November 21, 2010
Didi Remez
On the front page of this morning’s Maariv, senior columnist Ben Caspit reports [full translation at the bottom of the post; Hebrew original here]:
"At least three top Likud figures who were briefed recently by officials very close to Netanyahu on the talks with the Americans, on the letter that has not (yet) been written, on the promises that were not made and the stealth bombers that stole away, say that the prevalent view in the Prime Minister’s Bureau about the US administration is that it is “not a credible administration.” That is the reason, these sources say, for Netanyahu’s insistence on receiving the promises in writing. And that is the reason, say these sources, that some of the promises that Netanyahu heard from the Americans evaporated shortly afterwards."
Caspit agrees with the analysis but is astounded that the Prime Minister’s Bureau should actually say express it, pouring “oil” instead of “water” on the fires of the Israeli-American relationship when it’s “at an unprecedented nadir.”
The ‘moratorium extension deal‘ has created a rare agreement between Maariv and it’s arch-rival Yediot: Netanyahu’s government is diplomatically incompetent. In his Friday column, Nahum Barnea, explains how the deal morphed from an achievement into an embarrassment. as a result of creative communications at the Prime Minister’s Bureau [full translation at bottom of post]:
"Netanyahu’s bureau has an original technique for marketing its messages: Briefings are emailed every few hours to reporters and commentators. The condition is that the information not be attributed to Netanyahu, his advisers, his “surroundings” or his “associates.” This way, the Prime Minister’s Bureau achieves broad circulation for its messages without having to answer questions and without taking responsibility for the facts. It is a wonderfully convenient technique.
The problem is that in the absence of a father, the facts tend to run wild. The impression that was created upon Netanyahu’s return from the United States was that he had obtained a commitment from the administration to accept Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. It later became apparent that there was no such agreement. The impression that was created was that after a 90-day freeze, construction would be resumed everywhere, with the blessing of the US administration. Such an agreement was not reached. The impression that was created was that the administration consented to support the continued Israeli control of the Jordan Valley. Such consent was not reached.
The speed with which the list of American commitments shrank is reminiscent of the classic story about the Jew who wished to send a telegram to his relative in America. The cost of the telegram was based on a charge per word. Each word cost a fortune. The man decided to omit every unnecessary word from the telegram. By the time he reached the mail counter, his telegram had no words left."
Against this background, attacking Obama’s credibility is the logical next step. One spin creates problem A, which a second spin attempts to solve, creating problem B. If short-term image issues, compounded by media amateurism, guides management of the ’strategic relationship’. We can only hope that’s not the case when decisions are made on if and when to go to war. Just in case, it might be a good idea for pundits to stop making fun of Netanyahu over Iran.
—-
"A matter of credibility
Ben Caspit, Maariv, November 21 2010 [page 6 with front-page teaser; Hebrew original here and below this translation]
National Security Adviser Uzi Arad sat in the “Meet the Press” studio and handed out grades to the Americans. Obama’s administration, Arad said, began its battle against the Iranian nuclear program with a “policy of smiles” and believed the Iranians’ talk, “but then sobered up.” In principle, Arad is right. In practice, he isn’t supposed to say that on television. After all, even without this, the Americans don’t much like us.
International diplomacy is built on lies and half truths and in the delicate relationship between Israel and the US this week, there was no reason to give the Americans another reason to get annoyed at us. But every time that it seems to us that we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, something happens and proves that we’ve still a long way to go before we get there. This something was the decision yesterday to send Arad to the studio. Perhaps because there was nobody else left to send.
Arad’s candid remarks are the tip of a much bigger iceberg. At least three top Likud figures who were briefed recently by officials very close to Netanyahu on the talks with the Americans, on the letter that has not (yet) been written, on the promises that were not made and the stealth bombers that stole away, say that the prevalent view in the Prime Minister’s Bureau about the US administration is that it is “not a credible administration.” That is the reason, these sources say, for Netanyahu’s insistence on receiving the promises in writing. And that is the reason, say these sources, that some of the promises that Netanyahu heard from the Americans evaporated shortly afterwards.
Again, at issue is a big mistake. What the press or ordinary people are permitted, is absolutely forbidden to the prime minister or his close associates. True, the current US administration has shown ineptitude, poor decision-making and problematic behavior. The fact that it has refused to stand behind Bush’s letters to Sharon from April 2004 undermines the basis for any discussions with them. But you don’t say this to politicians. You think this, you take this into account, but you’re careful that it not get out. As it is, the strategic relationship between Israel and the US is at an unprecedented nadir. The level of trust between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Bureau is scraping the bottom of the barrel from below. Automatic matters, such as a veto in the UN Security Council, are now promised as a freeze bribe, and even that for a pre-allotted time period. Cold water must be poured on this, not oil.
One needs to read the article by Dan Kurtzer, the former American ambassador to Israel and Obama’s adviser, which was published yesterday in the Washington Post, to understand how big a deal this is. Kurtzer warns against the deal being cooked up between the Obama administration and Netanyahu. He calls this bribery, he says that this is a mistake both for the Americans, but mainly for Israel, he points out that such a deal would even further rock the strategic basis of the relationship between the two countries. Kurtzer knows what he’s talking about.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, knows less what he’s doing. He’s now stuck with this deal, he can’t accept it or reject it, because now there is no choice. If he doesn’t pass it, he is a lame duck, a dead horse limping toward the edge of the cliff. And if he passes it? Better not to think about that now. It seems that the edge of this cliff is waiting for him on the horizon. These are the kind of impossible situations that only Netanyahu knows how to get into. Now let’s see him get out of it."
Source: Coteret
Link:http://coteret.com/2010/11/21/israeli-media-provides-a-glimpse-of-how-spin-drives-israeli-diplomacy/.
No comments:
Post a Comment