tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186401.post-957075452003-06-16T09:36:00.000+03:002003-06-16T09:43:24.000+03:00WALKING THE WALK <br /> <br />Lots of talk about the possibility of passing security control to part of the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians. The goal is to set the bar low -- proving successful activity in a limited area but at the same time causing the stopping of rocket launchings on Israeli towns near the green line. This has been something that has been offered to the PA since the first Abbas-Sharon meeting a few weeks ago. The US media generally leads this morning with upbeat hope that this deal was near. Israel would promise not to act in this area for as long as the PA does. If it works, more area would be passed over. The idea seems to make sense in allowing Abu Maazen not to try to bite off more then it can chew and showing Israel that it is serious. Much of this depends on the Palestinian factions ability to reach a ceasefire. Here is <a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/304251.html">Danny Rubinstein's </a>analysis on that subject. Many Israelis argue against such a ceasefire as impossible and only want to see the Hamas crushed (read: Palestinan civil war). There are other, sometimes, problematic motives in this wish. <br /> <br />Interesting Israeli spin by Ehud Olmert in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63032-2003Jun15.html">today's Washington Post</a>. He was on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, too. Olmert, the deputy PM and quite close to Sharon, is quite right that Hamas is the challenge and so forth. At the same time, he rejects any critisism of the timing of Israel's actions last week. He states that <i>The current spin is that the new wave of malicious attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups against Israeli civilians is the direct result of the Israeli government's attempt to assassinate a senior Hamas leader.</i> That is not my criticism. What it did was take away Israel's claim to be acting in full good faith to make peace. I (as did President Bush) questioned whether that attack, then, was the right choice and made us safer. I agree that there is no possibility of compromise with Hamas, just as for the USA there is no discussion of compromise with Al Kaida. The key differences are: <br />1. We are not the USA; the rules of engagement are different when you are asking for $3 billion each year. <br />2. The Hamas is right here and not on the other side of the world. <br />3. The expectations from the Israeli side are significant. <br />4. There is an attempt to build an alternative leadership, Abu Maazen who needs to be strengthened. <br /> <br />Sadly, no Jersey sports sweep as the Nets went down at the Alamo. That Queens baseball team remains banned as it is still five games under .500 and 14 games out of first. Nothing like spending $110 million on last place. Almost as bad investment as the settlements... <br /> <br />arthurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04127533200386669566noreply@blogger.com