The prospect of the Israeli Right consuming itself in the Likud’s upcoming party leadership primary on September 25-26th is quite tantalizing for this inveterate supporter of the Israeli peace camp. Ariga.com has noted the sheer lunacy of the party’s internal leadership turning against Ariel Sharon, its titular head, the most popular politician in the country, and someone who would undoubtedly lead them back to another four years of governing.
It would be crazy for the Likud to dump Sharon, the biggest vote getter in Israel nowadays, guarantor that the ruling party continues to rule.
In essence, the ruling party in Israel is now moving to depose its leader, whose popularity in the polls of the general electorate has risen in the wake of the disengagement. With Netanyahu at their head, say the polls, the Likud can expect to lose as much as half its representation in the Knesset. At the head of his own party [Likud], Sharon could still come out of the elections as Israel’s next premier – or even, unbelievably, as the head of a party that joins a coalition led by none other than Shimon Peres as head of Labor. The same polls that show Netanyahu roundly defeating Sharon inside the Likud, show that Peres at the head of Labor could defeat Netanyahu at the head of the Likud. In short, for the third time since 1992, it appears the Right will bring down its own prime minister.
If, as currently appears supremely possible, Likud tosses Sharon out I’m guessing that he might take his Likud supporters and create a moderate-Right party to compete head to head with Netanyahu in the next elections. If both Sharon’s faction and Labor do reasonably well (the latter is not a given considering recent election debacles), there could be a center-Right coalition governing Israel in the next four years. If the coalition can hold together much could be accomplished on the road to peace.
But there are so many “ifs” in this scenario that it’s little more than an exercise in Shoot the Moon. Wouldn’t it be nice if this were possible?
Let no one think I’ve become a fan of Sharon’s. Of course, I’d prefer a center-Left Israeli majority. But that just isn’t in the offing since the Israeli center and Left has been in total disarray since Barak was pummeled two elections ago.
In an otherwise clear-eyed editorial on this crisis, the New York Times closed with this almost beside-the -point statement:
Members of the Likud Party would be foolish and shortsighted to punish him for the Gaza withdrawal and thus reduce the chances of any further progress toward peace. If they do, they may well deprive their party of any chance of leading Israel to the peace and security that it wants and deserves.
Clearly, the Likud hawks want to “reduce the chances of any further progress toward peace.” In their eyes, it is the peace of the soft, the peace of the gutless. They’re certainly aware that by turning on Sharon they will be turned out of power. But they’ve made a calculation that by remaining in power they will continue to be accomplices to Sharon’s “capitulation.” And they would rather be honorable, pure and powerless than compromisers and traitors to their nationalist beliefs.
Can we stop bickering about matters abroad long enough to look at matters here? Our current pressing need is relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Immediate social action is needed: refugees from the drowned city need places to stay for the next six weeks, along with food, water, and schooling. Everyone should see how they and their community can help.
Look, just because 90% of the U.S. blogosphere is talking about Katrina doesn’t mean EVERYONE has to. If Richard wants to talk about something else, that’s his right. Besides, I’ve been reading so much about Katrina in the newspapers and hearing so much about it on NPR, that reading about something else is a good diversion, a reminder that there IS a world outside our borders. So take that holier-than-thou attitude someplace else, OK?
I would expect that Richard has nothing but compassion for the victims of Katrina. “Bickering” is not at all what he was doing here, either. Maybe there was a little Schadenfreude, but nothing nearly as bitter as the currency of punditry.
The beautiful thing about the realm of blogging is that people can talk about what’s important or interesting to them. They set the agenda, rather than a blood-leads-first tv producer. If a blogger doesn’t want to talk about the same thing at the top of the list of the mainstream news agenda, more power to them.
I have a feeling I’ll be blogging about something unrelated to Katrina tonight.
Amen to that. Case in point: on Monday, as Katrina was bearing down on Louisiana and threatening to flatten the Gulf Coast, both Honolulu newspapers decided that that didn’t trump the real news story of the day…the world champion West Oahu Little Leaguers coming home to a hero’s welcome. We all have priorities, after all. Bad news need not trump good.
Hi Guys
I’m an Israeli so have some opinions on this subject. Also can appreciate Keith’s interest; I’m stoked that Israel is close to getting into the World Cup! But back to Likud, the party I was registered with in two elections, then switched, no, not to Labor, but a nationalistic coaltion party. Netanyahu is a wonderful SPOKESMAN to English-speakers. Though I voted for him in the past, I think his ego is over the top. The country is NOT going to dispose of Sharon. I have to say, those of us who elected him found him disappointingly moderate, as his campaign rhetoric was very aggressive.
Bros, have ANY of you ever met an Arab who lives in the MIddle East (actually I prefer to call it western Asia) and ASKED them WHAT they mean when they say ‘peace?’ They mean NO JEWS OR WESTERNERS IN THE AREA. Compromise is not part of their ‘raid and take’ beduin mentality. Oh, I know that’s not politically correct, that’s why I moved to Israel! Since we started moving back there, on purchased land, in the 1890’s we always were willing to co-exist with them, but the feeling ain’t mutual.
Where to start w. a comment like this one? First, Netanyahu is a political goon who has come to represent Likud’s most extreme wing. His main political purpose is to serve as ‘Mr. Nyet’ to Sharon’s slightly more malleable positions.
Laurel’s views of Arabs are of course as racist as they come & she recognizes this herself but feels no compunctions about her views. She seems to feel that in Israel it is normal and acceptable to hold such twisted views. And perhaps she’s right (at least in certain wide circles). And that is part of the tragedy that is the Middle East.
Needless to say, she knows nothing about Arabs. Have you ever met a single Arab, Laurel? Have you ever had a conversation with one about the subject you claim to know so much about: their views of ‘peace’?
You know that as long as the Laurels of Israel represent a majority (& they probably do at present) there can never be peace.