After scarcely a week of active parliamentary work, the ruling coalition has already all but shelved two defining right-wing proposals, namely 1) legislation to allow Knesset to overrule the High Court and 2) the Nation State proposal
Also, Dropping West Bank annexation bid, Bennett turns to the Golan
The dust of seven long months of electioneering and coalition building finally settled this week. The 20th Knesset’s committees are now staffed with lawmakers after the last outstanding disagreements between coalition and opposition parties were hammered out in the Knesset last week.
On Sunday, the 34th Government’s Ministerial Committee for Legislation held its first meeting to set the government’s legislative agenda for the coming term, and on Monday, the “housing cabinet,” the committee of ministers charged with finding a solution to Israel’s runaway housing prices, will hold its first meeting.
Slowly, haltingly, the Israeli state is getting back to work after long months of virtual paralysis on many issues.
And as the system returns to a measure of normalcy, some startling characteristics of the new political configuration created by the March election are becoming clear.
For one thing, the new government’s razor-thin 61-59 majority in parliament has all but killed many controversial right-wing measures advanced by lawmakers in the last two Knessets.
On Thursday, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked mentioned in a morning radio interview, almost off-handedly, that “in the current coalition situation, it won’t be possible to change the supersession clause. I prefer to concentrate my efforts where I can make a difference, and to pass laws that I can build a consensus on.”
The “supersession clause” Shaked referred to is the single most controversial right-wing proposal she brought with her to the Justice Ministry. Article 8(a) of the quasi-constitutional “Basic Law: Freedom of Vocation,” the basic guarantor of individual economic rights in Israeli law, allows for the temporary suspension of these rights under three conditions — that any law violating them pass in the Knesset with a majority of 61 MKs; that it explicitly state in the new law that it is in violation of the basic law; and that the offending law expire after four years. Since it effectively allows for a simple Knesset majority to temporarily violate the basic law, it is called a “supersession clause” — giving the Knesset the power to “supersede” any court rulings based on those rights that the Knesset disagrees with.
Shaked is an outspoken supporter of expanding this “supersession” power by adding a similar clause to another foundational law, the “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty,” which guarantees such basic rights as life, privacy, bodily safety and Israelis’ freedom to enter and leave the country — effectively giving the Knesset the power to temporarily suspend these basic rights, and to ignore any High Court of Justice decision based on those rights.
This proposal is the most drastic of Shaked’s initiatives to limit the power of the High Court, so it is telling that the justice minister would announce, in the very week in which the Knesset finally got back to work, that she simply lacked the necessary political support for passing the reform.
But the supersession reform is not the only right-wing initiative frozen in the current coalition: the so-called “nation-state bill,” which seeks to define Israel’s Jewish character in a new basic law, is effectively a dead letter.
The bill was moving forward quickly in the last Knesset, despite vociferous opposition from the left and from centrists in the ruling coalition, including Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and Hatnua leader Tzipi Livni. It generated intense push-back from Arab and Druze lawmakers and leaders, and was excoriated overseas. But it enjoyed widespread support on the right as a counter to what the right saw as an Arab campaign, both within Israel and among Palestinians, to deny the legitimacy of a Jewish nation-state.
The bill is still formally on the agenda, and is a key demand of the Jewish Home party in its coalition agreement with Likud.
Yet in those coalition agreements where it appears, there is also another clause, inserted into the founding documents of the 34th Government by Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party and agreed to by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to which the bill will only win the government’s support — a critical vote of confidence if the bill is to obtain a majority in the Knesset plenum — if it enjoys consensus support among coalition parties.
In other words, without the support of Kulanu, which has staked out a decisively centrist position on such issues and openly says it will oppose any right-wing effort to weaken the High Court or diminish the rights or privileges of minorities, the bill is essentially dead.
MKs have been back at work scarcely a week, and already two signature proposals of the right are either dead or in deep hibernation for the foreseeable future.
The reason is clear, and startling. While much was made of Netanyahu’s stunning election surge from 18 seats in the outgoing Knesset to 30 in the new one, that victory for Likud did not constitute a rally for the right as a whole. The explicitly right-wing parties of Likud, Jewish Home and Yisrael Beytenu won 43 seats in the 2013 elections, and rose by just one, to 44, in the 2015 ballot.
Netanyahu rules a much larger slice of the right, but that expansion came at the expense of the rest of the right wing. While Likud jumped by 12 seats, Jewish Home fell by four and Yisrael Beytenu by seven. Netanyahu’s closest ideological allies, then, are not significantly more powerful in parliament as a whole.
And with Yisrael Beytenu’s split to the opposition, the right’s footprint in the ruling coalition is actually significantly smaller this time around.
