WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopefuls are lining up in defense of Indiana’s controversial “religious freedom” law, which critics warn will open the door to legal discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals by businesses in the state.
“I think Gov. [Mike] Pence has done the right thing,” former Florida governor and likely 2016 contender Jeb Bush said in a Monday interview. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”
As a reason why such laws are necessary, Bush pointed to the case of a Washington state florist who was fined for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been cascaded by the government,” Bush told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “This law simply says the government has to have a level of burden to be able to establish there has been some kind of discrimination. We’re going to need this. This is really an important value in our country, where you can respect and be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow for people of faith to exercise theirs.”
Religion teaches you to be tolerant of all. Substantial burden is just what GOD ordered. You cant use religious beliefs as a club benefit for defense of bad behavior. it would kill Christianity and cause substantial burden on those who sheperd the lonely, because they would have to overcome the additional poor attitudes, from bad experiences that come with this law. It would also be tantamount to establishing christianity into our system which is against the separation of church and state clause. all men are treated equally no matter their faith, in the american system. And if they are not, then they have religion to help them through it. But the system protects the individual from demonstrable harm, not "substantial burden". There may be a burden, but that is why people are religious, to help them with substantial burden.
"It gives our courts guidance about evaluating government action and
puts the highest standard -- it essentially says, if a government is
going to compel you to act in a way that violates your religious
beliefs, there has to be a compelling state interest," Pence said of the bill in a radio interview Thursday.GOP DOUBLE TOAK
Religion is a way of living that helps you deal with life no matter what it hands you - for example, being able to serve gay people at your store. Being religious should HELP you be nice to all people, Religion helps you deal with the realities of life, not a cult/club that sets entry rules and member benefits. Only the Divine can give you that. No wonder Atheists hate religion. Miley Cyrus
was the most blunt in her criticism, calling Pence an expletive for
approving the "religious objections" legislation, which would prohibit
state and local laws that "substantially burden" the ability of people,
and businesses, to follow their religious beliefs. That is seen by many
as a precursor to refusing service to gay people.
not ban some people because you don't agree with your perceived "knowledge " of their state of personal affairs which is really -- NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
REPUBS overreaching again. Remember the GOLDEN RULE?
IT allows state to mandate certain behaviors without which do not substantially or measurably damage another person. which amounts to state sanctioned religion. which is a violation of the 2nd amendment. the state cannot protect you from religious pursuits, it would have to sanction a certain set of religious beliefs which according to the 2nd amendment you cant do
White House: US 'to reevaluate' backing for Israel at UN
Despite PM's
attempt to backtrack from Palestinian state opposition, Washington says
it is clear Netanyahu walked back from previous commitment to two-state
approach.
Despite Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attempts to backtrack from hard-line
statements against the establishment of a Palestinian state, the White
House on Thursday pointedly raised the prospect of withdrawing crucial
diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations.
Earlier Thursday, Netanyahu denied he had abandoned his commitment to
creating a Palestinian state, but said current political conditions
made that possibility more remote.
"I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful
two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change,"
Netanyahu said in an interview on MSNBC, appearing to back away from
comments he made during the Israeli election campaign that drew heavy US
criticism.
Netanyahu and Obama meet at White House, 2014 (Photo: Avi Ohayon/GPO)
"Steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations had
been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best
outcome, said spokesman Josh Earnest.
"Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer
committed to that solution. That means we need to reevaluate our
position in this matter, and that is what we will do moving forward."
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters it is clear that
Netanyahu during his campaign walked back from his previous commitment
to a two-state solution with Palestinians.
Earnest said, however, that the US remains committed to continuing
cooperation on military intelligence and security with Israel.
In the interview, Netanyahu also pointed to the presence of hostile
Islamic groups across the region and said that any captured territory
handed over to Abbas would be taken over by militants. Hamas seized
control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, shortly after Israeli withdrew.
A day before the election Netanyahu told the nrg news website that a
Palestinian state would not be established on his watch because of the
current climate in the region.
"Whoever ignores that is burying his head in the sand. The left is
doing that, burying its head in the sand time after time," he said in
the video interview. When asked if that means a Palestinian state will
not be established if he is elected, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."
"US-Israel ties remain strong"
The prime minister also affirmed his country's strong ties with the
United States on Thursday after tensions in the run-up to his election
victory, saying Israel has "no greater ally."
"There are so many areas where we must work together with the United
States," Netanyahu said in an interview with NBC. "America has no
greater ally than Israel and Israel has no greater ally than the United
States."
