israeli elections - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 02-11-2009, 03:51 PM

any way you look at it, assuming you imagine peace between israel and palestine is desirable (and there are those who do not), this is a disaster.

Quote:

White House: Unclear how Israel elections will affect Mideast peace
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent

Israeli elections signal a strong democracy but until a new prime minister is named, it is unclear what the results mean for peace in the Mideast, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

Gibbs added that U.S. President Barack Obama looks forward to working with the next prime minister of the U.S. ally.

A few thousand soldiers' votes remained uncounted following Tuesday's general Israeli elections. After 99% of the votes were tallied, the centrist party Kadima emerged in the lead, but only barely, with one Knesset seat more than the right-wing Likud Party, who won 27 out of 120 Knesset seats. Though Kadima won more seats, the right-wing bloc gained a substantial majority of the seats, leaving Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu in a better position than Kadima leader Tzipi Livni to recruit a 61-majority to form a stable coalition.

The results of the Israeli elections have been confusing for American officials, but the basic assessment is that regardless of who becomes the next prime minister, the shift to the right is clear, and there are no breakthroughs expected with the peace process. In fact, Iran, a Hamas sponsor, is considered to be a more promising track.

Gibbs stressed, however, that Obama remains committed to working with Israel and its new government.

Earlier Wednesday, Obama spoke to President Shimon Peres and congratulated him on the election process.

"This afternoon, President Obama spoke to President Peres of Israel to extend his congratulations to the Israeli people on their general elections yesterday," a statement from the office of the U.S. president said.

"The President remarked that the Israeli people should be very happy about the democratic example they have set for the world. They had a good discussion, and the President complimented President Peres on his recent op-ed in which he reaffirmed his strong commitment to achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Also on Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters that the U.S. was looking forward to working with whatever new government is formed in Israel.

At a Washington press conference, Wood said that the Obama administration will not speculate on what kind of government will be formed. Wood called Israel a thriving democracy and said the administration intends to pursue a robust agenda once the new Israeli leadership is established.

"The government needs to be formed. We will hold discussions with the government once it's in place. The important thing is we're looking forward to working with whoever heads it. It's up to the Israeli people, not the Israeli government, who will be in it," he said.

Referring to the possible inclusion of anti-Arab right wing Yisrael Beiteinu in the future coalition, Wood said "It's not for the U.S. to make this kind of characterization, it's the choice the Israeli people made. We have a robust agenda with Israeli government."

"We've been working over the years with governments in Israel on trying to bring about - trying to affect the peace process. And that's still going to be our goal," Wood went on to say.

Addressing the two-state solution backed by the U.S. in Middle East peace talks, the State Department spokesman said "certainly that's what we have been pursuing. And, you know, again, let's let a government be formed."

"We certainly hope that a new government will continue to pursue a path to peace," Wood said.

However, Wood said that the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, still intends to travel to Israel and elsewhere in the region in the near future. It will be his second visit to the region this month.

White House: Unclear how Israel elections will affect Mideast peace - Haaretz - Israel News

the reason it's such a disaster is the position that it puts the far right party yisrael beiteinu in as effectively a coalition-building necessity. so the prospect this raises is a netanyahu government formed with a party well to the right of likud that favors *both* increased immigration into israel and--as a necessary correlate of that--an expansion of the settlements in the west bank.

here's a wikipedia summary of yisrael beiteinu's history and politics:
Yisrael Beiteinu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's the platform from the party's official webpage:
Israel beytenu

there is no way---no way at all--that these people are going to allow any coherent movement toward peace in the region.

netanyahu has already rejected a power-sharing deal with kadima, arguing that his politics--which are already quite foul---are more "naturally" of a piece with the extreme right. so there's a period of jockeying under way at the moment. i do not see any good alternatives except for a quick collapse of this government and new elections.

what do you make of these results?

hiredgun · 02-11-2009, 05:04 PM

The prospects for a centrist government are not good. Without Likud, it is difficult to envision a Kadima majority coalition, for such a coalition would have to include right-wing parties Shas or YB (which hate each other enough) along with Meretz and other left/Arab parties. It just doesn't seem likely that the parties will agree to such an arrangement, or that a government so composed would even be effective.

