Talk:Kadima/Archive 1

Candidate names

Will anyone bother to write the articles about the Kadima candidates? Even in the Hebrew version there are most of them, even though no-one even knows them...

Factual Errors?

I've done some cleanup on the information mass-posted by User:IZAK, which certainly helped flesh out the article, though it may have granted Sharon a bit too much applause for an encyclopaedic article. Anyhow, my concern now is that the actual facts seem contradictory, at one point we seem to claim that Sharon pushed for the March 2006 elections, in another we say that his opponents did it. Can somebody more knowledgable about Israeli politics try to decipher this for us? Sherurcij 06:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sherurcij: I strongly object to your statement/s here. Have you not heard of "writing" and "editing" Wikipedia articles? Otherwise it's just a useless stub. It is not a question of "applause" for anyone, it is only a question of facts, and description and explanation that are accurate. Originally, it was well-known that Sharon wanted to complete his term in office until Novemebr 2006. Once the political landscape changed and Labor left his unity government Sharon haggled over when in March elections should be held, because they must be held 90 days after the dissolution of his government from about now. What Sharon has been pushing for now is to get the elections held in late March, unlike Labor who are pushing for early March, or the Likud which wants elections held as late as possible. If all this is too confusing for you...then I would apply the adage: "If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen". IZAK 07:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You strongly object to my pointing out contradictory statements and asking if somebody can explain who called the election in the article? My comment wasn't for it to be clear on the talk page, but in the article :P Sherurcij 14:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Party's name

The apparent name seems to have swung back to National Responsibility (Hebrew: אחריות לאומית, Aharāyūt Le'ūmīt) Eranb 07:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking story on 23/11/2005

Yea, see the Haaretz of Last update - 06:57 23/11/2005 www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649050.html :

Sharon's new party likely to keep 'National Responsibility' as name By Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondent:

The temporary name of Ariel Sharon's new party - National Responsibility -will probably become permanent. The name was proposed by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and got the nod from advertising executive Reuven Adler. Now it awaits Sharon's approval.

The temporary name was used because time was short and Sharon's team knew they couldn't launch a nameless party. "Kadima" (forward) and "The Israeli Party" were also considered, but were rejected after they were tested on focus groups. Yesterday, the moniker "National Responsibility," which began to take off in the media, seemed to Sharon's people the most suitable, despite being cumbersome.

One contributing factor in the decision to focus on the temporary name may have been the well-publicized altercation in the Knesset on Monday between the chair of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, Michael Eitan (Likud), and chair of the House Committee, Roni Bar-On (from Sharon's faction). During the dispute, the name "Kadima" was bandied about. In the heat of the argument, during the plenum debate over going to early elections, Eitan called out to Bar-On: "Kadima to the Ranch," taunting him to go "forward" to Sharon's Sycamore Ranch.

So much for following a "breaking story"... IZAK 07:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's officially Kadima now: "Sharon party officially launched -- Prime minister's new party registered Thursday morning; faction members scheduled to convene in Tel Aviv at 12:00, where strategic advisors expected to present party's new name – Kadima." YNETnews.com www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3174045,00.html

Well, changed back to Kadima: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649332.html, and registered under that name. Eranb 09:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear phrasing?

This fragment appears in the "Political Objectives" section in the context of Shinui:

[Shinui] seeks to promote a secular civil agenda as opposed to the strong influence of Israel's Orthodox and Haredi parties (the latter) who joined Sharon's last coalition...

What does "the latter" mean here? Is it that the Haredi parties joined the coalition, but the Orthodox parties didn't? If so, might this be better?

...seeks to promote a secular civil agenda as opposed to the strong influence of Israel's Orthodox parties, and the Haredi parties which joined Sharon's last coalition...

My knowledge of Israeli politics is very limited and I am puzzled. Molinari 18:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molinari: Indeed, the nationalist Religious Zionist Orthodox parties were at first part of Sharon's original government and sat together with the fervently secular Shinui party in the government, but the Haredi parties were not in that coalition. Sharon subsequently dumped his first nationalist Orthodox partners, and then later Shinui left the government and was replaced by Labour. It was then that the Haredi parties joined Sharon's government as well. Your suggestion is sound. IZAK 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Sharon?

