continued
Ha'aretz's election poll
A month after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon left the public stage and a week after Hamas's victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, an Haaretz-Channel 10 poll reveals Israeli voters remain consistent in their positions and voting intentions.
*
It is quite boring to recite: Had the elections taken place now, Kadima, which last week presented its impressive Knesset candidate list, would have won 43 seats (one seat less than in the previous week) and Labor would have won 21 seats (no change). The Hamas' victory did not strengthen Likud as predicted, and the party even lost a seat compared to last week (13 seats compared to 14).
*
The Likud wins this week's failure index big time: if Likud failed to win back disappointed Likud voters (21 votes) even after the Palestinian upheaval, what will bring them back home? . . .
However, 32 percent of the respondents said that "there is a chance" that they would change their minds by election day. What could change the way they vote, and to which direction, nobody knows.
The freeze in the seat distribution can be explained by the answers given to the following question: "Have you changed your decision regarding which party you would vote for following Hamas' victory?" Only five percent of the respondents ? a negligible number ? answered this question positively.
Where do we see a certain change? In the public's attitude towards Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who inherited Sharon as Kadima's leader. When the public was asked to score his functioning, there was no significant change to the score he received last week (6.52 compared to 6.47 on a scale of 1 to10). But when Olmert's status is compared to his two rivals, Netanyahu and Peretz, in the question of suitability to the role of prime minister, the data reflects a significant decrease in Olmert's stand, which benefits Peretz: Olmert gets 33% this week while Peretz receives 22%. Three weeks ago Olmert got 44% and Peretz only 13%. There is almost no change in Netanyahu's results.
Egypt demands
Egypt believes that the Palestinians must stop all violence as a precondition for renewing peace talks with Israel. "Negotiations cannot take place under violence and fire. Therefore, violence must be renounced," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu Gheit said Wednesday after meeting his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni in Cairo.
This is the first time Egypt is demanding the Palestinians stop violence as a precondition for peace talks, as stated in the Road Map peace plan.
Violent Amona protests
Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday evening harshly criticized the violent behavior of settlers during the Amona outpost evacuation earlier in the day and held the Yesha Council responsible for the clashes with security forces.
"A line was crossed in Amona and this cannot be accepted," Olmert said.
*
The acting prime minister said the hurling of rocks and concrete blocks at soldiers and police officers had nothing to do with ideology and can only be described as pure violence.
Olmert emphasized that the violent confrontation was planned and organized by the settlers' Yesha Council in an attempt to achieve political goals. He said Israel would not tolerate such behavior.
*
Peace Now called on Olmert to evacuate all 100 outposts in the West Bank in response the settlers' violence, in order "to solve the problem once and for all. Today's violence is the outcome of years of lawlessness," the movement said in a statement Wednesday.
Kadima's Bar-On: Era of restraint in dealing with protests is over
Cabinet Minister Roni Bar-On, referring to violent clashes between pro-settler protesters and security forces Wednesday at the West Bank outpost of Amona, said that the government's "era of restraint" in dealing with settler protesters is over.
"We will not allow any law-breaker, even if he is a member of Knesset ... to harm the state of Israel as a state of law," Bar-On told Army Radio.
"We restrained ourselves in Gush Katif. We restrained ourselves in Hebron, in Yitzhar, and in outposts for a long time, even if people there physically injured security forces there. That's finished. The era of restraint has come to an end.
"From now on, this will be a nation of law, which enforces the law."
Bar-On dismissed criticism that security forces had used unnecessary force in expelling hundreds of youths from nine houses slated for demolition at the outpost.
"Did you see what these children did? Before they were forcibly removed, they used a wooden log to try to force a police officer to fall from a ladder."
Bar-On further criticized settler leaders for cowardice in "hiding behind children" and inciting them to climb onto rooftops and attack security forces evacuating the West Bank outpost of Amona.
According to an account in Yediot Ahronot:
Hundreds of evacuees, dozens of injured, and nine demolished buildings. The struggle over the Amona outpost has been marked by unprecedented violence.
It can certainly be described as the most severe and violent clash between the State and right-wing activists, with more violence seen in Amona than in all of the incidents of the disengagement.
One police officer told Ynet: "I have been targeted by more rocks today than anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank."
Court indicts Safed chief rabbi
An indictment was filed Wednesday morning at the Nazareth Magistrate's Court against Shmuel Eliyahu, head rabbi of the northern city of Safed, after anti-Arab statements he made to various media outlets.
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz ordered last May that an investigation be opened on Eliyahu, son of former chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu. The younger Eliyahu is suspected of racial incitement after he called on homeowners in an interview with Israel Radio to refrain from renting apartments to Arabs.
What should Israel do?
Yossi Alpher, former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and co-editor of bitterleemmons.org, writes:
the Olmert government had best "keep its powder dry," avoid interference in Palestinian affairs wherever possible, and wait for events to unfold. Hamas has huge dilemmas to resolve if it is going to run Palestinian affairs next door to Israel; any Israeli initiative is liable to be counter-productive.
Israel simply cannot grant freedom of movement to newly elected Hamas parliamentarians who are terrorists or active supporters of terrorism. That would be a dangerous precedent. It should, on the other hand, find ways to "reward" Hamas for maintaining the cease-fire and, conceivably, changing its political terms of reference. In this regard, and assuming Hamas displays a pragmatic approach, Jerusalem could continue to turn over to the Palestinian Authority taxes and customs levied on its behalf. There are three good reasons for such an approach. First, quite simply, this is not our money, it is theirs. Second, starving Palestinians will not make our lives more secure. Accordingly, we should also continue to supply electricity and water, as long as they are paid for. And third, this tax money is not the same as Western and other aid funds, which constitute philanthropy. In this regard, Israel must take pains to explain the difference to the European Union, and ask it to continue to withhold funds until Hamas demonstrates a readiness to abandon violence and recognize Israel.
*
Barring an unlikely revolution in Hamas' approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even assuming matters remain tranquil, we now confront the obvious absence of a peace partner. For well-known demographic security reasons, and in order to further shorten our lines of defense against terrorism and reduce the poisonous effects of occupation, Israel has to continue to withdraw unilaterally. But under different conditions: We must be cautious - avoiding, for example, withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, lest a Palestinian Hamas regime endanger Jordan. We might remove isolated settlements from the West Bank mountain heartland, but without removing the Israel Defense Forces, in effect adopting the northern West Bank disengagement model rather than the Gaza model. And we have to complete construction of the security fence as quickly as possible.
Finally, it behooves both Israel and moderate Palestinians to keep in mind that we are dealing with Muslim fundamentalists whose devotion to democratic principles is questionable, and whose commitment to remaking Palestinian society in the Islamist mold is ultimately total, even if for tactical reasons Hamas currently presents a moderate and reasonable facade. Will the first regime ever formed in an Arab country by the Muslim Brotherhood initiate another round of parliamentary elections four years from now? That will be a real test of Palestinian democracy.