Netanyahu is making us miss Olmert

Remember this is the same Eldar that claimed Arafat wanted peace, even though Arafat though his hate media and ordering every Al Aqsa terrorist attack made clean of his stages plan. Eldar also called Yassin a moderate. Eldar has a hard time calling Arabs Terrorists.

well put ..enjabi netanyahu want to negotiate ... more with no deal

Splitting hair? Neither the UN nor the UK could lawfully give to the zionists what was not theirs to give. That's why Bibibaby insist that the Legal Owners of the land recognize Israel as a Jewish State! Everything is on the table, and rightly so, since the UN vote of 1947 was rigged not lawful, and gave 51% of the land to 8% of the population. I do not think Hamas will be easily corrupted to do the zionists' bidding.

First of all, I am glad that two people with opposing points of view can have a respectful discussion for once. Unfortunately most people on these blogs hurl insults at one another instead of listening to what each has to say. My impression of the Arab League proposal, and the Palestinian demands, is that neither is willing to give up on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. As I recall, the dispute is not over territory or even compromising on Jerusalem. If that were the issue, there would have been peace already. The problem is that the Arabs do not want to give up on right of return, which would end Israel as Israel. Even Yossi Sarid, who is quite left-wing, was against giving up on right of return, because he said he is willing to make peace, but not at the expense of cutting one's own throat.

The current situation politically in Israel is favourable for PM Netanyahu because he has a greater following within Israel and abroad unlike both Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert despite their positive developments with President Abbas. Some have stated that as an Israeli statesman he'll be viewed with greater acceptability given his past involvement in "peacemaking" endeavours. Anyways, many would assert this is who we have as a coalition government and therefore they'd have to workout something with both the Palestinians and the Americans in the near future.BTW when former PM Olmert was interviewed by the BBC he spoke very favourably about PM Netanyahu within the Likud party. So we'll see.

"But I am not asking the rest of the world, I want to know whether the Palestinians, and frankly, much of the Arab and Muslim world, would be willing to accept Israel, as a Jewish State, within those boundaries?" 1) Did it escape your attention that the Arab League has offered recognition of Israel within those boundaries since years? 2) As for the Palestinians: Do you have any doubt that mutual recognition of the other's borders would be included in a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine?

"2% of the West Bank, which suggests Gush Etzion, Modin Illit and a couple of other towns on the Green Line. Israel wants 8% or a dozen major settlements, some far over the Green Line. So the future answer will be somewhere in between." so 8/2 = 4% (your magic number) Olmerts last offer to the pals was Israel keeps 3% of the west bank which Abbas rejected... The problem is that the pals leaders are not willing to further compromise thier position... which will have to happen if there is going to be peace...

The PLO did not exist in 1947, so it has no authority to make any sort of claims on territory assigned to the Arabs in the U.N. Partition Plan. But this is actually the minor point. The main point is that the Partition Plan was accepted by the Israeli side, and rejected by the Arab side. When Israel declared independence in 1948 on territory allocated to it according to the Partition Plan, five Arab armies invaded seeking to destroy the country and to "drive the Jews into the sea". This was preceded by nearly a year of local Arab guerrillas who waged a campaign of terror in response to the Partition Plan. So, the Partition Plan was rendered null and void as a result of this. Going back to the Partition Plan is a non-starter in any negotiations. By the way, I happen to live in Be'er-Sheva. I'm not sure what this definition of "legal" is, but I live in Israel, and Be'er-Sheva will most definitely not be a part of any future Palestinian state, whether the PLO agrees to this or not

I think that PM Netanyahu is the best in the world.Thank God for someone like him Israel you are blessed to have a leader like him. I'll pray that God will protect him in these very difficult time that we are in.

First of all, the Partition Plan is in no way binding on Israel, because Israel accepted it, and the Arabs rejected it. However, I do agree that most of the world views Israel's pre-1967 boundaries as the legitimate borders of the country. But I am not asking the rest of the world, I want to know whether the Palestinians, and frankly, much of the Arab and Muslim world, would be willing to accept Israel, as a Jewish State, within those boundaries? Because, (a) this conflict existed when those were the borders of Israel, and there was no settlement movement to speak of and (b) Yasser Arafat simply rejected, without any sort of counter-offer, Ehud Barak's offer of a Palestinian state on almost all of the territory Arafat said he wanted (not including territory from within Israel "proper" to make up for the difference). So, again, why should any rational-minded person believe that it is a homeland that the Palestinians want, and not the destruction of Israel?

