What exactly does Kadima and Labour reject in Bibi’s position
Livni backed out of negotiations on Friday because in her words Bibi didn’t want a two-state solution. But what Bibi is against is summarized
“A final agreement will see the Palestinians having the full authority to run their lives, …But do you want them to have control of the air space, their own army, the right for them to make alliances with other states like Iran, or control over borders that would allow for weapons imports? I won’t stand for it.”
Does this disagreement mean that Livni is willing to cede these things to them?
Barak and Mofaz not closing door on joining unity government
THE JERUSALEM POST
A day after Kadima leader Tzipi Livni told Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu that she will not bring her party into his government, both her Kadima rival, Shaul Mofaz, and Labor chairman Ehud Barak engendered hope that a national-unity government can still be formed.
Sources close to Barak said they expected pressure on Labor to join the government-in-formation to grow over the next few days, creating an atmosphere that would make it difficult for the party’s leaders to refuse generous offers from the Likud.
Likud officials have been lobbying Labor MKs intensely in recent days and have made it clear that more than half of the party’s 13 MKs could be ministers or deputy ministers.
They have also emphasized that Barak was badly needed in the Defense Ministry due to the looming Iranian threat.
“In the next few days, Barak could say that at such a fateful time it would be irresponsible to allow Netanyahu to form a right-wing government that could endanger the country’s future,” a Barak confidant predicted on Saturday night.
“He is not ready to say it yet, but pressure will grow over the next few days. Reality will require us to join in the end, but meanwhile we have to play it cool.”
Barak’s associates stressed that he had not yet made a decision about whether to join the government, but they said that if he did decide to join, eight or nine Labor MKs would support him, perhaps even including MK Ophir Paz-Pines, one of the most vocal opponents of Labor entering a Netanyahu coalition.
One senior Labor official stressed over the weekend that serving as second fiddle in an opposition led by Kadima would render the already-dwindling party completely irrelevant.
“Our possibility is between quick suicide with Netanyahu or slow death with Livni,” he said.
On the other side of the table, sources close to Netanyahu admitted that he preferred Labor to Kadima in his coalition all along, but that he had been aware it would be tough for Barak to persuade his party to join the government if it did not get at least 15 seats, and it won only 13.
Likud officials said they were also still hoping that Mofaz could force Livni to form a coalition negotiating team.
Mofaz will push Livni to form such a team - or at least appoint a mediator - in Monday’s Kadima faction meeting. His confidants said that Kadima ministers had finally realized since Livni turned down Netanyahu on Friday that this was their last chance to speak up and prevent the party from going to the opposition.
“What the Likud offered can certainly be a basis for talks,” Mofaz said in closed conversations over the weekend. “The people want unity and before you slam the door on it, you have to at least check whether we can find common ground with the Likud.”
Mofaz said over the weekend “he was convinced that the party will still join the coalition. Good sense will win out. The diplomatic issue was not an excuse to not join.
“Netanyahu will talk to the Palestinians and try to reach a deal with them. He knows that this is his last opportunity. When he gets to the White House and talks to Obama it will lead to him removing outposts.
“He knows he needs the world’s support, because what matters most to Netanyahu is the Iranian threat,” Mofaz added. “As long as he is willing to do that and to change the governmental system, there is no reason to stay out of the government.”
Livni reportedly met with Mofaz and other members of Kadima who opposed the decision to go into the opposition, telling them that should Israel decide to attack Iran, Kadima would throw its support behind Netanyahu’s administration.
This flurry of events followed the collapse of talks between Likud and Kadima after Friday’s meeting between Netanyahu and Livni, billed as a last-ditch attempt to form a unity government, ended without a breakthrough.
Livni said Netanyahu failed to make a commitment that his government’s platform would include pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution.
“I came for a second meeting with the Likud leader to hear his vision and the way he believes is correct,” Livni said after the meeting in Tel Aviv. “Israel is facing challenges and I told him that Kadima would support the correct moves made by the government.
“But to deal with the challenges, I wanted three basic principles that you [already] know about,” she told reporters. “Two states for two peoples is not an empty slogan. It is the only way Israel can remain Jewish and fight terrorism. It’s a fundamental issue.”
Livni said a unity government would have been possible provided it included plans for a two-state solution, changes to the electoral system, and Interior Ministry reforms.
She lamented, however, that Netanyahu was not committed on those subjects, and pledged to be “a responsible” opposition.
“This meeting has ended without agreements on issues that I see as essential,” she said. “There could be a government that advances these issues. At the moment, based on the discussions I held in the adjacent room, that government won’t be Netanyahu’s.”
Nevertheless, Netanyahu said after the meeting that he had been “prepared to go very far” to form a unity government, indicating that, despite her pre- and post-election promises, Livni did not have such “willingness for unity,” which he said was particularly vital now, considering the escalating Iranian threat and growing unemployment.
Netanyahu insisted that he had offered her “full partnership” in setting the new government’s guidelines.
