ESTADOS UNIDOS Y RUSIA

Obama, Hillary Clinton, los neoconservadores, los liberales intervencionistas, las agencias de inteligencia y seguridad y el Pentágono insisten en “cobrarle” a Vladimir Putin, no esa supuesta “intervención” en las elecciones presidenciales de este año en los Estados Unidos –eso sólo es el pretexto- sino la dolorosísima derrota de la estrategia del “caos deliberado” en Medio Oriente, sufrida en Alepo, a manos del ejército sirio, Rusia, Irán y Hezbollah (ya de salida Obama cierra instituciones ligadas a Rusia en territorio estadounidense y expulsa a 35 diplomáticos).

Durante 5 años Washington y sus aliados israelíes, árabes (sauditas y del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo), Gran Bretaña, Francia, Egipto, Jordania y hasta hace unos meses Turquía, gastaron miles de millones de dólares, aportaron armas, logística y fomentaron una campaña propagandística histérica con objeto de que diversos grupos de terroristas y mercenarios derrocaran al presidente Bashar Al Assad, y de esa forma lograr partir a Siria en al menos 4 zonas distintas (una mixta, conformada por alawitas, cristianos, drusos y sunitas en el Oeste; otra de influencia turkmena en el Noroeste, en la frontera con Turquía; otra conformada por los kurdos en el Noreste; y el resto del Este del país, por la mayoría de población sunita).

El plan fracasó debido a la resuelta intervención rusa en favor del gobierno sirio; a las profundas divisiones entre los aliados anti-Assad (Turquía siempre se ha opuesto a la existencia de una región autónoma kurda adyacente a su frontera; Estados Unidos peleaba contra el Estado Islámico, de manera no muy convencida; y a la vez armaba a los mercenarios opositores de Assad; los propios mercenarios peleaban entre sí y contra el Estado Islámico, etc.); y finalmente a la derrota de la coalición que favorecía esta estrategia, en las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses, y la llegada de otra que no considera fundamental la caída de Assad, sino la destrucción del Estado Islámico.

Además, Alepo no es la única derrota de las agencias de seguridad e inteligencia y del Pentágono ante Rusia. El inestable cese al fuego entre el régimen golpista y títere de Kiev y las provincias del Este, en Ucrania; más la anexión rusa de la península de Crimea en 2014, detuvieron la intención original de los neo-nazis y ultranacionalistas ucranianos de “castigar” a las provincias de mayoría rusa, después del golpe de Estado contra el presidente pro ruso Víctor Yanuckovich.

La ayuda de Putin a las provincias de Luhansk y Donetsk, evitaron una verdadera carnicería que pretendían llevar a cabo los golpistas de Kiev, incitados y apoyados por los neoconservadores de Washington, Victoria Nuland, John McCain y Lindsey Graham.

Así que el verdadero odio que destila el gobierno de Obama y el complejo militar-industrial-de seguridad contra Rusia se deriva, no del imaginario “hackeo” a las computadoras del Partido Demócrata o a las del jefe de campaña de Hillary Clinton, sino del hecho de que Moscú ha evitado que la potencia hegemónica destruya a su más importante aliado en Medio Oriente, como es el régimen de Damasco; o que convirtiera a Ucrania en una base desde donde la OTAN pueda mantener amenazada a Rusia, a las puertas mismas de Moscú.

Lo único que ha hecho Putin es evitar que su país caiga nuevamente bajo el absoluto dominio de Washington, como lo estuvo entre 1991 y el año 2000, en que lo desgobernó el dipsómano Boris Yeltsin, y fue saqueado por los oligarcas aliados de Occidente y las propias trasnacionales estadounidenses y europeas.

Pero para los arrogantes e hipócritas gobernantes de Washington, todo aquél país que no se dobla ante las órdenes del imperio (excepto Israel, por supuesto), es un “peligro para la humanidad”, viola “el derecho internacional” (como si a Estados Unidos le importara un pepino cumplir con las normas internacionales; sólo lo exige para aquellos que no están dispuestos a ser sus vasallos; en cambio para sí mismos y sus aliados, no hay exigencia alguna) y por lo tanto, debe ser “castigado”.

Se ve realmente complicado que el títere de los sionistas y del lobby pro Israel, Donald Trump, pueda superar todas las minas y trampas que los neoconservadores y sus aliados han puesto para sabotear una posible reconciliación entre Moscú y Washington. Más aún si tomamos en cuenta que el ignorante y manipulable Trump ha comprado la versión sionista de que Irán es el máximo impulsor del terrorismo en el mundo, y desea dar por terminado el acuerdo en materia nuclear que negoció el P5+1 con Teherán.

