Shift to the Right?

[NewsGuy]

Does this report from the JPost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1025787830216) indicate a shift to the Right in Israeli society?

Likud becomes Israel's largest political party

"After signing up more than 70,000 new members in less than two weeks, as part of an ongoing mass registration drive, the Likud surpassed the Labor Party yesterday as Israel's largest party, with more than 170,000 members. The Likud hopes to register thousands more people before its July 31 registration deadline, using radio advertisements and its hotline.

Former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu used an automated system to call a few thousand former Likud members and volunteers and ask them to join the party. Netanyahu supporters claimed an overwhelming majority of the 70,000."

[sharonbn]

Yes, I heard it on the news in the radio, driving to work.

This is a natural human reaction to the Palestinian wave of terror attack. A similar shift towards the republican pov is observed in US public opinion since the 9/11 attack.

Personally, I want to say that although I do not intend to join the Likud party, I am pleased with Sharon's adminisration.

I admit that after 2001 elections, I was gravely concerned about Sharon's way of handling the Palestinians. I feared a second Lebanon, meaning re-occupation of the PA territories.
Now I see he is relatively moderate in the measures he has taken (relative to other Likud leaders like Uzi Landau) and is showing signs of willing to break through the stalemate in the negotiations. Besides that he has shown better political capabilities in maintaining his coalition than his two predecessors and has shown he's a man of principles in dealing with the usual blackmail of the religious parties.

My only criticism is his strategy in economic issues. The fact that government budget was passed at the last minute, the frequent changes in the tax reform plan and the flactuations in the interest rate have all a devestating affect on the chances for economic growth and ending the current recession.

In contrast, the Labour party is unable to put up a worthy adversary. figures like Fuad Ben Eliezer and Haim Ramon are no match to Sharon in terms of public trust and popuarity. Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak look like out of the picture for the upcoming elections of 2003, and Beilin is considered too extreme to be a real candidate.

The only threat to Sharon is rom Netanyahu, who never dropped in popularity among hardcore Likud followers. Personally, I prefer Sharon, but I must say that I, like all the moderate left in Israel find only glooming prospects for 2003 elections...

[Vic]

Does Sharon have a long-term political concept for dealing with the Palestinians by now? He was much criticized for the absence of such until a short time ago. The criticism seems to have vanished, but there is no real information on Sharon's plans, as far as I can see.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
Does Sharon have a long-term political concept for dealing with the Palestinians by now?

Yes, of course. He has repeatedly announced his vision for peace with the Palesitnians, as follows:

1. Requiring an end to Palestinians terrorism.

2. Withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian-controlled towns in the West Bank on a city-by-city basis, depending on the level of terrorist activity in each particular city.

3. Confidence building measures.

4. Discussions with the Palestinian leadership focusing on an interim agreement that would lead to a permanent solution if the Palestinians are capable of stopping terrorism.

5. Sharon has announced that he is prepared to make "painful concessions" to achieve peace. There is of course a cynical view about what constitutes these painful concessions for Sharon, but for him to maintain a unity government, he must know that he will be required to make extensive concessions about dismantling certain Jewish suburbs and sharing sovereignty over Jerusalem somehow with the Arabs. Despite the nay-sayers, the final settlement will be close to the 97% solution offered by Barak.

6. Bringing the settlement to a vote for the Israeli citizens to approve.

* * *

The reason this has not been in the press lately is because Sharon has remained with this plan and has not changed it since his election.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Yes, I heard it on the news in the radio, driving to work.

This is a natural human reaction to the Palestinian wave of terror attack... I am pleased with Sharon's adminisration... Now I see he is relatively moderate in the measures he has taken (relative to other Likud leaders like Uzi Landau) and is showing signs of willing to break through the stalemate in the negotiations. Besides that he has shown better political capabilities in maintaining his coalition than his two predecessors and has shown he's a man of principles in dealing with the usual blackmail of the religious parties...

Uh oh... I found nothing at all to disagree with Sharonbn about his view of Israeli politics... Very scary. :D

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
4. Discussions with the Palestinian leadership focusing on an interim agreement that would lead to a permanent solution if the Palestinians are capable of stopping terrorism.

One note: The novel idea in Sharon's plan is a very long interim period (8-10 years) after which, if the Palestinians behave, a permanent peace agreement can be negotiated. I still haven't decided whether or not this is a good/feasible idea

Originally posted by NewsGuy
5. Sharon has announced that he is prepared to make "painful concessions" to achieve peace. There is of course a cynical view about what constitutes these painful concessions for Sharon, but for him to maintain a unity government, he must know that he will be required to make extensive concessions about dismantling certain Jewish suburbs and sharing sovereignty over Jerusalem somehow with the Arabs. Despite the nay-sayers, the final settlement will be close to the 97% solution offered by Barak.
The interim solution (which, like I said is for a long time) apeaks about 45% of occupied territory. After that... God knows...

Originally posted by NewsGuy
6. Bringing the settlement to a vote for the Israeli citizens to approve.
In the weekend commentary program of Channel 2 news, the political journalist said current polls indicate that the majority of Israelis believe that most of the settements should be dismantled as part of the permanent agreement.

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Yes, of course. He has repeatedly announced his vision for peace with the Palesitnians, as follows:

1. Requiring an end to Palestinians terrorism.[...]So it all hinges on the Palestinians' goodwill. Let's assume No. 1 doesn't happen, as it probably won't (sorry for being so blunt), making the rest of the plan useless. What next?

[Mediocrates]

Define 'end'.

[Vic]

Are you addressing the question to me, NewsGuy or Ariel Sharon? ;)

A good question in itself. Attempted or successfull attacks? Would some shootings in the West Bank count? What about stone-throwing? What about cross-border attacks? etc.

So whom does it really depend upon? The Israeli security services, Arafat's gang (however defined), the islamist groups?

This "plan" is illogical to me, similar to the law proposal on Jewish-only new communities, only with worse consequences. It permits the tail to wag the dog, in fact it demands the tail should do so.

[Mediocrates]

"What is the end of terrorism" 50% reduction? 70%, 97%?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by sharonbn
One note: The novel idea in Sharon's plan is a very long interim period (8-10 years) after which, if the Palestinians behave, a permanent peace agreement can be negotiated. I still haven't decided whether or not this is a good/feasible idea

I've heard the time frame being mentioned by Sharon as being 5 years, and the current time-frame supported by the U.S. is 3 years.

I'm not sure what the minimum amount of time would be to determine of the Palestinians have in fact ended their war against Israel.

My best guess is that if Palestinian terrorism stops, or is even substantially reduced for 6 months or a year with the Palestinian regime making a real effort to stop the terrorism, then the U.S., which anyway calls most of the shots in the ME, will push for a Palestinian state a that point in time.


The interim solution (which, like I said is for a long time) apeaks about 45% of occupied territory. After that... God knows...
Both Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that the precise outcome and the exact maps will be the subject of negotiations. Nothing wrong with that approach.


In the weekend commentary program of Channel 2 news, the political journalist said current polls indicate that the majority of Israelis believe that most of the settements should be dismantled as part of the permanent agreement.
Interesting how some people support the forced transfer of a quarter-million Israelis living in the Jewish homeland, while they strongly oppose transferring the Palestinian squatters back to their own historical homelands.

These people are sadly mistaken if they think that handing out prizes for Arab terrorism by giving Jewish land to allow the Arabs to build missile factories will somehow bring peace to the Israelis.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
So it all hinges on the Palestinians' goodwill. Let's assume No. 1 doesn't happen, as it probably won't (sorry for being so blunt), making the rest of the plan useless. What next?

Next is collapsing the brutal and corrupt Palestinian terrorist authority and seeing who else pops up to lead the "new and reformed" Palestinians.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
"What is the end of terrorism" 50% reduction? 70%, 97%?

Unfortunately, the percentage of accpetable Israeli deaths at the hands of the Arab mass murderers will be detremined in Washington, DC.

[cerulean]

This article indicates that many analysts and academics who had favored conciliation and negotiation have changed their minds in light of the current conditions.

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=E82C7F1B-15BB-4E4A-B9AB-0BF4134F8B6E

You can't reason with hatred
Israel's best minds have lost faith in the possibility of peace

Robert Fulford
National Post
JERUSALEM - Nobody invested more faith in the peace process than Hirsh Goodman, the tough little South African journalist who founded an excellent magazine, The Jerusalem Report. He's a professional skeptic, but he bet his reputation, and set his heart, on learning to live comfortably with the Palestinians. That's why the summer of 2002 finds him angry, baffled and mortified, like so many of his kind. It's hard to be so wrong for so long. And it's much harder when the failure of hope leads straight to social chaos and the blood of innocents.
[...]
It says something about daily life in Jerusalem that Benny Morris did not agree to meet over lunch until he determined that the chosen restaurant had a security guard. It says something more that he was ready to admit that his convictions about recent history had been altogether wrong. "I thought the Palestinians had changed their ideological course, but no. I thought something had changed in the Palestinian mentality." He thought they were preparing their people for peace and that Chairman Arafat could sell it. Instead, they were teaching their children from schoolroom maps that didn't even mention Israel. He discovered that among the Palestinian leadership, "Everybody lies all the time." He was more appalled when he understood that Palestinian society endorsed suicide bombing. Now, "I believe there is no partner for peace on the other side." Mr. Morris exemplifies the tone you sometimes hear in the conversation of Israeli academics, melancholy and despair mingled with anger and self-disgust.

