come from Kabul.

This flurry of peacemaking gestures comes as the first stage of the Afghan "surge" comes to a close. The British Army announced an end to Operation Panther's Claw yesterday, with claims that a sizeable area of northern Helmand province has been cleared of militants. This has come at a price. Twenty British soldiers have been killed this month. And, as our poll shows today, that has damaged British public confidence in the Afghan mission. But we ought not to overlook the fact that Afghan civilian casualties have also risen drastically in recent weeks as the Taliban has increased its attacks to destabilise the country. Protecting those civilians is still a worthy and honourable mission. And while the Taliban remains unpopular it is still a feasible one.

Success will depend on political resolve – and leadership. There was a somewhat worrying tone in Gordon Brown's comments yesterday. The Prime Minister seemed to be suggesting that the worst is now over. This idea is a dangerous delusion. The truth is that the project of stabilising Afghanistan is only beginning. And we need our leaders to be clear-eyed and open about the sacrifices to come.

martedì 28 luglio 2009

Why Won’t Obama Talk to Israel?

Wirepullers: c'è il gelo tra Obama e Israele. Che il problema sia il rapporto personale con Netanyahu o semplicemente un cambiamento di rotta nella politica americana verso Tel Aviv, il rapporto stenta a decollare, e anzi sembra sprofondare sempre più verso l'incomprensione e la sfiducia. In particolare quella israeliana verso il presidente americano. Forse perchè, chiedendo lo stop degli insediamenti israeliani illegali, Obama ha dimostrato di essersi accorto che i palestinesi esistono davvero. (2)

IN his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere.

But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.

And the effect? Six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense — or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu.

This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.
The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we got silence.
This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price. Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon.
As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying Mr. Obama as a shaky ally. In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides — in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — whom the prime minister has called “self-hating Jews.” Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).

So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have — in columns, articles and public statements — taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.

First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not Mr. Netanyahu.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. We are close emotionally and politically, but we are different. We speak Hebrew and not English, we live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.

But until the president talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen.

Autore: Aluf Benn