Who will succeed Netanyahu as Israel's Prime Minister, and when?

[SATW]

I have no problem with keeping the Arabs in Jerusalem as apart of Israel. Having a strong minority population isn't a bad thing, imo, and keeping Jerusalem united is much more symbolic for me on a religious level, so that's my biggest reason to want it united.

East Jerusalem has important parts of the Old City and that cannot be allowed to be controlled by the Palestinians. look how limited access Jews have at the Temple Mount, for example, and that's within Israeli-controlled territory. Anyone can go to the Western Wall...Jewish, christian, muslim etc... but only muslims can pray without interruption at Temple Mount.

Also, most Israeli-Arabs, in general, want to stay in Israel. Arabs in Jerusalem are split on the question (which is good news for Israel and bad news for the PA). http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758 ("only 30 percent chose Palestinian citizenship – as compared to 35 percent that chose Israeli citizenship")

the democracy-requirement I have for the PA isn't really as binding as my other demands but I think its important that the PA is held responsible for its own promises. Abbas was supposed to retire in 2010 and has not had elections since 2005.

 I do agree that elections shouldn't happen if Hamas is likely to take over again but if that is the case than it is the job of the PA, whose corruption has allowed Hamas to creep back in, to restore order and confidence to its population.

Also, Abbas is indeed Fatah but he'll be forced out/retire eventually, I think. He's almost 80. Fayyad is very committed to coexistence and peace. But, Fayyad is hated by Palestinian nationalists for being so liberal so he'll never become leader.

I don't really care if the PA let's Jews live in their country or not. That's not my business. Settlers are overtly right-wing and religious so most of them wouldn't even want to live there, I think (unless we give up religious Jewish holy sites in Hebron and Jerusalem, which would infuriate secular/ somewhat traditional Jews like me as well). More likely, left-wing, secular Jewish, human rights activists would want to have some sort of citizenship in with the PA.

Speaking of Hebron, the problem is that settlers have made it their goal to try and take back this holy city and I don't think they will budge and forcing them out would be a political disaster for any Israeli government. But, I'm biased. I have a lot of friends involved in this movement, so that makes it hard for me to think objectively on Hebron.

[SATW]

Hnv1, I'm curious, which party do you support (I'm assuming somewhere on the left lol).

I was and still am a Meretz member for years but I don't quite the direction the party is heading but will probably still vote them next cycle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

worthy to note that usually that after losing leadership it take's the right a whole cycle to get back on it's feet. Erdan is nowhere near qualified enough in general public eyes. Sa'ar is touted by Yediot but I doubt the traction this glass snake actually has. Ashkenazi has no platform to run as number 1. Yechimovic and Peretz could win a labour election but not carry a GE.
If Bennett and Lieberman want to be PMs (more likely in the case of the first) they need to merge with Likud

Interesting. It's certainly not easy to be left-leaning in Israel, with both Meretz and Labor having some big flaws, speaking from an objective standpoint.

[Californiadreaming]

I have no problem with keeping the Arabs in Jerusalem as apart of Israel. Having a strong minority population isn't a bad thing, imo,

Even if it results in an Arab mayor of Jerusalem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not all of Jerusalem has religious value, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I certainly agree that there should be as much freedom of worship as there currently is in the Old City of Jerusalem. Indeed, what about having the Old City of Jerusalem either a UN zone or putting it under dual/joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, I certainly agree with you that Israel should keep East Jerusalem if a sovereignty referendum there results in a pro-Israel vote. However, I am unsure about the wisdom of holding such a referendum in the first place. After all, couldn't a majority of the Arab population of, say, Bethlehem and/or Ramallah likewise vote to join Israel if they would have actually been offered this option/choice?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK. However, what I am concerned about is that a democratic regime might actually be somewhat less tolerant and somewhat less pro-human rights than a progressive authoritarian regime would be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I also certainly like Salam Fayyad a lot.

Anyway, though, out of the likely candidates to eventually succeed Mahmoud Abbas, what about Saeb Erekat? Indeed, he appears to have a lot of diplomatic experience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip strongly didn't want to leave back in 2005, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, since Israel could successfully evacuate the Gaza Strip, I would think that Israel would likewise be able to successfully evacuate Hebron. After all, are the Israeli Jewish settlers in Hebron going to open fire on the Israeli troops who will try to evict them from Hebron, or what?

[Californiadreaming]

Response to your other comments:

- Livni just has a very bad reputation among most partisans in Israel now. The Yachimovich/Peretz wing of Labor don't like her due to her past as a prominent person in Bibi's 1996-1999 gov't.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean back in 1996-1999?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK. Also, though, what about Isaac Herzog?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair, though, Livni only left Kadima after Mofaz defeated her in the 2012 Kadima leadership election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why exactly do you support this law, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you please elaborate on this part?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, did they live in Siberia?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it also states this:

"Abbas said he supported the idea of territorial swaps, but that Olmert pressed him into agreeing to the plan without allowing him to study the proposed map.