Since I'm probably not going to edit this article as I know little about the party (haven't followed the news that much lately), I thought I'd still mention that it reads as an article about Ariel Sharon's 2005 career, and not a political party. Today everyone's calls it 'Sharon's party' and consider him its indivisible leader, but this may change later, regardless of whether the party becomes big or slips into obscurity. Can someone make it more similar to an article about a political party, and not one politician? Thanks. By the way, I realize I wrote it in a sort of accusative tone, I didn't mean it, so apologies. -- Ynhockey 14:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey: While what you say may sound nice, it makes little sense, because, as of this writing, the new party is only a few days old and is nothing more than an extension of Sharon: his plans and his objectives. It revolves 100% around him, and that's the way he wants it for now, otherwise why would he have left the Likud? The new party has been founded to accomplish Sharon's goals. Maybe in six months or a year from now, when the party will develop more independence from Sharon it will be possible to write about it the way you would like. For now, the Kadima party is a new-born political "infant" attached to (and minutely nurtured by) its "Mama" (and "Papa" -- rolled into one): Sharon. To cut him out of the picture at this stage would in fact be a misrepresentation of what's happening with it. IZAK 06:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasize IZAK's response, Sharon announced that only he would decide on the party's candidate list for the next Knesset - no primary elections or any other form of group decision would be made. While this may change in the future, at the moment it does indeed look like "Sharon's Party". altmany 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon's history

This article should mention that Sharon helped found Likud then left to form his own party after he called for negoiations with the PLO and the creation of a Palestinian state in Jordan. I'm talking about in the '70s by the way.

By the way, who are you and why did you not sign your comments with the four "tildes" ~~~~ ? As for your question, could you please provide some source for it? Thanks. IZAK 06:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I actually didn't know how to do that, thanks. My source is the Knesset website: www.knesset.gov.il/elections01/eindex.html I always either see it mentioned that Sharon helped found Likud or that he founded his own party and tried to align it with Labor but I hardly even see both of those facts mentioned at the same time. That link explains how both are true. Pimpalicious 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Pimpalicious: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. I looked up the link you provided and it was very helpful. The party you are talking about that had those policies was the Shlomtzion Party created by Sharon before 1977. That party was mentioned in this article, but since this article already has much info about Sharon's career, it cannot contain every proposal that Sharon has ever made as a politician. We are trying to stick to the subject here of the Kadima party and how it came about in tandem with Sharon's history that may be relevant to it. I did however re-edit the article, see Kadima#Backround to the split. Thanks again. IZAK 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Peres

In the list of people that are from the Labour it says that Shimon is "not a member", that has change now, right? Didn't he decide to join? If anybody can confirm that, please make the changes... Gadster 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peres left the Labour Party and announced his support for Sharon as the next PM, but he did not say that he would join his new party. Actually, his comment about leaving "party activity" may be interpreted as meaning he has no intention in taking part in any party, Kadima included. Of course, this would not prevent him from becoming a minister in the next government, since Israeli law permits non-MK ministers (current Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz is an example). altmany 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Knafo

In answer to User:ShalomShlomo, Knafo has indeed initially published her support for Sharon. However, yesterday (Dec. 12) she founded her own party called Lehem (elections.walla.co.il/?w=/26/823840 article in Hebrew), which indicates she decided not to join Kadima after all. This is not the same as a refusal to join. altmany 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? What's the difference between Knafo starting her own party and Avishai Braverman joining the Labor party? Both were thinking about joining, and now they have decided not to. I'm just curious. Maybe we should change "refused" to "declined"? ShalomShlomo 08:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Knaffo did not refuse an invitation - as far as publically known, Knafo was never asked to join, and her Sharon support was unsolicited. On the other hand, there was much public debate about the fact that Braverman was approached by both Kadima and Labour, and after some deliberation he finally decided Labor. altmany 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please no gossip in an encyclopedia