In the last Knesset, too, the centrists in the coalition — Yesh Atid and Hatnua — were eager to push forward their own agenda: economic and religion-and-state reforms in Yesh Atid’s case and peace talks in Hatnua’s. Those ambitions, and the need to secure cabinet and Knesset majorities to advance them, meant that right-wing elements in the last government had a stronger hand in pushing their own agenda. Thus a government with over one-third of its lawmakers hailing from explicitly centrist or even center-left parties actually saw the right-wing able to advance even the most controversial versions of its most controversial legislation.
The new government has been labeled by countless pundits the most right-wing coalition in memory, perhaps in Israel’s history. Yet after barely a week of parliamentary activity, it has already proven itself more centrist and more consensual than the last two governments, despite those precursors boasting Labor leftists and dovish centrists among its most powerful decision makers.
To be sure, these first signs of moderate centrism in the new government are rooted in the weakness of a 61-seat coalition. Netanyahu continues to search for new coalition partners, from Labor’s Isaac Herzog to Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Liberman, who might give him the breathing room of a larger parliamentary majority.
If the rightist Liberman returns to the fold, the agenda of the new government could change dramatically. On the other hand, if Netanyahu manages to entice either Herzog or Lapid to join his coalition, the current centrism born of weakness would likely be cemented as the new government’s explicit political identity.
None of this suggests that the government’s centrism will be reflected in its Palestinian policy, where consistent majorities in the Israeli body politic remain deeply skeptical of peace overtures or territorial withdrawals. But at least on domestic concerns, in the culture wars surrounding the judiciary and the character of the state, a delicate but clear consensus has emerged among the coalition’s key leaders, a consensus that suggests this government may last longer than many expect — and do less than its detractors fear.
bernard ross Said:
I am still waiting for your explanation of this “core value”. apparently you do not find it that “difficult to evade the specificity of this core-value”
rsklaroff Said:
gosh, one minute BB is scared sh*tless and the next minute you think Israel is not scared sh*tless….. make up your mind and dont use the disingenuous baloney that you said Israel not BB. they are one and the same for this discussion. You cannot use obama threats as the excuse for BB doing nothing for 2 terms and then say that Israel(BB) is in no mood to comply with Obama.
rsklaroff Said:
baloney, you agreed that he did nothing but gave the excuse that obama was pressuring himrsklaroff Said:
nope, you did not
rsklaroff Said:
claptrap, one moment you say obama threats prevent BB from doing anything the next minute you say Israel(BB) wont accept Obama threats.
rsklaroff Said:
baloney
I never ceded what you claim; rather, I asserted that BB continues to prioritize and to reformulate accordingly. Also, you use the inverse rather than the converse when improperly equating references to Israelis and to BB; this is an logical inconsistency. Your effort to refute my point-by-point discussion was consistently sloppy and therefore unconvincing.
rsklaroff Said:
a ludicrous statement without a shred of evidence
rsklaroff Said:
LOL, with regards to Obama there is only BB not Israelis that he threatens and deals with. all the other times where you exuse BB for doing nothing there was no consultation by BB of Israelis. therefore, wrt Obama, Israelis and BB are the same. It is irrelevant what Israelis want but what BB does. therefore your comment about what Israelis wont accept is meaningless.
Therefore I repeat: Make up your mind, you are smoking from both ends of the cigar.
rsklaroff Said:
😛 😛 😛
you accepted that he did nothing during his 2 terms and simply made the excuse that he had to knuckle under to Obama. You never proved that the reason for BB doing nothing was Obama but only that Obama threatened and BB did nothing,that is a logical fallacy. What happened when obama threatened when BB built in jerusalem: BB built and obama did nothing. why di BB claim to be for building before elections then after he dropped it. You did not deflate any of my examples you merely believe that BB is reacting to Obama threats but there is no evidence that is the real reason as opposed to the threats being a cover to portray BB as a right wing PM. Rhetoric is BS in diplospeak, you should be aware of that. Your entire narrative is based in belief that is ungrounded in fact. it is always difficult to pry a man away from his core beleif. BB has actually done everything to prove my points but you keep making up reasons that say he is doing the opposite of his real agenda.
Its this simple: BB continues to do nothing for Jewish settlement in YS as he has been doing nothing for the last 2 terms. Everything else is conjecture, his doing nothing is fact; repeated fact over and over, without change.
there’s a mole in the hole.
This article was accompanied by another related to gay marriage, having comparable conclusions; both are lib-plants designed to distract the electorate, for the goal must always be focused on what is best for America.
How screwed up is the GOP? Unbelievably screwed up:
Republicans fear they will win ObamaCare court battle
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/244369-gop-fears-it-will-win-obamacare-court-battle
Republicans are afraid that Obamacare will be overturned. Israel must never count on America for support, because the USA has become an insane asylum.
Will provide signed copy of the aforementioned blueprint “on the other side.”
Consider it done, Bubala. Stop by tomorrow when I will turn Sparkletts into Manischewitz and jog across the Mediterranean.
@ babushka: I provided the plan; please facilitate its execution.