“He showed me a map. He didn’t give me a map,” Abbas said. “He told me, ‘This is the map’ and took it away. I respected his point of view, but how can I sign on something that I didn’t receive?”

Olmert confirmed that he pressed Abbas to initial the offer that day.

Abbas said he also felt Olmert’s offer to accept a symbolic number of Palestinian refugees into Israel did not resolve the issue — because descendants of Palestinian refugees now number in the millions, many scattered across the region.

Abbas said negotiations continued, but broke down as Olmert’s legal problems worsened. Olmert has since been convicted on bribery and corruption charges and sentenced to more than six years in prison. He is currently free while he appeals.

Nonetheless, the Palestinian leader described the talks as the most serious negotiations since an interim peace accord was reached in 1993 under then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Two years later, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish ultranationalist opposed to his peace moves.

“I feel he [Olmert] was assassinated politically as Rabin was assassinated materially. I feel if we had continued four to five months, we could have concluded the issues,” he said."

Indeed, how exactly is one is supposed to agree to a peace deal where one isn't even allowed to study the relevant map?

Also, though, I would like to point out that, if I were a Palestinian leader, while I would certainly agree to use Olmert's proposal as a basis for future negotiations, I would have likewise rejected it if it was presented to me on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. After all, I would have been concerned by the excessively large and excessively invasive Israeli annexations of West Bank territory in this plan (especially in and around Ariel):



Indeed, I would have certainly refused to accept a peace deal that would have allowed Israel to annex the two "fingers" of West Bank territory in and around Ariel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did Peretz manage to make himself liked again, though?

[Angel of Death]

I do like another plan more, it is called the Palestinian emirates plan and was made by Dr. Mordechai Kedar. http://www.palestinianemirates.com/

Holy apartheid, Batman! And this wouldn't be Bantustans on steroids because of what exactly? Because he gave them the more palatable-sounding term "emirates" instead? At least the original Bantustans were mostly larger than mere cities.

If people are really this deluded to think the plans mentioned here count as either "peaceful" or even realistic, then it's more likely a future Prime Minister of Israel will end up being called Marwan Barghouti (cf. once again South Africa).

[Californiadreaming]

Well he's more likely to be out of office due to "corruption" allegations that are now knocking at his house door in a bundle (unsurprisingly all having to do with his wife). Intensive investigations opened in recent months.
Likud doesn't topple reigning leaders, and the centre-centre\left has no one to offer, Herzog is unelectable and Lapid will never gather the required number of hands for a coalition (his ego is also far to big to be someone's number 2).
If they don't charge him then for now he stays put, if they do want to charge him he'll call a snap election to put pressure against that. What happens if they charge him and he's out? the picture is not clear enough atm to determine

Out of curiosity--would a different Labor leader be more electable than Herzog is?

Might be, but no such person is in sight

What about Erel Margalit, though?

[Californiadreaming]

I do like another plan more, it is called the Palestinian emirates plan and was made by Dr. Mordechai Kedar. http://www.palestinianemirates.com/

Holy apartheid, Batman! And this wouldn't be Bantustans on steroids because of what exactly? Because he gave them the more palatable-sounding term "emirates" instead? At least the original Bantustans were mostly larger than mere cities.

If people are really this deluded to think the plans mentioned here count as either "peaceful" or even realistic, then it's more likely a future Prime Minister of Israel will end up being called Marwan Barghouti (cf. once again South Africa).

Oh, I certainly agree that the Bantustans analogy is at least somewhat accurate :





Indeed, if Israeli leaders are unwilling to withdraw from 90+% of the West Bank right now, then they can at least implement a plan similar to this one for the time being:

[Californiadreaming]

Anyway, while I certainly cannot vote in Israeli elections due to the fact that I live in the U.S., I would think that I would vote for either Kulanu or Yesh Atid if I actually lived in Israel. Indeed, the fact that Israel's lax response to terrorism back in the 1990s paved the way for the Second Intifada to break out at the start of the 2000s makes me hesitant to support Labor.

Well this is far from being historically accurate, it wasn't lax response to terrorism so much as the inherent problems of the Oslo accords (the left talked about them from the start) and if there are 3 individuals that could be blamed really for this outburst that Bibi (for his 96-9 tenure), Barak (for so many thing) and Arfaat. But this is not the place to start debating this

What exactly is the place to start debating this, though? After all, I am certainly interested in hearing you elaborate on what you wrote here.

