Skip to comments.New poll finds Sharon has 30% lead over Netanyahu [Likud primary race in Israel]
Posted on 11/16/2005 10:45:43 AM PST by anotherview
Nov. 16, 2005 8:24 | Updated Nov. 16, 2005 19:39
New poll finds Sharon has 30% lead over Netanyahu
By GIL HOFFMAN AND JPOST STAFF
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at Sunday's cabinet meeting.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
If Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is considering whether to split the Likud and form a new party, he may want to draw his attention to a recent poll that found that he would defeat his main challenger, MK Binyamin Netanyahu, by over 30 percent.
The poll, which was commissioned by Channel 10 and conducted among Likud voters, found that nearly 49% would vote for Sharon, while only 19.4% would support Netanyahu. Rebel leader Uzi Landau received 11.7% of the vote.
Meanwhile in Wednesday's Likud faction meeting in the Knesset, Sharon said that he was unimpressed with the fervent calls for party unity from his political opponents.
Likud MKs, who have been rebelling against Sharon for more than two years, took turns giving speeches about the need for unity in the party to defeat newly elected Labor Chairman Amir Peretz. But Sharon told his associates that he expects the show of unity to end immediately after the election.
"Let's not lie to ourselves," Sharon said. "No one in the faction has changed their mind about anything because of this meeting."
Sharon's associates shrugged off the calls for harmony within the party saying that they "hadn't seen such an atmosphere of hypocrisy in the faction in a while" and that the Likud was still "far away from reconciliation." Sharon loyalist MK Roni Bar-On left the meeting early, saying that the unity speeches by Likud rebels "made me need a barf bag."
In a typical statement from the meeting, Likud rebel MK Michael Ratzon said, "There is a time for everything - a time to argue and a time to unite. This is a time to emphasize what we have in common instead of our differences and move forward together."
Many Likud MKs left the meeting upset that Sharon did not use the occasion to announce whether he intended to remain in the Likud. Sharon's associates said that he would not make a decision until next week when his advisers receive the results of polls and market research focus groups.
Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra and Knesset Law Committee chairman Michael Eitan told Sharon in the meeting that it was unacceptable that he had not yet announced his decision. Netanyahu said without mentioning Sharon that "whoever loses the race will have to accept the democratic decision."
Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that he was against a proposal in the Likud central committee to reserve the second slot on the Likud list for Netanyahu in return for him quitting the race. "We have to stop this crybaby approach of saving Bibi," he said. "Bibi is a big boy and he can run by himself."
Landau said in the meeting that the Likud should unite around its principles and ideology instead of around the prime minister. He said that there should be primaries and that he would be a candidate, but that "no matter who wins, I will stand behind the victor."
Ezra retorted bluntly, "You know you're going to lose, right, so why are you still running?"
At the end of the meeting, the faction unanimously passed a statement saying that "the faction sees the breakup of the national-unity government as an irresponsible move by Labor and its chairman. The Likud will unite against the extremist policies of Amir Peretz that endanger Israel and the economy. We will win the election and continue to lead the country.
Assuming the Prime Minister remains in Likud (which now appears likely) and wins the primary, the anti-Sharon crowd here will need to decide if it really likes Amir Peretz better, because it really does appear that will be the choice.
>> Rebel leader Uzi Landau <<
Not so bad, but his kid is a read sonofagun.
Well, I'm afraid what this says to me is that Sharon may have succeeded in wrecking Likud.
I hope everything works out for the best. But personally I think that Sharon, who rode in on a wave of anger against the Oslo "peace" process, the resulting Intifada, and Ehud Barak, has betrayed his party and his country.
What to do about it? I don't know. Fortunately I'm not an Israeli voter.
You know I share neither your view of disengagement nor of the Prime Minister. There is good reason Prime Minister Sharon remains immensely popular in Israel. He is seen as a strong leader.
Ariel Sharon is a Zionist through and through. He does what he believes will bring security to Israel. I understand you don't like what he does but that does not mean he betrayed anyone.
I hope you are right.
I know I am right about the Prime Minister's motives. ABout his actions... only time will tell.
Also, please remember Israel is not a two party system. You could vote for National Union/Israel Beitanu, for example, or Mafdal (National Religious Party). Neither has any chance of winning an election, of course, but they are the voice of opposition to disengagement, any attempt at peace, any territoial concessions, and often the voice of "transfer" (forced deportation of Palestinian Arabs).