===Reportedly considering joining=== {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} *Tzalash (former [[Shinui]]) MK [[Yosef Paritzky]] *Former Mayor of [[Kiriyat Malachi]] [[Lior Katsav]] (Brother of Israel's incumbent [[President]] [[Moshe Katsav]]) *[[Yehuda Meshi-Zahav]] www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475610501&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I am moving the above to talk: gossip does not belong in a serious encyclopedia, and this looks like a gossip. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's gosspip if it's sourced, and M-Z IS sourced (I know, I found it). I'd say put the section back with just Meshi-Zahav, and advise future contributors to be sure to source anyone they add to it. ShalomShlomo 09:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ShalomShlomo, I think that the article only wins without it, but if someone likes it enough to restore it, I won't revert. Fair? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll also keep an eye on that section in future. ShalomShlomo 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I should've brought it to talk first. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section had its pros and cons. Most problems however were covered by the warning. Now that the big names have decide one way or another, we are better off without the section and the warning. gidonb 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Part of the article refers to current events, and this speculation about potential members is part of the event. Besides, the section's temporary by its very nature, anyway, as we'll all know who's joined and who hasn't in the next few months. Eventually those names will either be in the "joined" or "refused" sections. At least this way we can keep track of the names in the news and move them accordingly when they come up. ShalomShlomo 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is my idea with a different cut-off point. The current event status made it worthwhile to include such a section with warnings. I say eventually is now and the few who are still undecided are not worth the "gossip" anymore. 21:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Pnina (new) may be again. You found references for those left, which is another ellegant solution. 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barak's ex-wife

What about Barak's ex-wife? There were news reports that she was going to join but it was never announced. Pimpalicious 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources, I say go ahead. ShalomShlomo 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475697364&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=94362 but those are both just saying she was going to. I can't find anything that says she has. I was wondering if anyone else knew. Pimpalicious 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say put it in along with sources. ShalomShlomo 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

I added the "needs updating" format. This entire article contains speculation about Sharon's attitudes and intentions, and his second stroke clearly keeps him out of the picture for good. Kimpire 11:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center- right or center-left?

In the intro paragraph it says that the party is center-right but in the infobox it says that it is center-left. Let's keep it consistent. I am not 100% which way it leans to. Anybody care to elaborate? Gadig 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-right or centrist I reckon. The Israeli News Agency calls it Centre-right (Winston1984)

Centre-left, and surely not Zionist! How can a party that saying they'll give away Golan Heights is Zionist? 88.155.93.166 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that given the way the whole disengagement shindig went down, it would be center-left, if not center.

Right,Centre-Right or at a push Centrist (from an Isreali perspective) and Zionist. Zionism is a belief in a form of nationalism which accepts that Israel is a state for jews of the world. It also desires that maximum boundaries possible. Kadima believes in Zionism whose maximum boundaries are those outlined by the seperation barrier. Also the disengagement process is because of demographic considerations in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel - it is therefore a Zionist policy.(winston1984)

As the party was first formed from moderate Labour and Likud members, wouldn't it most likely be centrist. Granted, Olmert is significantly right of center. -Tjss 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it depends on definition of centre and whose centre you are talking about. The Israeli centre or a more internationally recognised centre. Labour under Peretz is left of Labour under Barak and Likud under Netanyahu is to the right or Likud under Sharon. Does that mean that when the right of Labour and the left of Likud come together they form a centrist party (even though Likud is no longer Centre-right)? On foreign policy there is almost nothing to distinguish between Peres, Barak and Sharon (even though Barak is still in Labour). Economically Kadima is likely to be centre-right or right-wing and on foreign policy (including the Palestinian/Israeli conflict)it will have more or less the same policy as the US Republicans (who aren't exactly left wing or centrist). (winston1984)

Economically yes; Ideologically, regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, settlements, etc. he's significantly left of center, and so is Kadima. conio.h • talk 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the Gaza disengagement, I believe the Israeli political center has moved. Why not just label the party 'centrist' and leave it at that for now? Time will tell whether the party is center-right or center-left.

