(ynetnews)Sources close to former Kadima leader estimate Livni will soon announce her retirement from politics after losing primaries to Shaul Mofaz.
“Tzipi, you belong with us,” said Knesset Member Shaul Mofaz Tuesday night after winning the Kadima primaries. However, former Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni does not intend to stay in the party for much longer.
The Kadima election committee said Tuesday night that Mofaz had won 61.7% of the votes and Livni 37.2%.
Sources close to Livni estimated that the former party leader will soon announce her retirement from politics. “I’ll see you sometime, somewhere,” she told her supporters on Tuesday night after losing the vote.
“She realized it was over after she saw the results,” a source close to Livni said. “She said she understood she had missed her calling.”
Elected Kadima chairman Mofaz called on Livni to stay in the party and be part of its leadership, but it appears Livni is not even considering this option.
“If I’m not leading this thing, there’s nothing to vote for,” she was reported as saying. “I won’t be there for the sake of being there.”
Livni told reporters that she had called Mofaz and congratulated him on his victory. She refused to take any questions.
Naama Margolese is a ponytailed, bespectacled second-grader who is afraid of walking to her religious Jewish girls school for fear of ultra-Orthodox extremists who have spat on her and called her a whore for dressing “immodestly.”
Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni said, “It’s not just Beit Shemesh and not just gender segregation, it’s all the extremist elements that are rearing their heads and are trying to impose their world view on us.”
The Canadian government warned its citizens against taking part in the Turkish flotilla to Gaza next month, calling it a "provocation."May 29, 2011
The Canadian foreign affairs office issued a statement saying the initiative does nothing to help the people in Gaza. via ynetnews.com
Israel has thanked Canada for being a ‘true friend‘ after the Canadians stood up for Israel at the G8 in Deauville, France on Friday and prevented the adoption of a resolution referring to the ‘1967 lines.’
At a briefing ahead of the upcoming G8 summit in France, federal officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman phoned Canada’s new Foreign Minister John Baird over the weekend to thank him for Ottawa’s position at the Group of Eight meeting in France that led to the softening of a statement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the elimination of a reference to the 1967 lines.
Canada was a “true friend of Israel,” and through a correct reading of the situation understand that the 1967 lines were incompatible with both defensible borders for Israel and demographic realities, Lieberman said.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had insisted that no mention of the 1967 lines be made in the leaders’ final communiqué, even though most of the other leaders wanted a mention, diplomats said on Friday.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke with Harper by phone from Washington last week, Israeli officials said. Netanyahu had originally hoped to stop in Canada on his way back from the US, but was unable to do so because of scheduling conflicts.
“The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week,” one European diplomat said of Harper’s position.
In the final communiqué, the leaders called for the immediate resumption of peace talks, but did not mention the 1967 lines.
“Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict,” the communiqué said. “The framework for these negotiations is well known. We urge both parties to return to substantive talks with a view to concluding a framework agreement on all final-status issues. To that effect, we express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama on May 19, 2011.”
The Canadians said that if you’re going to specifically cite the ‘1967 lines’ you also have to cite other parts of the speech such as that one of the two states be a Jewish state, and that the ‘Palestinian state’ be demilitarized.
By the way, Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked Harper to thwart the mention of the ‘1967 lines,’ but Prime Minister Harper’s office is denying that report.
Stephen Harper’s spokesman is denying a report that Israel’s prime minister specifically asked Canada to thwart G8 support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.
A report published by Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Sunday quoted a senior Israeli official saying Benjamin Netanyahu telephoned Harper two days before the Group of Eight leaders met, and asked the prime minister to prevent the G8 from supporting the border proposal outlined in a statement by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Harper’s spokesman Dimitri Soudas told The Canadian Press Sunday that there was no G8 discussion with Netanyahu.
“The prime minister’s views are long-standing and well known on the Middle East process towards a two state solution,” Soudas said. “It’s important that any statement on the Middle East always have balanced references to the various positions and the G8 statement is a balanced statement.”
According to Haaretz however, Netanyahu told Harper that mentioning the border issue would be detrimental to Israeli interests and a reward to the Palestinians.
As the summit wrapped, European diplomats told reporters the omission of the Obama border proposal from the G8 statement was brought about because of objections from Canada.
Harper neither confirmed nor denied that report at the time. He told reporters that while he broadly supported the theme of Obama’s speech, bits of it could not be cherry-picked as the basis for a peace deal.
Poor Israeli media. Poor Tzipi Livni. There’s someone else aside from Israel who doesn’t accept the ’67 borders.’
Eight years ago I would of not expected this from Canada. Our understanding is that they were more LIBERAL then we are (considering what the politics of LIBERALISM is these days), but for most of Canada LIBERAL still means protecting those that are bullied.
The United States Senate and House of Representatives treated Bibi like a Rock Star, but you would not know it from the Progressive newspaper of record, the New York Times headline proclaimed:
“Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure.”
