Netanyahu flip flops on Palestinian state comment


(CNN)—Two days after his victory at the polls, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already walked back his disavowal of a two-state solution.

"I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution," Netanyahu said Thursday in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "I haven't changed my policy."

But just days before, in an attempt to drive right-wing voters to the polls, Netanyahu said in an interview that there would not be a Palestinian state under his watch if he was reelected.

Asked by Israeli news site NRG on Monday if Netanyahu thought that there would never be a Palestinian nation formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu responded, "Indeed." He also blasted the idea of a state given the security challenges facing Israel.

Netanyahu's comments Monday were seen a key part to his Tuesday election victory but also "raised significant concerns" with senior administration officials back in Washington, who saw ruling out a two-state solution as a significant setback for U.S.-Israel relations.

U.S. officials have said that they have been waiting to see if Netanyahu would stand behind his comments as he moves toward forming a governing coalition, and indicated that they would be reassessing the relationship if he maintained his firm opposition to a Palestinian state.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday afternoon White House officials are in touch with their Israeli counterparts to try and schedule a call between President Barack Obama and Netanyahu. That call, Earnest says, could come "as early as today."​

On Thursday, Netanyahu said his comments were a reflection of changing conditions on the Palestinian side, pointing to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's pact to form a unity government with Hamas, which Israel, the U.S. and most European countries consider a terrorist organization. He put the onus on Palestinian leaders to create conditions favorable for peace.

"I'm talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable," Netanyahu said Thursday. "If you want to get peace, you've got to get the Palestinian leadership to abandon their pact with Hamas and engage in genuine negotiations with Israel."

Netanyahu said he supports the same conditions for negotiating a sustainable peace: a demilitarized Palestinian state whose leadership recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu also walked back another controversial campaign remark, when he urged his supporters to go out to counteract the effect of Arab voters who he said were rushing to the polls "in droves."

"I wasn't trying to suppress the vote...I was calling on our voters to come out," Netanyahu said. "I'm very proud to be the prime minister' of all Israel's citizens."

Netanyahu went on to point out that he drew support from "quite a few Arab voters" and spoke of the "free and fair elections" in Israel that aren't commonplace in the rest of the Middle East.

Netanyahu also deflected criticism from the Obama administration, which has said it was "deeply concerned" about Netanyahu's comments. Senior administration officials have also suggested that Netanyahu's comments on a Palestinian state during his campaign might prompt the U.S. to reconsider its defense of Israel at the United Nations.

The Israeli prime minister pointed to the "unbreakable bond" between the U.S. and Israel and downplayed strains in his personal relationship with Obama. He has not yet called Netanyahu to congratulate him on his visit, instead dispatching his secretary of state to do so on Wednesday.

"America has no greater ally than Israel and Israel has no greater ally than the United States," Netanyahu said. "We'll work together. We have to."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/ ... index.html?

Like all politicians. Most of them wait a while before back tracking on major policy issues.

I will never forgive his 24th hour racist demagoguery ~ IMO, his narcissism/egotism has placed Israel at great risk internationally ~ I've put several excellent critiques into my "saved to read/maybe post later" file in the past few days that I'll get posted over the weekend ~ in my view, he's a lying PoS who canNOT be trusted ~

Sooz

A very solid commentary ~ Netanyahu's narcissistic tunnel-vision seems to have neglected to factor in that the US has long been Israel's protector at the UN, and to remember that 2 years can be an eternity ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Obama has a few words for Netanyahu
03/20/15 08:46 AM
By Steve Benen

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat down with msnbc’s Andrea Mitchell, the Israeli leader said he’d already spoken with Secretary of State John Kerry, and he expected to connect with President Obama soon. Their chat apparently happened soon after.


When is a congratulatory call less than a congratulatory call? When the U.S. leader feels the need to point out that the Israeli leader’s party won “a plurality,” as opposed to a majority.

Or put another way, Netanyahu’s Likud party, which received roughly 24% of the vote, did about as well in Israel this week as President Obama did in 2012 – in Utah. (Of course, Israeli has a multi-party system, so 24% represents a significant win. When combined with the votes for other far-right parties and Likud offshoots, Netanyahu’s agenda and provocative pandering actually enjoyed broad support this week.)

According to the White House’s official readout on the president’s call with Netanyahu, Obama also mentioned “the difficult path forward to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the White House’s “long-standing commitment to a two-state solution,” and the president’s ongoing focus “on reaching a comprehensive deal with Iran.”

Or to put this another way, Obama effectively told the prime minister, “Nice job getting 24% of the vote. If you think your re-election changes anything, think again.”


