Conference taveng::bagels

>Following are the results after 96% of the civilian votes have been counted:
>
>Labor    45
>Meretz   45  (Left wing)
>Hadash    3
>Darasha   2  (Arab)
>
>Likud    32
>Ztomet    7
>Shas      7
>Mafdal    6
>Aguda     4
>Moledet   2
    
    Just to correct one mistake:
    
    
Labor    45
Meretz   12  (Left wing)
Hadash    3
Darasha   2  (Arab)

Likud    32
Ztomet    7
Shas      7
Mafdal    6
Aguda     4
Moledet   2

Sorry about that...

Meretz indeed has only 12.

Cb.

   >Sorry about that...
 
   So is Meretz!

    HI,
    
    So what does this mean for Israel?  I'd like to hear some of the local
    Israeli opinion on how these election results will affect the land. 
    News here in the U.S. says it will have implications on the "peace
    process".
    
    Any thoughts on this and perhaps economy, immigration, industry, etc?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

    
    Steve,

	You really want to start this???   :-)


don feinberg

    I'll answer for Steve: "YES"
    
    Jake
    

    Thanks, Jake  ;-)
    
    Don and I have talked a bit off-line.  I understand that this is a
    sensetive issue.  He answered some of my questions and I do want to
    hear more.
    
    If it's better left to off-line discussions, that's fine with me. 
    Anyone with an opinion (or even more than one opinion ;-) is welcome to
    write me at CARTUN::MCCONNELL.
    
    Shalom, y'all...
    
    
    Steve

    re: .8
    
    I guess I'm slow at catching on today; what's so sensitive?  I've
    already heard interviews with several Israelis about the implications
    of the elections, and I can't imagine it not already being a major
    topic in the press.
    
    					Aaron

    Aaron,
    
    I mean "sensitive" in the way that politics is usually one of the "Big
    3" you're not supposed to discuss in public.
    
    Steve

	You can discuss this in the VSSCAD::MIDEAST notes conference.  This
  election has massive implications for the Middle East.


		Danny

    
    
     I have to say that its facinating to me the whole question of 
     "argument/discussion/disagreemetn as it pertains to Jews and 
     particularly American Jews, and more specifically (based purely 
     from my experience) Jews from the Boston (new ENGLAND) area....
    
     The contrast is enormous...I'm talking about the Assimilated 
     American Jewish culture which seems more afraid of the expression 
     of strong feelings than the prevailing American culture (based 
     in Britain)..it facinates me, and I have to say that it seems
     to me unhealthy, based on opression of Jews and stereotypes
     of Jews as "pushy"...and in that way it is how an opressed 
     people seems to take on the values of the opressor...with more
     vigor than the opressors themselves...kind of like: Lets not make
     waves lets keep a low profile...for survival...maybe "they" won't
     notice us...if I act as far away from what could be constued by the 
     "genteels" as pushy...I'll sensor myself, before they sensor me...
     This is freedom? Its fear!
     
     Constrast that with the culture in Israel...!? where as they say:
     everyone has at least 2 opinions and they don't hesitate to 
     discuss it.
    
     So what are the implications of this? Are American Jews ashamed
     of Israelis? Or those from the old culture...
    
     And what then is lost? Ethnicity...LOVE FOR THE SEARCH FOR THE 
     TRUTH....I'd say. And where does self hatred fall in there
     somewhere....Internalized anti-semetism...going unacknowledged
     and never therefore having the oportunity to heal...
     
     dk
    

    
     As an adendum to the previous reply: I want to add that what it
     seems to me some of the discussed unhealthy can also be called:
     
                            dysfunctionality 
    
     The best definition I'v heard of dysfunction is this: 
    
       "There is only one thing common to all dysfunctional famillies.
        It is their inability to discuss root issues. It is the DEGREE
        to which the the familly is unable to discuss its basic issues, 
        and NOT THE CONTENT of the issues themselves which will determine
        both how dysfunctional a familly is, and how deeply damaged its
        members are."

    
     Of course one could lay down healthy ground rules for disagreement.
     It is my own belief that Jewish culture already has that...and that
     this is some of what gets lost...in the assimilation factor: ie.
    
       1) Its ok to disagree, it doesn't make you terrible. It just means
           we come from a different reference.
    
       2) Its ok to talk and listen at the same time. It doesn't mean
           one is "interupting", it just means we have been trained in
           a special skill: (intellect that works fast i.e. think talk
           listen, think, talk, listen in rapid succession. It also means
           we CARE, we are passionate, alive.
    
        3) While initially we disagree, Oh...is that what you mean? Is this
           why you feel the way you do? Oh I see, well, now I understand
           where you're coming from. I still don't agree (cause this is
           where I'm coming from) But now I know you a whole lot better.
           And you certianly have a right to feel the way you do...
           (validation)...but consider this...
    
         4) Person B could be talking with A and giving C's opinion, and
            then talking to C and expressing A's opinion. Could be called:
            "Tweeking" or HAVING THE CAPACITY TO SUSTAIN COMPLEXITY. Its
            a form of intelligence...Being aware that not everything is
            black and white.
    
            etc. etc.
    
          All these seem to me very much a part of the Jewish "Ethnicity".
      
     
  

    My sentiment is exact, but check out what happened last time I
    expressed my opinions in Notes 1234 & 1237,  or when I expressed a thought
    on self-hating Jews in the Note on the unrest in New York that
    followed an unfortunate acident involving a Lubavitcher and a black
    kid.  May be I should have kept my mouth shut, just to avoid the
    unpleasentness that followed?!
    
    Jake
    

>>                  -< He's a shmock but we love him anyway.. >-


	Please watch your Yiddish, if you don't understand it.


	That word, in Yiddish, means "penis".  Pure and simple. Too
	bad more people don't know that before they use it.

	Or maybe they *do* "mean it".

don feinberg

    I can't decide what's funnier, people saying that a discussion of the
    Israeli elections is too sensitive to discuss, or people thinking that
    this shows that we can't discuss sensitive issues here.  :^)  :^)
    
    Anyway, since the topic of this note is the elections, I thought I'd
    start by observing that the Knesset, over time, has been moving more
    and more toward the British model of Government vs (loyal) Opposition.
    The pre-state government, based on the Jewish Agency, was, of
    necessity, inclusive.  The early governments, even though they did not
    include every party, followed a somewhat similar model, and the
    opposition that did exist was not really in a position to govern. (This
    is one of the factors that Ben-Gurion was able to use to maintain
    control during some of the earlier crises.)  Although, as some of you
    may have guessed, I am more partial to Avodah than to Likud, I think
    that the Likud victory in the 70s was important for the long-term
    development of democratic government in Israel.  I think the results of
    this election--which seems to be the closest thing to a majority
    government in 44 years--is also important, because it gives the left
    wing bloc an opportunity to implement their program and be held
    responsible for it.
    
    					Aaron

>    I can't decide what's funnier, people saying that a discussion of the
>    Israeli elections is too sensitive to discuss, or people thinking that
>    this shows that we can't discuss sensitive issues here.  :^)  :^)
    

	Aaron, you didn't understand.

	It's not the sensitivity.  By  no means.

	It's the balagan (without end) in the discussion.  

don

    I was hoping for a national unity government so that any eventual
    peace treaty would be bought into by the whole country, and not a 
    minority.
    
    It's a similar argument to the one in Britain about weather to hold a
    referendum on the outcome of Maastricht (European convergence) or not. 
    Some say that the government represents the people, and therefore has
    the right to decide.  Others say that the government has no right to
    give away its powers as the government doesn't own them. They belong to
    the people and are held by the government in trust. A referendum
    should therefore be held. 
    
    A decision by a single government to give away part of its sovereignty 
    would therefore rob future governments (and therefore the people) of that 
    power. 
    
    Malcolm 

    >Some say that the government represents the people, and therefore has
    >the right to decide.  Others say that the government has no right to
    >give away its powers as the government doesn't own them. They belong to
    >the people and are held by the government in trust. A referendum
    >should therefore be held.
    
    I don't see how referendum would help in this situation, since the
    following generation may not want to give the power away even if
    the present generation does.  What constitues a people?
    
    Jake
     

    Going back to the original question - I'd also be interested in the
    various points of view from our Israeli BAGELers.  It's very easy for
    us in the diaspora to pass judgement and to give opinions, but I'd
    REALLY like to hear Israeli's points of view. (and, yes, I know there
    will be many, many different views - that's what discussions are all
    about).
    
