POLITICS FEBRUARY 11, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Israel’s election yesterday was full of the usual drama, confusion, and politicking. But one thing was missing: clear winners. Right-wing Likud--hoping for a landslide victory--came in second. Centrist Kadima, the party now in power, won the most votes, but will probably remain unlikely to form a governing coalition. Even Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman’s dark horse ultra-right party, which came in third place, won fewer seats than has been apocalyptically predicted for the past few weeks. The leftist Labor Party ended up as the fourth largest party, with only 13 seats out of 120.
Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, hoping to be Israel’s Barack Obama, ended up as Israel’s Al Gore--more votes but no viable path to governing. Likud’s Bibi Netanyahu, hoping to resurrect his image by presenting a new, mellower persona, is stuck with the coalition of his worst nightmare--religious, radical, and combative. The public went to the polls to elect a new government and will now watch, helplessly and reluctantly, the unappealing process of political horse-trading. The elections have proven once again that Israel’s electoral system--a parliamentary mess gone wild that rarely produces stable coalitions, and that forces Israel, time and again, into early elections--desperately needs to be reformed.
Though there are no clear winners from yesterday’s polls, the clear loser in this election is ideology. The hardnosed right-wing parties are fairly small--the National Union, presumably representing the settlers and the people who, three years ago, opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, will only have four seats. The left-wing “Peace Now” party, New Movement-Meretz--supported by celebrity authors Amos Oz and David Grossman--won a meager three votes, the worst outcome since its inception. The religious parties lost votes and influence. If a unity government will be formed--which is looking like an increasingly likely possibility--these fringe parties will have almost no influence.
The relative consensus that has been crystallizing among Israelis in recent years means that it is difficult to categorize Israel’s major parties as “left” or “right.” The country’s political landscape consists of very large “center”--to which belong most voters of Likud, Kadima, Labor, and some voters of Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu--all in all, about 75 seats out of 120. The margins are now populated by a number of fairly small parties: The Arab parties (7-8 seats), the tiny “left” (Meretz, elements in the Arab-Jewish Hadash, and maybe a member or two of Labor, totaling 6-7 seats), the “right” (National Union, some voters of Yisrael Beiteinu, and some Likud voters, adding up to 15 seats), and the “religious” parties (Shas and United Torah Judaism, with their 15 seats).
This large center rules, but can’t quite decide which party it wants to represent it. In the 2006 election, the newly created Kadima stole centrist voters from Likud to its right, leaving Likud with only 12 seats. In the 2009 cycle, Kadima stole the centrist voters from Labor to its left, leaving Labor with only 13 seats. This is not the result of ideological battle; the Israeli public is not turning rightward. Since 2006, most Israelis have remained skeptical of the peace process, but fairly committed to the idea that the occupied territories will not remain in Israel’s hands permanently.
The change is driven more by the particular politicians running for office. Kadima suffered from its disgraced prime minister, Ehud Olmert. Ehud Barak mistakenly thought that the Israeli public would give him a second chance eight years after the end of his failed term as prime minister. Netanyahu mistakenly believed that he could reclaim the mantle of the articulate maverick that brought him into power in the mid-90s; but as his Likud colleague, former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, used to claim (to Netanyahu’s annoyance), Bibi has a glass ceiling limiting his support, since too many people will vote for any party to stop him. (This is mainly his fault, as I recently argued in The New Republic.)
How this all ends is anybody’s guess. Ask the public, and the answer will be clear: unity government. The Israeli center knows that nuanced differences can easily be overcome, and that stability can only be achieved with a centrist coalition. The problem, though, is that at this moment, there are two leaders claiming that they should be the ones leading this coalition. Yesterday’s election was largely about personal preferences, not ideology; the post-election negotiations are likely to be dominated by the same concerns. It’s not a question of right or left, but rather of Bibi or Tzipi.
Shmuel Rosner is a Tel Aviv-based columnist. He blogs daily for The Jerusalem Post.
