 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
OTOH, Bibis good numbers are in the midst of the current likud angst about disengagement, right? IF the disengagement goes smoothly, and Abbas/Dahlan end up in clear control of Gaza, not Hamas, would Bibi's numbers fade? |
But you see, that ain't how it works!
Likud's member opposition isn't just on fears of the results, but also ideological opposition to a withdrawal - some of them wrt any withdrawal and forceful removal of settlers, others wrt withdrawal without a complete peace accord.
So, even if the disengagement goes smoothly, it won't be a homerun for Sharon. OTOH, if it's a cluster****, Sharon's dead in the water.
quote:
Part of me wants to see Labor winning... Just out of pity for Peres. After all this hard work, he deserves to be finally elected as PM. |
Hell no, not Peres. I certainly hope he won't be elected as Labour's candidate.I'd prefer fricking Barak, but a Vilnai-Peretz coalition in charge of Labour would be the best IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
i guess im wondering how many of the 70% if Likud members who would vote against Sharon now, if any of them would support him if the withdrawl went smoothly. Or are you saying the assumption now is that it WILL go smoothly, so his numbers will only go down? |
That's not what I am saying. I am saying that many people will be unhappy with the disengagement no matter how it goes, So Sharon has a starting disadvantage.
quote:
Tell me again about Vilnai?
|
Knesset site for a bit of info:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...vidual_id_t=204
Generally, not really PM material, but I don't see any of those around today anyhow in the younger guys. A former General, which isn't something I am thrilled about, but doesn't really bother me, too. geopolitically centerist, without strong economical convictions, from what I seem to remember.
Peres - It's Shimon goddamn Peres.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...vidual_id_t=104
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres
Too old, IMO, though he has ensured his place as one of the most influential political figures in Israeli history, and even the history of the 20th century.
Ramon...
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...vidual_id_t=115
somewhat known for political whoring. Certainly no PM material. has "pragmatic" views on just about anything. doesn't really want to be the leader of Labor, from where I see it.
Barak:
currently not an MK. The former PM, tried to stage a big political comeback, which seems to falter real bad right now.
"Fuad":
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...ividual_id_t=20
just another guy. like Ramon, but slightly less sleazy, and with slightly more chances to grab the leadership of labor.
Mitzna,
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...vidual_id_t=739
Very dove-ish, ran against Sharon on the previous election, and failed miserably, former mayor of my city. Proposed a plan similar to Sharon's, and was harshly criticized by Likud, only to have his plan adopted after the election ( which makes you think: what kind of a sad ass person would vote Likud next time ). Doesn't run for leader of Labour.
Peretz:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk...vidual_id_t=105
The Leader of the Israeli General Trade Union, and the only person with the semblance of being an economic leftist. My biggest hope for the upcoming election, and any potential Labour rule. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
If the picture does not change following the disengagement, Sharon is likely to seriously consider the "big bang" option that Minister Haim Ramon of the Labor Party has been pushing for some time. Ramon has long claimed that Sharon would never be reelected as head of the Likud, and therefore has only two options: abandoning politics altogether, or splitting the Likud and merging his supporters with Labor and Shinui to form a new "centrist" party. Ramon believes that such a party could win a huge number of seats running against a shrunken, Netanyahu-led Likud that Sharon could easily paint as an extreme right-wing party.
Until now, most of the political world has laughed at Ramon's theory. But this poll, and others like it, may turn the "big bang" into a realistic option. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
Yeah, but it's so obvious that this will be a shortlived entity without any chances of surviving in the long run. What it will do is kill Likud as the behemoth of Israeli politics, which is awesome.
Basically, Sharon splitting from Likud doesn't necessarily mean that a centrist superblock is formed. It just means that Likud is dead. The former is a reversible process, superblocks come and go , the later isn't.
Also, Sharon isn't a young boy anymore, so once he's gone, the superblock won't have any clearcut leaders, and will tend to split naturally back according to party lines.
Of course, there's always the chance that Bibi's Likud will fare well, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
Yeah, but it's so obvious that this will be a shortlived entity without any chances of surviving in the long run. What it will do is kill Likud as the behemoth of Israeli politics, which is awesome.