Ello llevará inevitablemente a desencuentros con Putin, ya que Irán y Rusia se han aliado en el Medio Oriente para detener la estrategia del caos deliberado, y el presidente ruso no podría quedarse de brazos cruzados si Trump y Netanyahu (con la ayuda de los vasallos árabes sauditas y los del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo) inician un nuevo ciclo de destrucción, ahora dirigido contra los iraníes.

Así también, al complejo militar-industrial-de seguridad, no le conviene un acercamiento entre Estados Unidos y Rusia, pues ello disminuiría las “amenazas” que alimentan los insaciables presupuestos militares, y que el propio Trump ha prometido aumentar de manera significativa.

De ahí que lo más probable es que la supuesta “luna de miel” de Trump y Putin dure muy poco, si es que llega a comenzar en algún momento, y veremos en los siguientes años una desaforada carrera armamentista entre Estados Unidos, por un lado; y Rusia y China por el otro, habida cuenta de que Trump y sus asesores ya han manifestado su intención de elevar al máximo las tensiones con Beijing, tanto en materia comercial, como en lo relativo al Mar del Sur de China y los casos de Taiwán y Corea del Norte.

Libre comercio ante proteccionismo de EU

Arturo Huerta González*

La Jornada 29 de Diciembre de 2016

El libre comercio es viable si todos los países salen beneficiados de él, pero no es así. Hay ganadores y perdedores, y estos últimos son la mayoría. China ha sido la economía victoriosa, y frente al menor crecimiento del resto han caído sus exportaciones y se ha tenido que volcar hacia el mercado interno. Alemania ha sido la economía que ha visto incrementadas sus exportaciones y su superávit de comercio exterior frente al resto de los países europeos. La mayoría de éstos no tiene condiciones para mantener el libre comercio, pues éste les ha generado fuertes presiones en la balanza de comercio exterior, lo que se ha traducido en altos niveles de endeudamiento, en bajo y nulo crecimiento, como altas tasas de desempleo.

América Latina ha sido perdedora. Muestra déficits crecientes de comercio exterior manufacturero y se han visto reducidos el superávit petrolero y agrícola de algunas economías debido a la caída de sus exportaciones, lo que ha incrementado sus desequilibrios macroeconómicos, sus niveles de endeudamiento y frenado su actividad económica. Estados Unidos, en muchas ramas industriales, no tiene condiciones competitivas frente a China; de ahí, su temor a ser rebasada por dicha economía, por lo que ha optado por imponer fuertes aranceles y tarifas a los productos tanto de ese país, como de México y de otros, lo que compromete el desarrollo económico.

Donald Trump ha dicho que está en favor del libre comercio, pero también por acuerdos bilaterales en los que él quiere establecer las reglas a su favor. El problema se presentará cuando la contraparte no acepte los términos impuestos por Estados Unidos, pues ello se traducirá en fuertes aranceles. La interrogante es cómo van a reaccionar tales países. En el caso de México y otras naciones latinoamericanas, al frenarse las exportaciones se incrementará el déficit de comercio exterior y se contraerá más la actividad económica. El problema es cómo se va a financiar el mayor déficit, en un contexto donde están saliendo los capitales y está disminuyendo su entrada. Por más deseos que tenga el gobierno mexicano de ser el paladín del libre comercio, la economía no cuenta con condiciones internas para salir victorioso de dicho proceso ni con financiamiento para hacer frente al déficit comercial externo al que nos ha orillado dicha política. Por más tratados bilaterales que quiera desarrollar con Asia-Pacífico, no se reducirá el déficit comercial; al contrario, lo incrementará y se contraerá más la actividad económica, por lo que nos dirigiremos a una mayor crisis. Al no poder ajustar y financiar el déficit de comercio exterior ni reactivar la economía ni generar empleos bien remunerados, tampoco se podrá mantener la apertura comercial y habrá que instrumentar políticas proteccionistas para frenar la entrada de importaciones, pues tratar de hacerlo a través de restringir la actividad económica tiene un muy alto costo económico, político y social que ningún gobierno podrá encarar.

Las políticas proteccionistas se van a generalizar a escala mundial frente a los problemas de crecimiento, desempleo, bajos salarios y financiamiento para hacer frente al déficit externo y mantener el libre movimiento de mercancías y capitales.

China no está apostando ya a seguir creciendo con base en sus exportaciones. Bien sabe que cuando los países ven incrementado su déficit de comercio exterior y no lo pueden financiar, se frena el crecimiento, y con ello sus importaciones, que son las exportaciones de los otros.

