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

[SATW]

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.

1. eh, the party was center-left but Kadima itself seemed to be made up of vaguely centrist people, for the most part. But, she was much more popular in '09, for sure.
2. I do like Erel Margalit, he seems like a good politician mold for the type of change needed in Labor, even if he's a bit...brash in rhetoric. Bar would be a guy who would be very useful to Margalit in a successful Labor leadership campaign.
3. You may be right, would've been vert interesting, for sure.
4. No problem, anytime
5. Abbas is definitely better than Arafat but, to me, that doesn't say much. Abbas got a PhD in denying big parts of the holocaust and allegedly had a role in the Munich Olympic terrorist attacks, but again, those are definitely less worse than Arafat's crap.
5B. Fair enough, I  still see why Olmert did what he did. committing on the stop would still mean that they'd have to sit down and negotiate official terms, during which things can still change, but you make a fair point on having a map.

[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,

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?

I have to say your way of breaking down a message and replying is really inconvenient when trying to reply. I will not answer everything as I don't have time and there are numerous books and articles on the topic.

Israel started dropping the time tables earlier than 96 but completely dropped it afterwards. Both parties are now in violation of the original accords.
IDF still had strong military control after Oslo and had regular incursion into the so called autonomous A areas. The civilian population hated the curfews and such and thought they would end with Oslo.
I think Bibi's move were more internal political maneuvering than a response to Hamas terrorism.

After Oslo the number of Palestinians working in Israel decreased dramatically, there are still those with work permits but you can't compare it to the 70s and 80s where they were cheep labour for all sorts of industry and brought back money to the west bank. As to commerce, if I'll upload a picture of my living room in 92 you'll notice ugly brown furniture, they were all bought by mom in Nablus at 86 this sort of commerce completely stopped like car, fruits, vegetables, eggs commerce stopped. Why it stopped? first Israelis didn't trust PA security agencies and well it was a part of a more general trend of segregation. This 2 trends dealt a terrible blow to Palestinian Economy

On camp David they were numerous books and different versions I tend to take Ron Pundak's version as very reliable    

[Californiadreaming]

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.

In my honest opinion, your map here is way too pro-Israel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. What about if a majority of the Arab population of East Jerusalem wants to join Palestine instead?
2. Would you like it if there was a Palestinian "finger" sticking through Israel? After all, this appears to be what annexing Ariel would result in (but in reverse, obviously)!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not Otniel, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would result in an Israeli "finger" through Palestine, though!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the other stuff?

[Californiadreaming]

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.

1. eh, the party was center-left but Kadima itself seemed to be made up of vaguely centrist people, for the most part. But, she was much more popular in '09, for sure.
2. I do like Erel Margalit, he seems like a good politician mold for the type of change needed in Labor, even if he's a bit...brash in rhetoric. Bar would be a guy who would be very useful to Margalit in a successful Labor leadership campaign.
3. You may be right, would've been vert interesting, for sure.
4. No problem, anytime
5. Abbas is definitely better than Arafat but, to me, that doesn't say much. Abbas got a PhD in denying big parts of the holocaust and allegedly had a role in the Munich Olympic terrorist attacks, but again, those are definitely less worse than Arafat's crap.
5B. Fair enough, I  still see why Olmert did what he did. committing on the stop would still mean that they'd have to sit down and negotiate official terms, during which things can still change, but you make a fair point on having a map.

1. OK.

2. OK; good.

3. Yeah, Israel would have had its first ever Mizrahi Prime Minister had Mofaz succeeded in doing this back in 2008.

Frankly, the interesting question would be whether or not Mofaz would have successfully been able to create a final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty with Mahmoud Abbas before the time of the 2010 elections (there would have been no early Israeli elections had Mofaz actually been able to form a governing coalition) in Israel in this scenario.

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

4. OK; good.

5. Didn't Abbas "only" provide the money that was used for the terrorist attacks at the 1972 Munich Olympics, though?

Also, Yes, obviously that Abbas did certainly isn't acceptable by any means. However, it nevertheless isn't fully comparable to actually planning and ordering these terrorist attacks.

5B. Abbas could have actually been given a map (by Olmert, obviously) and then committed himself to further peace talks, say, a couple of days or a couple of weeks later, though.

[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?