“Unity requires compromise and I was prepared to go in that direction,” he said. “I also offered an equal number of ministries, including two out of the top three, I said I intended to move peace negotiations forward, and that we would act to advance civil unions and to introduce electoral reforms.”
“If there’s a will, there’s a way; and if there is a will, there is unity,” he continued.
“In my opinion, the gaps can be bridged, but I was met with total rejection and a refusal to even agree to set up dialogue teams in order to strike a partnership,” he said. “I didn’t find that Livni had the willingness for unity.”
Kadima has no political intra-party institutions to force Livni to change directions and even if she joins coalition. she gets to choose what members of Kadima get to be ministers. Nobody who wants a position will cross her today. Kadima owes her relative success to Livni as well so she seems to be holding all the power cards. She is holding out for BB to agree to rotation format with ea. BB and Livni sharing PM job even if it’s BB first. No ideology here just lust for power and the office of PM.
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Kadima’s strategy:
Israel’s politics is unfortunately way too easy to understand: the left and the secular right both suck, and the people can’t do anything about it, so every couple of years they throw out the current bunch of bums and replace them with the other bunch of bums.
To illustrate, Bibi didn’t win last time (against Olmert), so he won this time (against Livni). And Livni knows that her not winning this time guarantees that she will win next time.
And she also is making the fairly safe bet that next time will be pretty soon.
For even before Netanyahu takes office, the leftist dominated mainstream Israeli media are joining all the gentile world media in demonizing Netanyahu and Lieberman: hard-line, far right, hawkish, ultra-nationalist, racist.
Consider the orwellian nature of it all: Livni wanting Israel to commit suicide, expel real Jews from Yesha, and give Jerusalem to Hamas, while dividing Israel in two so that Hamas can transport missiles from Gaza to the West Bank more easily is “moderate”, while Netanyahu being reluctant to surrender and hinting he may use some small degree of force in self-defense if attacked, is “hardline, ultra-nationalist”.
It’s way past time to wake up and smell the arab coffee: the goyim fully intend to destroy Israel. And by their statements, this would seem to include, Obama, Clinton, and Blair.
Comment by Samuel Fistel — March 1, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Yea, maybe but they have to go through me first!!
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Imagine if, when asked if he supported a two-state solution by those who wish to corner him, Bibi was able to answer honestly and unhesitatingly “yes”. Imagine if his disclaimer was one only of geography, i.e., the borders of a nascent Palestinian state. After all, no one at the moment — not Livni, not Hilary — can say where, precisely, that nascent state will begin and where it will end.
Imagine if Bibi had the courage to tell the US and the Europeans that the notion of Israel surrendering J&S was off the table — permanently. That it was simply untenable for reasons of security and resources for there to be two (belligerent) states shimmed between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean. All of the strategic studies prepared over the years by the IDF, the Joint Chiefs and military think-tanks could be rolled out once again in support of this assertion.
Imagine if Bibi had the vision to offer a truly workable “two-state solution” — one that neuters the Israeli left and accommodates the genuine needs of the two peoples without jeopardizing Israel’s security. A plan that meets, in every way, the ostensible requirements of the international community, i.e, a viable and contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel. But a plan that denies the international Jew-haters and Arabs a platform with which to destroy Israel.
Imagine if Bibi had the integrity to explain that this was Israel’s best and final offer to settle the Middle East conflict. That the alternative was eternal war, i.e., (long after Obama has relocated back to Hyde Park).
Now imagine that the US State Department responds by recommending that Obama end the sale of military spares to Israel and abstains when a resolution calling for sanctions advances in the UNSC. Assuming such action could win approval in Congress, Israel’s economy suffers and her conventional defense capabilities are damaged via attrition. Israel is now reliant on her unconventional arsenal for survival.
The Arabs will of course, miscalculate and respond with classic strategic stupidity by moving against Israel as they did in 1967 and 1973. And as in 1973, the US would face the same decision Kissinger faced: resupply or witness a nuclear war in the Middle East. Obama will be forced to choose the former. Israel will defeat the Arabs yet again (with new territorial conquests) and we will be back to the future.
That is when Bibi’s offer will be accepted by all parties.
Comment by Charles Martel — March 1, 2009 @ 11:32 am
As I’ve often commented, Livni is confused, quixotic, and dangerous. Like Olmert and much of the left, she is so desperate to appease the US and Europeans and remove the Arabs from her field of vision that she fails utterly, to consider the implications of her platform.
So the answer to your question is, yes, she is willing to cede these things.
Comment by Charles Martel — March 1, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Martel:
Imagine, if I were so bold to politely enquire as to what you had in mind when suggesting a “truly workable two-state solution that meets the need of both peoples?”
Imagine, if you responded by refraining to include any snide personal attacks on the enquirer?
Comment by h peskin — March 1, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Fistel:
Fistel, where would Israel be without the Goyim-namely the Americans-when in 1973 during the Arab onslought, a plea was made for replacement military parts which allowed Israel to repel the attackers? Israel was saved then.
