Why Oslo still rules (But not for long)

T. Belman.  This is very depressing. Glick concludes, “Oslo will only be finally laid to rest when we compel Israel’s permanent ruling class to abandon it in favor of Zionism – and the truth.” How in the hell do we do that?

NOTE: The upcoming government will do it.

Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were able to push ahead with the Oslo Accords because the media and the legal fraternity supported their efforts to demonize its opponents, portraying Zionists as “enemies of peace.”

By Caroline B. Glick, ISRAEL HAYOM   09-17-2021

Why Oslo still rules

Shimon Peres, left, shakes hands with PLO leader Yasser Arafat at the signing of the Oslo I Accord at the White House in September 1993 as Yitzhak Rabin, second from right, looks on | Archives: Gideon Markowicz

Faisal Husseini, who held the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem portfolio, gave an interview shortly before his death in the summer of 2001 in which exposed the fraud at the heart of the Oslo process. Speaking with Al Araby newspaper, Husseini said that Yasser Arafat, his deputies and henchmen never saw the “peace process” as a way of achieving peace with Israel. Oslo for them was a means to advance their goal of destroying Israel, “from the river to the sea.”>

Husseini described the Oslo process as a “Trojan Horse.” Arafat and his people were the hostile army that infiltrated the city “in the belly of the wooden horse.” When Arafat rejected Palestinian statehood and peace at the Camp David summit in July 2000 and initiated the Palestinian terror war two months later, it was as if he and his men exited the horse and began the fight.

“This is the beginning of the real work,” Husseini explained.

The PLO used the seven years that preceded the Palestinian terror war to build up their power. Arafat held “peace” talks and Israel paid through the nose for the privilege of sitting across the table from him and his apparatchiks. Israel gave them the Gaza Strip. Israel gave them the Palestinian cities and villages in Judea and Samaria. Israel gave them weapons and ammunition. Israel gave them international legitimacy. Israel – and with Israel’s permission, the nations of the world – gave PLO terrorists billions of dollars every year. Israel permitted the EU and the CIA to arm and train Arafat’s terror legions.

Arafat promised that in exchange for all that, he would fight terror and build the institutions necessary to run a state. Instead, he and his minions transformed the cities Israel gave them into terror bases. They used the funds to finance terror armies. They used the international legitimacy Israel’s recognition conferred to escalate and expand their political war against Israel’s right to exist.

The Israeli public didn’t need Husseini’s interview to know that Oslo was gravest strategic error in Israel’s history. The first Palestinian suicide bomber blew up at a crowded bus stop seven months after Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat shook hands at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993. Between their handshake and the beginning of the Oslo war in September 2000 the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists was twice the total killed from 1967-1993.

Despite the public’s opposition, today, 28 years after Oslo’s launch, we are still living the world Oslo unleashed. The strategic and political realities the Oslo process created still dominate the life of the country. The Palestinian Authority still exists. It still finances and incites terror and wages its political war against Israel. The Oslo-obsessed “international community” still demands that Israel “make painful concessions for peace,” and together with the Israeli Left, insists that the “two-state solution” is the only possible way to resolve the Palestinians’ never-ending war for the annihilation of Israel.

For years, led by Shimon Peres, the Israeli Left dismissed public opposition to their radical, failed policy with the jeering catcall, “What’s the alternative?” – as if Israel’s only option is surrender to Palestinian terrorists in the name of “peace.”

A year ago, we caught a glimpse of the alternative: the sovereignty plan, which was supported by America. That plan showed that there is an option for governing Judea and Samaria and securing the interests of both Israel and the Palestinians that doesn’t involve empowering a terrorist organization.

As for peace, the Abraham Accords showed that the key to peace with the Arab world isn’t kowtowing to Palestinian terrorists.

The key to peace is Israel’s military, economic, diplomatic and social power. The parties to the Abraham Accords made peace with Israel because we are powerful, because Israel stubbornly defends of its rights and interests.

