Analysis: Israeli politics in flux (Likud could be reduced to 9 seats)

State of decay

Sharon's new party did not cause a political earthquake in Israel; it expresses a mood and attitude that has prevailed among the Israeli right since the first Intifada. Large segments of the Israeli right have reached the conviction that Israel needs the establishment of a Palestinian state-like entity in order to extricate Israel from its demographic predicament. This conviction, however, stops well short of the conclusions that the creation of such a Palestinian state requires Israel's withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 borders, the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements and the recognition of the Palestinian right to return. In representing this conviction, Sharon's new party is in line with Washington's position as embodied in Bush's letters of guarantee to Sharon in April 2004. It also presents a purer expression of this conviction than the newly reconstituted Likud with its hard- core settler advocates, such as Moshe Feiglin, and its new ideologues who are revamping the party line preparatory to the facedown between Netanyahu and Sharon.

The creation of a new party, such as Kadima (Forward), on the eve of Knesset elections and after years of debate and political rifts brought to the surface by the unilateral disengagement plan, is perfectly valid from the standpoint of political party politics. What is not valid is the conclusion that Sharon has changed or that there is now a move in Israel towards a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian cause. Even less legitimate is that attempt to provide an ideological gloss for Arab weakness with the claim that Sharon has changed and that now the Arabs have an opportunity they must not forfeit. With this latest fad, ruling families in Arab states -- if we are to judge by recent statements and "conjectures" by their leaders in the press -- are now caught between two "alternatives": either to grasp the new opportunity presented by the new Sharon or to hold out hope for the new Labour Party leader Amir Peretz. We will have other opportunities, however, to return to this conundrum; for the moment we'll concentrate on what is not legitimate from the standpoint of democratic theory.

What is taking place in Israel's parliamentary democracy is the subordination of the political party to the political personality. Now the political game in Israel is for the individual politician to do all in his power to hold on to his office, or to make a grab for office, or to wangle his way into a position to participate in the decision- making process, or at least to manoeuvre himself so as to appear to be taking part in decision-making. Political party boundaries, platforms, ideological positions and other such considerations, which should form the bases for the election of a party's candidate to parliament, are secondary.

The phenomenon we are discussing here has nothing to do with extraordinary personalities who have attained political celebrity status by virtue of their charisma or unique accomplishments. Rather, we are talking about your run-of-the-mill career politician who has set his personal and professional ambitions as his compass for political activity regardless of political party or ideological lines. And, as this phenomenon runs rampant, the journalist's task becomes one of keeping track of, or second-guessing, the politician's movements. Will the MP leave his party or stay? Will Party Y take him on board its list? And, if so, will he be elected to parliament or get appointed to the government office he is after -- his success at attaining this or that position being the end rather than the means for promoting a party agenda.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/773/op2.htm

Even less legitimate is that attempt to provide an ideological gloss for Arab weakness with the claim that Sharon has changed and that now the Arabs have an opportunity they must not forfeit.

Because I'm sure hearing that meme, particularly in the comments about how since Sharon withdrew from Gaza that the ball is totally in the Pals court and that they virtually have to stop all terrorism before any other positive actions could possibly be considered. I've even heard that as a somewhat veiled justification for the continuation of the building of settlements, or of the appropriation of more Pal land, by the construction of the wall. Meanwhile, Israeli retaliation for any Pal violence makes sure the violence keeps coming. A very neat box the Pals have been painted into.

None of this is a big surprise, of course.

Sharon withdrew from Gaza that the ball is totally in the Pals court and that they virtually have to stop all terrorism before any other positive actions could possibly be considered

________

excuse my reaction...but what the fuck do you think pulling out of gaza was?.....it was a "positive action"..for the palestenains....and what exactly is wrong with asking the palestenains in gaza to stop shooting missles at israeli cities? their reaction to israels good faith move?

and what exactly is your proposal for israel to do when palestenains shoot missles at israelis?

but this is most interesting:
Israeli retaliation for any Pal violence makes sure the violence keeps coming

maybe the onus is for the Palestenians to stop with the violence?..maybe the blame should be on them?....maybe they should stop?..and if israel doesnt defend itself?....this is your suggestion..let the palestenians shoot, aim better, take their time, improve their missles, so they can better kill israelis, maybe their improved missles will hit ashkelon next time instead of falling short....really good suggestion

Coincides with my own assessment, somewhat. We always like people that agree with us, eh?

When you factor in the "I'm a looney" strategy of Anh-an-idjit in Iran, the things going on WRT Lebanon-Syria, and of course the continuing crisis in Iraq, it's a depressing landscape.

Doesn't take a PhD to connect the dots...

nothing new here....threat upon israel...new elections...happens every election, happens inbetween elections and few get excited over it.

what does effect elections is israelis getting killed, not the threat, the threat is a given everyday, every week, every month