Likud official: Livni will be appointed as minister in charge of peace process

[oberliner]

A senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party who is involved in the coalition talks said Tuesday that Netanyahu is considering acceding to Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni's demand to appoint her as minister in charge of talks with the Palestinians.

Livni, a former foreign minister who is well-regarded in Western capitals, campaigned almost exclusively on the need to forge an agreement with the Palestinians, and responsibility for this issue is her main condition for joining the government.

The senior Likud official said that Netanyahu plans to keep the Foreign Ministry for himself this term, since former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is currently barred from holding any ministerial position due to his pending trial for breach of trust, and it's not yet clear whether he'll be able to return to the cabinet. That will depend on how the court rules.

"Therefore, Netanyahu is seriously considering making Livni the 'acting foreign minister,' in charge of the diplomatic process," the official said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/likud-official-livni-will-be-appointed-as-minister-in-charge-of-peace-process.premium-1.501666?localLinksEnabled=false&google_editors_picks=true

[still_one]

1. A positive step toward peace /nt

[shira]

2. Good move. Let's see the PLO try to avoid Livni in peace talks. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. I will be happy when she agrees that there is no need for Israel

to continue colonization of Palestinian land.

Since we are all for peace the best way to restart it is to realize past blunders and correct them.

[shira]

16. Using ugly, fale terms like colonization doesn't bring the 2 sides any closer to peace.

It fans hate.

It allows Palestinian extremists an excuse to avoid peace and remain at conflict against the 'colonizers'.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Whether they are called illegal settlements or colonies

the truth hurts, doesn't it?

[shira]

21. Jews moving back to areas of historic Judea/Samaria, from which they were ethnically cleansed...

...just prior to 1948 (like the Jewish quarter, Hebron) cannot by definition be called colonists.

Jews living in the land their ancestors lived in for the past 3000+ years (uninterrupted except for a 19 year period b/w 1948 and 1967) are not colonists by any twisted definition.

You're fanning hatred with lies.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. The truth hurts you I see.

Two things.

1) These aren't lies.

2) You've just proved one thing to me and this group that is painfully clear.

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Does anybody take you seriously with that amount of hypocrisy? I know that I don't. Your position is bankrupt.


On edit: And then you have the audacity to say that Israelis aren't colonizing the West Bank? That they are lies?

Buddy. Get help, but if you can't get that then use a better source of disinformation to cover your tracks.

[shira]

23. The dictionary hurts you. And you're fanning hate again....

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

You just can't help it, can you?

Tell me, are there another people on the planet with cultural, religious, and historic ties to land going back 3 millennia who are labeled colonists and thieves for living where their ancestors had lived continuously until 1948 (when they were all ethnically cleansed)?

Or does this only apply to Jews?

What does it tell you when pretty much all your arguments WRT the conflict are based on lies and exaggerations? You think history will treat you and those like yourself kindly in 50-100 years?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Shira, your position is devoid of legitimacy.

Since you miserably flailed your way through my last post I will have to put it up as a roadblock again.

You can go over the curb and try to go around it, as is usual case with you when presented with solid fact, or you could try and address what I have written.

You can always call me a hater again, which is not only disingenuous but also completely untrue, or you can show everybody in I/P your worth in being honest.

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Now I ask this again since, after you went over the curb, you apparently went into a panic to make this about me lying about things I haven't. Shame on you.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

This is not about the Jews, my friend. You used that term to begin with. This is about brute-force colonialism of one group over another. It's also apartheid. It's also shameful for anyone to ignore one groups plight so that another group can push them out while taking their land and livelihood.

How will history see me and the many like me? Probably in a pretty fair light, but some people will always refer to my kind as liars. It helps drive the narrative to dehumanize those who stand against violations of human rights. You can't bulldoze all of us into silence.

[shira]

25. Stick to one thing at a time. No games. The dictionary definition of colonialism...

...does not apply in any way to the situation of Jews living in historic Judea/Samaria; the cultural, religious, and historical home of their ancestors.

You know it and I know it.

Why the lies?

[oberliner]

26. 972mag and similar sites use that term

That may be where the confusion lies.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Yes, other people use terms.

People use terms that some others may find offensive.

Illegal Settlements.

Colonization.

Occupying power.

UN resolutions.

Apartheid State.

Land theft.

Sometimes what these others find offensive is that it is hard to hide from the truth.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. I see that you have hit the curb in oder to speed away again.

The definition exactly covers what is going on in the Illegal Settlements.

col·o·nize
/ˈkɒləˌnaɪz/ [kol-uh-nahyz] verb, col·o·nized, col·o·niz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1.to establish a colony in; settle: England colonized Australia.

