JERUSALEM (AP) -- At first glance, one might think Israelis are
solidly behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's all-out diplomatic
war against the U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran. But look closer and
deep fissures appear: There is angst over what some see as a reckless
diplomatic adventure that pits Israel against its indispensable backer.
Most
Israelis seem to agree that a better bargain could have been squeezed
out of the Islamic Republic, their country's top nemesis. They don't
like Iran's ability to delay inspections in some locations; the speed
with which sanctions will come off; or the prospect that Iran will soon
have tens of billions of dollars in unfrozen funds, greatly enhancing
its ability to foment regional mischief and unrest.
But
many also are concluding that with the agreement all but wrapped up, it
is time to give up the fight and adjust to the new reality, most
critically by repairing a tattered relationship with the White House.
Some voices even believe the deal is acceptable, or at least that it is
worth testing the theory that the agreement will help moderate Iran.
After
the deal was signed by Iran and six global powers last month in Vienna,
Netanyahu's government has been furiously lobbying U.S. lawmakers,
holding out hope Congress will vote against it by a strong enough margin
to override any presidential veto. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader,
Mitch McConnell, said this week that the odds of this happening are
slim. In the process, President Barack Obama has publicly bristled at
Israeli lobbying.
In the seemingly unlikely
event that Netanyahu prevails, many ask: What then? Other nations would
still remove the sanctions, leaving the U.S. and Israel alone. Iran,
freed of the shackles of the deal, would be free to proceed to a nuclear
weapon.
If Netanyahu loses, he will have
gained nothing and potentially lost much by damaging the already
strained relationship with the U.S., endangering a vital security
alliance and American diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Israel's
status would then be dangerously diminished in the eyes of the world and
of enemies in the region.
"When it comes to
the relationship between Israel and the United States, Netanyahu's
problem is ... extreme courage, to the point of dangerousness,"
commentator Ari Shavit wrote in the Haaretz daily Thursday.
Faced
with a "done deal," Shavit said Israel should be negotiating with the
U.S. to address its risks and make it work. "Instead of talking to the
administration, Netanyahu is clashing with it," he wrote.
While
it is believed that many security figures are cool to the deal, at
least some have concluded it is time to move on and begin work on a new
security pact with the U.S., replacing a current agreement that expires
in 2017.
Some officials even see positive
aspects in the deal, since it seems to sideline a critical issue for the
next few years. "There are those in the Intelligence Corps, including
those in the research division dealing with Iran, who have a very
positive view of the nuclear agreement," wrote defense specialist Amir
Oren in Haaretz.
Active officials can be prevented from speaking out, but some former security chiefs have raised their voices.
Efraim
Halevy, a former head of the Mossad spy agency, said the deal forced
Iran to accept an "unprecedented" system of inspections.
"Anyone
who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the
matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever
agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to" some of the deal's
terms, he wrote in the Yediot Ahronot daily after the deal was
announced.
Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet internal security service, has called the deal "the best option."
In
its recent long-term assessment, the Israeli military did not include a
nuclear Iran among the country's most pressing threats, focusing
instead on Iranian-backed proxies along Israel's borders.
Netanyahu
calls the deal a "stunning historical mistake" that will likely be
violated by the Iranians and in any case leave them free to develop
nuclear weapons within a decade. His political allies repeat "bad deal"
like a mantra.
In an address to U.S. Jewish
leaders this month, Netanyahu said it was his responsibility as prime
minister to voice his concerns about the deal.
"This
policy disagreement has never been personal," he said. "And our
relationship is strong enough to withstand even serious disagreements."
Sallai
Meridor, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, said Netanyahu is
right to voice Israel's concerns - but "we should still make every
effort to be respectful, to be bipartisan and stay in the galleries and
not play on the stage."
Israel's leftist
opposition politicians have been cautious. Opposition leader Isaac
Herzog of the Zionist Union has suggested he doesn't like the deal but
blamed Netanyahu for bringing it on by openly clashing with Obama.
Israel's
figurehead president, Reuven Rivlin, who like Netanyahu hails from the
nationalist right, has been the most overt in breaking ranks.
In
recent interviews with Israeli media, he said Netanyahu "has waged a
campaign against the United States as if the two sides were equal, and
this is liable to hurt Israel." Rivlin said he told Netanyahu that
"struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's
expense."
For some, the nuclear gambit is only
part of a bigger picture Netanyahu's policies have created: one of an
Israel at loggerheads with the world.
Some see
the issue reflected even in Netanyahu's new choice for U.N. ambassador:
Danny Danon, a right-wing firebrand who has advocated annexation of
West Bank land.
The central piece of the
picture is the continuing occupation of the West Bank and the continued
settlement of the territory with so many Jews as to make a pullout
increasingly difficult if not impossible.
Netanyahu's
critics consider this a suicidal path that, by effectively making
Israel inseparable from the Palestinian areas, will wipe out the
country's Jewish-majority status and turn it into a binational entity
that will ultimately be more Arab than Jewish.
In
liberal Tel Aviv, it is common to hear talk of how Israel will not
survive the damage done by Netanyahu because of the demographic issue.
The word "apartheid" in describing the situation in the West Bank - a
comparison once rejected by Israelis across the spectrum - now comes up
in leftist circles.
"I can't pretend anymore,"
wrote Bradley Burston in Haaretz, in a commentary criticizing the
vastly harsher parallel justice system applied to Palestinians in the
West Bank. "This is what has become of the rule of law. Two sets of
books. One for Us, and one to throw at Them. Apartheid."
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário