ISRAEL: Elections, suddenly interesting and too close to call

In recent weeks, many Israelis had written off the election campaign as boring. Recycled candidates, the same age-old security agenda and a military operation that had pretty much put the kibosh on the campaign, making it all work and no play.

The results had looked predictable. The Likud Party was winning by a landslide, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu would once again be prime minister.

A few weeks ago, Bibi was so far ahead that his campaign people were saying they wished elections could be moved up while things were looking so good.

Now, with Likud and the Kadima party neck and neck, elections are suddenly too close to call.

Things got interesting when Likud started losing stature and votes to other parties on the right. In part, the predicted drop in Likud seats corresponds to an increase in Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party leader Avigdor Lieberman's power.

Another factor are smaller right-wing parties such as Habayit Hayehudi, the Jewish Home party (new incarnation of the National Religious Party, or NRP). Earlier, it was predicted they wouldn't pass the qualifying threshold, but now some polls give it  four seats.

Seeing the drain on his mandates, Netanyahu's campaign is now stressing that a stable, strong government depends on Likud being big and strong enough. Warning of "complacency" (the doomsday word used in Israel in two contexts only, defense and elections), Bibi urged right-wing voters not to take his victory for granted and split the vote of the "national camp."

His rivals Kadima party chief Tzipi Livni and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak too are battling complacency with turnout. Potentially, everything is still wide open.

Israel has a single-ballot electoral system. Citizens cast one ballot only, and the party with the most votes wins the elections and its chairman, put forth as the party's candidate for prime minister, is usually the one to form a government and coalition with other smaller parties. The country flirted briefly with electoral reform and introduced a split ballot, one for prime minister and the other for a political party. Bibi and Barak had both been elected directly in the '90s. Not considered successful, the reform was undone within a decade.

Some fear direct elections concentrate too much power in one place, eroding that of the large parties as anchors. Others would like to see a change in the system that would allow them to vote more in keeping with their conscience and, in addition to picking a big-party prime minister, also vote for smaller groups that reflect a more civic and civilian agenda in parliament.

-- Batsheva Sobelman in Jerusalem

Photos: Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, former and maybe future Israeli prime minister, top, and candidates for the parties eroding his support, the Jewish Home, left, and Yisrael Beiteinu. Credit: Batsheva Sobelman

Comments

[SH]

One thing I can never figure out with the western media's portrayal of the Israeli electorate is where the so-called progressive, left-of-center constituents lie on the complicated Palestine issue. We all understand the right-wing electorate agenda and their clinging to the zionist tenets of days yore (as evidenced by Ben-Gurion's quote in the previous post) -- a fact that no western media outlet dares to connect with the SAME motivations of extremist arab groups who fail to recognize Israeli statehood. But that's another discussion.

What do the more pragmatic and/or progressive Israelis think about state-sponsored settlements, security screenings, sanctions, border closings, etc.? How do they see Hamas and Fatah aiding or impeding the peace process? Its fair to say there is a group of reasonable, understanding Israeli voters who aren't xenophobic in nature and don't believe in the current government's hard-line policies towards Palestine under the guise of the US "War on Terror". But who are these people? What are their proposed options and stands on very specific issues of palestinian autonomy?

How can the western world begin to understand this essential-for-peace voting group when they are simplistically portrayed as a bunch of low-moral, dis-illusioned, secularist hippies/liberals/youth instead of a thoughtful, platform-driven, concerned population that is actively fighting to be part of the political process in, perhaps, the most critical general election in recent history?

[cgsc30D#59]

The Obama administration has its hands full with the Israeli-Palestinian situation regardless of the outcome of the Israeli elections this week. Hamas has taken a beating physically as well as politically with the Israeli incursion into Gaza. Yet that might work to their advantage. During the cease-fire, Fatah and Ismail Haniyeh were unable or unwilling to prevent additional rocket attacks on Southern Israel. Therefore insuring a hard-line stance from whoever wins the Israeli elections in two days. As is always the case after Israeli military action, the Arab world will further unite behind the Palestinians and Gazans specifically and increase funding to organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Likewise, Hezbollah will redouble their efforts to rearm, train and equip Palestinian forces. This will only strengthen the hard-line Palestinian elements in Gaza. In addition, Palestinian militia forces will used lessons-learned from the 3 week Gaza invasion to devise better defense tactics and techniques to counter further Israeli military actions. Inadvertently, Israel is helping to improve and strengthen Palestinian defensive capabilities in Gaza. With the Israeli population being highly adverse to casualties (as was demonstrated during the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006), military action in Gaza thus becomes less and less desirable as an option in the future. So whatever the composition of the new Israeli government in a few weeks, the situation will be more difficult with regards to the Gaza situation. There are signs of hope though. The most obvious is the more diplomatic and neutrally-minded administration in Washington. President Obama has already indicated his high-level of interest in resuming at least nominal peace talks in the Middle East by putting it high on his agenda and immediately dispatching a special envoy, former senator George Mitchell, to the area. The new administration and the change in Israeli government sets the stage for a fresh round of talks to begin in the near future. The second sign of hope comes from outside of Palestine, namely Iraq. This sounds strange, but the relative success of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq in the past two years and the holding of peaceful elections in January were undeniable indicators that stability and democracy are gaining a strong foothold in Iraq. This is with a doubt a major setback to trans-national Islamic extremist organizations that are trying to exert power in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas such as Palestine. Understandably, the Israeli government as well as Arab nations such as Syria and Saudi Arabia will have the climate in Iraq on their minds if or when they sit back down at the table to discuss the Palestinian situation. Lastly and probably most interestingly is the possibility that Israel will start treating the West Bank and Gaza as separate entities. Previously, Palestinian leadership especially under Yasser Arafat refused to discuss any agreement that treated Gaza and the West Bank as separate entities. Although, with the split in the Palestinian Authority after their 2006 elections and the subsequent internal conflict between Mahmud Abbas and Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, it might be a natural course of action to address the two areas and governing bodies with separate peace agreements. Their is hope, at least for the West Bank, for common ground. The Israeli government under Ehud Barak as recently as July 2000 had offered to meet up to 94% of the demands of the PLO, then under Yasser Arafat. Likewise, Mahmud Abbas and Fatah have already recognized Israelis right to exist. This in fact was the main cause of the PLO's internal strife during and after their 2006 elections. The subsequent result of that strife was the predominance of Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. In addition, Israel has shown a willingness to withdrawal from settlements in contested areas as gesture towards lasting peace agreements. Therefore it only seems logical to approach any new talks through first addressing issues in the West Bank. Once headway can be made between Israel and Fatah in the West Bank, then inroads can be made with Hamas in Gaza. If not, then we might see the beginings of a Palestinian state that does not include the contentious and volatile Gaza Strip

[Joe]

It seems Israel is heading toward electing a militaristic conservative parties in to power, unfortunately Israelis do not care that US do not have that kind of government anymore and eventually there going to be clashes between US and Israel goals and US being sole super power, Israel will come out as loser.
Flash news; lobbying groups are being curtailed by current US presidential executive order!

[John Smith]

Actually, the election will be a choice between Zionism versus intransigence. So no matter who gets elected, the Palestinians will continue to suffer.

Readers should know by know that when Israelis talk about "security" they are really talking about getting rid of the Palestinians.

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state.... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." David Ben-Gurion - (Righteous Victims, p. 138)

The Palestine Review
http://palestinereview.com