1
   

Sharon Wins - an Answer, or a New Question?

 
 
Reply Tue 28 Jan, 2003 05:47 pm
Sharon Wins

Though Sharon's victory was all but foregone conclusion, Israel's complex multi-party system requires any effective Government to be composed of a disparate coalition. Labor has stated dissinterest in a coalition with a Sharon Government. What's next for Israel?


Please feel free to discuss your reasons for your vote ... or your reason for not voting, either, naturally.



timber
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,524 • Replies: 39
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jan, 2003 05:54 pm
What's next for Israel?

Only the almighty and Bush knows. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jan, 2003 07:02 pm
I was truely surprised to hear he won the most seats. And saddened too.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 12:28 am
This is truly the face of Israel. Most of the Jews in Israel does not really like Sharon all that much, because they do not feel he will bring peace. Sharon, however, represents the only candidate that will fight terrorism with vigor. They are at a loss at the solution for peace, and at this moment in their history, they felt he was the guy who would protect their safety. c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 01:09 am
I go along with that, c.i. His position appears strong, but The Israeli Parliament is volatile and factitious beyond anything in The American Experience. In much of the world, the game of Politics is played differently than in The US. Of course, so are many ball games. Still, Sharon has a lot of deal-making to do if he is to be effective, and he faces strong and determined opposition.

I've been skimming the Mid East Press ... opinions of Sharon's prospects vary widely, and despite the margin of his victory there is some scepticism. The Arab Street is not thrilled either. Tomorrow's news and commentary will be more informative than today's early speculations and assumptions. I have great unease regarding the potential for a particularly egregious Palestinian provocation in the near term ... 24 to 72 hours.



timber
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 02:31 am
i agree.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 09:52 am
Timber
Quote:
I've been skimming the Mid East Press ... opinions of Sharon's prospects vary widely, and despite the margin of his victory there is some scepticism. The Arab Street is not thrilled either.


That may be so however IMO it was the Arabs [Arafat and the militants} who elected him.
Without the constant acts of terror I doubt he would have been reelected.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 10:06 am
Sharon's troubles begin:

Coalition Problematic

Quote:
Israel's Sharon Seeks Unity After Win
1 hour, 37 minutes ago

By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Bolstered by a resounding election victory, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) on Wednesday called for national unity against "the murderous hatred" of Palestinian militants, but his efforts to form a broad coalition government are likely to be thwarted by the defeated Labor party.

Sharon might be forced into an alliance with ultranationalist parties that want to block U.S.-backed peace moves and spur him to even tougher moves against the Palestinians. Israel TV quoted Sharon as saying off-camera that he'd rather call new elections than preside over such a coalition.


We've not seen the last of this.

Au, indeed The Palestinians were Sharon's strongest campaigners ... perhaps not without design.



timber
0 Replies
 
maggots ate my brain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 12:14 pm
As much as anything, Sharon's large victory may have been a result of the low voter turnout. Many Labor voters were angry at that party for their participation in governments of national unity, others still blame them for the Oslo Accords. Many of these voters may have decided to stay home. Also, it is reported that many Israeli Russian voters may have stayed home or had their votes invalided, resulting in Israel Aliya losing half their seats. Many Shas voters may have also gone over to Sharon.

The rise of the secular Shinui Party is also an indicator of voter anger over the welfare state that Likud and its partners have built for the ultra-orthodox. Shinui, now the third largest Party, refuses to join any coalition government that contains an ultra-orthodox party.

The Israeli Parliamentary system is about as rational as the Osbourne family, but it is a democracy.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2003 12:50 pm
Of course, low turnout in an Israeli election means 70% of people vote. In the US, we can only dream of such a turnout...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2003 04:59 pm
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George W Bush have agreed on a plan to get rid of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat if he refuses to appoint a prime minister with executive powers, an Israeli daily said.

"Sharon and Bush agreed that immediately after the removal of (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, it would be Arafat's turn," said the best-selling Yediot Aharonot newspaper, without identifying its sources.