Josh makes an important step by accepting that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not legitimate Israeli territory. What is? The answer is three part: a) Currently only those areas coloured blue on the UN's 1947 map are legally Israeli territory. They exclude Beersheba, Sederot, much of the North etc. b) These areas and Israel's other territorial gains from the 1948 war could legitimately be Israeli territory if (i) Israel claimed sovereignty over them and (ii) the PLO did not dissent. So far, surprisingly, the PLO has not claimed back these lands, so the ball is in Israel's court. There is a future (c): whatever land Israel negotiates with the PLO in a one-for-one land swap. The Pals have said in the past that they were willing to swop 2% of the West Bank, which suggests Gush Etzion, Modin Illit and a couple of other towns on the Green Line. Israel wants 8% or a dozen major settlements, some far over the Green Line. So the future answer will be somewhere in between.

I am not sure I understand you well? ARE YOU SAYING That the settlers must be compensated for giving up stolen land that belongs to the people you want to move away so you can keep it forever while they rot in hell? If so, no wander that Uri Avnery states everyone is guilty, including children and left wing journalists who profit from the occupation. The police, looking for a murderer looks for who might profit from the crime. Cui orodest?

"let me turn the question around and ask you this: What would YOU consider to be legitimate Israeli territory?" I cannot speak for ejnabi, but here is an alternative answer: If you want to know how many states recognize, or are offering to recognize Israel within the 1967 lines, look for the UN membership list ...

J: "What would YOU consider to be legitimate Israeli territory?" Legitimate, or legal? The LEGAL boundaries of Israeli territory are those drawn in the Partition Plan of 1947, and nothing since then has LEGALLY changed that. But since nobody - not even the Palestinians - are arguing about the territory seized by the Haganah between 1947-49 then it is fair to say that Israel has a LEGITIMATE claim to everything up to the Green Line. It is the difference between "de jure" borders (Partition Line) and "de facto" borders (Green Line), and those two won't be reconciled until a peace treaty is signed.

h: "since we offered to leave the west bank under both barak and olmert seeking in return peace and quiet and were turned down you had better peddle your advice to the other side" Neither offered to "leave the West Bank", which you would know if you made even the slightest attempt to look through the details. Barak, in particular, offered Arafat "sovereignty" over the Jordan Valley EVEN AS he was insisting that the Jordan Valley had to remain an IDF military zone for at least 10 years. It's a neat tricK: "offering to leave" by encamping itself for a further decade....

Some will agree, and some will not. It depends on who you see when looking in the mirror. Except for Iran and Syria, the Muslim/Arab states seem to want peace. But it is unreasonable to assume that either side will accept losing all or most of what they have fought for during two or three generations. Compromise will happen; and if history leads, no one will be entirely satisfied which means that it is probably fair.

"let me turn the question around and ask you this: What would YOU consider to be legitimate Israeli territory?" I could enumerate the states which recognize, or are offering to recognize, Israel's legitmate territory being that of 1967 - but to cut it short: Just see the membership list of the UN.

Some agree, and some do not. It depends who and what you see when looking in the mirror. Except for Iran and Syria, the Muslim/Arab states seem to want peace. It is not reasonable to assume that either side will accept losing all of what they have fought for over two or three generations. Compromise will happen; and if history leads, no one will be entirely satisfied which means that it is probably fair.

peace talks. since we offered to leave the west bank under both barak and olmert seeking in return peace and quiet and were turned down you had better peddle your advice to the other side,

Fine, for the purposes of this discussion, I will accept your claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may not in any way be consider legitimate Israeli territory. However, let me turn the question around and ask you this: What would YOU consider to be legitimate Israeli territory?