1. I have to say your way of breaking down a message and replying is really inconvenient when trying to reply. I will not answer everything as I don't have time and there are numerous books and articles on the topic.

2. Israel started dropping the time tables earlier than 96 but completely dropped it afterwards. Both parties are now in violation of the original accords.

3. IDF still had strong military control after Oslo and had regular incursion into the so called autonomous A areas. The civilian population hated the curfews and such and thought they would end with Oslo.

4. I think Bibi's move were more internal political maneuvering than a response to Hamas terrorism.

5. After Oslo the number of Palestinians working in Israel decreased dramatically, there are still those with work permits but you can't compare it to the 70s and 80s where they were cheep labour for all sorts of industry and brought back money to the west bank. As to commerce, if I'll upload a picture of my living room in 92 you'll notice ugly brown furniture, they were all bought by mom in Nablus at 86 this sort of commerce completely stopped like car, fruits, vegetables, eggs commerce stopped. Why it stopped? first Israelis didn't trust PA security agencies

6. and well it was a part of a more general trend of segregation.

7. This 2 trends dealt a terrible blow to Palestinian Economy

8. On camp David they were numerous books and different versions I tend to take Ron Pundak's version as very reliable    

1. OK; sorry.

2. Makes sense, unfortunately.

3. Thanks for this information! Indeed, it appears that Israel's incursions into Palestinian areas after Oslo were viewed as being intolerable by the Palestinians and were yet insufficient to halt/stop (further) Palestinian terrorism.

4. OK; makes sense.

5. OK.

6. Can you please elaborate on this part?

7. Understood.

8. Thanks! Indeed, I'll see if I can find it or at least a summary of it!

[Californiadreaming]

Also, @Hnv1: What exactly would your ideal final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty look like?

[Californiadreaming]

Also, @Hnv1: What exactly would your ideal final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty look like?

Something more-or-less along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative?

[Hnv1]

Also, @Hnv1: What exactly would your ideal final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty look like?

Something more-or-less along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative?

As I told Beilin in person that ship had sailed, 2 states is either impossible ATM or if applied will cause more harm in the long run (inherent problems of a small dependent weak economy and other problems arising from Israeli invisible sovereignty). I think a confederation of Israel and Palestine (with both decentralized to other smaller units) would be a more tenable rational solution. But people here are not rational and social myths of liberation are too strong on both sides.
I would vote for a 2 state solution if brought but I don't think it really addresses all the problems.   

[Californiadreaming]

Also, @Hnv1: What exactly would your ideal final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty look like?

Something more-or-less along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative?

As I told Beilin in person that ship had sailed,

How did you manage to meet Yossi Beilin in person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why exactly, though? After all, 70+% of the Israeli settler population can peacefully be put into Israel using land swaps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't the Palestinian economy significantly grow with the help of large-scale foreign investment, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly do you mean by "invisible sovereignty" here, though? Also, exactly which other problems are you thinking of here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on the data here, it appears that a whopping 59% of Palestinian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/map-death-for-apostasy/

Indeed, are those the kind of people whom you want to live in a confederation with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't these problems be addressed in other ways after a two-state solution is implemented, though?

[Californiadreaming]

Also, though, what about the idea of a Palestine-Jordan confederation? After all, such a confederation certainly appears to make more sense (for cultural, political, religious, et cetera reasons) than a Palestine-Israel confederation does.

[Hnv1]

Also, @Hnv1: What exactly would your ideal final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty look like?

Something more-or-less along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative?

As I told Beilin in person that ship had sailed,

How did you manage to meet Yossi Beilin in person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why exactly, though? After all, 70+% of the Israeli settler population can peacefully be put into Israel using land swaps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't the Palestinian economy significantly grow with the help of large-scale foreign investment, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly do you mean by "invisible sovereignty" here, though? Also, exactly which other problems are you thinking of here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on the data here, it appears that a whopping 59% of Palestinian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/map-death-for-apostasy/

Indeed, are those the kind of people whom you want to live in a confederation with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't these problems be addressed in other ways after a two-state solution is implemented, though?

