To be precise, some of the disruptions feared by them have already materialized in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has come out much stronger after they have been breaking partnership with the ambiguous double agent Saad Hariri (a political move that highlights the genius strategic movement headed by Nasrallah) and Jordan, where King Abdallah According moved ahead by demanding a change of government that might prove extremely indigestible allocated to tenants in the buildings in Washington and Tel Aviv. But if the U.S. is very clearly hiding behind a cryptic murmur made continuous leaps forward and symmetrical withdrawn (where direct-to unscrupulous and Barack Obama go along with the tentative standard positions taken by Hillary Clinton) trying to turn Machiavellian turned in their favor, Israel seems so bewildered and stunned that we sometimes fail to find a decent attitude to be taken before a situation so dangerous. In fact, the fall of Hosni Mubarak, adding the inversion au (and the public slapping of the Israeli leadership by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is the aftermath of the "Lead Time" is the occasion of the attack on Freedom Flotilla) in key pro-Iranian made years ago by the historian turkish ally, Israel has relegated the most comprehensive regional isolation, and laid bare the paucity of strategic an entire political class brought up on bread and Zionism, able only to highlight the eyes of the allies "urgent need" to support the now unpresentable pharaoh Mubarak and to restart work on the construction of a "security barrier" along the border Egyptian. Another wall, after that of Jerusalem, with which Netanyahu and company are planning to put Israel away from the responsibilities that sooner or later have to decide to take. The same is true For European countries, that in addressing the issue have not gone beyond the issue of cheeps faint hope of a peaceful conclusion of the fighting in Egypt and condemned the "excesses" of the rioters. All except the U.S., if they are well entrenched behind their "walls" - physical or not - being very careful not to put a spoke in the wheel to the "democratic transfer" (which no one knows how it should be carried out) of power - advocated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - in Egypt. The last time that Egypt was in the middle of a genuine international dispute was during the Suez crisis of 1956, a historical parenthesis certainly not devoid of teachings. At the time Egypt was led by an able and astute colonel of the army provided the policy named Jamal Nasser, who, after having chased the fat King Farouk had immediately pledged to forge diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union at the same time hoping to be able to maintain cordial relations with the United States. The Gordian knot of his political contradictions was cut with a sharp blow by President Eisenhower, who punished his duplicity by denying the necessary funding for the construction of the Aswan Dam. The broad popular support it enjoyed, linked to its strategic vision of pan-Arab clear vocation, however, persuaded Nasser to play all out, or to declare the unilateral nationalization of the Suez Canal. It was a huge gamble policy with which the Egyptian president had first to collect the revenues needed for the construction of the Aswan Dam and the other to demonstrate to the world his political depth, saying with a single stroke of a pen full Egyptian sovereignty. The channel, however, was managed by a consortium of the British Empire which was the majority shareholder, and was itself considered a highway, a promontory from which the British government ruled the "Way of the Indies", a true melting-pot of world trade from which Britain could monitor communications with Europe, Asia and Africa. At the time, was the Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who considered Nasser a sort of Mussolini reviewed and corrected where necessary to address a hard lesson. As soon as he learned the news on the nationalization of the Suez Canal, he immediately instructed the military to devise a plan to invade Egypt, which would contain the channel under the aegis of the British and finally unseat the dangerous Jamal Nasser. He found in the French prime minister, the Socialist Guy Mollet, the shoulder was looking for. The motive of the latter, however, was primarily due to the fear that tolerating the audacity to Nasser Europe would have suffered from the same mistake made with Hitler at the Conference of Monaco. In essence, Mollet feared that merely sketch in front of the ruthlessness of Nasser would not have done nothing but provide it with valid reasons to increase its megalomania, and aim, therefore, continue to raise. A suicide tactics would quickly undermine the foundations of the French colonial domination on neighboring Algeria. Transferred to this the obsessions of the past, Eden and Mollet found fertile ground to forge a solid alliance Anglo - French antinasseriana key. It remained to find a third ally and a pretext to intervene. They found one and the other in Israel, whose leadership aspired to finally get rid of a fierce and powerful anti-Zionist as Nasser. The parties met at Sevres 22 to 24 October 1956, and put in place operational plans. Once that the Israeli army had launched a rapid and powerful preemptive attack of the armed forces stationed along the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, France and