i dont think it's accurate to say that the centre of israeli politics in general is to the right of the international community. in fact, i think that, if you look at social and economic issues, israeli society is far more 'leftist' than most others. the only issue where israeli politics appears more 'rightist' is on the issue of security, granted an issue that generally overrides others and decides elections. perhaps think about re-wording the last paragraph to reflect the fact that this relates to security alone.

regarding the last comment, the israeli public did not move after the gaza disengagement, but long before. sharon's policies in the last years reflect this shift and not the other way around. Dgl 22:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whose political centre you are talking about. Is this political centre one that would be iternationally recognised or one that only Israeli's would recognise? The right-wing US Republican Party persuaded Sharon to accept a Palestinian state. Therefore from an US perspective Kadima is not left of the US Republicans. It was the US right-wing party that moderated the Israeli government. Kadima are surely either right-wing, centre-right or centrist (from an Israeli perpective). But to call them left-wing is inaccurate from both an Israeli and international perpective. Winston1984 06:51, 6 April, 2006 (UTC)

From an Israeli view, it is centre left or centre. From an international view, it's just centre. I mean, it's much more like the Labour than Likud. Zionist is useless because all the parties in Israel except the radical Arabian left wing parties are Zionist. Centrism is the best way to avoid all these politics. It is on the left of the centre-right (or "right" from an international view) Likud and to the right (not by much) from the centre-left Labour. Again, I'm in favour of plain Centrism in the article. And Olmert himself is even to the left of the Labour, speaking about giving away the Golan Heights to Syria. The article currently consists "centre-right, zionist" and I edit it to "Centrism", Please don't return Zionist due its uselessless (huh). And Winston, I need to remove the part saying IDNA claims Kadima to be centre-right, their website www.israelnewsagency.com/israelsharonpoliticskadima481129.html says nothing about it. p sychomelo₍di_sc _ussion) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Netanyahu, Likud is no longer centre-right but simply right-wing. Likud is now on the political fringe because it rules out the idea of a Palestinian state (which has consensus approval amongst the population). Labour is to the left of Kadima as its economic policies are more left-wing and it believes in a negotiated settlement that could include the Golan Heights and most of the West Bank. As Kadima is right of the US Republicans it is extremely difficult to describe it a purely centrist.The Israeli News Agency calls Kadima Centre-right. You could quite easily say that Kadima has replaced Likud as a centre-right party as Likud as veered off to the fringes. Why don't we put both centrist and centre-right down until Kadima's policies become clearer?(Winston1984)April 10 2006 p.s. I had linked Israeli News Agency article which showed phrase but someone removed it.

Examples of Kadima Party being described as centre-right:

www.israelnewsagency.com/olmertisraelelectionssharon480328.html Israel News Agency article describing Kadima as having centre-right polices
info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/elections.2006/pms.former.html Jerusalem Post Online Edition
www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=179617 Kadima tops polls on eve of Israeli elections despite slide
www.sundayherald.com/54848 Polls point to historic victory for Kadima, Sharon … and Olmert
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1150184.php/Election_victors_face_questions_about_Israels_future Election victors face questions about Israel's future

(Winston1984)

After reading the article in the INA's website, I tend to agree with conio. He wrote (about Olemrt):

Economically yes; Ideologically, regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, settlements, etc. he's significantly left of center, and so is Kadima. conio.h • talk 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a dilemma. How do we describe a party who is left in its ideology and right in its economics? Will Centrism, Capitalism, Social democracy fit in this case? And to whoever adds the Zionism after my edits, please stop. Every party in Israel is Zionist except the radical left wing Arabian ones, and only Israeli parties are Zionist. I am not trying to change to history (not that there's much of Kadima's "history") or something, but as you can see it is useless. If you insist, please add it to ALL the parties. p[[user:Psychomelodic|<font c _ussion) 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If both the Israeli News Agency and The Jerusalem Post describe Kadima as centre-right then it would be sensible to include centre-right in an encyclopaedia. It has been described as centrist too by much of the media so that could be included as well. It has not been described in the media as either left-wing or centre-left. Please can you say how that it is ideologically left? From what I can tell nothing about it's ideology is left-wing at all. It is only called centrist or centre-right because it is left of the old position held by Likud and left of the right-wing Netanyahu led Likud. To much of the rest of the world it is fairly right-wing. (Winston1984)

