_______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\ http://www.MiddleEast.Org
News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
* * * * * * *
IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
To receive MER regularly email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LABOR ZIONISTS RISK EVERYTHING, EVEN SHARON COMING TO POWER - Part 2
MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 12/13:
The Labor Party all fell into line Monday. The so called doves were transformed
into scrawny chickens endorsing Ehud Barak as their champion for the February
elections he called by resigning from the same position he will now seek again.
The Likud will meet on 19 December to decide on its champion, Netanyahu likely
to reclaim the mantle from Ariel Sharon. But even so it will take a Knesset
act, which the current government is strenuous working behind the scenes to oppose,
to allow non-Knesset member Netanyahu to be on the ballot opposing Barak under
these manipulated circumstances.
Barak can only win at this point by getting the "Arab vote". But as the
following articles suggest, that is going to be very difficult. And as much
as Arafat would probably like to come to his aid, his ability to do so is severely
constrained now by Palestinian public opinion, and his authority even if he does
is not necessarily going to result in people doing what they are told this time.
Arafat's trump card, he may be thinking, is his encouraging of one of the Arab
Knesset members, Ahmed Tibi, to announce his own candidacy for Prime Minister.
The likihood is that as things get down to the wire, as Barak is about to be
defeated at the polls, Arafat could make some kind of secret deal and then instruct
Tibi to withdraw his candidacy leaving at least some of the Arab vote for Barak.
It is another sign of the desperation and recklessness of Prime Minister
Barak that he takes such gambles not just with his own, but with his country's,
future. It is also a sign that for General Barak, unlike for so many others,
General Sharon is not really that different than himself, just much less acceptible
to public opinion.
BARAK SUMMARILY REINSTALLED: SUPPORTING AND CRYING
By Sima Kadmon
[Yediot Aharonot - 12 December, Page 1]: When members of the Labor Party Central
Committee were asked yesterday to vote in favor of Barak's candidacy, the prime
minister sent a furtive glance to the first row.
Right opposite him sat Haim Ramon. He raised his hand. It was not an enthusiastic
wave. Ramon raised his hand high enough for the teacher to see but low enough
so the guys wouldn't laugh at him. Barak smiled a small smile: he could count
on Haim.
Outside, by the gate, stood Avraham Burg. He did not come to vote, he said, in
protest that dozens of central committee members were not allowed into the hall.
Burg would not miss any opportunity to cause a provocation. If he is not the
hit of the party, he will at least make sure to break it up. Shimon Peres was
absent. His
own mother could not have better written Beilin�s speech in defense of the Prime
Minister. Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami's appearance was somewhat strange, not to say
bizarre. He spoke as if he was at the lectern of a history department seminar
and not on the stage of the central committee meeting. He shouted as if he was
talking to Cmdr. Aharonishki, not to Labor Party youth. Of all the senior party
members, only one abstained from voting. That was Uzi Baram. All the rest voted
in favor. Supporting and crying�
No one in the Labor Party can be proud of what happened there last night. Not
Ehud Barak, who used democratic tools in an undemocratic manner, not the Labor
Party doves, who looked more like chickens yesterday, and not the central committee
members who were cynically used as pawns by the party chairman. A few hundred
votes of the Labor Party yesterday determined that no one would run against Barak.
Senior Labor Party members provided a thousand and one reasons why they had no
choice but to accept the party line. But there is only one real reason: there
is still nobody else who can run against Ehud Barak.
Those who enter politics should have been at the two most important political
events that took place yesterday -- the approval of sole candidate Barak in the
Labor Party and Netanyahu's announcement of his running for prime minister --
to convince them to flee while they still can. Two people who failed, and are
trying to sell their failures as successes. Both are counting on the public's
short memory, on its desperation, on its impatience, on its lack of choice�
POLL
Q: If elections were held today and the two candidates were Ehud Barak and Binyamin
Netanyahu, for whom would you vote? Ehud Barak: 32% (34); Binyamin Netanyahu:
52%(50); No response: 16% (16).
Q: If elections were held today and the two candidates were Ehud Barak and Ariel
Sharon, for whom would you vote?
Ehud Barak: 34% (40); Ariel Sharon: 40% (42); No response: 26% (18).
* by Dahaf Polling Institute - The number is parenthesis refers to prior poll
on Friday, 8 December.
WHAT ARAB WILL GO OUT IN THE RAIN TO VOTE FOR BARAK?
Either Ehud Barak has some top-secret information regarding mysterious
waves of sympathy flowing toward him from the villages of the Galilee
and
Little Triangle, or else Israel's Arab citizens are on their way
to settle
their accounts with the renowned hero of Israel.