By Shmuel Rosner
12 comments
Kadima was founded by Sharon so its roots are center right. It would be great if Kadima forms a unity government with Likud, with Livni as PM and Bibi as Minister of Defense. Olive branch and gun. I think that this epitomizes the feeling of the Israeli electorate - not too far left nor too far right. But center right. Since 2002 Israel has fought the suicide bomber war, the Hezbollah war and the Hamas war. While not totally successful, they have resulted in a reasonable modicum of security for Israelis. Thay have proven to themselves that they have deterrent capability. The fact that they voted Centrist shows that they are a confident people who want peace, but not at any price.
- Bob Ennis
February 11, 2009 at 4:12pm
The only clear loser was any prospect for peace in the middle east. Campaign rhetoric seemed limited to who could kill the most Palestinians. Regardless of the government eventually formed, it is obvious that Israel has moved from hard right to very hard right , just short of overt....
- Jack
February 11, 2009 at 6:40pm
Truth is the group that won is Hamas. Israel's steady rightward turn may be understandable but the rest of the world won't understand it. And Americans are gonna run out of patience. It's inability to come up with any creative solutions to dealing with an admittedly hostile (but who can blame them) occupied population means an inevitible dissolving of any possibility of a two state solution. I hope I'm wrong, but Livni is turning out to be as desperate of almost all her predecessors, including the cynical bastard of them all, Olmert. Maybe we Jews don't deserve a nation. Boy, this is going to get ugly cause this country just doesn't have the emotional room to care anymore.
- sollyman
February 11, 2009 at 6:47pm
Posted before quickly and hopefully it didn't stick. Basically posted out of anger. Frustration. Primary thought was it all doesn't matter. Whether or not it's understandable for Israelis to elect such inept, often corrupt leadership, the rest of the world won't understand. You don't have to be anti-Israeli to be exhausted by the lack of any creative attempt at negotiation. You can even say recognize the validity of those who say "negotiate with who?" to point out the unwillingness of successive Israeli bureaucrats as well as leadership to address the everyday terrorizing of Palestinian civilians via checkpoints and unchecked mayhem from Jewish settlers. Anyway, count me as a supporter of the Jewish state's right to exist as a Jewish state but boy, am I wondering whether it will exist. Whether it can. While only ignorance and bigotry deny that there's a dynananism inherent in the little nation that generates an awful lof of value for the rest of the world in several areas... especially sciences and technology... it simply can't survive without continued American financial commitment. And under current conditions, that's going to fade. Becoming Rhodesia leads to Zimbawe. Boy, the best chance Israel has now is an Obama willing to be very, very tough. Otherwise, forget two state solutions.
- sollyman
February 11, 2009 at 9:07pm
Thank you, Mr. Rosner, for treating us to an object lesson in the childish, delusional and obsessive nature of the Israel Left. This way to the egress.
- Dan Friedman
February 12, 2009 at 6:38am
Rosner writes, "Despite right-wing gains, Israel's election was a victory for the center." For Israelis of a certain political mindset, that is fill-in-the-blank boilerplate appropriate for almost any occasion. e.g., "Despite the Disengagement fiasco, Israelis see its upside." "Despite Olmert's corruption and serial failures, Israel's electorate is in no mood for change." "Despite renewed tunneling and rocket attacks, Israel's Operation Cast Lead was a major blow to Hamas from which they will not soon recover." "Despite 20 years of tragic Olso failures, Israelis still want more KoolAid- even if it kills them." "Despite the fact we lost, we won." And so it goes.
- Milt Trazenfeld
February 12, 2009 at 7:40am
Rosner sees the Israeli election as a win for the center rather than extremes. That suggests the Israeli electorate is becoming less ideological and more pragmatic about political issues, including the issue of peace, the process of which, like Ariel Sharon, is on life support management rather than full viability. With Hamas still rocketing and fighting with Fatah not even a Meretz-led government (chalilah) could reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. So see the Israeli election for what it is: democracy in action. Would you want it to look more like the ones in Egypt or Syria or you name it Middle East country where the results are known in advance?
