Peace Index Poll: 80.5% of Israeli Jews oppose return of any Palestinian refugees to Israel

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:  
The interesting question missing from this poll is if Israelis think that we would ultimately suffer more economically from the consequences of actually making a deal with the Palestinians than from
sanction for failing to make a deal.

The Peace Index – January 2014
(N=608)
28-29.1.2014

1. What is your position on holding peace negotiations between Israel and
the
Palestinian Authority?
    Jews
1.   Strongly in favor    33.9
2.   Somewhat in favor    27.5
3.   Somewhat opposed    14.0
4.   Strongly opposed    19.4
5.   Don’t know / Refuse    5.2

2. Do you believe or not believe that negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority will lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians
in the coming years?
    Jews
1.   Strongly believe    6.7
2.   Somewhat believe    19.6
3.   Somewhat don’t believe    21.3
4.   Don’t believe at all    50.0
5.   Don’t know / Refuse    2.3

3. In your opinion, to what extent is it important or not important that, in
a framework agreement with the Palestinians, they recognize Israel as the
state of the Jewish people?
    Jews
1. Very important    62.6
2. Moderately important    14.4
3. Not so important    7.6
4. Not important at all    13.2
5. Don’t know/ Refuse    2.2

4. (only for those who answered “Very important” or “Moderately important”)
Why, in your opinion, is it important that the Palestinians recognize Israel
as the
state of the Jewish people; is it mainly because:
    Jews
1.  Such recognition entails recognizing the basic principle of Zionism
40.8
2.  Such recognition is a fair recompense for Israel recognizing the
Palestinian state as the state of the Palestinian people 19.4
3.  Such recognition would enable Israel to deal in the future with demands
to change Israel into a state of all its citizens    28.8
4.  All to the same extent    4.3
5.  None of those; something else    3.7
6.  Don’t know/ Refuse    3.1

5. Cabinet ministers and security officials have been talking a lot about
anti- Israeli incitement in Palestinian education and propaganda. Some claim
there is no point in continuing the peace talks because such incitement
proves that the Palestinians are not at all interested in reaching an
agreement. However, some claim that there is a reasonable chance that if
there is incitement, it will abate and perhaps stop completely after an
agreement is reached that is acceptable to the Palestinians. With which of
these two claims do you agree more?
    Jews
1.  With the first claim—that there is no point in continuing the talks
because the incitement proves that the Palestinians do not want peace
54.0
2.  With the second claim—that it can be reasonably assumed that if an
agreement is reached that is also acceptable to the Palestinians, the
incitement will abate or even stop    40.8
3.  Don’t know/ Refuse    5.2

6. Do you support or not support the proposal by Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman that, in an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel would annex
the large settlement blocs while the Triangle and Arab-populated part s of
the Galilee would be annexed to the Palestinian state?
    Jews
1. Strongly support    18.7
2. Moderately support    24.4
3. Don’t support very much    19.0
4. Don’t support at all    32.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse    5.8

7.What, in your opinion, are the chances that Lieberman’s proposal would be
accepted by the Palestinian Authority?
   Jews
1. Very high chances    1.9
2. Moderately high chances    5.4
3. Moderately low chance    25.4
4. Very low chances    61.0
5. Don’t know / Refuse    6.3

8. And what are the chances that most of the Israeli Arabs would accept
Lieberman’s proposal?
    Jews
1. Very high chances    1.3
2. Moderately high chances    7.4
3. Moderately low chances    23.0
4. Very low chances    62.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse    6.2

9. And if the Americans soon present a framework agreement that is an
outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, will or will this not
affect the position of Netanyahu and his government in the context of the
negotiations with the Palestinians?
    Jews
1.  It will not have a significant effect because the Israeli government
will always uphold the principles that are important to it, and it makes no
difference what the Americans say 23.8
2.  It will have a significant effect because Netanyahu cannot allow himself
to ignore the U.S. position or world public opinion by disregarding such an
agreement 66.9
3.  Don’t know / Refuse    9.2

10. If parties currently in the government, such as Bayit Yehudi or Yisrael
Beiteinu, threaten to bolt the government if Netanyahu accepts the framework
agreement that the Americans present, what are the chances that he will
allow them to leave and work for a new government with other parties, such
as Labor and the haredi parties, that currently are in the opposition?
    Jews
1. Very low chances    19.5
2. Moderately low chances    23.0
3. Moderately high chance    31.1
4. Very high chances    17.4
5. Don’t know / Refuse    9.0

11. Recently there have been more and more calls in Europe and the United
States to impose economic and other sanctions on Israel and force it to curb
the building in the territories and moderate its positions on the terms of a
peace agreement with the Palestinians. What, in your opinion, are the
chances that this trend will intensify and harsh sanctions will be imposed
on Israel, including a full boycott of the export of products from Israel?
    Jews
1. High chances    21.2
2. Moderately high chances    28.7
3. Moderately low chances    29.9
4. Very low chances    17.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse    3.0

12. If such harsh sanctions were to be imposed on Israel by Europe and the
United States, to what extent, in your opinion, would Israel be able or
unable to cope with them successfully and maintain the same positions on the
settlements
and the negotiations?
    Jews
1. I’m sure it will not be able    16.0
2. I think it will not be able    30.2
3. I think it will be able    27.5
4. I’m sure it will be able    21.7
5. Don’t know / Refuse    4.6

13. In return for a final peace agreement, in your opinion should or should
not Israel agree to the return of a limited number of Palestinian refugees
to Israel?
    Jews
1. I’m sure it should    2.5
2. I think it should    13.7
3. I think it should not    17.9
4. I’m sure it should not    62.6
5. Don’t know / Refuse    3.4

14. In return for a final peace agreement would you support or oppose Israel
acknowledging its partial responsibility for the suffering that was caused
to the
Palestinians, for example, in creating the (abovementioned) refugee problem
   Jews
1. I’m sure I would not agree    51.9
2. I think I would not agree    22.2
3. I think I would agree    16.2
4. I’m sure I would agree    7.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse    2.7

15. In a few more months President Peres will end his tenure and elections
will be held for a new president of the state of Israel. Would you prefer
that the new president come from the political world, the world of science
and the humanities, or the world of economics and business?
    Jews
1.  From the world of economics and business    14.5
2.  From the world of science and the humanities    39.8
3.  From the political world    29.8
4.  It does not matter    9.1
5.  Other    1.6
6.  Don’t know / Refuse    5.1

16. Whom would you prefer to elect the president?
    Jews
1.  As currently practiced, the members of the Knesset    16.1
2.  A public council that would be specially formed for this purpose of
people with a recognized public status in various fields 19.6
3.  The general public    58.6
4.  Other    1.5

5.  Don’t know / Refuse    4.2
------


The Peace Index: January  2014
Date Published: 04/02/2014

Survey dates: 27/01/2014 - 28/01/2014

The impact of an American framework agreement: Amid reports that the Americans will soon present a “Kerry outline,” that is, a framework agreement for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, we looked into whether the Israeli public thinks such an outline will or will not affect the stance of Netanyahu and his government in the negotiations with the Palestinians. The findings reveal that a large majority of the Jewish sample (67%) foresees a substantial impact, since they do not believe Netanyahu can allow himself to ignore the U.S. stance and worldwide opinion. The gaps on this question between the political camps—the right, the center, and the left—turned out to be small.

The impact on the coalition of accepting the framework agreement: The responses to this question show that the Jewish public is divided on whether Netanyahu will work to form a new government with parties such as Labor and the haredi factions if the Bayit Yehudi and Yisrael Beiteinu parties will threaten to bolt the coalition if Netanyahu accepts the framework agreement. Some 48.5% see the chances that he will try to form a new government as high, while 42.5% view them as low. Those interviewees who located themselves on the right side of the spectrum are more or less split regarding the chances of forming a government with other parties, while in the center and on the left the majority sees high chances that this will happen.