I know Beilin from his Meretz days and some Geneva Initiative conferences I go to every now and then, and I know his aides very well for quite some time. I think the notion of land swap exists more in the mind of Israelis than in practice, unless we're talking about 2-3% of the territory tops, but as most Israelis think Ariel and other large settlements that in no way can practically remain under Israeli sovereignty due to the place and way they were built will remain in Israel - this solution ultimately is untenable. Lesson number 1: on paper solutions are non solutions in the real world. Furthermore, there isn't nor will there be an Israeli government with the political power to take down the settlements needed for an agreement.

Palestinian economy is completely dependent on Israeli air and sea ports, as to access to the Israeli market and currency (the later will at least be necessary in first few years of independence). Any agreement would see demands of Israel still controlling land passes from afar (i.e. "invisible sovereignty"). Can't see the Palestinian economy sustaining itself for long like this, and considering the amount of young people there with skilled qualification I can't see them going to pick cucumbers in Israeli fields as a solution for employment. The 80's are gone this are not the same Palestinians.

I hardly want to be in the same state with religious Jews let alone religious Muslims. But that's the point of deep confederation compared to shallow one. Secular cantons where they are wanted (coastal plain, Ramallah etc.) and religious ones for the nutters. With freedom of movement and some basic constitutional rights applied throughout the space.

And I'm not even talking about problems on the Palestinian side as the refugees and the reimbursement mechanism for them. The Geneva Initiative proposal is unacceptable to the Palestinian diaspora.

[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.

In my honest opinion, your map here is way too pro-Israel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. What about if a majority of the Arab population of East Jerusalem wants to join Palestine instead?
2. Would you like it if there was a Palestinian "finger" sticking through Israel? After all, this appears to be what annexing Ariel would result in (but in reverse, obviously)!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not Otniel, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would result in an Israeli "finger" through Palestine, though!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is the other stuff?

Well, I am a right-winger My map is pretty  compromising for someone on the right.

On Jerusalem, I'm not willing to compromise. 21% of Israel is of Arab descent (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) and I don't see a legitimate reason to split the city in any shape or form.

In response to the comments on Ariel and Hebron: Ariel is a major settlement in infrastructure and population, I don't want to give it up but I'll cave on Hebron and Otniel as well.

But, Jerusalem, its near by settlements, and Ariel, and its neighboring settlements, I won't give in on.

[SATW]

Old Map:

New Map

[Californiadreaming]

Old Map:

New Map

Still way too pro-Israeli, in my honest opinion.

[SATW]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue then

[Famous Mortimer]

I always thought more consideration should be given to the idea of a united Jerusalem as an international neutral zone governed by the UN, with the Israeli government and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation given the job of administering religious sites. Citizens living in Jerusalem would be given the choice of taking Israeli or Palestinian citizenship but the land would belong to neither.

[Kingpoleon]

Hopefully Yair Lapid.

[SATW]

Hopefully Yair Lapid.

If I had to choose a non-Likud PM successor to Bibi, I'd choose Moshe Kahlon, with Yesh Atid and Likud playing big roles in that type of government.

Of course, Kulanu will likely never get to the Premiership

[Hnv1]

Hopefully Yair Lapid.

If that happens I'm requesting asylum in Austria so Tender could get nice refugees to talk politics with

[America Needs R'hllor]

Hello
I'm probably a couple months late, but I thought that as an Israeli who closely follows our political system, my opinion may be a bit useful in this. I'll address two issues:

1. First, about a peace agreement with the Palestinians, I believe that this is the only possible way for the survival of zionism and Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. And why? Because annexing the Palestinian territories can only result in either a state of two nationalities, with Arabs and Jews roughly equal, or in a Jewish appartehide state. And this CANNOT happen. I agree with the current Labour and Yesh Atid narrative about this- a peace agreement won't be marriage, it will be divorce, painful and bitter where both sides have to compromoise. In short, I believe that the compromises the Palestinians will absolutely have to make are those: stop demanding this "right of return" to children and grandchildren of Palestinian exiles, because it removes the only incentive for Israel to actually do this agreement (the survival of a state with a strong Jewish majority). Agreeing to an Israeli force in the Jordan Valley. And agreeing to sternly deal with any terrorist group which doesn't disarm or risk military intervention if these groups threaten Israel (especially in areas close to Tel Aviv and the Ben Gurion airport, where the Palestinians will have to keep strong security to prevent any threat to this vein of Israeli economy and tourism).
Meanwhile, Israel will also have to compromise: Agreeing on the splitting of Jerusalem (the eastern part is useless, and peace is more important than symbolism). Forsaking this foolish demand that Fatah recognizes Israel as the Jewish state immediately, since it's useless and serves currently as a way for Netanyahu to slyly strip any responsibility from him. And, finally, both sides will have to agree on swapping territories. Israel will give the Palestinians some territories, perhaps including Palestinian villages, inside its current borders, in exchange for settlements which simply cannot be vacated like Ariel, Gush Etzion etc. But the more we wait, the more of these settlements become unvacateable and this is very worrying and a big reason to get the Jewish Home party out of the government.