Binyamin Netanyahu is the best man
"Palestine is the wrong name for their State. It should be called Anarchy."FReeper sgtbono2002
"Then let's wait and see what the Arabs do after they take Gaza. There's nothing like Arab reality to break up a Jewish fantasy."FReeper Noachian
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."
The Nature Of Bruce ~
What a disaster. Of all people, the Israelis should know appeasement = death.
Herod,-er Sharon is ahead.
Those of us who remember Netanyahu's previous performance as Prime Minister tend to disagree with you. The right has never forgiven Netanyahu for pulling out of Hebron as a result of the Wye River Accords, which he signed. He continued the Oslo peace process.
Bibi's positions change with the political winds. The whole thing over disengagement from Gaza was political opportunism. Uzi Landau, by contrast, objected based on his principles and beliefs. I'm not sure anyone knows what beliefs Bibi has.
One thing for sure: Bibi won't get my vote.
I think you are right, but in 2001 it looked like Prime Minister Sharon was willing to stand up to President Bush. Certainly Prime Minister Shamir stood up to the first President Bush at the cost of a freeze in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel. I think the Prime Minister needs to stiffen up and hold firm to Israel's best interests. I think the agreement on the Gaza-Egypt border is a huge mistake.
Oh, and if you want to make that bet here it'd be shekels to sufganiyot :)
Can you explain to me why Sharon is leading Netanyahu?
Israel needs to move on Iran now, he is the man
IRAN will start converting 50 tonnes of uranium ore from the end of next week into the feedstock gas for making enriched uranium, a key phase in the nuclear process.
A diplomat said the Iranians have told the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna that "they intend to resume full conversion work on November 26".
That would be after a crucial November 24-25 meeting of the IAEA board of governors on Tehran's nuclear program at which diplomats will consider whether to send Iran to the UN Security Council.
The announced work would be a second round of conversion. Iran has already processed 37 tonnes of ore.
Diplomats said the amount of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas the Iranians would have after processing 50 tonnes would be enough to make highly enriched uranium for up to 10 atomic bombs.
Iran had previously announced it would do more conversion but had not given a specific date, although it had been expected to begin the process earlier in November. The amount to be converted is also more than previously thought.
The diplomats also said reports that the UF6 is too contaminated to be put into the centrifuges that spin it into enriched uranium were wrong.
Iran is currently suspending enrichment work but "the current batch is good enough for a crash nuclear weapons program, if Iran doesn't mind ruining a lot of centrifuges along the way," a Western diplomat said.
Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States charges that Tehran is using this to hide secret work on developing atomic weapons.
All the more reason for Netanyahu, IMO.
Others might explain it better, but it appears the electorate prefers Sharon. I'm a supporter of unilateral withdrawl, clearly that includes Gaza, though I don't like the way it was handled at all. Clearly that wasn't what Sharon ran on in the last election. Would Bibi have been different, maybe, but as I recall he seemed to be more vocal at the end of the process than it's beginning. And Bibi obviously was a supporter of Oslo. I've no reason to doubt the love of country of either, They have the kind of accomplishments in the defence of their country our founders did. And they're both politicians. Bibi can afford to wait.
its oh most to late Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said it had won 34 seats in the first phase of legislative elections, a major advance for the banned but tolerated Islamist group.
Thank you. I am still rather stunned to learn Netanyahu isn't as popular as I desire or imagined. He's such a GOOD man.
Do you mean it's "almost too late?"
how many Muslim vote in Israel elections now ?
Thank you for the information.
I am still trying to understand why Netanyahu isn't the overwhelming choice.
Don't know. A little less than 20% of the population. They're educated, work for a living, and participate in society so I'd guess that's around the vote.
Any adult citizen of Israel who happens to be a Muslim may vote. That includes any Muslim living in the pre-1967 borders plus any Muslim living in territory Israel annexed since then (Golan, eastern Jerusalem) who has chosen to take Israeli citizenship. Many Jerusalem Arabs haven't chosen to do so and have permanent resident status instead. They have no vote.
Currently Israel's population is 5.3 million Jews and about 1 million Muslim Arabs. I can't tell you what percentage of each group is of voting age without doing a little quick research. Considering the only reason I'm on at this hour is insomnia this isn't the best time for me to do that.
