Tzipi Livni Interview

The WSJ interviews Tzipi Livni. The “palestinians” have shown in words and deeds over many decades that their goal is the obliteration of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet why do the Israelis insist on pursuing an elusive “peace” with these people?

Late last month, Tzipi Livni was back in the news. Despite finishing first early last year in parliamentary elections, Ms. Livni declined to join a right-wing dominated coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu and instead went into the opposition. Then, just before Christmas, Mr. Netanyahu courted her, inviting her into his government. She ultimately refused. The Wall Street Journal's Joshua Mitnick and Charles Levinson caught up with Ms. Livni days before Mr. Netanyahu's offer. Below is an edited transcript of the interview.


Q: Your parents were part of Herut, the forerunner of today's Likud party. As a champion of the two-state solution, is it difficult to break with that past?

A: This is a misperception. I believe that what I'm doing is implementing the values that my parents taught me are essential for the state. It was never only about the land of Israel, but it was also about our values. The idea was not only to create a state. The vision, then and now, is being a Jewish and democratic state, or being a homeland for the Jewish people. Since the realities are such that, in order to keep Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, we need to give up part of the land, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in the rights of the Jewish people to the entire land. I still do. I believe the Jewish people have the right to the entire land -- judicial, biblical historical, moral, whatever.

But my vision, as I believe the vision of my parents was, is to keep the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. And since they also believed in the values of democracy, there's a need for a Jewish majority. In order to have peace, we need to give up part of the land. The whole vision is to keep Israel a Jewish and democratic state living in peace and security in the land of Israel. And the only way to keep all these together, is to give up part of the land. Because without giving up part of the land, it means we give up the idea, or the essence, of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. And this is something we cannot afford.

In terms of left and right, I know there are those saying, "Okay, you came from a right-wing party, and now you represent the left wing.'' And this is not the way I see it. Even though I fully believe in the idea of two nation states, which was basically the slogan of the left wing in Israel for many years, I still come from what is basically the right wing, and this is the need to keep Israel as the homeland for a Jewish people.

Q: Do you remember a pivotal moment when you first realized you had to support a two-state solution?

A: Ever since I entered politics this was my best understanding [of the solution to the conflict.] But I do remember when I decided to get into politics. It was in 1995, a few weeks before [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin was murdered. And society was divided between two different camps. One was called camp of the land of Israel and the other one was the camp of peace. And I heard politicians, and also some of my friends, talking about the need to fight against the Oslo agreement and Rabin -- who represented this need to divide the land -- because, "we love this land,'' and because "this is heritage of our forefathers.''

I had the same connection as they did to the land. But I understood we needed to divide the land in 1995. But on the other hand, I heard other friends of mine, that put on their nice T-shirts with a glass of wine in their hands, waiting for the "New Middle East'' to fall on their heads "because we are going to live happily ever after.'' And I thought, "I'm in between these two camps.'' On one hand I have the same feelings toward the land … and on the other hand I wanted to live in peace.

But I was more realistic in my understanding that the Oslo agreement, tactically, was not going to bring peace the next day. I don't believe in something that is vague…. [it said,] "take some [territory], but we will speak about Jerusalem, refugees and borders afterwards.''

Continued