Netanyahu won a bitterly contested Israeli election this week after shifting to the right in the final days of campaigning.
"We can have differences, but we have so many things that unite us.
We have a situation in the Middle East that is very dangerous, that
presents a common challenge," Netanyahu told the network.
Netanyahu also denied that he had abandoned his commitment to
creating a Palestinian state, but said current political conditions made
that possibility more remote.
"I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful
two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change,"
Netanyahu said in the interview, appearing to back away from comments he
made during the Israeli election campaign that drew heavy US criticism.
On Wednesday, the White House scolded Netanyahu for abandoning his
commitment to negotiate for a Palestinian state and "divisive" campaign
rhetoric toward Israel's minority Arab voters.
In the NBC interview, Netanyahu dismissed allegations he was
racist, after he said during Election Day that the high Arab voter
turnout was endangering his right wing party's dominance.
"I'm not," he said.
Netanyahu said he had not yet spoken to US President Barack Obama, but he was sure they would speak soon, according to NBC.
Secretary of State John Kerry called Netanyahu on Wednesday to
congratulate him. Obama will follow suit "in coming days," White House
spokesman Josh Earnest said. He said that after previous elections Obama
had waited a similar amount of time, holding off until Netanyahu was
formally given the go-ahead to form a coalition.
Netanyahu’s insistence that there will be no Palestinian state while
he holds office, seen as a maneuver to mobilize his right-wing base,
angered the Palestinians and drew criticism from the United Nations and
European governments. Chances for restarting long-stalled peace moves
already had been low.
US lawmakers were divided on Netanyahu's hardened stance.
"It was remarkable to back-track so significantly on a two-state
solution," said Democratic US Senator Chris Murphy, adding it could make
Washington's effort to mediate more difficult.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he hoped the United States and
Israel would see the election as "an opportunity to start over." But he
said: "A
Deep Wounds and Lingering Questions After Israel’s Bitter Race
Photo
Supporters of Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election celebrated on Tuesday night as results
came in at his campaign headquarters in Tel Aviv.Credit
Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images
JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu was poised to return to power.
But there was a cloud over his apparent turnaround, the result of an
increasingly shrill campaign that raised questions about his ability to
heal Israel’s internal wounds or better its standing in the world.
He said there would be no Palestinian state under his watch.
From
the capitals of Europe, to Washington, to the West Bank, to the streets
of Israel, even while his critics said Mr. Netanyahu had reaffirmed his
reputation as a cynical, calculating politician, it appeared that his
approach succeeded in drawing votes from other right-leaning parties.
But
along the way he angered the president of the United States with a
speech to Congress and infuriated European leaders eager to see the
peace process move ahead to create a Palestinian state.
David
Axelrod, President Obama’s former senior adviser, said Tuesday evening
on Twitter that Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute stand against a Palestinian
state might have helped ensure him another victory. “Tightness of exits
in Israel suggests Bibi’s shameful 11th-hour demagoguery may have swayed
enough votes to save him. But at what cost?” he wrote.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel posted a video to social media on Tuesday urging Israelis to
vote. He said right wing rule was threatened by Arab voters.
Video by YouTube.com/BenjaminNetanyahu on
Publish Date March 17, 2015.
Photo by Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press.
Still,
Mr. Netanyahu has a long history in power and has in the past
demonstrated that he can change positions from campaigning to governing.
His record is as a pragmatist, analysts said.
“I
am sure that Netanyahu, with his broad historical perspective, if he is
prime minister again, will be thinking long and hard about what legacy
he will want to leave behind with regard to the demographic makeup of
the country and its standing in the world,” said Gidi Grinstein, founder
of the Reut Institute, an Israeli strategy group. “In the end I would
not rule out his going back to the two-state solution,” he said,
referring to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Tzachi
Hanegbi, a Likud deputy foreign minister in the departing government,
told reporters on Tuesday night that he expected the American
administration to make an effort to renew the Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations. “We would be very delighted to renew the negotiations,”
Mr. Hanegbi said, adding that it was up to the Palestinians. “It is to
the benefit of both peoples,” he said.
The
campaign for the Parliament was divisive, exposing the fault lines in
Israeli society, between the religious and the secular, the left and the
right. It exposed a fatigue with a man who is seeking to serve a fourth
term as prime minister, and a fear over Israel’s place in the
international community. Much was driven by the tenor of the campaigns,
which became personal and bitter.
None more so than Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign.
