Conference taveng::bagels

    I remember that when Nixon (l'havdil) was elected, many people expected
    that his rightist leanings would mean an even more bitter cold war.
     What happened was detente with Russia and the opening of relations
    with the PRC.  Also, only a Begin could have made peace with Saddat.
    
    There may be a silver lining , afterall.
    
    Av
    
    P.S.  Even "Ronbo" visited the "evil empire' and signed a treaty.
    

    Yes, Ronbo was forced into a treaty; more relevant, Begin entered
    into a treaty with the "evil empire" Egypt.  Of course, Likud ideology
    didn't claim Sinai as part of Israel's territory.  It (or at least
    major constituent Herut) does, however, claim not only the West
    Bank but also the East Bank (Amman) as part of Israel's territory,
    and it will need lots of pressure to negotiate the former when their
    platform claims the latter!
    
    It will not be a pleasant time.  Of course, Likud and the right
    don't have a strong coalition base either, so there could be a rather
    ineffectual government for a while.  And if the religious right
    gets gates across all the streets to shut on Friday night (not an
    inconceivable request), the rest of the population could get rather 
    upset.

I hate to admit it but I agree with .0 The situation looks bleak, and
I don't find the analogies with Begin or Nixon convincing. It is not
only that Nixon and Begin were both far greater leaders than Shamir,
which is true, but also that the issues they addressed actually were
far SIMPLER than the current ones. The US-USSR detente under Nixon was
immediately advantageous to both parties and, let's admit it, didn't
endanger either side, since most of the arms race adds NOTHING to security.
Ditto for Begin and Sadat... the handover of Sinai to Egyptian authority
with a significant American presence between Israel and Egypt enhanced
the security of both sides, even though some of us still foolishly
believe that we would be more secure if tsahal faced the Egyptians
directly. There was just "political face" to lose, and a good deal 
of oil money. Begin was man enough to set aside the former, and
Sadat man enough to risk his life for it. Uncle Sam still pays a different
cost to both sides to offset economic considerations that worked
against the agreement.

The Jewish-Arab struggle in Palestine is quite different. Both sides
risk a lot by compromising prematurely. The Jews risk a good deal if
they compromise AT ALL! And it would take far greater leaders than
Shamir and Hussein and Arafat etc. to understand that despite this
we all risk even more by NOT taking these risks. 

Still, we have to hope and pray...

	I was never surprised by the opening relations with China.
	It was driven mostly by economics. The industrialize nations
	were licking their chops at the prospects of their future
	markets. China and the Soviet Union are too far away to be
	a real concern in the daily life of most people. The potential
	markets in the Soviet Union will eventually bring the US closer
	ties with the Soviet Union. I expect that in 20 years or so, China
	will probably distance themselves somewhat from the US. 

	BUT you do make an important point. That is the Likud may be
	in a better position to deal with the more extreme elements.
	The problem with this scenario is that the US is an essentially
	two party country. Within the two parties, you have different
	coalitions. The group opposing detente was of much less
	political strength. Economic interests groups dominated. The
	Palestinian issue is more closer to the Israelis so it seems
	more unlikely the situation will change.

	There is international momentum for territorial concessions
	but it will be the people of Israel who will ultimately
	decide. 

	The unknown factor will be the US. It does have some leverage
	but the politicians in the US are too scared to do anything
	at this point. Even if they could take a stand, it would be
	played in Israel as interference in their affairs and would
	be resented by the more vociferous factions. But this is more
	a short term consequence. If the US does not lead the way and 
	push for territorial concessions and use it's leverage, there 
	will be no real incentive for their policies to change and
	things will get more violent. The West Bank is becoming much
	more radicalized by fundamentalist factions who are attracting
	support. I suspect such feelings to grow even more. Palestinians
	are a boiling pot. They certainly can not keep the lid on
	forever. The only way around the boiling pot is to either
	annihilate or "transfer" the Palestinians assuming they want
	to not give Palestinians autonomy and territory.


	Darryl

	Shamir has indicated he can not go along with the demands
	to annex the land and transfer the Palestinians. He indicated
	that he is in favor of increasing Jewish settlements. The
	consequences of this trend will be to further entrench Israel
	in a deeper and deeper poitical hole where they really won't
	be able to get out of. It will be difficult for politicians to
	hand over their constituencies land to the Palestinians. In a 
	long term view, it will wreak internal destruction on their form
	of government. It would be interesting to read the minds of
	the Likud leadership and whether they really sincerely believe
	it is practical.

	Darryl

I have heard many complaints about how eretz Yisrael is going to sink lower
and lower as a result of the elections.  Unless I've missed something, 
no one stated the obvious:  Israeli voters are moving to the political and
halachic right.  They have chosen governmental representatives who reflect
this position.  We chutz la'aretzim (Diasporaniks) may agree or disagree with 
this.  But we do -not- have to live with the Israeli government on 
a daily basis: they do.

               --- Shim

re .6:
>>Unless I've missed something, 
>>no one stated the obvious:  Israeli voters are moving to the political and
>>halachic right.  They have chosen governmental representatives who reflect
>>this position.  
I am not sure that anyone has "moved right" significantly. Maybe you
TAV-niks can shed some light on this but from here it seems that no
significant change occured. The only "new" thing that happened is that
a rather large number of "religious" voters came out and voted, due to
their INTERNAL internecine wars between religious leaders. These are
to be considered "new voters" in the sense that last time they just 
didn't vote, NOT that they voted for someone else.
It is the LACK of change that is upsetting; reality IS changing, and
the knesset will reflect OLD realities rather than CURRENT realities.
-ZAITCH