Israelis to Bibi: No new initiatives
Yisrael Medad reports that the latest 'peace index' indicates that most Israelis don't want to see any new initiatives from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Should Israel take an initiative or remain passive? Only a minority of the Jewish public (28%) agrees with the position that the Middle Eastern upheavals will create new opportunities and, hence, that Israel should make a new effort to reach a regional peace. The overwhelming majority (70%) accepts the position that the situation at the moment is unclear, and therefore it is better for Israel to remain passive and not do anything. The distribution of views among Israeli Arabs is the opposite, although not a polar opposite: while 58% of Israeli Arabs think Israel should take a peace initiative, a large minority (40%) says Israel should watch the developments in the Arab countries from the sidelines and not do anything.If Ehud Barak's 'diplomatic tsunami' is coming, most Israelis don't believe it yet. Netanyahu should listen to 70% of the voters and not to Barack Obama.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Israeli peace initiative, Peace Index
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:57 AM
3 Comments:
The "Palestinians" wouldn't accept any peace initiative that would leave Israel standing. When they refuse Israeli offers, they also tend to escalate their violence.
It's downright sick that Obama keeps looking to Israel for progress on a deal with terrorists. Deals with terrorists shouldn't be sought, anyway.
Netanyahu's government should be planning how to announce the annexation of Judea and Samaria after the PA dissolves the Oslo Accords by going to the UN for unilateral statehood.
Or to the Israeli Far Left which is urging the government to have the country commit national suicide to avoid offending Barack Obama.
We'll see if Netanyahu does follow their advice and palaver his consent to their latest plan in an address to Congress expected next month.
I still think that if I were Israel, I would be setting up as three (3!) "states", with the option of normal state/municipal services for each independently. Then, the overarching "federal" govt can work among the three and to the outside. That way, problems or status in each "state" can be firewalled to keep them from disrupting normal operations in the others. That means continuing the process of, inch-by-inch, marking the boundary of the biggest state and training/working with people outside that big-state boundary to maintain whatever level of civil society they want to work for.
Post a Comment
<< Home