@ Bernard Ross: I must run-off to raise four issues before the local school-board; just replay your arguments and note that they often are internally contradictory.
For example, when you claimed “make up your mind: one moment BB does nothing due to Obama “threats” and the next you dont beleive BB is worried about Obama,” you conflated my assessment of BB vs. my assessment of Israelis.
Please revisit your arguments and apply a bit more care [and a bit less arching-of-the-back] to refuting [with references, please].
rsklaroff Said:
why would you? It’s irrelevant, as you are not a constituent who voted for him nor are you affected by his actions. Here’s why:
rsklaroff Said:
rsklaroff Said:
Yes that is the appearance which explains why BB never did anything in 2 terms for Jewish settlment in YS….. Obama made me NOT do it. However it is rhetoric and as you say Obama’s rhetoric:
rsklaroff Said:
therefore BB had the perfect excuse for doing nothing, although Obama never actually did anything and never acutally made direct threats of what he would do. You accept the narrative but it is purely based on feelings as BB NEVER did anything to advance Jewish settlement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rsklaroff Said:
no beans to spill… he had no problem taking credit twice for announcements which he never implemented but won election on the announcement. Hardly the MO of an honest person. You assume narratives that have no support. what about when obama isnt threatening? Obama has never done anything each time he threatened when BB built in major blocks or jerusalem.
rsklaroff Said:
no, it affirms it. while Hamas lobs rockets for years into empty spaces and Israel does the same Hamas tries to prevent rocket fire from others proving they pretend to war but are really implementing a truce, as they are worn out.
rsklaroff Said:
make up your mind: one moment BB does nothing due to Obama “threats” and the next you dont beleive BB is worried about Obama.
rsklaroff Said:
the motive has not been proven to me but I have pointed out the fact of the relationship over years since POD. you assume a motive. I agree that is one of the motives but my agreement does not create facts.
rsklaroff Said:
yes, I gave her accolades too but did you notice her withdrawal of her major platform agenda? By silence I meant silence of action not silence of words.
rsklaroff Said:
thats exactly what misleading rhetoric is supposed to do. Obama was legally bound to condemn the coup and cut off aid and his rhetoric helped elect Sisi.
rsklaroff Said:
then why is he sending tons of arms to saudi?
rsklaroff Said:
no they dont, post them please. robert spencer rarely posts news in and of itself, its usually mixed in with his opinion. Even Israeli defense establishment has said they pose no threat and have never attacked Israel
rsklaroff Said:
no facts, only words
rsklaroff Said:
Please explain how recognition of a “Jewish ” state has any value to Israel in the context of any peace agreement. Even their promise not to attack means nothing, words mean nothing. BB’s refrain has no value.
rsklaroff Said:
I believe they recognized the state of Israel but not a “Jewish” state. Please correct me if I am wrong.
rsklaroff Said:
you appear to completely misunderstand my post to Bear Klein. I was pointing out that BB can break his promises while appearing to maintain them: e.g. BB did not say he would keep the settlements but that he would not uproot them like gaza. I showed how different scenarios posited by others would comply technically with BB’s “promises”. People dont always go by his exact words but what they think he means.
rsklaroff Said:
Yes, I found it interesting that BB’s words, pronouncements and promises and slogans can be technically met while actually producing something that his supporters do not believe he would do. e.g. keeping settlements, keeping Jordan valley, unified Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as Jewish by arabs,etc. Why it is interesting is that he has been deceitful and devious in my opinion and I find that deceitful devious folk do not limit their deceit. You gave no explanation for his deceit of E1, Levy,the panic on benetts votes, putting Bennet in a ministry irrelevant to his public platform,immediately backtracking on his pre election statements, etc.
But the game is rigged. I again refer you to the McDaniel/Cochran race. McDaniel won – TWICE – but who is senator? The Republican machine is morally indistinguishable from the thugs in the Democrat Party.
The key-point is that he DWARFS the competition…ALL of the competition!
You do not have to sell me on Cruz. It is the miscreants in the GOP establishment that are the problem.
Another Poll:
http://personalliberty.com/poll-results-republican-primary-tomorrow-vote/
22 Cruz
21 Walker
13 Paul
7 Rubio
5 Huckabee
Listen @ minute-#53 for his mnemonic for the enumerated-powers [Article 1, Section 8].
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/speakerseries/
Feel reassured that Ted has staying-power; note that he will critique others without going-negative, a capacity that undoubtedly emerged from his debating-experience.
Know, also, that he can rattle-off the enumerated-powers [Article 1, Section 8].
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/speakerseries/
[The podcast lacks a video with his posters, but you’ll get the idea; he brought-down the House on Constitution Day @ the National Constitution Center.]
Cruz is the Man!