Last year’s glimpse of the true alternative to surrender seems like a distant dream today. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government has embraced Oslo’s tired, insipid slogans and presents them as original ideas – as if we were all born yesterday.

“Security for prosperity,” Lapid’s plan for “stabilizing” Hamas-controlled Gaza, is an attempt to repackage Oslo’s requirement that Israel give the Palestinians everything they demand up front in exchange for vague promises of Palestinian moderation sometime down the line.

In Lapid’s plan, Israel will let Hamas rebuild its missile stores and terror infrastructures by transferring astronomical quantities of civilian aid. Hamas will respond by temporarily suspending its missile attacks on Israel.

“The international community,” will guarantee Hamas doesn’t use the humanitarian id to do what it has been doing since seizing control over Gaza 15 years ago, even though “the international community,” has passively and actively supported Hamas for 15 years.

“Gaza residents,” will overthrow Hamas if it blocks prosperity by using “humanitarian aid” to build its their terror arsenals, even though the Palestinians of Gaza and Judea and Samaria support Hamas and want elections so that Hamas, which has been diverting humanitarian aid for 15 years, will oust Fatah and the PLO from power.

Although PA Chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas has no public support, he is Israel’s “legitimate partner” for peace. He’s our partner for fighting terror even though he incites and finances terror. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government is committed to expanding Abbas’s powers to empower “moderates.”

The IDF, Lapid says, can’t fight endless rounds of war with Hamas. But then again, the IDF is so powerful that he argues Israel can afford to let Hamas rebuild its arsenal and military infrastructures.

And if all this fails to convince, Lapid brought out the big guns, “international legitimacy.” Israel can’t live without “international legitimacy” and it won’t have any if it doesn’t give the Palestinians everything they demand. Anyway, it all makes sense because the only alternative is “the two-state solution.”

How is it possible after all we have been through and all we have learned and seen that we are still living in the Oslo reality?

The answer begins with name of the phony peace process: Oslo. It was a Norwegian production, not an Israeli one. In 1993, the anti-Israel Norwegian government asked two Israeli peace activists who worked at a think tank connected with then-deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin to come to Oslo to meet with senior PLO terrorists. They agreed despite the fact that Israeli law then banned all contact between Israeli citizens and PLO members.

Although they represented no one, Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak were happy to oblige and carried out negotiations as if they were Israel’s representatives. When the talks advanced to a certain point, they told Beilin about them. And he told Peres.

After Arafat, (with Israeli coaching) scuttled the official peace talks that Rabin’s representatives were holding in Washington, Peres told Rabin. Whether unwilling to get into an open battle with Peres that could potentially bring down his government, or hopeful that something positive might come from the anti-democratic exercise, Rabin agreed to make the Oslo deal official policy.

The public opposed Oslo from the beginning. To get the Oslo deals approved by Knesset, Rabin required the support of the anti-Zionist Arab parties. Once the ultra-Orthodox Shas party left his government, to survive Rabin needed to entice two lawmakers from the far-right Tzomet party to bolt their party, and abandon their ideology. He bought them off with a ministry and a deputy ministry and got the second Oslo deal through Knesset with a one-vote majority.

Rabin and Peres were able to push ahead with Oslo because the media and the legal fraternity supported their efforts to demonize its opponents. Zionists became “enemies of peace,” collaborators with Hamas and Fatah. Rabin coined the term “murderers of peace.” Opposition leaders who gave firmly documented heart-rending speeches against Oslo were accused of “incitement.” Victims of Palestinian terror were dubbed “victims of peace.”

When Ariel Sharon became prime minister at the height of the Palestinian terror war, he opted to end the media’s demonization of him by joining the Oslo mob. Arguing that things look different from the Prime Minister’s Office, Sharon adopted the Left’s policy of mass expulsions of law-abiding Israeli citizens from their homes in Gaza. True, Sharon was reelected in a landslide in 2003 by running against the Left’s expulsions platform. But he didn’t care. He expelled 10,000 Israelis from their homes in 2005 and 18 months later, as he had previously warned would happen, Hamas seized control of Gaza. The media swooned.