Did you see that? Settle.

Did you see that? Settle.

As in Israel illegally colonized the West Bank.

As in the international community and UN condemns illegal Israeli settlements (see colonization) of the West Bank.

Now, to be fair, I'm not sure that you have ever seen a dictionary or used one so you may be at a disadvantage on this. Try picking one up someday.

Now back to our regularly scheduled

Somebody, let's say a person, moving to an area to live is not an instance of colonization.

However, having a large mass of people, five-hundred thousand individuals, with the backing of a military force to protect them, pushing in to another people's land (Sorry, but things change over thousands of years. Deal with it.), destroying that people's ability to farm, destroying that people's ability to live free, running large numbers of those people off their land to become refugees, not allowing those people to return in order for the first group to dig in are all examples of illegal colonization that Israel has visited on the Palestinian people.

That's the reality. I know that some will shut their eyes to it and say it isn't so, but they are wrong.

To use your own words: "You know it and I know it. ."


But let's get back to what you avoided earlier in order to complain and change the subject.

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Now I ask this again since, after you went over the curb once...again, you apparently went into a panic to make this about me lying...again about things I haven't. Shame on you...again.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

This is not about the Jews, my friend. You used that term to begin with. This is about brute-force colonialism of one group over another. It's also apartheid. It's also shameful for anyone to ignore one groups plight so that another group can push them out while taking their land and livelihood.

Now here are some links to Israeli Colonization.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4274500,00.html
Israeli colonialism in West Bank
Continued colonization of territories far more dangerous to Israel than nuclear Iran

http://www.salon.com/2010/04/23/colonizing_palestine/
Netanyahu moves forward on colonizing West Bank
By settling in Jerusalem and expelling Palestinians, Israel is making a two-state solution impossible


The ball is in your corner, Shira. Let's see how badly you *fumble this one.

Do you need the definition of fumble first?

[shira]

33. Colonize = Settle? That's it? Sigh.... I guess that's all I can come to expect from you.

Definition of "settle" from the same source you just used:

1. To discontinue moving and come to rest in one place.

a. To establish one's residence: settled in Canada.

Next time you move into another dwelling, not only will you be a settler but a colonizer.

Congrats.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. Thanks for proving my point once again, Shira.

When presented with the truth you run.

[shira]

37. You keep proving my point. In no way do Jews returning to Judea/Samaria....

....fit the definition of colonizers.

You're incapable of criticizing Israel w/o OTT exaggerations and lies.

If you're really interested in an honest discussion of the issues, try doing so w/o all the smug contempt and baiting. I can imagine that anytime Israel is mentioned, your face becomes contorted and disfigured, your pulse rises, and you just can't wait to spew.

The same thing happens with the paleo-cons over on other forums. You should check it out. It's indistinguishable from what you're doing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. Why do you keep ignoring whole questions, Shira???

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Now I ask this again since, after you went over the curb once...again, you apparently went into a panic to make this about me lying...again about things I haven't. Shame on you...again.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

Keep on running.

[shira]

40. I'm calling you on yr 'colonialist' hate speech & won't allow you to change the subject.

n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. I showed you the definition, Shira.

You just have fallen on your face with this one.

Now again.

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Now I ask this again since, after you went over the curb once...again, you apparently went into a panic to make this about me lying...again about things I haven't. Shame on you...again.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

Let's watch the fail flow out of you again.

[shira]

42. Yes. Being anti-Israel means never having to admit error. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. I showed you the definition, Shira.

You fell on your face.

Now again.

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

Now I ask this again since, after you went over the curb once...again, you apparently went into a panic to make this about me lying...again about things I haven't. Shame on you...again.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

Let's watch the fail flow out of you again, and again, and again...

[shira]

47. What you showed is that to settle = colonialism when to settle means other things too.

Fail.

=======

Now since you're practically pissing your pants waiting for an answer....

You try to claim that "Jews moving back to so called areas of historic Judea/Samaria" have all the rights of return (outside of Israel after millennium), protected by belligerent Israeli firepower...even though they have a home in the nation of Israel yet Palestinians have no right of return to the land and homes that they were forced out of by Israelis or fled in recent historical terms.

I argue Jews have as legitimate a claim to Judea/Samaria as the Palestinians do, that's all. I don't believe that Jordan's ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1948 allows the area to forever be cleansed of Jews.

As to Palestinian RoR, you know I've argued all along that it is not unconditional and absolute. I'm all for a limited return for humanitarian reasons, and compensation.

