Is Peres' support of Kadima an Aftershock?

[scattergood]

Peres to quit Labour Party to back Sharon-TV Tuesday November 29, 08:05 PM

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Veteran statesman Shimon Peres will announce on Wednesday he is leaving the Labour Party to back Ariel Sharon in Israel's March election, without formally joining the prime minister's new party, Channel 10 TV said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29112005/325/peres-quit-labour-party-sharon-tv.html


If true, this would seem to be a pretty significant event. Could the Sharon / Peres move be seen as old guard vs. new guard (Peretz and Netanyahu)?

[genghis_tom]

This is very significant. With those two members of the "old guard" endorsing the new party, it is almost expected that more will flock to it, big names and otherwise.

[MGB8]

Like the Dems and Repubs in the US, Labor and Likkud have become more controlled by (oftentimes younger) ideologs, and less by (oftentimes older) pragmatists. Ideological zeal and (relative) youth tend to go hand in hand.

[AraV]

This has been expected since Peres lost the leadership of Labour, so the answer is no there is no shock, but yes it is very significant.

[nuttie]

Nothing Peres does can shock me any more. It's because of his continuously undemocratic trickery that I left the Labour Party. Just think of this: the man was Prime Minister twice despite never having been elected to anything except by a manipulated "party centre".

[KettleWhistle]

Like the Dems and Repubs in the US, Labor and Likkud have become more controlled by (oftentimes younger) ideologs, and less by (oftentimes older) pragmatists. Ideological zeal and (relative) youth tend to go hand in hand.
I would disagree with that. It seems that the senile "old guard" is outliving itself, while the "young guard" just doesn't know how to play the game. I see little pragmatism in the actions of the "old," and very little ideology in the actions of the young.

The pragmatic thing to do at the moment, would be a sharp unilateral action to remove all Arabs from Israel, including all of E. Jerusalem, and the settled portions of the W.B., and to cut them off regardless of what the world or the Palestinians would say. It will take a decade to recover from the damage such an action would inflict, and it is a sacrifice. But, it is pragmatic, as it will eliminate the demographic threat, and will leave Jews in control of our homeland.

[mbczion]

IMO what needs to happen is for all the parties to the right of Likud, in addition to the religious parties, to put aside their differences, unite and form a big bloc that would be a force to reckon with....

Labor, Kadima, and Likud have made it clear as can be that they will continue appeasing our sworn enemies by giving them land, while receiving nothing in return....Sharon laughed at Mitzna's platform of unilateral withdrawal right up until the day of the last elections and then, immediately after being elected PM, ran after Shimon Peres and virtually xeroxed Mitzna's platform and carried it out....

If the following parties would unite, Israel's destiny would take a 180 degree turn- Mafdal/Ichud HaLeumi (Effi Eitam and Rav Benny Begin), The Jewish National Front (Baruch Marzel), Paul Edeilberg's party (forgot his party's name), Yisrael Beitenu (Avigdor Leiberman), Shas, Agudat Yisrael, and maybe some of the "Likud rebels" like Uzi Landau....

Those of us still commited to hanging onto this country cannot afford to be divided and we desparately need to put our differences aside and take control of the steering wheel....We on the "far right" can be a force to be reckoned with if we unite....Otherwise, there will be more "disengagements" until we are back to the "Aushwitz borders" as maverick dove Abba Eban used to call them....

[MGB8]

Yup, because Israelis would just leave Israel if Israel recieved universal world condemnation and embargo for forcible ethnic cleansing of its citizens. They'd just quietly sit as all the jobs in Israel disappeared, no one would have gasoline, and food would be tight, too. That's pragmatism :rolleyes:

KW, you are being ideological, and calling it pragmatic.

The ideological left and ideological right cling to their respective myths.

Myth of the left: If only you went back to the 67 borders, there would be peace, and everything would be ok.

Myth of the right: If only you would expell all the Arabs, including those in the WB and Gaza, then there would be no catastrophic reaction, as Israel doesn't need anyone else to survive, and everything would be ok.


The pragmatists realize that there is no magic bullet solution, and so instead they try to navigate to the best possible outcome - the most benefits with the least costs. In Sharon's case, a Jewish State, a united and protected/buffered Jerusalem, and no massive international reaction.


I would disagree with that. It seems that the senile "old guard" is outliving itself, while the "young guard" just doesn't know how to play the game. I see little pragmatism in the actions of the "old," and very little ideology in the actions of the young.

The pragmatic thing to do at the moment, would be a sharp unilateral action to remove all Arabs from Israel, including all of E. Jerusalem, and the settled portions of the W.B., and to cut them off regardless of what the world or the Palestinians would say. It will take a decade to recover from the damage such an action would inflict, and it is a sacrifice. But, it is pragmatic, as it will eliminate the demographic threat, and will leave Jews in control of our homeland.

