By Ted Belman
IMRA offers examples of spin
1. Spin after Hamas exploited decision of Sharon and Olmert administrations to ignore reality and avoid addressing the smuggling from Egypt to Gaza Strip: “fall of Gaza to Hamas is an opportunity”
2. Spin after Fatah terrorists exploit proposed timeout to murder Israelis “now that Fatah has regained the respect of the Palestinian street by murdering Israelis they will be strong enough to make peace”
3. Spin after the next shipment of weapons America supplies are turned against Israel “now the world appreciates the sacrifices Israel made to try to bolster Mahmoud Abbas”
4. Spin after successful mega attack murders thousands of Israelis “this opens a window of opportunity for the IDF to act without concern for bad press”.]
Now Aluf Benn reports Cabinet approves transfer of withheld tax revenues
The prime minister added that at Monday’s summit in Sharm el-Sheikh he will present “our expectations as well as our demand for a fight against terror.”
“At the same time, we will declare our intention to assist the new government.”
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the cabinet that any diplomatic progress would be dependant on the actions of the Palestinian emergency government.
Livni slammed Russia as well as some Arab states for refusing to give their full support to Fayad’s cabinet, accusing them of trying to revive the unity government between Fatah and Hamas and thus thwart any chance of diplomatic progress.
The spin is that Israel must offer “gestures” or “confidence building measures” to support the Abbas government. I can’t think of one instance where such gestures have resulted in increased support for Arafat or Abbas, or for that matter a benefit for Israel.
On the other hand it may be argued that making gestures increased support for their policies of intransigence and violence. Such gestures merely reward intransigence.
The Government of Israel must explain how gestures will result in Arab compromises for peace. The latter must be a precondition for the former.
Furthermore it is not enough to say Abbas is moderate or willing to compromise for peace. Such willingness must first be demonstrated by his words to his own constituency and then by action.
Rather than hold the Arab feet to the fire by demanding compromise we say what they want because they won’t say it and because they don’t want it. Similarly we call Islam a religion of peace so Muslims don’t have to take a stand on the issue.
What we say is spin and it doesn’t accord with reality. Abbas has yet to indicate his willingness for substantial compromise. If he is not willing to compromise, why are we sucking up to him.
INSS just published a paper First We Take the West Bankâ€¦? byAnat Kurz
[..] The common aspiration of Israel and Fatah to prevent the fall to the Islamist camp of the West Bank, as well, does not constitute a basis for agreement on permanent status. Fatahâ€™s main concern now is to block the rise of Hamas power in the West Bank and to regain control in Gaza. Preparing for agreement with Israel â€“ which entails historical concessions â€“ is not on its agenda.
In any case, it could not impose any agreement it might negotiate. And Israelâ€™s security and ideological reservations about territorial concessions in the West Bank will continue to complicate the task of reaching a compromise with Fatah â€“ just as they did in the years preceding Hamasâ€™ electoral gains.
Moreover, the current political break between the West Bank and Gaza does not relieve Fatah leaders of their obligations to Gaza residents or signal the end of Hamasâ€™ intention to expand its presence in the West Bank. With the revival of a political process, the West Bank and Gaza will be on the negotiating table as a single entity. And any Palestinian delegation â€“ religious, secular, or mixed â€“ will insist on maintaining that link. Israel will not be able to ignore demands in that spirit, however much they may complicate matters.
Now that’s a bit of truth telling.