Report: Obama will cancel Israel visit if no coalition in place

[Jefferson23]

U.S. president's visit was expected to take place after the new Israeli government was formed, with the assumption that this would happen by mid-March. Netanyahu is still struggling to form a government, however.

By Haaretz | Feb.28, 2013 | 11:23 PM

President Barack Obama will cancel his planned visit to Israeli next month if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unable to form a coalition by March 16, Israel's Channel 10 reported on Thursday.

After the Israeli elections on January 22, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was tasked with forming Israel's new governing coalition. March 16 is the legal deadline for Netanyahu to form the coalition, or inform President Shimon Peres that he has been unable to do so.

Obama's visit was expected to take place after the new Israeli government was formed, with the assumption that this would happen by mid-March. A likely date for the visit was set at March 21, although according to a senior Israeli official, the visit would may be postponed until after Passover if the coalition-building process is delayed.

According to Thursday's report, with no coalition in place, Obama will not make it to the Holy Land. Over the past few days, the U.S. Ambassador in Israel Dan Shapiro has been busy gauging the progress of Israel's coalition talks, Channel 10 reported.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-obama-will-cancel-israel-visit-if-no-coalition-in-place-1.506529#

[Jefferson23]

1. Likud leaning on Bennett to join coalition without Lapid

Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu is exerting heavy pressure on Habayit Hayehudi chairman Naftali Bennett to break his alliance with Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid and form a government comprised mainly of rightist and Haredi ‏ ultra-Orthodox‏ parties.

Negotiators from Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu and Habayit Hayehudi will hold a “decisive meeting” on the subject on Friday, a source involved in the talks said.

The meeting was called after Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu concluded that Yesh Atid is unwilling to sit in a governing coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties.

Regardless of what happens, however, the talks aren’t expected to conclude on Friday. Thus Saturday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to ask President Shimon Peres to grant him another two weeks to conduct negotiations.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/likud-leaning-on-bennett-to-join-coalition-without-lapid.premium-1.506537

[Ken Burch]

62. Bennett's in an alliance with Lapid? That would be a nightmare government

Two prima donnas just trying to out-hawk and out-screw over the Pals each other. I can't imagine any Israelis thinking a government based on those two working in tandem could lead to any good...or anybody else.

Certainly proves Lapid was never a "centrist".

[Hard Assets]

2. Fuck Bibi.

Let his struggle continue. Israelis are tired of warhawks.

I'd be willing to give up the 1967 borders and make Jerusalem an international demilitarized zone.

[holdencaufield]

3. Polls show ...

... that by a large margin, Israelis (actual Israelis) aren't willing to give up Jerusalem. They remember that Jerusalem WAS an international demilitarized zone for approximately ONE day back in 1948. War was declared by the Arab League, Jordan rolled in with tanks, the UN representatives fled for their lives and it was Jew-free for 19 years. During that time, ancient synagogues in Jerusalem were destroyed or defiled, Jewish grave markers, centuries old were dug up and used as landfill.

Taking Jerusalem out of Israeli hand will guarantee it will happen again.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. What does your term "actual Israelis" mean? The 75%?

[holdencaufield]

5. Israelis actually LIVING in Israel ...

... as opposed to people living elsewhere who would magnanimously "give up" territories on behalf of the people living there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Does that include "actual Israeli" settlers living in the West Bank?

[holdencaufield]

8. Are they voting Israelis?

If yes, then yes -- it also includes left-handed Israelis, Israelis with green eyes, Israelis who don't like hummus and any other Israeli citizen with whom you might take issue.

[Hard Assets]

10. My sister lives in West Bank in Efrat.

in an settlement established in 1983. She moved there shortly after 9/11.

And while I stay concerned for her, she and I are not on a speaking terms.

[King_David]

13. I can't imagine not talking to my sibling

For ANY reason .

[Hard Assets]

15. She and I had huge fight about 10 years ago

about my posts here in DU.

She specifically did not want me to discuss her involvement with a certain Republican operative (that has since gone to prison and released after singing) but I did so anyway.

She has been very frosty with me since. It is her choice to be mad at me, even though I have apologized a thousand times and removed posts from DU (with the help of admins). It is true what they say - what's out on the Internet is permanent, as in "forever". Recently, though, she has spoken with my 4 year old son on the phone so perhaps relations may be thawing

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. If you include them as "actual (voting) Israelis" living in Israel when they are

illegal Israeli settlers living in the West bank then they're not "actual Israelis" living in Israel.

