Information technology in transition: The end of Wintel | The Economist

Information technology in transition: The end of Wintel | The Economist

This is a printer friendly version of the page. Go back to the website version »

Information technology in transition

The end of Wintel

As Microsoft and Intel move apart, computing becomes multipolar

Jul 29th 2010

THEY were the Macbeths of information technology (IT): a wicked couple who seized power and abused it in bloody and avaricious ways. Or so critics of Microsoft and Intel used to say, citing the two firms’ supposed love of monopoly profits and dead rivals. But in recent years, the story has changed. Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder, has retired to give away his billions. The “Wintel” couple (short for “Windows”, Microsoft’s flagship operating system, and “Intel”) are increasingly seen as yesterday’s tyrants. Rumours persist that a coup is brewing to oust Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s current boss.

Yet there is life in the old technopolists. They still control the two most important standards in computing: Windows, the operating system for most personal computers, and “Intel Architecture”, the set of rules governing how software interacts with the processor it runs on. More than 80% of PCs still run on the “Wintel” standard. Demand for Windows and PC chips, which flagged during the global recession, has recovered. So have both firms’ results: to many people’s surprise, Microsoft announced a thumping quarterly profit of $4.5 billion in July; Intel earned an impressive $2.9 billion.

So now is a good time to take stock of IT’s most hated power couple. As The Economist went to press, Intel was on track to reach a settlement with America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which would in effect end the antitrust woes that have plagued both firms. And Microsoft has recently strengthened its ties with ARM, Intel’s new archrival. This suggests that the Wintel marriage is crumbling.

Critics have often questioned both firms’ technological prowess. Yet Windows 7, the latest version of Microsoft’s operating system, is excellent, and customers have snapped it up. As for Intel, its manufacturing machine is peerless. Some of its transistors are so tiny that 2m would fit on the “.” at the end of this sentence.

Both firms have often co-operated, despite occasional crockery-throwing. Microsoft has been pushier: in the mid-1990s, for instance, Mr Gates leaned heavily on Andy Grove, Intel’s boss, to stop the development of software that trod on Windows’ turf. Intel backed down.

2010 Tel Aviv-Yafo - Chicago 1999

8th August 2010 Tel Aviv reminded me of Chicago 1999.
In Chicago when I went to most McDonalds and asked for a meal without French Fries- Chips they did not understand me as most of the workers where from Mexico.
In Tel-Aviv August 2010 escaping the Sticky Weather I found the same.
The Boss's are Israeli and all the Regular Workers are from all over the
World and do not speak Hebrew, sometimes English.
This is happening very fast.
Clothes are Cheap when Food is expensive. And Rent of Course.

2010 Egypt: A special report on Egypt: The best man always wins | The Economist

A special report on Egypt: The best man always wins | The Economist

ONE of the endearing things about Egypt is that although nearly everyone fiddles, breaks or ignores the rules, everyone gamely pretends to respect them. Elections, for instance, are an elaborate charade. Rarely does turnout exceed 20%, and this from a list of registered voters that, in 2005, covered only 40% of the eligible pool, by official count. Few people register because the legal period for doing so is short and comes many months before elections. Besides, registration involves a visit to a police station, which many Egyptians prefer to avoid. Foreign election observers are banned. The parties allowed to run for the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, are selected by a committee controlled by the ever-ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which is headed by Mr Mubarak. Independents can stand, which is how the Muslim Brothers, banned as an organisation, field their candidates. But they risk arrest on some pretext, and harassment even without one.
The rest of this article on Linl Above

2010 Yafo Haredim

Order the arrest of demonstrators who had broken in Jaffa
16/05/2010 13:16:33

At about 11:00 Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, which was held picket disturbed archaeological work carried out there on suspicion that instead of tombs, open space and asked police protesters to leave but these were not according to police, 17 protesters were detained for questioning transferred open space.

Revision:

Later reporting vigil at Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, just arrived two buses filled with protesters who violated the order, large police forces instead.

Revision:

During the demonstration held today Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa against the archaeological work carried out in a suspicion that there are graves, some forty suspects arrested were detained for riots, attacks on police officers conducting an illegal demonstration. Further investigation in the open.

Revision:

During a demonstration at St Louis Pasteur Jaffa delayed Arrested 50 suspects for questioning, of which 23 suspects were released and 27 were jailed for questioning.