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
Two new polls prove the NY Times report about Israeli reaction was totally biased.
A poll conduced by the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz which reported the positive Israeli reaction to Netanyahu’s trip.
“Ha’aretz Poll: Netanyahu’s Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip”
“A new poll conducted by Dialog, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47% of the Israeli public believes Netanyahu’s U.S. trip was a success, while only 10% viewed it as a failure.”
The moderate Jerusalem post conducted its own poll conducted after Obama’s Speech to AIPAC:
When asked in the poll whether they saw Obama’s administration as more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral, just 12 percent of Israeli Jews surveyed said more pro-Israel, while 40% said more pro-Palestinian, 34% said neutral and 13% did not express an opinion.
Other polls taken after the Netanyahu trip agree with the other two:
A Telesker poll published in Ma’ariv on Wednesday found that the Likud had strengthened against Kadima. The poll predicted that the Likud would rise from 27 to 30 Knesset seats, while Kadima would fall from 28 to 27.
Asked who was more fit to be prime minister, 36.9% said Netanyahu; 28.3% said Kadima leader Tzipi Livni; 9.2% said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of Israel Beiteinu; 2.6% said Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Independence; and 18.2% answered none of the above.
A Sarid Institute poll broadcast on Channel 2 Tuesday night found that 38% of Israelis found Netanyahu most fit to be prime minister, and 35% Livni. The poll found that the Likud had grown in support at Kadima’s expense.
If the NY Times had any interest in the truth it would have declared that Israelis saw the Netanyahu trip as a success, and as a result the Likud party grew in support. But the truth isn’t the story the progressive media wanted to convey. They wanted to brand the Netanyahu trip as an object failure for the Israeli PM, after all he had dared to “school” the precious infallible President.
Despite AIPAC speech, 40% of 600 Jewish Israelis deem US administration pro-Palestinian in ‘Jerusalem Post’/Smith poll.US President Barack Obama’s attempt to portray himself as pro-Israel in a
high-profile speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday
did not succeed, according to a Smith Research poll sponsored by The Jerusalem
The speech was intended to correct impressions that he was hostile
toward Israel, which may have been reinforced by a landmark address about the
Middle East that he delivered at the State Department last Thursday, and by a
tense press conference at the White House on Friday with Prime Minister Binyamin
In the AIPAC speech, Obama chose not to specifically rule out
the “return” to Israel of millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees, and
did not announce his first visit to Israel as president, as many hoped he would.
But he did insist that Israel must remain the Jewish “homeland,” indicating
opposition to the Palestinian demand for refugees’ “return, spoke about Jews’
yearning for Israel through the centuries, listed many ways in which his
administration was helping Israel and clarified his position on creating a
Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps.
When asked in the poll
whether they saw Obama’s administration as more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian
or neutral, just 12 percent of Israeli Jews surveyed said more pro-Israel, while
40% said more pro-Palestinian, 34% said neutral and 13% did not express an
Still, the poll found that the gap between Israelis who say the
administration is pro-Palestinian and those deeming it pro-Israel has narrowed
since previous surveys.
The poll of 600 Jewish Israelis, representing a
statistical sample of the adult Jewish population, was taken on Monday and
Tuesday and had a 4-percentage point margin of error.
defined themselves at the left end of the political map were more likely than
others to deem the Obama administration more pro-Israel – 28% compared to 12%.
Among Kadima supporters, 37% said the administration was more pro-Palestinian;
19% said it was more pro-Israel.
The respondents most likely to label the
Obama administration as more pro- Palestinian were Orthodox Israelis, at 58%,
and right-wing respondents, at 53%. Among Likud supporters, 49% said the
administration was more pro-Palestinian; 11% said it was more
The question asked was exactly the same as in five previous
polls sponsored by this newspaper since May 2009.
The first poll, which
was taken before the first Netanyahu-Obama meeting in the White House – and
Obama’s landmark speech in Cairo in June 2009 – found that 31% considered his
presidency more pro- Israel, and 14% more pro-Palestinian.
The next poll,
taken just one month later, found a huge shift, with the proportion calling the
Obama administration more pro-Palestinian rising from 14% to 50%, and the
proportion calling it more pro-Israel falling from 31% to only 6%.
calling the Obama presidency more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian fell in August
2009 to 4%, and rose to 9% in March 2010.
Since then, the share who
consider this White House more pro-Israel has risen gradually and slightly,
while the percentage saying it is more pro-Palestinian has gradually
Polls taken in March and July 2010 found that 9% and 10%,
respectively, called the administration more pro- Israel; 48% and 46%,
respectively, called it more pro-Palestinian.
The gap between Israelis
calling the administration more pro-Palestinian and more pro-Israel has fallen
from 47% in August 2009 to 28% this week.