As to Zionism - the Israeli Communists do not describe themselves as Zionists. (Winston1984)

A. There are no "Israeli Communists". They have united with the Arabian party "Hadash", therefore I was not wrong with my words.

so who are these people then? [www.maki.org.il/ Maki-Israeli Communists](Winston 1984)

Please note you have sliced my message. Maki is not an Israeli party. It has united with Hadash. Their leader in number 4 in Hadash and is now in the Knesset. Psychomel @di_(s)cussion 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. I wonder how can a party who is pro giving a quarter of the country to Syria and the future coming Palestinian state can possibly be considered as right wing. In its ideology it's pretty much like the Israel Labour Party.

C. There is no reason to remove Liberalism (which was orignally Social Democracy). There is no point of trying to make Kadima look like a right wing party, it is simply not. It is not Likud.

D. I am not going to start an edit war, and this is the last time I revert the article to what it was before this dicussion. Please, talk before you edit. I am tired of this. You can show up proves and I can show up proves. I want to reach a consensus on this. p[[user:Psychomelodic|<font 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A.There are Israeli Communists and people on the ultra-left that reject the label Zionism. If Israeli-Jewish communists have united with Arab-Israeli parties that means that they don't believe in segregated parties, it does not mean that they are not Israeli. I don't mind if that label is there or not although it is correct to apply it to Kadima. I didn't put it there.

B. The land it held from Syria did not belong to it in international law but was occupied land. Therefore it is merely given back land that was taken from Syria. The right-wing element is the nationalist belief in expanding Israels beyond the 1967 border, keeping and increasing settlements on Palestinian land, the growth of the seperation barrier, and the almost racist belief in unilateralism. Peretz believes in negotiation with the Palestinians - this is a fundamental difference.

c. Kadima is not a Liberal Party. It does not call itself a Liberal Party. It does not follow the Liberal philosophers such as John Stuart Mill. To describe it as Liberal is absurd. No Liberal Party would allow for the Occupation (which is in effect the imprisonment of an entire people).

d.If both the Jerusalem Post and the Israel News Agency call it Centre-Right then we should accept that. I have already copmpromised by also including Centrist with Centre-right. Where is your compromise? This is meant to be an encyclopaedia so everything must be proven. It's not about personal politics. We should use commonly used terms.(Winston1984)

Kadima is not a right-center party.; it's just centrism

That is your opinion. Encyclopaedias aren't about personal opinions. The international and Israeli media have used two terms - Centre-right and Centrist. Therefore until this consensus changes both terms are acceptable (the consensus has changed regarding Likud). My personal opinion is that Kadima are a right wing party, but my opinion is not important - it is what the general consensus amongst world opinion believes is important.By the way you have not signed your name. I will continue putting centre-right alongside centrist. I personally don't feel that centrist is totally accurate but the world's media are using it alongside centre-right so both should remain.Centrism is not a political ideology so is hard to define and therefore you should not be rigid about your position. (Winston1984)

I am a volunteer in Kadima and we see ourselves as centre party and zionist. there's a left-centre and right-centre elements in Kadima and It was declaired by Sharon and Olmert as a centre party which is Zionisnt. You can look in Kadima's website and see it in your own eyes that Kadima is a centre-party.(tal)

We only have your word for this. You may be faking. However in the international media both centrist and centre-right are used, therefore they MUST be acceptable. Centrism is not an ideology so it is entirely subjective. You may see yourselves as a centre party but others might not. It is also up to others to describe you as well as you to describe yourself (if indeed you are genuine and not a fake). Personally I see Kadima as right-wing but encyclopaedias are not about personal opinion. Your personal opinion should give way to whatever term is common use in the English speaking world i.e. both centrism and centre-right. If you are really in Kadima why don't you use the Hebrew version of Wikipedia and let English speakers edit this English encyclopadia? (Winston1984)