By Akiva Eldar
[Ha'aretz - 12 December]
Either Ehud Barak has some top-secret information regarding mysterious waves
of sympathy flowing toward him from the villages of the Galilee and Little Triangle,
or else Israel's Arab citizens are on their way to settle their accounts with
the renowned hero of Israel.
Even before Barak surprised his ministers (including former MKs Yossi Beilin
and Matan Vilnai, who will be sent home if Barak loses in special elections held
only for the premiership), his campaign team arrived at the conclusion that voter
turnout will determine his fate in the upcoming elections. In speaking of voter
turnout, what is really meant is the voting rate among Israel's Arab population.
In the last elections, Yitzhak Mordechai was warned that if he forced Barak into
a second round, he would in effect be guaranteeing Netanyahu's victory. Mordechai's
friends in Labor explained to him at the time that there was no chance that
Israeli-Arab
voters would go to the polling booths for a second time simply to choose between
two Zionists. They argued that while in the first round of voting, members of
a rival clan could not know if their neighbors were going to vote only for Balad
or Ta'al, or also for Barak (or Netanyahu?), in the second round everyone would
know that Ahmed was going to the polling booth to vote for a Jewish officer.
This will also be the case on February 6, if Israelis are indeed asked to vote
with only one ballot, for either Barak or Netanyahu.
If Ahmed Tibi, or another Arab candidate, joins the race, this choice will only
be delayed to the second round. It is possible that in the final analysis, a
decision to dissolve the Knesset as well will slightly improve Barak's showing
in the Arab sector.
Voting in two ballots will help his voters cover up their traces. Jews will
go to the polling booths in wheel-chairs, if necessary, to vote for or against
Benjamin Netanyahu (or Ariel Sharon). Others will take their umbrellas and brave
the rain to go vote for Barak. But how many Arabs will go out on a gray day to
ensure the continued rule of a government responsible, in their view, for the
killing of 13 of their brethren?
Three weeks before the 1996 elections, Marketest, a consulting and marketing
research company, gave Uzi Baram a survey predicting 23,000 blank ballots in
the Arab sector. These ballots eventually sealed the fate of Shimon Peres. Dr.
Dan Gera and Oded Shai of Marketest predict many blank ballots this time as well,
mainly among Islamic circles, but not only there.
After detecting failings and an overall low validity of phone surveys conducted
in the Arab sector, the researchers decided to examine the positions of Israeli-Arabs
by using a group of 17 "opinion leaders." These are people who have influence
on positions and voting patterns in the Arab sector, represent Arab towns in
the North, the Little Triangle and the Negev and Arabs living in mixed cities.
They include senior officials in local authorities, businessmen, public leaders
and professionals.
One of the researchers' first questions was: "Did the October events influence
voting patterns in your town?" The conclusion arrived at by the researchers,
after summing up the answers they received, was that if in the past family and
clan attitudes largely determined voting patterns, today the reference is to
an entire town, region, maybe even all Israeli-Arabs. Events pushed aside past
differences and family ties, away from voting considerations. They demonstrated
that Labor governments, just like Likud governments, do not view Arabs as equal
citizens.
Hummus poisoning
If eating hummus in Middle Eastern-style restaurants is the key to the heart
of Israeli-Arabs, Barak is risking an upset stomach. "Barak is a great
disappointment,
even bigger than Netanyahu," the Marketest researchers wrote in summing up the
responses of their focus group. "Barak killed 13 Shahids [martyrs] and cut us
off from the West Bank. At least Netanyahu did not kill us."
Question: "Who is the most appealing candidate to Arab voters?"
Summary of the responses: "Honestly, no one, not even an Arab candidate, because
such a candidate stands no chance." The only candidate who enjoys clear popularity
among Arab voters is Shimon Peres, but most of them do not believe that he will
run. The researchers estimate that Peres would receive most of the Arab votes,
compared to no more than 20-25 percent for Barak. Peres (and Ariel Sharon) also
enjoy much popularity among the Druze. "He might not solve our problems," was
the typical response to Peres, "but his commitment to the peace process is important
to us and will promote our position."
Question: "What is the extent of support for Azmi Bishara, Ahmed Tibi,
or another Arab candidate?"
Summary of the responses: "They are both popular, mainly because they know how
to confront the Jews in their own language. However, they stand no real chance
and their main goal is to increase the number of votes their lists receive."
There is also personal criticism voiced against Bishara, mainly in the North,
and against Tibi, mainly in the Little Triangle. Voting patterns for the Arab
parties are not expected to change much, but a drop in support for the Labor
and Meretz is expected. Removing the Interior Ministry from the hands of Shas
is expected to cost the ultra-Orthodox party the votes of many Muslim, Druze
and Christian voters. That is another reason why Eli Yishai would prefer to put
off the Knesset vote until better days for Shas.
