- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- 2020 >
- 2023 >
- 2024
- Resources
- About the Authors
Yair Lapid: A Strong Leader for a Secure Israel
January 17, 2017
With Benjamin Netanyahu’s hold on the prime ministership tottering, our eyes are on Yair Lapid. Not only does he believe in the two-state solution, but he is a man who puts Israel’s security first. For Israelis who understandably regard security as the number one priority, Lapid’s sure grasp of this area does much to recommend him.
Lapid’s most recent remarks on security came at a panel discussion of a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) of Tel Aviv University on January 15. There, he throws cold water on Netanyahu’s claim to be the only one who can keep Israel secure. In fact, Lapid can do better, he claims, criticizing Netanyahu for not being serious about consulting with Israel’s best experts on defense and security who are members of the Israeli National Security Council (NSC). Rather than work with the NSC, or even his own security cabinet, Netanyahu kept them at arm’s length while making the big decisions on his own. He never allowed the security cabinet to weigh in on strategic issues like “what do we want from our relations with the U.S., and what to do with the Palestinian issue after Abu Mazen,” said Lapid. Instead, he used the security cabinet mainly to discuss “whether to blow up a truck on its way through Syria” and other minor day-to-day tactical issues.
Lapid laid out his own comprehensive view of Israeli security in a major speech at Bar Ilan University in September 2015, titled, “A New Strategic Vision for Israel.” Israelis feel less secure, he explained, because under Netanyahu security has been on a seven-year decline. First, by picking fights with the U.S., Netanyahu damaged the linchpin in Israel’s security: “The special relationship between us and the United States was always a part of our security deterrent against hostile elements in Arab countries.” As a member of the security cabinet, Lapid warned it that Netanyahu was leading Israel “to a pointless and dangerous fight with the American administration” which damaged that security by emboldening Israel’s Arab foes who might calculate that the United States would withdraw some of its support for Israel’s defense.
Also, Lapid remarked, Israeli’s growing diplomatic isolation has weakened its security. As one example, he noted that diplomatic weakness prevented Israel from taking effective measures to disarm and stabilize Gaza after the conflict in 2014:
After Operation Protective Edge I suggested in the Security Cabinet and in public forums to advance a diplomatic initiative—the disarmament of Gaza in exchange for its rehabilitation. At least after seven weeks of fighting and after 72 of our best people fell we would do something to prevent the next round. But Netanyahu is so isolated diplomatically that he failed to start the process. So, it ended with $5 billion of donations and the rehabilitation of Gaza without anyone talking about taking the weapons from Hamas and preventing the next round.
The same could be said for Netanyahu’s ineffectiveness in his diplomatic efforts to curb the threat of Iran, the rearming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and more. They are all signs of the weakening of Israel’s security on his watch.
The Citizens Proposal lays out a plan for separating Israelis and Palestinians which, we believe would be acceptable to Lapid. It acknowledges Lapid’s concern to preserve Israeli control of the largest interior settlements, notably Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. “If I were prime minister, within three weeks, I could close a deal that says we formally freeze [construction] outside the blocs — in exchange for building within the blocs, Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel,” said Lapid on March 6 of last year. Similarly, the Citizens Proposal places Gush Etzion on the Israeli side of the proposed border and calls for special administrative arrangements for Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim.
The concept of special status with regards to the most sensitive areas of East Jerusalem was recently raised by outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry. Lapid could run with this concept, apply it to these other large settlements as well, and negotiate the terms of a border between Israel and Palestine while leaving the precise arrangements for Jerusalem and these large settlements for resolution at a later time. This sort of staged approach is what Lapid called for at a speech at the Herzliya Conference in 2013, as reported in Haaretz:
The first stage would be an Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank where there are no settlements and a freeze on construction outside the large settlement blocs. In the second stage, Israel would "move into the settlement blocks while evacuating the isolated settlements,” along with “direct negotiations [with the Palestinians] with the mediation of the United States, in Ramallah and Jerusalem, on final borders." During these two stages, the IDF would be deployed throughout the West Bank. In the third and last stage, final borders between Israel and a Palestinian state would be set, including land swaps, and talks on the remaining core issues would get underway.
Amid the fear and uncertainty that roils Israel today, Lapid is stepping up to offer a clear and common-sense approach to security and to resolving the Palestinian issue. His approach is largely in agreement with our own. We believe his time has come.