[King_David]

12. Add me to that poll. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Wanting all of Jerusalem is an extremist view. Or is it only extremist when it's Arabs? n/t

[King_David]

27. There's no chance that Jerusalem

And the Western wall will ever be given up by Israel . Going back in time when Jews were not allowed even to see the Kotel will not happen. That is not extremist ... It's realism and its fact .

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Not wanting to share is an extremist stance...

And it's hypocritical for those who hold such extremist views to then turn around and whine because some Palestinians want all of Jerusalem.

Jews can see the Kotel without Israel having to grab whatever it wants when it comes to territory. That's realism and it's fact.

[King_David]

29. Tangent nt

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Tell me what bit of the post you think is a tangent and I'll explain it to you...

I had a reread and there's nothing tangental in there at all.

1. I repeated that to want all of Jerusalem is an extremist stance, and it doesn't matter if they're Jewish or an Arab...

2. You claimed that Jews couldn't see the Kotel once as a justification for yr support of Israel having all of Jerusalem. I pointed out the bleeding obvious fact that they can see it without Israel going and taking whatever land it wants.

[King_David]

32. History that Israel doesn't want repeated :

The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem.[11] All but one of the 35 synagogues in the Old City were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and chicken coops. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures.[12] The ancient Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was desecrated, and the tombstones were used for construction, paving roads and lining latrines; the highway to the Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the site.[13]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Then Israel shouldn't repeat it by inflicting similar stuff on the Palestinians...

Sorry, but wanting all of Jerusalem is an extremist stance, and one that shouldn't see the light of day on a LW site like DU. The weak attempts at logic thrown at people by those who don't want to share always try to feebly rest on history, but in doing so they don't realise the same arguments can be used by the people they're trying to leave with nothing at all...

[King_David]

35. Similar stuff ? What utter rubbish !

All the Mosques have been destroyed and every Muslim expelled and Muslim Cemetriess desecrated ?

There's nothing extremist about not wanting the the most important Jewish sites in the world to perhaps one day get into the hands of ,for example Hamas or even worse .

There's nothing extremist about it at all and you know it!

And I will not continue now this exchange no matter what minuscule semantic point you may find for your next rebuttal .

I know how it goes with you

C ya

[Violet_Crumble]

53. It's not rubbish. Similar stuff has been done by Israel...

Israel has destroyed mosques and has expelled Palestinians. There's plenty of articles posted in this forum showing that those things have been happening over the years. As I said, extremists on both sides use similar arguments for why they should have it all, and it's ugly and extremist stupidity no matter what the ethnicity of the ones doing it.

It's not nice to put words in my mouth, Dave. This is what I know: The stance you have expressed where all of Jerusalem should belong to Israel is an extremist viewpoint and one that's not the least bit condusive to peace. And when you speak of the whole of Jerusalem, yr talking about the municipal borders that Israel has expanded quite a few times so that they reach far into the West Bank. Assuming that yr 'important Jewish sites' argument is one you want to continue flogging, then where in Jerusalem are these sites and why does that justify Israel having all of Jerusalem?

I think you forgot that you said you weren't continuing this exchange, as you came along a few hours later and replied to my post again. Are you replying to me or not? It's hard to keep up!

[King_David]

56. My names not" Dave"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. Well that was an in-depth reply.

Usual fare.

[King_David]

45. "shouldn't see the light of day on a LW site like DU. " WTF DU is a site that supports

The USA Democratic Party , can you quote me one representative or Senator or the President calling for the division and of Jerusalem and evacuation of Judaisms most holy sights?

antiZionism on the other hand is considered extremist by the USA Democratic Party .. Check out their websites and views and support for the Jewish State.

AntiZionism "shouldn't see the light of day on a LW site like DU. "

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Most DUers do not support extremist stances like that one...

Correction: No-one has called for the evacuation of any holy sites. And Jerusalem IS divided into East and West. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel and is not part of Israel. Those who think all of Jerusalem belongs to their bunch, whether it's Hamas or extremist Israelis and their supporters, are peas in a pod. They're not interested in peace. All they're interested in is winning at all costs.

If the Democrats do support Israel having all of Jerusalem, then that's a seriously flawed thing that they clearly haven't thought through. I hope they don't...

Since you've kicked off yr antizionism thing again, I'd like you to define what a Zionist is and what an antizionist is. Coz I've seen you going after a few regulars in this forum accusing them of being antizionists, and if yr being the judge and jury and then saying they don't belong at DU, then that's a pretty nasty thing to be doing...

