Lapid is dreaming. Abbas will never agree to an interim agreement on these terms. The issue of demilitarization and IDF presence in “Palestine” was not discussed. While I think Bibi would like an interim agreement that permits him to build anywhere in the land we keep, Abbas will object to our building in Jerusalem. An interim agreement serves the purpose of evacuating Jews in stages. first the Jews outside of the settlement blocs with some exceptions. They will number just under 100,000 with more to come with the permanent agreement. That would be the purpose of the disengagement otherwise known as convergence. An interim agreement is only possible if we gave them much of what they want. This I don’t want to happen. Ted Belman
Yair Lapid is not only the finance minister; he is also a member of the Political-Security Cabinet, and his opinions on these issues may be crucial when the time comes to make decisions. Lapid does not reveal these opinions often. Last week I spoke with him about his diplomatic viewpoints.
“I believe in a ‘two states for two peoples’ solution. I do not think there is anything more dangerous than the idea of a binational state. The goal of a binational state is shared by the extreme Left and the extreme Right,” he told me. “I am not there. I’m a Zionist.”
This is a general statement, I said. What should be done in the near future? “We seek an interim agreement,” Lapid replied. According to him, striving for a final peace agreement is impractical. Israel should therefore agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. A state with temporary borders? I was puzzled, as the Palestinians had rejected this concept out of hand. “They rejected it because they feared the temporary would become permanent,” Lapid said.
In order to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiation table, Obama must ratify former President Bush’s letter to former Prime Minister Sharon – the letter which led Israel to adopt the American “road map” for peace. [THIS IS WRONG. IT LEAD TO THE DISENGAGEMENT.] At the same time, Lapid said, Obama must set a timeframe for talks on the permanent borders – three years from now. This way, Lapid explained, the temporary Palestinian state will really be temporary.
The minister does not believe a permanent agreement with the Palestinians would signal the end of the conflict. According to him, ending the conflict would require a solution to two core issues – Jerusalem and the refugees. These issues, Lapid said, are why the negotiations have always hit an impasse. Therefore, he claims, it is preferable to put these issues on the back burner and make do with something that is less than an end to the conflict.
The agreements you seek with the Palestinians, I noted, will lead to the mass evacuation of settlements. Do you expect the Netanyahu government to authorize such an evacuation? Lapid posits that his Yesh Atid party, Hatnua and numerous members of Likud-Beiteinu would vote in favor of such an agreement. Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi party, Lapid claims, will quit the government only after an actual withdrawal is decided on. It will not leave the coalition while negotiations are ongoing.
And what about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? Lapid is more concerned about the Palestinian leader. “Abu Mazen,” he said, “Is still not mentally prepared for an agreement with Israel – not for a full agreement and not for a partial one.” The minister described Abbas as “one of the founders of the Palestinian victimhood concept, which is the main obstacle on the road to reconciliation.”
Is Bibi mentally prepared for a compromise? I asked. “Yes,” Lapid answered, somewhat hesitant. Netanyahu, he estimates, is currently fighting for his place in Israeli history, and he also understands that this place will not be influenced by this or that response to a mortar shell fired from Gaza, but by his ability, as a leader, to reach a lasting agreement with the Palestinian people. This is why it is safe to assume that he will ‘go for it.’
Lapid is not the only one who believes this. Sources close to the prime minister, currently and in the past, speak of his growing willingness to take a dramatic unilateral step for the Palestinians in case the proposal for temporary borders and an interim agreement does not reach the implementation stage. According to the sources, Bibi is closer than ever to reaching a decision on a unilateral withdrawal near the separation fence, without getting anything in return from the Palestinian Authority. He is prepared for a “historic act that would surpass the disengagement from Gaza.”
I listen to these assessments with a lot of skepticism. During Netanyahu’s previous term as prime minister, I was convinced he would move toward some sort of agreement with the Palestinians. And if not, I thought, he would decide in favor of a unilateral agreement. After all, the Labor Party was part of the coalition. But I was wrong; four whole years have passed, and nothing has happened. It is not at all certain that something will happen by 2017.
the french Al Durah blood libel against the Jews
http://aldurah.com/the-al-durah-incident/the-evidence/
the executives of France 2, charles enderlin, the french courts, and the french govt. and the MSM appear too have colluded in a blood libel against the jews with the intention to incite the globe to genocide. Like eichman and the munich terrorists they should be hunted down and made to pay for their slaughtering libels. It is an obvious fraud and all the players have colluded in maintaining this blood libel for years causing untold damage and jewish lives. This is another reason why there can be no quarter given to the blood libeling arabs who call themselves palestinians. Their agenda is to have the jews slaughtered and they are willing to employ any tactic to accomplish this goal. It is best to be first.
If Israel understood the global forces arrayed everywhere against the Jews there would be not one thought of entertaining peace but rather to eradicate the enemies. This same type of incitement is all over you tube, many are americans.
yamit82 Said:
I don’t disagree! The current political environment in Israel though is just not propitious towards the realization of that vision! What a pity.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Not honest… but unlike you truthful.