The other possibility is a Kadima-Likud government of national unity, but the right's posturing does not indicate that it takes this possibility seriously. Given that the right knows what it wants right now, why would Netanyahu give up the PM's seat when he can fairly easily secure a right-nationalist majority coalition?

If I am realistic, I think the only real question is to what degree YB's poisonous influence will take the coming Netanyahu government even further to the right. Given that, the only hope I see for peace prospects is that the formation of a far-right Israeli government might open up political space in the United States for the administration to make tough demands on Israel. But do I really think those demands will be answered? It doesn't seem likely...

roachboy · 02-12-2009, 05:13 AM

this is an interesting proposal for dealing with a rightwing israeli government with an unacceptable amount of power accrued to the far right:

Quote:

Abbas urges world to isolate Likud like it does Hamas
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas has conducted an international campaign in recent weeks aimed at the diplomatic isolation of a right-wing government headed by Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu. Abbas has been trying to convince the international community that such an Israeli government must face conditions similar to those faced by the Hamas government.

A senior political source in Jerusalem said Wednesday that the leaders of France, Britain and Italy have promised Abbas that they would not allow any new Israeli government delay or freeze the peace process. The same source said that Netanyahu's statements on continuing the peace process and on "economic peace" are perceived by Abbas and his aides as "empty promises."

As such the Palestinian Authority prepared a plan for "diplomatic resistance" to Israel. The purpose of the plan is to offer an alternative to the "military resistance" of Hamas and preserve Fatah as a relevant force, even in the absence of a peace process.

Making the rounds

Abbas met last week with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and discussed with them his deep concerns about the establishment in Israel of a right-wing government headed by Netanyahu. Abbas stressed that such a development means a death blow to the peace process. He also expressed concern that Netanyahu's leadership would result in renewed expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

During all his meetings, Abbas compared a right-wing government in Israel to the Palestinian unity government of Fatah and Hamas, which followed the Mecca Accords in 2007. "You refused to fully cooperate with such a government because Hamas did not meet the Quartet's conditions on ending terrorism and recognizing Israel," Abbas told the European leaders. "You will have to adopt a similar stance toward an Israeli government that will oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and genuine negotiations over the core issues of a permanent settlement," he added.

Abbas demanded that the three leaders adopt the Quartet's clear conditions for a right-wing government in Israel, including the agreement on a vision for two states, the Annapolis process which was backed by UN Security Council resolution 1850, and a freezing of construction in the settlements.

Seeking sanctions

The Palestinian leader added that if the new government in Israel does not meet these conditions it should be isolated, and sanctions should be imposed on it similar to those imposed on the Hamas government or the apartheid regime of South Africa.

Sarkozy, Brown and Berlusconi told Abbas that they will not accept a freeze in the peace process and an abandonment of the vision for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his British counterpart David Miliband stressed that "we will not allow Israel to perpetuate the occupation in the West Bank under the guise of economic gestures of good will."

Abbas urges world to isolate Likud like it does Hamas - Haaretz - Israel News

so far, the obama administration is staying away from direct comment on the outcomes--which are still in the air---except to say that they expect their agenda will be the frame for negociations regardless of what happens. i think that's naive.

but one outcome of the gaza atrocity seems to be that much of the rest of the planet is now willing to make a distinction between the israeli far right and israel in general, and to view the right for what it is.

how do you think the us should approach this?

guyy · 02-13-2009, 07:48 PM

If the people we don't like end up running the government, we should lay siege to Israel, but otherwise refuse to deal with them. Then we can invade them for a few weeks and kill a lot of kids and bomb schools and stuff.

Sticky · 02-17-2009, 10:12 AM

The most recent news is that
- Kadima has been talking with Yisrael Beitenu and therfore the other praties on the left are refusing to talk with Kadima about a coalition.
- Likud has approached some of the religious parties on the right to secure a large enough block to convince President Shimon Peres to allow Likud to try and form the government by finding more parties to join their block. They do not have an agreement with Yisrael Beitenu at this point.