The chances of stepped-up sanctions on Israel: The Jewish public is also more or less divided regarding the chances that various elements in Europe and the United States will step up the demand for economic and other sanctions on Israel, leading to a comprehensive boycott of Israeli exports aimed at forcing Israel to curb construction in the territories and moderate its positions in the peace talks with the Palestinians. Fifty percent see the chances of such measures as high while 47% regard them as small. When it comes to assessing this risk, the disparities between the political camps are very large: on the right, 42% see the chances of boosted sanctions as high; in the center that figure comes to 52%; while on the left 71% see high chances of such a development.

Israel’s resilience: Here too, on the question of whether Israel will or will not be capable of coping successfully with major sanctions if imposed, and whether it will or will not alter its positions on settlements and the talks as a result, the map of responses is not clear-cut. Of the Jewish sample, 49% think Israel could manage with the situation; 46% are sure or think it could not. Not surprisingly, here too there are large disparities by political camp: only a minority of those on the right (32%) think Israel would have trouble withstanding the pressure without revising its positions, compared to 56% of those placing themselves in the center and 67% of those who locate themselves on the left.

In return for a peace settlement, could Israel agree to the return of a certain number of Palestinian refugees? The survey shows widespread opposition in the Jewish public (80.5%) to the idea that, in return for a permanent peace settlement, Israel could agree to the return of even a limited number of Palestinian refugees.

Taking responsibility for Palestinian suffering: Likewise, 74% of the Jewish respondents did not agree that, in return for permanent peace, Israel could acknowledge even partial responsibility for the suffering that was caused to the Palestinians—for example, in creating the refugee problem.

Recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people: An overwhelming majority (77%) of the Jewish sample responded that it is important to them that as part of the settlement, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Out of these respondents, 41% say this is important because it entails recognition of the basic principle of Zionism; 29% consider such recognition as important because it will enable countering future demands to make Israel a state of all its citizens; while 19% view such recognition as a fair recompense for Israel’s recognition of the Palestinian state as the state of the Palestinian people. A segmentation of the responses by political camp shows that all along the political spectrum a majority ascribes importance to Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, but in different majorities: 63% of those who situate themselves on the left, 84% in the center, and 77% on the right. Particularly interesting is the discrepancy in reasons for favoring such recognition. Whereas those placing themselves on the left primarily view such recognition as a fair recompense for recognition of a Palestinian state, in the center and on the right the main consideration is that such Palestinian recognition means recognizing the basic principle of Zionism. 

The importance of incitement in Palestinian educational materials: We asked: “Cabinet ministers and security officials have been talking a lot about anti-Israeli incitement in Palestinian education and propaganda. Some claim there is no point in continuing the peace talks because such incitement proves that the Palestinians are not at all interested in reaching an agreement. However, some claim that there is a reasonable chance that if there is incitement, it will abate and perhaps stop completely after an agreement is reached that is acceptable to the Palestinians. With which of these two claims do you agree more?” A majority of the Jewish interviewees (54%) agreed more with the first claim, only 41% with the second. On this question the gaps between the political camps are huge: on the right, 77% agree with the first claim, compared to 42% in the center and only 21% on the left.

Territorial swaps: The Jewish sample is divided in its reactions to the proposal of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that, in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians, the large settlement blocs would be annexed to Israel while the Triangle and Arab-populated parts of the Galilee would be annexed to the Palestinian state. Forty-three percent support this proposal while a (small) majority of 51% opposes it. The rate of opponents on the right stands at 52.5%, in the center at 45.5%, while reaching 67% on the left. In any case, it appears that both supporters and opponents of the proposal are aware that it is not feasible, with the large majority (86% and 85%, respectively) seeing small chances that it would be accepted by the Palestinians or the Israeli Arabs.

From the political-security issue we moved on to a domestic Israeli issue: the upcoming election for the presidency of the country. How would the public want the president to be elected, and from which world would they prefer that he come?

How should the president be elected? Not surprisingly, in light of the low level of trust in the political institutions, a clear majority (59%) of the Jewish interviewees expressed a preference that the president be elected by the general public, 20% prefer that he be elected by a specially constituted public council of people with a recognized public status in various fields, and only 16% favor the present system where the president is elected by the Knesset. In all the political camps the majority or the highest rate prefers election by the general public, but in different proportions: 62% of the right, 59% of the center, and 49% of the left.