Many
Israelis called it the “gevalt campaign,” using a Yiddish expression
for alarm. In the final days of a closely fought election race, Mr.
Netanyahu threw all political and diplomatic niceties to the wind.
He said that if his Likud Party won Tuesday’s national elections, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state,
a reversal of a stance he had taken six years earlier. That risked
further damaging his already frayed relations with the Obama
administration after a confrontation over Iran and increasing European
frustration with Israel.
Mr.
Netanyahu’s conflict with the White House became a campaign issue, with
critics saying that it alone undermined Israel’s security. Washington
is Israel’s most important ally, providing crucial financial and
diplomatic support.
In
interviews with the Israeli news media that Mr. Netanyahu usually
shuns, he complained of a conspiracy of left-wing organizations funded
from abroad and foreign governments out to topple him.
And
in a seemingly desperate bid to rally support halfway through the
balloting, he went on a tirade against Israel’s Arab citizens.
“Right-wing rule is in danger,” he said. “Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.”
He
said they were being bused to polling stations in droves by left-wing
organizations in an effort that “distorts the true will of the Israelis
in favor of the left, and grants excessive power to the radical Arab
list,” referring to the new alliance of Arab parties. Opponents accused
him of baldfaced racism.
“More
than a gevalt campaign it was a ‘Let’s blow up the world’ campaign,”
said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political communications at the
Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. “It was a scorched-earth
policy to stay in power.”
In
Washington, lawmakers who were angered by Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to
Congress said they would be disappointed if voters in Israel rewarded
the prime minister with another term in office.
“There
were a number of us who wanted to see whether his gambit to criticize
the president, in breach of all diplomatic protocol, will be rewarded in
Israel,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia.
Mr.
Connolly, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a
relatively junior member of Congress, and Mr. Netanyahu retained support
within Congress, especially in the Republican majority. But Mr.
Connolly’s views echoed those of many Democratic lawmakers who have
expressed dismay about what they said were Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to
ally himself with Republicans in America.
“As
far as I’m concerned, Netanyahu burned his bridges with the American
government and a broad swath of the American people,” Mr. Connolly said.
“It is to me, frankly, a really sordid approach to diplomacy and
friendship and alliance. I hope that behavior is not rewarded today.”
Martin
S. Indyk, a former special envoy for Middle East peace in the Obama
administration who is now vice president of the Brookings Institution,
said that while it was still unclear what kind of government might arise
in Israel, the tenor of Mr. Netanyahu’s relationship with the Obama
administration was likely to be governed by a confrontation over Iran in
the short term, should a nuclear deal be reached. In the longer term,
Mr. Indyk said, a right-wing government led by Mr. Netanyahu was likely
to be in confrontation with the international community over the
Palestinian issue.
But
Shmuel Sandler, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University
near Tel Aviv, said Mr. Netanyahu had been fighting for his political
survival. “Yesterday he was prepared to do anything,” he said. But he
added that Mr. Netanyahu knew he now had to repair his relationship with
Mr. Obama.
At
the headquarters of the Joint List of Arab parties in Nazareth, in
northern Israel, people hooted and cheered as the election results came
in.
“This
is a great achievement,” hollered Ahmad Tibi, a veteran Arab
politician, referring to indications that the list had won about a dozen
seats in the 120-seat Parliament. “But we will have before us great
challenges,” he added. “We will fight racism, we will fight fascism, we
will defend our rights, regardless of the government. We are the
indigenous people of this land and we look to the future with the
optimism and realism,” he said. “Today we are stronger.”
By
the night’s end, Mr. Netanyahu seemed to realize he needed to
recalibrate his message. In a late-night speech claiming victory, he
spoke of delivering security and social welfare to “all citizens of
Israel, Jews and non-Jews alike.”
Palestinian Leaders See Validation of Their Statehood Effort
Photo
A Palestinian family tending
their vineyard in the West Bank. After Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election
as Israel’s leader, Palestinians may curtail security coordination with
Israel.Credit
Tomas Munita for The New York Times
JERUSALEM — Under most circumstances, an Israeli leader’s frank admission that he would never agree to a Palestinian state would be a disaster for the Palestinian leadership. But when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said precisely that
in the heat of the recent election campaign, it seemed to have the
opposite effect, validating the unilateral approach the Palestinians
have decided to follow.
“We will continue a diplomatic intifada. We have no other choice,” said Assad Abdul Rahman, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s central council and executive committee, its top decision-making body.