Have a lovely weekend...

[King_David]

55. No need some people self describe themselves as antiZionist

A stance diametrically opposite of the Democratic Party's principles.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. I'm sure some do, but I'm talking about people you accuse of being antizionists...

I've seen it happen here at DU, which is why I asked for yr definition of zionist and antizionist....

You told me a few posts ago that the Democratic Party's principles included wanting Israel to have all of Jerusalem and the Palestinians nothing, but when I went to take a look, I didn't find that at all, and have found the Obama administration being highly critical of Israel for wanting to undertake settlement construction in East Jerusalem. Now, that criticism would be something that those with extremist viewpoints that want Israel to have everything would be diametrically opposed to...

[King_David]

59. I never said such a thing

I did say I subscribed to the principles of the Geneva Accord tho.

Good day

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Yeah, you did. It's post #45

'"shouldn't see the light of day on a LW site like DU. " WTF DU is a site that supports


The USA Democratic Party , can you quote me one representative or Senator or the President calling for the division and of Jerusalem and evacuation of Judaisms most holy sights?'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=33419

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was yr attempt to portray the Democrats as supporting the same stance as yrs, which is a rather extreme one of wanting Israel to have all of Jerusalem and the Palestinians none. It's the mirror image of the stance of Palestinian extremists who want the Palestinians to have all of Jerusalem and Israel none.

There can be no peaceful or fair resolution when hardliners in either camp insist that they're entitled to everything and they can ignore international law at will. Just blindly repeating the same thing over and over and ignoring the questions I've asked and the points made about how Jerusalem's municipal borders have been expanded over the years by Israel makes me think you haven't really thought through yr stance at all...

Have a lovely day!

[oberliner]

64. Wow this is off the charts

Jerusalem really brings out the best in people.

Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

[Jefferson23]

82. You're the one who is off the charts.

snip* Barack Obama, when he was running for president in 2008, made a similar comment, from which he later backtracked.

At a speech before AIPAC in June 2008, Obama said: "[A]ny agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Obama, as the Washington Post wrote at the time, later reversed course. "Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city 'must remain undivided.'"

The AP earlier explained why Jerusalem is such a thorny subject, particularly for candidates running for the White House: "The Palestinians want to establish a capital in east Jerusalem, captured and annexed by Israel in 1967. Most of the world, including the U.S., does not recognize the annexation. The U.S. and others keep their embassies in Tel Aviv."

And as CNN has observed, while presidential candidates might say one thing about Jerusalem, they do another while in office. "In pledging to move the American embassy in Israel, Romney joins presidential candidates in the past that have made the same promise, including former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Neither made the move as commander in chief."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/31/13054356-remembering-obamas-own-jerusalem-statement-in-08?lite

[oberliner]

83. Just quoting President Obama

As opposed to the spin you are providing here.

Pretty much any Democrat (and certainly all supporters of the Geneva Initiative, such as myself) support a unified Jerusalem who final borders will be determined via land swaps between the Israeli and Palestinian leadership.

Only very extreme people believe that places like The Jewish Quarter in East Jerusalem ought not to be part of Israel when all is said and done.

[Jefferson23]

84. You're spinning, and misrepresenting, again. Although, you are backpeddling now as well.

Why do you keep doing that? You think no one notices?


You added a quote earlier without a link. I gave you a link with the same quote and with the explanation and if you
think you're correct, find US policy on it and post it.

[King_David]

66. Your corrected and wrong

Best let other posters speak for themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. I'm missing the bit where you've corrected anything or explained why I'm supposedly wrong...

Maybe you could back up and make an attempt at that?

And when it comes to speaking for themselves, I'm not spotting the bit where anyone's not allowing you to speak for yrself. In fact, I've been encouraging you to do it by asking you questions and trying to get into a discussion.

I can talk some more about the extremism and opposition to peace of those who want all of Jerusalem, but I'm not too sure yr interested in listening.

[King_David]

70. Anti Zionism

Would be considered an extremist view here in the USA .. Most extreme right wing groups espouse such views .

[Violet_Crumble]

73. I didn't say anything about antizionism in the post you said was wrong...

Want to try again? What was incorrect in what I said in that post?