Benjamin Netanyahu preferred to ignore Oslo in the hopes that it would wither on the vine and disappear in the face of the success of the diplomatic alternative he built on the basis of Israel’s strength. Despite the wild success of his efforts, Oslo survived the sovereignty plan and the Abraham accords, and of course, Netanyahu’s tenure in office. And now it is roaring back.

In pre-Yom Kippur interviews, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett echoed Sharon when he said he left his ideology and political positions behind when he entered the Prime Minister’s Office. Tuesday night, Bennett’s sidekick, Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked warned of growing “incitement and extremism.”

The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government is sort of a Rabin-Peres government on steroids. Rabin bought his right-wing turncoats with one ministry and one deputy ministry. Bennett was able to extort a two-year premiership and Gideon Sa’ar got to be Justice Minister. The Rabin-Peres government needed the anti-Zionist Arab parties to pass the Oslo deals. The Lapid-Gantz-Bennett government needs the anti-Zionist Arab parties for everything. And like the Rabin-Peres government, the current government owes its survival to the wall to wall support it receives from the media and the legal fraternity.

This is the heart of the matter. Oslo has survived despite the fact that it has been a catastrophe for Israel on every level for 28 years because Israel’s permanent ruling class supports it.

In the early years of Oslo, I was a witness to the process that brought Israel’s diplomatic and military leaders, along with the senior civil service to put reality aside, and embrace Oslo’s illusion of peace. During Oslo’s heyday, from 1994-1996, as an IDF captain in the Defense Ministry, I served as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team. I sat in the negotiating sessions in Cairo, Taba and Eilat.

The fraud was obvious even then. Every two weeks, I wrote and circulated detailed reports setting out how the Palestinian officials left the negotiating halls each week and ordered their people to breach every promise and pledge they had just made in the halls. I documented the fraud, the Oslo lie. And I saw how one by one, commanders and senior officials who understood the danger and knew the truth embraced “the new narrative” while ignoring the facts in most cases.

We won’t be able to bury Oslo at the ballot box – although winning elections is a precondition for burying it. Oslo will only be finally laid to rest when we compel Israel’s permanent ruling class to abandon it in favor of Zionism – and the truth.

December 15, 2022 | 23 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

23 Comments / 23 Comments

  1. It took me a while to realize that the comments were all from September. It’s as if nothing has changed since then.
    If we cannot all agree that the “Palestinians” never acted in good faith, we are all on the wrong page here. We all know that no-one in the world cares about the state of Israel except the few hi-tech companies that get a leg up from Israeli innovation. The rest, including our “friend” and big brother US, our “conscience” friends in the EU and especially the UK and all the rest who take the path of least resistance by avoiding trouble with the Arabs, couldn’t care less if Israel were to vanish from the scene, at best without a whimper.
    Sure, Caroline is right when she says that the unelected “ruling class” in Israel needs to change its spots and stripes or get off the box. That might happen with the incoming Bibi government and I can only pray that they don’t lose their way due to all the international pressure from the above mentioned friends. I, for one, will be keeping an eye on them.

  2. It is probable that the majority of Israeli Jews wousd prefer a government that took a tougher line with Arab terrorists and rioters, did not permit an Arab state or even a quasi-state in the disputed territories, did more to promote Jewish settlements in them, and was willing to extend Israeli law into, or even annex, some land in the disputed territories. Dr. Sherman has pointed out that most of the parties that have one elections and formed the government after them campaigned on “hard-line” promises of this kind, but once in office failed to implement these promises, and instead adopted the “peace” policies demanded of Israel by the United States, Europe, the uN, etc, and by the left-dominated media, academic community and lawyers’ fraternity-sorority within Israel. Each government has broken its campaign promises to the Israeli people and knuckled under to pressures both from foreign governments and the left-dominated establishments within Israel.

