Hope in the Middle-east?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The latest developments in Israel fill me with a strange mixture of wonder, hope, skepticim and bafflement. For those who have not heard, Ariel Sharon has announced that he is leaving the Likud Party and forming a new centrist party to pursue peace plans. The idea of Ariel Sharon as a centrist peacemaker is an astounding one considering that for many years he was considered the most extreme symbol of Israeli aggressiveness. I still disagree with many/most of his policies and rhetoric, but the fact that this old warrior has bent as far as he has in an effort to help solve the insolvable does give me hope that perhaps real progress can be made.

[Cerin]

I've never really understood the complexities of that situation.

I recall hearing that Condi Rice proposed something recently that was also regarded as a hopeful sign.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin, I think what you may be referring to is the agreement that Secretary Rice helped to broker regarding opening the borders of the Gaza Strip. That was indeed an important step, because until that agreement was reached the Palestinians in Gaza were virtually isolated there. The agreement allows for economic development so crucial to making the eventual creation of a viable Palestinian state a real possibility.

I will, at some point in the future, explain my understanding of the complexities of the situation, not that I have really done an indepth analysis of the matter.

[Jnyusa]

[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.

Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]

[removed]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jn, I certainly understand your cynicsim on this issue. One of the interesting things to look for is to see what Shimon Peres does. The flip side of all this is that Peres was recently ousted as the head of the labor party by a gentleman namd Peretz (I forget his first name) who is far further to the left then Peres. There has been some talk that Peres will actually join Sharon in the new centrist party. That would be a watershed event.

From what I understand, when Sharon tries to form a new government, he will not be working with Likud, or the religious extremists to the right of the Likud. If that is true, he will almost inevitably have to work with the Labor Party.

I'm the biggest cynic there is when it comes to Middle-east politics, and particularly Israeli politics, but I can't help feeling that there is something different in the air now.

But only time will tell.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Berhael]

I have also been wondering over the last few months (ever since the withdrawal from Gaza was announced), what has made Sharon change so much? And cynical me started wondering what international pressures and deals must have been formed...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You know, when the Gaza withdrawal was first announced, I was completely opposed to it, because I saw it as an attempt by Sharon to dictate the terms of peace in the Middle-east. And I still think that initially that was the case. I think that it is the opposition that Sharon faced from other hardliners in his party and the settlers themselves that have pushed him further to the center.

How many people remember that a few years ago, there was an attempt to get Sharon indicted in The International Court of Justice in The Hague for war crimes, for his role in the massacre of Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon? Maybe he is just trying balance his ledger for when he meets his maker? He is, after all, 76 years old.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres quit the Labor Party on Wednesday, leaving his political home of nearly six decades to campaign for Ariel Sharon's new centrist party.

The 82-year-old Peres, who has held every major Cabinet position, left Labor after his humiliating loss to union leader Amir Peretz in the race for party leader three weeks ago.

He said he was supporting Sharon because he had the best chance of restarting the peace process with the Palestinians.

"This has not been an easy decision for me, but I found myself faced with the contradiction between the party of which I am a member, and the requirements of the political situation," Peres said.

"Without ignoring the deep connection that I have to the party's historical path and its members, I must prefer the more urgent and greater consideration ... My party activity has come to an end."

Peres' defection was a coup for the premier's new Kadima Party as the major political factions scramble to snare high-profile supporters before March parliamentary elections. Many Israelis respect Peres for his decades of service to the country, but some view him warily as a dove and political opportunist.

Under a reported deal worked out with Sharon, Peres would campaign for the prime minister without officially joining Kadima. If Sharon wins, Peres would receive a senior Cabinet post, either dealing with the peace process or with his pet project to develop Israel's sparsely populated Negev desert and northern Galilee regions.

"I don't believe that it is possible to push forward the peace process in the current political constellation," Peres said. "I believe the most qualified person for this is Ariel Sharon.

"He will restart the peace process right after the election. I decided to join him and work with him."

Peres shared the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize with assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for the Oslo interim peace accords with the Palestinians.

Sharon's new allies have said the prime minister, if re-elected, would strive to draw Israel's final borders and wrap up a peace agreement with the Palestinians in his third term. However, they have also said Israel wants to keep all of Jerusalem and the areas of the West Bank with large Jewish settlements _ an offer the Palestinians reject.

The alliance between Peres and Sharon, who have been both foes and occasional partners in the past three decades, caps a month of political upheaval.

The shake-up began in early November when Peretz ousted Peres as Labor Party chief. Barely two weeks later, Sharon, 77, announced he was quitting the Likud, which he helped found three decades ago, and was forming the moderate Kadima.

