Reply #9: that's what he said.

[bigtree]

I thought Likud would benefit from Olmerts failure, but he argued that Likud was formed to accomodate what some thought Sharon wanted, but apparently had no use for because of his settlement deal.

here it is:

The Likud, Sir, At Least For The Present

Is routed and discredited in Israel. The decision of its political inner circle to defy Sharon over the Gaza withdrawl was suicidal: they seem to have imaged they had a party Sharon needed, when the fact was Sharon was the only reason they had any mass popularity. Neither their war and settlement policies nor their domestic policies are very popular amonmg the Israeli people, and without the prestige of the "old lion" they have nothing.

Kadima, which Mr. Olmert inherited with the incapicitation of Sharon, was formed specifically to execute a policy of phased withdrawl from the lands over-run in '67, or at least most of them, and to do so unilaterally. There are many flaws, from a number of angles, in their vision, and it will fall far short of the ideal, and be unsatifactory to many. It does incorporate a further de facto annexation, namely the security barrier's course, and contemplates maintaining a signifigant portion of the settlements. Against all this, it does have the sovereign virtue of being practicable, as it is something it is in Israel's power to do without bogging down in negotations and hagglings. There is at least a possibility it is a course that will reduce the level of violence, and prove something most among the people of Arab Palestine can live with. My own view is that anything that cuts a zero or two off the right hand side of the casualty figures is to the good, and worth having, even if it is not the best conceivable outcome. There is no particular reason to believe Kadima will abandon the policy that is its forming purpose, and that is the most popular course among the people of Israel.