Can you please respond to this question of mine, Hnv1?

[Hnv1]

Well he's more likely to be out of office due to "corruption" allegations that are now knocking at his house door in a bundle (unsurprisingly all having to do with his wife). Intensive investigations opened in recent months.
Likud doesn't topple reigning leaders, and the centre-centre\left has no one to offer, Herzog is unelectable and Lapid will never gather the required number of hands for a coalition (his ego is also far to big to be someone's number 2).
If they don't charge him then for now he stays put, if they do want to charge him he'll call a snap election to put pressure against that. What happens if they charge him and he's out? the picture is not clear enough atm to determine

Out of curiosity--would a different Labor leader be more electable than Herzog is?

Might be, but no such person is in sight

What about Erel Margalit, though?

That would be something, I remember someone predicting in 2009 that Margalit vs Barakat will be the PM contest of 2020... (I blush to confess I once thought it would be Pelsner vs Ardan)
Well he might have more appeal than Herzog but still can't get the number of seats he needs to: first be given a chance to form a government, and then actually forming one. As long as Lapid is in he's like a pain in the ass to any Labour centrist's hopes of beating Likud in seat count.

But if Bibi is out of the picture...well things become unpredictable, a moderate hero preferably with some retired stars on his shoulder could cash in.

[Californiadreaming]

Well he's more likely to be out of office due to "corruption" allegations that are now knocking at his house door in a bundle (unsurprisingly all having to do with his wife). Intensive investigations opened in recent months.
Likud doesn't topple reigning leaders, and the centre-centre\left has no one to offer, Herzog is unelectable and Lapid will never gather the required number of hands for a coalition (his ego is also far to big to be someone's number 2).
If they don't charge him then for now he stays put, if they do want to charge him he'll call a snap election to put pressure against that. What happens if they charge him and he's out? the picture is not clear enough atm to determine

Out of curiosity--would a different Labor leader be more electable than Herzog is?

Might be, but no such person is in sight

What about Erel Margalit, though?

That would be something, I remember someone predicting in 2009 that Margalit vs Barakat will be the PM contest of 2020... (I blush to confess I once thought it would be Pelsner vs Ardan)

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically speaking, though, left-wing parties (including the Arab parties, who don't participate in coalitions) almost won a majority of the seats in the 2013 Israeli Knesset elections. Indeed, if left-wing parties (including the Arab parties) will control a majority of the seats in the Knesset, they might very well be able to prevent Likud from forming a government and thus might create their own coalition which (obviously) excludes the Arab parties but includes Kulanu, Yaalon's party, and/or one or more of the ultra-Orthodox parties (who, admittedly, have a rivalry with Lapid).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "Lapid is in"? Indeed, I don't quite understand what you mean by this part of your statement here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean someone like Yaalon or Ashkenazi?

[Hnv1]

Anyway, while I certainly cannot vote in Israeli elections due to the fact that I live in the U.S., I would think that I would vote for either Kulanu or Yesh Atid if I actually lived in Israel. Indeed, the fact that Israel's lax response to terrorism back in the 1990s paved the way for the Second Intifada to break out at the start of the 2000s makes me hesitant to support Labor.

Well this is far from being historically accurate, it wasn't lax response to terrorism so much as the inherent problems of the Oslo accords (the left talked about them from the start) and if there are 3 individuals that could be blamed really for this outburst that Bibi (for his 96-9 tenure), Barak (for so many thing) and Arfaat. But this is not the place to start debating this

What exactly is the place to start debating this, though? After all, I am certainly interested in hearing you elaborate on what you wrote here.

Can you please respond to this question of mine, Hnv1?

Well basically no as it could (and is) feed whole books on the topic but in a very concise yet not exhaustive way:
-The Oslo accords had their intrinsic flaws as they weren't drafted with the real aim of a 2-state solution but more as a remedy for problems on the ground Labour leadership saw (even Peres came around the idea of a Palestinian state later). The structure of the agreement was flawed, the time table was instantly dropped by the Israeli side (like 1979 peace accords section regarding the autonomy), the PLO men from Tunis were corrupt and inept in taking charge of situation on the ground. Labour did not want to go all guns blazing against the settlers, the PLO did not want to go all guns blazing against all the militias, and IDF's presence was as suffocating after the agreement as before which was a cause for an outcry in the Palestinian streets.
-Bibi's first government did all it could to tear this process down anyway (forced by Clinton to "give away" Hebron), the time table according to the agreement was stuck, Palestinian economy deteriorated as the accords segregated the Palestinian work force from the Israeli market where they mostly made a living and kept Israelis out from shopping in Palestine. This rage toward the situation between 96-9 was boiling underground and by 2000 intelligence sources thought a second intifida will come at some point in the near future.
-Arafat had traits of border line personality and other psychological problematic syndromes. The fact that he was also a pathological liar surely didn't help (or the bellend he made Abbas look after he and Beilin drafted a blueprint for a final settlement and Arafat pretty much wiped his arse with it)
-Barak was a terrible politician and a terrible person who always thought he was smarter than everyone. With his government in shambles he went to camp david and dropped a take it or leave it offer on Arfat everybody told him he couldn't accept and certainly not on the spot. It was a barrel of gunpowder waiting to explode afterwards, Sharon went on the Temple Mount and things just started rolling from there.