Con las políticas económicas que Estados Unidos establecerá tiene mejores condiciones de crecimiento sostenido que el resto de los países desarrollados, lo que le permitirá mantener su poderío económico y político (además del militar), que llevará a que el capital siga refugiándose en ese país. La apuesta de Donald Trump es alcanzar un crecimiento de alrededor de 4 por ciento anual y fortalecerse frente a China, la economía a vencer. El crecimiento que alcance Estados Unidos no nos va a beneficiar como en el pasado, dadas las políticas proteccionistas que establecerá.

En ese entorno, el gobierno mexicano debe dejar de seguir insistiendo en el libre comercio. Hemos sido perdedores con tal política. No hay perspectivas de incrementar exportaciones –aparte, éstas tienen un bajo valor agregado nacional– ni hay flujos de capital para seguir manteniendo el libre movimiento de mercancías y capitales, por lo que si quiere evitar una crisis de grandes proporciones, tiene que volcarse hacia el mercado interno como están haciendo China y Estados Unidos e imponer control de cambios, así com políticas proteccionistas para flexibilizar la política monetaria y fiscal en favor del empleo y de la sustitución de importaciones, con el fin de reducir el déficit externo y nuestra dependencia de la entrada de capitales y la vulnerabilidad externa.

*Profesor e investigador de la Facultad de Economía de la UNAM

Welcome to Greater Israel!

The tail will be wagging the dog under Donald Trump

PHILIP GIRALDI

 • DECEMBER 27, 2016

www.unz.com

While the presidential campaign was still in progress it was possible to think that there might be some positive change in America’s broken foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate of Washington Establishment hawkishness, while Donald Trump was declaring his disinclination for democracy and nation building overseas as well as promoting détente with Russia. Those of us who considered the foreign policy debacle to be the most dangerous issue confronting the country, particularly as it was also fueling domestic tyranny, tended to vote on the basis of that one issue in favor of Trump.

On December 1^st in Cincinnati, president-elect Donald Trump made some interesting comments about his post-electoral foreign policy plans. There were a lot of good things in it, including his citing of $6 trillion “wasted” in Mideast fights when “our goal is stability not chaos.” And as for dealing with real enemies, he promised to “partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism…” He called it a “new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past” adding that “We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks.”

Regarding the apparent inability of governments to thoroughly check out new immigrants prior to letting them inside the country, demonstrated most recently in Nice, Ohio and Berlin, Trump described how “People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East — we have no idea who they are, where they come from what they are thinking and we are going to stop that dead cold. … These are stupid refugee programs created by stupid politicians.” Exaggerated? For sure, but he has a point, and it all is part and parcel of a foreign policy that serves no actual interest for people who already live in the United States.

But, as so often with Trump, there was also the flip side. On the looney fringe of the foreign and national security policy agenda, the president-elect oddly believes that “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” So to reduce the number of nukes we have to create more of them and put them in more places. Pouring gasoline on a raging fire would be an appropriate analogy and it certainly leads to questions regarding who is advising The Donald with this kind of nonsense.

Trump has promised to “put America first,” but there is inevitably a spanner in the works. Now, with the New Year only six days away and the presidential inauguration coming less than three weeks after that, it is possible to discern that the new foreign policy will, more than under Barack Obama and George W. Bush, be driven in significant part by Israeli interests.

At least Obama had the good sense to despise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but that will not be true of the White House after January 20^th. Trump’s very first telephone conversation with a foreign head of government after being elected was with Netanyahu and during the campaign, he promised to invite Bibi to the White House immediately after the inauguration. The new president’s first naming of an Ambassador-designate to a foreign nation was of his good friend and bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman to Israel. Friedman had headed Trump’s Israel Advisory Committee and is a notable hard liner who supports the Israeli settler movement, an extreme right-wing political entity that is nominally opposed by existing U.S. government policy as both illegal and damaging to Washington’s interests. Beyond that, Friedman rejects creation of a Palestinian state and supports Israel’s actual annexation of the West Bank.

U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to support American interests but Friedman would actually be representing and endorsing a particularly noxious version of Israeli fascism as the new normal in the relationship with Washington. Friedman describes Jerusalem as “the holy capital of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people.” Trump is already taking steps to move the U.S. Embassy there, making the American government unique in having its chief diplomatic mission in the legally disputed city. The move will also serve as a recruiting poster for groups like ISIS and will inflame opinion against the U.S. among friendly Arab states in the region. There is no possible gain and much to lose for the United States and for American citizens in making the move, but it satisfies Israeli hardliners and zealots like Friedman.

The Trump team’s animosity towards Iran is also part of the broader Israeli agenda. Iran does not threaten the United States and is a military midget compared either to nuclear armed Israel or the U.S. Yet is has been singled out as the enemy du jour in the Middle East even though it has invaded no one since the seventeenth century. Israel would like to have the United States do the heavy lifting to destroy Iran as a regional power. If Washington were to attempt to do so it would be a catastrophe for all parties involved but that has not stopped hardliners from demanding unrelenting military pressure on Tehran.

