[vyper]

Yeah mine was first tho.

[Flipside]

<---- Looks innocent

[Sandwich]

Well, general talk around here is that Sharon's not coming back politically, regardless of what happens. The doctors haven't even begun to asses how much brain damage has been caused, and there has been brain damage. Either way, the recovery period will be long and hard - IF he recovers - so there's just no future for him in politics.

Now, Ehud Olmert, the interim PM, is probably the most corrupted politician in the government. God have mercy while he's in charge. Anyway, politically, unless Olmert's a Clark Kent, there's no way he's gonna be able to keep the centerist Kadima party anywhere near as strong as it would have been under Sharon. With the elections 2.5 months away, there's not enough time for anybody new to step to the front and take the reins of Kadima. Which basically leaves the question of Peretz (Labor / left wing) vs. Netanyahu (Likud / right wing), and as far as I can tell, that's no competition at all. The only chance Netanyahu has of losing the elections, IMO, is if Olmert drops out and urges all the Kadima voters to vote Peretz... which I can't imagine him doing, since Olmert came from Likud, not Labor.

So, in the end, and in my very amature assesment, Bibi Netanyahu will be PM in 3 months. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

[Corsair]

What if Peres took control of Kadima? Ha'aretz still predicts that Kadima could do pretty well, although their poll is a "what if the election happened today?". http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/666984.html

My guess is that Sandwich is right and that Bibi will get the PM spot after the elections in a few months.

[Sandwich]

Peres has a history of always losing elections. I don't see him breaking the mold now.

[Janos]

Your new prime minister will be a complete surprise and generally a very boring guy.

[Rictor]

Always nice to see such touching concern about a man who presided over the massacre of innocent women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

The only concern I have about Sharon is what effect his poor health will have on the region. I couldn't give a toss about him personally.

First of all, it's just shows basic respect for a nation to not wish death on their elected leaders. Secondly, half the world's sitting heads of state have blood on their hands, including a certain Mr.Blair. Throw a dart at a map of the world and you're more than likely going to land within a hundred kilometers of a recent massacre. And yes, that included the oceans as well. Those sharks can be ruthless when they get organized.

But finally, Sharon has proven to be more moderate (or at least that's the way it appears to me) than Netanyahu, who is likely going to be sitting in Sharon's seat in a few months. So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.

[Sandwich]

So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.

I'm not even going to begin to address this, especially not in this thread.

[vyper]

Bring back Bill Clinton, he almost had them behaving.

[karajorma]

First of all, it's just shows basic respect for a nation to not wish death on their elected leaders. Secondly, half the world's sitting heads of state have blood on their hands, including a certain Mr.Blair.

Difference between wishing death and not particularly caring if they live. I'm firmly in the second camp. I'm merely surprised that I'm alone there cause quite frankly that's my position on Blair, Bush and a whole host of other tossers.

Throw a dart at a map of the world and you're more than likely going to land within a hundred kilometers of a recent massacre.

Much as I hate Bush or Blair as far as I know not even they can be blamed for anything anywhere near as sickening as Sabra and Shatila. It just annoys me that cause he's the elected official in a western(ish) country he can get away with crap that would have him facing trial in the Hague if he came from some 3rd world country. I know that's the way the world works but that doesn't mean I should plaster on a fake frown and be part of it.

But finally, Sharon has proven to be more moderate (or at least that's the way it appears to me) than Netanyahu, who is likely going to be sitting in Sharon's seat in a few months. So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.

As I said from my first post I do care about the effect it will have on the region even if that means he had to stay in charge. I agree that it's better to have him than Netanyahu by a long shot but I'd rather the Israelis saw sense and tried electing a real moderate in the first place rather than someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.

[Sandwich]

...someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.

I'd just like to point out that as long as there is the slightly huge issue of people holding irreconcilable beliefs of hatred and the like, "long term peace" will be unattainable no matter who is involved.

[karajorma]

I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.

Wars don't have to go on forever just cause people don't like each other. You can't completely end the hatred but you can usually cool it to the point were both sides aren't constantly pouring petrol on the fire and then complaining about how they got burnt.

[Flipside]

Well, the latest is that he is out of surgery and stable at least

[Sandwich]

I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.

Wars don't have to go on forever just cause people don't like each other. You can't completely end the hatred but you can usually cool it to the point were both sides aren't constantly pouring petrol on the fire and then complaining about how they got burnt.

Oh, I agree. Refer to the post-Intifada (the one in the 80's), pre-Oslo Israel/Arab relations.

[TrashMan]

Difference between wishing death and not particularly caring if they live. I'm firmly in the second camp. I'm merely surprised that I'm alone there cause quite frankly that's my position on Blair, Bush and a whole host of other tossers.

Nah, you're not alone.. I fully agree

[Ace]

...someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.

I'd just like to point out that as long as there is the slightly huge issue of people holding irreconcilable beliefs of hatred and the like, "long term peace" will be unattainable no matter who is involved.

When such beliefs cause such suffering it might be a good time to realize that they're wrong. Not just yours, not just theirs, but both.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.

I serioulsy doubt that the north-irish hate thing reached the levels of hatred that a certain faction has for another in the middle east. It's like 1930/40s germany revisited.   

[Sandwich]

Interesting article here by an Iranian guy: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17763837%255E601,00.html

[aldo_14]

I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.

I serioulsy doubt that the north-irish hate thing reached the levels of hatred that a certain faction has for another in the middle east. It's like 1930/40s germany revisited.

You've obviously never seen Glasgow during an OF game - and that's just a microcosm of the troubles in NI of the time.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

obviously never seen Glasgow during an OF game - and that's just a microcosm of the troubles in NI of the time.

mmh, are they vowing to drive the opposition into the sea (what a euphemism eh), blowing up pizzaparlours and buses?

(I'm not saying that the north-irish thing isn't bad, it clearly was -and worse when it was in full swing- but is it really comparable?)