What happens now in Gaza, corresponds to the logic of the Revolution in Action Military (RAM), which involves the use of technology in the development of military action. But we have to contextualize it in a set of actions that have gradually removed the possibility of a peace agreement, while increased U.S. military intervention and the most ultraconservative Israeli society. One should not forget that during the Clinton administration, stressed the particular search of a stable peace that involved the realization of a fruitful dialogue between Rabin and Yasser Arafat Yitzat, both historical leaders representing extreme positions on both the Israeli side as Palestinian world.
The insistence on the agreement was necessary and was possible due to the relaxation of Cold War conditions in the Middle East. The U.S., without losing sight of the strategic role that Israel plays to their interests, understood the impossibility of maintaining a high level of conflict in the area, especially considering it is the key transitional space for the giant military preponderance in the north. Israel and the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO), Arafat understood that the historical conditions that had permitted the maintenance of political extremism had changed and it should change its position. In this context of international pressure, Arafat and Rabin materialize the Camp David Agreement, by which obtuvieron el Premio Nobel de la Paz. La muerte de Rabin, consecuencia del extremismo sionista, significó un retroceso en la construcción de la paz. Su sucesor, Benjamin Nethanyau, en nada contribuyó al avance de la paz y por el contrario dio inicio a un ciclo radical continuado por Ariel Sharon y sus sucesores en el ejercicio del poder en Israel. La muerte de Arafat, y el avance del extremismo de Hamas dejo sin interlocutores válidos a los palestinos que fueron arrastrados al clima de guerra sin cuartel propiciado por el Estado de Israel. Ante esta situación, la comunidad internacional, el Sistema-mundo con sus instituciones ha dejado de ejecutar los elementos de contención que debería implementar y al mismo tiempo, se ha mostrado impávido to the recurrent violations of humanitarian agreements by the Israeli security forces.
The context of change of government in the United States, framed by the output of the far right represented by Bush and the course - but not real-emerging leadership of Barak Obama, shows that expectations about a change in policy outside the U.S. is only an illusion. The Obama has demonstrated his inaction its relationship with Israel's strategic interests in the Middle East. No chance of peace agreement at this time. Israel insists on a Manichean position that argues that Hamas is not a political movement representing the leadership of the Palestinian people. The Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has done little to realize a dialogue with the militant group Hamas, which controls the Palestinian political representation and has the full weight of popular support. U.S., both outgoing and incoming representatives, maintain the same policy of unconditional support to Israel's interests, despite the constant violations of UN resolutions and the implementation of agreements Plastation West end of the 90 , which forced upon Israel to deliver more than 7% of the territory of the Gaza Strip have been occupied illegally. In short, this a moment where it is expressed - as ever, "the crisis of military power (U.S.) articulated yet provocative actions that tend to seek a consolidation of what they consider the "living space": the area of \u200b\u200bthe Middle East and central Asia. As happened in the twentieth century Germany and England, now in the XXI century we see a competition between the interests of power - which despite its weakness, "with another that challenges the positions and privileges of the hegemonic. The U.S. are concerned that the situation in the Middle East is not stable, since this instability increases the fluctuations in the dynamics of hegemonic control that aims to develop in other world stages. The situation is risky and envisions a 2009 full of conflicts, This is so because the U.S. kept fighting fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, central Asia at the same time you have to face the economic crisis. At this stage you have to look carefully at the reactions and actions in this area of \u200b\u200bthe world has so much conflict, we hope that the international community to contain the demons of war unleashed by the U.S., which needs a large-scale war to revive its economic system, as it did in the 1st Gulf War in 1991. We will follow closely the crisis and development. Dr. John E.
01/06/2009
Historian Romero
Juane1208@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment