The majority will prevail

The majority will prevail
By Yosef Goell -- Jerusalem Post
Sunday, May 2, 2004
----
(...)
But it is well-nigh impossible to come up with the name of any other Likud leader besides Sharon who could galvanize Israel's majority in the general electorate and overcome Likud's ideological parochialism.
In the event of Sharon not being forced to resign over the bribery issue it is worth recalling some aspects of political history to guess at what the future might hold.
Remember that the Likud never formally renounced its Jabotinskian ideology calling for establishing a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River. Likud supports not only annexing the territories of the West Bank and Gaza conquered by Israel in 1967, but also the entire kingdom of Jordan, which was ostensibly promised to the Zionist movement in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.
(...)
A Likud that insists on maintaining its ideological purity in opposition to the clear will of the majority of the electorate will not be able to continue as Israel's ruling party for long.
Sharon brought the Likud to a 40-seat victory in the last elections because he presented the party's pragmatic face. A grateful Likud lined up behind him despite the fact that he reiterated his support for a tabooed Palestinian state and made no secret of his determination to shorten Israel's overextended lines in the territories.
Sharon will have to engage in a painful process of protracted mass reeducation. He'll need to force his party to progress from its ancient ideological obsessions to the pragmatic requirements demanded of a ruling party.
(...)
Sharon, even in defeat, will have the power to repair that relationship. As part of the Likud reeducation process he could redirect major parts of the surreptitious budgets that fuel the settlement movement in the territories and the Gaza Strip only to those settlements he is convinced will be annexed to Israel as part of any future settlement.
And he could finally come to grips with one of the major bones of contention with the US and actually execute the removal of many of the illegal outposts in the territories.
Any attempt by the ideological wing of the Likud to hamper such moves could serve as a trigger toward revamping, together with Labor and Shinui, the political party map around pragmatic Sharon loyalists in the Likud.
----
The writer is a retired lecturer in political science and a veteran journalist.
----
Read the rest here.

Not that it matters, since a unilateral peace initiative is almost an oxymoron. Sharon's plan would not have ended Palestinian resistance. In order to make peace with the Palestinians, the Israelis will have to talk to them. Sharon would never stoop to such a thing as to talk to a Palestinian as an equal.

The most urgent need in the aftermath of a defeat in the referendum: to repair whatever damage will have been caused to relations with the Bush administration. The last thing an electorally embattled President Bush needs now is trouble from a politically unstable Israeli ally.
Sharon, even in defeat, will have the power to repair that relationship. As part of the Likud reeducation process he could redirect major parts of the surreptitious budgets that fuel the settlement movement in the territories and the Gaza Strip only to those settlements he is convinced will be annexed to Israel as part of any future settlement.

I think I missed something. There is damage that needs to be repaired between Israel (by which Professor Goell the writer means the Israeli right) and the Bush administration? Are we talking about the same Bush who gave his blessing to Sharon's outrageous plan to virtually annex large parts of the West Bank without consulting any Palestinian leader? There's a rift? I couldn't tell.

Hopefully, Goell is right in that Likud's resistance today to what in his mind passes for Sharon's pragmatism will cause a "revamping . . . of the political party map." Hopefully, it will be the end of Likud for a very long time. Likud, the the GOP, Hamas and all other right wing movements, should revamped into oblivion.

Without a partner willing to equal the sacrifices for peace that Israel is making, there is no point in holding talks. The answer is always rejection, like at Camp David. They think that now that they have demonstrating anger by murdering a thousand Israelis, that Israel will give them more. It doesn't work that way.

Consult somebody who can make agreement and make it stick. I don't think that any longer fits Arafat's job description. If there is no such person, then do nothing until one emerges.

The main feature of Sharon's plan is that it is unilateral. Accordingly, no Palestinian of any persuasion or walk of life is bound by it. Unless there is a piece of paper signed by a Palestinian leader and an Israeli leader that says "this is the border and these are the security guarantees", there is nothing worth mentioning.

What kind of “sacrifices” do you expect from Palestinians?
As you profile say that you’re living in Israel, do you think that the status-quo is ok?
What are you expecting for the future and what should be done from your point view to reach a peaceful middle-east?

I know that it’s a lot of questions and I apologize for it. But arguments that I have read until now, seems a bit, passionate could I said, and not very favourable to forge one’s opinion.

I hope that you could give me some answers, despite the fact that you seem already very busy. It would be very useful, at least for me and maybe to other readers too, to have a global point of view from a progressist Israeli.