In a poll published Wednesday in the Yediot Ahronot daily newspaper, Kadima would win 34 seats in the 120-member parliament, up one from a survey last week.

Labor, Kadima's most likely coalition partner, also gained a seat, for a new total of 27, according to the poll by the independent Dahaf Institute.

Likud, which dominated Israeli politics for three decades, dropped from 40 to 10 seats, making it the fourth-largest party, after the ultra-Orthodox Shas. The poll had an error margin of 4 percentage points.

"Sharon blitzed the Likud," political analyst Hanan Crystal said on Israel Radio. "He took one-third of the party (legislators) and most Likud voters."

Dalia Itzik, a former Labor Cabinet minister who defected to Kadima on Tuesday and is considered to be close to Peres, said the decision-making process was difficult for the former prime minister.

"It sounds like a cliche _ you're leaving the home. It is really hard. These are your friends, this is your family, this is your milieu. It is really difficult," Itzik told Israel's Army Radio.

Late Tuesday, Sharon picked up more political clout, with 72 mayors, most from Labor and Likud, attending a meeting at his official residence in Jerusalem. Many of the mayors declared their support for Sharon, saying they were disenchanted with their own movements.

Sharon's party does not have a grass-roots organization yet, and the mayors could help fill the gap.

"I came to join his new party, Kadima, after my party was taken over by different people who threw out the landlords," said Rishon Lezion Mayor Meir Nitzan, who handed back his Labor Party membership card _ signed in 1950 by Israel's founder David Ben-Gurion _ during the dinner at Sharon's house.

"The right place, based on what I see, based on the platform being formed, is in Sharon's party," Nitzan told Israel's Army Radio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/ ... 47G2.shtml

For anyone who has been following Israeli politics for the past 30 years or so, this is as unimaginable as anything I can think of.

Wow. Just, wow.

[Impenitent]

I'm back-pedalling breathlessly, trying to work out what's going on in Israeli politics - all my constructs have toppled in this last month.

There is a real possibility that this new party will get to govern in coalition, but I hold grave doubts as to the direction. Both Peres (his peace prize notwithstanding) and Sharon are wiley dogs and excellent political operators and survivors and I have little doubt that the guiding principle under which both operate has to do with getting and keeping power.

Whether they use this power for good will depend on how many deals they need to enter into, and whether the good of the country segues with what is good for them personally.

I remember for years and years the catch-cry regarding Arafat was "a leopard can't change his spots" - and Arafat didn't, right to the end there were appearances and there was reality. Same catch-cry can apply Sharon and Peres.

True, they are aging, and they do want to leave a mark on this world, to be remembered. But just because they want to create a good final image doesn't mean they want to do the right thing. I'm a cynic, though.

IMO, political change will coincide with generational change - whether for the better or for the worse, who can say.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for your thoughts, Impy. I am inclined to agree with them, but I too am very cynical, particularly when it comes to Middle-East and Israeli politics. Your example of Arafat is very apt. Just when it seemed that he had changed, something else would make it clear that he had not. And I have little hope that Abbas can become a true partner for peace, not because he does not want to, but because he doesn't have the charisma or influence to get Hammas and Islamic Jihad etc. under control.

But maybe, just maybe, this time ... . I always think that, and I'm always disappointed. But maybe this time ... .

[Ethel]

Hope and disappointment both seem to spring eternal in the Middle East. I remember the day back in the 90's when they ran that picture of Rabin and Arafat shaking hands. My exact words were, "Did hell just freeze over?"

But nothing really changed. This recent development is a big shift in Israeli internal politics. I hope it makes a difference.

[Frelga]

Honestly, I don't think anything will change in Middle-East for as long as any peace overtures are unilateral. The reality is that for a large and most violent faction the goal is not establishment of Palestinian state, but destruction of the Jewish state as an entity. Any concessions on the Israelian side are interpreted by these factions as a sign of weakness and followed, not by reciprocating compromise but by renewed violence.

That does not mean that Israel is perfect, whatever that's supposed to mean, or that there is no pro-war faction there. But it does have a significant pro-peace faction. Until we see a corresponding pro-peace movement in Arab countries, there will be no hope for lasting peace.

It takes but one foe to breed war, not two.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very depressing.

[Cerin]

This was rather satisfying to read:

Israel has suspended contact with evangelist Pat Robertson for suggesting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

Although, why were they in 'contact' with him in the first place?!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Its hard to see much Hope for peace in the Middle-east now, with Hamas defeating the corruption-plagued Fatah Party in Palestinian parliamentary elections. The only ray of hope that I see is this; perhaps the responsibility of actually governing the lands controlled by the Palestian authority will serve to moderate Hamas hard-line stance, just as Sharon evolved from the ultimate Israeli hardliner to the centrist peace-seeker.