Anyway, where you left it off when it came to a discussion of Zionism and Antizionism was being asked to define both terms, something you didn't do. So feel free to supply the definition you use...

btw, most extreme RW groups support Israel and would view themselves as Zionists. Take Pamela Geller and her ilk for example. Those types do however hold the extremist view that Israel should have all of Jerusalem and the Palestinians none...

[King_David]

75. The most extreme right wing

Like David Duke for example and extreme "left" are most certainly antiZionist .

[Violet_Crumble]

76. So Pamela Geller isn't extreme right wing??

Because her and others like her identify as Zionists. Does that mean that she's indicative of all Zionists? Because that's what you appear to be trying to do with David Duke when it comes to antizionism. Something Duke and Geller have in common is they're both fucking bigots...

Anyway, I take it there was nothing incorrect in my post that you initially claimed was wrong, seeing as how you haven't pointed to what was wrong in it?

[King_David]

77. Incorrect ,whats frustrating you is I just don't play your "game"

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Asking you to answer simple questions on a discussion forum isn't a game...

It's called trying to have a civil discussion. If you don't want to engage in that particular 'game', then that's yr problem, but don't go putting words in my mouth and getting nasty...

How was yr 'weekend'?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=33629

[sabbat hunter]

80. where is the dividing line of Jerusalem

is it the 1949 cease fire lines?
So because the UN failed in their duty to protect the old city, it should belong to Palestine?

If Israel had been on the other side of the old city in 1949, would it then belong to them in your eyes?

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Answers

1. The Green Line

2. No

3. No

[oberliner]

88. Which makes the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem off-limits to Israeli Jews

Somehow that makes sense in some people's worlds.

[sabbat hunter]

90. So because of an arbitrary ceasefire line

Israel should not rule the old city? Even though it was never supposed to belong to Palestine?

If the fighting had lasted a few more days in 1949 and the old city fell in to Israeli hands, would you then think it should belong politically to Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Go back and read the answers I gave you...

I don't think you read them properly...

But while yr in a question asking mood, maybe you could ask 'King David' about the extremist views he's expressed on Jerusalem..y'know the ones where he thinks Israel should have all of Jerusalem and the Palestinians nothing? You might have more luck than I did

[sabbat hunter]

95. your answers to the questions

is it the 1949 cease fire lines? the green line aka (the 1949 cease fire line)
So because the UN failed in their duty to protect the old city, it should belong to Palestine? No

If Israel had been on the other side of the old city in 1949, would it then belong to them in your eyes? No

But at the same time you don't think that Israel should have political control over the old city.

One or the other has to have control over it (or an independent third party, and we all know how well that went before)

unfortunately you cannot split control of the old city like that. You need a dividing line of some sort. Who would politically control what? Who would have jurisdiction if there is a crime or other problems.?
Lets not forget that the Temple mount does have significance to Jews as well as Muslims. If Israel would to cede political control over the temple mount, there would be riots, as even the more liberal Israelis do not want that.

I do not have a problem with Palestine controlling areas outside of the old city on the eastern side.


Is the old city considered east or west Jerusalem? If it is east, does that give it to the Palestinians?

[sabbat hunter]

79. Palestinians should be

allowed to visit the holy sites and the rest of the old city. That does not equal Palestinian control over the old city.

[sabbat hunter]

78. IT is shared now

Israel may have political control over the old city, but the various religions control the various holy sites.

I think there are only two non-starters that Israel should have
1) RoT to Israel proper for refugees. this can be fixed by compensating any who were forced out (those who left on their own or at the behest of Arab leaders will get lesser amounts. Also any jews forced out of Arab countries since Israel was founded should similarly be compensated)
2) Palestinian control over the old city. To me that is never going to happen. Palestinians do not have any historical political ties to Jerusalem. If however they want to have a capital over a portion of it that can be worked out, but it will not include the old city.


Anything else is on Israel. Withdraw from the west bank, with certain adjustments in both directions to make sure the exchanges are equal and that the West Bank (the core of a future Palestine) is contiguous and unbroken.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem will continue to report to the future leader of Palestine. That will give Palestine a measure of control over the Muslim holy sites. (even though I do not like the current Mufti as he has openly supported suicide bombing Israelis)

[King_David]

36. I believe in something similar to The Geneva Accord

There's nothing extremist in that viewpoint .

[Violet_Crumble]

65. If the Geneva Accord supports Israel having all of Jerusalem, it IS extremist

Just curious, but is there another Accord 'similar' to the Geneva Accord you believe in? It's just that the Geneva Accord talks about Jerusalem being a shared capital, which is in direct contrast to the stance you've expressed.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

[King_David]

67. Yes as I said I have no problem with the principles

Of the Geneva accord and nor the principles of the USA Democratic Party and its representatives especially those pertaining to Israel .That is why I post on DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. You don't disagree with them wanting Jerusalem to be the capital of both states?