2010 Tel Aviv-Yafo. Tzipi Livni. Livni to Haaretz: Likud and Kadima must join forces for peace

Livni to Haaretz: Likud and Kadima must join forces for peace
Opposition leader: Parties must combine forces to reach peace agreement with Palestinians, bring about a social shift.
By Aluf Benn Published 01:14 07.05.10
Story Highlights

* Opposition leader blasts PM for 'paying off' ultra-Orthodox
* Says Netanyahu avoiding making decisions on peace process

Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni (Kadima ) on Thursday called to combine the forces of "the two large Zionist parties in Israel" - Kadima and Likud - to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and bring about a social shift.

"The prime minister is the one preventing the change," Livni said in an interview with Haaretz. "The parties he called 'our natural partners' before the elections are his means of preventing the change. There is no connection between what they represent and the Zionist vision. Neither the one [Theodor] Herzl outlined nor [Ze'ev] Jabotinsky, whose civic doctrine they have cast aside."

Livni blasted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "paying off" the ultra-Orthodox so that he could avoid making a decision on the peace process. She said Netanyahu is also evading a decision on social issues.

After the elections last year Livni met Netanyahu, who told her "the right-wing bloc won," she said. "I told him, there's another option, combining the two large parties' forces to advance peace [with the Palestinians] and internal agendas."

"Israel 2010 is a country in which women ride in the back of the bus, dry bones take precedence over saving lives, conversion is a mission impossible, the Zionist vision has blurred and defining the Jewish state has been given to a monopoly of ultra-Orthodox politicians that are taking advantage of the system and politicians. Society is divided into cloistered groups, each studying in its language - Hebrew, Arabic, Yiddish - the curriculum it sees fit," she said.

The public's attention has focused on the ultra-Orthodox community and core curriculum in recent days, Livni said, "and rightly so. We must act now, before the situation turns into mutual hatred that will bring no solution. Change is possible and the keys to change are in the hands of the Zionist parties representing the majority in Israel."

The change must consist of three co-dependent elements - education, military or national service and work, she said.

"The core curriculum is necessary from two aspects - creating a common basis reflecting Israel's values as a democratic Jewish state. Judaism and civic studies [must be taught] in every school. The second is providing every student with tools to join the labor force in the future and make a decent living. This is the only interpretation of equality - equal opportunity to students and a fairer distribution of the burden among the population. This, with joint values and vision, are critical to our existence as a society. Pluralism is not a substitute but complementary."

Livni said the state must cut off funding immediately for schools that don't teach core curriculum.

"Change is possible, but it will not be done with the agreement of the ultra-Orthodox parties. They have no reason [to agree], as long as Likud is the ruling party. Likud has bound its political destiny and all Israelis' fate to the ultra-Orthodox politicians' whims," she said.

"Kadima in my leadership refused to mortgage its world view. True, Kadima governments paid in the past. In my leadership it won't do so any more," Livni said.

Had Likud not dealt with the ultra-Orthodox, the two large Zionist parties could change the collision course Israel is on, both on the domestic and international fronts, she said. We could turn to a democratic Jewish-Zionist track, which protects individual rights in a democracy and creates a national common basis for the Jewish state, she said.

"The two parties could change the system of government to reduce the extortion power of the small parties, condition education funding on teaching the core curriculum and encourage anyone who can to join the labor force. They could also reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians based on two states. This is the only way to preserve the Jewish democratic identity," she said.

The peace goals and social goals are not contradictory, she said.

"In the past people used to say it was a matter of priorities, that it was worth paying and giving up [certain goals] to do the really important things, like a peace agreement. But this government is paying so that it won't have to reach an agreement. We can't wait and mend society only after we win all the battles. Otherwise it will be too late," she said.
by: Aluf Benn Haaretz