    Shalom,
    
    Judy
    

    re:  .21
    
    YES!
    

Okay, I'll take the bait, and give my two-bit (half-shekel) analysis.

The so-called "mahapach", or overturning of the government
was not as radical as originally thought.  Now that all the votes
have been tallied, the "left-wing", including Avoda (the new name for 
what used to be called the Maarach, or Labor Alignment), Meretz (a
conglomeration of three left-leaning parties - Ratz, Shinui, Mapam),
and two Arab parties, garnered a grand total of 61 seats.  The right
wing, including Likud, Tzomet, Moledet, and three religious parties
all of which expressed their preference during the campaign of 
joining a Likud-led government, got 59 seats.  This is not exactly
an overwhelming majority, especially when you take into account that
more than 5% of the votes were wasted on small parties which did not
get the minimum number of votes to get in.  Most of these parties
(Tehia, Levinger, Mizrahi) tended to be on the right wing.

I'd say that on the issues which seem to be of greater concern to the
world at large (our foreign policy, settlement policy, military policy)
it's still pretty much a tossup which side of the population has a
majority.  But if I had to guess, I'd say that the more hard-line 
elements still have the upper hand.  I base this on the statistics
above, and the fact that Avoda concentrated their campaign on the
persona of Yitzhak Rabin, who is perceived as much more hawkish than most
of the party.  The dovish elements of Avoda -- Yael Dayan, Avrum Burg,
Yossi Beilen, were all but silent during the entire campaign.

I make this point beacuse I expect that the world at large is expecting
radical changes in Israel's policies after this election; that Rabin
will bring Israel to the peace table and negotiate a settlement with
the Palestinians.  I don't think that's going to happen so soon.  In fact
Rabin has already expressed a preference for a wide-based coalition, 
including some of the religious parties and possibly even Tsomet (former
Chief of Staff Raful Eitan).  Raful is on record as against any territorial
compromise ("Peace for Peace, not Land for Peace" was his slogan).  And
lest we forget, Rabin's policy for handling the intifada when he was 
Defense Minister was "Break their bones."  These are not exactly the
words of Mother Teresa.

IMHO Likud's defeat was due mostly to popular dissatisfaction on 
domestic issues -- problems in absorbing the massive immigration,
perceived high unemployment (though the actual figures are that
unemployment is down over the past few years when you don't count 
the immigrant population.  Among the new immigrants unemployment is
about 30%, and considering the fact that Israel has absorbed 10% of
its population in a year and a half, I think that's pretty good),
and a lot of internal fighting within the Likud.  

On balance, I don't think the Likud was so terrible, but I think 
it's healthy in a democracy to "throw the bums out" once in a while
and I think that was the mood in the country which led to the
election results.  Just don't be misled into thinking (as I'm sure
many people outside of Israel do, based on what I've seen and heard in
the media) that now that we've finally gotten rid of that intransigent 
Shamir, peace is just around the corner.

Okay, anybody else want to comment?

Re: .17

>    I think the results of
>    this election--which seems to be the closest thing to a majority
>    government in 44 years--is also important, because it gives the left
>    wing bloc an opportunity to implement their program and be held
>    responsible for it.

	A left-wing 'victory' is not new in Israeli politics and we're not
	any closer to "a majority government". In fact the left-wing block 
	(Mapai/Labor/Mapam and affiliates) has been even stronger in the 
	past.
	--------------------------------------------------------------
	year   seats
	1949: 65 
	1951: 60
	1955: 59
	1961: 69
	1969: 56

	1992: 56

	These results do NOT include the Arab and communist lists.

Just for the record, here are the final totals:

Avoda (formerly Maarach)			44
Meretz (formerly Ratz, Shinui, Mapam)		12

Likud (formerly Likud)				32
Tzomet (Raful Eitan)				 8
Moledet (Transfer)				 3

Shas (black-hatted religious sfaradim)		 6
United Tora (black-hatted religious ashkenazim)	 4
Mafdal (Nat'l Religious - knitted kipah)	 6

Hadash (communist)				 3
Darawsha (Arab)					 2

    Sid,
    
    It seems that the results must be presented in the following way:
    

>Avoda (formerly Maarach)			44
>Meretz (formerly Ratz, Shinui, Mapam)		12
>Tzomet (Raful Eitan)				 8
>Shas (black-hatted religious sfaradim)		 6
>United Tora (black-hatted religious ashkenazim)	 4
    
    
    Since they may be the future coalition ....
    