What I asked you was very specific. Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

Answered above.

Also, are you familiar with the Lausanne Conference of 1949? Israel offered 2 different deals to take in Palestinian refugees and were refused outright.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. My dearly sad Shira, it is not a fail to disprove your nonsense.

I had to show you a definition, and you kept on running away from it.

I also don't "pis my pants" as you allude. Please stop projecting on that note. It's a little creepy.

Let's dissect your distracting white noise once again, shall we?

I argue Jews have as legitimate a claim to Judea/Samaria as the Palestinians do, that's all. I don't believe that Jordan's ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1948 allows the area to forever be cleansed of Jews.

Shira, one can claim a historic tie to a place in the past, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have ties to many European countries as well as Canada, am a dual citizen of one and have distant family in a few.

I have absolutely no right to, reenter any of these countries by force, without the consent of their government, protected by a military to back me up, run off the local population, kill the local population, destroy the crops and livelihoods of local population, ignore the international community, ignore the UN and invite five-hundred thousand of my friends to join in on colonizing any area to our liking. Period.

As to Palestinian RoR, you know I've argued all along that it is not unconditional and absolute. I'm all for a limited return for humanitarian reasons, and compensation.

One cannot claim "limited return for humanitarian reasons" for a people that were forced from their homes, in some instances massacred, on one hand while ignoring the obscene amount of illegal settlements (see colonies) of hundreds of thousands of Israelis now sitting on Palestinian land.

In fact the number of Palestinians that fled or were forced out roughly matches the number of illegal Israeli settlers (see colonists) on Palestinian land: five-hundred thousand.

The. Settlements. Are. Illegal. There is no justification that Israel or its truthiness squad can make that justifies the theft of another people's property.


Speaking of the Lausanne Conference of 1949 Israel agreed in principal, pressured by the USA under Truman, and signed a protocol for the return of Palestinian refugees...not just some of them. All of them. Israel wanted in to be admitted to the UN and they basically lied to get in.

Oh, previously Israel had made a generous offer to take between 100-200k of the Palestinians back: far less than half of what the refugees numbered.

Here follows a clip from Ilan Pappe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference,_1949

Ilan Pappe writes: On 12 May 1949, the conference achieved its only success when the parties signed a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace, which included territories, refugees, and Jerusalem. Israel agreed in principle to allow the return of all of the Palestinian refugees.[citation needed] This Israeli agreement was made under pressure from the United States, and because the Israelis wanted United Nations membership, which required Israeli agreement to allow the return of all refugees. Once Israel was admitted to the UN, it retreated from the protocol it had signed, because it was completely satisfied with the status quo, and saw no need to make any concessions with regard to the refugees or on boundary questions. Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett had hoped for a comprehensive peace settlement at Lausanne, but he was no match for Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who saw the armistice agreements that stopped the fighting with the Arab states as sufficient, and put a low priority on a permanent peace treaty.[6]

More...
http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

In a recent article in the "Revue d’études palestiniennes" (8), Ilan Pappe, one of the pioneers of this "new historiography", has stressed the importance of the dialogue that was unfolding in that period between Israelis and Palestinians. It developed, he says, "basically among academics. Surprising as it may seem, it was thanks to this dialogue that most Israeli researchers who were working on their country’s history and who had no links to the radical political organisations, became aware of the version of history held by their Palestinian counterparts. They became aware of the fundamental contradiction between Zionist national ambitions and their enactment at the expense of the local population in Palestine."

In the opening pages of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.

So, Shira, Israel has no right to claim another people's land, no matter what the pretext or truthiness is, and pump its citizens into an area; claiming a birthright it will deny to another group of people who have more legitimate claim.

[shira]

49. My poor friend, RDO. It's a fail for you when you have no clue about I/P...

Again, let me know when you "settle" into a new residence the next time you move. Because remember, once you do that you will meet what you see as the dictionary definition of being a colonist.

I argue Jews have as legitimate a claim to Judea/Samaria as the Palestinians do, that's all. I don't believe that Jordan's ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1948 allows the area to forever be cleansed of Jews.

Shira, one can claim a historic tie to a place in the past, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have ties to many European countries as well as Canada, am a dual citizen of one and have distant family in a few.

I have absolutely no right to, reenter any of these countries by force, without the consent of their government, protected by a military to back me up, run off the local population, kill the local population, destroy the crops and livelihoods of local population, ignore the international community, ignore the UN and invite five-hundred thousand of my friends to join in on colonizing any area to our liking. Period.