Obama fared better in a Dialog
poll published by Haaretz on Thursday, which found that a quarter of the public
considers him friendly to Israel, while 20% called him hostile and 43% described
him as “businesslike.”
The Dialog poll found that 47% of the Israeli
public deemed Netanyahu’s trip to Washington a success, while only 10% viewed it
as a failure.
Nearly half of the public felt pride at seeing Netanyahu
address Congress on Tuesday, while only 5% deemed it a “missed
The proportion of the population expressing satisfaction
with Netanyahu’s performance as prime minister rose from 38% in the last Haaretz
poll five weeks ago, to 51%.
Other polls also indicated a rise in support
for Netanyahu and his Likud Party since his speeches in Washington.
Telesker poll published in Ma’ariv on Wednesday found that the Likud had
strengthened against Kadima. The poll predicted that the Likud would rise from
27 to 30 Knesset seats, while Kadima would fall from 28 to 27.
was more fit to be prime minister, 36.9% said Netanyahu; 28.3% said Kadima
leader Tzipi Livni; 9.2% said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of Israel
Beiteinu; 2.6% said Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Independence; and 18.2%
answered none of the above.
A Sarid Institute poll broadcast on Channel 2
Tuesday night found that 38% of Israelis found Netanyahu most fit to be prime
minister, and 35% Livni. The poll found that the Likud had grown in support at
Since the last poll taken by the institute during a
crisis over gas prices, Kadima fell by five seats and Likud rose by
The poll found that if an election were held now, Likud would win
34 seats (up seven from the last election in February 2009); and Kadima 29 (up
A Geocartographic Institute poll broadcast on Channel 1 Tuesday
night predicted that the Likud would win 33 seats, and Kadima 22. According to
that survey, 61% of Jewish Israelis oppose Obama’s formula of the 1967 lines
with land swaps as a basis for an agreement with the Palestinians, while only
27% favor it.
On Monday, hours before the arrival of U.S. special envoy George Mitchell in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Washington’s new position, taking the condition of another settlement freeze in the West Bank off the table. He said:
To reach peace, we have to discuss the issues that are truly delaying peace … I welcome the fact that we will now begin discussing these issues and try to narrow gaps.
When Mitchell arrived in Israel, Netanyahu declared:
In their direct talks, both sides decided together to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the fundamental compromises on all permanent status issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty. That remains our goal.
Reaching this goal [face to face negotiations] will not be easy by any means. The differences between the two sides are real and they are persistent. But the way to get there is by engaging, in good faith, with the full complexities of the core issues and by working to narrow the gaps between the two.
But the Prime Minister still faces a challenge. The Obama Administration wants a “fresh” start for indirect talks from both sides. Netanyahu is expected to put forth an offer, especially on borders between Israel and a Palestinian state. The US hopes that a consensus on those borders will bring the solution of other core issues such as security, Jerusalem, water, and settlements.
On the Palestinian side, West Bank “Prime Minister” Salam Fayyad confessed the bluff of going unilaterally to the United Nations for recognition of “State of Palestine”. Fayyad said, “We have already done this in 1988. We are looking for statehood.”
Fayyad is right. The recognition of the state of Palestine by dozens of countries will not solve the problem, even if chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has sent an official letter to the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, calling for recognition based on pre-1967 borders. Ramallah knows that the only approach is to fulfil all the requirements of a sustainable state. That begins — along with steps towards the legitimacy of the rule of law, the political system, and economic policy — with an open dialogue with the Israelis.
But that of course brings everyone back to the difficulty of resuming direct negotiations, especially with the conservative and cracking Netanyahu government. As the leader of the opposition party Kadima, Tzipi Livni, revealed, Netanyahu has ruled out the possibility that Jerusalem could be divided, contradicting the statement of his Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Livni does not come across as someone I would want representing me.
forget all the baggage that you might know. She looks weak and ineffective.
is she as dumb as she looks?
Israeli media reports that WikiLeak documents reveal that Opposition leader Tzipi Livni (Kadima) told U.S. officials that the she has no faith in PA Chief Abu Mazen and that the PA is not capable of reaching a peace deal with Israel. The remarks are in contradiction of official Kadima policy.
Livni said in response to the reports that the comments were made in 2007 and came after a break in talks between the two sides.
And now, after they turned down Olmert’s offer at the end of 2008 she thinks that they are capable of reaching peace with Israel? Maybe she is as dumb as she looks.
I love Wikileaks. They tell us what our politicians are really thinking when our politicians won’t.
women are fickle. Female politicians generally change their mind when the pressure is put on them. the same with Hillary. She acted like the Conservatives were the paranoid ones… when she was just as scared of the UN (as the Wikileaks show). The difference between the Left and the Right in the West is that the Right has friends and allies and the Left generally lives in equivalent fear of everyone. I prefer having friends then thinking like a woman without a husband, child or any loyalties.