Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: What are the implications for Israel of Hagel's confirmation?

Per ottenere la ratifica del senato Hagel ha dovuto dare assicurazioni 
pubbliche e private sulla sua fedeltà assoluta agli interessi del regime 
"sionista" .
Sembra uno scherzo, sembra incredibile che il ministro della difesa 
della superpotenza mondiale per ottenere la nomina debba umiliarsi in 
questo modo, eppure è la realtà: tutti devono inginocchiarsi alla Lobby.
 
La cosa preoccupante è che ormai gli agenti della Lobby non nascondono 
più il loro operato.
 
------------------------------------------------
What are the implications for Israel of Hagel's confirmation?
 
By Alan M. Dershowitz	| Feb.28, 2013 | 8:53 PM | 3
 
U.S. President Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense, former 
Senator Chuck Hagel, has now been confirmed by a Senate vote of 58-41, 
with all the Senate Democrats and four Republicans voting in his favor 
(the two independents also voted for him). But this nose count hides the 
reality that a majority of senators, including many Democrats, would 
almost certainly have preferred a different candidate. The vote 
reflected not overwhelming support for Hagel and the views he expressed 
before being nominated, but rather an acknowledgment that a president – 
especially one so recently reelected by so significant a majority – has 
the right to pick his cabinet members, unless they are unqualified or 
disqualified.
 
President Obama’s original decision to propose Hagel was not popular 
among many of the Democratic senators who eventually voted for him. Nor 
was it universally supported by White House aides. But the president 
stuck with Hagel and presented his supporters in the Senate with a 
difficult choice: Vote the president’s preference for Hagel or vote 
their own preference for someone other than Hagel. Led by Jewish and 
other pro-Israel Democratic Senators such as Chuck Schumer, the Senate 
gave the president his man.
 
Hagel did not help himself by his performance during the confirmation 
hearings. He seemed confused and uncertain about the Obama policy toward 
Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. Fortunately for Hagel, he had already 
received the support of Schumer and other Jewish and pro-Israel senators 
before the hearings, based on what he had told them in private meetings. 
Had these senators waited to see how he did during the public hearings, 
the situation might have been different – at least for some. But having 
committed themselves to support the president’s choice, they had to put 
the best face on Hagel’s public performance. It wasn’t easy.
 
Prior to the president’s decision to nominate Hagel, I was one of many 
who thought his nomination might send a dangerous message to Iran. Here 
is what I wrote:
 
“Were Chuck Hagel to be nominated as secretary of defense, the Iranian 
mullahs would interpret President Obama’s decision as a signal that the 
military option was now, effectively, off the table. It would encourage 
them to proceed with their development of nuclear weapons without fear 
of an attack from the United States. It would tell them that if they can 
endure the pain of sanctions and continue the charade of negotiations, 
they will ultimately be allowed to win the prize of a deliverable 
nuclear bomb.”
 
Following President Obama’s nomination of Hagel, I wrote the following:
 
“Senator Hagel will have an opportunity to clarify, and hopefully to 
change, his previous statements with regard to these issues. He should 
be asked probing questions about sanctions, about the military option 
and about Israel's security. In his answers, he must persuade the 
Iranian leadership that there is no distance between his current views 
and those of the president who has nominated him.”
 
Hagel tried to do that, but with decidedly mixed results. He was 
pilloried by Republican Senators and defended by Democrats. What should 
have been a nuanced debate over principles – should Hagel’s changing and 
confusing views regarding “containment,” “prevention” and “military 
options” trump the presumption in favor of confirming cabinet 
nominations? – descended into partisan name calling.
 
Because the controversy over Hagel’s nomination became so partisan, his 
confirmation victory cannot be seen as a defeat for Israel or for the 
pro-Israel lobby in the United States. The major Jewish and pro-Israel 
organizations took no public position on Hagel’s confirmation – perhaps 
because they knew they couldn’t stop it after Senator Schumer and 
several of his pro-Israel colleagues came out in support. If their goal 
was to get the secretary-designate to commit to positions different from 
the ones he had previously taken, then they succeeded. It remains to be 
seen whether the new secretary of state will act more consistently with 
what he had said in his past paid speeches or what he just promised the 
senators in private and in public.
 
Hagel’s nomination and confirmation now makes it more important than 
ever for President Obama to send an unambiguous message to the Iranian 
leadership that regardless of who heads the Defense Department, the 
president makes policy, and the American policy is clear: to prevent 
Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if this requires the use of 
force. Containment must be kept off the table, the military option must 
be kept on the table, and the mullahs must have no doubt about this policy.
 
President Obama’s upcoming visit to Israel will provide him a perfect 
opportunity to assure the Israeli people and their leaders that he still 
has their back and that he will never allow Iran to develop nuclear 
weapons – regardless of what his secretary of defense may believe in his 
heart.
 
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/what-are-the-implications-for-israel-of-hagel-s-confirmation.premium-1.506511
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO: 
http://rete-eco.it/2012/sostienici.html
 
 

 più il loro operato.
 
si chiama trasparenza, pirla.