[Hnv1]

Well he's more likely to be out of office due to "corruption" allegations that are now knocking at his house door in a bundle (unsurprisingly all having to do with his wife). Intensive investigations opened in recent months.
Likud doesn't topple reigning leaders, and the centre-centre\left has no one to offer, Herzog is unelectable and Lapid will never gather the required number of hands for a coalition (his ego is also far to big to be someone's number 2).
If they don't charge him then for now he stays put, if they do want to charge him he'll call a snap election to put pressure against that. What happens if they charge him and he's out? the picture is not clear enough atm to determine

Out of curiosity--would a different Labor leader be more electable than Herzog is?

Might be, but no such person is in sight

What about Erel Margalit, though?

That would be something, I remember someone predicting in 2009 that Margalit vs Barakat will be the PM contest of 2020... (I blush to confess I once thought it would be Pelsner vs Ardan)

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically speaking, though, left-wing parties (including the Arab parties, who don't participate in coalitions) almost won a majority of the seats in the 2013 Israeli Knesset elections. Indeed, if left-wing parties (including the Arab parties) will control a majority of the seats in the Knesset, they might very well be able to prevent Likud from forming a government and thus might create their own coalition which (obviously) excludes the Arab parties but includes Kulanu, Yaalon's party, and/or one or more of the ultra-Orthodox parties (who, admittedly, have a rivalry with Lapid).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "Lapid is in"? Indeed, I don't quite understand what you mean by this part of your statement here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean someone like Yaalon or Ashkenazi?

Hell would freeze, melt, and become a Spanish resort for Essex girls before Labour or Lapid will create a bloc with the Arab party to prevent a Likud government. The math for a centre-left led coalition is just not there ATM.

I meant Lapid is in as in the political game, as long as his party plays a role (and getting backed by the biggest media body in Israel) Labour are screwed.
 
As to the post Bibi future well the Talmud already said "Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from the prophets and was given to lunatics and small children"

[Californiadreaming]

Anyway, while I certainly cannot vote in Israeli elections due to the fact that I live in the U.S., I would think that I would vote for either Kulanu or Yesh Atid if I actually lived in Israel. Indeed, the fact that Israel's lax response to terrorism back in the 1990s paved the way for the Second Intifada to break out at the start of the 2000s makes me hesitant to support Labor.

Well this is far from being historically accurate, it wasn't lax response to terrorism so much as the inherent problems of the Oslo accords (the left talked about them from the start) and if there are 3 individuals that could be blamed really for this outburst that Bibi (for his 96-9 tenure), Barak (for so many thing) and Arfaat. But this is not the place to start debating this

What exactly is the place to start debating this, though? After all, I am certainly interested in hearing you elaborate on what you wrote here.

Can you please respond to this question of mine, Hnv1?

Well basically no as it could (and is) feed whole books on the topic but in a very concise yet not exhaustive way:
-The Oslo accords had their intrinsic flaws as they weren't drafted with the real aim of a 2-state solution but more as a remedy for problems on the ground Labour leadership saw (even Peres came around the idea of a Palestinian state later). The structure of the agreement was flawed,

How was the structure of the agreement flawed, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean in 1996 or even earlier than that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labor/Israel could have done this part, though. Indeed, Ariel Sharon ultimately ended up doing exactly this between 2001 and 2005.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Care to please elaborate on this part?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weren't Bibi's moves at least in part a response to Palestinian terrorism, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weren't Palestinians still allowed to work in Israel after the Oslo Accords were signed, though?

Also, exactly how many Israelis actually shopped in Palestine before the Oslo Accords?

In addition to this, what exactly did Israelis want to buy in Palestine? Fruits? Vegetables? Something else? Indeed, why exactly could Israelis no longer shop in Palestine after the Oslo Accords?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have a source for this, please?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Arafat refuse to make a counteroffer, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct! Also, though, didn't Arafat promise to control any protests and violence that will occur after Sharon's Temple Mount visit and yet ended up being unwilling and/or unable to actually do this when push came to shove?

