Monday, January 09, 2006

What of Kadima?

What of Kadima? Still on the Israeli political situation, I note that practically every news article about Sharon is talking about what Sharon achieved and believed instead of achieving and believes. In this light, Uri Avnery has made some very interesting observations on what Sharon's "legacy" is and what it might have been in the Middle East Times.

In the last post, I asked "what of Kadima?" especially since polls seem to show people are still positive about Kadima. Well some considered answers have started to come out. Haaretz says:
... Since Kadima apparently represents the center of Israeli public opinion, so that it will not become a mere passing mood, the party must translate its political outlook into a practical program, one that is acceptable to the other side. In their present formulation, Kadima's political principles do not differentiate it sufficiently from the Netanyahu-led Likud...
And the Jerusalem Post says:
... The public, judging from the polls, is fully willing to give Kadima without Sharon a chance, but this willingness will likely dissipate quickly if it cannot act as a coherent party that is working together to elect its leader on a clear platform. It is not that common for even our more established parties to act as a single team. For Kadima, however, such teamwork would seem to be the first challenge of political survival...
Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Blogger mick said...

This one is wide open. I think that only time will tell if Kadima will be around without Sharon.

January 13, 2006 1:58 am  
Blogger geoff said...

Lisa, the guy's an enigma. Especially remembering the 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla camps (you may struggle to remember this :-) There's been some interesting articles on Sharonism - in the Guardian and by Friedman in the NYT (but can't find a free copy of the latter).

January 16, 2006 3:05 pm  
Blogger Dima said...

Uri Avneri is (or should i say was) a great thinker and good journalist. In the last few years i find it more and more difficult to take his writing seriously.
I really appreciate the critical stand as long as it is there not just for the sake of being blindly critical. Unfortunately this what his writing has become in my eyes. By simplifying issues and often manipulating facts and perceptions, he creates a final product which does not contribute to better understanding of the conflict or of the situation in Israel-Palestine, not to say contributing to some kind of dialogue. It is there to make another provocation. Well, not exactly provocation, more like painting your hair in red just for the people to pay attention to you.
Maybe something is wrong with me, but i do not belive in things being black and white and i don't belive in someone being always 100% right and the other always 100% wrong. Things are way more complex and it is about time we start facing this complexity.
What makes his current writing "sexy" are not the insights, but the extreme stand he takes. Israeli criticizing Israel sells, media love it, and there are few people here who do that and who are that good in it. Same would work with a Palestinian public figure takin an opposite stand. But other than serving kind of Avneri's personal megalomany, i fail to see its contribution.
Do you think I am missing something?

January 17, 2006 10:33 am  
Blogger Anthony said...

Lisa, I think you need to tutor me on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. My understanding of it is not good at all. I saw "Munich" the other night. The movie itself I did not like at all, and it wasn't helped by the fact that I had little or no idea what it was they were going on about. I feel ignorant.

January 30, 2006 11:50 pm  
Blogger Lisa said...

Yeah, we'll see Mick - and promise to start blogging again!

Thanks for the article links, Geoff.

Dima, your specialty is media analysis and I'm sure you're right. I very much doubt you are "missing something"! For me though, the comparison of Sharon to Napolean was interesting even if it was provocative. But you've obviously read a lot more of his work to see this pattern and I'll take note of that. I agree with you that being critical just to direct attention to oneself doesn't deserve attention, but I managed to get more out of that article than just "Avneri megalomania" :)

And if any set of issues has more shades of grey for the public spotlight it's the politics of Palestine! Even 'hawk' and 'dovish' seem to much like black and white sometimes.

January 31, 2006 9:11 am  
Blogger Lisa said...

Anthony, even after being in Israel (not Palestine yet) briefly and exposure to a lot of materials on the issues, I can't pretend I'm totally cognizant of all the facets of story either. But I can recommend a blog by a Gazan in addition to blogs from the right, left and centre Israeli perspectives. And mideastweb blog, if you didn't already see that one. The blog seems to consistently highlight failings and wrongs of both sides.

January 31, 2006 9:11 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home