Here is an interesting article from from a few days ago, written by Caroline Glick, on the choices available to Likud.
Column One: Enter the Netanyahu gov't | Columnists | Jerusalem Post

hiredgun · 02-18-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

The most recent news is that
- Kadima has been talking with Yisrael Beitenu and therfore the other praties on the left are refusing to talk with Kadima about a coalition.
- Likud has approached some of the religious parties on the right to secure a large enough block to convince President Shimon Peres to allow Likud to try and form the government by finding more parties to join their block. They do not have an agreement with Yisrael Beitenu at this point.

Here is an interesting article from from a few days ago, written by Caroline Glick, on the choices available to Likud.
Column One: Enter the Netanyahu gov't | Columnists | Jerusalem Post

Oh, Caroline Glick.

What's hilarious about this article is that it continually refers to Kadima, the party of Ariel Sharon, as a 'leftist' party. And I thought the US was confused about what it means to be on the political left.

This is interesting too:

Quote:

The generally ignored truth is that international hostility toward Israel is driven by factors extraneous to Israel. Consequently, Israel's governments have little ability to influence how foreign governments treat it, regardless of who forms those governments.

It's surreal but all too common to see written out this blithely: it makes no difference what we do, because our existential struggle bears no connection at all to our own actions.

And of course, here it is, the unsubtle factor distinguishing the loony-right in Israel from the regular ol' right: an absolute disdain for any concessions in the way of peace.

Quote:

Livni can hardly be expected to set aside her obsession with establishing a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria, particularly given that she seems convinced that she won the elections.

It seems then that for Ms Glick (oh how we've missed you) and her beloved Likud, the only remaining avenue to safeguard the security of Israeli citizens is by obliterating every last enemy or cowing them into submission militarily. We've seen how well that works over the last 60 years.

Sticky · 02-18-2009, 03:01 PM

The point was to look at what Natanyahu might be considering.
I am sure that you can agree that Caroline Glick could give a could perspective of what the right wing could be thinking.

That's all.

Do we all know that Caroline Glick is on the right? Yes. That is the point.

hiredgun · 02-18-2009, 05:37 PM

Sorry, Sticky - I didn't at all intend for that to come off as a criticism of the fact that you posted it - it was merely a way of engaging with the content you posted, and admittedly not a very effective way. My apologies.

I agree that her assessment of Netanyahu's options reflects accurately on the choice before him - it's the choice between a unity government and a far-right government. I do think that she underestimates the importance of Israel's image among key allies, especially the US; she seems to imply that Israel's standing has no impact on its ability to execute policy, and therefore he might as well stick with allies instead of rivals; Netanyahu probably understands that a Likud-Kadima government will be viewed quite differently than a Likud-Shas-Lieberman government, and will not dismiss the significance of this quite so casually. Still the choice is a bit of a toss-up.

I am, however, equally hopeless about either scenario as it relates to the prospects for any movement towards peace.

Sticky · 02-19-2009, 08:10 AM

I think you are correct about Natanyahu. He is very smart and he is also a very experienced politician - internally and externally.

I think that your points about the article are valid as well. I knew that posting a Caroline Glick article would raise questions about its content but we seem to both agree that it fits with what we were discussing.

I think that you also have a point about the prospects for peace, however, I want to make two comments:
1) One may be surprised with what someone does when they are in power vs. what they said when they were trying to get into power or when they were part of the opposition. We see this all the time all over the world in democracies. I feel that mainstream politicians are like this (whether this is right or wrong). They feel the pressures from all areas; the public, foreign governments, lobbyists, and their own desire to be in power. They compromise - maybe not alot but they compromise everyday. It is the politicians and governments on the far left or far right (who may come to power through revolution or coup) that ignore these pressures and don't compromise at all.
2) I think that you are most likely right with regards to our current idea of what peace is and what it should be. I don't have the answers but I do believe that we have been trying to get to a specific idea of "peace" in a specific manner for a long time. I think that we are ripe for a new way of doing things. Am I saying that Natanyahu has this new way? No. What I am saying is not to discount anything from the get-go. In our current reality it is very hard for us to think that there are any possibilities for change becuase we are often stuck in a certain way of thinking. Maybe we need to think of things in a whole new way. I am not saying that Natanyahu can do that. I am saying that we should try and do that.
The successful inventor is very rare. I think this is beacuse so many of us our stuck in our reality and the successful inventor is abel to get outside of it seeing the real problem or seeing the problem differently than any of us see it. He is therfore able to come up with a solution that nobody has even had the smallest thought about before.
This is what is needed here.