[SATW]

I do like another plan more, it is called the Palestinian emirates plan and was made by Dr. Mordechai Kedar. http://www.palestinianemirates.com/

Holy apartheid, Batman! And this wouldn't be Bantustans on steroids because of what exactly? Because he gave them the more palatable-sounding term "emirates" instead? At least the original Bantustans were mostly larger than mere cities.

If people are really this deluded to think the plans mentioned here count as either "peaceful" or even realistic, then it's more likely a future Prime Minister of Israel will end up being called Marwan Barghouti (cf. once again South Africa).

I mean, it could be a starting point and certainly I always reserve the position to not agree with everything in certain opinions or plans.

I should've been more clear in my previous post: This plan, by Kedar, would serve as a good talking point for peace talks. It labels the major cities that would be in a Palestinian State.

The only issue I foresee is Gaza, which is going to be a problem when discussing a Palestinian state anyways due its geographic isolation from the rest of Palestinian-controlled areas and due to its radicalized/terrorist leadership.

My my version of the two-state plan, which I posted above this plan by Dr. Kedar, still stands.

[SATW]

Response to your other comments:

- Livni just has a very bad reputation among most partisans in Israel now. The Yachimovich/Peretz wing of Labor don't like her due to her past as a prominent person in Bibi's 1996-1999 gov't.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean back in 1996-1999?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK. Also, though, what about Isaac Herzog?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair, though, Livni only left Kadima after Mofaz defeated her in the 2012 Kadima leadership election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why exactly do you support this law, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you please elaborate on this part?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, did they live in Siberia?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it also states this:

"Abbas said he supported the idea of territorial swaps, but that Olmert pressed him into agreeing to the plan without allowing him to study the proposed map.

“He showed me a map. He didn’t give me a map,” Abbas said. “He told me, ‘This is the map’ and took it away. I respected his point of view, but how can I sign on something that I didn’t receive?”

Olmert confirmed that he pressed Abbas to initial the offer that day.

Abbas said he also felt Olmert’s offer to accept a symbolic number of Palestinian refugees into Israel did not resolve the issue — because descendants of Palestinian refugees now number in the millions, many scattered across the region.

Abbas said negotiations continued, but broke down as Olmert’s legal problems worsened. Olmert has since been convicted on bribery and corruption charges and sentenced to more than six years in prison. He is currently free while he appeals.

Nonetheless, the Palestinian leader described the talks as the most serious negotiations since an interim peace accord was reached in 1993 under then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Two years later, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish ultranationalist opposed to his peace moves.

“I feel he [Olmert] was assassinated politically as Rabin was assassinated materially. I feel if we had continued four to five months, we could have concluded the issues,” he said."

Indeed, how exactly is one is supposed to agree to a peace deal where one isn't even allowed to study the relevant map?

Also, though, I would like to point out that, if I were a Palestinian leader, while I would certainly agree to use Olmert's proposal as a basis for future negotiations, I would have likewise rejected it if it was presented to me on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. After all, I would have been concerned by the excessively large and excessively invasive Israeli annexations of West Bank territory in this plan (especially in and around Ariel):



Indeed, I would have certainly refused to accept a peace deal that would have allowed Israel to annex the two "fingers" of West Bank territory in and around Ariel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did Peretz manage to make himself liked again, though?

1. Yea, the 1996-1999 term is what I was referring too. She privatized a lot of things that social democrats and socialists within Labor are not fond of. She is also the daughter of Eitan Livni, a former Likud MK who fought for Irgun. She has always had a right-wing brackground/upbringing and career. She just doesn't fit in with the center-left ideals.

2. Honestly, putting my Likud loyalties aside, I think Labor needs to differentiate itself from Likud and it can do this by adopting the Yachimovich ideology of domestically left-wing (social and economic) and a hawkish foreign policy. Essentially, what I would like to see from Labor is the return of the old Mapai/Alignment/Labor movements, which were hawkish on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues. Of course, Yachimovich has been tried (and failed) as leader, so they would need someone else, likely, to lead the party but the Herzog approach is a joke.

like Ehud Barak, I have a lot of respect, personally, for Herzog (military service for Barak, Police service and father's legacy for Herzog), but they are both joke politicians and need to go away. Mushy moderates who flop like fish on almost every issue.

3. I mean, yea, that's true, but she lost because of her own faults not because of Mofaz. She was not a good leader for Kadima. Her leaving the party destroyed it, and along with it her new-found centrist ideology.

4. I support the NGO law because I think that is extremely problematic that European countries and private organizations think they can meddle in Israel's democracy without being traced. All it does is force the NGO's to tell Israel where its money comes from. I also support a law that would force right-wing NGOs to tell us where their money comes from as well (Livni actually had a bill that addressed this but it never passed). The difference is that European governments (sometimes unknowingly) are mainly giving money to left-wing NGOs, that in many cases, spew out anti-Israel propaganda. right-wing NGOs mainly get support from private donors like Sheldon Adelson.

