...He said that his government will be a “partner for peace.”
“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.
We would like very much to take Mr. Netanyahu’s words at face value, and it would be a lot easier to do that if he had not worked so assiduously to build his reputation as a hard-liner with deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace...He still cannot bring himself to endorse a two-state solution — which we believe must be part of any serious regional peace effort"
But, wait, is the New York Times missing something?
"We believe". Ah. They believe.
I don't. Neither, it seems, does Bibi.
Could it be, perhaps, that the current peace process is not the way to peace?
Should it be either rejected, modified or alternatives searched for to achieve a better peace than Oslo and the plain Two-State solution? One that doesn't encourage terror, doesn't weaken Israel's long-term security nor undermine its historic and legal national claims?
Could the point Netanyahu is making is that Oslo is not the only path to peace and, for one to be a partner for peace, one should seek something that better works?
If peace is truly the goal and not some unadulterated anti-Israel agenda, well, who cares about the sanctity of a process?