Donald Trump is not even president yet but he advised Barack Obama to exercise the U.S. veto for the resolution condemning Israeli settlements that was voted on at the United Nations Security Council on Friday, explaining that “As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

This is a straight Israeli line that might even have been written by Netanyahu himself. Or by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which fumed “AIPAC is deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama Administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the past, this administration and past administrations have rejected this type of biased resolution since it undermines prospects for peace. It is particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America’s long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations.”

Ah yes, the fabled negotiations for a two state solution, regularly employed to enable Israelis to do nothing while expanding their theft of Arab land and one wonders how Trump would define what is “fair to the Palestinians?” So we are already well into Trump’s adoption of the “always the victim argument” that the Israelis have so cleverly exploited with U.S. politicians and the media.

Not content with advising Obama, Trump also reportedly took the Palestinian issue one step further by directly pressuring the sponsoring Egyptians to postpone any submission of the resolution. Expecting to have a friendly president in the White House after January 20^th, Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complied on Thursday but the motion was reintroduced by New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia on the following day. The resolution passed with 14 yes votes and a courageous U.S. abstention after Obama finally, after eight long years, developed a backbone. But unfortunately, Trump’s interventions suggest that nothing critical of Israel will be allowed to emerge from the U.N. during his term of office. Referring to the U.N. vote, he said that “things will be different after January 20^th.”

The United Nations resolution produced an immediate reaction from Israeli Firsters in Congress and the media, led by Senator Chuck Schumer and the Washington Post. The Post featured a lead editorial entitled The Obama Administration fires a dangerous parting shot and an op-ed The United States just made Middle East peace harder by no less a redoubtable American hero than Eliot Abrams. Look in vain for any suggestion of what might be construed as an actual U.S. interest in either piece. It is all about Israel, as it always is.

The problem with Israel and its friends is that they are never satisfied and never leave the rest of us Americans alone, pushing constantly at what is essentially an open door. They have treated the United States like a doormat, spying on us more than any ostensibly friendly nation while pocketing our $38 billion donation to their expanding state without so much as a thank you. They are shameless. Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has been all over American television sputtering his rage over the United Nations settlements vote. On CNN he revealed that Israel has “clear evidence” that President Obama was “behind” the resolution and he announced his intention to share the information with Donald Trump. Every American should be outraged by Israel’s contempt for us and our institutions. One has to wonder if the mainstream media will take a rest from their pillorying of Russia to cover the story.

For many years now, Israel has sought to make the American people complicit in its own crimes while also encouraging our country’s feckless and corrupt leadership to provide their government with political cover and even go to war on its behalf. This has got to stop and, for a moment, it looked like Trump might be the man to end it when he promised to be even-handed in negotiating between the Arabs and Israelis. That was before he promised to be the best friend Israel would ever have.

Israel’s quarrels don’t stay in Israel and they are not limited to the foreign policy realm. I have already discussed the pending Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a bipartisan effort by Congress to penalize and even potentially criminalize any criticism of Israel by equating it to anti-Semitism. Whether Israel itself wants to consider itself a democracy is up to Netanyahu and Israeli voters but the denial of basic free speech rights to Americans in deference to Israeli perceptions should be considered to be completely outrageous.

And there’s more. Israel’s government funded lawfare organization Shurat HaDin has long been using American courts to punish Palestinians and Iranians, obtaining punitive damages linked to allegations regarding terrorist incidents that have taken place in Israel. Now Shurat HaDin is using our courts to go after American companies that do business with countries like Iran.

Last year’s nuclear agreement with Iran included an end to restraints on the Islamic Republic’s ability to engage in normal banking and commercial activity. As a high priority, Iran has sought to replace some of its aging infrastructure, to include its passenger aircraft fleet. Seattle based Boeing has sought to sell to Iran Air 80 airplanes at a cost of more than $16 billion and has worked with the U.S. government to meet all licensing and technology transfer requirements. The civilian-use planes are not in any way configurable for military purposes, but Shurat HaDin on December 16^th sought to block the sale at a federal court in Illinois, demanding a lien against Boeing for the monies alleged to be due to the claimed victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism. Boeing, meanwhile, has stated that the Iran Air order “support(s) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.”

So an agency of the Israeli government is taking steps to stop an American company from doing something that is perfectly legal under U.S. law even though it will cost thousands of jobs here at home. It is a prime example of how much Israel truly cares about the United States and its people. And even more pathetic, the Israel Lobby owned U.S. Congress has predictably bowed down and kissed Netanyahu’s ring on the issue, passing a bill in November that seeks to block Treasury Department licenses to permit the financing of the airplane deal.