I also like the terrorism law that Shaked got passed (which opposition people like Livni supported).  (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ayelet-Shaked-Israel-is-the-tip-of-the-spear-in-war-on-terror-455432)

Also, as much as I like Likud, there are quite a few corrupt people in the party that I was worried about getting their hands on the Justice Ministry. This is why I'm glad The Jewish Home got it instead.

5. Yea, as if Abbas really needed a real excuse to reject peace. We can agree on a lot of things, but I think we might disagree on Abbas. Abbas, imo, is a snake and a terrorist-enabler, just like Yasser Arafat was.

Also, this line makes me laugh: “I feel he [Olmert] was assassinated politically as Rabin was assassinated materially. I feel if we had continued four to five months, we could have concluded the issues,” he said."

Olmert, like Abbas, is a crook there was no "political assassination" or conspiracy by Israel to stifle peace talks. Leave it to another crook to defend him. Also, if Abbas and his ilk were so committed to peace after Rabin's assassination (which, I agree, was one of the worst days in Israeli history) why did nothing ever get accomplished? Arafat and some on the Israeli left can claim how Barak's 2000 peace talks weren't in good faith or whatever but it was the most expansive and left-wing peace plan proposed by Israel, with parts of Jerusalem being up for grabs.

Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Amir Peretz (who all led Labor at different points) were all foreign policy pragmatists/doves and all would've sold the house for peace. Yet, terrorist attacks persisted and the corruption in Palestinian leadership continued to grow.

Also, in regard to this apparent see and sign plan trick that Olmert allegedly did...lol, it was later said in this source (http://www.thetower.org/2580-breaking-abbas-admits-for-the-first-time-that-he-turned-down-peace-offer-in-2008/) that Abbas tried to draw it from recollection. So, clearly, Mr. Abbas had a good idea of what it was. Also, both Olmert and Abbas seemed to be on the same page...roughly 92% of the west bank would've became a palestinian state.

The issue for Abbas, just like Arafat, was on the issue of Palestinian "refugees." They will never drop this ridiculous request. You are about to get your own country...why would you continue to press for the "right of return"? the only explanation is that he, like Arafat, wants all of Israel, not just the west bank.

On Olmert's part, like I said, he was hardly a model person or politician to be leading peace talks but there are multiple reasons to not give Abbas a map.

1) The idea that the Palestinian leadership, as a whole, was willing to make any concessions is a gravely mistaken one. I can't see them accepting this sort of plan because many in Fatah, to this day, cheer on the deaths of Israeli citizens, which leads me to believe they don't want peace, they want all or nothing.

2) When you have peace talks you would certainly need all players to sign on, no? But, of course, part of why Olmert even thing any of this was because of his legal and political troubles. Abbas, clearly, had enough time to analyze and look at this map to try and re-draw it later. His statement in the TOI pretty much implied that Olmert just flashed it in his face and walked away, which is false.

[SATW]

Also, my family lived near the Caucasus region of Russia. I can message you if you want specific location.

EDIT: In regard to Peretz, not sure why they like him again. I guess because he's more left-wing than Herzog and because hes' been out of office for a bit but im not sure.   

[Californiadreaming]

I do like another plan more, it is called the Palestinian emirates plan and was made by Dr. Mordechai Kedar. http://www.palestinianemirates.com/

Holy apartheid, Batman! And this wouldn't be Bantustans on steroids because of what exactly? Because he gave them the more palatable-sounding term "emirates" instead? At least the original Bantustans were mostly larger than mere cities.

If people are really this deluded to think the plans mentioned here count as either "peaceful" or even realistic, then it's more likely a future Prime Minister of Israel will end up being called Marwan Barghouti (cf. once again South Africa).

I mean, it could be a starting point and certainly I always reserve the position to not agree with everything in certain opinions or plans.

I should've been more clear in my previous post: This plan, by Kedar, would serve as a good talking point for peace talks. It labels the major cities that would be in a Palestinian State.

The only issue I foresee is Gaza, which is going to be a problem when discussing a Palestinian state anyways due its geographic isolation from the rest of Palestinian-controlled areas and due to its radicalized/terrorist leadership.

My my version of the two-state plan, which I posted above this plan by Dr. Kedar, still stands.

What about the 2009 Mofaz Plan, though?:

[SATW]

Lol for some reason I thought I put a response for it last night but I did not, my b.

It looks like a decent, short-term plan form what I see. I'd make my own minor edits in a few spots, but its decent.

[Californiadreaming]

Lol for some reason I thought I put a response for it last night but I did not, my b.