Which world should the president come from? Out of three worlds, 40% of the Jewish interviewees said they preferred that the elected president come from the world of science and the humanities, 30% from the political world, and only 14.5% prefer that the president come from the economics and business domain. This question, too, turned up substantial gaps between the political camps. On the right, the rate who prefer that the president come from the world of science and the humanities (33.5%) is the same as the rate who prefer that he come from the political world (35%); in the center, and all the more so on the left, there is a clear preference for the world of science and the humanities over the political world (respectively, in the center, 46%-30%; on the left, 60%-19%).
Negotiations index: Jewish sample—43.8

Graph of the month: What, in your opinion, are the chances that harsh sanctions will be imposed on Israel including a comprehensive boycott of its exports, and what are the chances that Israel will be able to withstand such sanctions without changing its policy? (%, high chances, by political camp)

The Peace Index is a project of the Evens Program for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute. This month's survey was conducted by telephone on January 28-29, 2014, by the Midgam Research Institute. The survey included 609 respondents, who constitute a representative national sample of the adult Jewish population aged 18 and over. For technical reasons, the data for the Israeli Arab sample will not be published this month. The maximum measurement error for the entire sample is 4.5% at a confidence level of 95%. Statistical processing was done by Ms. Yasmin Alkalay.
source

Chief Palestinian negotiator claims the Palestinians cannot accept Israel as the Jewish State.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed at the Munich Security Conference on Jan. 31 that the Palestinians cannot accept Israel as the Jewish state because they lived in the region long before the Jews.

In the context of the current debate over the Jordan Valley, Erekat claimed that his ancestors were the real descendants of the Canaanites and lived in the area for “5,500 years before Joshua Bin-Nun.” (1)

In effect, Erekat was promoting the well-known Palestinian narrative that they are the native population, while the Jews are latecomers who only arrived in the last hundred years. Since the Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine occurred only in 634CE, the credibility of this Palestinian claim is questionable, to say the least.

At the same time, there is documented proof of a Jewish presence in the land dating back millennia. In Jericho itself, the Shalom al Yisrael (Peace unto Israel) synagogue with its magnificent mosaic was discovered in the 1930s and dates back to the Byzantine period. Not far away is the Wadi Kelt synagogue which dates back to 75 BCE, from the time of the Hasmonean monarchy, making it the oldest synagogue to have been discovered. (2)

According to Moshe Gil’s A History of Palestine 634-1099 published by Cambridge University Press, “The Jewish population in Palestine residing in the country at the time of the Muslim conquest consisted of the direct descendants of the generations of Jews who had lived there since the days of Joshua bin Nun, in other words, for some 2,000 years.” (3)   In the fifth century, “the Jews and the Samaritans virtually governed the land.” (4)

Salo Wittmayer Baron, in A Social and Religious History of the Jews published by Columbia University Press, recounts how the Caliph ‘Umar I embarked on a career of world conquest in 634 in the first decade after Mohammed’s death. “‘Umar expelled the Jews of Khaibar, the largest and most intact non-Muslim group still remaining in northern Arabia.” According to Al-Bukhari, the most famous and authoritative compiler of Muslim traditions known as hadith, ‘Umar deported Khaibar Jews to Jericho(5)

There is another tradition that most of the Jews of Khaybar settled in Jericho and in the surrounding area. “The Jews of Khaybar apparently spread out from Jericho along the Jordan Valley, reaching the Sanur Valley in northern Samaria.”(6)

Thus, the Jewish presence in the land can be documented as dating back for millennia, while the politically-motivated claims made up by Palestinian leaders in an attempt to refute the long-standing history of the Jews in the region lack any such proof.


Notes

1. Daniel Siryoti and Shlomo Cesana, “Chief Palestinian Negotiator: We Were Here before the Jews,” Israel Hayom, Feb. 2, 2014, http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=15185. Erekat’s own family probably came from southern Jordan near the Saudi border, see http://alahaywat.blogspot.ca/2013/12/blog-post_2522.html

2. http://archive.archaeology.org/9807/newsbriefs/israel.html

3. Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 2.

4. Ibid., p. 3.

5. Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), pp. 86-87.