  3. If it is true that Gantz has “greenlighted” an Arab settlement inside Gush Etzion, then he is unqualified for the position of Minister of Defense. This will place a time bomb under the security of the “settlers” in Gush Etzion.

  4. @Peloni, after this comment I will stop debating this 5th election point with you. I understood previously that you believe a 5th election would have been or could have a different result.

    I clearly disagree and so did the people who have deep insight knowledge on the subject including those are involved in the polling. This includes the pollsters for the relevant right wing parties, to which I on occasion communicate with.

  5. There is zero evidence of this was more than a remote possibility. …Four previous elections are a stronger indicator that this not the case.

    @Bear, this recent election gave the right their highest majority, yet, moreso than each of the previous 3 elections. While it is true that many have said, as you have, that there would be no benefit in another round of elections, I do not believe that was ever true and it isn’t wishful thinking. I have no reason to think the public would be more bent towards Lapid’s Oslo yearnings following the recent Gaza war handled by Bibi and Gantz. In fact, it was a very strong moment for the Right, I believe. Saar had made a move against the right by blocking the govt forming. He would have paid a price or perhaps unseated Bibi(unlikely but possible). Either way, the right had plenty of seats to form a govt, which was clearly incontestable, and only Saar’s feud with Bibi prevented the govt from forming. The Right didn’t lose the election, so much as they couldn’t accept their victory. I believe a 5th election could definitely have been successful for the Right, though not necessarily. It isn’t what took place, but it was no wishful thinking, unless you think Bibi could not have budged Saar’s supporters in the face of Saar’s defiance to even accept the PMship to form a govt with Bibi. I suspect that Saar angered many who supported him, but perhaps this is not so. In any case, as Bennett took Lapid’s offer, we will never know.

    I think Bibi has made it clear, he will never step down on his own, regardless of anyone’s desires to be rid of him. I would be surprised if Barkat can unseat him, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out as there are many princes circling the waters about Bibi, once again.

  6. @Adam perhaps since the editing on this blog is difficult and time sensitive you may want to copy stuff to Word and edit it there. Then copy and paste your edited Word document to Israpundit.

    Just an idea.

  7. @Peloni, you believed a fifth election would have a different result. I understood that was your belief by your previous comment. There is zero evidence of this was more than a remote possibility.

    It is more likely wishful thinking at best. Israeli polls did not indicate that. The polls had gotten very accurate do 4 elections within a two year period.

    Four previous elections are a stronger indicator that this not the case.
    Only if Bibi were to step aside as head of the Likud would this have been likely. He indicated that he intended to keep leading the Likud.

    If he retires there will be a serious possibility of having a strong nationalist government. So I suggest Nir Barkat be helped by all who want a capable leader as head of the Likud and expedite Bibi’s retirement.

  8. T. Belman wrote, “This is very depressing. Glick concludes, “Oslo will only be finally laid to rest when we compel Israel’s permanent ruling class to abandon it in favor of Zionism – and the truth.” How in the hell do we do that?”

    To answer TB’s question…We do not do that, (compel the ruling elite to change). It cannot be done. The answer is that these idiots and monsters must be taken out of positions of authority, and safeguards must be put in place, so that they, and their ilk, can never come back. This does not just apply to the “One State Solution”, but to a myriad of Leftish ideas and policies which are reeking havoc on the world. I know that’s a tall order.

  9. Ted, I will avoid overly long comments in the future, and instead provide links to the these articles and perhaps brief summaries of their main points. I ended up posting these excessively long reprints because my efforts to edit them, and remove the extraneous material failed. For whatever reason, my intention of only typing brief quotations from these articles failed, because the source documents I was attempting to quote refused to “cooperate.” Even so, I will be careful to avoid this happening again.

    With respect to my comments about “moral cowardice,” I don’t think they were overly long. I hope that you will find some way of locating them and reposting them. Thanks again.

