And now, from our man in Jerusalem…
Being here in Jerusalem, I feel a little bit like a foreign correspondent sent to cover the election. I’ll take a few minutes to give you the rundown on the election and share a few of my thoughts. As it turned out, the election results were quite interesting, even if many Israelis weren’t interested enough to vote- it was the lowest voter turnout (63%) of any Israeli election in history. If you haven’t heard by now, here is latest expected breakdown of the 120 seats in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament):
Kadima (The party Ariel Sharon founded after leaving Likud): 28 Seats
Labor (The traditional left-of centre party): 20 Seats
Shas (The religious Sepharadi party): 13 Seats
Yisrael Beitenu (A right-wing party catering mostly to the Russian immigrant vote): 12 Seats
Likud (A shadow of its former self after Sharon’s departure): 11 Seats
The Pensioners’ Party (A single-issue party bent on improving quality of life for Israel’s seniors): 7 Seats
National Union- National Religious Party (right-wing, pro-settlement party): 9 Seats
United Torah Judaism: 6 Seats
Meretz (Probably the most “dove-ish” of Israel’s parties):4 Seats
The three main Arab-Israeli parties: 10 Seats
The main story here has been the extremely low (by Israeli standards) voter turnout. Israel used to boast some of the highest rates of voter participation observed in any democracy, routinely hitting 80%. From my perspective, there are a few reasons for the low turnout this time:
1) Election Fatigue: This was Israel’s third election in five years. Due to Israel’s system of proportional representation, it is very rare for a party to win a majority of the Knesset, therefore; in order to govern, winning parties must forge a coalition with their political opponents. The result is two-fold: 1) small parties often have outsized influence on the government if they are needed to reach critical mass for the coalition; and 2) the resulting coalition can be unstable, and will often disintegrate prior to the end of the term. Understandably, given this situation, many Israelis are somewhat jaded about the whole process.
2) A Brand-New Governing Party: The Kadima party is touting this election as a major victory, since only a few months ago, Kadima was only a gleam in Arik Sharon’s eye. The fact is that the 28 seats the party won is way down from mid-campaign polls that had them winning over 40 seats (which would have been a very strong mandate for the new party). I think that as a new party, Kadima did not have the same grass-roots organization and experience that the other parties had in “getting out the vote”. We’ve seen how important this element has been in the US elections, where huge efforts are made to mobilize the party’s power base.
3) Where’s the Passion? Without Ariel Sharon, who had tremendous popular appeal, Kadima relied on the leadership of Ehud Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem who just doesn’t have the same appeal to the masses. In truth, the only leader that really seemed to get people excited was Avigdor Lieberman, the tough-talking leader of the Yisrael Beitenu party (whose success was one of the big surprises in this election).
So now, with this luke-warm reception at the polls, Ehud Olmert has the task of putting together a coalition government that will enable him to carry out his platform of unilateral disengagement from the West Bank, a move that will displace roughly 70,000 settlers. It looks like the Labor party will support this aim, but the key question now is where to find the remaining 13 seats needed to govern. Some pundits are speculating that Olmert will round out his coalition with Labor, the Pensioners’ party and one or both of Shas and United Torah Judaism.
The next little while will be very interesting, and I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the negotiation rooms as the political jockeying for places in the government and cabinet seats heats up. It will also be interesting to see the fate of Bibi Netanyahu, after the crushing defeat handed to his Likud party. The 11-seat haul is particularly shocking considering that Likud had been in power nearly continuously for the last 20 years.
People’s reactions to the vote here have been everything from indifferent to fiery. The orange-clad National Union Party supporters may win the prize for being the most vocal. They definitely commanded plenty of attention for their cause supporting the settlements in the West Bank. Perhaps they were loudest because this election was more than anything a referendum on the fate of West-Bank settlements, with most Israelis coming down on the other side.