Rabbis, when they were real rabbis, maintained that Jews must kill all the inhabitants of the Promised Land during the invasion. Joshua bin Nun allegedly sent three letters to the Canaanite nations before the invasion: Whoever wants to leave, leave; whoever wants to make a treaty of tribute and servitude, make the treaty; whoever wants to fight, fight!!!!!
What was true for Amalek, the Philistines, Edomites and all of the Canaanite tribes is no less self evident for the new usurpers of Jewish Land.
The State of Israel was always meant to be the exclusive homeland of all of the Jewish People. Some non-Jews who recognize our exclusive sovereignty to live here with us, as non-citizens might be permitted to stay with very limited numbers, it is patently absurd to insist that a foreign entity which not only refuses to recognize our sovereignty, but seeks to take it from us, has a right to live among us, much less be granted citizenship and the right to run for office.
Any Arab who calls himself a Palestinian is declaring that he believes Israel belongs to Arabs and not to Jews. Such people should not be permitted to live here. They are waging war against us both in the street and in our Knesset!
Any Arab declaring Palestinian nationality and identification should be stripped of Israeli citizenship. Every terrorist considers himself to be a soldier in the war against the Jewish State. In 1948 the British called Jewish soldiers in Israel “terrorists”. Terror is a tool used in war in order to win. And this is precisely what the Arabs are doing to us. It is not a senseless act of hatred. It is a calculated act of war designed to defeat us. Until we recognize this reality we will not win the war. We will not lose, but we will suffer much needless tragedy.
Arabs who are prepared to die for their beliefs are not afraid of jail sentences or even death sentences. They are fighting for a purpose for which they are prepared to die. They are not criminals or even terrorist to their mind but patriotic nationalist soldiers fighting for their cause. Israel must trat them as such and give them no quarter, not an inch not a wedge. They must be defeated and be seen to have lost irrevocably. Therefore we must remove citizenship from all non-Jews. Those non-Jews who wish to live together with us in peace and recognize exclusively Jewish sovereignty may remain as non-citizens (resident aliens).
Arabs who Object can be deported to Gaza, easier for the time being than deporting them to Jordan or Egypt. If they object violently then we kill them. The Torah commands us to return from Exile and take over this land (Deut30:5). Jews must take the towns in the Promised Land from whatever nations happen to have settled them at the time. And when we take the towns, the exterminatory commandment of Deut20:16 kicks in.
Future Russian Strategic Challenges
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3720/russia-strategic-challenge
NormanF Said:
the arabs dont state a price, they just rely on the jews to keeping dropping theirs by asking the jews to state a price and then rejecting it. for me, I have accepted that a majority of Israel are not interested in sovereignty over YS or Jewish settlement in YS and that it is not a matter of what I want to occur but more a matter of trying to figure out what is likely to occur and what the politicians are really up to. I believe that not standing up for YS will result in future problems for Israelis inside the green line. I believe they are making a mistake.
this ludicrous conclusion begs for a basic course in Logic. If a final peace agreement is impractical then only agreements on operational cooperation is neccesary. These exist now. The same problems resulting from a potential breach exists after an interim agreement.
this statement is absurd: a permanent agreement MUST be an end of conflict agreement. Someone got mixed up, muddled minds promoted to leadership under the “peter principle”?
Bernard Ross Said:
The Jews are not equipped to deal with the Arab souk. The Jews take the Arabs stated price at face value and they do not know how to drive a good bargain. If you don’t know how to do that, you will be taken advantage of. And Israeli negotiators’ pliability means they are at an immediate disadvantage in trying to get the best deal from the Arabs. Its all hypothetical now but its worth keeping in mind for the future – assuming renewed peace talks in fact ever do get off the ground.
Bernard Ross Said:
The Arabs have contempt for the Jew in part because the Jew is a freier. Arabs have principles and what they see is the Jew is desperate for peace at any price. Jewish servility towards the Arabs will neither win them Arab respect nor the peace they crave.
NormanF Said:
you are absolutely right and so are Israelis: the arabs do want peace but at THEIR price.
Lapid behaves as an immature child, a new kid on the block, a fresh face with new ideas and solutions. Of course that is all BS. Lapid has no goals for the jewish people other than that of “peace” with the Pals. everything is always about the Pals and the need to be doing something, making agreements, as if agreements are synonymous with peace. All thes leaders need to study Zen and the art of “not doing”. The arabs are aware of the jewish hysteria to make agreements and realize a faux peace.
This clueless fresh faced kid, giddy on his TV personality win, acutally belives he knows something. the arabs reject Israeli proposals because they are convinced that there is no need to negotiate as the fool Jews can be relied upon to negotiate with themselves first. The jew offers the arab a sales price of 100 and the arab says nothing. The jew drops the sales price to 50 and the arab says nothing. The jew then throws up his hands in despair and says alright already I’ll give it to you for nothing. This is a milestone in Judaica where the Israeli Jew has misunderstood the phrase “Jew me down” and has mistakenly applied it to himself.