Polls taken a couple of days ago show that the Kadima Party founded by Sharon was well ahead of both Labor and Likud in the upcoming March elections, even with Sharon out of the picture and interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the helm. But it is certainly too early to tell, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas' surprising victory spurs a movement for Likud. That would be disastrous, in my opinion.

Here is an encouraging article that I found, from a periodical called The Jewish Exponent:

So What If Hamas Wins the Vote?

M.J. Rosenberg
According to comprehensive polls of the Palestinian and Israeli populations, the two peoples are moving closer on the key issues that have divided them in the past. If the polls translate into votes in the Jan. 25 Palestinian election and the March 28 Israeli election, progress toward resolution of the conflict would seem to be inevitable.

Unfortunately, only the Israeli electorate appears likely to vote in accordance with the polls'' findings. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert''s Kadima Party holds a commanding lead. And Olmert is running as a centrist, ready for compromise with the Palestinian Authority, and for confrontation with settlers in the illegal outposts and their fanatical brethren in Hebron.

It is on the Palestinian side where the attitudes reflected in the polls seem not to be translating into votes. Hamas continues to gain strength in the legislative elections (the presidential election took place last year, and President Mahmoud Abbas remains in the office no matter what the result this month), while Abbas'' Fatah continues to lose it. It''s even possible that Hamas will win the election, something few would have considered a few months ago.

What''s going on?

Israelis have given up on the idea of Greater Israel, and are resigned to a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state and the dismantling of settlements. Barring some unforeseen event, they appear ready to vote accordingly.

A significant new poll of Palestinian attitudes points in the same direction. The poll, conducted by Palestinian pollster Dr. Khalil Shikaki for the United States Institute of Peace''s Project on Arab-Israeli Futures, finds that "for the first time since the start of the peace process, a majority of Palestinians support a compromise settlement that is acceptable to a majority of Israelis."

According to the USIP-sponsored poll, "a majority of Palestinians are willing to accept the two-state solution by which "Palestinians recognize Israel ''as the state of the Jewish people'' and Palestine [the West Bank and Gaza] ''as the state of the Palestinian people.'' In June 2003, 52 percent supported and 46 percent opposed this formula, and by September 2005 support rose to 63 percent and opposition dropped to 35 percent."

The idea that Palestinians can be beaten into submission is precisely wrong - and not just morally. The more painful and onerous the occupation feels, the more Palestinians move toward support for terrorism and opposition to the kind of approach represented by Mahmoud Abbas and others like him.

The current high levels of support for a two-state solution is primarily a product of the cease-fire and a reduction in violence that has taken hold since the death of Yasser Arafat.

The only fly in this ointment is the strong possibility that Hamas will run strongly in next week''s election. If Palestinians support accommodation with Israel, why would they vote for a party that doesn''t?

The answer is that a vote for Hamas is not necessarily a vote for Hamas'' stance on Israel.

Virtually every observer of the Palestinian scene - and the polls as well - show that the main appeal of Hamas is its apparent incorruptibility. Most Palestinians view the Palestinian Authority (and the Fatah Party that controls it) as hopelessly corrupt, inefficient and dominated by cronyism. Arafat is gone, but the kind of governance he represented is thriving. Mahmoud Abbas has simply not been able to clean house.

Hamas promises that it will. It plays down its views on peacemaking. It will be important to bear this point in mind as the votes come in.

It may also not correlate into Palestinians giving up on the two-state idea. The Shikaki poll shows that the very opposite is the case, which means that Hamas will have no mandate to reignite the intifada.

We may not like the results of the Palestinian election, but if they are designated "free and fair" by the U.S. National Democratic Institute and the other international observers, we will have to figure out some way to come to terms with them.

And here''s the good news. A Hamas in power will itself have to come to terms with a Palestinian populace that supports its social programs and lack of corruption, but opposes its stance on Israel. That''s why the diplomatic process will survive Wednesday''s Palestinian election (and certainly Israel''s on March 28).

Public opinion matters in democracies, which is why a democratic Palestinian election is a step in the right direction, even if we don''t like the guys who win.

http://www.jewishexponent.com/ViewArtic ... ArtID=2255

[Cerin]

Thank you for posting that, Voronwë. I was profoundly disappointed after hearing the voting results, and with my limited knowledge I would not have been able to find any ray of hope in the situation.