That is my opinion anyway.

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 09:26 AM

the logjam appears to be shifting, and not in a good way.

Quote:

Livni to Kadima: We're going to the opposition
By Yuval Azoulay and Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondents and Haaretz Service and Agencies

"Today the foundation was laid for an extreme right-wing government led by [Likud Chairman Benjamin] Netanyahu. This is not our way, and there is nothing for us in such a government," Kadima leader Tzipi Livni told party members on Thursday, after 65 MKs announced their decision to support Netanyahu for the post of prime minister-designate.

Kadima edged out Likud in the Feb. 10 election, capturing 28 seats compared to 27 for Likud. But in the 120-seat Knesset, Likud is in a better position to put together a coalition because of gains by extreme right-winger Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and other hard-line parties. It could be several weeks before a coalition is finally formed.

The candidate chosen to form the new government will have to recruit a majority of at least 61 MKs in the Knesset to his or her coalition, in order to establish a stable government.

It is up to President Shimon Peres to determine which candidate, Livni or Netanyahu, has a better chance of forming a successful coalition, but after more than 61 MKs have voiced their support for Netanyahu, it appears that his path to the premiership is already paved.

Livni went on to say "we weren't elected to legitimize this extreme right-wing government, and we must represent an alternative of hope and go to the opposition."

"Kadima will continue fighting for it beliefs and its path - a diplomatic arrangement based on two states for two peoples alongside an unrelenting war on terror, while addressing internal civil issues that require immediate remedy, most importantly an alteration of the current system of government and the marriage system and the creation of a true common ground to represent Israel's values as a democratic Jewish state," Livni continued.

Meanwhile, Peres was expected to summon Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni on Friday to finalize which one of the rivals should become Israel's next prime minister and begin the task of forming a government.

The president began consultations on Wednesday with Knesset factions' representatives, and is likely to decide over the weekend on which one of the pair to charge with the task of setting up a coalition.

Lieberman, meanwhile, endorsed Netanyahu for prime minister earlier Thursday, all but guaranteeing that the Likud leader would in fact be the next premier.

But Lieberman conditioned his support for Netanyahu on the Likud leader forging a broad coalition, including his rival, Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni.

"[There are] three possibilities from our point of view: A broad government, which is what we want. A narrow government, that will be a government of paralysis, but we don't rule out sitting in it. And the third option is going to elections, which will achieve nothing," the far-rightist told Peres.

Lieberman has emerged as the kingmaker of Israeli politics after the Feb. 10 election produced a deadlock between its two largest parties, and his backing of Netanyahu could be basis for a hardline government.

"We want a government of the three biggest parties, Likud, Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu," Lieberman added, without disclosing what he would do if a unity government proved impossible to achieve.

While touring the southern city of Sderot with U.S. Senator John Kerry, Livni said "Kadima represents a number of things Israel needs, from advancing the peace process and fighting terror to domestic issues that have to be addressed."

"Kadima won't provide cover for a government of paralysis," she said.

Meanwhile, Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit of Kadima said Lieberman's announcement backing Netanyahu did not come as a surprise.

"I knew from the start that this would be [Lieberman's] decision, and I don't understand why everyone is surprised," Sheetrit said.

He added: "Lieberman was never my cup of tea."

Likud officials welcomed Lieberman's announcement Thursday, and said the party would seek to forge a broad coalition regardless of the precondition set by Yisrael Beiteinu.

A Likud statement following the announcement said that Netanyahu would now attempt to convince Labor to join a coalition headed by him, and that a Netanyahu-Livni meeting would likely take place soon.

Kadima MK Yisrael Katz said party chairwoman Tzipi Livni would have to decide whether or not to join a government under Netanyahu.

