Israeli opposition leader lauds Obama's call for two-state solution

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- An Israeli opposition leader on Friday criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's resistance to U.S. President Barack Obama's vision for peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima movement and a former foreign minister, applauded Obama's call for a two-state solution.

"An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni said. "President Obama's call to start negotiations represents Israel's interests."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/20/israel.opposition.obama/

to bash Netanyahu with. Might be the beginning of something.

If so, we'd see a very different reality emerging.

...Livni was one of the worst moves ever. Olmert was already a failed politician back in the 90's when he appeared on Nightline and didn't debate Kahane so much as just dancing around the questions that Kahane answered honestly.

PB

Even though pronouncing her name would have been challenge.

Livni's centrist Kadima Party had 28 seats, while Likud had 27.

Her party got the most votes; they just have a messed up system that led to Bibi becoming PM even though Livni's party got more votes than his.

Many of the non-Kadima, non-Likud seats were closer to Likud.

I wish they had a system like what we have in the US.

The winner wins (usually!).

where you would almost be forced to vote party - even if the incumbent is awful.

The bigger problem is that the President would be chosen by the winning party - eliminating even a very charismatic, talented non-favorite from having a chance. Not to mention the Prime Minister always was previously a member of the legislature.

In terms of what party would have won the Presidency, I think that 2000 might be the only change. 2008 was going to be a Democratic year and it would have taken a lot to mess that up, similarly 2004 was before the country wanted change - unfortunately.

Another interesting year would have been 1992. Imagine it was a parliamentary system. This would have made it more likely that any party with two (or more) parts that disagree strongly on some important things might have led to more splits. Could the DLC and the other Democrats have been two, usually allied parties? Perot would have had to engineer a new coalition of Democrats and Republicans who agreed with him - mostly on trade and helped fund their effort to win more seats - and to stand himself. I suspect that party status might be more changeable than now. (It is difficult to think which states might have gone to that party.)

One would think he would've aligned with Gore eventually, but Lord knows where he actually would've decided to throw his support in the end.

changed and there could have been many coalitions designed to get 50% plus - and they may not have fallen on Democratic/Republican lines - especially in that year.

in the better position to form a government. Netanyahu formed a coalition.