The New Year and the arrival of an administration with fresh ideas would provide a great opportunity for the United States to finally distance itself from a toxic Israel, but, unfortunately, it seems that everything is actually moving in the opposite direction. Don’t be too surprised if we see a shooting war with Iran before the year is out as well as a shiny new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem (to be built on land stolen from Palestinians, incidentally). Trump might think he is ushering in a new era of American policy based on American interests but it is beginning to look a lot like same-old same-old but even worse, and Benjamin Netanyahu will be very much in the driver’s seat.

Barack Backhands Bibi

by Patrick J. Buchanan, December 27, 2016

Antiwar.com

Did the community organizer from Harvard Law just deliver some personal payback to the IDF commando? So it would seem.

By abstaining on that Security Council resolution declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal and invalid, raged Bibi Netanyahu, President Obama "failed to protect Israel in this gang-up at the UN, and colluded with it."

Obama’s people, charged Bibi, "initiated this resolution, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed."

White House aide Ben Rhodes calls the charges "falsehoods."

Hence, we have an Israeli leader all but castigating an American president as a backstabber and betrayer, while the White House calls Bibi a liar.

This is not an unserious matter.

"By standing with the sworn enemies of Israel to enable the passage of this destructive, one-sided anti-Israel rant and tirade," writes the Washington Times, "Mr. Obama shows his colors."

But unfortunately for Israel, the blow was delivered by friends as well as "sworn enemies."

The U.S. abstained, but Britain, whose Balfour Declaration of 1917 led to the Jewish state in Palestine, voted for the resolution.

As did France, which allied with Israel in the Sinai-Suez campaign of 1956 to oust Egypt’s Col. Nasser, and whose Mysteres were indispensable to Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Vladimir Putin, who has worked with Bibi and was rewarded with Israel’s refusal to support sanctions on Russia for Crimea and Ukraine, also voted for the resolution.

Egypt, whose Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was welcomed by Bibi after his coup against the Muslim Brotherhood president, and who has collaborated with Bibi against terrorists in Sinai and Gaza, also voted yes.

China voted yes as did Ukraine. New Zealand and Senegal, both of which have embassies in Tel Aviv, introduced the resolution.

Despite Israel’s confidential but deepening ties with Sunni Arab states that share her fear and loathing of Iran, not a single Security Council member stood by her and voted against condemning Israel’s presence in Arab East Jerusalem and the Old City. Had the resolution gone before the General Assembly, support would have been close to unanimous.

While this changes exactly nothing on the ground in the West Bank or East Jerusalem where 600,000 Israelis now reside, it will have consequences, and few of them will be positive for Israel.

The resolution will stimulate and strengthen the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, which has broad support among U.S. college students, Bernie Sanders Democrats and the international left.

If Israel does not cease expanding West Bank settlements, she could be hauled before the International Criminal Court and charged with war crimes.

Already, J Street, the liberal Jewish lobby that backs a two-state solution in Palestine – and has been denounced by Donald Trump’s new envoy to Israel David Friedman as "far worse than kapos," the Jewish guards at Nazi concentration camps – has endorsed the resolution.

The successful resolution is also a reflection of eroding support for Israel at the top of the Democratic Party, as a two-term president and a presidential nominee, Secretary of State John Kerry, were both behind it.

Republicans are moving to exploit the opening by denouncing the resolution and the U.N. and showing solidarity with Israel. Goal: Replace the Democratic Party as the most reliable ally of Israel, and reap the rewards of an historic transfer of Jewish political allegiance.

That Sen. George McGovern was seen as pro-Palestinian enabled Richard Nixon to double his Jewish support between 1968 and 1972.

That Jimmy Carter was seen as cold to Israel enabled Ronald Reagan to capture more than a third of the Jewish vote in 1980, on his way to a 44-state landslide.

Moreover, U.S. acquiescence in this resolution puts Bibi in a box at home. Though seen here as a hawk on the settlements issue, the right wing of Bibi’s coalition is far more hawkish, pushing for outright annexation of West Bank settlements. Others call for a repudiation of Oslo and the idea of an independent Palestinian state.

If Bibi halts settlement building on the West Bank, he could cause a split in his Cabinet with rightist rivals like Naftali Bennett who seek to replace him.

Here in the U.S., the U.N. resolution is seen by Democrats as a political debacle, and by many Trump Republicans as an opportunity.

Sen. Chuck Schumer has denounced Obama’s refusal to veto the resolution, echoing sentiments about the world body one used to hear on America’s far right.

"The U.N." said Schumer, "has been a fervently anti-Israel body since the days (it said) ‘Zionism is racism’ and that fervor has never diminished."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says he will urge Congress to slash funding for the United Nations.

