The world looks forward to Bibi's speech on Sunday.

After Barrack Obama has for the first time in the history of the conflict asked the Arabs for concessions to Israel he returned to the usual western position regarding Israeli "settlements": a "settlement" is a place where Jews live. When normal people live somewhere, it's called a "village".

It has often been said that Israel is the only place in the world where a Jew is not a Jew but simply a human being. (I assume this statement referred to the world of continental Europe and western Asia.) And following that principle, Bibi is unlikely to agree to a "settlement freeze" any more than Israel's Arabs would agree to stop reproducing for a few years.

I don't know what Bibi will say, but I can predict the media reaction depending on what he says.

If he aligns the Israeli position with the Arab position ("no"), he will be referred to in the media as a nationalist and extremist who listens to his fascist allies and utterly destroyed the good will generated by Obama's anti-Semitic demands and who ignored the pleads of the "moderate" PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas (whose own political positions are very much on the right of Bibi's, but who isn't Jewish and is hence a "moderate").

And if he promises a "Palestinian state" to a people who refuse to accept one and won't found it if given the chance, it will take the media a mere week to "forget" about his words and go back to claiming that Netanyahu is against a two-state solution (which no Israeli government ever was).

Avigdor Lieberman, Bibi's right-wing ally, is of course well-known for his extremist positions, among them the Lieberman plan for the creation of am Arab state.

The Lieberman Plan suggests a territorial exchange whereby Israel would acquire most Jewish settlements in the West Bank at the same time that it would cede Palestinian regions of Israel to the Palestinian Authority.

I can understand why some people might be opposed to the plan, but to claim that Lieberman is against a two-state solution is a lie. However, the existence of an actual position will not stop the media for making on up for Lieberman to keep the myth of his extremism alive.

The problem with Lieberman's plan is that Israeli Arabs don't want to be citizens of an Arab state:

Arab citizens of Israel have criticized the plan for being racist and are, in general, opposed to it. While the plan would not require them to leave their homes, Arabs in Israel argue that they are native to the region and insist that as Israeli citizens, they deserve equal rights within the state, and should not be singled out by ethnic or religious background. 

I agree that they deserve equal rights within the state. I disagree that they deserve different duties. I don't understand the comment about the "region" since Lieberman's plan would simply make their home independent from Israel, which I have been given to understand (by western supporters of the PLO) is what they want.

Lieberman's plan also requires a loyalty oath to be taken by those who to keep Israeli citizenship. That will be a problem for religious extremists among Jews and those Arabs who want to have the privileges but not the duties of Israeli citizenship. It won't be a problem for "normal" Jews and Arabs, Druze, and most Bedouins. I understand most countries expect their citizens to be loyal. Lieberman should, however, understand that loyalty to a Jewish state is different from loyalty to any other state. For one thing, it has the word "Jewish" in it, and that changes everything.

Netanyahu’s coalition will not collapse even if on Sunday he says everything that Obama wishes to hear, but is this Netanyahu’s mission? Was he elected prime minister by the citizens of Israel or by the Obama administration? Who does Netanyahu represent in fact? If Israel must fully implement US directives, why do we bother to elect a government here every two and a half years?

Dear Mr. Obama, greetings to you too. One thing is clear: You are still in the midst of a campaign. You won the presidency already, but your rhetoric is that of an elections campaign. You do not speak like a person who runs a state, but rather, like his speech-writer.