Arafat's choice
Dr. Oded Eran, a leading negotiator on Israel's team at the Camp David discussions,
has a distinctive perspective regarding the July 2000 summit. During a talk sponsored
by Bar-Ilan University last Wednesday, the senior diplomat said that the summit
represented the first time Israel was asked to review its positions on security
matters and (most importantly) Jerusalem. This re-assessment, Eran said, forced
Israel to "free itself from petrified formulas."
Eran analyzed a few obstacles that impeded progress at the ill-fated summit:
some organizational aspects of the conference went afoul, and Barak stopped members
of the Israeli delegation from discussing sensitive topics (such as Jerusalem)
"due to concerns about the fate of his coalition." But, Eran stressed, it would
be wrong to expect that sides could have forged agreements at one summit about
issues that were being discussed for the first time.
Eran believes that the Camp David summit set new standards, a new negotiation
threshold level, which no future government will be able to ignore. MK Yuval
Steinitz, a Likud politician with close ties to Netanyahu who participated in
the Bar-Ilan University discussion, didn't dispute Eran's point.
Barak's positions on a number of points, including Jerusalem, have put Arafat
in a bind. On the one hand, they have allowed Barak to come across in world public
opinion, and even among the left in Israel, as a Jewish moderate.
On the other hand, bereaved Palestinian parents will, with some justice, wonder
why their sons became martyrs in a struggle that culminated in an agreement that
leaves out the Temple Mount, a right of return for refugees, and the return of
all the territories. Israeli analysts agree that Arafat will never sign an agreement
that does not include Israeli concessions on at least two of these three issues.
Imad Al Falouji, PA Telecommunications Minister, believes that this two-thirds
or no agreement position crystallized as soon as the talking stopped at Camp
David, in July 2000. Speaking at a symposium held in Gaza on December 5, Al Falouji
suggested that Palestinian preparations for the current Intifada uprising began
in July, when the negotiators returned from the Maryland retreat.
The preparations ensued "at Arafat's request," the East Jerusalem daily Al Quds
reported, quoting Al Falouji. Arafat, he said, "anticipated the Intifada's outbreak
as a stage supplementing the forthright, resolute stance we adopted in the negotiations
with Israel." Conceding a point - the Mitchell fact-finding commission might
be well-served to notice the PA official's admission - Al Falouji said that the
uprising "wasn't purely a protest against Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."
Speaking to anyone who wants to listen, Arafat declares that he doesn't care
whether Barak stays in power, or whether Bibi returns as prime minister or whether
Sharon takes over. But people close to Arafat say that the PA chairman is being
a little cagey. True, he doesn't care who it is that gives him a Palestinian
state whose capital is Jerusalem and whose borders are drawn at the 1967 lines.
He doesn't care whether it's Barak who recognizes a Palestinian right of return,
or whether it's Bibi who furnishes him with sovereignty on the Temple Mount,
or whether Sharon dismantles settlements. Arafat, however, doubts that either
of these three will offer him anything that comes close to his demands. And he
hopes that the Israeli hand which fails to sign on the dotted line of an agreement
will belong to Netanyahu. Sharon is Arafat's second choice. Arafat, his associates
say, remembers the phased withdrawals for which Bibi was responsible, as opposed
to the phases that Barak bypassed.
Secondly, he has some theories regarding international responses to a scenario
whereby Bibi or Sharon sends choppers to bombard Gaza.
Since the Camp David summit, Arafat has also developed some preferences concerning
the outcome of the presidential race in the United States. He's sick and tired
of the Democrats, who tremble with fear whenever wealthy Jews apply pressure
and who fawn on Israelis. He's concluded that it would be better if a tough Republican
were to sit in the White House, one who understands the power of oil and who
is impervious to the enticement of Jewish money.
Arafat's fondest dream is a line-up in which Bibi sits in the Prime Minister's
Residence in Jerusalem, and Bush takes control in the Oval Office in Washington.
It could be that Bill Clinton has recently kept a safe distance from Barak due
to his awareness of Arafat's preferences.
In any case, Israel's prime minister can forget about forging a defense pact
with the U.S., and about upgraded security relations or any other election present.
For its own reasons, the outgoing U.S. Congress decided to refer Israel's request
for financing to cover the costs of the withdrawal from Lebanon to the new Congress
and Senate. This money isn't going to make it to Israel before the elections
here.
MiD-EasT RealitieS - www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: 202 362-5266 Fax: 815 366-0800
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscriibe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject SUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject UNSUBSCRIBE
