There was no need for a further shift to the right, in the wake of the primaries, to clearly show that the Likud comprises a strong nucleus – a majority perhaps – that is opposed to a Palestinian state. Benjamin Netanyahu is just the dress window.

Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter



The positions presented by the prime minister during the negotiations with John Kerry are a red flag in the eyes of Danny Danon, Tzipi Hotovely, Ze'ev Elkin, Yariv Levin and others. In a government with Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, and guarded by a cloak of secrecy, Netanyahu could allow himself to move closer to the 1967 lines, and expand the settlement enterprise too – but only, or almost only, within the boundaries of the existing settlement blocs.

Fatal Vote Binational state is this election's critical issue Sever Plocker Op-ed: Instead of an anti-Bibi front, centrist and leftist parties should create a front focusing on saving the Jewish state from a violent future. Binational state is this election's critical issue

Herzog and Livni in Tel Aviv (Photo: Yaron Brenner)

To Netanyahu's credit, one can say, he realized the dangers. He was more on the side of Livni and Lapid than on the side of Hotovely and Elkin. The most reliable evidence in this regard came just a few days ago from Livni. She was supposed to have badmouthed Netanyahu. She was supposed to have argued that he's an opponent of peace. She could have blamed him for the failure of the last round of talks with the Palestinians. But, to her credit, she did something completely different.

A week ago, Roger Cohen of the New York Times published details of a conversation he had with Livni. And the report is full of surprises. The subject, of course, is the peace process. Who is to blame, Cohen asks. The standard position of anyone who is not part of the prime minister's inner circle is that Netanyahu is to blame. Senior and very senior American sources have also done their part in pointing the finger at Netanyahu. And lo and behold, Livni refuses to hop onto the bandwagon. The person responsible for tripping up the peace talks, Livni clarifies, was Mahmoud Abbas. The formula for further talks was already in place.

Prime Minister Netanyahu (Photo: Motti Kimchi)

It was a deal that included the release of additional Palestinian prisoners, a full or partial freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, and the release of Jonathan Pollard. But the Palestinians brought everything crashing down with their appeal to the UN, which contradicted all their understandings with the US administration.

Livni also mentions the meeting at the White House, on March 17, 2014, with Abbas and Saeb Erekat. According to a report in The New Republic, Obama took the opportunity to present the American draft proposal to the Palestinian team. Not that Netanyahu had said yes; he had reservations. But he hadn't said no. He had agreed to continue the talks based on that same draft proposal. And the Palestinians? According to Livni, they evaded the issue. According to The New Republic, the Palestinians responded in the negative, despite the fact that the draft proposal Obama presented to Abbas included the division of Jerusalem.

Saying such things in the run up to elections is most certainly an act of courage on the part of Livni, who hasn't joined the dance of the demons against Netanyahu. At the same time, such statements require some soul-searching from Livni and her ally, Isaac Herzog. After all, they aren't going to offer Abbas more than Obama and Kerry did. And we all know the answer already. They will indeed boost Israel's international standing, which is important. But they will also encounter a rejectionist Palestinian position. And then where will they go?

We know that the Likud, despite Netanyahu, will continue to drag us towards a bi-national state – a catastrophe. But the center-left, one has to admit, has no serious answer. Its plan relies on Abbas; and that's a shaky foundation. One could expect a little more from them.

* * * * * *

Meanwhile, according to worldwide reports this week, Winston Churchill was enamored with Islam. These reports were based on a new study, which included a letter from Churchill's sister-in-law, who feared he was on the verge of converting to Islam.

Her fear, however, is puzzling, because Churchill had already voiced his opinion of Islam in the bluntest fashion possible: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy… improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live."

Churchill goes on to criticize Islam's attitude towards women, its perpetuation of slavery, its dangerous dissemination. These sentiments were expressed when Churchill insisted, in 1899, on joining the war against the Mahdi regime in Sudan, and they were sent in writing to The Times and The Morning Post – as an officer and a writer. They were also published in the book, The River War. These words were written in a different era. It's safe to assume that no newspaper would dare to publish such blatant remarks today. But such was the man. And there is no need for an anonymous letter to spark speculations regarding Churchill's views. He did so well enough himself.