Ted Belman. This is an interesting article. Livni acknowledges how far Netanyahu was willing to go to maintain the negotiations with Abbas and clearly fingers Abbas as the prarty responsible for their surcease. This was contrary to the blame Netanyahu game the left wanted to voice. The author asks if the Livni/Herzog duo intends to offer Abbas more than the proposal he was offered by Kerry and turned down. He concludes they have no serious answer.
He writes “We know that the Likud, despite Netanyahu, will continue to drag us towards a bi-national state – a catastrophe.”. There is no truth to this whatsoever. Even if what he means is even if this isn’t the goal that Likud is striving for, their rejection of the TSS will lead us there. Netanyahu says the same thing. I disagree. Its fear mongering on both their parts. There is no way that anyone on the right would agree to that.
There was no need for a further shift to the right, in the wake of the primaries, to clearly show that the Likud comprises a strong nucleus – a majority perhaps – that is opposed to a Palestinian state. Benjamin Netanyahu is just the dress window.
The positions presented by the prime minister during the negotiations with John Kerry are a red flag in the eyes of Danny Danon, Tzipi Hotovely, Ze’ev Elkin, Yariv Levin and others. In a government with Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, and guarded by a cloak of secrecy, Netanyahu could allow himself to move closer to the 1967 lines, and expand the settlement enterprise too – but only, or almost only, within the boundaries of the existing settlement blocs.
This wouldn’t have happened under a right-wing coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties. The charge to a bi-national state would have continued. [There is no such charge.] Israel’s international standing, which has taken a series of blows in recent months, would have suffered a far more severe beating.
The Palestinians failed this week at the United Nations. But it’s a short-term failure. A change in the composition of the Security Council ensures a Palestinian victory in the next round. It’s not far off.
To Netanyahu’s credit, one can say, he realized the dangers (of Abbas going to the UN). He was more on the side of Livni and Lapid than on the side of Hotovely and Elkin. The most reliable evidence in this regard came just a few days ago from Livni. She was supposed to have badmouthed Netanyahu. She was supposed to have argued that he’s an opponent of peace. She could have blamed him for the failure of the last round of talks with the Palestinians. But, to her credit, she did something completely different.
A week ago, Roger Cohen of the New York Times published details of a conversation he had with Livni (Why Israeli-Palestinian Peace Failed). And the report is full of surprises. The subject, of course, is the peace process. Who is to blame, Cohen asks. The standard position of anyone who is not part of the prime minister’s inner circle is that Netanyahu is to blame. Senior and very senior American sources have also done their part in pointing the finger at Netanyahu. And lo and behold, Livni refuses to hop onto the bandwagon. The person responsible for tripping up the peace talks, Livni clarifies, was Mahmoud Abbas. The formula for further talks was already in place.
It was a deal that included the release of additional Palestinian prisoners, a full or partial freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, and the release of Jonathan Pollard. But the Palestinians brought everything crashing down with their appeal to the UN, which contradicted all their understandings with the US administration.
Livni also mentions the meeting at the White House, on March 17, 2014, with Abbas and Saeb Erekat. According to a report in The New Republic, Obama took the opportunity to present the American draft proposal to the Palestinian team. Not that Netanyahu had said yes; he had reservations. But he hadn’t said no. He had agreed to continue the talks based on that same draft proposal. And the Palestinians? According to Livni, they evaded the issue. According to The New Republic, the Palestinians responded in the negative, despite the fact that the draft proposal Obama presented to Abbas included the division of Jerusalem.
Saying such things in the run up to elections is most certainly an act of courage on the part of Livni, who hasn’t joined the dance of the demons against Netanyahu. At the same time, such statements require some soul-searching from Livni and her ally, Isaac Herzog. After all, they aren’t going to offer Abbas more than Obama and Kerry did. And we all know the answer already. They will indeed boost Israel’s international standing, which is important. But they will also encounter a rejectionist Palestinian position. And then where will they go?
We know that the Likud, despite Netanyahu, will continue to drag us towards a bi-national state – a catastrophe. But the center-left, one has to admit, has no serious answer. Its plan relies on Abbas; and that’s a shaky foundation. One could expect a little more from them.
@ Irving Weisdorf:
Thank you, Todah!
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
Best comment of the year! So far!
Vus ist ein “center left”? Is it a center right in need of front end adjustments?
The point is the peace process is dead – there is no Palestinian Arab peace partner and what Israel could offer is less than what than the Arabs could accept. Israel will have to soldier through as it always has. The only way the dam will break is when the Arabs see they have no hope of destroying Israel. But they won’t come to that realization for a few generations more and in the meantime every one expects the conflict to go on.
The above quote is per Debka (not a done deal but possible). This is why it is of paramount importance to vote for Bayit Yehudi.