so is this good news or bad news?

Samsa · 10-31-2002, 02:00 PM

Labor Quits Israel's Governing Coalition
Withdrawal Comes After Sharon Refuses to Cut Spending on Settlements

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A18

JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 -- The Israeli Labor Party resigned from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government tonight, breaking up a popular but uneasy coalition that has ruled Israel through 19 months of violent conflict with Palestinians.

All six ministers from the center-left party resigned, including Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the party chief, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. Labor members of parliament subsequently voted against Sharon's 2003 budget after he refused demands to cut spending on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and shift the funds to social programs.

While the resignations were not to take effect for 48 hours, political analysts said it was highly unlikely that any compromise could be forged to reunite the coalition. Sharon, who leads the nationalist Likud Party, is a longtime advocate of settlement expansion and had previously warned that anyone voting against his budget would be expelled from the government.

The killings Tuesday night of three Jewish settlers, including two teenage girls, by a Palestinian gunman in a small settlement in the northern West Bank may have stiffened Sharon's resistance. With the killings in mind, Sharon said in a speech to parliament tonight, "I felt big shame" dealing all day with such "nonsense" as Labor's demands for shifting funds away from the heavily subsidized settlements.

In the short term, the departure of Labor will force Sharon to seek support from smaller, ultra Orthodox and extreme nationalist parties to keep his government afloat until the next elections, scheduled for November 2003.

But political analysts -- and some Likud members -- said it seems unlikely such a coalition could survive for long. While some of the small, right-wing opposition parties joined Sharon tonight in helping him pass the first reading of his spending plan, the leaders of those parties have said they might not stay with him in a no-confidence vote scheduled for Monday, thereby forcing early elections.

Whether the government collapses, or survives as a narrow, right-wing coalition, it seemed inevitable that the upheaval would impede progress of a U.S. proposal to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to end the bloody, two-year-old Palestinian uprising and create an independent Palestinian state.

The U.S. plan calls for Palestinians to implement a host of security, political, economic and judicial reforms and for Israel to freeze settlement expansion and pull back troops occupying most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon has opposed such measures, and his new rightist partners reject them even more strongly than he does. Although Labor ministers have gone along with Sharon's hard line, they often advocated more conciliatory positions in government debates.

"Even Sharon is not comfortable relying on the extreme right to keep his government going, and I think he will probably try to cut it as short as possible," possibly moving for elections in the late winter or early spring, said a senior aide to one of the Labor cabinet ministers who resigned.

"On the Palestinian side, I think we're going to see a certain hardening," the aide said. "Not that they are doing anything against terror right now, but they'll have even less incentive to try positive moves, and this will probably postpone the reform process in the Palestinian Authority."

The budget clash was cast in ideological terms, as a fight between Labor's support for the poor and Likud's support for settlers. But the key issue that drove a wedge between Sharon and Ben-Eliezer -- who had a cordial working relationship -- was internal party politics, particularly within Labor.

Ben-Eliezer is facing a tough challenge from the left wing of his party in leadership elections Nov. 19. Many of the party's rank and file are furious that he has kept them in a right-wing Likud government, saying it violates Labor's tradition as a socially conscious party dedicated -- in recent years, at least -- to pursing a dialogue with the Palestinians.

Many party members have complained that Labor should have bolted from the government long ago and established itself as a true opposition party. Instead, it has seen its popularity plummet. A recent poll found that if elections for Israel's 120-seat parliament were held today, Labor's membership would decline from 25 to 21, while Likud's would increase from 19 to 29.

Faced with those numbers and other polls showing that he would place third in Labor's leadership race, analysts said Ben-Eliezer apparently decided to appeal to the left wing of his party by forcing a showdown with Sharon, demanding that he cut $147 million on settlements and redirect it to programs for retirees, single-parent families, impoverished towns and students. In negotiations over the last two days, the two parties narrowed their differences to about $38 million, a tiny fraction of Israel's $57 billion annual budget.

While Sharon might take pride in beating back a no-confidence vote and continuing to head Israel's government, he has political calculations to consider. If he loses a confidence vote, the date of elections will be decided in negotiations with other parties, but can be no sooner than 90 days after the vote and could be as long as five or six months from then. If, however, he submits his government's resignation, new elections must be held within 90 days.

Sharon, who is riding high in the polls, would have a large incentive to select the second option and force elections as soon as possible. That would give Labor and his toughest Likud challenger, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, less time to challenge his popularity with voters and establish themselves as alternatives.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Samsa · 10-31-2002, 02:03 PM

i just can't imagine such a coalition of tiny fringe parties surviving for long. but if it does i guess that's bad news. if it doesn't survive or ever happen it's good news though right? i mean apparently poll analysts say it's most likely that likud will still beat out labor but netanyahu would probably be the new pm. yeah. i wonder how a nation like israel would work if it were a presidential system

like we had to read this thing some person wrote about how parliamentary systems are better in bringing about democracy and are more 'consensual' in nature or whatever, but. hmph.

Apart · 10-31-2002, 03:38 PM

they're jews like you, so who gives a fuck?

