INN: Did Bibi Accept Obama’s 1967-Lines Formula?
Israel will reportedly work with Obama’s 1967-lines formula as a basis for peace talks if the PA drops its statehood bid at the UN.
JPOST: Official: Netanyahu ready to discuss border ‘package’
According to both articles, Bibi is doing this to avoid a UN vote and to avoid potential violence. But why? Why are these good reasons to cave. They aren’t, not remotely. A vote by the UNGA would make no difference on the ground. Details would still have to be negotiated. In both case they would involve the armistice lines. As for the violence, that’s what the IDF is for.
On July 6th I reported
Eitan: Blocs to be Annexed; Rest of Yesha to be Abandoned
A lot is missing from this article. Debka gave all the details of the deal in May under the title White House set for Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas summit. Israel downbeat. Eitan is just confirming it.
Could it be that when Lauder told Bibi to get a plan earlier this week and Cotler advised Bibi to accept Obama’s principles, they were paving the way for Bibi to do so in coordination with Bibi? I think so.
Without such a deal in the offing, would the Quartet and Turkey be cooperating so much? Ted Belman.
The next day I reported on a DEBKA article
US and Israel nearing agreement
Diplomatic ambiguity at its best. On the one hand Bibi is prepared to accept Obama’s 67 lines with swaps, but on the other hand he is demanding that Obama interprets it according to the Bush letter. Not only that but he is demanding that Abbas accept Israel as a Jewish state which means the end of the “right of return”. Finally and this is crucial he is demanding that swaps are not to be equal in size but we get to keep 8% of the land where the settlements are and only give half the land size back. Does anyone know whether this 8% we keep includes Ariel and Maalah Adumin. In effect, if Obama accepts Bibi’s position, Obama’s demand is totally negated even though Bibi is accepting it.
This proposed deal is silent on Jerusalem. That doesn’t mean that the fate of Jerusalem isn’t part of it. Bibi previously said we can create creative solutions for Jerusalem. Ted Belman
Jomit, you are right.
Relax, everybody. I’m not thrilled with Bibi’s PR gambit, either. I don’t like any Israeli leader even pretending to make concessions, because down the road, “pretend” concessions may turn out to be real ones, as one is held to what one previously said, and even successive leadeers may face such words. Better Bibi should more effectively present Israel’s case to the world community, instead of even appearing to concede that which he shouldn’t.
However, that said, it is easy for all of us to kibitz from the sidelines. We’re not in his shoes.
My take on him is that he’s just building up his “moral high ground” creds in advance of pending events next month.
Remember, everybody, Bibi has laid down the precondition of PA recognition of Israel as a Jewish state before anything else. The PA will not, cannot call his bluff on this. Bibi is only staking out a tactical position as the “Reasonable Party” before the UN vote, and possible violence thereafter (I’d say, “probable” violence).
I don’t really agree that this is to give Obama cover for a veto, however. I allow that MAYBE this is the case, but given the contempt with which Obama has treated Bibi, I don’t see them working in concert on anything, as this scenario assumes. I think rather, that this is to FORCE Obama into a political corner whereby he MUST veto, and even then, no matter what Obama says – as he is the consummate liar – he may abstain anyway.
I’m predicting that between now and the UN vote, Obama will “manufacture” some kind of excuse to abstain or even support the PA, though he will only do this if he’s got the same conditions he had this past February, which is to say, everybody else on the UNSC supported the Palis. He so DEARLY wants to join that petrodollar prostitute lynch mob! But if say, France peels away, or if Canada gest that rotating seat they couldn’t get last time (‘cuz Obama wouldn’t support them; for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY the U.S. didn’t support Canada in a bid for a temporarly UNSC seat), then Obama will look like an idiot at home and take a huge political hit for an abstention or supporting vote. But he might do it ANYWAY, just to rally his hard left base here, who is mad at hell at him right now for backing down before Boehner (nothing gets the hard left in an orgasmic state of ecstacy like beating up on Israel…).
Bottom line, Bibi is just setting the political stage to give him that much more PR leeway if there is violence.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!
Maybe I am just not understanding something. If the arabs go for a two state solution, that
means that they agree that there would be two states. “Palestine”(?) and Israel. They will NEVER
recognize Israel, so why else are they going to the UN? If they could have maneuvered the UN
into accepting their state, they wouldn’t have had to go on record as recognizing the Jewish state
of Israel. Why else have they used every device known to man to not be forced to the negotiating
table, and when in the past they have gone there….nothing ever came of it. Maybe because any deal
would have to include them recognizing the Jewish State. Pretty simple huh? Unless my thinking
is way out in left field somewhere. Am I missing something?
I don’t have confidence in Bibi because he is a Mason and because G-d raises up the basest of men, not the best. That said, Bibi basically didn’t cave. He stated a impossibility. In order for Israel to accede to 1967 lines, the PA must accede dropping its statehood bid at the UN and Bibi knows they will never do that. They are for war, not peace.
Dan 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
@ NormanF:
You are a beautiful dreamer.
@ Teshuvah:
If you have confidence in BiBi you must be kidding. you cannot be serious.
@Andrew – Bibi has outchamberlined chamberlin.
Netanyahu is bluffing. He says he will do this conditional upon ‘if the PA drops its statehood bid at the UN.’ He knows the PA won’t do that. Tempest in a teapot.
This is like a bad show that’s been going on too long and which should have been closed a longtime ago. What you see and hear has no relation to reality and simply gives the various actors an opportunity to strut across the stage and mouth nonsense. The audience has gotten tired of it all. Close the show down and started dealing with reality.
Netanyahu knows it won’t lead to negotiations unless there is a comprehensive settlement freeze. And the Arabs are not prepared to talk about two states for two peoples. This is as I see it, is about giving Obama political cover for a veto of the UN statehood bid in September and not in relaunching peace talks any time soon.
Supposedly Bibi’s hero and role model is Churchill. If this is true then why does he resemble Chamberlain?
Churchill realised early on that fascism meant war, while Chamberlain thought that offering up Austria and then Czechoslovakia would satisfy the beast.
Churchill was disgusted at Czechoslovakia being sacrificed. Come on Bibi draw a line in the sand like your hero did.