[genghis_tom]

"The pragmatic thing to do at the moment, would be a sharp unilateral action to remove all Arabs from Israel, including all of E. Jerusalem, and the settled portions of the W.B., and to cut them off regardless of what the world or the Palestinians would say. It will take a decade to recover from the damage such an action would inflict, and it is a sacrifice. But, it is pragmatic, as it will eliminate the demographic threat, and will leave Jews in control of our homeland."
I realize, as MGB8 does, that this is idealistic, and also grossly unrealistic, but I just have to say...
A decade!? :eek:
Just as a reminder, KW, just getting the Jews into Israel has taken more than 50 years of conflict, "damage",and "sacrifice".

[mbczion]

I realize, like KW does, that reality dictates that it is either the Arabs or us....

It is not about "borders" or "international reactions", but about the Arabs not ready to accept a Jewish state of any size shape or form in the Middle East now or ever....

For those of you so concerned about how the world will react, in case you haven't noticed, no matter what Israel does - whether it is building a wall to keep out terrorists or targeting the masterminds of terrorist attacks that claimed hundreds of civilian victims, she is criticized by everyone anyway....

So, the way I see it, we might as well do what's best for us and NOT what's best for everyone else....

[MGB8]

There is a difference between criticism and Sanctions/Embargo.

[mbczion]

Israel won the Six Day War in '67 despite a weapons embargo imposed by the US....

http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.defying.us.pressure.htm

[KettleWhistle]

Myth of the right: If only you would expell all the Arabs, including those in the WB and Gaza, then there would be no catastrophic reaction, as Israel doesn't need anyone else to survive, and everything would be ok.


The pragmatists realize that there is no magic bullet solution, and so instead they try to navigate to the best possible outcome - the most benefits with the least costs. In Sharon's case, a Jewish State, a united and protected/buffered Jerusalem, and no massive international reaction.

I disagree with that. It is not idealism, but harsh reality. It goes without saying that removing Arabs (foreigners) from Israel will have disasterous political consequences. But what war doesn't require sacrifice? What I'm talking about is a no-nonsense solution to the geo-political reality of today. It is not pleasant or nice, nor am I implying that it would be easy. It will absolutely make people's life hell, like most wars do. But this solution is by all means pragmatic.

How else can you address the very real threat presented by the Arabs, in the long term?

[MGB8]

They had French and British support before then. and the Israeli economy was not as bourgouis.




Israel won the Six Day War in '67 despite a weapons embargo imposed by the US....

http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.defying.us.pressure.htm

[mbczion]

The French and British abandoned Israel long before the Six Day War....Israel was totally isolated in the '67 war and until the end of the Yom Kippur War....Not only that, but America was actively providing weapons to Israel's enemies in the Six Day War....Just like then, Israel has no one to rely on but herself and never will....

[MGB8]

In terms of the Israeli Arabs, I don't believe they present a existential threat, long term. Eventually, Israel is going to get tougher on treasonous Arabs within Israel. In fact, I think the establishment of a Pal Arab state will allow that to come more into being. So they will simply be deported. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were private groups who started giving financial incentives for Arabs willing to renounce their Israeli citizenship (something difficult to justify on a national/legal basis, but, the private sector is a different being indeed.)

Oh, and I expect some "village swaps" from Israel proper, which will be protested, but in the end upheld.

I also think Israel will, like France, wisen up and start putting incentives for middle-to-upper-middle class women to have more kids - meaning, in all reality, help for the Jewish demographic in Israel.

As for the Arabs in the WB and Gaza - the whole point of disengagement and Kadima's support for a Pal Arab state is to defuse the demographic threat that the Arabs represent. On the other hand, it really isn't that much of a threat so long as Israel doesn't annex them.

But expell either Israeli Arabs or Arabs in the WB or Gaza? If you think what happened to South Africa was rough... just wait. There is a more than decent chance that Israel would not survive it. Not just from external pressures, either. Internally it would destroy Israel, too.



I disagree with that. It is not idealism, but harsh reality. It goes without saying that removing Arabs (foreigners) from Israel will have disasterous political consequences. But what war doesn't require sacrifice? What I'm talking about is a no-nonsense solution to the geo-political reality of today. It is not pleasant or nice, nor am I implying that it would be easy. It will absolutely make people's life hell, like most wars do. But this solution is by all means pragmatic.

How else can you address the very real threat presented by the Arabs, in the long term?

[MGB8]

France was supplying Israel into the mid-60's. France embargoed Israel right before the 6 day war. That was the time of the change. Also, before the 6 day war US/Israeli relations were warming, as can be seen by intelligence sharing, the Abba-Eban to washington, etc. etc. - this more to do with the Cold War than anything else.

[nuttie]

Israel has no one to rely on but herself and never will....The US is certainly a friend despite occasional disagreements. Nixon actually saved our bum in 1973.

[MGB8]

True. But it was in Nixon's self interest - cold war.

The US cannot, long term, be relied upon by Israel. Things can change in the US. You get a large enough muslim minority... bam, US foreign policy changes.

He is right. Israel is a nation, and a nation in many respects is just like a person. In life, you can rely on no one else to take care of you but yourself. The US cannot rely on anyone else, either. It has "friends"... but things can change over time.