At the urging of some friends, I have decided to go out on a limb, take a stab in the dark, indulge in fantastical thinking, or whatever your favorite metaphor for wild, though educated, guessing might be. I have looked at the latest polls (by law, Friday was the last day they could be published), held my finger to the Jerusalem wind, listened to my friends debate the consequences of “strategic voting,” and here is the result. I freely admit that it is tempered by wishful thinking and skewed somewhat towards the left. Thus, this really represents what I think are the outer limits of reasonable possibility for those, like me, who are praying, hoping, and advocating for Bibi to go.
Zionist Camp 24
Likud 21
Jewish Home 13
Kahlon 10
Joint List 14
Shas 8
UTJ 6
Yachad 0
Yisrael Beiteinu 5
Yesh Atid 14
Meretz 5
106 W 32ND ST, NEW YORK, NY, 10001 (212) 242 4500
I’ve not followed the polls but knowing how close your ear is to the ground, you’re probably 98% accurate. I’ll look forward to seeing the result. I’ll buy you a beer if you’re over 95%.
From your mouth to God’s ear, but as long as we’re guessing and hoping, I’ll give a point or two wider between the Zionist Camp and Likud!
As long as you are already out on that limb, can’t you climb out just a bit further and tell us who you think might join the Zionist Camp in a coalition government.
Would Shas be willing to join Yesh Atid and Meretz in a Zionist Camp govt? If not, who else might join?
Leverage a country soduns like something different than pressuring a country. It soduns like trading the country in for advantage elsewhere in the world.The question: how can you pressure Israel to change its behavior without abandoning it? does not really seem to be such an impossible proposition. The removal of American financial support would produce a major blow/shock to the Israeli budget and lifestyle, but would not affect the long range existence of a state of Israel (necessarily). I think it is possible to pressure Israel without killing Israel. If you are merely interested in changing Israeli behavior to reflect the realities of the situation rather than the coddled position it enjoys today, that is one possibility. But then there is the possibility that you are proposing throwing Israel to the wolves. You might define the wolves as lambs rather than wolves, but that is a different propositon than pressuring Israel to adhere to 242 or something of that nature. I think there is a difficulty proposing pressuring Israel on any level for people who are unaccostumed to dealing with the frustration of the settlement policy vis a vis American post 1967 policy. When Jews are unwilling to pressure Israel that is a real problem. That Jews are not willing to trust that the wolves are in fact lambs, that is not necessarily a problem, unless you have an objective of achieving some pre 1967 policy rather than post 1967 policy.