    Haim

Haim, if it happens (?) shouldn't there be a "mechiza" (partition) between the
first three and the last two.  :-)

>    It seems that the results must be presented in the following way:
>
>>Avoda (formerly Maarach)                       44
>>Meretz (formerly Ratz, Shinui, Mapam)          12
>>Tzomet (Raful Eitan)                            8
  =========================================================   
>>Shas (black-hatted religious sfaradim)          6
>>United Tora (black-hatted religious ashkenazim)         4
>    
>    Since they may be the future coalition ....

Shalom
Baruch

    
    I want to say: Yey for Labor and Rabin. I experience the Likud and
    the right as rigid and destructive, and remember a time when Likud
    and the right was a tiny tiny minority. (though I must admit that I 
    had grwon to respect Begin (despite myself) after Camp David...
    
    I being in Israel in after '67 and being at a wedding of 500 friends
    and relative, and being aware of the fact that out of all those 
    people, one person supported the Likud...and then about 10 years
    later, that awful day when it was revealed that Rabin's wife had
    a bank account in the U.S. With $20K in...and realizing how such
    a little thing can effect an entire people/nation and the face 
    of intenational relations etc.
    
    Yey Rabin!
    dk
    

> My personal opinion: Thank heavens!! >-

Well, I'm glad *somebody's* happy. :-(.

As for me, I prefer to agree with Shamir, that it's a bit of a nightmare.
Suddenly, Jews whose houses are practically completed, who exercised their
rights, with the government agreement, to build and live in parts of the
country which have strong historical and religious meaning for them, are
told that building contracts are cancelled, roads will not be completed,
and they should go find housing elsewhere.  Instead of allowing the future
of the territiories to be a subject for negotiation with the Palestinians
and the Arab states when and if they agree to talk to us, we are unilaterally
giving up our rights to settle the land (to which we have *at least* as much
claim as anyone else) without receiving anything in return.

Rabin, the master-negotiator, whose previous successes include the 
Jebril prisoner exchange (in which thousands of terrorists were released
for a handful of Israeli prisoners in Lebanon, and allowed to return
to live in the West Bank, where many subsequently engaged in further
violence and were re-arrested), is back.  Last week, six members of the
violent (that's an understatement -- the blood of hundreds of viciously
murdered Palestinians is on their hands) black panther gang, were trapped
by security forces in a university in Shechem (Nablus).  After drawn-out
negotiations, they were all allowed free passage to Jordan.  And now
we will see how Rabin handles the continuation of the peace talks.

I take no confort in the fact that Rabin's biggest fans these days are
Baker, Bush, and Mubarak.

>    I being in Israel in after '67 and being at a wedding of 500 friends
>   and relative, and being aware of the fact that out of all those 
>   people, one person supported the Likud...

What's your point?  So you went to a wedding with a very homogeneous
guest-list.  There were probably weddings in the states where 98% of
the people voted for Dukakis, rather than Bush.  Surely you're not 
suggesting that the great majority of Israelis have always supported
Labor and that Likud somehow swindled the population in four elections
in the last 15 years.

>    later, that awful day when it was revealed that Rabin's wife had
>    a bank account in the U.S. With $20K in...and realizing how such
>   a little thing can effect an entire people...

That's not why Likud came to power.  They came in because the people
were sick of military screwups (the 73 war), corruption, and ignoring
the social needs of large segments of the population.  And those are
the same reasons that Likud just lost power.  And eventually, that's
how Labor will lose power again.  That's how a vibrant democracy works.

>> Yea, Rabin.

Well, I say "Booo".  But that's what democracy is all about.  The 
difference between us is, I can vote here.

Sid

.29> Instead of allowing the future of the territiories to be a subject for
.29> negotiation with the Palestinians and the Arab states when and if they
.29> agree to talk to us, we are unilaterally giving up our rights to settle
.29> the land ...

That's not exactly what happened.  The future of the territories is still a
subject for negotiation.  What has happened is that the Israeli government has
unilaterally decided to suspend certain work, with some to be stopped for good,
that was being funded with taxes that we pay.  No one has a "right" to use tax
money in this fashion; such an allocation is and ought to be a decision of the
government.