6. “Khaybar,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 12, http://archive.org/stream/KhaosOdenslandArchiveDocstheMisanthropicMisogynist/EncyclopaediaJudaicaV.12kat-lie_djvu.txt

- See more at: http://jcpa.org/erekat-wrong-jewish-presence-land-dates-back-millennia/#sthash.GnLcYHv9.dpuf

source

Settlers in Palestine — a Netanyahu gambit backfires

So the fake Palestinians will not accept Jewish Israelis on "their land" or should I say the land they wish to steal

The Palestinian refusal to accept Israeli settlers in their future state does not stem from anti-Jewish sentiment, Palestinian officials said on Monday. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.

Benjamin Netanyahu, then leader of the opposition, visits a
West Bank settlement outpost in 2007 (Photo credit: Olivier Fitoussi /Flash90)

The PM may have thought he’d benefit by exposing the intransigent Palestinian insistence on a Judenrein Palestine. But his own right wing got angrier, louder and faster

It must have seemed a good idea at the timeן

Asked by The Times of Israel on Sunday to clarify what exactly the prime minister had meant in Davos, on Friday, when he said he wouldn’t remove a single settlement or displace a single settler, the Prime Minister’s Office provided explicit elaboration.

No, Benjamin Netanyahu had not only been talking about settlements in the Jordan Valley, as some reports had suggested. And no, the prime minister was not only speaking about an interim period ahead of a permanent accord. Rather, the official told The Times of Israel, Netanyahu would henceforth be insisting that all settlers be given the free choice of remaining in place and living under Palestinian rule after a peace deal, or relocating voluntarily to areas under Israeli sovereign rule. “Just as Israel has an Arab minority, the prime minister doesn’t see why Palestine can’t have a Jewish minority,” we were told. “The Jews living on their side should have a choice whether they want to stay or not.”

The official who spoke to us claimed that this position represented Netanyahu’s “longstanding” stance. If so, it had never been expressed so explicitly — as is clear from the diplomatic storm our article has provoked.

It may be that Netanyahu was floating a trial balloon, to see how the international community, and the settlers, would react. In which case, the results thus far cannot have been too pleasing for the prime minister. More likely, it was a gambit to embarrass the Palestinians, whom Netanyahu could rightly have predicted would furiously reject the idea. The problem is that this predictable Palestinian reaction has been drowned out by the speed and intensity of the rejection by his own right-wing allies/rivals.

Leading the avalanche of right-wing criticism has been the Jewish Home party leader and economics minister, Naftali Bennett, who dismissed the notion of creating settler-Palestinians with a Facebook post on Sunday evening that can be summarized by the single word “Never.”

Behind the scenes in the last few hours, members of Bennett’s circle have assailed Netanyahu for selling the settlers out to the Palestinians. Members of the prime minister’s camp have retorted that, by attacking Netanyahu for floating an idea the Palestinians were sure to reject, Bennett was hurting the shared cause of settlement. Well, the Bennett camp has countered, it might be smart to tell us in advance the next time you’re unleashing a brilliant plan to expose Palestinian intransigence. After all, Netanyahu and Bennett spent six full hours together on Sunday. Did this cunning new plan slip his mind?

Also wading in from the right have been members of Netanyahu’s own Likud party — including not only perennial hawks such as Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, but also Netanyahu’s own protegé and former aide MK Ofer Akunis, who called the idea “delusional.”

Netanyahu has actually privately presented the idea of settlers and settlements staying put under Palestinian rule to US Secretary of State John Kerry, as senior Palestinian sources confirmed to The Times of Israel Monday, and some sources suggest Kerry has raised it with the Palestinians.