"It is now up to [Livni] to make up her mind. Netanyahu has already made the magnanimous decision to ask her to join him in a broad coalition," Katz said.

The right-wing Jewish Home, Shas and National Union parties also said they would recommend Netanyahu on Thursday.

"I hope that a Netanyahu government will be broad and large, and meet with blessing," said Eli Yishai, the chairman of the ultra-Orthodox party, during a meeting with Peres.

Left-wing parties Labor and Meretz, meanwhile, said that they would not recommend any candidate for the position.

"The situation is already complicated and disturbing, with Yisrael Beiteinu recommending Israel's next prime minister. Our only option is to refrain from recommending anyone," said Labor chairman Ehud Barak.

"The picture is clear, and we are going to the opposition. In this reality, in my opinion, there is just one possibility, not to recommend any of the candidates for prime minister," added Barak, whose party garnered only 13 seats in the election. He made the comments in a faction meeting.

Meretz official Ilan Gilon informed Peres of the party's decision during a meeting with him on Thursday morning.

Peres intends to complete his consultations with all the faction representatives by Thursday night.

Livni to Kadima: We're going to the opposition - Haaretz - Israel News

i'm much more pessimistic about this than you are, sticky.
but i'm waiting to see how things shake out.

Sticky · 02-19-2009, 09:51 AM

Look. I am not hidding the fact that I am more to the right with regards to Israeli politics or any politics for that matter. Regadless, we have been surprised in the past. Look what Sharon did with disengaging from Gaza. Forget about whether we agree or not about whether it was a real disengagement or not and look at what he did internally in Israeli politics to make that happen.
Sharon was the die hard Right guy. A right that did not believe in giving anything to the Palestinians. He turns around and rejects that and the people who elected him and proposes this unilateral disengagement. Again forget about whether in hindsight it is a real disengagement or not becuase from the point of view of the Israeli at the time and the even now from the Israelis who used to live in Gaza this was a disengagement and it was counter to everything that Sharon was prior to that.

This is why I believe that anything can happen.

I believe that the mainstream politicians compromise. Maybe not a lot and maybe not as much as other may want them to, but they do.

I try to have a good outlook on things and be more optimistic but I am still closer to the realist side.
- I am Optimistic in that I believe that things COULD happen
- I am a realist in understanding that very few of the COULDs actually happen
- I am not a pessimist in that I don't walk around thinking that things can't happen.

Do I think there could be peace? With our currrent notion of what peace is; no, probably not.
Do I believe that there is some other notion (peace reality) out there that we can't see right now becuase we are incapable of seeing it. Yes. If I was able to see it I would be like the successful inventor that I mentioned before.

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 10:08 AM

there was an edito in haaretz a few days ago that made similar arguments.
the central claim wasn't that far from the logic behind the statement from the arab league about the prospect of a netanyahu prime ministership--at least the right will say no to your face....but the edito took it in a different direction. the claim was that the way to look at this is as a matter of "leadership"---the reality is, it continued, that a 2-state solution to the present conflicts over palestine is more or less inevitable. if that's the case, then it follows that something has to be done about the settlements in the west bank. (and this is not to get into the related question of jerusalem, which is critical but obviously terribly complicated..the quartet proposal of making a kind of international space of jerusalem seems to me interesting, but that's for down the road).

the edito then rehearsed some of the same points you make, sticky--that it was the right that dismantled the settlements in gaza, that it was the right was was willing to take the risk involved with doing that. which is a way of seeing all this.

what seems clear is that the logic of the Situation is heading toward a confrontation over the settlements. most of the more brutal aspects of the occupation---particularly if you consider the restrictions of movement and everyday harrassment of palestinians to be a form of brutality, which i do--and much of the extreme right political base is linked to the settlements.

i think that israel damaged itself significantly with the gaza adventure.
one variable that's not yet clear is what the exact line(s) is (are) that the obama administration will adopt--the early indications are that it is moving toward a more regionally oriented approach, including making approaches toward changing the relation with syria---which indicates that at the least the passive days of whatever the right wants goes insofar as the united states is concerned are over.

so it's not unreasonable to think that maybe the situation is not as grim as it appears.

on the other side, there's the nature of the rightwing coalition itself and the repellent figure of netanyahu himself...but he'll noit be in a position of particular stength in the context of the coalition that appears to be taking shape.

that's what the situation looks like to me at the moment.
i'm not particularly interested in optimism or pessimism as metaphysical constructs--which is why i said i am waiting to see how things shake out---but again, this is how things look this afternoon.