Dude, be just a tiny bit respectful. There are plenty of english speakers in Israel, including myself. You're allowed to disagree, and they are allowed to contribute. Wikipedia is, quote, "The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". If you have a problem with that, go start your own encyclopedia. Kimpire 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre is existed because of cnetre-right and centre-left but Kadima is between - it's centrist. u can send an e-mail to Kadima and ask. there are many former members of the labour in Kadima as well. and it also not populist. it is Zionist, it was declaired by Olmert. (tal)

As I am the one who added populism I shall answer you. I agree Kadima is centrist and Zionist, but I think Zionism should not be mentioned in the information box as it is obvious they are, like every part in Israel are Zionists (except the radical left wing semi-communist Arabian parties). Yet note I have never removed Zionism from the info box, but someone else. Also, I don't see your point about Kadima being Zionist and not populist. A party can be both Zionist and populist, and although it is not the only populist party its populism (to bo accurate - Sharon's populism in the Israeli public opinion and popular culture) is what gave it its victory. Psychomel @di_(s)cussion 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International news website saying Kadima is centre-left:

www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/28773/format/html/displaystory.html Kadima win signals shift to center-left political reign

www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001314.php Kadima and Labour described as centre-left, talkback users agree it is not centre-right

www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060330/2006033016.html Center left dominates as Israeli Kadima wins (notice it is an Arabian site)

Some say it's right-wing (like you, who's looking only on the seperation fence aspect) and some say it's left-wing (like me, looking on every other aspects). Therefore the centre-right desc is now removed, and Kadima is a centrist party. End of story. Psychomel @di_(s)cussion 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everybody sees kadima as someting else. the centre-left people see it as centre-right and centre-right people see it as centre-left. Therefor, Kadima is centrist

'Acting' PM

unfortunately, english does not have a good translation that i have seen for the hebrew term memale' māqōm ('filling-the-place', 'place-filler', ?) which was Ehud Olmert's official title until mid-april. he was NOT acting prime minister, which is: ro'sh memshālāh b-fō`al. i know that most foreign news sources have not made this distinction (either out of ignorance or inability to translate), but all hebrew-news sources have made it. incidentally, olmert is still not 'Prime Minister' (without the 'acting' title), until either his new govt is sworn in, or until 90 days from sharon's declared incapacitation (what happened earlier this month). Dgl 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliamentary block"

I put a "citation needed" tag on this sentence:

"After coalition talks with the Gil party, the two decided to form a parliamentiary block, effectively bringing Kadima up to 36 mandates."

I put the same tag on a similar sentence in the Gil party article. What I am really looking for is an explanation of this sentence, either in a cited article or in an explanation to be written into the article. So I figured I should make clear what it is that I do not understand. There is an implication in the quoted sentence that there is now a formal relationship between Kadima and Gil that is different from the relationship between Kadmima and its other coalition partners such as Labour. What I am looking for is, what is that relationship and what are the distinctions between it and having a merged party (on one hand) or merely being partners in a government (on the other hand.) If there is some other article on Wikipedia that explains all this, that would be fine, I would just put in a link. 6SJ7 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I took the sentence to mean that 'as a result of reaching an agreement, Gil became part of the Kadima coalition and two of its members became ministers', which appears to be exactly what occurred. Evidence of two Gil members serving as Ministers comes directly from an Israeli governmental website listing ministers: (www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Current+Government+of+Israel/Ministers+and+Senior+Officials+of+the+31st+Government+of+Israel.htm).

Is this enough of a citation, or can the sentence simply be reworded to suggest that as a result of joining Kadima's coalition (and pushing them past 60 of the 120 Knesset seats), Gil gained two ministries? --ThatBajoranGuy 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadima as a Zionist party

We had many arguements here about the fact that Kadima is Zionist. For example, on of Kadima's Knesset members, Yoel Hason has become the president of the Zionist congress. Hason belongs to the basic ideoligy group of Kadima, therefor, Kadime is Zionist!