"It was agreed that Israel could banish Yasser Arafat and his associates from the (occupied) territories if he refuses to appoint a prime minister endowed with the power to run the self-rule authority" set up in 1994, the daily said.

It quoted a senior Israeli official it did not identify as saying: "We are going to throw him out, with a green light from the United States ... in the eyes of the White House, Arafat is no different to Saddam Hussein. The one's as repugnant as the other."

Bush, Sharon may 'get rid of Arafat': report

At first glance I reacted with some surprise, thinking that 'get rid of' meant 'liquidate'; and then I read the article, which seems to define it as 'evict'. Of course, what's an accidental 'liquidation' between blood enemies?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Feb, 2003 04:57 pm
IMHO, Sharon is the only political leader that is able to bring peace to the Israelis and Palestinians.
1. He confirmed his agreement with the basic principles of the "Road Maps" plan, and this plan implies creation of the independent Palestinian state[/b]
2. Mr. Sharon is reluctant to build a coalition with the ultra-right parties, since these may undermine any possibility of implementation of the above plan.[/b] This means that he takes the plan seriously and is motivated to implement it.
3. Mr. Sharon opposes any unilateral steps of Israel without ceasing of the terror activities by the Palestinians. Previous experience of the Israeli-Palestinian political process shows that unilateral concessions only increase appetites of our counterparts and encourage their terror.[/b] Sharon's plan means land for peace and not land for terror.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 08:06 am
Quote:
The founder of Maon Farm, Yehoshefat Tor, says he still thinks the bombing was a good idea. ''The Torah says we should kill all the Arabs,'' he told me. ''Not just Arabs who maybe help terrorists. Everybody.'' (see page seven)

All over the West Bank in recent years, and particularly since the start of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000, Israeli teenagers and young adults, almost all of them passionately religious, have been doing what Zar's grandchildren did -- claiming a small piece of land for their own. They are motivated sometimes by personal grief, sometimes by political anger, sometimes just by the youthful desire to be part of a daring adventure. Because they usually move onto hilltops, the Israeli media have taken to calling the most radical and colorful of these young settlers the ''hilltop youth.'' When these young settlers claim a new hill, they also claim the land around it, which in some cases Palestinians have been farming for many years. The new settlers don't seize the land in any official way; they simply uproot Palestinians' trees or shoot in the air at any Palestinian who comes close. About 70 of these small encampments, known in Israel as outposts, have been built in the last two years; together they represent a movement that intends to transform the West Bank, and the conflict in the Middle East, from the ground up...

On the surface, tiny outposts like Ramat Gilad appear to be ad hoc and unauthorized. Their population is small -- estimates of the total number of outpost residents range from 500 to 1,000. It's clear that they have some contact with the government -- who else sends the soldiers and the garbage trucks? -- but it is a relationship that for the most part is invisible.

According to Ezra Rosenfeld, a spokesman for the Yesha Council, the low profile is by design. ''There is a time for everything,'' he told me and then sketched out a potential series of events for the next few months. ''Let's say there's a war in Iraq. Well, then the government can build 10,000 new housing units in Judea and Samaria'' -- the biblical names for the area that settlers prefer to use -- ''and it won't be on the front pages or all over the talk shows. So in the meantime, we can do this with the outposts. The government's hands are clean; they have no involvement. It's small potatoes, so it doesn't get covered outside of Israel.''

Jewish settlement in the West Bank has expanded continually since the land was captured in the 1967 war. At first, settlement was rare, undertaken only by religious extremists. In that era, the government tried to prevent the building of settlements in Palestinian population centers, a policy that led to repeated evacuations of religious settlers by soldiers.

