Ariel Segal Blog

(No deje de leer el artículo al final de Thomas Friedman)

Una de las polémicas decisiones de Donald Trump ha sido nombrar a su abogado judío David Friedman como embajador de Estados Unidos en Israel. Friedman, David, es controversial para semejante cargo porque no tiene ninguna experiencia diplomática y sobre todo porque no ha escondido que está de acuerdo con la política de construcción de asentamientos del actual gobierno israelí en Cisjordania, territorio en disputa con los palestinos.

El minúsculo estado de Israel en un Medio Oriente árabe.

Retiro de Israel de toda la Península del Sinaí tras acuerdo de paz con Egipto y retiro unilateral de toda Gaza en 2005.

Retiro de Israel de zonas de Cisjordania (West Bank) tras el Acuerdo de Oslo (2003 y 2005). Zona A administrada políticamente por palestinos. Zona B administrada por palestinos y seguridad conjunta palestino-israelí y zona C aún bajo administración israelí.

De hecho, grupos estadounidenses que critican la política de ampliación de asentamientos israelíes del gobierno del Primer Ministro (PM) Netanyahu, como J Street y Jewish Voice for Peace se han pronunciado contra este nombramiento.

Asentamientos israelíes más poblados en Cisjordania de un total de más de 120 con más de 400 mil judíos (inlcuyendo Jerusalén oriental) viviendo entre unos 2 millones 200 mil palestinos.

Por otro lado, el también estadounidense y judío, Thomas Friedman, ex corresponsal en Beirut y Jerusalén del The New York Times, aun columnista de ese diario, no puede estar más en las antípodas de la postura del futuro embajador de su país en Israel. Friedman, Thom, escribió una crítica columna titulada “Netanyahu, Primer Ministro del estado de Israel-Palestina” (25-05-16), explicando que de facto, Netanyahu está sepultando la política de sus antecesores en el cargo de dos estados para dos pueblos, convirtiendo a Israel, gradualmente, en un estado binacional, siempre haciendo creer que pronto negociara territorios por paz “solo para mantenerse en donde está, balanceándose entre sus rivales para él sobrevivir políticamente”.

ENTREVISTA CON THOMAS FRIEDMAN. 2011.

as posturas de los dos Friedman son emblemáticas del debate entre los israelíes y judíos del mundo que se centra en el derecho histórico de dos pueblos sobre una misma tierra y que solo con líderes como Rabin y Peres con los acuerdos de paz con los palestinos de 1994, demostraron que hace falta estadistas para confrontar el momento de la verdad.

Quizá, para que el realismo de Thom y no la visión parcializada de David, quede como referencia, Obama no vetó la reciente resolución que critica los asentamientos que Netanyahu, hábil político pero no estadista, no quiere o no se atreve a desmantelar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE3LR-rQeBE

DEBATE ENTRE TRES INTELECTUALES SOBRE RESOLUCIÓN DE LA ONU CRITICANDO LOS ASENTAMIENTOS ISRAELÍES EN CISJORDANIA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qri0NEiJsQg

RECIENTE ARTÍCULO DE THOMAS FRIEDMAN A PROPO DE LA CRISIS ONU-OBAMA-NETANYAHU

The New York Times
Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump His Chump
(“Chump” como modismo es una especie de “tonto útil)
Thomas L. Friedman DEC. 28, 2016

For those of you confused over the latest fight between President Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel, let me make it simple: Barack Obama and John Kerry admire and want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel. I have covered this issue my entire adult life and have never met two U.S. leaders more committed to Israel as a Jewish democracy.
But they are convinced — rightly — that Netanyahu is a leader who is forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it. He is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership of Israel’s right-wing coalition or forces him to confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.
That is what precipitated this fight over Obama’s decision not to block a U.N. resolution last week criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The settlers’ goal is very clear, as Kerry put it on Wednesday: to strategically place settlements “in locations that make two states impossible,” so that Israel will eventually annex all of the West Bank. Netanyahu knows this will bring huge problems, but his heart is with the settlers, and his passion is with holding power — at any cost. So in any crunch, he sides with the settlers, and they keep pushing.
Obama ordered the U.S. to abstain on the U.N. resolution condemning the settlements (three months after Obama forged a 10-year, $38 billion military aid package for Israel — the largest for any U.S. ally ever) in hopes of sparking a debate inside Israel and to prevent it from closing off any chance of a two-state solution.
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk, and right now Obama and Kerry rightly believe that Israel is driving drunk toward annexing the West Bank and becoming either a bi-national Arab-Jewish state or some Middle Eastern version of 1960s South Africa, where Israel has to systematically deprive large elements of its population of democratic rights to preserve the state’s Jewish character.
Israel is clearly now on a path toward absorbing the West Bank’s 2.8 million Palestinians. There are already 1.7 million Arabs living in Israel, so putting these two Arab populations together would constitute a significant minority with a higher birthrate than that of Israeli Jews — who number 6.3 million — posing a demographic and democratic challenge.
My criticism I greatly sympathize with Israel’s security problems. If I were Israel, I would not relinquish control of the West Bank borders — for now. The Arab world is far too unstable, and Hamas, which controls another 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza, would likely take over the West Bank.
My criticism of Netanyahu is not that he won’t simply quit all the West Bank; it is that he refuses to show any imagination or desire to build workable alternatives that would create greater separation and win Israel global support, such as radical political and economic autonomy for Palestinians in the majority of the West Bank, free of settlements, while Israel still controls the borders and the settlements close to it.
Bibi never lays down a credible peace plan that truly puts the ball in the Palestinians’ court. And when someone like Obama exposes that — and Bibi comes under intense criticism from the liberal half of Israel, which sees the country getting more and more isolated and less and less democratic — Bibi just calls Obama an enemy of Israel and caves to the settlers. U.S. Jewish “leaders” then parrot whatever Bibi says. Sad.
More worrisome is the fact that President-elect Donald Trump — who could be a fresh change agent — is letting himself get totally manipulated by right-wing extremists, and I mean extreme. His ambassador-designate to Israel, David Friedman, has compared Jews who favor a two-state solution to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. I’ve never heard such a vile slur from one Jew to another.
Trump also has no idea how much he is being manipulated into helping Iran and ISIS. What is Iran’s top goal when it comes to Israel? That Israel never leaves the West Bank and that it implants Jewish settlers everywhere there.
That would keep Israel in permanent conflict with Palestinians and the Muslim world, as well as many Western democracies and their college campuses. It would draw all attention away from Iran’s own human rights abuses and enable Iran and ISIS to present themselves as the leading Muslim protectors of Jerusalem — and to present America’s Sunni Arab allies as lackeys of an extremist Israel. This would create all kinds of problems for these Arab regimes. A West Bank on fire would become a recruitment tool for ISIS and Iran.
One day Trump will wake up and discover that he was manipulated into becoming the co-father, with Netanyahu, of an Israel that is either no longer Jewish or no longer democratic. He will discover that he was Bibi’s chump.
What a true friend of Israel and foe of Iran would do today is just what Obama and Kerry tried — assure Israel long-term military superiority to the tune of $38 billion, but, unlike Trump, who is just passing Israel another bottle of wine, tell our dear ally that it’s driving drunk, needs to stop the settlements and apply that amazing Israeli imagination to preserving Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.