NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/02/sharon.referendum/index.html)

Although I woulda like Israel to pull out of W Bank and Gaza, I'd rather it have been a proposal for a FULL pullout

Supposedly Sharon may have to revamp his cabinet because of this - maybe he'll put in some liberals this time


And if most Jewish people are liberal how did he come to power in the 1st place???

Most Jewish people are moderately liberal.... the reason why Sharon came to power, though, was due to general Israeli dissatisfaction with Barak. Sharon blatantly used this to his advantage in a provocative visit to the Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa in 2000 which sparked the intifada which has only begun to die out through heavily repressive measures taken by Sharon.

But most Likud members are not liberal- some (but not all) may agree with the proposed pullout from Gaza but it's fair to say a majority oppose any withdrawal whatsoever from the West Bank, because that area contains the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria which the Jews claim as their own. Generally, most Israelis sympathise with this but see it as unrealistic to attempt to claim the West Bank for Jews alone- the failure of the vote today among Likud party members therefore makes it more likely that Sharon will now try to propose his plan to the Israeli population as a whole, in which case it will probably succeed, and rightly so... if Sharon, after many decades of strong opposition to any concessions being made to the Palestinians whatsoever, and after a military career in which he either (arguably) committed, (probably) ordered, or (without a doubt) acquiesced in the murder of innocent Palestinians, now sees the only way to peace as being within concessions and negotiations, surely this plan must have some merit- even though it hardly leaves the Palestinians in a comfortable position. But given today's events, chances are there will be a vote to the general Israeli public later this summer, after both liberals and right-wingers have been able to tinker with the original plan a little...

There are some inaccuracies here that should be addressed:

First, Sharon's proposal has not been "defeated". The Likud has voted not to support it. That, however, does not determine anything as far as the actual proposal is concerned. It might still be put to a Knesset vote, for instance, as Justice Minister Lapid of Shinui has suggested.

Second, it is inaccurate to say "maybe Sharon will put some liberals in his cabinet this time"- Sharon originally tried to have a Likud-Shinui-Labor coalition, and Labor refused- rightfully so, in my opinion. This, however, forced Sharon to include the far-right NRP in his coalition.

Although I woulda like Israel to pull out of W Bank and Gaza, I'd rather it have been a proposal for a FULL pullout

What does that mean?

And if most Jewish people are liberal how did he come to power in the 1st place???

One can be "liberal" on one issue and not on others. Also, the political spectrum, particularly in Israel, is far more complex than merely "liberal/conservative". Ideologically, the Likud is centrist-rightist, not "conservative" per se.

Sharon blatantly used this to his advantage in a provocative visit to the Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa in 2000 which sparked the intifada which has only begun to die out through heavily repressive measures taken by Sharon.

Actually, this is incorrect. The Intifada began several days prior to Sharon's provocative visit. He helped throw gasoline on the fire, but he didn't start it.

But most Likud members are not liberal

Correct. Most are centrist-rightists, and largely secular security hawks and nationalists, although there are religious nationalist camps within it.

some (but not all) may agree with the proposed pullout from Gaza but it's fair to say a majority oppose any withdrawal whatsoever from the West Bank, because that area contains the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria which the Jews claim as their own.

I don't think this is correct. There is certainly a sphere within the Likud that agrees with that ideology, but it is more commonly found among religious nationalists such as the NRP and Gush Emunim.

This article does an excellent job of summing up the various positions of the Likud and the Israeli left. The author describes three segments of the Israeli right-wing:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1083207633896

One of the difficulties of describing the view of the Right is that there is no "view." There are many shared conclusions but, unlike the Left, few shared premises.

Begin with the so-called security hawks. For them, the primary value of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights is that they provide Israel with vital military advantages: strategic depth, advantageous terrain, natural resources (particularly water) and, in the case of Gaza, control of a hostile, restive population.

...Security hawks are mostly secularists; their attachment to the territories is strictly a function of their military assessments. By contrast, for religious Zionists, Judea and Samaria serve both an ontological and teleological function: the former, because the territories are the Abrahamic patrimony, which no Israeli government has a right to relinquish; the latter, because they presage Messianic redemption. For national Zionists, the "natural" border of Israel is the Jordan River, more land is better than less land, and what the Arabs lost by virtue of their past aggressions is Israel's to keep.

Then there are the Palestinians. For security hawks, Palestinians are a security problem, to be dealt with as necessity dictates, sometimes with carrots and sometimes with sticks. For religious Zionists, the sons of Ishmael may pose a discreet moral dilemma - should they be dealt with humanely, as Cyrus dealt with the Jews; or harshly, as David dealt with the Philistines? - but no ideological dilemma; Judea and Samaria are not their promised land.

As for the national Zionists, their view is, what Palestinians? They are Arab squatters with no history as an independent political entity and no specifically national connection to the land. If anything, it is they and not the Jews who are the real colonialists, as attested by the fact that "Palestine" has always been a colonial coinage, whether Roman or British. To national Zionists, then, Palestinians are like foreign workers, and they are here on Israeli sufferance. If they behave, as they did between 1967 and 1987, they may enjoy the economic advantages of a modern economy; if they don't, then they must be dealt with.

Obviously, there are some of each of these "camps" within the Likud, but it's a mistake to say that the majority of Likudniks are religious Zionists. That's just not accurate.

Generally, most Israelis sympathise with this but see it as unrealistic to attempt to claim the West Bank for Jews alone

According to whom? Cite a source, please.

Edit: Another link- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/422418.html

Likud members should understand the meaning of the choice they are making: should they vote against the separation plan, they will separate themselves both from the majority in Israel (according to all public opinion polls, a strong majority of Israelis supports the plan) and also from the prime minister who sponsored the initiative and who has put his own personal prestige on the line for it. A Likud party that rejects the plan will go back to being an extremist right-wing party. It will evince loyalty to the ideological heritage left by Herut party founders Menachem Begin and Haim Landau, yet it will also be alienated from Israel's mainstream. The pretense of being the "party of the state" - a slogan cherished by Likud regulars, and which has been bandied about during Likud's on-and-off control of the state for the past 27 years - will be exposed as a lie.

Likud's self-definition as a party of Israel's political center requires a measure of ideological compromise and pluralism; and so opposition to disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria will return Likud to the narrow ideological slot it held before 1977, the year in which it was transformed into the Knesset's largest party and formed a government (which compromised about its positions and worked out a peace agreement with Egypt).

Fascinating analysis.