  10. Adam
    During Yom Kippur, Israpundit was migrated to another host server.. I am surprised to hear that comments were lost as a result. It should not have been.

    I also see that you have gone overboard in posting huge comments in the last few days. Please limit your self to links and your comments.

  11. These things maybe of little interest to you or even viewed negatively but many many Israelis have a different view.

    That is not fair, Bear. Every nation, just as every person, has a great need of a budget, and the needs of the military are pivotal to any society, especially one that exists among such hostile neighbors, both near and far, as Israel. I also believe that social reforms are important, but they should reflect the will of the majority rather than the will of the minority, especially just after an election. I think now, as I did last summer that a 5th round was the better option than Bennett’s experiment which empowers the Left and the Brotherhood, both against the public’s will. I don’t believe this was Bennett’s plan, as I think he expected members of the Right to defect to him to support his input in his govt, but that seems not to have occurred. Yet, he seems to be holding to this Leftist govt, in spite of it not pursuing the 10 steps to the right rhetoric Bennett spoke of, though I never gave much credence to that.

    My views were, however, not based on any view that Israel does not have a need for a functioning govt, a budget or a well financed military, and I certainly don’t view pursuing those matters negatively. Rather my motivation, was based upon a belief that Israel, like all modern democracies, including parliamentary and non-parliamentary democracies, should be represented by a govt that actually represents the will of her public, which this current govt of Lapid, which includes Meretz and the Brotherhood, in my opinion, does not remotely succeed in attempting.

    Bennett formed a govt with a Right wing minority, which has a limited authority over his Leftist partners. To contrast this current reality, the most recent election provided for a vast right wing majority, though the squabbles of little minds did prevent the formation of a functional majority. Hence, Bennett’s experiment as you describe it, is a govt overwhelmingly made up of Leftists, Meretz and Abbas – in stark contrast to the body the public actually supported.

    I do believe, this recent election provided a different mix from the election previous to it, ie further to the right, and the 5th might have proven similar results or not. I believe it would have, actually, been an election that would have made the dilemma between Saar and Bibi quite pivotal, I think, which would have had a cost to one or the other, or perhaps each, who knows. But a fifth election could have resulted in a govt that more closely represented the public’s choice than this current experiment, even if the public chose a Leftist majority, which is not slightly likely I believe. I believe Bennett’s support of the Left has gained them many disproportionate benefits which disadvantage the state and goes against the will of the people as seen by the election results. Just my opinion of course, and perhaps you will disagree with this statement. In any case, this is a more fair representation of my thoughts than what you have suggested.

  12. Ted–just before Yom Kippur, Bear and I posted an interesting exchange on the question of whether the Bennett -Gantz -Lapid government would take military action to stop Iran from getting the bomb, now that authroitative sources say it is only a few weeks away from making one.Now this entire exchange has disappered from the comment space of Israpundit where it was originally published. Could you please fih our exchange of comments out of the trash or spam netherworld in which it presumably fell, and “resurrect” it in this comments space?
    Many thanks for helping with this.

    In a comment space, I wrote that the Bennett-Gantz-Lapid government would not have the guts to mount a major military strike against Iran and destroy their nuclear capability.

    In reply, Bear pointed out that Bennett, Gantz and Lapid all had str=sterling military records, all had risked their lives in battle many times, and it was therefore unjust and false to call them cowards.

    I replied to Bear’s point by explaining that I was spealing of moral cowardice, not physical cowardice. A man can be brave when confronting terrorists on a battlefield, even at the risk of his life, while still quailing before powerful foreign governments, the “deep state” within his own government, the press, etc. Rahter than angering these people, a moral coward will submit to their demands. What he fears is not death or physical injury but criticism that will damage his reputation and public image, and perhaps force him from office. He may also fear that his wife and children will be criticized and their reputations damaged. He would rather place his country in jeopardy them have to face harsh criticism and rejection from people he looks up to and whose political support he desires.

