First, it's not really a policy proposal, it's a campaign position, like "no new taxes" or "we'll smoke 'em out!"

But it is on the record, and it does reflect Likud's written charter. One of the big questions for me is what happens if Netanyahu wins. So many people have used Hamas's charter and anti-Israel rhetoric as justifications for the Gaza blockade and the invasion. If Israel elects a PM who openly opposes a Palestinian state and openly supports illegal occupation, settlement, and land-grabs, will those people now say that Palestinians have "no partner for peace"? And can the Likud charter be used to "prove" that Israelis, having voted for Likud, want to drive the Palestinians into/beyond the Jordan?

Netanyahu doesn't propose a policy because he doesn't want a policy. He and Likud want the status quo to continue forever, so far as I can tell.

There's nothing in Netanyahu's litmus test that suggests what end-state he prefers.

My theory is that he wants the Palestinians to go away or die - all of them - but has too much sense to admit it.

Everyone knows that Netanyahu wants what AIPAC wants - Greater Israel.

There's nothing in Netanyahu's litmus test that suggests what end-state he prefers.

I would imagine an acknowlegement of Israel's right to exist from Palistinian leaders and their supporting Islamic Arab neighbors would be a good start.

Really...is that too much to ask? To say "Both have a right to exist.".

This is exactly why the "Palestinians don't recognize Israel argument" is so ridiculous.

The U.S. has never withdrawn diplomatic recognition from Israeli governments - such as Ariel Sharon's first government, Yitzhak Shamir's government and Bibi Netanyahu's likely new government - that didn't recognize the Palestinians.

We argue we can't extend recognition to Hamas because it won't bind itself to prior agreements with Israel. But Netanyahu *ALSO* says he won't be bound by prior commitments. And Netanyahu rejects a Palestinian state, rejects a return to '67 borders, rejects a division of Jerusalem.

The Obama Administration looks like it intends to return to serious peacemaking, but I fear it's not going to be enough. A Clinton-like approach might have worked if not for the past 8 years. (Although one could certainly argue that the Clinton Approach -- active engagement but clear Israeli bias -- helped contribute to the current morass).

But at this point, I think we need a pretty radical shift if we're to preserve a two-state solution. I think there needs to be an explicit promise for the U.S. and the EU to recognize a Palestinian state with '67 borders if the Palestinians get their house in order.

In other words, if a Palestinian unity government can be achieved and if, upon international guarantees, the Palestinians accept a ceasefire, the US ought to make clear it will support a new Palestinian Declaration of Independence and recognize a Palestinian state.

If Israel is willing to negotiate, there can be agreed-upon territorial changes and a deal on Jerusalem. If a Netanyahu-led government does not accept the terms, however, then the U.S. ought to make clear it'll recognize a Palestinian state anyway, and support the Palestinians' claims to the '67 borders.

There needs to be some real brass-knuckled coercion here. Basically, a solution needs to be imposed from the outside. If there isn't a deal within the next decade (probably within Obama's first term), I think the two-state solution - and the whole principle of a Jewish state - will be dead.

A date certain! The US/EU/Russia need to tell both sides that if they don't have an agreement that they both sign by some date certain, the UN Sec. Council will recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 borders and set up an election to elect that government.

It is clear that Israel doesn't want a two-state solution, even more than Hamas/PA are reluctant to recognize permanent Israeli borders. Hamas/PA should just announce that if Benjy becomes PM and sticks by this position post-election, that that the palestinians will refuse to consider Israel a partner for peace and someone to negotiate with.

How many decades with no progress is enough?

Netanyahu isn't my favorite Israeli politician by a long shot.

However, can we please stop over-simplifying and misrepresenting the situation with statements like "He doesn't want a return to 1967 borders, even though that would secure Israel recognition from the entire Arab League." That the Saudis and others put this framework on the table was an important step forward, and it should be built on. But it isn't a particularly concrete proposal and, specifically, it includes such elements as the return of Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their descendents which are non-starters as far as Israel is concerned.

So, no, it isn't the case that "... a return to 1967 borders ... would secure Israel recognition from the entire Arab League," and flatly asserting such a bald over-simplification (or worse) is not helpful in moving either the discussion or the reality forward.

I think Bibi wants to continue the occupation basically indefinitely until (with him or some other Likudnik in power) the Palestinians or Arabs create some kind of provacation/massacre that unifies the Israeli people to the point that all Palestinians will be expelled from the West Bank & Gaza & a true 'Eretz Israel' will be born.

That's what the POS wants, I think.

I wish to second and amplify what Larry Birnbaum said. Who says that a return to 1967 borders would lead to peace? The Arab world has put a poison pill in that concept. And how peaceful was the Mideast before 1967?

And supposing things are different now? That now the Arab world is willing to recognize Israel merely in return for Israel returning to its 1967 borders? What does that mean? Well, it means that Israel's land grab, that everyone condemns as wrong, really did, indirectly, secure peace for Israel ... is this the precedent hippies are in favor of now?

As to Jerusalem, that sure is a thorny issue. IMHO, the Old City of "East" Jerusalem must remain in Israeli hands ... no, ifs ands or buts. Israel has done a good job (at the expense of Jewish interests, if you ask me) of allowing the Islamic community control at the Dome of the Rock (on which land they are religious squatters). Is there any evidence that if the Old City were part of a Palestinian state, Jewish rights would be respected?