If the folks over at the John Birch Society still have some of those bumper stickers – "Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S.!" they might FedEx a batch over to Schumer and Graham.

May have some converts here.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

TRUMP: TÍTERE DE NETANYAHU Y EL LOBBY PRO ISRAEL

La ONU votará hoy sobre los asentamientos israelíes pese a las presiones de Trump

Netanyahu recurrió al presidente electo para que Egipto retirara la propuesta pero cuatro países vuelven a plantearla

JUAN CARLOS SANZ internacionalelpaís.com

Jerusalén  23 DIC 2016 –

Cuatro países –Nueva Zelanda, Venezuela, Malasia y Senegal– han vuelto a plantear ante el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU una resolución de condena a los asentamientos  judíos en territorios ocupados palestinos después de que Egipto la retirara tras las presiones del presidente electo de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump a petición de Israel. El inicio del debate previo a la votación de la resolución está previsto este viernes a las 15.00, hora de la costa este norteamericana (las 20.00 GMT, 21.00 hora peninsular española). El borrador de la iniciativa establece que “los asentamientos israelíes en territorios palestinos, incluido Jerusalén Este, no tienen validez legal” (…) “y su actividad debe cesar inmediatamente". Fuentes del Gobierno de Israel aseguraron que si se confirma, como parece probable, que la Administración del presidente Barack Obama no ejerce el derecho de veto y permite la aprobación del texto, ello supondrá un "abandono" del Estado judío por parte de Washington.

Trump parecía haber reforzado con sus gestiones la relación entre Estados Unidos e Israel tras ocho años de desavenencias entre Obama y el primer ministro Benjamín Netanyahu. Cuatro semanas antes de tomar posesión del cargo, el presidente electo republicano había subido el jueves por primera vez a la escena internacional para pedir al mandatario demócrata que vetase la propuesta de resolución contra los asentamientos ante el Consejo de Seguridad. Pocas horas antes de que se sometiera a votación en la tarde del jueves la iniciativa original de El Cairo, Trump telefoneó al presidente egipcio, Abdelfatá al Sisi, quien poco después ordenó la retirada del texto “para efectuar nuevas consultas”, lo que forzó un aplazamiento indefinido de la sesión.

La Administración del presidente Obama ha defendido la solución de los dos Estados y se ha opuesto a la expansión de las colonias. La Casa Blanca impulsó negociaciones de paz entre israelíes y palestinos a partir de 2012, pero el diálogo directo entre ambas partes permanece roto desde 2014. Un alto responsable del Gobierno israelí dijo a Reuters que sospechaba que el actual Gobierno de Estados Unidos había actuado de forma coordinada con los palestinos para organizar una “emboscada vergonzosa” en el Consejo de Seguridad de espaldas a Israel que "daría alas al terrorismo y al boicoteo". “Ha sido una violación del compromiso básico (de EE UU) de proteger a Israel en la ONU, que rompe con décadas de una política constante y socava las perspectivas para poder trabajar con la próxima Administración en la consecución de la paz”, agregó la misma fuente.

"Pedimos a Estados Unidos que permanezca junto a nosotros. Esperamos que nuestro mayor aliado mantenga su política y vete esta resolución", ha dicho el embajador israelí ante la ONU, Dany Danon, a través de Twitter. El diplomático ha asegurado que se trata de un texto elaborado por los palestinos para "dañar a Israel".

El próximo inquilino de la Casa Blanca no había actuado por cuenta propia ante El Cairo, según fuentes israelíes, sino a petición del primer ministro israelí. Netanyahu temía que la Administración Obama se negara esta vez a ejercer su derecho de veto —como hizo en 2011 ante un debate similar en la ONU— y se limitara a abstenerse. Cuando el Gobierno israelí tomó conciencia tras repetidos silencios de la Casa Blanca y del Departamento de Estado de que el veto no iba a ser la opción adoptada por EE UU en el Consejo de Seguridad, sus representantes diplomáticos entraron en contacto con “el más alto nivel” del equipo de transición de Trump para pedirle que interviniera.

El resultado de la inusual gestión de un presidente electo no se hizo esperar. La Presidencia egipcia ha reconocido este viernes que Al Sisi recibió una llamada del nuevo mandatario de EE UU. "La llamada telefónica afectó al proyecto de resolución ante el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas sobre los asentamientos israelíes", puntualizaba un comunicado oficial en El Cairo. "Los dos líderes coincidieron en la importancia de darle a la nueva Administración (estadounidense) la oportunidad de tratar de manera exhaustiva todos los aspectos de la causa palestina para lograr un arreglo integral", añadía la nota de la Presidencia.