Your point is...? I don't see any arguments, it's pretty obvious that an Israeli party will be Zionist. As Zionism stands for Jewish nationality and Israel is a Jewish state, do you expact to find in Republican Party (United States)'s article under 'ideology' section "American nationality"? I find it highly insulting at the reader's intelligence. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^{http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Psychomelodic/me&action=edit edit}) 00:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Psychomelodic, and for other reasons i stated in the Likud party discussion page I believe that Zionism shouldn't appear under ideology in the political party's infobox, although I think there is no argument that Kadima is a Zionist party. So, if no one disagrees and gives a good reason why not to delete "Zionism" from the infobox, I will delete it from the party's infobox soon. Tal :) 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadima's political ideology: Populism?

I have just one question (sorry for my bad English): Why is Kadima a populist party? Because of the Gaza disengagement? Can somebody spell it out for me? Thank you. Cassandro, ..., 20:35, 20 June 2006 (CEST)

I agree, I do not think Kadima should be considered populist (at least no more than many other major Israeli parties), I suggest to drop this label from the infobox, anybody disagree? Tal :) 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Sharon's name for the party's website (kadimasharon.co.il) is enough to see how populist it is. In Israel (unlike most of the world) left wing parties are elitists and right wing parties are populists. However, Kadima is not a right wing party and post-'Sharon era' Kadima is a populist party. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^{http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Psychomelodic/me&action=edit edit}) 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the article on Populism defines populism:

Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the state need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. Hence a populist is one who is perceived to craft his or her rhetoric as appeals to the economic, social, and common sense concerns of average people.

Being a non-Israeli, I am not sure how that concept fits into Israeli politics, if at all. Don't all of the major parties in Israel claim to be the party of the "common people?" 66.174.79.231 02:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No. For example Meretz's campaign; "We need a head to the government - Meretz the brain of the country" and Haaretz's slogen is "newpaper for thinking people". Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^{http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Psychomelodic/me&action=edit edit}) 13:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The seats' number

Kadima has 29 seats in the Knesset. the 36 include Gil Party that is still a party, separated from Kadima. You can check it in the Knessent's website

I concur. If and once the two merge, we can change it. ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 13:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, the article still had Kadima and Gil being a "parliamentary block" with 36 seats, but nobody had responded to the "citation needed" tag, so I simply removed the sentence. (See above under "Citation tag"). As Nightstallion says, if there is an official change, someone can put it into the article (hopefully with a source). 6SJ7 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little digging through various news articles, and nothing anywhere even remotely suggests Gil has been absorbed into Kadima; they maintain their own website, to start with (though I need to find someone here who can translate it for me). Gil simply appears to have become a coalition partner, giving Kadima 67 supposedly friendly Knesset seats instead of 60. --ThatBajoranGuy 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

The way all the pages begin assumes absolut stupidity of the visitor.

If you mean that the introductions assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject, isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to do? 6SJ7 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does ignorance of vodka have to do with anything? ;) --ThatBajoranGuy 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S. -- I didn't find the article's tone at all insulting, merely matter-of-fact. Kadima is, after all, an Israeli political party. I refuse to believe everyone in the entire world knows this, however.)[reply]

Correct, not everybody in the world knows this. Plus, although I know there are disclaimers on Wikipedia, students do use it for research. I mean teenagers and younger. I feel pretty safe is saying that the average high school student in the United States does not know what the Israeli political parties are, or what they stand for. If they are supposed to do a report on Israel, or on current events in the Middle East, Wikipedia should be available to help them and the articles should start from the basis that the researcher is learning about the subject from the article. 6SJ7 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadima's platform

The link to the Haaretz article which spells out Kadima's platform seems to be broken. It would be very helpful to have a link to the original text, both English and Hebrew. It says here that "The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel" but I would bet the original says "the whole of the Land of Israel". Sanguinalis 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Neoliberalism'

Wouldn't Kadima be a right-wing party if it espoused this sort of economic liberalism? --Joffeloff 16:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Economically it is definetly right wing. However, in Israeli politics security and foreign issues almost always prevail over the economic and social issues in determining the political map. On these issues Kadima is considered Centrist and thus it wouldn't be right to say it is simply "right wing" without explination. Tal :) 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Right or Center?

This section needs work. If we are going to try to analyze where Kadima stands ideologically, consideration should be paid to it's economic and domestic policies. It seems as though the current section focuses on foreign policy and Arab-Israeli policy too heavily.

A student of history 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]