02-19-2009, 10:08 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there was an edito in haaretz a few days ago that made similar arguments. the central claim wasn't that far from the logic behind the statement from the arab league about the prospect of a netanyahu prime ministership--at least the right will say no to your face....but the edito took it in a different direction. the claim was that the way to look at this is as a matter of "leadership"---the reality is, it continued, that a 2-state solution to the present conflicts over palestine is more or less inevitable. if that's the case, then it follows that something has to be done about the settlements in the west bank. (and this is not to get into the related question of jerusalem, which is critical but obviously terribly complicated..the quartet proposal of making a kind of international space of jerusalem seems to me interesting, but that's for down the road). the edito then rehearsed some of the same points you make, sticky--that it was the right that dismantled the settlements in gaza, that it was the right was was willing to take the risk involved with doing that. which is a way of seeing all this. what seems clear is that the logic of the Situation is heading toward a confrontation over the settlements. most of the more brutal aspects of the occupation---particularly if you consider the restrictions of movement and everyday harrassment of palestinians to be a form of brutality, which i do--and much of the extreme right political base is linked to the settlements. i think that israel damaged itself significantly with the gaza adventure. one variable that's not yet clear is what the exact line(s) is (are) that the obama administration will adopt--the early indications are that it is moving toward a more regionally oriented approach, including making approaches toward changing the relation with syria---which indicates that at the least the passive days of whatever the right wants goes insofar as the united states is concerned are over. so it's not unreasonable to think that maybe the situation is not as grim as it appears. on the other side, there's the nature of the rightwing coalition itself and the repellent figure of netanyahu himself...but he'll noit be in a position of particular stength in the context of the coalition that appears to be taking shape. that's what the situation looks like to me at the moment. i'm not particularly interested in optimism or pessimism as metaphysical constructs--which is why i said i am waiting to see how things shake out---but again, this is how things look this afternoon. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-11-2009, 05:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	The prospects for a centrist government are not good. Without Likud, it is difficult to envision a Kadima majority coalition, for such a coalition would have to include right-wing parties Shas or YB (which hate each other enough) along with Meretz and other left/Arab parties. It just doesn't seem likely that the parties will agree to such an arrangement, or that a government so composed would even be effective. The other possibility is a Kadima-Likud government of national unity, but the right's posturing does not indicate that it takes this possibility seriously. Given that the right knows what it wants right now, why would Netanyahu give up the PM's seat when he can fairly easily secure a right-nationalist majority coalition? If I am realistic, I think the only real question is to what degree YB's poisonous influence will take the coming Netanyahu government even further to the right. Given that, the only hope I see for peace prospects is that the formation of a far-right Israeli government might open up political space in the United States for the administration to make tough demands on Israel. But do I really think those demands will be answered? It doesn't seem likely...

02-13-2009, 07:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	If the people we don't like end up running the government, we should lay siege to Israel, but otherwise refuse to deal with them. Then we can invade them for a few weeks and kill a lot of kids and bomb schools and stuff.

02-17-2009, 10:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
Sticky	The most recent news is that - Kadima has been talking with Yisrael Beitenu and therfore the other praties on the left are refusing to talk with Kadima about a coalition. - Likud has approached some of the religious parties on the right to secure a large enough block to convince President Shimon Peres to allow Likud to try and form the government by finding more parties to join their block. They do not have an agreement with Yisrael Beitenu at this point. Here is an interesting article from from a few days ago, written by Caroline Glick, on the choices available to Likud. Column One: Enter the Netanyahu gov't \| Columnists \| Jerusalem Post __________________ Sticky The Stickman