With
Mr. Netanyahu having dropped, for now at least, the pretense of seeking
a two-state solution, the Palestinians can argue to Europe and the
United States that they no longer have a negotiating partner,
strengthening their case for full statehood and recognition in the
United Nations, as well as membership in important international bodies.
They are already members of the International Criminal Court and
Unesco.
“If
somebody said, ‘We are with two states, and real negotiations,’ we
would return to negotiations,” said Assad Abdul Rahman. “But there is no
partner for that.”
In
addition to considering seeking full statehood at the United Nations,
the Palestinians may now curtail security coordination with Israel, reducing Israel’s ability to seize suspected militants in the West Bank, two P.L.O. officials said.
“There
is a feeling that if there really is no hope for the peace process, the
best thing they can have is an Israeli government that will advance its
own isolation,” said Nathan Thrall, senior analyst with the Middle East
and North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group.
The P.L.O.’s executive committee is expected to meet Thursday to discuss how President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority should respond.
The
P.L.O.’s central council had called for curtailing security
coordination on March 5, part of a cycle of retaliation between Israel
and the Palestinians over the past several months. It was framed as a
response to Israel’s withholding since January of $127 million a month
in taxes it collects on the Palestinians’ behalf.
That, in turn, was Israel’s way of punishing the Palestinians for joining the International Criminal Court,
where they hope to pursue war crime accusations against Israeli
officials. But the decision on when, or whether, to take such a step was
left to Mr. Abbas and the P.L.O.’s executive committee. Mr. Abbas
appeared to be waiting until after Israel’s elections.
If
Mr. Abbas does approve curtailing security coordination, he is likely
to move in small steps that would be reversible, Mr. Abdul Rahman said.
One move could perhaps be to refuse to withdraw Palestinian forces when
Israeli troops raid a Palestinian-ruled area, said a P.L.O. official who
spoke anonymously because he was discussing secret deliberations.
The
official said the Palestinians were studying various United Nations
treaties to see which they might join. They were focusing on what the
official described as “technical” treaties such as on tourism, water and
the environment. He did not provide further details. The official said
they were unlikely to take the bolder step of seeking membership in
United Nations organizations because of United States laws that would
cut financing to United Nations bodies that accept Palestine as a member
state.
In
a news briefing on Wednesday, a United Nations spokesman, Farhan Haq,
said: “It’s incumbent on the new Israeli government, once formed, to
create the conditions for a negotiated final peace agreement with the
active engagement of the international community that will end the
Israeli occupation and realize the creation of a viable Palestinian
state living in peace and security alongside Israel. This includes the
cessation of illegal settlement-building in the occupied Palestinian
territory.”
Responding
to this statement, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron
Prosor, said, “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the
Palestinian people, it should be asking why President Abbas is in the
10th year of a five-year presidential term or why Hamas uses the
Palestinian people as human shields.”
Palestinians
were also likely to step up lobbying for more European countries to
recognize Palestine as a state. Most countries of Asia, Latin America
and Africa already do. “The battlefield now is Europe,” the P.L.O.
official said.
“Whenever
we go to Europe and ask, ‘Why aren’t you recognizing Palestine?’ they
say, ‘We will recognize it when it’s good for the peace process,’ ” he
said. “Now you have an Israeli P.M. who says he doesn’t recognize a
Palestinian state.”
Palestinian
officials said they were still weighing whether to try to seek full
statehood recognition from the Security Council. They failed in a previous bid,
in December, for a Council resolution that would have set a deadline to
establish a sovereign Palestinian state. The United States and
Australia voted against it.
Riyadh
Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, said it
would make sense only if the United States “goes along with such an
idea,” which is far-fetched, in the estimation of most diplomats.
There
is also the possibility that, having accomplished his purpose of eking
out a victory, Mr. Netanyahu may now try to reassert his support for a
two-state solution, no matter how tenuous. Yet in light of his statement
that “anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and
evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the
state of Israel,” analysts said reversing course would be difficult.
“Having
heaped a rhetorical disavowal of his two-state position on top of all
the practical policies he implemented which undermined the credibility
of that position, he’s now got an awfully long distance to walk that
back,” said Daniel Levy, head of the Middle East program for the
European Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr.
Levy suggested that the Palestinians might first test Mr. Netanyahu’s
good will toward negotiations by demanding that he resume transferring
the tax revenue to the Palestinians. “You have to get him to do that,
and let’s see what happens,” he said.
Mr. Abbas has long preferred negotiations for statehood rather than acting unilaterally.