Basically, Sharon splitting from Likud doesn't necessarily mean that a centrist superblock is formed. It just means that Likud is dead. The former is a reversible process, superblocks come and go , the later isn't.
Also, Sharon isn't a young boy anymore, so once he's gone, the superblock won't have any clearcut leaders, and will tend to split naturally back according to party lines.
|
How long is this long run? It is not inconceivable that the new party will rule for the full 4 years after the next election. That's enough time for a leader to show up. We might see a Mapai like 30 years long rule.
The only issue over which a split of such a party is likely is the Palestinians. In the negotiations over a permanent agreement Sharon as the leader may not want to go as far as his party members from Labor and Shinui, but then Sharon is demolishing settlements today so who knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
Basically, Sharon splitting from Likud doesn't necessarily mean that a centrist superblock is formed. It just means that Likud is dead. The former is a reversible process, superblocks come and go , the later isn't.
|
Is it? Labor seemed close to becoming irrelevant after the last election, when it almost came in third. But it seems to be doing better now.
If a moderate superblock starts shrinking,wouldn't many of the members will return to their former parties, including Likud?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
It's different. Superblocks don't shrink, they fall apart. A party that broke off from Likud, and in fact split it in half would have it much more difficult to go back to Likud. If the Labor party breaks off from the block, it will simply continue it's course, as an independent country. |
It might be easier for the parts rejoining Labor as opposed to Likud, but I think it would probably happen eventually. (so long as the moderate party doesn't last long enough to be viable itself).
quote:
Sharon could beat Netanyahu in race for prime minister: Poll
Associated Press
08/11/2005
JERUSALEM - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could beat his top rival Benjamin Netanyahu in a race for prime minister if he leaves the Likud Party and establishes a new one with two other veteran politicians, according to a poll published Thursday in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper.
A new, centrist party lead by Sharon that would include current Vice Premier Shimon Peres and former minister Joseph Lapid could win 38 seats in the 120-member parliament over 14 for the Likud, the poll revealed. |
link
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
FREE PALESTINE!
(to avoid risk of becoming a club thread)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I heard the're waitng for a miracle.....
Seriously, from what I understand it is the deeply religious types amongst the settlers who are more "nationalists" for a Greater Israel and the rest are moderates who are more positively towards leaving Gaza, and that the majority of the Iraelis is for the disengagement anyway. Is this picture somehow correct or too simplistic? |
I'll let the Israelis answer that, but would like to point out a few things. 1. The religious settlers are NOT the "most religious" (jewish) elements of Israeli society. The most religious elements in Israeli society are more focused on narrowly religious issues, and tend to a more fatalistic attitude toward geopolitics. The settler movement is led by "modern Orthodox" who have historically been willing to compromise with secularism on domestic issues, but have (since 1967) staked out a fervent, almost messianic approach to the territories.
The disengagement seems to be particularly traumatic for the Modern O, as it rips at this quid pro quo, and at their self identy, which blended nationalism in the sense of expansionism, with nationalism in the sense of respect for the Israeli state. While, AFAIK, there are few modern O who support disengagement, there are many who want no part of illegal acts of resistance - but some rabbis ARE calling for civil disobedience, and even for soldiers to disobey orders. And it is suspected that a few extremists may try violence. There is an interesting interview in todays Jerusalem Post, with the head of Bar Ilan Univ, who is Orthodox, but insists on full compliance with the law.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
The same fricking reason everyone was opposed to it just 2 years ago- It doesn't guarantee us nothing in return, and it will be a hotbed of terrorist activity. I don't trust Abu-Mazen's soft touch, and Bush's "promises" are slightly hotter than hot air.
Also, I don't see why the people should be evacuated from there forcibly. Why can't they stay there, if they want to? Is it just because they're jewish-Israeli, and future Palestine must be jew-free? 
Besides, it leaves us with the same problems - Palestinian workers will have to be allowed into Israel, while having open borders to the world at the same time, and having our ability to strike at our enemies in Gaza greatly reduced.
