Netanyahus Rede vor dem Kongress

Zitat von Gansguoter
Die überwiegend negativ kommentierte Rede Netanyahus vor dem US-Kongress verdient, etwas genauer betrachtet zu werden. Ein Beitrag des Nahostkorrespondenten von Zettels Raum mit einem Vergleich von Netanyahus Position mit der Rabins.

Danke für diese kommentierte Dokumentation!

Interessanterweise wird die US-israelische Beziehung nach den Reden Obamas und Netanyahus offenbar ganz verschieden beurteilt.

Bei Stratfor (nur Abonnenten zugänglich) argumentiert dessen Nahost-Expertin Reva Bhalla, daß Obamas Rede wenig Neues gebracht hätte:

Zitat
There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking in what Obama actually said. The 1967 lines refer to the borders before the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and basically went beyond the border outlined in the 1949 armistice between Israel and Arab states.

Obama is not saying that the 1967 lines will be the exact same borders of a two-state solution; he is saying negotiations need to be held for those mutually agreed swaps that would deal with the very contentious issues of East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements. Obama said he was explicit in what he meant, but no matter which way you look at this issue, this is an issue that remains very much clouded in controversy. The only new aspect to Obama’s roadmap for peace was perhaps the urgency in which he is conveying his message.

Daniel Pipes sieht das ganz anders:

Zitat
This is Obama's third gratuitous, unprovoked, and unilateral picking of a fight with Israel. The prior two took place in May 2009 and March 2010: in the one, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared no Israeli building even in eastern Jerusalem and in the other, Vice President Joe Biden got (mock?) outraged when such building did take place.

In all three cases, the fight dwelt on a secondary issue that few had been focused on – Israeli building in the first two cases and the June 4, 1967 ceasefire lines as the basis for a permanent border agreement – until Obama turned them into headlines.

Obama's picking a fight led in all cases to an immediate hardening of positions by both Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis retreated, wounded, disinclined to make concessions, while Palestinians added Obama's demands, Jerusalem and the 1967 lines, to their prior list of demands of Israel.

When Obama realized his mistake – that Israeli governments make concessions more readily when relations with Washington are strong and Palestinians need to be pressured, not coddled – he crawled back to the Israeli prime minister, making nice as though nothing had happened. This has occurred twice already, in September 2009 and July 2010. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank used choice language to describe the latter episode, describing a "routed and humiliated" Obama in a White House flying "the white flag of surrender."
I predict that a "routed and humiliated" Obama will regret his ill-chosen fight over the 1967 lines and, if he follows his prior schedule, should be crawling back to the prime minister in about four months' time, or September 2011.

Herzlich, Zettel