What are you talking about? Do you not know Jews were ethnically cleansed from Judea/Samaria in 1948? They had a right to live there, as they and their ancestors had done for 3000+ years. You then write nonsense about Israel reentering by force (winning a defensive war?), w/o consent of the government (what government?) running/killing off the local population (when?)... That whole paragraph is just one hot mess.

As to Palestinian RoR, you know I've argued all along that it is not unconditional and absolute. I'm all for a limited return for humanitarian reasons, and compensation.

One cannot claim "limited return for humanitarian reasons" for a people that were forced from their homes, in some instances massacred, on one hand while ignoring the obscene amount of illegal settlements (see colonies) of hundreds of thousands of Israelis now sitting on Palestinian land.

In fact the number of Palestinians that fled or were forced out roughly matches the number of illegal Israeli settlers (see colonists) on Palestinian land: five-hundred thousand.

The. Settlements. Are. Illegal. There is no justification that Israel or its truthiness squad can make that justifies the theft of another people's property.

Looks like you're confused. Are you arguing Israel won't allow refugees to move into the WEST BANK? Because that's what you once claimed you're in favor of. Now it seems you're pining for full RoR into Israel (within the green line). So which is it?

========

You then mentioned Illan Pappe's work. He has no credibility whatsoever. In fact, he invented the following quote he attributed to Ben Gurion:

“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.”

Pappe was challenged numerous times to prove his source and he couldn't. The propagandist fabricated the quote out of thin air. It's no wonder you know so little about I/P.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

50. My poor, poor Shira...

What are you talking about? Do you not know Jews were ethnically cleansed from Judea/Samaria in 1948? They had a right to live there, as they and their ancestors had done for 3000+ years. You then write nonsense about Israel reentering by force (winning a defensive war?), w/o consent of their government (what government?) running/killing off the local population (when?)... That whole paragraph is just one hot mess.

It's the West bank. It's called the West Bank. It may be called Judea/Samaria in Israel, but the rest of the world knows it as the West Bank.

You cite that the People of Israel were ethnically cleansed" from the WB in 1948. What was the total? Do you have some numbers to go by? Was it around the same number as Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed during that time: 500-700k? I'm just curious since you have claimed in the past that Jews have a historical right to the land, which really means absolutely nothing in modern historical context since the inhabitants of the land, mainly Palestinians, were cast out recently (see ethnically cleansed) and replaced by illegal Israeli settlers (see colonists, see): not recognized by either the international community or the UN. I know, Shira, you keep on hand wringing about this 3000 years number, which again means absolutely nothing in historical context when there were already other inhabitants living in the very area that you ascribe as belonging to the People of Israel.

And yes, Shira, Israel is an occupying power, a colonial power, that is intent on filling the West Bank with its citizens, flaunting international law, at the expense of those who used to live there and those that still live under apartheid.

Looks like you're confused. Are you arguing Israel won't allow refugees to move into the WEST BANK? Because that's what you once claimed you're in favor of. Now it seems you're pining for full RoR into Israel (within the green line). So which is it?

I'm not confused, Shira. The question isn't what I would like to see. The question is still...

Why should Israel protect the right of return of only Jews into historical areas (outside the country of Israel) from thousands of years ago yet turn a belligerent eye towards Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, continue to be forced out of their homes, since they also have a historical claim to right of return?

It's called hypocrisy, Shira; also know as the big hot mess (your choice of words) created by modern day Israel and her colonists.

The time is coming when the Palestinians will be taking this up with the International Criminal Court. The writing is on the wall.

[shaayecanaan]

28. Africa is the home of all our ancestors...

still, I don't think the white imperialists got a pass simply because their ancestors lived in Africa over five thousand years ago.

From Merriam-Webster:-

Colonialism

3
a : control by one power over a dependent area or people
b : a policy advocating or based on such control

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonialism

And quit with that incredulous, wide-eyed "you know it and I know it" bullshit. Virtually everything you write is a complete crock of shit.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. + 1000

[shira]

32. Congrats. You defined occupation rather than colonialism. Try again.

You also made yet another boneheaded moral equivalency WRT Africa....



Now that you mention it, I was thinking about your crocks-of-shit from the past. So many to choose from...

What do you think of moderate MB rule in Tunisia now, post-assassination?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. Wrong. You just don't understand how to use a dictionary.

Or read one for that matter.

[shira]

36. I'm surprised you can spell dictionary. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. Keep running, mate.

[shaayecanaan]

43. Its a sad day

when even the dictionaries are conspiring against you, I guess.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. How can one accuse a dictionary term of being wrong?