2010 Cairo 1999 Mona- Omar Sherif, French Law

From liberals and feminists, unsettling silence on rending the Muslim veil

By Mona Eltahawy washington post
Saturday, July 17, 2010; A13


The French parliament's vote this week to ban full-length veils in public was the right move by the wrong group.
Some have tried to present the ban as a matter of Islam vs. the West. It is not. First, Islam is not monolithic. It, like other major religions, has strains and sects. Many Muslim women -- despite their distaste for the European political right wing -- support the ban precisely because it is a strike against the Muslim right wing.
Some have likened this issue to Switzerland's move last year to ban the construction of minarets. On the one hand, it is preposterous to compare women's faces -- their identity -- to a stone pillar. Minarets are used to issue a call to prayer; they are a symbol of Islam. The niqab, the full-length veil that has openings only for the eyes, is a symbol only for the Muslim right.
But underlying both bans is a dangerous silence: liberal refusal to robustly discuss what it means to be European, what it means to be Muslim, and racism and immigration. Liberals decrying the infringement of women's rights should acknowledge that the absence of debate on these critical issues allowed the political right and the Muslim right to seize the situation.
Europe's ascendant political right is unapologetically xenophobic. It caricatures the religion that I practice and uses those distortions to fan Islamophobia. But ultra-conservative strains of Islam, such as Salafism and Wahhabism, also caricature our religion and use that Islamophobia to silence opposition. Salafi ideology, which is unapologetically misogynistic, has left its imprimatur on Islam globally by convincing too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
The strains of Islam that promote face veils do not believe in the concept of a woman's right to choose and describe women as needing to be hidden to prove their "worth." Salafism and Wahhabism preach that women will burn in hell if they are not covered from head to toe -- whether they live in Saudi Arabia or France. There is no choice in such conditioning. That is not a message Muslims learn in our holy book, the Koran, nor is the face veil prescribed by the majority of Muslim scholars.
The French ban has been condemned as anti-liberal and anti-feminist. Where were those howls when niqabs began appearing in European countries, where for years women fought for rights? A bizarre political correctness tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to defend women's rights.
There are several ideological conflicts here: Within Islam, liberal and feminist Muslims refuse to believe that full-length veils are mandatory. In Saudi Arabia, where the prevalence of face veils is great, blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote a post on Saudiwoman supporting the French ban: "I have heard Saudi women, who are conditioned to believe that covering is an unquestionable issue, sigh as they watch uncovered women on TV and say, 'They get this world, and we get the afterlife.' These are the women 'choosing' to cover, brainwashed into living to die."
But the problem is not just "over there." Feminist groups run by Muslim women in various Western countries fight misogynistic practices justified in the name of culture and religion. Cultural relativists, they say, don't want to "offend" anyone by protesting the disappearance of women behind the veil -- or worse.
For example, French women of North African and Muslim descent launched Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives) in response to violence against women in housing projects and forced marriages of immigrant women in France. That group supports the ban and has denounced the racism faced in France by immigrant women and men.
Cultural integration has failed, or not taken place, in many European countries, but women shouldn't pay the price for it.
Europe's liberals must ask themselves why they have been silent. It is clear that Europe's political right -- other countries have similar bans in the works -- does not care about Muslim women or their rights.
But Muslims must ask themselves the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black, either as a form of identity politics or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
The pioneering Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi famously removed her veil in 1923, declaring it a thing of the past. Almost a century later, we are foundering. The best way to support Muslim women would be to oppose both the racist political right wing and the niqabs and burqas of the Muslim right wing. Women should not be sacrificed to either.
Let's move away from abstract discussions and focus on the realities of women. The French were right to ban the veil in public. Those of us who really care about women's rights should talk about the dangers in equating piety with the disappearance of women.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born writer and lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues.
Mona Eltahawy: Tea With Omar Sharif
The Jerusalem Report March 29, 2010

When I read that Egypt’s Journalist Union had punished two senior Egyptian editors – one a member of the country’s ruling party and the other an expert on Jewish affairs for violating its ban on contacts with Israel, I wondered if Omar Sharif ever thinks of me.

My nemesis wasn’t the once-heartthrob Egyptian actor but a State Security officer in Cairo whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif and who, for six months in 1999, tormented me for moving to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. There is no law that bans Egyptians from visiting Israel but everyone knows that once you do, State Security will invite you over for “a cup of tea” – i.e., an interrogation.

I got Omar Sharif’s note inviting me for tea during a quick visit to Cairo the year I lived in Israel. “Miss Mona, an officer left this for you,” the doorman’s wife Umm Mokhtar said. An ebullient woman not easily intimidated, she was unusually subdued as she handed me the note, which I shoved absentmindedly into a jacket pocket. I was on my way to the airport, late as usual.