It’s against this backdrop that William Saletan raises an important point.


The question is whether, and how, that might change, and whether Netanyahu’s recent antics have been outrageous enough to cause fundamental shifts.

To that end, a White House official told reporters yesterday that President Obama “told the prime minister that we will need to reassess our options following the prime minister’s new positions and comments regarding the two state solution.”

Netanyahu, of course, is trying to add some nuance to his pre-election posturing, arguing yesterday that he has no “new” position, but few find the spin persuasive. It’s certainly possible, if not likely, that the prime minister doesn’t much care – he may be under the impression that there will be no consequences for his actions that have frayed U.S./Israeli ties. Indeed, American Republicans are eager to reinforce that impression – House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced last night that he’s traveling to Israel “in about a week.”

But American foreign policy remains in the president’s hands, and Obama seems reluctant to simply let Netanyahu’s misdeeds slide.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-has-few-words-netanyahu

That’s why Israel has descended to its current level of disregard for others. It hasn’t paid a price.

Israel needs to pay a price and it should be one that's sufficient to make a lasting impression... like international arrests for the likes of Bibi for crimes against humanity.

How Many Times Has Bibi Backtracked On A Palestinian State?

The Huffington Post | By Charlotte Alfred
Posted: 03/20/2015 9:34 am EDT Updated: 03/20/2015 9:59 am EDT

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vow that there would be no Palestinian state under his leadership, made in the final hours of his election campaign this week, drew sharp rebukes from the U.S. government.

"He walked back from commitments that Israel had previously made to a two-state solution," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Thursday, warning that the administration would have to re-evaluate its Middle East strategy. For decades, the U.S. and international community have pressed Palestinian and Israeli leaders to agree on the borders of two independent states.

After his election victory on Tuesday, Netanyahu sought to allay U.S. fears by telling NBC News that he does, in fact, support the two-state solution. "I haven't changed my policy ... what has changed is the reality," he said.

Did he walk back? How many steps? Was it the first time? In an attempt to answer these riddles, The WorldPost compiled a brief history of Netanyahu's positions on Palestinian statehood.

1996
Benjamin Netanyahu won his first term as prime minister in 1996 after campaigning against the peace process. "We are here ... to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state," Netanyahu vowed at an election campaign rally. He reiterated his position after taking office. "There is not, and will never be, a Palestinian state," he said at a meeting of his Likud party that September.

January 15, 1997 — October 23, 1998
To the chagrin of his right-wing power base, Netanyahu continued peace talks with Palestinian leaders. In 1997 he handed over 80 percent of the city of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority government. The following year he agreed to pull out of more areas of the West Bank in the Wye River Memorandum.

January 1, 2001
In a secretly recorded video from 2001 leaked to Israeli TV in 2010, Netanyahu claims he found a loophole to limit withdrawals from the West Bank. "From that moment on, I stopped the Oslo Accords [the framework for the peace process]," he says in the recording.

February 27, 2009
After a decade out of the prime minister's office, Netanyahu was re-elected in 2009. Pressed by the media and his political opponents on Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu avoided a direct answer, but pledged to continue peace talks.

June 14, 2009
Ten days after President Barack Obama made a forceful appeal in Cairo for Palestinian aspirations, Netanyahu declared support for a Palestinian state. Pending international guarantees, "we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state," he said at Tel Aviv's Bar-Ilan University.

January 22, 2013
Netanyahu was re-elected in 2013. Peace talks had collapsed, and they rarely featured in the election campaign. Despite Netanyahu's new position, his party resisted efforts to incorporate recognition of a Palestinian state into their platform.

July 11, 2014
Amid rising tensions and war in Gaza, Netanyahu told reporters he would not pull out of the territories where Palestinians want to establish a state. "There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," he said, comments Israeli commentators interpreted as the end of his support for a Palestinian state.

March 16, 2015
A day before elections, Netanyahu told Hebrew-language news site NRG: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state today, and evacuate areas, is giving radical Islam an area from which to attack the State of Israel." Asked if that meant no Palestinian state would be established while he remains prime minister, he replied: "Indeed."

