Die Jerusalem Post berichtet ueber das unangekuendigte Erscheinen Obamas waehrend Ehud Baraks Treffen mit seinem amerikanischen Gegenueber Robert Gates. Im zweiten Teil des Artikels wird Obamas Interview im National Public Radio vom vergangenen Montag herangezogen, um die Position des Praesidenten gegenueber Israel zu erhellen. Ganz zum Schluss finden wir folgenden Punkt:
In the interview, Obama also intimated that if Hizbullah were to win the elections later this week in Lebanon, the US would possibly have to reconsider its policy toward the organization. The US has placed Hizbullah on its terrorist list, and has no contacts with the organization.
Und hier das Orignalzitat aus dem Interview:
Norris: You’ve mentioned many times the importance of reaching out to Iran with an open hand, trying to engage that country. Are you also willing to try to engage with Hezbollah or Hamas, entities that have now had significant gains in recent elections?
Well, let’s just underscore a point here. Iran is a huge, significant nation state that has, I think, across the international community been recognized as such. Hezbollah and Hamas are not. And I don’t think that we have to approach those entities in the same way.
Norris: If I may ask though, does that change with their electoral — does that change with their electoral gains?
Well, look, if at some point — Lebanon is a member of the United Nations — if at some point they are elected as a head of state or a head of state is elected in Lebanon that is a member of that organization, then that would raise these issues. That hasn’t happened yet.
Ich teile die Interpretation der Jerusalem Post. Obama laesst deutlich durchblicken, dass er bereit ist, Hisbollah als legitimen Player anzuerkennen, wenn sie wie erwartet in den Wahlen erfolgreich abschneidet.
Das ist nur ein weiteres Beispiel dafuer, dass die Obamaregierung um so sanfter mit Organsationen und Staaten umgeht, je aggressiver diese auftreten.
Auch Politiker der Demokraten sind nicht blind fuer dieses Missverhaeltnis:
“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”
Other Democrats, in interviews with POLITICO, raised similar concerns. While few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state, they question putting public pressure on Israel while — so far — paying less public attention to Palestinian terrorism and other Arab states’ hostility to Israel.
“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”
Clearly the way to go for Israelis is shoot off some missiles during a presidential speech, grab an American journalist or two and denounce American “imperialism.” Then they might get the kid glove treatment.