So, it's not pragmatic, it's not ethical, It's nothing - It's an attempt to gather support for Sharon by both the public and the media, and to forgive him his corrupt government - And although rightists have been using this as an axe to grind against him since he proposed this plan, I am not tainted like them - I always knew that Sharon is a corrupt man, unfit to lead a country - The way he mislead his Prime Minister, and the entire country in 82' is enough proof of that. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
The same fricking reason everyone was opposed to it just 2 years ago- It doesn't guarantee us nothing in return, and it will be a hotbed of terrorist activity. I don't trust Abu-Mazen's soft touch, and Bush's "promises" are slightly hotter than hot air. "
Also, I don't see why the people should be evacuated from there forcibly. Why can't they stay there, if they want to? Is it just because they're jewish-Israeli, and future Palestine must be jew-free?
Besides, it leaves us with the same problems - Palestinian workers will have to be allowed into Israel, while having open borders to the world at the same time, and having our ability to strike at our enemies in Gaza greatly reduced.
So, it's not pragmatic, it's not ethical, It's nothing - It's an attempt to gather support for Sharon by both the public and the media, and to forgive him his corrupt government - And although rightists have been using this as an axe to grind against him since he proposed this plan, I am not tainted like them - I always knew that Sharon is a corrupt man, unfit to lead a country - The way he mislead his Prime Minister, and the entire country in 82' is enough proof of that. |
I dont see why the ability of the IDF to operate in Gaza, as needed, is reduced by not having settlements. Were the settlements acting as military bases? Seems to me they were essentially hostages.
as for why jews shouldnt remain in Gaze, i would think thats frightfully obvious - if they stay, and the Pal Authorities abuse them, or are accused of abusing them, that creates another point of friction between israel and the PA.
I might add, that, as a Zionist, its good for Jews to live in the State of Israel. Its hard for foreigners without the language or connections, but for people living in the state, to depart the state, is hardly a Zionist act. Of course these folks seem to be more attached to the land of Israel than to the State of Israel. Thats a novum. There was a time, not so long ago, when the state did NOT control all the land between the Jordan and the Sea. at that time, aliyah was always defined as moving to the STATE of Israel. A diaspora Jew who desired to move to Hebron or Nablus to live under the King of Jordan, would have been considered unZionist, not to mention insane.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
I dont see why the ability of the IDF to operate in Gaza, as needed, is reduced by not having settlements. Were the settlements acting as military bases? Seems to me they were essentially hostages. |
Dude, it's not just evacuation of the settlements, but the retreat of the IDF to the green line. Which will put field intelligence gathering devices farther. Besides, Israel will also officially end the occupation of the region, so it will change status, and stuff. Waltzing in will be harder.
quote:
as for why jews shouldnt remain in Gaze, i would think thats frightfully obvious - if they stay, and the Pal Authorities abuse them, or are accused of abusing them, that creates another point of friction between israel and the PA. |
It's their choice - if they want to stay, why not let them? The fact that it's a "friction point" is meaningless. Arab Israelis are also a "friction point". Forcing them out of their houses now would still be a crime.
quote:
I might add, that, as a Zionist, its good for Jews to live in the State of Israel. Its hard for foreigners without the language or connections, but for people living in the state, to depart the state, is hardly a Zionist act. Of course these folks seem to be more attached to the land of Israel than to the State of Israel. Thats a novum. There was a time, not so long ago, when the state did NOT control all the land between the Jordan and the Sea. at that time, aliyah was always defined as moving to the STATE of Israel. A diaspora Jew who desired to move to Hebron or Nablus to live under the King of Jordan, would have been considered unZionist, not to mention insane. |
Don't forget that these people operate under the idea, that they won't exactly live in a peaceful fantasy land, but in a violent gaza strip. I share that assessment vis a vis what will happen when the IDF withdraws. Also, it's possible that these people would rather establish themselves as a force within a palestinian government.
You might as well say that arabs that consider themselves palestinian in Israel are hurting their national cause by staying.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2005 01:12
They have GOT to run a good campaign and take the government back. They have got to. 
|