@ mar55:
Since Reagan – who was good but far from great for Israel – the GOP has nominated one liberal putz after another. The reason is that Big Business hated Reagan’s (failed) attempt to reduce government spending, just as the Chamber freaked out when Lee/Cruz tried to defund Obamacare. Multinational corporations want corporate socialism, and spent $100 million in 2014 to defeat fiscal conservatives in the primaries. The result? McConnell has rubber stamped Obama on the budget/amnesty/Obamacare/Iran/trade…the Chamber’s agenda as articulated by Tom Donahue in December.
Any conservative who comes close to being nominated will be kneecapped by FOX/WSJ/National Review/Fortune 500. I would adore a President Cruz, but it will not happen because the gauntlet he must run is just too formidable and the GOP is just too corrupt.
It makes for a pleasant dream, though.
@ rsklaroff:
Did you see what the JR Ewing wing of the party did to Chris McDaniel in Mississippi? The welfare queens of Corporate America will do anything to maintain control of the GOP.
Rubio was the front man for the Reid-Schumer Amnesty con job. I will not support that weasel. Give me Cruz or Perry or Jindal. After soiling myself by voting for McCain and Romney in the two most recent presidential elections, I am under no moral obligation to back another liberal fraud.
And Jeb? He can take James A Baker and go Straight 2 Hell.
@ rsklaroff:
I just checked http://www.breitbart.com/primary/
The latest results [I placed Rick Perry #3, for I spoke on his behalf @ an Iowa Caucus] show:
31 Cruz
23 Walker
13 Paul
6 Carson
5 Perry
Note also that Dr. Carson [who is problematic regarding gays, foreign policy and guns] is contending with an implosion of his campaign [which is anticipated to continue apace, despite his allure]; we don’t need another 9-9-9 [Herman Cain] level of gross-inexperience when the field is otherwise replete with attractive candidates.
I view Cruz as having the capacity to emulate RR, and his “main-street” attractiveness may unnerve wall-st/J-st…but they will be hard-pressed to find a chink in his armor [particularly because they won’t be able to beat “someone with no one”].
Rubio will remain problematic; he’s JFK-smooth. Nevertheless, his Bio mirrors that of Cruz, who has accomplished far more [and has a greater intuitive Constitutional-command] than Rubio [whose $-issues will dog him, such as his credit-card use while Florida-Speaker]. Ultimately, it may be recalled that, in ’68, George Romney was sunk when he claimed he’d been “brainwashed” regarding Vietnam; the “I was duped by Schumer and the Dems” rationalization for being among the Gang of Eight should be viewed, eventually, as comparable [revealing excessive naïveté].
@ babushka:
The “Bracket-Analysis” [recalling March-Madness] yields the ability to project him as being among the final-four [Rubio, Bush, Walker].
I have been refining this metaphor for months, and Cruz may have “heard” me; I had remitted my analysis to the private e-mail of his chief-strategist [c/o Sen. Mike Lee when he recently visited Philly], Jason Johnson.
Cruz Fires At Walker and Rubio: They ‘Don’t Fit Naturally Into Any Bracket’ Especially Conservatives
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/cruz-fires-at-walker-and-rubio-they-dont-fit-naturally-into-any-bracket-especially-conservatives/
The précis thereof is that the Establishment will find that Bush has the Midas-Touch [lotsa dough that can’t buy votes, as Chris Hayes also argued this past Sunday on MSNBC]; they will migrate, as you anticipated, to Rubio [who remains an Illegals-apologist].
The “Constitutional” bracket will be solely-occupied by Ted – reinforced during the Debates, during which he’ll remain above-the-fray even when attacked – after Rand Paul falters on foreign-policy [and demeanor].
The successful-Midwest-governor bracket should remain occupied by Walker, squishing Kasich [noting that Snyder and Pence are out-of-the-picture].
Fiorina will fade after Hillary is replaced by Bloomberg/Warren, and The Donald may play court-jester for awhile.
I read in two sources [NYT/Breitbart] that the evangelicals will choose ONE person over the summertime [reinforced via a private-chat with one anticipated participant in the upcoming interactions, who also loves Cruz]; because both Cruz and Walker have pastor-parents, the competition will be intense but, remember, the latter flipped on Iowa Ethanol while the former retained his principles.
The others [Jindal, The Huckster, Santorum, Perry] will fade, Grahamnesty won’t gain traction, pro-choice Pataki will be ignored, Christie may not even announce, and the field could rapidly narrow by Thanksgiving. Note that Santorum attracted one [1] audience-member and that more litigation is being filed against Christie.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/09/santorum-panora-hamlin-visit/28724779/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-accused-breaking-grand-jury-law-nyt-118728.html
*
After it’s down to that quartet and Rubio starts absorbing Jeb, it will be too late for Romney to re-enter [noting filing deadlines, etc.] and support will need to be strong for the others to avoid a brokered-convention [which will be less likely as winner-take-all events are held after 3/15/16].
My hope is a repetition of ’80, when the winner accepted the runner-up as Veep, and the Governor/Senator combo should be both ideologically/practically strong [both domestically and overseas]; this is why I’m laboring to neutralize social-issues ASAP, aggressively.
