Is Summit significant or isn’t it

By Ted Belman

Herb Keinon, a respected journalis raised the question Why is plan to kill PM being revealed now?

    In this government, where information is so tightly controlled, there is generally a reason why certain bits of information are released to the media, especially if those bits happen to be particularly juicy. And so, following the leaked report that Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) head Yuval Diskin revealed during Sunday’s cabinet meeting details of a Fatah plot to kill Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a drive to Jericho this summer, one basic question needs to be asked: What was the interest in this information coming out now?

And then he provides the answer

    Public pressure against the Annapolis process won’t hurt Israel’s negotiating position. For instance, if the Palestinians show no flexibility in their demand that the document being negotiated be rich in detail and include a timetable – something Israel is opposed to – then the assassination plot, the PA’s reaction to it and the ensuing uproar in Israel could, if Olmert so decided, be used as a reason to call the whole thing off.

    Revelation of the plot now provides Olmert with a precious commodity in his negotiations: room to maneuver.

In line with this Haaretz reports Knesset must see joint declaration before peace meet according to Olmert.

    “Every document which expresses Israeli commitment to a significant political-military matter… will be brought before the Knesset… in accordance with the accepted practice of the State of Israel and as the government of Israel has been doing for generations with regard to significant political documents.”

Before leaving on Sunday to visit Sarkozy Olmert announced Annapolis conference will not bring historic breakthrough, it “is not meant to be an event on its own or an event for an agreement or a historic breakthrough”.

Olmert said the conference should instead be viewed as a chance for the international community to support statehood negotiations, expected to formally begin following the gathering.

What crap. The international community needs no opportunity to support negotiations, it does so every day.

But more important is the suggestion that “formal negotiations” will commence following the conference. Accordingly the summit which “is not meant to be an event on its own or an event for an agreement or a historic breakthrough” is in fact a watershed moment that separates informal negotiations from “formal” negotiations.

How can it be insignificant and significant at the same time. Why don’t they bypass the Summit and just go to “formal” negotiations. Why indeed.

And if it is insignificant, why is Rice pushing for it as if possessed.

October 22, 2007 | 1 Comment »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. Shalom Ted,

    Ref ” call the whole thing off”

    Ref “room to maneuver”

    I can barely tally, let alone outline, the last several “summits”; Camp David I and then II, Wye River, Shepherdstown, …

    (Won’t even attempt to recollect the Sharm el Sheik, Taba, Madrid etc get-togethers.)

    I can say the above reference quotes must incorporate some link to the pending Presidental race.

    Hillary will give NO room to maneuver.

    We’re not discussing graves. We’re addressing cremated remains.

    The problem is internal to Jewry.

    To “call the whole thing off” means the PM can stop a flood of Arab immigrants into Israel. He cannot.

    Kol tuv,

Comments are closed.