Often you hear strong personal feeling behind their words, and nowhere more than with Hirsh Goodman. "I supported Oslo," he said. "I supported talking with Arafat. The greatest disappointment was to discover that despite everything I've believed, everything I've promulgated, that ******* never gave up terror." Both of Mr. Goodman's young children have seen the devastation of suicide bombs; one of them saw a man without a head. Like others, he sometimes wonders whether Israel is the place to have his children grow up. He always decides that he does, despite everything: "One thing about this place. It's real. It's alive." Yossi Klein Halevi agrees. "You feel alive here every moment. In Israel, you feel alive until you're dead."
====

There still does seem to be a significant left-wing movement in Israel, though, even if many have given up hope for that approach.

[Vic]

A nose-dive waiting to happen
By Hannah Kim
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=193450&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=193450 It has happened before, and it could happen again: A prime minister leads in the public opinion polls, but the voices rising from the street indicate that his big plunge had already begun long ago.

It happened to Yitzhak Shamir in 1992, when he and his people were basking in surveys that gave the Likud 60 seats in the Knesset. It happened in the 1996 elections when, at meetings in the homes of private citizens, Avraham (Beiga) Shochat was surprised to find Likudniks who were speaking with admiration about Ehud Barak, at a time when Benjamin Netanyahu was enjoying a lead of 5 percent in the surveys. It happened to Barak when he was ahead of Sharon by more than 10 percent, but even in the kibbutzim there were members who said openly that Ariel Sharon should be given a chance. Quite possibly this is also happening now.

[...]

Attorney David Glass, adviser to Shas leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, this week recycled the distinction between a gambler and a broker: "When a broker succeeds, he knows when to get out. The gambler, however, continues until he loses everything." According to Glass, Sharon is a gambler, not a broker. "In my assessment, from here on, the snowball will start to roll. Shas will not be able to vote in favor of the budget in the Knesset; that is, Shas will quit the government. Rabbi Yosef also has his limits. The new decrees are a red line. And if Shas quits, the Labor Party will not be able to remain in the government."

[...]

But this is not the whole story. Anyone who wants to understand what is happening in Israeli society should listen to what Haya Gil, the proprietress of the Rahmo Restaurant in Jerusalem, has to say: "My God," mourned Gil this week. "There are people going hungry in Israel. On Sunday there was no one to transport the trays of food I prepare for 60 old people so I went myself to the club at the community center where they spend the time. I saw the way they grabbed the trays and I was scared."

As the number of customers at Rahmo's Restaurant, which is very reasonably priced, dwindles because of the economic situation, the number of portions that Gil prepares for the needy who cannot afford a plate of hummus increases. "I give them food so they will not starve. I know that there is hunger in the State of Israel. No one can tell me there isn't. I see the way people come into the restaurant, when I'm busy with something, and sneak leftovers from the table even though they could get a hot dish from me at the end of the day."

The economy will do Sharon in and could do great harm to the Likud. Interior Minister Eli Yishai was glowing with happiness this week, and for the first time Rabbi Ovadia Yosef bad-mouthed Sharon.

[...]

The only alliance is the alliance of the quitters: Yishai wants to quit the government in the context of the economic situation, as does Ben-Eliezer. The vote by members of the two parties against the budget this week is the first signal of this.

[...]

Alex Tantzer, whose Russian-language program "Gloves Off" is broadcast on regional radio, said that he has never heard so much cursing against politicians of Russian origin as he heard this week on his program. "People come on the air, say that the government is making cuts only against people who have nothing to eat, against people who are serving in the army or whose sons are serving in the army. They are furious at Sharansky and at all the Russian Knesset members. In the Russian street there is a lot of hatred of politicians nowadays, and this could lead some of the people, indeed the strongest among them, to leave Israel and all the rest will be indifferent, alienated and despairing.

"If the elections were to be held today, I would estimate that 70 percent of the immigrants would stay home. Every third soldier in a combat unit is a new immigrant, and there are many among them who cannot get married within the borders of the State of Israel. The number of unemployed among the new immigrants is 50 percent higher than among the veterans. The immigrants are worth 20 Knesset seats today. Fifteen of them are now sitting on the fence."

[...]Comments?