[Ken Burch]

46. Let's see Netayahu NOT ignore Livni during cabinet meetings.

I know you admire this person, but you have to realize that she's essentially consigned herself to the political boneyard by accepting this.

There's no way she'll be able to make any progress in restarting peace talks while Netanyahu and(probably)Bennett as well do even MORE settlement expansion.

Being minister for the peace process in a Likud-led coalition is like being Director of Poultry Survival at KFC.

[azurnoir]

3. yes Livni the 'former' settler is the logical chioce for Likud

that said can I guess that there won't be any talks held in London?

[shira]

4. Livni was the last to talk peace w/ the PLO (see Palestine Papers)

Perfect choice.

The PLO has no excuses now.

[azurnoir]

6. well according to you however the who has far far less than the what

and the what being continued 'settlement' building at this point in time

[oberliner]

5. When have there ever been Israeli/Palestinian peace talks held in London?

And Livni is not a former settler.

What a strange series of comments.

[azurnoir]

7. I have in the past read she either lived in or supported the setlement building and

supposedly 'changed' her mind, but that you defend her so strenuously speaks volumes indeed as to her qualifications

as to the London part of the comment that was snark

[oberliner]

8. Where have you read that?

Can you provide a link?

What strenuous defense have I made that you are talking about?

And what's the snark about London?

[azurnoir]

9. lol you seem to have been a supporter of Livni's for quite sometime now or are you denying that?

and if not exactly what is your purpose here?

as to the where I really do not remember and any reference to it has been edited out (wiki) or buried in years of nes announcements concerning her life

eta as I told shira the who does not make much difference here except for PR purposes perhaps as the what and as long as Israel chooses to continue settlement building there will most likely be no talks

[oberliner]

10. Definitely

She should be the PM.

I think you are misremembering your "facts" here though.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Livni also leaned on Mahmoud Abbas to not accept Olmert's napkin map offer...

at least according to Condoleeza Rice, who believed that both Livni and Netanyahu strongly discouraged Abbas from considering the offer, because Olmert was a lame duck with no standing in Israel.

I think she is a cynical opportunist, a wet-finger-in-the-wind politician, a bit like Hillary Clinton in that regard. She was hawkish towards the Palestinians during her tenure and now seems to be staking out a political niche as a latter-day dove.

[azurnoir]

12. Livni: Israel Keeping Settlements is Requirement for Peace

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/12/livni-israel-keeping-settlements-is-requirement-for-peace/

article links to here

Livni: The world is mistaken on settlements

Former foreign minister Tzipi Livni issued rare criticism of the international community at The Jerusalem Post’s Diplomatic Conference at Herzliya’s Daniel Hotel Wednesday when she told a room full of ambassadors that Israel keeping settlements was a requirement for achieving peace with the Palestinian Authority.

“It doesn’t matter what you think about settlements,” she said with uncharacteristic bluntness. “We have settlement blocs close to the Green Line, and the only way for the conflict with the Palestinians to end is for Israel to keep them.

"Any pre-agreement by the international community to a withdrawal to 1967 borders before the talks occur, makes it difficult to negotiate. It was clear in the talks I conducted with the Palestinians that there would not be return to 1967 borders.”

Livni said she was frustrated as an Israeli when the international community compared casualties caused by the IDF, which acts to defend Israel and target terrorists, to those killed by terrorists who target civilians.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=295610

IMO sounds pretty same old same old

[oberliner]

13. Geneva Accords

That is the foundation of them. Land swaps. Israel keeps settlements near the Green Line in exchange for land inside Israel going over to the Palestinian state.

[azurnoir]

14. well there are 2 parties involved and both have to agree n/t

[oberliner]

15. Exactly so

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. "and the only way for the conflict with the Palestinians to end is for Israel to keep them."

How generous of her to offer to keep other people's land.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Livni said she was frustrated as an Israeli when the international community compared casualties caused by the IDF, which acts to defend Israel and target terrorists, to those killed by terrorists who target civilians.

Sounds like the same old eye for an eye bullshit that the old testament is full of. Speaking of eyes Tzipi, remove the beam from thine...

I don't believe that the international community will shed any tears over how frustrated she is. Better if Israel abide by UN resolutions.

[Alamuti Lotus]

18. there's still a "peace process"? was there ever? *nt

[Ken Burch]

31. In a Likud-led coalition, that's kind of Orwellian.

I'm guessing we won't hear much from Livni in the next four years...until they trot her out to justify the next war.

In other words, Tzipi Livni's political career is going to end at the next general election.