2. As for who can replace Netanyahu... Unfourtunately, this is very hard. Netanyahu is sly and a political mastermind, but in my opinion, he's ready to reduce the country to ashes if he can be the king of the ashes. I'm exaggarating, but if you want me to give an example I can do it.
Now, as to the people who want to replace Netanyahu: from the right, the Jewish Home's Naftali Bennett wants to, but Netanyahu completely outplayed him in recent years so it'll be very hard for him, and Lieberman cannot because of all the corruption allegations that tarnished him. I could see a credible challenge from within the Likud, but it would take basically a coup where his challengers (Ya'alon, Sa'ar, Yisrael Katz etc) and many politicians from within the party cooperate to prevent Netanyahu from playing his dirty tricks like early Primaries.
From the center, Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid look right now like the strongest contenders to replace him but it will be very hard for them to succeed. Lapid is a smart politician, but I suspect that the more he panders to the right (which he does right now), the more votes from the left and center he will lose.
From the left, there's a real problem in the Israeli democracy. "Leftist" is now almost a slur word in many places in the country, which is a direct result of Netanyahu's cynicism and willingless to burn everything down to keep his seat, including delegitimizing a whole political wing. Isaac Herzog only added to it by being a horrible candidate, basically our Jeb Bush, in a year when the Israeli public was actually ready for change. Many people in the poorer areas of the country like the north and the south were ready to vote Labour, but the percieved weakness of Herzog in national security caused them to wet their pants and vote Likud. The fact is that if they ran a former general or someone like Erel Margalit in 2015, the Labour would likely control the government right now. So yeah, Herzog is unelectable, Yachimovitch is too purely ideological and cannot win either, and Perez is like a male Tzipi Livni. I'm not even sure a former general like Ganz can save the Labour right now, but it's likely their only chance to be real contenders next election.

[Hnv1]

Great. Someone to occupy the middle ground between me and David\Danny!

Anyway as I said BB will not be replaced through electoral means (that hardly ever happens in Israeli politics), but his criminal investigations might be his downfall. SCoJ gave a writ nisi to the 'attorney general' to come and explain why despite the mounting evidence (one of the Panama bank accounts was traced to BB jr. with millions in it) he decided not to conduct a criminal investigation.
This will play out real fast, as the evidence are quite strong we might see a snap election soon.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Great. Someone to occupy the middle ground between me and David\Danny!

Anyway as I said BB will not be replaced through electoral means (that hardly ever happens in Israeli politics), but his criminal investigations might be his downfall. SCoJ gave a writ nisi to the 'attorney general' to come and explain why despite the mounting evidence (one of the Panama bank accounts was traced to BB jr. with millions in it) he decided not to conduct a criminal investigation.
This will play out real fast, as the evidence are quite strong we might see a snap election soon.

Hm. Interesting, didn't think that it was that severe. And we should probably change the term "snap elections" to "normal elections" and the once in four years elections to "finished-term elections".
I'm not sure who will I vote for in these elections. If there will be no viable alternative to the Likud which isn't named "Yair Lapid" I may just vote for Meretz purely because of the fact that they're the only ones actively fighting for secularism and lgbt rights.

Out of curiousity, what do you think would be the official reason for the snap elections? Maybe the Sabbath train business will re-emerge?

[Hnv1]

Great. Someone to occupy the middle ground between me and David\Danny!

Anyway as I said BB will not be replaced through electoral means (that hardly ever happens in Israeli politics), but his criminal investigations might be his downfall. SCoJ gave a writ nisi to the 'attorney general' to come and explain why despite the mounting evidence (one of the Panama bank accounts was traced to BB jr. with millions in it) he decided not to conduct a criminal investigation.
This will play out real fast, as the evidence are quite strong we might see a snap election soon.