Bernard Ross Said:
Its been a known problem for decades. Meir Kahane was right when dealing with Nazi Arabs – the only true solution is to remove them from the country. But Israeli elites have deluded themselves into believing the Arabs want peace. This has made the real problem much more difficult to solve. For Israel, its a national tragedy.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I agree, but what is the likelihood of a majority of Israeli Jews agreeing to this policy? They don’t even believe that the Jewish people have the right to settle in in YS.
Here is an unrelated story which might be interesting:
Energy firms mapping Kurdistan’s topography by satellite
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/16/energy-firms-mapping-kurdistans-topography-by-satellite/
On looking at the blown up map it appeared to me that an independent Kurdistan would be very desirable for the west and that therefore it is likely that this is a consideration in current events, a driving central motivation. Turkey would likely be a great beneficiary by transmitting oil to Europe through their pipelines. the breakup of Syria, Iran and Iraq to create Kurdistan appears attractive. Of long term interest is that all the major water sources appear to originate in Kurdistan.
I disagree with Yair Lapid – has he seen the Nazi flag in Beit Omar today?
And why on earth should the Jewish people agree to the creation of a Nazi state in their land? For me, for this reason, a so-called two state solution is utterly unacceptable!
Unlike Lapid, I don’t want Jews to have live alongside Arab Nazis; I want to see the Arabs removed from the country.
In view of this Arab behavior, the only solution is the one the Czechs imposed on the Nazi Sudeten Germans after World War II – their expulsion from the country. Only this will ensure the safety of the Jewish people and guarantee lasting peace.
CuriousAmerican Said:
is “honesty the best policy” in diplomacy or politricks, isn’t it rare? What is the reasoning behind this suggestion of honesty, why should Israel be honest? It appears to me that in the diplomatic and political world lies are considered tactics as in war. Truth appears to have no affect on those transmitting or those believing the libels against Israel and the Jewish people. To battle in such a world “honestly” is similar to entering battle naked thus allowing your enemy to see exactly what weapons you have and don’t have. The enemies are the most despicable of knaves and must be accordingly treated.
Israel’s problem is not a lack of “honesty”, it is a lack of agreement(unity) on goals and a lack of employment of the full range of resources in battle.
Unilateral giving up of our Jewish land is stupid and criminal. No wonder Lapid does not want a referendum. His logic is flawed withdraw, give up land, move Jews and you will not even get peace. So to what purpose? Okay he does not want to live with Arabs. But even he says they will not stop fighting us.
Bennetts’ Annexing Area C and coming up with creative ideas for A/B is much more sound. Yes we do not get peace in any case but at least we have the security of the land and we do not move Jews from their homes. Lapid says his heart bleeds for people who will have to move. What BS. No reason to move them even by his logic. He may be sympathetic to people on some issues but on this issue he is politely at best all wet!
At least you are honest AH
CA, I think that I am as honest as Ted Belman.
But I am anything other than any kind of North American liberal, Jewish or otherwise. As a Jewish nationalist as influenced long ago in Jerusalem by Dr Israel Eldad of the old Lehi leadership,and in the late 1980s by Rav Meir Kahane, the author of the the Authentic Jewish Idea, I want no peace whatsoever with the Arabs residing in Eretz-Yisrael, unless and until the State of Israel has densely settled Jews in the reclaimable lands of the Jewish nation in Shomron and Yehuda. This means no peace with them whatsoever. And that suits me fine, because they are the permanent enemies of our people. This must be a fight to the death of one or the other. The survivor shall be either Jewish and Hebrew-speaking Eretz-YHisrael, or it shall be Muslim and Arabic-speaking Palestine. Np compromise is likely in such a protracted war, because in the long run, no such compromise is even possible.
For the rest of you reading what I have written here: Most of you correspond online with Israpundit and websites of similar Zionist orientation. So get real here. The largescale settlement of Jews in Eretz-Yisrael from Jewish diasporas large and small all across the world, was never possible without protracted conflict with the Arab and mostly Islamic inhabitants. What could have made any of you or anyone else in the world imagine even for a moment that you could accomplish this by supposedly peaceful means? Did you imagine those people would let you bribe them or argue this out in some typically-Jewish court of law? The territorial imperative, the principles of aggression as applied to nation-building, and the hard lessons of the clash of civilizations dictate now and forever that there never shall be any free land to be settled. You either take the nearby Arab lands lands, and either expel or kill them, or you return to the endless degradations of your ghetto diasporas.
What is there about any of this that any of you or what purports to be the Jewish and Israeli leaderships that you fail to understand?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Why doesn’t the Israeli government be honest? It is clear that Israel is not going to evacuate the settlements, nor give the PA open borders to Jordan, nor access to the Jordan River. Israel would be foolish to grant those things.
No self-respecting Arab would agree to less.
So why doesn’t Israel be honest and shelve the idiocy of the PEACE PROCESS.
I do not mind if Israel builds settlements; but please do not claim they do not affect the peace process when they do.
Make a decision and be honest. You can have the peace process or the settlements, but NOT both.
You are at least honest, Ted.