The American goyim have been the major contributor to the survival of Israel ever since. We all know that. Please keep that fact in mind.
Comment by h peskin — March 1, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
I don’t think the right approach is to just say “no” to a two state solution. This would bring on a major confrontation and not solve the problem of what to do with the Palestinians. Should we annex the territories and give the Palestinians a right to citizenship or should be try to fashion a limited autonomy as Bibi is working toward.
Tactically I agree with Bibi. But Bibi has been silent on the borders for the autonomy. We could call it a province rather than a state with limited sovereignty. Whether that autonomy is a province within Israel like Kurdistan is a province within Iraq or whether it is a reichlet outside of Israel but limited as Bibi proposes is yet to be determined.
I am against transferring Jews out of the territories. If they have a reichlet or province, borders matter less. People matter. Arabs would vote for their government, Jews for theirs. This matter will sort itself out over time.
But at least Bibi keeps the dialogue going with all options open. The West says it is dedicated to Israel’s security so Bibi can argue on what Israel’s security needs are and he can stick to it. Once we focus on our security we are putting borders and Jerusalem on the back burner and out of view.
Comment by Ted Belman — March 1, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
I outlined the proposal a few weeks ago here. I believe you and celia responded with the hysterical claim that I was suggesting Israel move the poor pitiful Palestinians to a “reservation”.
Ted has also posted a variation authored by Giora Eiland.
Comment by Charles Martel — March 1, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
I happen to agree with Ted Belman - Israel can never offer the Palestinians full sovereignty without signing its death warrant. What matters is not the title of a Palestinian entity but what powers it will have and its relationship to Israel. Again as Yamit will tell you as I have, the dispute is not about land. It was, it would have been settled long ago. The real dispute is about the Arab refusal to accept a Jewish State within ANY conceivable set of borders within what used to be Mandatory Palestine. In a true political solution, both sides are not going to get 100% of what they want. Yet the Palestinians demand exactly that and if Israel conceded, they still wouldn’t agree to terminate the conflict and give up further claims upon Israel. The most dovish Israeli governments have not been able to get that crucial concession from the Palestinians - so talks about the most contentious issues under dispute are a sideshow from the real issue every one evades - the issue of Israel’s existence. Without addressing it, any talks regarding a so-called two state solution are doomed to failure.
Comment by NormanF — March 1, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Peskin there is no solution that both sides can agree to. This is where every argument posted by almost every commenter here has fallen on their asses. No realistic or equitable solution. Unless we leave or they leave. We can live with their irredentist terror for as long as it takes, if we don’t drive them out we can live with current status quo forever. We loose 400 to 500 people every year in auto accidents so what’s 20- or 30 more a year. They are not yet an existential threat. As long as IDF controls the West Bank and the borders, we can control it all. Gaza is a lot easier, small confined areas with terrain to our advantage.
Ted and Charles the security defense argument is the worst one as in fact there isn’t any based on our geography. Rockets missiles, mortars and artillery can be moved ranges and accuracy improved walls can be shot over climbed over and dug under. walls must also be patrolled and monitored, requires lots of manpower. Moving a common border line a few miles this or that way is not defensive. 10-20 mile narrow waist opposite Netanya, is an invitation for war. In asymmetrical warfare it is essential to move the enemies capabilities as far away from major population centers as possible, not bring them closer where they are in rock throwing range.
We must move the argument if one is to be made from defense which has become an undefined platitude to rights , our rights , and the logic of transfer of the Arabs in Israel Gaza and the west bank out of our immediate proximity, where we are far enough out of their killing range. So it isn’t an easy task or for Peskin moral, ethical or palatable to Big brother. I ain’t so happy with what they are doing either. As Charles said what are they going to do? I would suggest we wait till Americas economy really implodes where the only thing on Americas plate is how to stem the unrest and angst against Obama and Congress, to retake both all of the territories and start to move them out with or without compensation. We can pay them off with worthless dollars. American, Canadian, or Australian!
Peskin
Sorry Peskin, Europe wouldn’t allow American flyovers or use of American bases in resupply and by the time the first shipments arrive the 3rd Army was surrounded and we were already feeding it and watering it. Our forces were on the east of the Suez and the WAR WAS OVER!!!! Pls. learn history from proper sources other than Pravda and the now BANKRUPT NYT.( Big Smile)
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Hyman,
I think you confused Martel with me. I’m the “snide personal attacks” guy.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — March 2, 2009 @ 3:27 am
Here is an interesting news report from about 2 hrs. ago:
An in your face finger to The Great One and Hillary!!!!
New Building Plans for Judea and Samaria Expected
Reported: 09:59 AM - Mar/02/09
(IsraelNN.com) A government under Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to approve new building plans for Judea and Samaria, according to Army radio Monday. The plan includes 73,000 new housing units.
Out of the 73,000 units, 19,000 are outside of the current separation fence. In addition, 3,000 are planned for the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim.
Comment by yamit82 — March 2, 2009 @ 4:17 am