But
even if Mr. Netanyahu agreed to peace negotiations in principle, it
would be difficult for Mr. Abbas to accept without tangible successes to
show Palestinians, like a halt to building in Jewish settlements in the
occupied West Bank or releasing Palestinian prisoners in Israeli
detention, said Ghassan Khatib, the vice president of Birzeit University
in the West Bank.
After all that has been said, Mr. Khatib added, “Abbas cannot politically afford negotiations without any achievement at all.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prays at Jerusalem’s Western Wall a day after winning reëlection.Credit PHOTOGRAPH BY THOMAS COEX/AFP/GETTY
This morning, the Times
proclaimed a “crushing victory” for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, over Zionist Union challengers Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni,
in yesterday’s election. But crushing victories don’t usually look like this one.
In the last national election, in 2013, the five parties that make up
Netanyahu’s hard-right “national camp” won sixty-one of the hundred and
twenty seats in the Knesset. Yesterday, it won fifty-seven. It’s true
that Netanyahu’s Likud surged to thirty seats, nine more than projected
by last Friday’s final poll—the Zionist Union, by contrast, was expected
to get twenty-four, and finished with exactly that—but Netanyahu’s gain
was not really at Herzog and Livni’s expense.
What happened, as the Times of Israel ’s editor, David Horovitz, points out,
was that Netanyahu “desperately cannibalized” the most strident
right-wing parties in his camp, especially Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home
party. In the final days of the campaign, Netanyahu repudiated the
two-state principle, promised Bennett a prominent place in his
government, and appealed to Bennett’s supporters to vote this time for
his own Likud party. He insisted, plausibly, that the national camp as a
whole could be forced out of power if the Zionist Union, not the Likud,
won a plurality of seats and was granted the mandate, by President
Reuven Rivlin, to try to form a majority government. Rightist voters, it
turns out, obliged Netanyahu in droves. Bennett was polling at thirteen
seats last Friday and finished with eight. Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, who had ten or more in previous elections, ended with six.
Two
new centrist parties, Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid,
finished, as predicted by the polls, with ten and eleven seats,
respectively. These results confirm the steady drift of younger Likud
voters toward centrists like Kahlon (who served as a government minister
under Netanyahu); as I wrote
on Monday, Netanyahu cannot reach a majority without him. Yesterday, it
seemed possible that, if Herzog and Livni had a plurality of seats,
Kahlon would side with them. His senior partners, General Yoav Galant
and the former Ambassador Michael Oren, are not sympathetic to Bennett’s
settlers, embraced the two-state formula in their platform, and
focussed mainly on economic inequality. But Netanyahu’s strong plurality
almost certainly precludes Kahlon’s feeling emboldened to make a
majority for the Zionist Union. That majority would have included the
Arab Joint List, which would not have been an easy partnership for
Kahlon, given his history with Likud.
The vote
has fallen in favor of Netanyahu, but the country remains divided, even
with centrist parties aiming to create a consensus around economic
equality, social liberalism, and diplomatic skepticism. In greater Tel
Aviv, Herzog’s center-left (without Kahlon) garnered about sixty-three
per cent of the vote. In greater Jerusalem, Likud’s national camp
(again, without Kahlon), got about eighty per cent. Today, at the
Western Wall, Netanyahu told the press, “I deeply value the decision by
Israeli civilians to choose me and my colleagues, against all the odds
and against major forces,” suggesting the solidarity he wants and the
enemies he needs. He does not yet have Rivlin’s mandate, but he pledged
to form a government “within two to three weeks.” We shall see if Kahlon
and his partners—who promised voters economic reforms and transparency,
but, in a coalition with Likud, would first have to agree to sweeten
pots for settlements and yeshivas—will oblige Netanyahu’s timetable.
Kahlon may not have the conviction to make a majority for Herzog, but he
might summon the rage to deny one to Netanyahu. Anyway, he has the
power to force surprises on the coming coalition negotiations—and he
just might.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets supporters at the party's
election headquarters In Tel Aviv. Wednesday, March 18, 2015. Exit polls
from Israel’s national elections showed Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s Likud party nearly deadlocked with Isaac Herzog’s
center-left Zionist Union. (AP/Dan Balilty)
TEL AVIV, Israel—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
ruling Likud Party scored a resounding victory in the country’s
election, final results showed Wednesday, a stunning turnaround after a
tight race that had put his lengthy rule in jeopardy.
