Newsgroup: it.cultura.militare
Titolo: anche Soros, noto bolscevico, è ingenuo

Blinded by a Concept
    By George Soros 
    The Boston Globe
    Thursday 31 August 2006
    The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many
weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that
even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent
civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.
    In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in attacking
Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border.
However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral
damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon
inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted ?ezbollah
from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has
also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.
    Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on
military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously
withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than
negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the
Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a
direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in
the way of recognizing this fact because it separates ``us" from ``them"
and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.
    A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together
different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to
distinguish among Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the Sunni insurrection
and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations,
being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah
can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because both have
deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between
them.
    Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When
Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel
should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James
Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the
Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United
Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank,
allowing an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt;
and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab
hands. None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas's
electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to allow
the Palestinians to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal
with a Hamas government. The effect was to impose further hardship on the
Palestinians.
    Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political
arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this
agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in
the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel - which
in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front.
    That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any
chance of political progress.
    Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought
into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown
that this policy leads to the escalation of violence. The process has
advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is
no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy.
Israel is now more endangered in its existence than it was at the time of
the Oslo Agreement on peace.
    Similarly, the United States has become less safe since Bush declared
war on terror.
    The time has come to realize that the present policies are
counterproductive. There will be no end to the vicious circle of
escalating violence without a political settlement of the Palestine
question. In fact, the prospects for engaging in negotiations are better
now than they were a few months ago. The Israelis must realize that a
military deterrent is not sufficient on its own. And Arabs, having
redeemed themselves on the battlefield, may be more willing to entertain a
compromise.
    There are strong voices arguing that Israel must never negotiate from
a position of weakness. They are wrong. Israel's position is liable to
become weaker the longer it persists on its present course. Similarly
Hezbollah, having tasted the sense but not the reality of victory (and
egged on by Syria and Iran) may prove recalcitrant. But that is where the
difference between Hezbollah and Hamas comes into play. The ?alestinian
people yearn for peace and relief from suffering. The political - as
distinct from the military - wing of Hamas must be responsive to their
desires. It is not too late for Israel to encourage and deal with an
Abbas-led Palestinian unity government as the first step toward a
better-balanced approach.
    Given how strong the US-Israeli relationship is, it would help Israel
to achieve its own legitimate aims if the US government were not blinded
by the war-on-terror concept.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://cubainforma.interfree.it/
il film sul 9/11 : 
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 
guarda che era pure sul corriere in italiano (ma so che tu non lo leggi ;)
Iso

Isoroku Yamamoto ha scritto:

mi stai dicendo che era sulla versione italiana del corriere di tel
aviv? <g>