With Benjamin Netanyahu’s hold on the prime ministership tottering, our eyes are on Yair Lapid. Not only does he believe in the two-state solution, but he is a man who puts Israel’s security first. For Israelis who understandably regard security as the number one priority, Lapid’s sure grasp of this area does much to recommend him.
Lapid’s most recent remarks on security came at a panel discussion of a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) of Tel Aviv University on January 15. There, he throws cold water on Netanyahu’s claim to be the only one who can keep Israel secure. In fact, Lapid can do better, he claims, criticizing Netanyahu for not being serious about consulting with Israel’s best experts on defense and security who are members of the Israeli National Security Council (NSC). Rather than work with the NSC, or even his own security cabinet, Netanyahu kept them at arm’s length while making the big decisions on his own. He never allowed the security cabinet to weigh in on strategic issues like “what do we want from our relations with the U.S., and what to do with the Palestinian issue after Abu Mazen,” said Lapid. Instead, he used the security cabinet mainly to discuss “whether to blow up a truck on its way through Syria” and other minor day-to-day tactical issues.
Lapid laid out his own comprehensive view of Israeli security in a major speech at Bar Ilan University in September 2015, titled, “A New Strategic Vision for Israel.” Israelis feel less secure, he explained, because under Netanyahu security has been on a seven-year decline. First, by picking fights with the U.S., Netanyahu damaged the linchpin in Israel’s security: “The special relationship between us and the United States was always a part of our security deterrent against hostile elements in Arab countries.” As a member of the security cabinet, Lapid warned it that Netanyahu was leading Israel “to a pointless and dangerous fight with the American administration” which damaged that security by emboldening Israel’s Arab foes who might calculate that the United States would withdraw some of its support for Israel’s defense.
Also, Lapid remarked, Israeli’s growing diplomatic isolation has weakened its security. As one example, he noted that diplomatic weakness prevented Israel from taking effective measures to disarm and stabilize Gaza after the conflict in 2014:
After Operation Protective Edge I suggested in the Security Cabinet and in public forums to advance a diplomatic initiative—the disarmament of Gaza in exchange for its rehabilitation. At least after seven weeks of fighting and after 72 of our best people fell we would do something to prevent the next round. But Netanyahu is so isolated diplomatically that he failed to start the process. So, it ended with $5 billion of donations and the rehabilitation of Gaza without anyone talking about taking the weapons from Hamas and preventing the next round.
The same could be said for Netanyahu’s ineffectiveness in his diplomatic efforts to curb the threat of Iran, the rearming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and more. They are all signs of the weakening of Israel’s security on his watch.
The Citizens Proposal lays out a plan for separating Israelis and Palestinians which, we believe would be acceptable to Lapid. It acknowledges Lapid’s concern to preserve Israeli control of the largest interior settlements, notably Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. “If I were prime minister, within three weeks, I could close a deal that says we formally freeze [construction] outside the blocs — in exchange for building within the blocs, Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel,” said Lapid on March 6 of last year. Similarly, the Citizens Proposal places Gush Etzion on the Israeli side of the proposed border and calls for special administrative arrangements for Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim.
The concept of special status with regards to the most sensitive areas of East Jerusalem was recently raised by outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry. Lapid could run with this concept, apply it to these other large settlements as well, and negotiate the terms of a border between Israel and Palestine while leaving the precise arrangements for Jerusalem and these large settlements for resolution at a later time. This sort of staged approach is what Lapid called for at a speech at the Herzliya Conference in 2013, as reported in Haaretz:
The first stage would be an Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank where there are no settlements and a freeze on construction outside the large settlement blocs. In the second stage, Israel would "move into the settlement blocks while evacuating the isolated settlements,” along with “direct negotiations [with the Palestinians] with the mediation of the United States, in Ramallah and Jerusalem, on final borders." During these two stages, the IDF would be deployed throughout the West Bank. In the third and last stage, final borders between Israel and a Palestinian state would be set, including land swaps, and talks on the remaining core issues would get underway.
Amid the fear and uncertainty that roils Israel today, Lapid is stepping up to offer a clear and common-sense approach to security and to resolving the Palestinian issue. His approach is largely in agreement with our own. We believe his time has come.