    In my opinion, the leaders of Israel’s government have demonstrated this kind of moral cowardice when they announced that they could “live with” the Obama-Biden deal with Iran. This deal will put Israel in mortal peril if Iran makes a public show of returning to it and the U.S. resumes economic and diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran will have the bomb and may well at some point use it to destroy Israel.

  13. The following is a valid view on the current government good and bad.

    For two years, Israel was in socio-political chaos, which escalated to the point of undermining its internal and external stability and security. This crisis was compounded when the global pandemic erupted wreaking havoc in its wake.

    The main accomplishment of the first 100 days of the Bennett-Lapid government is the return to political normalcy. At times, it seems that Bennett is not the prime minister, rather a caretaker minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, who has had to relinquish any and all ministerial whim to continue holding the coveted post.

    Nevertheless, it seems that rather than taking up 100% of the news cycle, Israeli politics has shrunk back to a saner size.

    The dialogue led by Bennett and Lapid is responsible and respectful. Thanks to that, the state budget stands to pass in a few weeks, and the government will finally be able to pursue policy moves.

    Perhaps, after proving stability and potentially expanding, the government will also be able to deal with the ticking time bombs that are the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Iran. Unfortunately, the hazard that is the Palestinian Authority’s takeover of Area C is likely to be sidelined, especially when Defense Minister Benny Gantz greenlights the formation of an Arab village in the heart of Gush Etzion.

    When you decide to stitch together a coalitionist at all cost, ideology may be stretched too thin and you could find that you are vulnerable to pressure by any minister and any sector.

    When you choose normalcy at any cost, despite a record number of individuals who test positive for the coronavirus, you place lives in harm’s way and have to deal with fatalities.

    Resuming the county’s daily routine was a must and it was the right policy move for the government’s 100 days grace period. Normalcy. But it cannot, under any circumstances, be a condition of going forward.

    Shaked Bennett’s partner in their party has indicated in public that if Lapid tries to negotiate towards a Pal State, he will find he has no government so the coalition will fall. So it will not be government at all costs.

  14. @Peloni your views on the fifth election are really completely disproved by the four previous elections showing that a Bibi lead Likud was unable to form a government.

    I realize that you and I see the situation very differently. I also appreciate your deeply held views but reality says until Bibi is gone from leading the Likud, the current government however less than ideal it is, has passed a budget, is functioning on military issues and on social medical issues. These things maybe of little interest to you or even viewed negatively but many many Israelis have a different view.

  15. I like to think that when we return to a right wing government that it will proceed with right wing agenda. namely
    1. to extend sovereignty to all of Area C and
    2. to pursue making Israel the State of the Jews and
    3. making the government sovereign over the the High Court and the beauracracy.
    .. This would have great significance to who rules Area C, Min of Defense or the government of Israel.

    Unfortunately even a right wing government is not prepared to risk losing the US veto or support. Also it still would support the PA as a means to suppress Hamas. The talk of quitting Oslo among right wingers is very quiet. They still see it as useful in some ways.

  16. Status-Quo in other words

    I appreciate your input here, and I do recognize this has been a result of the growing power of the anyone but Bibi crowd which gained a plurality that Bennett joined in his “experiment for the greater good of Israelis” as you describe it. To distinguish my own views, here, it will likely not surprise you that I see this experiment performing not as a glass half empty but much less full than that. Maintaining the status quo of the past was never a reality and, as I see it, we are well past that point as I noted with all the gains made by the Left to which I am including the Arabs in this comment. For my views, I don’t see this govt maintaining the status quo – the return of the Left to dominate the govt ministries and for the first time including the Muslim Brotherhood all by themselves seem well beyond any rationale of status quo and each of these steps are much more than symbolic. Further than this, I see the actions of the govt pursing much of what I described earlier as establishing a completely new status quo which will have a considerable consequence in Israel’s future, not the least of which includes the massive increase in govt sheckels being spent on the Arabs which was won and distributed via the Muslim Brotherhood in the streets of Israel. Also, Bennett’s moves to advantage J&S are now established as linked to Arab squatter rights, which is a heinous development, another new first that will have a consequence in the future.