OTOH, a rational support of the continued Israeli control of the Old City has been used to hoodwink Jews into supporting a "United Jerusalem" that in practice is the equivalent of saying the whole NYC metropolitan area should be united into a single city and not spread amongst three states (I wonder how many NYCers who support a "United Jerusalem" would feel about being incorporated into a "United NYC" that is part of New Jersey?).

I think a lot of mischief will be accomplished under the banner of either support of or opposition to a United Jerusalem. We need to be clear what we mean and distinguish between the actual city parts of "East Jerusalem" that should remain with Israel and the sprawl, much of which must be part of any Palestinian state.

BTW -- supposing the evacuate the settlements. Do kids born on the settlements have a right of return to any Palestinian state?

It’s long past time to start boycotting Israeli warmongering and racism and domination of US Middle East policy. Check out the logos of some of the many, many companies that are funding Israel: http://www.inminds.com/boycott-brands.html. Also, for the first time, some American academics are bravely advocating a boycott of Israel despite the threat of being hounded out of their jobs and blacklisted by Zionists: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059775.html

Invective aside, I do enjoy the irony of Gomez above criticizing a boycott (imaginary, as far as I know) of people because they are... boycotting people associated Israeli universities.

Bravo!

There was a news report that Andrew Sullivan linked to - I believe it was a 60 minutes report? - on just how hemmed in the Palestinians in the West Bank are, and how the open secret is to secure slowly more and more land for Israel.

You had things like a middle-aged Palestinian doctor, born and raised in Jerusalem, moved to a Palestinian community outside of Jerusalem - he has been a PEACE advocate for many a year - not even allowed back in Jerusalem AT ALL.

You had a family on a high point in on the territories, that had the Israel police come and occupy their house - come in at all hours of the day - without recompense, without warning, and without the right of refusal.

You have the mayor of one of the largest Jewish areas - pretty much admitting up front that the whole goal is to push the Palestinians out.

I wish I had the link - it was instructive video, to say the least.

The territories are not going to go away, by Israel hand. The Palestinians will continue to be occupied, regulated, and directed, by Israeli soldiers.

Palestinians will continue to have no ability to improved their own situations, such as building roads for themselves, getting between different communities without suffering humiliating searches - or even sometimes, as with the Palestinian peace doctor - even go visit/move back to where they were born.

And then, when Palestinians respond with aggression to these humiliating restrictions placed that are around them - they will respond with force, as they must - no elected leader who has the ability to protect their people, who does NOT respond to an attack, will be tolerated, that's common sense.

But the material conditions that caused the cycle of authentic resentment in Palestinians, at least partly leading to the violence, will be ignore.

The status quo is much better than letting Hamas use the hills of the West Bank to launch rockets on Tel Aviv.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing rather than be manipulated. The timeworn 'Two State Solution' is just that. Israel needs to take a little time to rethink its options. Bibi is smart. In a way he's throwing all the balls up in the air. Let the Palestinians and all those trying to get Israel to do it their way, figure out which ball is the one to catch. The trouble for them is, figuring out which is the one that they want to catch. On the other hand, if you catch one ball, you might miss another and the one you miss might have been the one you should have caught. It's a divide and conquer mentality, a shell game. It's the smart move for Israel at a time when every one is trying to tell Israel what to do, and, blaming Israel for everything.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

We dawn need no steenkin' JOOOS....

Bibi, you're way too smart for us boycott loving and justice loving and peace loving gentiles. I admit it, now stop killing people.

But, Bibi, I saw through your pear tree handle right away.

By the way everybody else please check out the link for the companies that are funding Israel. E.g., Starbucks. Every Tall Latte you buy helps put a bullet in the head of a Palestinian kid. Betcha never saw that written on one of their cups.

By the way everybody else please check out the link for the companies that are funding Israel.

Heh, the list doesn't include Intel,Microsoft,Google,Oracle,EMC,Cisco,
and pretty much every major tech company which has a development center in Israel.

Let's see Israel-haters go without Word or Google...

Let's see Israel-haters go without Word or Google...

I'm calling for a liberal boycott of Microsoft and Cisco Sytems.

Al-Gomez, the website you reference is a jihadist website if ever there was one.I advise people to stay off it for their health, future, and safety.

Anonymous’s definition of “Jihadist” apparently seems to be “filthy, barbaric brown people who refuse to submit to the Zionist yoke but instead have the indecency to demand human dignity and equal rights.” That’s a Zio-Racist definition in my view and the view of most of those brown people Anonymous despises so thoroughly. Is it getting a bit tougher to profile yourself as being the Master Race, Zio-Nazis? I hope so.

def. of jihadist: website that offers a CD rom on how to "make Islamist revolution."

In case it isn't 100% clear, a statement like "profile yourself as being the Master Race, Zio-Nazis?" is hate speech.

Better a little speaking truth to power than allow a genocide in Gaza or anywhere else, boys and girls.

Too many people including Jews just love to use the old “hate speech” attack in order to hide uncomfortable facts like, cough, genocide, cough. Just look at how Jews are trying to persecute South African Deputy Foreign Min. Fatima Hajaig for daring to utter “hate speech” about Jews- http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/1404294%2Cw-jewish-anti-semitism-south-africa012909.article. This black man will probably be thrown out of office and imprisoned for speaking truth to power. His life is being destroyed by the true haters. Is it difficult to think that this kind of thing will be happening in the U.S. soon?

Anonymous’s definition of “Jihadist” apparently seems to be “filthy, barbaric brown people...

Liberal talking point #18 - Everything a race issue...even when it's NOT!

I myself am removing the "al" from Gomez name since anyone who thinks Fatima could be a man has no knowledge of the world of Islam.