By leaking it now, the prime minister must have believed he could easily draw angry Palestinians responses: the PA would reject the idea of any Israeli presence in their state, and he could decry their ostensible anti-Semitism. Moreover, he may have hoped, the Israeli right would celebrate him for his refusal to uproot Jewish communities; quite the contrast to Ariel Sharon and the demolition of the entire Gaza settlement enterprise in 2005. His aides might even have contemplated linking Palestinian intransigence on the issue to the calendar: Here’s Mahmoud Abbas insisting on a Judenrein Palestine, just in time for International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

None of this has panned out. The idea of a Jewish minority in “Palestine” was shot down so quickly by Bennett and his fellow warriors against Palestinian statehood that the Palestinian brush-off will hardly have registered with the international community. The US and the EU have so far kept quiet on the issue. And the Palestinians have smoothed out their initial indignation. Sunday night’s angry vow by chief negotiator Saeb Erekat that “not one” settler could stay in Palestine, quickly attacked by the PMO, had given way by Monday morning to PLO official Hanan Ahrawi’s far more palatable position that Jews could be welcome, it’s only “ex-territorial” settlers retaining Israeli citizenship who are a no-go.

It’s possible that Netanyahu’s idea of offering settlers the chance to stay represents his acceptance of the inevitable division of the land, his willingness to preside over that process, but his refusal to follow Sharon and forcibly remove Jews from Biblical Israel: He can live with the gradual establishment of a Palestinian state and thus enter the history books as the leader who ended the conflict. But kicking Jews out of their houses? Not on his watch. Let them stay, if they want. If they need to be withdrawn, let someone else do the dirty work.

It’s also possible that his Davos comments — “I do not intend to remove a single settlement, [and] I do not intend to displace a single Israeli” — were deemed so inflexible by the Americans that he had to give some ostensible ground toward realizing a two-state solution: No, he won’t uproot settlements, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a two-state deal.

Again, though, if the idea was to sound flexible, the result has been the reverse.

Thus Netanyahu is not merely back where he started — widely perceived internationally as the key player blocking peace process — but even further in the mire, seen as seeking to place yet another obstacle in the path to Palestinian statehood. And with both the settlers and the Palestinians more angry and mistrustful of him than before.

source

Benjamin Netanyahu: Israeli settlements "a bogus issue" - He tells it as it is!

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations Tuesday, most of the attention focused on his remarks about Iran, but the prime minister also talked about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In an interview on Tuesday with CBS News' Charlie Rose, Netanyahu addressed the Jewish settlements that many see as an obstacle to peace.


When pressed by Rose about the settlements that many in the world believe "stand in the way of a solution," as Rose put it, Netanyahu replied, "The world believes a lot of things. But the world doesn't get it. And here's what they don't get."

He continued, "Let me tell you what I think is the issue, and then you can judge whether you agree with me or not, and the same thing I say to everyone in the world: The settlements and the territories are not the cause of the conflict."

Rose said, "Nobody says that - but they are (standing) in the way of a solution-"

Netanyahu said, "It's the result. ... But, but here's the way you get a solution. They don't stand in the way either. Ninety percent of the Jewish population is clustered in the - Judea-Samaria, the West Bank is clustered in a tiny fraction of that land. It's not an issue. It's a bogus issue. Suppose we just walk away from every settlement. We dismantle everything. We walk away - the way we did in Gaza (in 2005). We walked away and what happened?"

Rose said, "That was a different prime minister who had the courage - to walk away. Well, it turned out that it didn't work out. They came in and Hamas continued to take-"

Netanyahu said to Rose, "So how do we know that it doesn't happen again? In other words, the settlements- Charlie, you're not going to escape this. I gotcha. ... The lesson of Gaza is that the settlements, we tore up the settlements, we removed, we disinterred people from their graves, we gave the whole territory, lock, stock and barrel to the Palestinians, to (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas. It was taken away from him in two seconds by Hamas and Iran. And they continue to fire 10,000 rockets at us."

With all the discussion on the Middle East, from Iran to Syria, Rose pointed out everything is at play and that it could be an opportunity.

Netanyahu said, "Some of it is opportunity. We have to be very responsible, buck the trends, don't go by fashion. If you govern by fashion, and you govern by the, you know, the kind of editorials you're gonna get, you'll get good editorials which will be - you know, and you - then you'll get - wonderful eulogies. I'd rather have bad press - and no eulogies. Better bad press than a good eulogy. ... My responsibility is to ensure the survival, security, longevity of the one and only Jewish state. I will do that pursuing peace. I will make - and I'm prepared to make historic compromises. I will never compromise on Israel's security. Never."




CBS news