I thought only a few posts back you were making out they held the same absolutist, all of Jerusalem must belong to Israel stance as you.

Glad to see you reexamined what was a morally bankrupt stance and now agree that Jerusalem must be a shared city if there's to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

I've got a question. When you say 'Democratic Party principles' what exactly are you referring to? Is this something in writing somewhere?

[King_David]

71. Look into a few democratic Congress

Websites , that probably will be helpful to you .

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Just because someone says something somewhere on the internet doesn't make something a principle...

I would imagine that the Democrats would have their principles written down in one spot in one document. I'd be interested to see where it says that they support Israel having all of Jerusalem and the Palestinians having none, so if you could link to it, that'd be much appreciated!

Have a wonderful weekend!

[King_David]

74. Would love to chat

But gotta get to my young Democrats Zionist jamboree weekend.

Bye bye

[Violet_Crumble]

86. See ya when you get back!

Have a wonderful weekend!

[leftynyc]

89. Me too

I've seen nothing to lead me to believe it would be any different now that it was when they defaced and defiled all Jewish relics. Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands.

[King_David]

91. Yes I believe it will nt

[delrem]

92. "they" n/t

[leftynyc]

94. Yes, they

since it wasn't an "it", and the damage was done, it was done by a "they".

[sabbat hunter]

9. They tried

once already to make Jerusalem an international city, didn't work out so well.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Who's 'they'? The UN? It certainly wasn't Israel n/t

[sabbat hunter]

46. The they is

The UN. And they (the UN) failed to defend the city against invading Jordanian forces or send troops in to free the city from Jordan.

What is wrong with the status quo of the old city, Israeli political control, and the various religions control their holy sites?

There is no historical ties to Jerusalem as a political center for the Palestinians.

[Scootaloo]

34. It was never "tried"

Mostly because the British were more than happy to ignore their obligations.

[sabbat hunter]

47. It wasn't the British

it was the UN that abrogated their duties

[Scootaloo]

48. No, it was in fact the British

Y'see, as the people ruling the territory at the time, it was their obligation to oversee the UN plan's execution, to make sure partition was orderly and successful. Part of that plan was to make Jerusalem that "international city." The British never did this. Instead they packed up and left the Arabs and Jews of Palestine to settle it out themselves. Without a UN member presence in the territory, what the fuck was the UN going to do?

Later, when the UN did step in by setting an arms embargo against Israel and the Arab states fighting it, the British violated that embargo by funneling arms to Israel.

And then there was that whole Suez affair in '56...

Fact is, the British have a fucking lot to answer for over the situation. It was their idea to create a Jewish Lebanon in the first place (Lebanon being a French creation out of Syria to make a Catholic-majority state). When that didn't work, the partition was a British plan (and one look at the map should tell you how idiotic an idea it was.) The British abrogated their duties as the local UN member twice, one of which had the effect of escalating a war. They then utilized Israel as a client to renew a war to re-secure British colonial power.

Blaming "the UN" is glib and ignorant. That's like blaming "the government" in the US.

[aranthus]

49. The British had no obligation to do the UN's bidding.

The Partition Resolution was a recomendation, not an order or instruction. The British were free to act on it or not. Then as now, the UN was primarily a propaganda tool of the great powers. In the case of UNGA 181, it was the British that had asked the UN to declare an end to the mandate and to take over. The UN dutifully declared an end to the mandate, but then added some recomendations about what the British should do. Interestingly, the British had told the world before the vote that they would not take any action that was not agreed to by both sides on the ground. And of course, the two sides had made clear that they weren't gonig to agree on the most important issue--Jewish statehood. So when the countries of the UN voted on the Partition Plan, they knew or should have known that it would be utterly meaningless.

[Scootaloo]

50. They ad an obligation as controlling power to protect the peopel thy ruled

They did not do so.

And so you're saying 181 is not valid and thus Israel has no right to exist at all. Very strange position for you to take, I think.

[aranthus]

51. You're assuming that Israel has no right to exist without a UN resolution.

That's just not true. Israel has the same right to exist as any other state, and for the same reasons. The UN doesn't count.

You are right that the British ahd an obligation to protect the people they ruled, but the point was that they gave up ruling them.