02-18-2009, 03:01 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sticky	The point was to look at what Natanyahu might be considering. I am sure that you can agree that Caroline Glick could give a could perspective of what the right wing could be thinking. That's all. Do we all know that Caroline Glick is on the right? Yes. That is the point. __________________ Sticky The Stickman

02-18-2009, 05:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Sorry, Sticky - I didn't at all intend for that to come off as a criticism of the fact that you posted it - it was merely a way of engaging with the content you posted, and admittedly not a very effective way. My apologies. I agree that her assessment of Netanyahu's options reflects accurately on the choice before him - it's the choice between a unity government and a far-right government. I do think that she underestimates the importance of Israel's image among key allies, especially the US; she seems to imply that Israel's standing has no impact on its ability to execute policy, and therefore he might as well stick with allies instead of rivals; Netanyahu probably understands that a Likud-Kadima government will be viewed quite differently than a Likud-Shas-Lieberman government, and will not dismiss the significance of this quite so casually. Still the choice is a bit of a toss-up. I am, however, equally hopeless about either scenario as it relates to the prospects for any movement towards peace.

02-19-2009, 08:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
Sticky	I think you are correct about Natanyahu. He is very smart and he is also a very experienced politician - internally and externally. I think that your points about the article are valid as well. I knew that posting a Caroline Glick article would raise questions about its content but we seem to both agree that it fits with what we were discussing. I think that you also have a point about the prospects for peace, however, I want to make two comments: 1) One may be surprised with what someone does when they are in power vs. what they said when they were trying to get into power or when they were part of the opposition. We see this all the time all over the world in democracies. I feel that mainstream politicians are like this (whether this is right or wrong). They feel the pressures from all areas; the public, foreign governments, lobbyists, and their own desire to be in power. They compromise - maybe not alot but they compromise everyday. It is the politicians and governments on the far left or far right (who may come to power through revolution or coup) that ignore these pressures and don't compromise at all. 2) I think that you are most likely right with regards to our current idea of what peace is and what it should be. I don't have the answers but I do believe that we have been trying to get to a specific idea of "peace" in a specific manner for a long time. I think that we are ripe for a new way of doing things. Am I saying that Natanyahu has this new way? No. What I am saying is not to discount anything from the get-go. In our current reality it is very hard for us to think that there are any possibilities for change becuase we are often stuck in a certain way of thinking. Maybe we need to think of things in a whole new way. I am not saying that Natanyahu can do that. I am saying that we should try and do that. The successful inventor is very rare. I think this is beacuse so many of us our stuck in our reality and the successful inventor is abel to get outside of it seeing the real problem or seeing the problem differently than any of us see it. He is therfore able to come up with a solution that nobody has even had the smallest thought about before. This is what is needed here. That is my opinion anyway. __________________ Sticky The Stickman

02-19-2009, 09:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
Sticky	Look. I am not hidding the fact that I am more to the right with regards to Israeli politics or any politics for that matter. Regadless, we have been surprised in the past. Look what Sharon did with disengaging from Gaza. Forget about whether we agree or not about whether it was a real disengagement or not and look at what he did internally in Israeli politics to make that happen. Sharon was the die hard Right guy. A right that did not believe in giving anything to the Palestinians. He turns around and rejects that and the people who elected him and proposes this unilateral disengagement. Again forget about whether in hindsight it is a real disengagement or not becuase from the point of view of the Israeli at the time and the even now from the Israelis who used to live in Gaza this was a disengagement and it was counter to everything that Sharon was prior to that. This is why I believe that anything can happen. I believe that the mainstream politicians compromise. Maybe not a lot and maybe not as much as other may want them to, but they do. I try to have a good outlook on things and be more optimistic but I am still closer to the realist side. - I am Optimistic in that I believe that things COULD happen - I am a realist in understanding that very few of the COULDs actually happen - I am not a pessimist in that I don't walk around thinking that things can't happen. Do I think there could be peace? With our currrent notion of what peace is; no, probably not. Do I believe that there is some other notion (peace reality) out there that we can't see right now becuase we are incapable of seeing it. Yes. If I was able to see it I would be like the successful inventor that I mentioned before. __________________ Sticky The Stickman