Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Israele verso la NATO?

Mentre sarei ben felice di vedere Israele nella UE (con la Palestina,
s'intende), sono assolutamente contrario a) alla nuova funzione della NATO,
già funestamente battezzata in Kosovo; b) ad un'atlantizzazione del MO, che
dovrebbe essere invece ri-europeizzato (anche contrastando i piani USA
sull'Iraq), a partire da Israele, e nel quadro del Mediterraneo. Shalom.
Namib
-----------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/544847.html
A partnership with NATO?
By Ze'ev Boim
The recent co-option of seven countries as new members of NATO is the most
dramatic expression of the processes of change that the North Atlantic
alliance is undergoing. But it is not the only one. The collapse of the
Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s created a new reality in international
relations. The two confrontational blocs - the Eastern Bloc, which is
unified militarily in the Warsaw Pact, and the Western Bloc, within the NATO
framework - was replaced by the United States as the superpower whose
economic-political culture is victorious.
NATO, which was established at the end of World War II in order to address
the Soviet military threat to Europe, is currently examining its path in
light of the far-reaching strategic changes that have occurred since then:
Old arenas have disappeared, new regions of conflict have emerged, and
populations that in the past enjoyed security and freedom face new threats.
New scenarios of threats to the Free World relate primarily to the
phenomenon of global terrorism, which originates in extremist Islamic
fundamentalism and is harbored and draws its strength mainly in the Middle
East. The character of the Islamic regimes, along with unlimited economic
resources, has made the Middle East the "aircraft carrier" of world terror.
It is only natural that an organization like Al-Qaida draws on these sources
to send out tentacles worldwide.
It is therefore not surprising that NATO of the early 21st century has
marked the Middle East as a strategic goal. It is from this angle that we
should examine the meaning of the decision that NATO made in its Istanbul
conference last June. Recognizing that the Mediterranean dialogue is tenuous
and problematic - in view of the difficulties entailed in reaching
understandings and agreements in a group that includes Israel and
Mediterranean countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Algeria - the
Istanbul meeting enabled the opening of a new channel for bilateral
cooperation between NATO and each of the Mediterranean countries. The
channel will be separate and unconnected with other countries, and as such
no other country will be able to thwart or disrupt progress in it.
In the past Israel recoiled at the thought of partnership with a
multinational body. We always preferred bilateral relations and were
suspicious of multinational and international alignments. The reality of a
protracted conflict between Israel and the Arabs called for the free and
independent capability to make decisions about going to war, and for freedom
of political maneuverability that did not depend on binding international
agreements.
However, in a changing world, with Israel involved in a developing process
of forging peace agreements with Arab states and looking for ways to put an
end to the bloodshed with our Palestinian neighbors; at a time when there is
a growing threat in view of the terrorist organizations' ability to obtain
weapons of mass destruction and when Iran will soon reach the pivotal point
in its effort to build a nuclear bomb; and when the Free World, under the
leadership of the president of the United States, has marked Islamic
fundamentalist world terrorism as the No. 1 enemy of the free world - in
this situation Israel would do well to reexamine the possibilities latent in
cooperation with a multinational body such as NATO.
No drastic step is involved, such as membership in the organization. No one
is offering this, and it's not certain that this should be our desire in the
foreseeable future. But upgrading from the ramshackle and non-purposeful
Mediterranean framework to the level of a new partnership, which would
enable bilateral relations, could be advantageous for Israel precisely
because of its military and economic status and because Israel's
geopolitical condition is an "external base" of the free Western world in
the Middle East.
A multinational system such as NATO has distinctive advantages in a range of
spheres, including naval and aerial exercises, intelligence cooperation,
maritime patrols to identify terrorism and prevent the smuggling of
conventional and nonconventional weapons in the Mediterranean and Black Sea
regions, the ability to provide logistical services, and an array of
regional civilian possibilities (such as coping with earthquakes or with the
pollution of water sources). NATO is capable of coordinating an
international effort in the face of problems of this scale and of providing
effective solutions for them.
The visit to Israel of NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer this
week will make it possible to conclude positively joint staff work that was
carried out in Israel and by NATO ahead of the desired partnership. From
Israel's point of view, this is a move in which all the sides will benefit.
------------------------
The writer is the deputy minister of defense.

 sull'Iraq), a partire da Israele, e nel quadro del Mediterraneo. 
(MO rieuropeizzato?)
Tutto il contrario per me, of course. <g>
Tb
-- 
La' dove le liberta' formali sono state soppresse, nell'Europa dell'Est
per esempio, esse appaiono a coloro che ne sono privi stranamente reali.
(Raymond Aron) 
-------------------------------------   
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com/

 sull'Iraq), a partire da Israele, e nel quadro del Mediterraneo. Shalom.
Beh, il MO va tenuto IMVHO sotto controllo, certo non con le guerre
"preventive" alla USA.
L'UE si sarebbe giŕ dovuta opporre all'epoca: e non mi si citi Francia e
Germania, io dico UNIONE EUROPEA, ma non vedo nessuna coscienza "europea"
solida (vedi giŕ le discrasie tra l'asse F-G e l'asse Italia-UK...). Questa
debolezza europea ha permesso, secondo me, agli USA-UK di attaccare l'Iraq
per i loro scopi di controllo geopolitico e militare del MO. In termini
pratici non vedo purtroppo nessun guadagno per l'Europa, ma solo
l'ennesima - questa sě!- figuraccia dell'ONU.
Ciao

 i loro scopi di controllo geopolitico e militare del MO
Quali? E questo il punto.
Am.

 Namib
#_Molto bene!
...anzi benino...
anzi, che casino!
S'intende che Israele e Palestina dovrebbero, come condizione sine qua non, 
arrivare alla conclusione della famosa Track (urca!) per poter entrare 
insieme nell'EU, altrimenti eccoti all'angolo un altro Kossovo. Questo il 
primo problema.
Secondariamente bisognerebbe vedere quanto I+P sono staccati da USA; questo 
se nelle intenzioni resta sempre lo scopo di vedere un Europa autonoma, 
altrimenti avremo (insieme a GB una gatta in piu` da pelare)....
no, no , l'e` ttutto sbagliato...l'e` ttutto da rrifare!
Giano 

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:RbqUd.972407$35.36...@news4.tin.it...

Gli SCOPI sono il controllo geopolitico del territorio MO. I MEZZI, alquanto
discutibili, sono le guerre preventive e IMVHO sono da condannare. Ma credo
che non sia il caso di confondere gli scopi con i mezzi. O forse ho capito
io male il tuo intervento?
Ciao

 Namib
Pazzo scatenato , Israele nell'UE? così gli Arabi hanno la scusa per mettere
bombe anche in Europa, abbiamo già tanti guai, se li risolvano da soli i
problemi i medio-orientali, abbiamo già dato.

 sull'Iraq), a partire da Israele, e nel quadro del Mediterraneo. Shalom.
To' siamo d'accordo ... mi devo preoccupare.
Ma purtroppo, il problema dell'UE è che le prossime adesioni dovranno essere 
votate dai membri attuali credo.
E per varie ragioni vedo molti paesi votare contro.
Comunque, sono da sempre un sostenitore della campgna di Pannella per 
l'adesione di Israele all'UE ... e perché no ... dello stato Palestinese !
Ma i palestinesi ... che ne pensano ?