[Scootaloo]

52. That's my point; the British had many obligations and abandoned all of them

To the detriment of everyone in the situation (except of course the British.)

Not surprising given what they had done to India just the year before. Seriously, the world should stop letting the British draw maps, it's never ended well. Even in their own islands!

[aranthus]

57. It's probably worse than that.

The British abandoned Palestine thinking that there was going to be a war between the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine. They also believed that the surrounding Arab states would get involved. And they expected both the Jews and the local Arabs to lose. The thought the Jews would lose the war, so no Israel, and many fewer Jews. And they thought that the surrounding Arab states (with whom they were plotting) would take over Palestine for themselves, so no Palestinian state either. So the British are happy. The Egyptians,, Jordanians, and Syrians are happy, and they can all get back to making money in the oil trade. And the Jews and local Arabs get screwed. Odds are that the smart people leading the rest of the world knew this too, and that's what the Partition Resolution was intended to cover up.

[sabbat hunter]

81. why didnt the UN then

send in troops to free Jerusalem in 1949 from Jordan? Why weren't they present? The UK had turned control over the territories over th the UN.
Fact is the UN failed in their duty to protect Jerusalem and keep it an international city.

[sabbat hunter]

7. if Bibi doesn't have

a coalition by mid march, there probably will be new elections called.

[Hard Assets]

11. And by the looks of it, he might just be forced to.

And then Livini's coalition will be even stronger.

Centre-left is the current mood for the Israelis.

[King_David]

14. I'm not sure you know exactly what's going on in Israel

But Tzipi Livni only has 6 seats .

[Hard Assets]

16. yes, her coalition will only get stronger by accepting other coalitions that are center-left.

It's a win-win.

[King_David]

18. I'm not sure you have a grasp

on the last election results.. Unless you meant Lapid and not Livni.

[Hard Assets]

20. Maybe.

Centre left is what I heard was gaining steam. I don't read much Israeli news, but only hear snippets and stuff. I guess Livini isn't what Israel is looking for.

Whatever - as long as Bibi loses his job and never gets it again.

[King_David]

22. People posting in his forum do read a lot of Israeli news nt

[aranthus]

44. It will be Lapid's coalition, not Livni's

He's the centrist with the biggest party.

[azurnoir]

21. thank you for that

[King_David]

23. No Problem. nt

[azurnoir]

24. It was honest as neither the Center or the Left is all too popular

in Israel as election results show

[King_David]

25. I know and mine was a sincere no problem

[oberliner]

19. Netanyahu to ask for extension

JERUSALEM, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will ask President Shimon Peres for an extension to form the next government, an official said.

The Jan. 22 elections gave Netanyahu until Saturday night to form a new government but the law allows Peres to grant the prime minister a 2-week extension. That would give Netanyahu until March 16 to form a coalition, The Jerusalem Post said Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/02/28/Netanyahu-to-ask-for-extension/UPI-71071362052760/#ixzz2MGAVl8Rr

[bemildred]

37. I think we need to have some more elections. Keep trying until we get something that can work. nt

[oberliner]

38. And maybe the Palestinians can have another election too

Seems to be "one and done" for them. Nothing since 2006.

[bemildred]

39. Indeed.

All this desperate, pathetic clinging to power on both sides.

[oberliner]

40. It was nice to see some new names do well in the Israeli elections

Been too much of the same old faces for too long on both sides.

Would love to see someone other than Haniyeh/Abbas on the Palestinian side - although, as they say, be careful what you wish for.

Goes without saying that I'd love to see someone other than Netanyahu/Barak on the Israeli side as well. But with the same caveat as above.

[bemildred]

41. You can't stall forever, Israeli, Amerkin, Arab, the future is coming, and it's coming for you. nt

[oberliner]

42. Two-state solution by 2020?

What odds will you give me?

[bemildred]

43. I don't expect the future to look much like the present.

And I don't expect it to be predictable. We have a lot of neglected business, very large issues, weather, energy, water, and we have been avoiding dealing with them in pursuit of self-interest or profit for some hundreds of years now. There is no sign that I can see either that we have our collective shit together or that we might be capable of that.

And technology is moving very fast, a real wild card. Consider what has happened just since 1990, 23 years.

[Ken Burch]

61. Makes sense. If there's no coalition, who the hell would he talk to?

Nothing he discussed with Netanyahu would have any traction, given that Netanyahu may not even be able to FORM a government.