It looks like a decent, short-term plan form what I see. I'd make my own minor edits in a few spots, but its decent.

Where exactly would you make minor edits to this plan, though?

[SATW]

Lol for some reason I thought I put a response for it last night but I did not, my b.

It looks like a decent, short-term plan form what I see. I'd make my own minor edits in a few spots, but its decent.

Where exactly would you make minor edits to this plan, though?

I'll just draw a map of the type of plan I'd easily get behind and I'll either post it here or message it to you

[Californiadreaming]

1. Yea, the 1996-1999 term is what I was referring too. She privatized a lot of things that social democrats and socialists within Labor are not fond of. She is also the daughter of Eitan Livni, a former Likud MK who fought for Irgun. She has always had a right-wing brackground/upbringing and career. She just doesn't fit in with the center-left ideals.

2. Honestly, putting my Likud loyalties aside, I think Labor needs to differentiate itself from Likud and it can do this by adopting the Yachimovich ideology of domestically left-wing (social and economic) and a hawkish foreign policy. Essentially, what I would like to see from Labor is the return of the old Mapai/Alignment/Labor movements, which were hawkish on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues. Of course, Yachimovich has been tried (and failed) as leader, so they would need someone else, likely, to lead the party but the Herzog approach is a joke.

like Ehud Barak, I have a lot of respect, personally, for Herzog (military service for Barak, Police service and father's legacy for Herzog), but they are both joke politicians and need to go away. Mushy moderates who flop like fish on almost every issue.

3. I mean, yea, that's true, but she lost because of her own faults not because of Mofaz. She was not a good leader for Kadima. Her leaving the party destroyed it, and along with it her new-found centrist ideology.


4. I support the NGO law because I think that is extremely problematic that European countries and private organizations think they can meddle in Israel's democracy without being traced. All it does is force the NGO's to tell Israel where its money comes from. I also support a law that would force right-wing NGOs to tell us where their money comes from as well (Livni actually had a bill that addressed this but it never passed). The difference is that European governments (sometimes unknowingly) are mainly giving money to left-wing NGOs, that in many cases, spew out anti-Israel propaganda. right-wing NGOs mainly get support from private donors like Sheldon Adelson.

I also like the terrorism law that Shaked got passed (which opposition people like Livni supported).  (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ayelet-Shaked-Israel-is-the-tip-of-the-spear-in-war-on-terror-455432)

Also, as much as I like Likud, there are quite a few corrupt people in the party that I was worried about getting their hands on the Justice Ministry. This is why I'm glad The Jewish Home got it instead.

5. Yea, as if Abbas really needed a real excuse to reject peace. We can agree on a lot of things, but I think we might disagree on Abbas. Abbas, imo, is a snake and a terrorist-enabler, just like Yasser Arafat was.

5A. Also, this line makes me laugh: “I feel he [Olmert] was assassinated politically as Rabin was assassinated materially. I feel if we had continued four to five months, we could have concluded the issues,” he said."

Olmert, like Abbas, is a crook there was no "political assassination" or conspiracy by Israel to stifle peace talks. Leave it to another crook to defend him. Also, if Abbas and his ilk were so committed to peace after Rabin's assassination (which, I agree, was one of the worst days in Israeli history) why did nothing ever get accomplished? Arafat and some on the Israeli left can claim how Barak's 2000 peace talks weren't in good faith or whatever but it was the most expansive and left-wing peace plan proposed by Israel, with parts of Jerusalem being up for grabs.

Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Amir Peretz (who all led Labor at different points) were all foreign policy pragmatists/doves and all would've sold the house for peace. Yet, terrorist attacks persisted and the corruption in Palestinian leadership continued to grow.

Also, in regard to this apparent see and sign plan trick that Olmert allegedly did...lol, it was later said in this source (http://www.thetower.org/2580-breaking-abbas-admits-for-the-first-time-that-he-turned-down-peace-offer-in-2008/) that Abbas tried to draw it from recollection. So, clearly, Mr. Abbas had a good idea of what it was. Also, both Olmert and Abbas seemed to be on the same page...roughly 92% of the west bank would've became a palestinian state.

The issue for Abbas, just like Arafat, was on the issue of Palestinian "refugees." They will never drop this ridiculous request. You are about to get your own country...why would you continue to press for the "right of return"? the only explanation is that he, like Arafat, wants all of Israel, not just the west bank.

5B. On Olmert's part, like I said, he was hardly a model person or politician to be leading peace talks but there are multiple reasons to not give Abbas a map.

1) The idea that the Palestinian leadership, as a whole, was willing to make any concessions is a gravely mistaken one. I can't see them accepting this sort of plan because many in Fatah, to this day, cheer on the deaths of Israeli citizens, which leads me to believe they don't want peace, they want all or nothing.

