米国ユダヤ人の対イスラエル観の変化と新しいロビー組織J STREETの活動

The American Jewish community as a whole still remains very much supportive of Israel's policies. Most American mainstream Jewish organizations and their leaders have hardly criticized Israel's position regarding the occupation, settlements, and the peace process. But over the last ten years or so, different views and opinions have become more visible in the American Jewish community, as represented by J Street, a "pro-Israel and pro-peace" lobby. What has brought about this diversification in the American Jewish community over their attitude toward Israel's policies? Many opinion surveys indicate that younger American Jews have become more critical of Israel's policies with regard to the Palestine question and the peace process. This may be attributed to a shift in identity among young American Jews. Older American Jews tend to see Israel as democratic, progressive and peace-seeking, etc. In addition, they perceive Israel as a safe haven for Jews. But younger Jews draw from memories and impressions scene in recent events, such as the First and Second Intifada, and the military confrontations with Palestinian groups based in Gaza, all of which are perceived as morally and politically more complex than the wars Israel fought between 1948 and 1974. Communities in the Jewish diaspora try to influence the policies of their homeland in order to protect their identity and sets of values. While the American Jewish community is still strongly committed to liberal democratic values, its counterpart in Israel has leaned toward the political right and toward ethno-religious nationalism. The diffusion of identities and sets of values in both communities may bring about further shifts in the relations between the two communities.

ロシアの中東政策 -- プーチン大統領のシリア政策を通じて

The active initiative taken by Russian President Vladamir Putin by bombarding the antigovernment forces in Syria at the end of September 2015 startled the world by its precalculated boldness. Russian intervention has radically changed the dynamic of the war by empowering the Syrian government of Bashar Assad, and has resulted in a ceasefire agreement which starts on 27th February 2016, led by Russia and the US. No one can predict at present the next stage of conflicts in Syria or whether it will result in a positive solution to the tragic wars there. However, there is no denying the fact that Russia has played an important role in the development of the game. This paper analyzes the motivations of Putin in intervening in the Syrian crisis and the factors which have enabled Russia to play an enlarged role in the Middle East, seemingly beyond its objective capabilities. Legacies of international networks built during the Soviet period; shrewd tactics in making use of the inconsistency and vacillation of US policies, particularly towards the Middle East; its historical experience of interaction with the Muslim cultures, including domestic ones; its geopolitical perception of world politics, and the export of energy resources and military weapons as tools of diplomacy are some of the factors which explain Russian behavior. At the same time, the personal leadership and accumulated experience of President Putin in formulating Russian diplomacy and in manipulating different issues in a combined policy should be taken into account. His initiative in Syria succeeded to some extent in turning world attention away from the Ukrainian issue, aimed at changing the present sanctions imposed by the West. Another phenomenon to be noted in the international arena is the newly developed mutual interaction between Russia and the Arab countries in the Gulf. Frequent visits to Russia by autocratic leaders, including kings, emirsand princes do not always reflect a shared common interest between Russia and the Arab leaders. On the contrary, in spite of sharp and fundamental differences in their attitude toward the issues related to Syria, Iran and Yemen, the Arab leaders find it necessary to communicate with Russia and to know Russia’s expected strategies and intentions towards the Middle East, apart from its oil and gas policies. The Iran deal on the nuclear issue in July 2015 may have been a factor behind the phenomena.