March 19, 2015
Two days after his election victory, Netanyahu told NBC News that he has not, in fact, changed his position. "I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution," he said in an interview with the U.S. TV network, saying it was circumstance, not his position, that had changed. "I'm talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable," he explained.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/bibi-backtracks-palestinian-state_n_6904670.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000014

Thanks, John ~ obviously, Netanyahu has been playing a lot of people for a decade ~ and the mindset goes beyond Netanyahu, just like our TP mindset goes beyond Ted Cruz ~ the comment "... their opposition ... isn't a bug, but a feature, of the party's ideology" sums it up nicely ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Fact: Netanyahu's Political Party Explicitly Opposes the Two-State Solution
The Israeli Prime Minister's attempt to "walk back" his pre-election rhetoric does not hold water.
By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet / March 20, 2015

After making remarks prior to the Israeli election that there would not be a Palestinian state under his watch, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has since sought to walk back his comments, claiming that he actually does support the so-called “two-state solution.”

This has set off a debate in the rest of the world about just who the real Netanyahu is – is what he's saying now the truth, or what he said before the election? As the Huffington Post notes, Netanyahu has on many occasions denied any possibility of the existence of a Palestinian state.

But it's important to look beyond just Netanyahu's own rhetoric, however contradictory it sometimes seems. He is after all part of a parliamentary system where policy is largely decided by parties not individuals. His party's official platform is opposition to Palestinian statehood, and even beyond that, the top candidates he recruited to run for the Likud slate in this election have a history of opposing the two-state solution.

Here's some history of just some of these candidates on this year's Likud list. All of the ones listed below will be active members of the Israeli Knesset this year:

1. Gilad Erdan: Erdan was #2 on Likud's list of submitted candidates, behind only Netanyahu himself. Last September, Erdan clearly departed from the 2 state framework, saying, “To continue talking about Palestinian statehood with the same determination and the same confidence as 15, 20 years ago is irresponsible.” He offered some support for the plan put forth by the Egyptian government which would relocate Palestinians into the Sinai.

2. Yuli Edelstein: Edelstein was #3 on Likud's list. He told The Jerusalem Post in December: “I don't think it's a great idea to create a Palestinian state.”

3. Yisrael Katz: Katz, #4 on the list, wanted to kick out an Arab lawmaker from the Knesset, calling her a “traitor.” Not only is Katz against a Palestinian state, he has called for total cutoffs of electricity, food, and water to Gaza.

4. Miri Regev: Regev, #5 on the Likud list, is so committed to annexation that she has submitted legislation to require the Israeli government to annex the Jordan Valley.

5. Moshe Ya'alon: Ya'alon, #7 on the list and Israel's current Defense Minister, dismissed a Palestinian state in an interview given last year: “Rather than look for a solution, I am seeking a way to manage the conflict and our relations in a way to strengthen our mutual interests. It is time to free ourselves of the concept that everything leads to a framework that is called a state. From my standpoint, they can call it the Palestinian empire. I don’t care. It would basically be autonomy.” Despite Netanyahu's damage control, Ya'alon repeated essentially the same remarks to the BBC in a post-election interview.

6. Ze'ev Elkin: Elkin, #8 on the list, said it is wrong to back a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians “haven't budged a millimeter in 20 years.”

7. Danny Danon: Danon, #9, said “enough with the “two-state solution. Land for peace is over.”

8. Yariv Levin: Levin, #10, said “the two state solution is no solution.”

9. Yuval Steinitz: #13 on Likud's list, said in September that the two-state solution would be “collective suicide.”

10. Gila Gamliel: Gamliel isn't a fan of two states. She previously called on the Palestinians to simply become part of Jordan and Egypt. She objects to even calling Israeli control of the territories an occupation.

These are not minor figures or backbenchers. They are senior members of Netanyahu's political party, and many of them will have senior roles in the new Israeli government. They were recruited by Netanyahu and Likud themselves, and their opposition to a Palestinian state isn't a bug, but a feature, of the party's ideology.

http://www.alternet.org/world/fact-netanyahus-political-party-explicitly-opposes-two-state-solution

This is why I have trouble believing that the idea of Israel was ever a good one. Especially the way it was handled in the 40's.

I'm not saying the intentions of all involved were bad. And perhaps if things had been done differently, with input from Arab nations, Middle East history would be far different.

I think there were those that wanted a Jewish homeland so bad, that were tired of the persecution of Jews, and that had enough after the Holocaust so they were determined to do this. I can understand and sympathize with those motives.

Maybe in some ways it compares to Prohibition. The goal was good, the results were not.

Having said all that I will add that I have no Jewish ancestry (that I know of) nor any desire to move to Israel, so I must be open to other views on this issue.

Having said all that I will add that I have no Jewish ancestry (that I know of) nor any desire to move to Israel, so I must be open to other views on this issue.

Did you mean Jewish, Semitic or both?