Britain have warned that a ceasefire would be followed bipartisan - if Nasser had not stopped, as was expected - continues air strikes on Egyptian ports and airports over the military occupation of the channel. Everything went word for word according to plan. The Israeli army overthrew the Egyptian armed forces and penetrated the Sinai like a knife through butter, Nasser refused to stop fighting and Egypt was briefly brought to its knees by aviation Anglo - French, while the USSR, undertaken to deal with the insurgents in Budapest, he merely yelling sterile and not very credible threats of retaliation against invaders. And while the operation seemed to turn for the better, what happened to the European powers had not taken into account. Annoyed at not having been consulted by the allies, U.S. President Eisenhower decided to deal a blow to England, instructing the Treasury Department to sell pounds on New York Stock Exchange, scaling tanning rude British imperial aspirations and at the same time and ordered to France beware the dall'assecondare similar projects in future. Eden fell into a deep crisis and resigned a few months from happening, to shoulder the burden his successor, Harold MacMillan to rebuild the country, while Nasser remained firmly in place with the final nationalization of the Suez Canal and an enormous international prestige gained in his pocket. Within a few months, Britain was forced to abandon their dreams of glory in its entirety to satisfy those of the United States, the French fell to deal with the Algerian nationalism and call a "Father of the Nation" of farsightedness and such as Charles De Gaulle airport to ferry the country permanently outside dell'anacronistica colonial perspective, as Israel rules with greater precision the balance of power with the neighborhood. For their part, the United States were limited to take over the imperial legacy left them by the British, and to roughly everything that had been banned by England. Eden and Mollet read the reality with the retrograde and myopic lens of the past, and did not know what the signs of the change of era. This compromise for decades, the presence Anglo - French or in its limited however, and quite a bit, the ability of influenza. Today, as then there is the urgency to acquire the best tools to interpret what is happening in Egypt and all its neighbors. However, what is visible is the massive Israeli inadequacy, his inability to understand the inevitability of making a radical overhaul of all its positions in the region that is matched by all'avvilente European inconsistency, his lack of a comprehensive political project independent of Washington. Just as Israel must now realize that the United States are no longer the all-powerful masters of the world - always ready to rush to their aid - and that the walls can not protect it more than they have done with the whites of South Africa (and to seize the bandwagon to act accordingly), so European countries should reflect on the current geopolitics, he sees a slow but steady decline in the U.S., and again to reconsider its order of priorities. The difference is that in dealing with the Suez crisis were unable to come to terms with its decline, but now do not know how to deal with the U.S.. O (as is more likely) do not want. For decades, in fact, no European country has been able to influence the trend of the major international events (more or less by Scott Suez onwards), if not strictly in the context of collective action led by the United States. Some of these countries, like France and Germany, have managed to limit to pursue their narrow garden plots, where they were allocated specific resources to be exploited or older remnants, relics of the "good old days gone by." There are still the instruments of foreign policy - diplomacy and armies, for example - but are merely ornamental old memorabilia to show off with permission from Washington. It is therefore crumbs and nothing more. Because the truth is that in all these years have been woven rave in front of a supposedly "united Europe", but in practice the powers of the Old Continent have done nothing but look askance at, each concerned to compete effectively with other, giving priority to national interests across continents. And this division, for the maintenance of which has been specially created an assembly of bureaucrats and businessmen the epitome (the "EU") has been very instrumental in power dominated. However, many European nations did in fact have many convergent interests, and are backed by a strong community of ambitions and cultural orientations. The fact that these convergences and commonalities are not exploited and that still, in dealing with special events such as the movements of North Africa, all answering the European expect that there Fiondini first to the U.S. - where, said en passant, the Mediterranean is a few miles to kilometers , unlike that for us - and then contend for the leftovers courtesy such as "loyalty bonus" is a very reliable indicator of the degree of corruption inside the nomenklatura of the individual states, so that they are only acting to confirm the real and substantial reasons for their success and indicate who are the direct beneficiaries of their work. It 's very likely that during the Suez crisis of Eden and Mollet acted in good faith, believe to pursue interests of their countries, while in this congregation of businessmen is frankly hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment