Following the meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Yishai said, "I don't believe we will be entering in the coming weeks."
Sharon is said to understand that without Shas, his coalition will not last, nor will his budget be passed. Today's meeting with Yishai was "very important," according to an announcement issued beforehand by Sharon's office, "and the Prime Minister feels it will have a critical influence on the political and diplomatic processes."
Shas, however, has two major objections to joining the government: the unilateral disengagement, and the government's economic policies. Yishai presented his demands for a billion shekels – not for Shas' educational system, he said, but for welfare needs. He also demanded free choice in future disengagement votes - which he apparently received.
MK Nissim Ze'ev (pictured above) feels that in the end, Shas will not join. Arutz-7 asked him this morning, "How can you join a government that is promoting the disengagement?"
Ze'ev responded, "Our party does not have on its platform the commitment to preserve the Greater Land of Israel. This is not one of our commitments to our voters. We objected to the plan in the previous vote because [Shas spiritual leader] Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef instructed us to do so."
A-7: "Since Rabbi Yosef is against the disengagement plan because it endangers lives, how can you indirectly cause such endangerment by propping up the government? If this is a case of saving lives, how can you exempt yourselves by merely voting against, when in fact your joining the coalition will allow the plan to go through?"
MK Ze'ev responded, "The bottom line is that I don't think we will join. There will be negotiations, but they won't pan out. Eli Yishai is planning to ask for a billion shekels, in the certainty that they will turn him down."
Arutz-7: "Why don't you act like a real opposition, and fight with all your strength to topple the present government?"
MK Ze'ev: "We don't yet see who will be the next Prime Minister, and whether he will have a different policy than Sharon."
One conjecture is that if Shas joins the coalition, it will avoid doing so until after the 20th of this month, when the next decrease in child allowance payments takes effect, and until after the disengagement vote is held.
Shas MK David Azulai said today he prays his party will not enter the coalition - though he added that PM Sharon has already "caved in" and no longer demands that all coalition partners vote in favor of the disengagement.
Some say that Shas objects only to the unilateral nature of the disengagement, and that if it is coordinated with Abu Mazen, as appears possible, Shas will not object. It is arguable whether this is Rabbi Yosef's position. In his famous anti-disengagement speech of almost three months ago, he said, "We must vote against the disengagement! Dismantling Jewish communities in Gush Katif and northern Samaria will endanger Israel. Next, they will chase Jews out of Ashkelon, Hevron and Be'er Sheva; there will be no end!... This plan is 'pikuach nefesh' - a danger to life. If, Heaven forbid, we evacuate these Jewish communities, who will come in their place? The terrorists, who will then be in range of Ashkelon and Netivot, and they will fire their rockets and Kassams. Should we make way for them to come in and do that?... Thirty years ago, I ruled in accordance with the formula of 'Land for Peace.' But that's only when they talk peace. Now, even the government admits that there is no one to talk to and there is no partner. But, is this a reason to then abandon everything and leave? Heaven forbid! We must not think of such a thing! I call upon all the members of the Likud, and all the other parties: If you vote in favor, how will you explain why you placed Israel in such danger? What will you be able to say? All the MKs must stand as one, and all must vote: Against!"
After the Sharon-Yishai meeting, a Shas Party spokesman told Arutz-7 that it remains unclear whether Shas will enter the coalition. "MK Eli Yishai received an update on the Prime Minister's talks with Abu Mazen," he said, "and discussed his demands for economic benefits that will benefit not only Shas, but all those in need - even those who might have voted for Shinui."
Asked why Shas is not acting to topple the government like a "fighting opposition" party should, the spokesman said, "We, even more than the NRP and National Union, have submitted many no-confidence motions..."
Regarding the disengagement, the spokesman said that the party plans to vote against the plan. "What will that help," asked Arutz-7, "if by joining the government, you are enabling the plan to be voted on altogether? If it's a dangerous plan, as Rabbi Ovadiah has ruled, then even if you vote against it, you're causing it to be passed by propping up the government that will implement it!"
The spokesman responded, "Rabbi Ovadiah's policy, as he expressed 30 years ago, is that it is permitted to give away territory in exchange for peace. As of now, that's not the situation with the disengagement, which is a unilateral Israeli action with no promises from the other side; but if that changes, then our position could also change."
Sharon is said to understand that without Shas, his coalition will not last, nor will his budget be passed. Today's meeting with Yishai was "very important," according to an announcement issued beforehand by Sharon's office, "and the Prime Minister feels it will have a critical influence on the political and diplomatic processes."
Shas, however, has two major objections to joining the government: the unilateral disengagement, and the government's economic policies. Yishai presented his demands for a billion shekels – not for Shas' educational system, he said, but for welfare needs. He also demanded free choice in future disengagement votes - which he apparently received.
MK Nissim Ze'ev (pictured above) feels that in the end, Shas will not join. Arutz-7 asked him this morning, "How can you join a government that is promoting the disengagement?"
Ze'ev responded, "Our party does not have on its platform the commitment to preserve the Greater Land of Israel. This is not one of our commitments to our voters. We objected to the plan in the previous vote because [Shas spiritual leader] Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef instructed us to do so."
A-7: "Since Rabbi Yosef is against the disengagement plan because it endangers lives, how can you indirectly cause such endangerment by propping up the government? If this is a case of saving lives, how can you exempt yourselves by merely voting against, when in fact your joining the coalition will allow the plan to go through?"
MK Ze'ev responded, "The bottom line is that I don't think we will join. There will be negotiations, but they won't pan out. Eli Yishai is planning to ask for a billion shekels, in the certainty that they will turn him down."
Arutz-7: "Why don't you act like a real opposition, and fight with all your strength to topple the present government?"
MK Ze'ev: "We don't yet see who will be the next Prime Minister, and whether he will have a different policy than Sharon."
One conjecture is that if Shas joins the coalition, it will avoid doing so until after the 20th of this month, when the next decrease in child allowance payments takes effect, and until after the disengagement vote is held.
Shas MK David Azulai said today he prays his party will not enter the coalition - though he added that PM Sharon has already "caved in" and no longer demands that all coalition partners vote in favor of the disengagement.
Some say that Shas objects only to the unilateral nature of the disengagement, and that if it is coordinated with Abu Mazen, as appears possible, Shas will not object. It is arguable whether this is Rabbi Yosef's position. In his famous anti-disengagement speech of almost three months ago, he said, "We must vote against the disengagement! Dismantling Jewish communities in Gush Katif and northern Samaria will endanger Israel. Next, they will chase Jews out of Ashkelon, Hevron and Be'er Sheva; there will be no end!... This plan is 'pikuach nefesh' - a danger to life. If, Heaven forbid, we evacuate these Jewish communities, who will come in their place? The terrorists, who will then be in range of Ashkelon and Netivot, and they will fire their rockets and Kassams. Should we make way for them to come in and do that?... Thirty years ago, I ruled in accordance with the formula of 'Land for Peace.' But that's only when they talk peace. Now, even the government admits that there is no one to talk to and there is no partner. But, is this a reason to then abandon everything and leave? Heaven forbid! We must not think of such a thing! I call upon all the members of the Likud, and all the other parties: If you vote in favor, how will you explain why you placed Israel in such danger? What will you be able to say? All the MKs must stand as one, and all must vote: Against!"
After the Sharon-Yishai meeting, a Shas Party spokesman told Arutz-7 that it remains unclear whether Shas will enter the coalition. "MK Eli Yishai received an update on the Prime Minister's talks with Abu Mazen," he said, "and discussed his demands for economic benefits that will benefit not only Shas, but all those in need - even those who might have voted for Shinui."
Asked why Shas is not acting to topple the government like a "fighting opposition" party should, the spokesman said, "We, even more than the NRP and National Union, have submitted many no-confidence motions..."
Regarding the disengagement, the spokesman said that the party plans to vote against the plan. "What will that help," asked Arutz-7, "if by joining the government, you are enabling the plan to be voted on altogether? If it's a dangerous plan, as Rabbi Ovadiah has ruled, then even if you vote against it, you're causing it to be passed by propping up the government that will implement it!"
The spokesman responded, "Rabbi Ovadiah's policy, as he expressed 30 years ago, is that it is permitted to give away territory in exchange for peace. As of now, that's not the situation with the disengagement, which is a unilateral Israeli action with no promises from the other side; but if that changes, then our position could also change."