Feel better?
@ babushka:
I would not vote for Rubio. He cannot manage his own finances how do you expect him to manage a government. He is an opportunist and a flip flopper the same as McCain.
Cruz, I know somebody who was in his click at Harvard. He is what you see is what you get. The problem is the GOP would not nominate anyone who is not from the establishment.
They have not learned yet that nominating an establishment Republican would not get their candidate elected.
I wish they would be more realistic and practical instead of bending to the idiots who want to please. They should try to be respected instead. No one respect people who try to please everyone. They have this agenda for other people but, when it comes to their own kids they send them to the most prestigious independent schools (private, private)
Do you know how much is the tuition at the school where the Obama’s send their kids? Three years ago $33,000.00 for
pre-school. Not even kindergarten.
They keep their propaganda against Cruz saying he is too aggressive to be elected.Too antagonistic. Anyone who is honest has to antagonize some people. If the world was all the same it would be boring. Look all the hypocritical liberals the pain and suffering caused by their narrow minds and the crap of multiculturalism and touchy feelings, touchy feelings.
Their kids usually are lazy and incompetent. Kids should be trained to hit the ground running.
Bear Klein Said:
I thought I showed you on each issue that you either misread his promisess or that agreements might be made by BB which technically do not violate his promises but do in substance.(e.g. he did not promise to keep outlying settlements in valley but instead Not to uproot them)
rsklaroff: I love Ted Cruz and would be exhilarated if he were elected president, but the GOP has become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the Chamber Of Commerce and will not nominate a conservative. We will again suffer a RINO nominee, just as we have since 1988. I fear it will be Rubio, the amnesty huckster who cannot be trusted on Israel or anything else.
Subsequently, Bernard Ross wrote additional comments that require refutation:
It would be quite difficult to evade the specificity of this core-value; fractured-rhetoric has limits, and this particular goal has been rejected repeatedly by the Palestinian Arabs, notwithstanding Oslo.
Here, all the additional criteria that were parsed are subsidiary to the key-goal of “recognition” [as was accomplished by Egypt/Jordan, thankfully]; along with “rhetoric,” “technical arrangements” can only go so far [as BHO/Kerry/Sherman are learning from Khameini/Araghchi/Zarif [note elision over puppet-Rouhani].
{The yellow blinking-lights start blinding whenever the word “interesting” appears; it is a “projective” [a portmanteau for a pronoun-adjective] that conveys absolutely no meaning, most often utilized to shroud truths.}
I have multiple problems with the postings of Bernard Ross; now that I’m using my PC [in office] rather than my hand-held [@ home], will delineate key-quotes accordingly. I “feel” the way I do because of facts [and the absence of contrary-facts] and it would be desirable were everyone to avoid ad-hominem phraseology, for we’re all on the same side, eh?
I don’t feel betrayed, for each of the specific deviations cited would easily fall under the aegis of BHO-initiated pressure; none yield anything permanent and, thus, all can be reversed following the inauguration of Cruz on 1/20/2017.
You claim to be so pragmatic, yet you honestly assert BB would spill-beans in this fashion; puhleeze!
The conflict between Hamas and Islamic Jihad [for example] contradicts your dismissive posture; the former is trying to forestall BB’s retaliation by disclaiming responsibility for the actions of the latter [and other Islamic-State entities].
I hardly think Israelis are in the mood to comply with BHO’s plaint, that someone act “courageously” to kick-start negotiations; furthermore, the common-enemy psychology is what animates any degree of coordination between Israel and any of her Arab neighbors.
Although I’m on the other side of the pond, I’ve noted potent quotes from all, particularly the “hot” young lady who is receiving accolades for her forthrightness; she obviously failed to receive the memo you purport was remitted by BB.
The reaction to Morsi was positive [withholding arms, citing “coup], and the reaction to el-Sisi was negative [indeed, so much so that he was driven to travel to Moscow]; if this is the climactic manifestation of your musings, it seems to contravene your conspiracy [“work against type”] theory.
Right, and that explains why BHO has not only cozied-up to Tehran, but has also refrained from countering Iran’s interests elsewhere [Yemen, Syria, etc.].
Daily reports contradict you; note both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for extensive documentation of aggressive anti big/little-Satan activities.
{Although additional oxymoronic claims are sprinkled about, these are the thematic claims that cried for refutation.}
The issue with Bayit HaYehudi is too many core (important) members do not want to embrace a broad nationalistic right wing party that also includes Jews who may not wear a kippa 365 days of the year. Until the party truly embraces Bennett’s big tent idea it will stay smallish.
Still no one answers
Bear Klein Said:
BB has not said he would keep them but that he would not uproot them like gaza. This promise can be technically satisfied by an agreement for them to remain with dual citizenship or to leave voluntarily with incentives. Public opinion is being massaged to make them a negative, a non-issue, of no importance, unworthy of mention even by their supposed champions.