I think the biggest success of the election was that it went off without a hitch. All of the security forces and the IDF were on high alert for any violence, and there seemed to be very little of it. In fact, the PA seemed to be taking advantage of the international media presence to issue some relatively moderate statements. Is Abbas merely trying to save face? Whether he is sincere or not remains to be seen, but I can hope can’t I?
posted by Seth Ross @ 10:42 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
When I was in Jerusalem, my buddy Nathan, who writes for the J-Post, expressed his desire that in a new coalition, Labor would let Kadima would dismantle settlements and withdraw the IDF, but Kadima would let Labor restore social programs and manage the economy to close the gap between rich and poor. I basically echo that sentiment.
In terms of the peace process, I think Olmert has said he will try to negotiate first, but the question is, with whom. Abbas is the President, but how much authority does he have, with Hamas in power and Islamic Jihad still a potential threat to security? Even Fatah's militant branch, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, isn't really under his control, as far as I can tell. While I support negotiations, I've come to support withdrawal as well: as the major power in the conflict, the ball is in Israel's court most of the time. And while I'm not fan of the fence, hopefully, it is a temporary phenomenon.My fear is that, as the low turnout shows, Israelis, even in the peace camp, have stopped caring. They just want quiet, and so are willing to put up a wall.
Another sentiment I read somewhere that I want to echo is that this might be a real opportunity to moderate Hamas. I don't know if unilateral action will strengthen Hamas' militant wing or if it will force them to the negotiating table. That would be good. If this next round of disengagement from the West Bank does take place and goes smoothly, then it seems the Palestinians will have no choice but to offer the Israelis something in return. I don't see how a major disengagement from the West Bank, which would include dismantling not only of settlements but also of numerous checkpoints, would not make Palestinian life easier. It will. And if that is the case, hopefully, support for any form of terror or violence will die down.
I hope that after the disengagment, Israeli voters might move back to the Labor party, a party that I think is better for the economy and probably better for conflict resolution as well, as they are somewhat more willing to negotiate. I was relatively pleased with Labor's showing in this election and hope it continues to improve.
Great comment, Dave.
I have to say that I agree with you: unilateral action will only take you so far. At some point the sides need to sit down and negotiate. If the last few elections are any indication, Olmert will end his term somewhere to the left of where he was campaigning (this has happened with pretty much all of the last three governing parties). If that's the case, then pehaps there is still the chance of a negotiated agreement between the two sides, provided that (and this is my real hope) Hamas can renounce violence and become the negotiating partner that Israel and the Palestinian people need.
zach says
hi seth, sorry im getting to this one so late.
in the short term it apears that the disengagement plan is working, and may need to be expanded. however, blocking palistinians from their farms and their nabouring comunities is just going to piss them off, making more short term enemies.
however there is a historical president for a country to define a form of border through building a wall. china later anexed territory beond its wall though. without negotation, I wonder if presedent may repeat itself.
while building the wall also second message. "If you can't behave, you won't be aloud to play in my back yard".
This is not a message Israel wants to send anyone.
Isreal will in the end give up more territiory in areas that it had originally been aloud to keep through treaty. in order for the palistinians to have a viable state, seperate and independent from Isreal. currently those kinds of conecessions. without some form of negotation are imposible. in the short term the palistinians will be made to suffer.
Punishing an entire class room for the actions of a few students is not going to make one popular; but in a classroom setting it does work. it yet remains to be seen if it will work in a macrocosm.
personally i don't think Olmert. has the kind of leadership to convince isreal to make any kind of territorial sacrfice with out some form of punitive leverage over the palistinian government. financal leverage should not be the tool of choice when governments are bankrupt as the current pasistinian government is, scapegoating is to be expected. (the greedy jews have our money)( I feel i must mention that i am not an antisemite, after the last bracketed comment, as i expect i may offend somebudy)
Isreal's withholding tarrif funds is a possible case in point. i expect it may be a flashpoint for future conflict.
I look forward to furure articles from our man in jerusalem.
zach.
Post a Comment
<< Home