I did not think of him again until my next trip to Cairo a few months later, when my brother’s very anxious father-in-law took me aside. Once he mentioned the name Omar Sharif, I knew the surreal had kicked down the door into my life.

When I didn’t call Omar, he had gone to my apartment building and dragged Umm Mokhtar’s husband to the nearest police station for questioning as to my whereabouts. After the poor man convinced Omar that all he knew was that I was abroad somewhere, Omar went back to my apartment building where he spoke to the man from whom my parents had bought the apartment and who acted as de facto landlord.

He told Omar that all he knew about me was that I was a journalist and he offered the telephone number of my brother’s father-in-law who was looking after any matters regarding the apartment because my entire family lived abroad.

I told our relative I’d go in and see Omar. By the time we had our cup of tea, I’d resigned from Reuters and was back living in Cairo. Tall and bulky, Omar Sharif wore a shiny purple suit. He had a mustache and every sentence ended in an exclamation, usually not in my favor.

“Mona Eltahawy! Finally! You’re a real character,” Omar shouted. “Who on earth goes to Israel? I have to meet your father. If my daughter ever told me she wanted to go to Israel I’d break her neck!”

Stepping into his office, I walked into a thick wall of cologne; one of those Calvin Klein unisex scents fashionable about 10 years earlier. I didn’t know whether to feel flattered or worried.

“You see this file,” he said. “This is all you. Look – orders to have you followed, orders to tap your telephone. You’re a lot of trouble, you know.”

What had I been saying on the phone lately?

He left for a few moments to go and say his noon prayers. I sat alone in the room watching an Arabic language news channel that had the volume muted. I didn’t know if I was in trouble or not.

“So do you pray?” he asked when he came back.

“I do.”

“No way! You don’t look like the praying kind.”

“Who said religion had a look?” I ventured. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was falling right into every trap he set for me.

“Well of course there’s a look to being religious,” he said. “Our religion is very specific about what’s wrong and what’s right. Take the traveling you like so much. A woman shouldn’t travel alone.”

I let that bait go. I was learning.

“Are you married? How old are you?” He continued.

“I’m 31. I joke I’m married to my job.”

“You can never get married. Who’s going to want to marry you with the life you lead, every day in a different city? You’ll end up with a man like my brother, a womanizer, who’ll cheat on you,” he said.

And so on and so forth till he got up, shook my hand and told me to call him if I ever needed help.

I tried to forget Omar.

A few months later as I visited my brother’s in-laws with my parents and sister – in town for a while – the telephone rang. It was Omar Sharif. He knew my father was in town. They spoke for a few moments. The next day, my father and mother said they wanted to talk to me.

“What did he mean when he said you were living a life that was not suitable for Egypt?” my father asked. After kicking down the door, the surreal was dancing on the rooftop of my life.

A distant relative, who had recently retired from State Security, was called. Omar Sharif’s paternalism had set the men in motion to save Mona.

“Mona, the guy’s already married,” the relative said after investigating. “I thought he wanted to marry you or something.”

“I know – he showed me his wife’s picture,” I replied.

He gave me the number of Omar’s supervising officer so that I could call him if Omar ever bothered me again.

About a year later, I pressed play on the flashing telephone answering machine.

“Peace be upon you Miss Mona. I’m just calling to see how you are. Give me a call when you hear this message. This is, of course, your ‘brother,’ Omar Sharif.”

1979 Jerusalem Cairo Peace, My De Chevau

1979 March Peace with Egypt after Saadat came Saturday evening 19th November 1977. My father Died before Purim 1978 and Peace Now was created in Jerusalem.
I had a Citroen 2CV which I will write about later.

Mona what do you think TF Nostalgia.
I heard an Arab Editor say that the Modern Arab World wants Peace with Israel. In contrast to most of the Media.
It is a fact that Carter was worried of Islamic Revolution in Egypt 1979 and that is why Saadat Carter and Begin made Peace with Egypt.

Here is an Article By Tom Friedman 1977-1979:

February 14, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

1977 vs. 1979

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Visiting Yemen and watching the small band of young reformers there struggle against the forces of separatism, Islamism, autocracy and terrorism, reminded me that the key forces shaping this region today were really set in motion between 1977 and 1979 — and nothing much has changed since. Indeed, one could say Middle East politics today is a struggle between 1977 and 1979 — and 1979 is still winning.