Como copatrocinadores de la propuesta de resolución, Nueva Zelanda, Venezuela, Malasia y Senegal la recuperaron este viernes después de que Egipto la retirara definitivamente.  El texto que se someterá a votación mantiene la petición del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU para que Israel detenga la actividad y la expansión de los asentamientos y advierte de que la comunidad internacional no reconocerá ninguna alteración de las fronteras establecidas antes de la guerra de 1967 si no hay un acuerdo previo entre las partes. En caso de salir adelante, la resolución puede abrir la vía a la imposición de sanciones internacionales a Israel. Unos 600.000 colonos se han instalado desde hace casi medio siglo en la parte oriental de la Ciudad Santa, anexionada por el Estado judío, y en más de dos centenares de colonias repartidas a lo largo de Cisjordania. Tras los Acuerdos de Oslo de 1993, el Ejército de Israel ejerce el control pleno sobre el 60% de territorio cisjordano e interviene alegando razones de seguridad en el resto; mantiene además un bloqueo terrestre y naval sobre la Franja de Gaza, de donde se retiró hace una década. Trump está considerado como más favorable a Israel que Obama después de había prometido durante la campaña electoral que ordenará trasladar de Tel Aviv a Jerusalén la Embajada norteamericana, una decisión que puede desencadenar una ola de inestabilidad en Oriente Próximo. El presidente electo defendió sin rodeos el jueves que Washington debe usar su veto para bloquear la propuesta contra los asentamientos. "La resolución que se está considerando en el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas con respecto a Israel debería ser vetada", dijo a través de Twitter. De ser aprobada, argumentó más tarde en un comunicado, "situaría a Israel en una posición muy débil para negociar (…) La paz entre israelíes y palestinos solo llegará a través de un acuerdo negociado por ambas partes y no por las imposiciones de Naciones Unidas”.

El presidente Al Sisi, quien expresó su admiración por Trump durante la campaña electoral, intenta reforzar su relación con Estados Unidos, que ofrece a Egipto una ayuda militar anual de 1.300 millones de dólares desde hace casi cuatro décadas, la segunda más elevada después de la que recibe Israel. Egipto se ha ido alejando de sus tradicionales aliados árabes suníes a causa de su posición favorable al presidente Bachar el Asad en el conflicto de Siria, y ha perdido gran parte del generoso apoyo financiero que le ofrecían Arabia Saudí y las monarquías del Golfo tras el golpe de Estado de 2013 en el que derrocó al presidente islamista Mohamed Morsi.

Altos cargos del gabinete del primer ministro israelí hablaron el jueves también con dirigentes egipcios, aunque no hubo confirmación de que Netanyahu conversara telefónicamente con El Sisi, con quien mantiene una fluida y estrecha relación. La cooperación antiterrorista entre ambos se ha incrementado hasta niveles no conocidos antes a causa de la amenaza que representa la presencia de grupos afines al Estado Islámico en la frontera común en la península del Sinaí.

Netanyahu canceló el jueves su agenda oficial tras verse sorprendido por el anuncio de una votación en el Consejo de Seguridad. El primer ministro israelí ya había expresado en reiteradas ocasiones su temor a que Obama pudiese dejar de vetar una resolución de condena a las colonias tras las elecciones del pasado noviembre, que dieron la victoria al republicano Trump, pero no esperaba que se fuera a producir de forma inmediata.

The second fall of Palmyra: what happened and how will the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance respond?

December 21, 2016  Thesaker.is

By Aram Mirzaei

On December 8, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group launched a major offensive in a bid to recapture the ancient city of Palmyra, which was otherwise lost to the Syrian Army earlier in March this year. ISIL managed to not only muster between 4000-5000 fighters, but managed to travel across the eastern Homs desert unnoticed until they reached the gates of the ancient city. Their swift advance was made from three flanks, with ISIL terrorists attacking from the north, the south and the east. ISIL initially captured the Jabal Hayyan area which overlooks the city and the Al-Mahr Oil Fields to the north. Despite a Syrian-Russian counterattack which initially repelled the ISIL assault and killed at least 300 militants according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, ISIL still managed to renew their assault as the Syrian government forces were forced to withdraw amid a massive evacuation of civilians from the city. ^[1] [2]

By December 11, ISIL had fully recaptured the city after the Syrian Army withdrew, facing overwhelming ISIL numbers and an imminent threat of encirclement.^[3]

This event left many observers of the Syrian conflict with the question: what happened? How could the SAA lose the city so quickly, especially with ISIL being weakened so badly in recent times?