- Seymour
February 12, 2009 at 11:47am
Mr. Rosner’s take on Israel’s election results seems to be a lone voice blowing in the desert sands. Israel's marked shift rightwards reflects it's insecurity in the face of the ubiquitous existential threat that surrounds it. Israelis understood that the 'peace process' depends not on the West Bank but on Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas accepting the Jewish state in their midst. The results of the election saw right wing parties, (i.e. Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, Shas, the National Union, United Torah Judaism and Habayit Hayehudi ) collectively getting 65 seats. The left coupled with pro-Arab-Palestinian parties, got 17 seats. The center, 38. Do the math.
- Kelidor
February 12, 2009 at 12:31pm
The upshot of this election is..more of the same. Isreali public for the last couple of decades has been given a choice between extreme right and far far right.With Mr.Emmanuel in the White House, one can expect all of them to be portrayed as peacemakers , all the while feeding Isreal on our tax dollars.
- Ramakant Desai
February 12, 2009 at 4:34pm
The silver lining in this black cloud is that now maybe what Rosner calls the Israeli "center" will seriously examine and act upon electoral reform. There are far too many parties leaving the main parties weak and subject to the blackmail of small religious and ideological parties. This renders Israel's democracy as dysfunctional as the French Third and Fourth Republics when it comes to defense and foreign affairs. The Israeli government is incapable of concluding agreements with its Palestinian neighbors and with Syria partly because Israel's system precludes consensus and rewards blackmail and dissension. Israel could make its parliamentary system functional by: 1) significantly raising the barrier to entry to at least 5% if not 7%; 2) changing its voting system from PR-list to PR-STV as used in Ireland and Northern Ireland and creating 4-,5-, or 6-member constituencies; 3) electing half the Knesset seats in single-member constituencies using the Anglo first-past-the-post system used in Br and the U.S.
- Tom Mitchell
February 12, 2009 at 7:07pm
I think Jack had it right with the following modification. "Who can kill the most Palestinians and still project the peace party image" I recently found the Google search term Al Nakba or al naqba. I was appalled. Where do Palestinians come from? You guessed it. Palestine. I sort of knew there used to be a country called Palestine. I am now learning Palestinians have a history going back thousands of years. I now know that this history was substantially erased in 1948 and the years that followed. I might ask for my money back from my history professors. Not a single word on this subject. At age 58 I feel somewhat naive, used and a little upset. As to the question - what party should rule. Here is the quiz. Under which Israeli party were the most Palestinians ethnically cleansed without a fuss or furor?
- axegrinder
February 12, 2009 at 9:34pm
Labels "right" "left" "centrist" are rather meaningless. Israelis voted for whom they believed might best represent their viewpoints or who might best be able to serve. That's why there are so many political parties in Israel - too many viewpoints not represented by major parties. (BTW, as I write this, a bomb just landed in Sderot. We who live with the reality of the so-called "peace process" and "cease-fires" have a unique perspective when it comes to voting. We have extreme left-wing, extreme right wing, and extreme centrists here - but I doubt that many of them voted for Barak or Tzipi. Losing wars is not a very politically correct thing to do.) Many of those who went with Lieberman did so not because of ideology but because the alternatives have already proven themselves incompetent. This may just prove to be to Israel's benefit that Lieberman has a voice, as do the religious parties (if they vote as a block). There is a chance that Israel will be guided more by pragmatism and less by illusion or the fantasies of corrupt politicians. There is a chance now that the Israeli government will realize the fallacy of a two-state solution, that it is not something the Palestinians will ever agree to anyway, and will actually take on a leadership role rather than be puppets of foreign leaders.
- Jerry Waxman
February 13, 2009 at 1:05am