10-31-2002, 02:00 PM	#1
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	so is this good news or bad news? Labor Quits Israel's Governing Coalition Withdrawal Comes After Sharon Refuses to Cut Spending on Settlements By John Ward Anderson Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A18 JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 -- The Israeli Labor Party resigned from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government tonight, breaking up a popular but uneasy coalition that has ruled Israel through 19 months of violent conflict with Palestinians. All six ministers from the center-left party resigned, including Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the party chief, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. Labor members of parliament subsequently voted against Sharon's 2003 budget after he refused demands to cut spending on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and shift the funds to social programs. While the resignations were not to take effect for 48 hours, political analysts said it was highly unlikely that any compromise could be forged to reunite the coalition. Sharon, who leads the nationalist Likud Party, is a longtime advocate of settlement expansion and had previously warned that anyone voting against his budget would be expelled from the government. The killings Tuesday night of three Jewish settlers, including two teenage girls, by a Palestinian gunman in a small settlement in the northern West Bank may have stiffened Sharon's resistance. With the killings in mind, Sharon said in a speech to parliament tonight, "I felt big shame" dealing all day with such "nonsense" as Labor's demands for shifting funds away from the heavily subsidized settlements. In the short term, the departure of Labor will force Sharon to seek support from smaller, ultra Orthodox and extreme nationalist parties to keep his government afloat until the next elections, scheduled for November 2003. But political analysts -- and some Likud members -- said it seems unlikely such a coalition could survive for long. While some of the small, right-wing opposition parties joined Sharon tonight in helping him pass the first reading of his spending plan, the leaders of those parties have said they might not stay with him in a no-confidence vote scheduled for Monday, thereby forcing early elections. Whether the government collapses, or survives as a narrow, right-wing coalition, it seemed inevitable that the upheaval would impede progress of a U.S. proposal to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to end the bloody, two-year-old Palestinian uprising and create an independent Palestinian state. The U.S. plan calls for Palestinians to implement a host of security, political, economic and judicial reforms and for Israel to freeze settlement expansion and pull back troops occupying most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon has opposed such measures, and his new rightist partners reject them even more strongly than he does. Although Labor ministers have gone along with Sharon's hard line, they often advocated more conciliatory positions in government debates. "Even Sharon is not comfortable relying on the extreme right to keep his government going, and I think he will probably try to cut it as short as possible," possibly moving for elections in the late winter or early spring, said a senior aide to one of the Labor cabinet ministers who resigned. "On the Palestinian side, I think we're going to see a certain hardening," the aide said. "Not that they are doing anything against terror right now, but they'll have even less incentive to try positive moves, and this will probably postpone the reform process in the Palestinian Authority." The budget clash was cast in ideological terms, as a fight between Labor's support for the poor and Likud's support for settlers. But the key issue that drove a wedge between Sharon and Ben-Eliezer -- who had a cordial working relationship -- was internal party politics, particularly within Labor. Ben-Eliezer is facing a tough challenge from the left wing of his party in leadership elections Nov. 19. Many of the party's rank and file are furious that he has kept them in a right-wing Likud government, saying it violates Labor's tradition as a socially conscious party dedicated -- in recent years, at least -- to pursing a dialogue with the Palestinians. Many party members have complained that Labor should have bolted from the government long ago and established itself as a true opposition party. Instead, it has seen its popularity plummet. A recent poll found that if elections for Israel's 120-seat parliament were held today, Labor's membership would decline from 25 to 21, while Likud's would increase from 19 to 29. Faced with those numbers and other polls showing that he would place third in Labor's leadership race, analysts said Ben-Eliezer apparently decided to appeal to the left wing of his party by forcing a showdown with Sharon, demanding that he cut $147 million on settlements and redirect it to programs for retirees, single-parent families, impoverished towns and students. In negotiations over the last two days, the two parties narrowed their differences to about $38 million, a tiny fraction of Israel's $57 billion annual budget. While Sharon might take pride in beating back a no-confidence vote and continuing to head Israel's government, he has political calculations to consider. If he loses a confidence vote, the date of elections will be decided in negotiations with other parties, but can be no sooner than 90 days after the vote and could be as long as five or six months from then. If, however, he submits his government's resignation, new elections must be held within 90 days. Sharon, who is riding high in the polls, would have a large incentive to select the second option and force elections as soon as possible. That would give Labor and his toughest Likud challenger, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, less time to challenge his popularity with voters and establish themselves as alternatives. © 2002 The Washington Post Company

10-31-2002, 02:03 PM	#2
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	i just can't imagine such a coalition of tiny fringe parties surviving for long. but if it does i guess that's bad news. if it doesn't survive or ever happen it's good news though right? i mean apparently poll analysts say it's most likely that likud will still beat out labor but netanyahu would probably be the new pm. yeah. i wonder how a nation like israel would work if it were a presidential system like we had to read this thing some person wrote about how parliamentary systems are better in bringing about democracy and are more 'consensual' in nature or whatever, but. hmph.

10-31-2002, 03:38 PM	#3
Apart Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 1,039	they're jews like you, so who gives a fuck?