How so? Following the defeat of Egypt and other Arab armies by Israel in the 1967 war, Nasserism, a k a Arab nationalism, the abiding ideology of the day, was demolished. In its wake came two broad alternatives: The first, manifested by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in his 1977 trip to Israel, was a bid to cast the Arab world’s future with the West, economic liberalization, modernization and acceptance of Israel. The weakness of “Sadatism,” though, was that it was an elite ideology with no cultural roots. The Egyptian state made peace with Israel, but Arab societies never followed.

The second Arab-Muslim response emerged in 1979. To start, there was the takeover that year of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Islamist extremists who challenged the religious credentials of the Saudi ruling family. The Saudi rulers responded by forging a new bargain with their Islamists: Let us stay in power and we will give you a free hand in setting social norms, relations between the sexes and religious education inside Saudi Arabia — and abundant resources to spread Sunni Wahabi fundamentalism abroad.

The Saudi lurch backward coincided with Iran’s revolution in 1979, which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. That revolution set up a competition between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia for who was the real leader of the Muslim world, and it triggered a surge in oil prices that gave both fundamentalist regimes the resources to export their brands of puritanical Islam, through mosques and schools, farther than ever.

“Islam lost its brakes in 1979,” said Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. And there was no moderate countertrend.

Finally, also in 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Arab and Muslim mujahedeen fighters flocked to the cause — financed by Saudi Arabia at America’s behest — and in the process shifted Pakistan and Afghanistan in much more Islamist directions. Once these hard-core Muslim fighters, led by the likes of Osama bin Laden, defeated the Soviets, they turned their guns on America and its Arab allies.

In a smart essay in The Wall Street Journal, titled “The Radical Legacy of 1979,” the retired U.S. diplomat Edward Djerejian, who led the political section of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1979, noted: “Last year we celebrated the great historic achievements marked by the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent unification of Germany. But we should also remember that events in the broader Middle East of 30 years ago have left, in sharp contrast, a bitter and dangerous legacy.”

In short, the Middle East we are dealing with today is the product of long-term trends dating back to 1979. And have no illusions, we propelled those trends. America looked the other way when Saudi Arabia Wahabi-fied itself. Ronald Reagan glorified the Afghan mujahedeen and the Europeans hailed the Khomeini revolution in Iran as a “liberation” event.

I believe the only way the forces of 1979 can be rolled back would be with another equally big bang — a new popular movement that is truly reformist, democratizing, open to the world, yet anchored in Muslim culture, not disconnected. Our best hopes are the fragile democratizing trends in Iraq, the tentative green revolution in Iran, plus the young reformers now coming of age in every Arab country. But it will not be easy.

The young reformers today “do not have a compelling story to tell,” remarked Lahcen Haddad, a political scientist at Rabat University in Morocco. “And they face a meta-narrative” — first developed by Nasser and later adopted by the Islamists — “that mobilizes millions and millions. That narrative says: ‘The Arabs and Muslims are victims of an imperialist-Zionist conspiracy aided by reactionary regimes in the Arab world. It has as its goal keeping the Arabs and Muslims backward in order to exploit their oil riches and prevent them from becoming as strong as they used to be in the Middle Ages — because that is dangerous for Israel and Western interests.’ ”

Today that meta-narrative is embraced across the Arab-Muslim political spectrum, from the secular left to the Islamic right. Deconstructing that story, and rebuilding a post-1979 alternative story based on responsibility, modernization, Islamic reformation and cross-cultural dialogue, is this generation’s challenge. I think it can happen, but it will require the success of the democratizing self-government movements in Iran and Iraq. That would spawn a whole new story.

I know it’s a long shot, but I’ll continue to hope for it. I’ve been chewing a lot of qat lately, and it makes me dreamy.

2010 Feb 5th Haaretz Poll:One year on, most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu

_{Last update - 11:45 05/02/2010 haaretz}

One year on, most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu

_{By Yossi Verter}

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is losing altitude, according to the Haaretz-Dialog poll published here. The results show that, for the first time in a year, a majority of the public is dissatisfied with his performance and questions his suitability as prime minister.

