Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (65117)	1/9/2003 2:03:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The thing that surprises me, given, again what you've put here and others, is that Labor has gained as much as this from Likud's losses. If I recall from these readings correctly, Labor had 26 seats. If they are at 24 and climbing now, they could basically stay even I'd be more inclined to believe Yediot's figure of 22 mandates for Labor than Ha'aretz' of 24. But the situation is volatile and I have no idea how it will play out in the end. My take, fwiw, is that support for Likud-the-party is very volatile (they sure haven't done themselves any favors lately) but that support for Sharon as PM will hold in the end, because I think most Israelis trust Sharon to put Israel's interests ahead of his own, and there isn't any other politician they feel that way about right now. But to support Sharon, you have to vote Likud. I've felt that the failure of the hardline tactics to reduce suicide bombing would reduce Likud votes sometime. Just hard to tell when I don't get any sense, not the least, that this dynamic is at play, except among those who were pro-Meretz or Labor to begin with. And an awful lot of people who used to vote Labor will vote for Shinui or Likud or one of the small parties, like Yisrael B'Aliyah.

To: JohnM who wrote (65117)	1/9/2003 9:52:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Just another thought on your comment I've felt that the failure of the hardline tactics to reduce suicide bombing would reduce Likud votes sometime. Just hard to tell when. I'm just listening to The Connection on NPR, which has Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz on to comment on the Israeli election. (First time I've ever heard actual Likud voters on NPR, but I digress) An American caller asked the reasonable question, "Look, Sharon has been Prime Minister for two years now, and the terror attacks have been the worst ever. If people are voting on security, why aren't they saying, get rid of this guy, it isn't working?" Ari Shavit answered by saying, for twenty-five years after 1973, most Israelis blamed their own government for the continuing violence. But in 2000, when Ehud Barak slaughtered nearly every sacred cow in Israeli politics, offered 97% of the territories, offered to dismantle most settlements and share Jerusalem, and was answered not with peace but with suicide bombers, there was a sea change in the Israeli voters. They said to themselves, this violence is not our fault. The Israeli psyche has been thrown back 40 or 50 years; they are back in the existential struggle of the 40's and 50's. Besides, Ari Shavit, continued, Mitzna's campaign comes across like George McGovern; his campaign (which is promising a unilateral withdrawal and negotiation without preconditions=negotiation with Arafat under fire) seems detached from reality as the Israeli voter understands it. The Israeli voter's reality has changed absolutely since 1999; but Mitzna's has not. The only difference between Mitzna's campaign and Barak's is that even the Left cannot promise peace in their campaigns these days.