    You may be proven correct about Bennett/Lapid blocking the US move on the Pal consulate, but I very much don’t believe this is the case, but we will see. Regrettable as it might have been, I think if a 5th election had been held, the results could only have improved the situation over this current Left wing dominated govt where the members of the Right seems to be overwhelmed by these Leftists in power, voice and gains.

    We are where we are, of course, but I see this situation as far less happy than a status quo of the past, but rather the establishment of a new status quo between Bennet and Lapid in which I find Bennett, with his still small band of Right wingers being very much disadvantaged in this current bargain.

  17. Israel’s Bennett says no Palestinian state as long as he is prime minister
    On visit to United States, Israeli premier also said he would continue to expand existing settlements in the West Bank

  18. @Peloni, my view is Bennett did something brave that he knew would be opposed many right-wingers. Israel was dysfunctional and could not pass a budget for the many needs of the country which includes, enhancing the IDF and security services, building new hospitals among the many things needed that could not happen without a budget.

    He chose an experiment for the greater good of Israelis. Yes this restricts right-wing victories but perhaps life in Israel is much more that. For those on both the left and right who have never lived in Israel they do not relate to this. The status quo is prevailing in areas that the right and left parts of the government can not agree.

    Some right-wingers will always see this government as the glass half empty because of the inclusion of left-wingers in it. Bennett had a choice form a government or allow the country to wallow into fifth, sixth or………….elections and stay in limbo.

    This government has been in office 100 days and it is has not solved all the ills of the country including land confiscation in areas by Arabs.
    In my view this government is far from perfect but it is functioning and overall doing Israel far more good than harm.

    Bennett has beaten back the Biden Administration’s hopes to start up active talks of a Palestinian State by his clear statement that he has NO interest in such an entity being created. Lapid has the same view as most Israelis that Jerusalem will not be divided again and it is sovereign Israel territory and a US Consulate for Palestinians has no place in Jerusalem. He has stated this very publicly and so far the US is not willing to push against this too hard. I do not like Gantz and how he talks but his actual actions with the military as DM have been positive (this reflected in operations the IDF has taken). Israel has stated in the open it is planning more actions against the Iranian nuke program.

    Bennett does NOT speak of land for peace. He rejects that concept. He is believes in an economic peace with Israel controlling all the land with the IDF in charge. He wants to extend sovereignty in Judea/Samaria but recognizes that this is not possible now. NOR is the giving up of any territory. Status-Quo in other words.

  19. @Bear

    He says this to one and all.

    Yet, he supports his Left wing allies in this govt where they redefine the meaning of anti-semetism, speaks daily of the return of land for peace, gives lands to the Bedouin and large caches of funds to the local Muslim Brotherhood, all while stipulating that building in J&S is linked to Arab squatters in Area C and acquiescing to another delay upon sovereignty. I do like what Bennett says, but his actions in supporting this govt has resulted in strong gains for an ideology that his words openly oppose, even as his support acts as the linchpin upon which this govt continues to exist. I’ll ignore the Iran topic as much could be happening out of view, though I smell something unpleasant in Gantz’ comments, to which I noted a lack of any response from Bennett. What gains has the Right to balance these benefits for the Left? I know you don’t support much of these Leftist gains, but this is a serious question. The Left lost the election outright on their own, and only due to the generous support which Bennett/Saar has afforded them, do the Left wield the great power and voice they exercise today. Perhaps, I am just too distracted by the losses to the Left in this hodgepodge govt, but I do not see the gains for the Right in anything.

  20. Oslo will only be finally laid to rest when we compel Israel’s permanent ruling class to abandon it in favor of Zionism – and the truth.” How in the hell do we do that?

    When Bibi finally retires perhaps Israel will get that broad right wing/ religious government with a leader who like Bennett says now that a Palestinian State would be a disaster. He says this to one and all.