This is purely personal, not party-related. Likud under his leadership is actually stronger: If elections were held today, the party would get 35 Knesset seats, eight more than its current total and 23 more than it received in 2006. Netanyahu took a broken, shattered party that had been split and decapitated by the predecessor of his predecessor - i.e., Ariel Sharon - and brought it back to life. No one can take that away from him.

Every few months, this poll, conducted under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs from the Department of Statistics at Tel Aviv University, checks the prime minister's political health. Since his election, Netanyahu had been in pretty good shape. There were always more people who were happy with him than those who were not, generally with an 8-10 point spread in his favor. In the new survey, though, that situation has changed. When it comes to suitability for the premiership, Netanyahu still ranks ahead of his rival, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. But the gap is narrowing: Not in her favor, but to his detriment.

Two reasons for this leap to mind. One is the "Sara effect." In the past three weeks, Netanyahu has been buffeted by negative, embarrassing reports about his domineering wife and about him personally, as well as about how he is dealing with her and about developments in his bureau.

But the main reason for the drop in his popularity is his decision to freeze construction in the settlements - something no right-wing prime minister before him ever dared to do. The dry facts tell the whole story: Netanyahu is losing support among right-wing voters (though not in the Likud). At the same time, he is gaining popularity among the center and the left. The voters on the right side of the political spectrum are disappointed with him. They still backed him after he declared his support for the two-state solution, but once he took a concrete step they started to turn a cold shoulder.

The alternatives

After almost a year in the opposition, Tzipi Livni remains the only significant political alternative to Netanyahu among the three large- or medium-size parties - even though Kadima almost slipped through her fingers; even though she is in the midst of a struggle against the party's No. 2, Shaul Mofaz; and even though Kadima's impact as an opposition power is negligible.

Fully 89 percent of Kadima voters prefer Livni over Mofaz. This finding shows how cut off he is from Kadima's voters (or, in this case, from the party's registered members, who determine its leadership). If Mofaz stays in Kadima, runs and defeats Livni, he will transform the party into something completely different from what it is today - he will make it a pale copy of Likud.

But in the poll, Kadima loses three seats to Labor, which has nine sweet seats, as opposed to six in the last Haaretz-Dialog poll, in November (and 13 in the last election). The reason: internal wrangling in Kadima. But the new data also indicate that half of Kadima's voters - 14 Knesset seats - would consider voting for a new party led by journalist and television presenter Yair Lapid.

Lapid also would draw many people from Labor and Meretz: In total, based on this survey, nearly a quarter of the country's voters would likely consider giving Lapid their vote. At the moment, he is in a dream spot for a wannabe politician. He is the presenter of the most watched current-events television program on Friday night; he writes a column in the country's most widely read weekend newspaper magazine; he is perceived as a victim because of the proposed "Lapid bill," a move by his opponents to block him from running in the next elections; he is gaining points from the well-publicized troubles of Kadima and from the built-in wretchedness of Labor; and he has just published a book about his late father, which became an instant best-seller. All he has to do now is rescue two babies from a burning house and nothing will be able to keep him from being elected prime minister.

On his way into the political arena, Lapid has to keep in mind the experience of one person: Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, the former chief of staff. Before he ran in the late 1990s, at the height of his popularity, the polls gave a party headed by him 20-plus seats. But the moment he actually entered politics there wasn't a mistake that he didn't make. Lipkin-Shahak ended up as No. 2 in the Center Party, whose six seats faded away in the twinkling of an eye. Lapid would do well to give him a call before he takes a commercial break and doesn't come back.

The successors

Shimon Peres had Yitzhak Rabin (and vice versa) as his right-hand man. Afterward he had Ehud Barak. Ariel Sharon had Benjamin Netanyahu. Each of those prime ministers had a "natural" successor, someone who was considered - by the political arena, his party and the media - as the one and only possibility. Netanyahu has no one, no No. 2.

The Haaretz pollsters asked about potential successors in Likud and Labor after the era of Netanyahu and Barak; the question was put to voters in general and not to the registered members who will choose the party's leaders. In Likud there are three potential heirs: Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom and Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar. The three are almost neck and neck, both among the general public and among Likud voters.

Sa'ar, a young minister serving his first cabinet term, has leaped forward and is now positioned alongside Shalom and Ya'alon, with Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz faltering, well behind. In the face of Ya'alon's magnificent military record (he was chief of staff) and of the senior government posts Shalom held (foreign affairs, treasury), Sa'ar's success as education minister is highly significant.