2) When you have peace talks you would certainly need all players to sign on, no? But, of course, part of why Olmert even thing any of this was because of his legal and political troubles. Abbas, clearly, had enough time to analyze and look at this map to try and re-draw it later. His statement in the TOI pretty much implied that Olmert just flashed it in his face and walked away, which is false.

1. The center-left appears to have energetically supported Livni back in 2009, though.

2. OK.

Also, out of curiosity--do you think that Erel Margalit would make a good leader of Labor? In addition to this, what about other Labor politicians such as Hillik Bar?

3. Fair enough, I suppose. Indeed, from the perspective of Livni's best interests, she should have been more willing to compromise with the ultra-Orthodox parties back in late 2008. Indeed, had Mofaz beat Livni back in September 2008, I strongly suspect that Mofaz would have been more conciliatory to the ultra-Orthodox parties and thus, unlike Livni, would have actually been able to form a coalition and to become Israel's Prime Minister in late 2008.

4. Thank you very much for sharing all of this information!

5. Eh ... I'm not so sure about that. After all, unlike Arafat, wasn't Abbas never directly involved in terrorism?

Also, though, if you want to actually test Abbas's commitment to peace, then have Israel agree to the Palestinian proposal for a multilateral forum for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and then have everyone see whether or not the Palestinians are peace-makers or rejectionists.

In addition to this, though, I want to point out that, unlike Arafat, Abbas actually appears to have continuously maintained relative calm in the territories that he controls. Indeed, this certainly makes me willing to believe that, unlike Arafat, Abbas might actually be a good peace partner for Israel.

5A. Actually, I certainly agree with you that Olmert been a less corrupt politician, he would have been able to continue his peace talks with Abbas until either 2010 or even later than that. Indeed, as you said, Olmert was brought down by his own corruption.

Also, in regards to the map recollection, recollections certainly aren't exact and precise. Indeed, when it comes to something as major as a final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty, all of the details need to be known about beforehand.

In addition to this, in regards to Abbas, it appears that Abbas wanted 98%, rather than 92%, of the West Bank:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hand-drawn-map-shows-what-olmert-offered-for-peace/

"The Palestinians have been reported to have countered with a proposal for a far smaller, 1.9% land swap. Abbas told the Washington Post in 2009 that Olmert’s offer was insufficient. “The gaps were wide,” he said."

Indeed, based on my own previous research, if I was a Palestinian leader, I would likewise demand around 96-97% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state.

Also, in regards to the right of return, have Israel explicitly ask Abbas what number of refugees he wants to have Israel absorb and then see if Israel is actually willing to accept that number of refugees. Indeed, my own personal uppermost limit would probably be 100,000 (a little more than 1% of Israel's total population) if I were an Israeli leader. Of course, the Israeli people themselves might not be willing to accept that many Palestinian refugees!

Finally,  I would like to point out that there haven't been very many peace talks (2000-01, 2007-08, 2014-15) over the last 20 years. Thus, I don't think that it's completely fair to blame Abbas for the lack of progress in peace talks.

5B.

1. This still doesn't mean that they shouldn't be entitled to a map of Israel's peace proposal, though.

2. If one redraws a map later, though, then one might already forget some of the details on this map. Indeed, a final peace treaty needs to be known right up to the last detail by the people who are signing and ratifying it.

[Californiadreaming]

Lol for some reason I thought I put a response for it last night but I did not, my b.

It looks like a decent, short-term plan form what I see. I'd make my own minor edits in a few spots, but its decent.

Where exactly would you make minor edits to this plan, though?

I'll just draw a map of the type of plan I'd easily get behind and I'll either post it here or message it to you

OK. Also, if possible, please post it here!

[SATW]

ok, will do

[Californiadreaming]

ok, will do

Good.

[SATW]

I'm not expecting a lot of people here to like my plan, or agree with it, but this is generally what I like (idealistically), but there are some areas I'm willing to budge on.

Something to note, however:

- Ganim, Kadim, Sa-Nur are all no longer Israeli settlements (this map is a bit old, so it may be missing some new settlements).

Onto what I consider must-keeps for Israel and what I consider negotiable:
- All of Jerusalem, Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, Giv'at Ze'ev and most of Gush Etzion are nonnegotiable for me.
- areas around Ramallah that are in Israeli territory in this map are negotiable (specifically talking about Psagot, which I included in Israel in this map and Talmon, which I gave up in this map).
- Near Otniel and Negohot, I'm willing to give up a good amount of more land, including Negohot, but not Otniel.
- I'm proposing a split in Hebron.


There's other stuff, but I'll wait for critiques.