With nearly all votes counted, Likud appeared to have earned 30 out
of parliament’s 120 seats and was in a position to build with relative
ease a coalition government with its nationalist, religious and
ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies. Such a government would likely put Israel
at odds with the international community over settlement construction
and its opposition to Palestinian statehood, and continue clashing with
the White House over hard-line policies.
The election was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu, who has
governed the country for the past six years. Recent opinion polls
indicated he was in trouble, giving chief rival Isaac Herzog of the
opposition Zionist Union a slight lead. Exit polls Tuesday showed the
two sides deadlocked but once the actual results came pouring in early
Wednesday, Likud soared forward. Zionist Union wound up with just 24
seats.
Given the final results, it is all but assured that Israel’s largely
ceremonial President Reuven Rivlin will task Netanyahu with forming a
new government. Netanyahu says he hopes to do so quickly, within two to
three weeks.
“Against all odds, we achieved a great victory for the Likud,”
Netanyahu told supporters at his election night headquarters, declaring
victory even before final results were known. “I am proud of the people
of Israel, who in the moment of truth knew how to distinguish between
what is important and what is peripheral, and to insist on what is
important.”
Netanyahu focused his campaign primarily on security issues, while
his opponents instead pledged to address the country’s high cost of
living and accused the leader of being out of touch with everyday
people. Netanyahu will likely look to battle that image now by adding to
his government Moshe Kahlon, whose upstart Kulanu party captured 10
seats with a campaign focused almost entirely on bread-and-butter
economic issues. Kahlon is expected to become the country’s next finance
minister.
A union of four largely Arab-backed factions became Israel’s third
largest party — with 14 seats — and gave Israel’s Arab minority
significant leverage in parliament for the first time. Ten parties in
all made it into parliament.
Herzog, who appeared poised only days ago to stage a coup, conceded
defeat, saying he called Netanyahu and offered him congratulations. He
signaled that he would not join forces with Netanyahu and would rather
head to the opposition.
“I think that at this moment what Israel needs most of all is another
voice, a voice that offers an alternative and a voice that tells it the
truth,” he said outside his Tel Aviv home.
Netanyahu’s return to power for a fourth term likely spells trouble
for Mideast peace efforts and could further escalate tensions with the
United States.
Netanyahu, who already has a testy relationship with President Barack
Obama, took a sharp turn to the right in the final days of the
campaign, staking out a series of hard-line positions that will put him
on a collision course with much of the international community.
In a dramatic policy reversal, he said he now opposes the creation of
a Palestinian state — a key policy goal of the White House and the
international community. He also promised to expand construction in
Jewish areas of east Jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the
Palestinians as their capital.
The Palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with Netanyahu, are
now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes
charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court. Renewed
violence could also loom.
The international community overwhelmingly supports the establishment
of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip,
areas captured by Israel in 1967, and opposes settlement construction.
With the race close, Netanyahu reneged on his previous stated support
for a Palestinian state in an attempt to shore up his hawkish base in a
frenzied last day of campaigning.
Netanyahu also infuriated the White House early this month when he
delivered a speech to U.S. Congress criticizing an emerging nuclear deal
with Iran. The speech was arranged with Republican leaders and not
coordinated with the White House ahead of time. Reaching a two-state
solution to the Palestinian conflict has been a top foreign policy
priority for President Obama as well.
In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was
confident strong U.S.-Israeli ties would endure far beyond the election,
regardless of the victor.
Throughout the campaign, Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only
politician capable of confronting Israel’s numerous security challenges.
Avi Degani, president of the Geocartography polling institute who had
predicted an outright Likud victory, said ultimately Netanyahu’s
experience prevailed.
“There was a situation where many people wanted to replace him but
there was no one whom they wanted to replace him with,” he said.
"There is a huge international effort, with major money, that is partnering up with leftist organizations here and also with media figures in order to bring down the Likud government that I head," Netanyahu told Channel 2 television on Saturday. Just like Ghadaffi, and Assad. and every other Arab Spring Totalitarian that went down.
SHouldnt they be charged with giving comfort to the enemy?if they are warning them about anything? It is obviously written to help them in some way? THanks for your DE.
This is all about showing how great Bibi is. Are we really to believe that the U.S. is ready to let another country blow up Israel? Bibi is feeling a little less than supremely powerful and he is trying to bull his way back to the power of the top. wont happen. His God is not at the top anymore. He is not Moses. IT's over. He needs to pack up and apologize to his country and I mean really apologize like he means it or drag his people to hell, unless they vote him out, which they should do post haste.