Bear Klein Said:
in the past it was mooted that a pal confed with Jordan would allow the security issues to be handled under the jordan Israel treaty. this was slated to happen after a pal state so that they could get the most land.
Bear Klein Said:
everyone knows this will not happen except as a BS token if at all. However, consider that the PA and abbas would NOT want a pal return to their area as they would be deposed and chaos would ensue. therefore, for abbas I beleive this is the main reason for avoiding a deal and not all the other stories. and yes to answer your question the refugee issue would be agreeable if abbas was not afraid to accept them, no room for those foreign nutters and problem people.
Bear Klein Said:
It has been mooted that israel stay in the military outposts for 10 years and that during this time the settlers have the option to stay and be residents of a future state with dual citizenship or to leave. this enables BB to keep his promise that settlements will not be uprooted by GOI as was Gaza, semantics. During that period I would expect that great incentives would be given to move back, the carrot and the stick. The major settlement blocks are always understood by both sides to be kept so it is not an issue. the issue is land swaps, whether Israel gives land inside the green line for the settlement blocks. Notice that there has been no building in E1 although announced, so is it kept or is it given or is there a 3rd way.
Bear Klein Said:
I always felt this was an irrelevant red herring that BB concocted that means zilch. It would be dropped or they would recognize it or most likely come up with the kind of BS political language that allows interpretation to both ways…. like res 242 “the territories”
Bear Klein Said:
I think you mean unified city… there are examples suggested in europe where cities have one gov. authority composed of the 2 soveriegnties. there are varios ways to fullfill the promise of a “unified city” while also giving power to other entities within. Jordan has the mount and wakf and they and GCC have been bying up parts of Jerusalem. PA has been invited into arab camps in jerusalem to operate, many want to be rid of arab jerusalem.
A diplomatic compound in Jerusalem confers soverignty in that area, such an area can be linked to “palestine” physically, lots of ways to skin the cat and keep promises.
You see its details, negotiations and semantics. It can all be given away without BB having lied, technically. Your points are excellent and there has been a lot of analysis of these issues wrt how they can be complied with while giving pals what they want or a semblance of what they want, or an appearance of what they want(e.g. the current faux pal state is a semblance).
it is interesting that all the major points can technically be satisfied on both sides with language and technical arrangements. even if BB retreated militarily from the Jordan valley after 10 years,leaving the security to Jordan, he could technically say he did not uproot the settlements.
I suspect that the building or non building in YS by jews or arabs will show the real picture.
Bear Klein Said:
Bibi says nothing about this.
Ted Belman Said:
the leader of BY would have completely lost his national stature and relevance by then. He has been put in a ministry that insures his aura to diminish. He made a poor political choice for his future, he accepted a ministry that sent his public platform to coventry(siberia). Liberman is more politically savvy. its like Hillary as SOS, put in a position where orders must be followed, taking the criticism for decisions of pres. and being the fall guy. the giving of a ministry to be a “basket to carry water” is a common political tactic but in this case a ministry was given to insure the diminishing of the national stature of the recipient as well as ensuring that he has no relevance to the issues that got him elected.
Perhaps liberman made the smart decision.
Bibi’s deal is real: Demilitarized PAL State, No right of return for Pals, Israel stays in Jordan Valley and keeps all settlement blocks plus vast majority of settlements, Pals agree to recognize a Jewish State and Jerusalem stays as a unified Jewish State.
Does anyone believe that Pals will agree to this or they believe Bibi believes they will agree to this?
rsklaroff Said:
this is the appearance most advantageous to BB. When the clock runs out it is restarted every time.
Ted Belman Said:
If there are understandings I dont think Kery parameters are the issue. If there are understandings I expect that the main issue is that a deal cannot be overt at this time as many would be assasinated. if there are understandings I belive that things are being moved forward issue by issue, with a drama to authenticate resistance credentials,in a covert fashion. the parameters of a deal were hinted years ago. If there is a deal BB’s and abbas actions would be governed by that deal. the drama may be as much a part of understandings as the goals( abbas threatens to go to ICC, BB withholds $$, Daboub threatens at FIFA then withdraws, Pals get fake state with no power on ground which helps their manhood,…etc etc…) lots of smoke and mirrors but when the smoke clears one must see what the result is.
Ted Belman Said:
I think BB has killed BY with his rendering a eunuch of Bennett wrt Jewish settlement. benett appears pathetic giving speeches from the school about the internationals recognizing the golan when no one mentions it and syria is falling apart rendering it more moot each day. its as if he was grabbing at a straw to try and remain relevant after the the p***y whipping he just received from BB without even realizing he was being whipped.