Among Labor and Meretz voters, only one successor to Barak looms at this stage: Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. He is well ahead of MK Shelly Yachimovich and Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman. Yachimovich, a fairly new MK, is doing pretty well - on the assumption that she and her colleagues will still have a party to lead.

The Labor Party shows a 50-percent increase - from six seats in the last poll to nine in this one. But the whole center-left camp has 48 seats, unchanged from the poll three months ago, whereas the right-wing bloc has 72 seats - also unchanged. In the current Knesset, the center-left bloc has 55 seats, as compared to 65 for the right. In short, a year after the elections, the right-wing bloc still remains dominant.

A lobby revived

On Tuesday afternoon, in the old lecture hall of the Knesset, the Land of Israel lobby was reborn. It was first established 22 years ago by Likud MK Michael Eitan. A right-wing parliamentary body, its main effort was devoted to tightening the settlers' hold on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now, with Gaza gone, MK Zeev Elkin (Likud) and MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) decided to recreate the lobby. Elkin is the chairman of the Likud faction and the coalition, both of which are headed by a prime minister who declared his support for the two-state solution and ordered a construction freeze in the settlements. In the near future, Elkin will have to muster support for that policy among the coalition members, while heading a body that preaches against it.

The new lobby's basic principles include "strengthening Israel's hold throughout the Land of Israel and particularly in Judea-Samaria," "preventing any harm from befalling the settlement project in Judea-Samaria," "promoting legislation that will bolster settlement in those regions," and "refashioning the policy of the defense establishment for the benefit of promoting settlement in these regions." And so on.

In addition to a large number of MKs, the founding meeting was attended by all the leaders of the settlement movement, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) and two Likud ministers: Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin, who is also a member of the "forum of seven," the supreme body in the government. Both ministers expressed support for the lobby's principles, which are totally at variance with those espoused by Netanyahu. Begin even told the meeting: "In the months ahead, in the years ahead, we shall have to work together, and work together we shall."

Work for what? Against whom? Against what?

The other Likud ministers were no-shows, but sent touching messages of support. "Strengthening our hold throughout the Land of Israel and in the Golan Heights is a basic, existential and security need whose roots lie deep in history," one minister wrote.

"Even though I am not there with you, my heart is definitely with you. May you only increase and grow stronger," another poeticized. "We are there and we will remain there thanks to our forefathers," said another. "We must encourage settlement activity in all parts of the land," a fourth minister asserted. And so on.

In fact, the only two ministers who did not send messages were Netanyahu and Dan Meridor. One who did was Eitan, who founded the lobby in 1988. He wrote Elkin that he believes the lobby's goals are more compatible with those of the extremist National Union than with Likud and the coalition, that the lobby is misguided and that its views are in "thunderous contradiction" to Netanyahu's policy. "I suggest that you look for a different path," Eitan wrote.

MK Eldad didn't know in advance what Eitan had written. At the start of the meeting he solemnly informed those present that he would soon read the letter sent by the founder of the original lobby, Michael Eitan. Everyone applauded warmly. The letter was not read out. Who wants to be a party pooper?

After the meeting, the settler leaders made their way to the MKs' cafeteria. At the entrance, one of them ran into Ze'ev Boim, a former Herut and Likud man, but of late in Kadima. "Ze'evik, join us, be part of the lobby," the settler urged Boim.

"And what will we do there?" Boim asked.

"We will save the Land of Israel," the settler replied, and laughed loudly and long.

---

2009 Ramat Gan Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speach

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University June 2009

(S.C. Is this the Zig or the Zag...)
Honored guests, citizens of Israel.

Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.

Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.

And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.

I share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.

I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.
I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.

The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.

Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan.
There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.

I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin
negotiations immediately without preconditions.
Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.

We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.

I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.

If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education - most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity, opportunity and hope.

If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?

In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?

In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria .

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.

We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.

We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.

The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa.
Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.

Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side.
The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”
I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.


Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In am moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust - a suffering which has no parallel in human history.

There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occured.
This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.
But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.

As Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books.”

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us.
I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.

This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.
I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.
Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.
We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.

In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.

It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.

On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.


Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.

Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.

And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.

If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel - we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.

Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.

Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.

With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.

Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.

Our microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.

If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.

I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more.”

With God’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.