You keep saying that. What in the world do you base that statement on????
You keep saying that.
I have said it ONCE.
Bibi also voted for disengagement repeatedly. Then he voted against it. Does this sound familiar in American political terms?
Put simply: Many Israelis do not trust Bibi. His politics change with whatever he thinks will help him gain power at the moment. Ariel Sharon, by contrast, has his history as a General, a man who has fought in all our wars. People trust him not to give too much in the end. People trust his judgement.
There is another factor. Prime Minister Sharon gave Likud it's biggest election victory every. Likud has never had 40 seats in the Knesset before. Netanyahu gave Likud it's biggest election defeat ever, dropping the party to just 19 seats in the previous election. Likud members want to win and Sharon is a big winner in two consecutive elections. Many Likud ministers and MKs will gladly set aside their views to insure they keep their jobs. They are politicians, after all.
My apologies. You can cope both said it. You still haven't explained how you come to that conclusion. Is it because he's handsome? Speaks eloquently? Because of his performance as Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999? Why?
A major difference in the systems, that isn't appreciated when looking in from here. We vote for Bush or Kerry, you vote for "Republican" or "Democrat" or a multitude of alternatives who, rather than representing "wasted votes", may wield some level of influence.
You're giving me "anotherview" of Netanyahu and it's one that's new to me.
I've always liked him and admired his firm stand on terrorism. No nonsense and no minced words. I like Sharon too --- were I an Israeli, I KNOW I'd belong to the Likud Party. :)
meant ot inclued you in the last post
Thank you. Much appreciated. I am getting a good education today, which is one reason FR is so wonderful.
I am Israeli and I am a Likud member. I think any of the current candidates for party leadership are strong in their stand against terrorism.
Can someone enlighten me as to how this agreement benefits Israel at all? The only concessions that are being made in this "Peace" process are being made by Israel. Why the hell do we continue down this path of appeasement of the Terrorist-inians? I am a Christian supporter of Israel and am truly dumbfounded by some of these policies. THe only conclusion I can even come close to buying is that when the Terroristinians fail, yet again, to reign in their armed groups and start becoming productive in this process, that the US and Israel can justify backing out of the process saying that they have done all they could and that the Arab League needs to take these refugees back.
As I've noted on a couple other threads, if the objective is a sovereign palestinian state, peaceful not mandatory, then clearly these agreements, I presume you're speaking of the border, advance that cause.
How many times have these 2 gone head to head in elections now? It seems every time its these two....
Yes, the border agreement was what I was referring to. Thanks for the reply. I may be mistaken, but hasn't the objective has been a sovereign state since '47? I think the original Palestinian Mandate set aside land, 80% of which became Jordan and the other 20% for the creation of 2 states -- Israel and a state for the Arabs. I don't think that Abbas has the fortitude or the political strength to disarm the groups that are opposed to the existence of a state of Israel.
In a sense. The Arab League has long rejected the concept. The West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control from 47 to 67, pending the destruction of Israel and unification as one nation. The Oslo concept established a less that sovereign state. Israel would have been responsible for defense, foreign affairs and controlled the airspace. The idea of a completely sovereign state is GWBs. Most of the issues were reading about, like the borders or a West Bank-Gaza link were to have been settled in final negotiations under Oslo. Now theyre to be accomplished up front, prior to the Palestinians even embarking on their most basic pre-negotiation obligations, dismantling terror and ceasing incitement.
Thanks again for the refresher; I had forgotten that the Oslo accords had never been "finished". I do believe that a sovereign state is needed, but with Abbas' shaky grip on the security situation as well as some of his recent rhetoric, it seems further off. I don't want this to turn into another Islamic Republic(see Iran) that will feed more foreign fighters into the fledgling Iraq or continue to launch terror strikes into Israel. I understand that you cannot completely eliminate the suicide bombers.
Eventually Iran will destroy Israel, probably in the next 2-5 years. All it'll take is 2-5 low-tech gun style uranium bombs.
Israel will lash out and probably destroy most of the islamic world, but what will be lost is immeasurable.
The only thing that may save Israel is the fact that most islamics value Jerusalem (for false reasons of course).
Just a comment. Letting Pakistan be armed is bad enough.
I won't be surprised to see efforts to destabilize Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia emanating from Gaza for decades.
I fear you are correct, good sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.