Support for a two-state solution based on 67′ borders is likely to decline in the near future
A new poll by Haaretz shows a bump of no less than 13 percents in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s numbers following his visit to the US, in which he expressed his opposition to a return to the 1967 borders and for a compromise in Jerusalem. 47 percent of the public see the trip as a success, and 51 percent of Israelis are currently satisfied with their Prime Minister.
A Maariv poll published yesterday saw a rise in the Knesset seats of Netanyahu’s Likud party, from the current 27 to 30.
While many polls showed a somewhat steady support in the Jewish public for a two states solution based on 67′ borders, it seems that Israelis liked the way Netanyahu confronted president Obama, and especially the warm welcome he received at the US Congress.
I continue to predict that we will now see a decline in the support for the 67′-based two states solution, as the PM’s messages will sink with the public. The confrontational attitude Netanyahu adopts is likely—at least in the short run—to move more Israelis to the right, thus making a compromise even less likely than it is right now.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Leonid Levin
His rival Evet Liberman won’t probably be so happy about Bibi’s rise in popularity. So Liberman will probably have to go even more extreme to outperform Bibi.
We’ve seen many times in the past populations cheering their leaders in their defiant stance towards the rest of the world. This usually doesn’t end very well.
Ben Israel
The Palestinians really blew it when they failed to realize that Ariel Sharon was the best friend they ever had as PM. Had they cooperated with his destruction of Gush Katif, he could have easily carried a large-scale unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. He was indeed telling people that this was his intention just two days before he collapsed-author Matt Beynon Rees interviewed Sharon and reported it on his blog. Then Olmert would have had a carte blanche to finish the job. With his violent attack on the settlers at Amona, Olmert was signalling he was prepared to destroy the settlement movement even to the point of bloodshed. This was the Palestinian moment. Instead, the increasing rocket attacks from Gaza soured Israeli public opinion on unilateral withdrawals.
Richard Witty
Netanyahu definitely played American politics.
He played the republicans who gloated about sticking it to Obama publicly. And, he played to the democrats who are reluctant to defend their president in the form of criticizing Israeli rudeness (they don’t respond to rudeness in kind).
The population of those that would be offended by the insults to a sitting American president, were distracted by domestic politics.
There is though, far far less likelihood of a Palestinian state for the next two election cycles though.
The dangers to Israel are an unenthused US campaign to oppose the Palestinian petititon to the general assembly, in which a large enough body of European states abstain or vote in support of the petition, and the general assembly then passes the resolution.
That will change Israel’s status in the west bank, from a legal temporary occupier per UN requirement, to an illegal occupier.
ARTH
The sorts of people who read 972 and even its journalists should recognized that they have little support for this sort of two-state solution in the Israeli electorate. That is to say: Israel is a right-wing country.
Noam W
Not unexpected. My only question to you, Noam, and to the minority that still thinks this is all very wrong, is what will you do when they call you up to fight in the next war?
Ben Israel
Noam W-
All the major outbreaks of violence since Oslo in 1993 were when the Left (peace camp) was in power. The reason is that the Palestinians felt that extra violence would force extra concessions from Israel. The quietest periods are when the “Right” is in power because they realize they aren’t going to get anything and so the violence won’t be effective.
Noam Sheizaf
Noam W.: the tragedy is that when the right gets his way, it leaves us with only bad options – serving the occupation or refusing and maybe risking lives of Israelis.
Personally, I can’t say what I’ll do-as you know, I already refused once-and I guess I will just consider things as they happen.
Ben Israel
Here’s another poll, this from the Jerusalem Post—-
Only 12% of Israeli Jews view Obama as pro-Israel.
Only 27% of Israeli Jews support Obama’s call for a settement on the lines of Obama which wants the border to along the 67 lines with swaps, 61% oppose:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=222451
max
“… what will you do when they call you up to fight in the next war?”
An interesting and important question, confronting democratic values and personal moral views.
When does a personal view become a legitimate reason to disobey democratic decisions? Note that in this case it isn’t a sudden command by an individual officer.
Isn’t the best way to join and preach from inside, warning when actions seem wrong? Preaching from the sideline is the easiest solution, but probably a cowardly one.
The Nation’s Speech « Truth from Eretz Yisrael
[...] loved it. 46% went as far as reporting that it made them feel proud. This fact alone calls for explanation: why did this banal speech, repeating old arguments and policies, make so many Israelis feel that [...]