There is another possible explanation for all this ludicrous behavior: that BY, Bennett, Hotovely have been filled in on a picture where they agree to remain silent. If so I expect that the picture is more to do with benefit to Israel than threats. there is talk of the 30k bunker busters, talk of 50% increase in military aid,overt talk of cooperation with GCC, etc…..
Sometimes rhetoric is used to cover up the opposite, e.g.
the euros issue the most rhetoric on Israel as they must to pander to their voting constituents but what is the result in fact? Is the labeling which is already in existence a real problem to Israel or was an agreement hammered out to soften the “blows”? whatever happened to the euro grant program? etc etc…… I always felt that the obama egypt “quarrel” was a scam to help get Sisi elected and avoid legal problems that would result from supporting the coup; as I predicted the US is already getting back on track with supplying and aiding egypt and the GCC took up the slack in the meantime. My model is simple: there is a GCC/sunni/western side and an Iranian/shia/russian side and most of the noise is a cover. E.g. IS is a baathist run org who employ the same terror tactics as Sadaam. they have conveniently made the only real gains for the western sunni side. they have provided a false flag which enable public support for the introduction of military resources to the area by the west and GCC. They have been the recipients of a massive transfer of heavy arms from the US via the convenient path of stealing it thus avoiding the impossible legal and diplomatic loopholes. Interestingly, beyond rhetoric, they and the other jihadis have proven to be no threat to Israel during their 3 year presence in syria an iraq. As for the sinai there are big questions as to who the supposed “IS” is there. My suspicion is that the sinai groups are funded by Iran and unaffiliated with the IS in Iraq.
rsklaroff Said:
Of course you do, and you will feel that way until there is an elephantine fact impossible to step over.
Note that you speak of feelings and not facts…. this is what BB rely’s upon: the hopes and dreams of honest people who cling to their dreams in spite of betrayal.
You reference no facts wrt BB behavior, instead you made assumptions based on the existence of Obama rhetoric. for all we know that rhetoric is an agreed drama like a televised wrestling match. the facts of BB behavior say the opposite. if he were responding to threats he could divulge those threats to Israel and let Israel choose. If he were responding to threats there would be no reason to allow the EU to illegally operate in YS building illegally for arabs. If he were responding to threats he would have no reason to pretend to build in E1 and the Levy report only to ditch both after getting the credit, benefit and election. the FACTS of BB’s actions do not lead to your conclusion without adding your “feelings”; they lead elsewhere. BB’s orchestrated dramas’s with the PA and gaza are ludicrous: the regular cycle of withholding taxes, the pal receipt of meaningless international awards like faux states, the bombing of empty fields by hamas and the reply on empty buildings. All seemingly concocted to pretend to the right wings on both sides that there is a resistance struggle being carried on by their respective leaders.
those who deceive in politics usually rationalize their deceits with the narrative that they know whats best for their people. BB may feel that his route will get the best deal with the arabs by dealing with the holders of their purse strings, the gulf. He may have understandings with them and Obama, that give less land down the line than now demanded…. but all players way deem it politically impossible to make an overt deal now. They all might instead be operating with facts on the ground,freezing of settlements while moving public opinions on their streets towards a more centrist result. as the Iran/GCC situation appears to be the prime mover behind the understandings I expect that the status quo and quieting the pal israel dispute was the best path for the GCC to recruit jihadis against irans proxies when they would rather fight Israel.
watching the “database” add new data is a great idea, where it goes wrong is when you add your feelings to color the facts.
I still feel the database is supportive of BB’s actions and that he is trying to run out the clock until BHO splits.
I am in agreement with Ross all the way down the line. Bibi really does want to make a deal and is only trying to tweak Kerry’s parameters.
bernard ross Said:
I agree.
The only hope is that right wingers in Likud leave the Likud and join Bayit Yehudi. In the next election such a Party would defeat Likud.
The evidence supportive of my assertion abounds; all of BHO’s anti-Zionist utterances are obviously accompanied by the threat of abandonment, as was evinced last week with regard–for example–to the possibility America would support a French resolution in the UNSC mandating withdrawal from YS.
rsklaroff Said:
Omigosh, I was not born yesterday and am fully aware of this tire worn narrative that has been used by those in denial as an explanation for BB behavior. BTW, you cannot rely on public drama to be real in the diplomatic world.
rsklaroff Said:
In other words you agree that BB has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to advance Jewish settlement in YS in both terms but you assert that this behavior is due to Obama pressure. I am aware of that public pressure but I fail to detect the evidence to support your assertion. His cynical manipulation of E1 and Levy report to win elections and offer a pretense of being right wing is evidence that he is in fact not an honest person. a man who pretends to be right wing, does nothing right wing, makes right wing announcements that never are fulfilled….. looking, walking and quacking like a duck and only your un-evidenced assertions are their to beg otherwise.
rsklaroff Said:
bush was no better, he gave Israel a worthless letter that wasnt worth its weight as toilet paper. Politicians always talk and lie, only a fool would expect otherwise.