Hm. Interesting, didn't think that it was that severe. And we should probably change the term "snap elections" to "normal elections" and the once in four years elections to "finished-term elections".
I'm not sure who will I vote for in these elections. If there will be no viable alternative to the Likud which isn't named "Yair Lapid" I may just vote for Meretz purely because of the fact that they're the only ones actively fighting for secularism and lgbt rights.

Out of curiousity, what do you think would be the official reason for the snap elections? Maybe the Sabbath train business will re-emerge?

Reason de dicto or de re? Probably some PR crisis to blow the government (might be Amona right now), the honest reason is to put pressure on the legal system not to prosecute a reelected PM.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Great. Someone to occupy the middle ground between me and David\Danny!

Anyway as I said BB will not be replaced through electoral means (that hardly ever happens in Israeli politics), but his criminal investigations might be his downfall. SCoJ gave a writ nisi to the 'attorney general' to come and explain why despite the mounting evidence (one of the Panama bank accounts was traced to BB jr. with millions in it) he decided not to conduct a criminal investigation.
This will play out real fast, as the evidence are quite strong we might see a snap election soon.

Hm. Interesting, didn't think that it was that severe. And we should probably change the term "snap elections" to "normal elections" and the once in four years elections to "finished-term elections".
I'm not sure who will I vote for in these elections. If there will be no viable alternative to the Likud which isn't named "Yair Lapid" I may just vote for Meretz purely because of the fact that they're the only ones actively fighting for secularism and lgbt rights.

Out of curiousity, what do you think would be the official reason for the snap elections? Maybe the Sabbath train business will re-emerge?

Reason de dicto or de re? Probably some PR crisis to blow the government (might be Amona right now), the honest reason is to put pressure on the legal system not to prosecute a reelected PM.

Yeah, the official reason. Amona could be a good way to get the Jewish Home to quit, yeah. But this government served for less than two years- maybe I'm placing too much faith in the Israeli public, but wouldn't people just lose faith in Bibi after three consecutive elections in less than 5 years?

[Hnv1]

Great. Someone to occupy the middle ground between me and David\Danny!

Anyway as I said BB will not be replaced through electoral means (that hardly ever happens in Israeli politics), but his criminal investigations might be his downfall. SCoJ gave a writ nisi to the 'attorney general' to come and explain why despite the mounting evidence (one of the Panama bank accounts was traced to BB jr. with millions in it) he decided not to conduct a criminal investigation.
This will play out real fast, as the evidence are quite strong we might see a snap election soon.

Hm. Interesting, didn't think that it was that severe. And we should probably change the term "snap elections" to "normal elections" and the once in four years elections to "finished-term elections".
I'm not sure who will I vote for in these elections. If there will be no viable alternative to the Likud which isn't named "Yair Lapid" I may just vote for Meretz purely because of the fact that they're the only ones actively fighting for secularism and lgbt rights.

Out of curiousity, what do you think would be the official reason for the snap elections? Maybe the Sabbath train business will re-emerge?

Reason de dicto or de re? Probably some PR crisis to blow the government (might be Amona right now), the honest reason is to put pressure on the legal system not to prosecute a reelected PM.

Yeah, the official reason. Amona could be a good way to get the Jewish Home to quit, yeah. But this government served for less than two years- maybe I'm placing too much faith in the Israeli public, but wouldn't people just lose faith in Bibi after three consecutive elections in less than 5 years?

A. Israeli voters have strong psychological status quo bias
B. His base does not share the general opinion of him, and they don't care much for rule-of-law or dodgy public doing. "So he took some money big deal, look how he's defending Israel"
C. He's a master of PR thus creating an amazing framing bias as the only "real security candidate"
D. The Israeli voter is apathic to democratic proceduralism, frequent elections are frowned upon but bottom line that doesn't matter to anyone who would vote Likud anyway
E. No alternative. Labour are in shambles and Lapid couldn't get a coalition even if he started wearing black suits and walking with Hasidic papers. Bennet nor Lieberman could do so until they commit "patricide" and dispose of him (it is interesting Bennet, Lieberman, Shaked, Livni and such all owe their political career to him)