Bye Bye Kadima

[Englander]

By Moshe Arens

Soon it will be time to say good-bye to Kadima, this incongruous political party that, like a flash in a pan, suddenly appeared on the Israeli political scene, brandishing a single issue platform - disengagement, unilateral withdrawal, convergence, realignment, or whatever else you want to call it - claiming that this was the panacea for all of Israel's ills, and a recipe for the existence of Israel as a "democratic Jewish state" that would become "a fun place to live in." Nothing resembling this phenomenon has ever been seen on the Israeli political scene, or for that matter in other democratic countries.

Spin doctors and snake-oil salesmen succeeded in marketing it to much of the Israeli public. It will surely be fertile ground for future doctoral dissertations in political science and mass psychology. There have been new-born parties that appeared at election time, here and elsewhere, but they have never before succeeded in winning an election. The time is approaching - better sooner rather than later - when this party will leave the political scene. What began as a political "big bang" will be going out as a whimper. Curtain time is approaching for Kadima.

This party is composed of chameleon-like politicians, renegades from the Likud and rejects from Labor, in addition to some naive novice politicians who believed there was nothing more noble than answering Sharon's call to enlist in the cause of disengagement. Unilateral withdrawals served as the common ideological denominator for the men and women on Kadima's Knesset list. That, in addition to the public opinion polls predicting a great victory for Kadima in the elections, and the knowledge that by a wave of the hand by Sharon or Olmert, without having to electioneer among the non-existent rank and file of the Kadima party, they would be assured of a seat in the Knesset. Now that the concept of unilateral withdrawals, in Lebanon and Gaza, has been exposed as a no-brainer for all to see, and the leaders of Kadima - Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni - have been shown to be incompetent to fill leadership positions in times of crisis, the only question that remains is how much longer Kadima will hang in there and continue to lead Israel at this crucial time.

More at;
Haaretz

[enigma000]

1. Hezbollah wins

and the Palestinians lose - the withdrawal from the West Bank is on hold.

[Englander]

2. Apartheid-esque bantustans = not withdrawal. n/t

[The Magistrate]

4. Better, Still, Sir, Even If One Granted That For Purposes Of Debate

Than the present military administration. For all Mr. Arens' glee, this is not really a good development. The election of Kadima did reflect a real prefernce on the part of Israelis generally for disengagement from the lands over-run in '67, and the consequences of events discrediting this desire will not be good for either side. While unilateral action may have many flaws as a course towards settlement of the question, it has this sovereign virtue, that it can actually be done upon the decision to do it.

[Tom Joad]

6. The thing is though, people are calling it "withdrawal" which is really

deceptive. At least it should be called limited or partial withdrawal.

But to hear some tell the fantasy, Israel was all set to end the occupation.

[The Magistrate]

8. It Would Still, Sir

Represent a real improvement for the daily lives of most inhabitants of the area, and might prove, or perhaps, unfortunately and more precisely, might have proved, to be a stepping stone to further improvement.

[Tom Joad]

9. My point is that you can't call that Israeli withdraw.

If i stole $86,000 from you, and you were left with pocket change and a conflict ensued, third parties came to my defense, and called me a "man of peace" and i was getting set to send you back a full $5,000 ... your life may then improve. I suspect, however, that you would protest me or other parties calling that "full restitution".

I don't think anyone supporting human rights (as opposed to the settlers, who oppose human rights, and their fanatical supporters in the West) was opposed to Israel's tearing down its remote outposts. But calling it "Israel's withdraw from the West Bank" is just fantasy.

[The Magistrate]

11. Any Attempt To Pursue That Example, Sir

Would probably begin with jiggering the amounts. It is unclear what points you are setting those amounts as equivalents of.

My understanding of the matter, anyway, was that a sizeanble withdrawl of soldiers was contemplated, as was the case in Gaza, and that is the principle gain envisioned.

[Tom Joad]

3. What withdraw? That was Never, Never, on the table from Kadima. It was

a "convergence", or realigning of the Jewish population in the West Bank. The Kadima party was planning to virtually annex large parts of the West Bank. It was going to leave a few scattered outposts is all.

[enigma000]

5. The Magistrate said it better than I ever could (above)

Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres and others left Likud and Labour to form Kadima, which had the goal of withdrawing from the much of the West Bank. This was the point of the new party. They ran on that platform and the Israeli public voted them into office.

I can only imagine the Israeli people are less supportive of a withdrawal from the West Bank after what happened this summer.

[Tom Joad]

7. Look at the maps, dammit. Notice also that Israel also takes much of the

Jordan Valley.

This ain't no withdraw. Boys that "withdraw" like this get girls pregnant.

[enigma000]

10. For a withdrawal to work, it would have to include all areas

east of the wall. The map only shows 9.5% of the West Bank (7.4%+2.1%) west of the wall.

Besides, that was February 2005, long before Sharon split with Likud.

[Tom Joad]

12. Here is a link to a more detailed map.

too big to post.
http://www.strategicassessments.org/library/Disengagement/SAI%20ITAG%20DISENGAGEMENT%20MAP.pdf

If you have more recent maps showing "a withdraw", feel free to post.

[enigma000]

13. I could find nothing else - I guess the government wanted to keep it

under wraps until it was all set to go. Whatever the plan was, there was a belief in Israeli society that it was time to leave some of the West Bank. Olmert had pledged to set permanent borders by 2010, with or without a negotiated settlement. The will to leave was there.

Now, I'm not so sure. Likud is looking more popular.

[Tom Joad]

14. Yes, the extreme Right is poised to take over. again.

it will be vigorously defended here by a few. again.

What Olmert planned was not only "permanent borders", but annexation of more Palestinian land to Israel, to be kept for Jewish people only.