rsklaroff Said:
the interim has passed and supposedly we have a right wing victory but I can assure you that wrt YS there will be no advancement for Jews beyond rhetoric. In the interim BB has killed the narrative of Jewish settlement in YS. Before the ascension of this his thrid term and before the last 2 terms, there was talk of YS, but now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYCB0qtwIxE
I would reformulate your assertions by simply noting that BHO has pressured BB publicly and, surely, even more aggressively privately; thus, this minimalist approach has been pursued until President Cruz has been inaugurated, with no permanent harm done in the interim.
why not let it come to a vote to see who supports giving away YS, I suspect it is most of Israel.Personally, I think it will be as difficult to defend Jerusalem as all of YS and that relinquishing one will not help the other. if they win in YS and Jerusalem, the Europeans will stalk the jews with civil rights libels over the next few decades until Israel is defacto run by the pals or their proxy jews.
rsklaroff Said:
I presume you are addressin me although you have not used the highlight and quote tool provided for the purpose. Yes, Yehuda shomron
rsklaroff Said:
I do not know specifically which assertion as you did not highlight and quote.
as for the BB the best evidence is his performance in both prior terms having NEVER NOT ONCE made a single advancement wrt the Jewish settlement in YS, he never even said it was legal and legitimate. No new settlements, he only built in major blocks that everyone knew israel would keep, basically he restricted the disppute with the foreigners over those existing settlements and jerusalem Since the election he speaks only of settlement in Jerusalem. He made numerous announcements like Levy reposrt and E1 and then did nothing, what I call a very corrupt MO.
Before he was elected I still sat on the fence but said that depending on his ministerial appointments after being elected I would decide whether his behvior fairly tags him. His panicking tactic to steal bennetts votes convinced me that his purpose was to nuetralize the right so that he could proceed with understandings when he pandered to the left in ministries and gave the right no authority to influence settlement it clinched the deal for me. We now see a nuetered right wing which won but is powerless. Everyone has stepped into line. they will be fighting to defend a status quo and doing nothing for Jewish settlement in YS. bennett appears absurd suddenly talking about the golan after being rendered a eunuch.
as for his understandings with the gulf monarchies I have been writing for years before he liberman and others came out of the closet. since POD, at each strange behavior of his, I pointed out how it could result from understandings with the arabs. Now they have overtly come out about meetings with saudis in 2014 but I believe it goes back at least to POD gaza war since when I have repeatedly pointed out. some of his behavior can only be logically explained by such understandings and since POD this model has been consistent. I think that a drama is being played out for the public in both the Israeli and arab street which will massage the “public discussion” into the center.
lots of carrots and sticks….. we know the sticks but here is a carrot:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/peace-would-pump-billions-into-israeli-economy-new-study-shows/
all the taps are being turned on to massage the public
My presumption is that “YS” refers to Judea/Samaria; otherwise, I don’t detect evidence for these assertions.
NO, BB is not right wing he is closer tto the left than the right on all pal issues and YS.
he is part of the campaign to massage the Israeli public into giving up YS, at the same time he pretends to struggle on behalf of the right
there is an orchestrated world wide global campaign reaching a crescendo condeming Israel settlement…
bennet has abandoned YS to yap about the golan…..
meretz joins the EU jew killers as kapos calling for labeling settlement products from YS……..
YS is abandoned and BB never even mentions YS…….
the so called right is dead…..
BB put the nail in the coffin when he panicked right wing voters into voting for him……..
BB has an overall plan with the arabs and its just a matter of getting the right wing to accept it…….
He has singlehandedly removed YS from the dictionary of Israelis as an issue……….
the guy’s a genius….
Livni is basically Nancy Pelosi, a leftist estranged from reality and therefore extremely dangerous on national security issues.
I am ignorant of any insider-info, but I would dispute characterization of Livni and Lapid as moderates; the former didn’t earn that status by playing a chamelion (by joining the prior government) and the latter does not merit that designation (after having heard his speech yesterday in NYC).
Wikipedia’s Kulanu entry states support for the nation-state bill (citing reference #60, an article from Ha’aretz); subsequent articles cite its ability to oppose such bills but, importantly, differentiate this issue from the two Supreme Court bills.
Thus, I would hope that this effort could become the major initiative ASAP; indeed, I fail to appreciate why it would reflexly be viewed as a “dead-letter.”
If memory serves, the “nation-state bill” triggered the election, last year; thus, it would seem that its passage would not fracture the coalition and would serve as a demonstrable response both to bho’s interference and to the negotiation intransigence of the Palestinian Arabs.
It could also provide a foundation for deportations of rock-throwers to Gaza; the potential success of this approach to domestic violence could emerge while solidifying Israel’s self-perception internationally.
Promoted in conjunction with the enhanced educational efforts regarding Israel’s legal underpinnings would also empower the anti-BDS movement; thus, it would probably be a gambit worth pursuing sooner rather than later.