I do have Jewish ancestry but am virtually non-observant and I don't want to move to Israel [altho my 19yo niece was scheduled to go to school there this year until we convinced her that the timing was too dangerous] ~

I'm thinking the problem is that the core idea of the "Jewish homeland" [the socialistic "collective" kibbutz system] has been bastardized ~ any people will always do better when working together toward a common goal ~ but big money does strange things to people ~ and I see Netanyahu's duplicity and egomania as the biggest thorn ~

Has Israel made what I consider to be horrendous mistakes? ~ yes, of course ~ as has most every other country ~ which is why I repeatedly call for a world-wide "time out" ~

Sooz

Both. To my knowledge, I have no Middle Eastern ancestry.

However, I love kosher pickles, so...

but big money does strange things to people

How true. One has to wonder about the millions (billions over the years) sent to Israel and how this has corrupted things. In other words, are there certain Israelis and/or non-Israelis that are getting rich from the current situation? Is there an incentive for some to not see the situation resolved?

Neither do many Israelis.

I, apparently, have a Jewish ancestor... in the 1600s. Whether "Jewish" referred to his religion, ancestry or both is unclear since that was something one did not talk about in a good Catholic family.

Netanyahu didn't say he wouldn't allow a Palestinian state as long as he's prime minister. He said there wouldn't be a Palestinian state as long as he's prime minister. A very different statement and the media is putting words into his mouth. When he said it, I took it to mean there wouldn't be a Palestinian state as long as he's prime minister because the Palestinians don't want to negotiate with him.

An interesting AP article from 1996.

Among Party Faithful, Netanyahu Under Fire For Meeting Arafat
DAN PERRY , Associated Press
Sep. 6, 1996 3:56 AM ET

TEL AVIV, ISRAEL TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) _ On election night, they jubilantly danced and hailed Benjamin Netanyahu as the right's political savior. After he met Yasser Arafat, Likud Party faithful greeted the prime minister with stony silence.

Then, as shouts of ``traitor!'' and ``resign!'' mounted at his party convention Thursday, Netanyahu promised there never would be a Palestinian state. He assured the audience shaking Arafat's hand ``wasn't easy.''

But one by one, speakers rose to condemn his meeting Wednesday with the Palestinian leader, the first between a right-wing Israeli premier and the symbol of Palestinians' struggle for statehood. The summit appears to have rekindled a peace process Netanyahu long has opposed, and had put on ice during his first three months in office.

Cabinet minister Ariel Sharon won rousing cheers as he tirelessly listed brutal attacks linked to Arafat. ``For 20 years, U.S. presidents ... did not let Arafat shake their hands or visit their capital. They knew some things mustn't be forgotten.''

His colleague Benny Begin _ whose late father, Likud founder and ex-premier Menachem Begin, reviled Arafat _ said the meeting ``signals to the PLO that Israel is trapped'' in the peace process set out by the previous, Labor Party government.

In the audience, tempers flared, with several scuffles and much shouting erupting between supporters and opponents of the peace moves.

``Bibi has betrayed us!'' said Amram Cohavi, a veteran Likud member, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. He was shouted down by another man, who said he was wounded in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel was caught unaware by Arab forces. ``I have five children ... I want them to enjoy peace and that's why Bibi had to meet Arafat,'' said the man.

Despite the outcry, Netanyahu's decision appeared to enjoy the tacit support of a majority in the Likud and the Cabinet.

Wednesday's summit was widely interpreted as final acceptance of the peace process by the right-wing half of Israel.

Haim Ramon of the opposition Labor Party said it meant Likud's dream of a ``Greater Land of Israel'' was dead. ``Netanyahu is weaning himself off his illusions,'' he said.

As opposition leader, Netanyahu had unswervingly condemned assassinated premier Yitzhak Rabin for his landmark peace accord with Arafat in 1993.

Former premier Yitzhak Shamir was defiant, saying historic positions cannot change ``because of any meeting with one Arab ... The struggle for the Land of Israel is not yet over.''

Netanyahu supporters at the convention _ like moderate Tel Aviv mayor Roni Milo _ argued that Netanyahu was pursuing an optimal course that preserved the peace process but would minimize concessions.

While Labor appeared poised to upgrade the Palestinians' West Bank-Gaza self-rule into the statehood Arafat seeks, Netanyahu pledged to reach a deal that is ``not a Palestinian state, but autonomy.''

``There is not, and will never be, a Palestinian state,'' Netanyahu said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told Israel's Army Radio Netanyahu's comments were regrettable. ``The peacemaking will not succeed until there are natural ties between two countries _ the Palestinian state alongside Israel,'' Erakat said.