It has since the offensive was launched been revealed that a large number of ISIL terrorists had withdrawn from the towns of Rawa and Al-Qaem in Iraq, in order to engage the Syrian and Russian forces in the eastern Homs area. ^[4]

Southfront.org offered an analysis the next day, explaining the events that led to the second fall of Palmyra. The article explains that the rapid breakthrough and advancement of the ISIL terrorists was due to some fundamental mistakes made by commanders of the Syrian Army and the allied National Defense Forces (NDF) who let their guards down. In sum, they had not paid attention to sufficient fortification activities, and tactical reconnaissance and assessment of the attacking enemy forces. This resulted in insufficient information to the Army High Command causing them to fail to take preventive actions to counter the imminent ISIL threat. Southfront however also considers mistakes made by the Russian assist and advice mission, with regards to the surprise of the redeployment of ISIL units from Iraq to Syria. ^[5]

This reason is one of the most important ones to consider when analysing the fall of Palmyra. Already in October this year, reports emerged that the US along with its Gulf allies had devised a plan to “relocate” ISIL militants from Mosul to Syria. The Russian news outlet RIA Novosti had revealed that the plan was to allow up to 9000 ISIL terrorists safe passage out of Mosul with the condition that they fight Syrian and Russian troops in Palmyra and Deir Ezzor. ^[6] This plan is essentially aimed at removing all Syrian government presence from eastern Syria, thus creating the infamous “Sunni entity” in eastern Syria and Western Iraq, with its role intended to be a permanent thorn in the side of Syria and its allies.

With this information at the disposal of the Syrian and Russian governments, it seems rather strange that the preparations for this upcoming influx of ISIL terrorists from Iraq to Syria was rather absent amid the rapid ISIL advance. Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports from twitter mainly, speculated about the idea that the US air force could have played a part in the very unnoticed ISIL advance to Palmyra. Any observer of this war would wonder how the massive ISIL convoys managed to travel from the oil rich town of Al-Sukhanah in the far eastern reaches of the Homs province to Palmyra totally under the radar with Russian satellites being unable to detect them. The Twitter user “Maytham” reported that the US air force had disrupted the “VHF radios and radars via satellites over the roads between Al-Sukhanah and Palmyra” in order to provide a 6 hour cover for ISIL’s passage. Whether or not this is true, I’ll leave up for debate, we should however not forget that the US has assisted ISIL in the past, most notably when it “accidentally” bombed the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor on September 20, killing more than 80 Syrian soldiers in the process.

Another factor explaining the loss of Palmyra that must be underscored is the fact that the Syrian Army simply does not have enough troops to attack and hold its positions on the multitude of fronts it is engaged in. The Army had sent some of its best troops to Aleppo for the major offensive that was launched in November and that resulted in the inevitable defeat of terrorist groups in this imperative city. This however left the Army very vulnerable on other fronts, especially the eastern fronts such as Palmyra.

While the liberation of Aleppo was welcomed by many, including me, I do think that it could have gone a lot quicker than it did. Ever since the Army managed to complete the siege back in July this year, the Army has had a chance to finally finish off the terrorist groups entrenched inside the eastern districts of the city. The Syrian and Russian governments have however been stalled on multiple occasions due to interference by the Western powers and their regional vassals. On too many occasions have the Syrian government and its allies agreed to pointless ceasefires, putting their faith in diplomacy and trusting the main backers of the terrorist groups fighting the Syrian Army. Too many times have they been disappointed and had to paid the price with the lives of brave soldiers.

These constant ceasefires have only been used by the US and its allies as a way to stall the Army and delay the inevitable. This gave other jihadists, most notably ISIL a window of opportunity to attack weaker fronts and take advantage of the massive amount of troops tied down at the Aleppo front. The liberation of Aleppo gives a bittersweet taste as Palmyra fell simultaneously, allowing the US to strike back in revenge for its proxies losing perhaps the most important battle in this war.

The Syrian government and its allies must stop putting their faith in “diplomacy” and allow the West to direct the course of actions, or else they will continue to remain in this kind of stalemate where they achieve an important gain, only to lose another strategic or symbolic point elsewhere. While the battle for Aleppo is over, the battle for Idlib is about to become the next focus point in this bloody war, a battle that will take the SAA far longer time and demand far more resources in order to achieve victory.

1.    http://tass.com/world/918505?__hstc=143095274.6382dc5dd8e3b5f6135ac5ee5371dcdf.1473976512470.1481753379374.1481973110672.185&__hssc=143095274.10.1481973110672&__hsfp=56543330↑

2.    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/palmyra-serious-threat-isis-moves-closer-city/ ↑

3.    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-fully-retakes-palmyra-stunning-blitz-offensive-map-update/ ↑

4.    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-relocated-fighters-iraq-capture-palmyra/ ↑

5.    https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-december-12-2016-mistakes-that-led-to-fall-of-palmyra/ ↑

http://theduran.com/the-us-plan-for-isis-out-of-iraq-into-syria-to-fight-assad/