The author writes "the United States is failing to demand that Arab countries take steps toward normalized ties with Israel as compensation for the settlement freeze." Why should there be ANY compensation for a settlement freeze? The settlement activity is ILLEGAL under international law, and Israel wants to be rewarded for it? Compensation? You expect to be compensated for doing what's required of you as a state under international law? For demanding that your citizens respect the law, and respect their borders? "Judea and Samaria" ? what the rest of the world calls the West Bank, or Palestine, is NOT Israeli territory!! WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND???!!!!!

EU in January during the war froze the upgrade with Israel and changed approaches to dealing with Israel. So to blame EU's relation with Israel because of Bibi makes no sense. The EU knocked Israel down when the great Livni was foreign minister. Livni was offered foreign minister and turned it down. The left was crushed in the election and because she got Labour's old votes and 23 percent she lied and said she had the majority. Livni thought being in the opposition was better politically than in the govt. I don't get how you put Livni on such a high pedastal.

Politicians sell ideas. The idea of the moment is peace and "fairness." It will change without moving as all things do in the middle east.

R: "Akiva is very selective how governments should be bound by non-existent agreements of previous governments" A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict "Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report." And just in case you missed it the first time... "GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001" "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." That was May, 2003, and the LIKUD govt signed it, and the Knesset ratified it. Signed, sealed and delivered, Ron. But just a figment of Eldar's imagination, heh?

For all of Akiva Eldar's criticism of Netanyahu and this government, there was a time not long ago when Left-wing governments were in power, who were willing to trade land for peace, were specifically elected on a platform that called for the two-state solution, and yet failed to deliver results. So people like Akiva Eldar, before criticizing this government, should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves why governments that were led by Labor and Meretz, and then later Kadima, failed to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. When Labor and Meretz controlled the negotiations after Barak's election in 1999, the lead negotiators were people like Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin. And yet they too failed to achieve peace, and Israel got the second intifadah instead. I won't bother to state what conclusions I draw from this.

The choices for Israeli premiership in the current era hover between bad, very bad, awfull and disastereous. Livni is the first, Lieberman the last and everyone else somewhere in between. No one should pine for a bad choice lest a disterous one looms. They are all bad in that they and their likes have torpedoed all chances for peace and offerred nothing in return. Israel is stuck in the mudd.

In fact, he was worse, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Moreover, as bad as Bibi is, his hands aren't drenched in the blood of hundreds of innocents like Olmert's are. The same goes for the darling of the Western media, Livni. The slaughter in Gaza will not be forgotten so easily.

Akiva reminds us that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity - and in the same vain never misses an opportunity to find fault in any gesture by the center-right. Invite Tzipi ?? like Ilan Peppe he likes to re-write history - Netanyahu tried to form a center-left government - It was Tzipi (against the advise of many in her party) that said she will not act as a fig leaf - but then let not history stand in the way of Akiva criticizing Netanyahu. It takes two to tango - abbas could have surprised if he wanted too (the same as Hamas could have - after withdrawl - to take 1 year off to better the conditions of Gaza people and to demonstrate leadership and benefits of withdrawl -but again no surprises there). Akiva is very selective how governments should be bound by non-existent agreements of previous governments (as long as they meet his approval -left of left). Barak Offered, Yasser rejected but then the Barak offer is the basis of the next discussion ....

Netanyahu concocted a semi-sweet peace offering which the Palestinians could not accept due to it's temporary nature, exceptions and pre-freeze building permit blitz, and now claims it proves he wants peace but Palestinians do not - even while he sets up loopholes to make sure the freeze is short-lived and ineffective. This is not a clever man, it is a disingenuous one.

Netanyahu didn't win the election, but he and not Tzipi Livni was able to assemble a ruling coalition composed of the racist Yisrael Beiteinu. BUT LET US NOT IGNORE THE LABOR PARTY, which betrayed EVERYTHING it ever stood for to give Ehud Barak a forum from which he could betray all Labor voters. Barak is seure in his control of what is left of Labor. And the left is vanished as an influence on the future of Israel. We will not have Labor to deal with in the future, and Kadima will not survive it's founder, the vegetable Arik Sharon. So Akiva Eldar has nothing to complain about. Israel has the Prime Minister it wants, it has the policies that it IS. I would love to see the resurrection of the Israel of old. But it is DEAD. So very dead, and beyond any revival.