When the Likud Party came to power in 1977, though, the government began constructing Jewish villages and cities all over the territories. Ariel Sharon, then the minister of agriculture, engineered a settlement plan with financial incentives that made the territories an attractive home even for Israelis who didn't feel strongly about the political ideology that drove the settlement project. The settlements grew quickly, and there are now 400,000 Israelis living outside the country's 1967 borders -- 200,000 in East Jerusalem, and another 200,000 deeper into the West Bank and Gaza.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16SETTLEMENTS.html?pagewanted=1
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 08:22 am
Yehoshefat Tor, that was quoted above does not represent Israeli consensus, just as Timothy McVeigh did not represent opinion and modus operandi of the average American.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 08:25 am
It is not too much correct to compare Mr. Sharon of 1977 and of 2003. Just as Anwar Sadat in 1973, that started the Yom Kippur war had different approaches than Sadat of 1978.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 10:00 am
steissd

True, Tor's statement isn't reflective of common Israeli thought. But analogizing him and what is going on here (read entire article please) to McVeigh lets far too many Israeli politicians and policies off the hook.

True, Sharon is older now than he was when younger. But you'll notice perhaps (read the entire article please) that Ms Shapiro clearly suggests Sharon is complicit in this continuing and expanding occupation of someone else's land.

And, of course, there is that matter of the UN resolution. Ought the UN to go in with a huge military attack to enforce the resolution on an inexcuseably recalcitrant Likud government who continues to act in defiance? Sadaam isn't even a threat to occupy any neighbor's land right now, while Israel is in the process of doing so.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 10:23 am
Sharon is planning to drag out the work of forming a government until the American attack on Iraq. That way he can take advantage of the state of emergency to hook Labor and establish a national unity government. Even with the war postponed at least until February 28, he'll still be within the legal time limit set by the president for presenting a new administration. Is he scared to run the country by himself?

It's strange, this fierce insistence of his on Labor rejoining the government. Sharon says: "Anyone who says no to unity is betraying the will of the voter." Why? Sharon won by a landslide because the voters cast their ballot for him personally - for his policy and his approach. With 40 seats in the Knesset, representing nearly a million voters, he can form a government in any configuration he wants.

the choice of the people is crystal clear: They have handed a majority to the national camp and the uncompromising policies of Sharon, and turned down Labor and its territories for peace. But he wants Labor. Why? as a fig leaf, or a lump of a clay, or a scapegoat.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 03:29 pm
You are simplifying the situation, Frolic. Mr. Sharon is able to create a right-wing government with broad representation of the religious parties even tomorrow. But he does not want to do this for a very simple reason: he means to implement President Bush's plan of normalization of situation and establishing peace in the region. It will be impossible under condition of existence of the pure right-wing coalition: the government will fall after the first step toward negotiations is made, especially if the future of settlements is being discussed. National Unity government, consisting of moderate right Likud, moderate left Labor party
and secular centrist Shinui may be much more flexible.
Despite of all the prejudices regarding Mr. Sharon (most of such prejudices being a result of a rabid Arab propaganda), he is one of the most moderate and pragmatic politicians in Israel.
Of course, he is not ready to surrender to terror, and his precondition for resuming political negotiations is complete ceasing of attacks. But there is no alternative to such position: any concessions made under fire are being assessed by the enemy as a sign of weakness, and this only encourages terrorists. If and when the enemies realize that they will get nothing (except a bullet between eyes) as a result of terrorist pressure, it will be possible to negotiate with them about final and irreversible resolving of conflict and about the future borders of the independent Palestinian state.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 04:03 pm
"any concessions made under fire are being assessed by the enemy as a sign of weakness"

Anyone notice how this statement gets repeated like it is a scientific axiom?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2003 01:58 am
Concessions are to be made, but when the enemy changes tactics from trying to force us into these by means of terror to dealing with us by means of negotiations. And concessions must be bilateral: if Arabs continue on insisting on returning of the refugees to the territory of the sovereign Israel (in 1967 borders), no agreement can be reached: such a thing is a lethal threat to the very existence of Israel.
Concessions under fire are tantamount in the Middle East (and, I guess, not only here) to surrender, and I hope, everyone knows the meaning of vae victis.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sharon Wins - an Answer, or a New Question?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.53 seconds on 02/10/2025 at 11:47:17