Netanyahu and Arafat agreed to a series of lower-level talks to resolve their current disputes.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Among-Party-Faithful-Netanyahu-Under-Fire-For-Meeting-Arafat/id-ec37ea8c7e09f03603bd5707bafbdccc

Having said all that I will add that I have no Jewish ancestry (that I know of) nor any desire to move to Israel, so I must be open to other views on this issue.

Israel is a country not unlike Canada, the U.S. or Lower Slobovia. It has no special status that allows it to do things other countries are not allowed to do. Other than borrowing the misfortunes of millions of people who had and wanted nothing to do with Israel as an excuse for their current excesses it, in fact, has nothing to do with being Jewish except in the sense it wants to impose a theocratic dictatorship over millions of innocent people.. In fact, it seems like these days Jews are staying away from Israel like it's the plague especially since, in many ways, Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians puts it in the same league as ISIS.

Bibi doesn't give a tinker's damn about the US other than to keep the billions in aid and weaponry while Israeli arms manufacturers continue to make billions selling to some of the most brutal regimes in the world... including Arab/Muslim rigimes.
Meanwhile, the USians will continue pumping those billions into Israel. Talk about a bunch of prize suckers, eh?

Netanyahu made that abundantly clear, oskar ~ what bothers me most about the aid to Israel is the fact that it is [at least mostly] unrestricted ~ Obama is VERY pissed off with Netanyahu's acts/words, but there's no way the aid will change so long as the GOP/TPers are Israel's most fervent cheerleaders ~

Sooz

Presidential order suspending aid. Simple and effective.
And what are the excuses for before the GOP/TP got semi-control of Congress?

The Dems have not had a "super majority" during Obama's presidency ~ so the GOP/TPers have always had the power to filibuster, oskar ~

Sooz

The US and Israel have been playing that game for six and a half bloody (and I mean bloody) decades, sooz.
The so-called Cold War, another manufactured "conflict" that kept the machine going was the excuse back 3 decades ago. That excuse is long gone.
Face it. None of those "leaders", be they elected, selected of self-appointed are interested in any resolution. They're making too much money out of the murder and mayhem.

A very solid commentary, as is the below "live-linked" article ~ Sooz

Netanyahu Feeling Squeezed in Right-wing Coalition?
By Josh Marshall Published March 30, 2015, 11:41 AM EDT

I wanted to flag this article on the coalition negotiations in Israel which I think captures a key reality of the moment. It's very important. Netanyahu's party won a resounding victory on March 17th. But the outcome (a narrow right wing coalition) is far less appealing for him than the one he faced when he assembled in 2009 and 2013. In both earlier cases he was able to get buy in from center or center-left parties. That gave him a fig leaf on the international stage - continued settlement activity but with the appearance of on-going two state negotiations which he nonetheless made sure would not g anywhere. This allowed him to pursue what was basically a right wing agenda while also keeping the demands of the US and Europe at bay. It also gave him room for maneuver within his coalition to pivot a bit right or left as conditions warranted.

Mazal Mualem says that Netanyahu is not simply bluffing when he threatens his 'natural partners' in the rightist parties with the prospect of forming a unity government or at least one that brings in non-right wing parties. She says he will eventually try to bring in Labor to broaden and change the complexion of his government. I don't know enough to know whether he will really try to do that or whether he thinks that's even feasible - it's very hard to see what Labor's incentive to do that would be. But I think she's definitely right about Netanyahu's predicament.

Here's a key passage ...


There's another element here that sheds light on the White House's unwillingness to let Netanyahu simply walk back his two state comments. I think this should have been clear to them in 2009 and 2010. And Secretary Kerry was still working on the assumption that Netanyahu was genuinely open to a two-state settlement in 2013 and 2014. But I think everyone at the White House is very clear now what was really up over those five years. His statement in the closing days of the campaign were just a capstone to five years of increasingly incontrovertible - and to the White House, frustrating - evidence. The refusal to allow a simple walk back amounted to a statement: You've been lying to us about this for five years. Lying to us again won't get things back to where we were. There's a lot more going on here than pique.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/netanyahu-feeling-squeezed-in-rightwing-coalition

Actually, Netanyahu's position shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. While, on the surface, a two state solution is the logical resolution to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, it's also politically impossible for Israel to accept. Between their settlements and internal squabbles, any move to a kind of agreement of that nature would likely mean civil war and/or the end of Israel.

Committing illegal acts frequently puts one in a lose-lose situation.