Gil Hoffman's election analysis

Gil Hoffman, the political correspondent of the Jerusalem Post, spoke at a
meeting in Netanya Weds night. Gil comes from Chicago, although his father
had lived in Netanya many years before and he had regularly visited his
grandparents here. He was fresh from interviewing Acting PM Olmert that
afternoon, and he has interviewed the other major candidates within the past
weeks. He emphasized that the voters have a real choice between three quite
distinct views of the future for Israel, left, center and right.
He was present when Olmert received the news, reported by an Italian news
organization, that Pres. Abbas of the PA endorsed him for PM, saying that he
could work with him. Olmert said that he was not sure this was good for him.
Netanyahu immediately issued a statement criticizing Olmert for being cozy
with Abbas, and Peretz criticized Abbas for endorsing Olmert and not himself,
especially since he had gone out of his way to meet him only a few days before
(the only candidate who has). Today Abbas denied that he had endorsed
Olmert, and said that the Italian reporter had misquoted him.
Gil described how many setbacks Kadima has received, most notably Sharon's
major stroke, yet they still have a commanding lead in the polls. This is
quite strange, although they are now slowly losing votes. He attributed this
to the reality setting in that "Olmert is not Sharon," a Likud slogan. Olmert
has been known as a somewhat aggressive person with a tendency to attack
others, and now that the influence of Sharon's presence is wearing off, Olmert
is being seen for what he is, a not very experienced or pleasant leader of a
not very coherent party. The sooner the election the better off Olmert would
be.
Netanyahu is well known, but not well liked by many. It is common to
regard him as self-absorbed, more concerned with his own interests than
those of the country, and somewhat untrustworthy. The Kadima ads show
him as perspiring under pressure and being shifty-eyed. But, this is standard
election fare. Gil's evaluation of Peretz was more scathing, he found him
amateurish and uninformed in the security area, and they ended up talking
about secondary issues.
So much for the candidates for PM, but Israelis vote for a party, and what do
the parties stand for. On the left, Labor would give up all of the West Bank
(all of it) to the PA. This would require moving tens of thousands of
citizens, many of whom are unwilling to move, yet they seem to have no plan
for how to do this, nor do they seem to realize, even after the Gaza
disengagement, how traumatic this would be. Their focus is almost entirely on
improving the social and economic conditions for the poor and the middle class
(children, retirees). They don't seem to have a specific plan for where all
the money for this will come from, but they would drastically reduce the
defense budget (forget about Hamas and Iran).
On the right, Likud will not give up "one inch" of territory until there is a
reciprocal partner on the other side. They endorse the eventual need for a
road map plan and a two-state solution, but not when Hamas is in power in the
PA. They are especially concerned because of the danger of rockets being fired
from the West Bank down onto Route 1 (the main J'sam-Tel Aviv Highway),
BG airport, and the whole of the Sharon region (from Bat Yam to Netanya).
If they are elected they will pass a law to modify the route of the Security
Fence from where it has been forced westwards by legal decisions, back to
its original militarily defined security route in order to prevent this
imminent danger.
In the center, Kadima stands for a compromise position, unilaterally
disengaging from the Palestinians, setting our own borders and moving to
them, including evacuating all illegal and many legal settlements, although
incorporating the major settlement blocs of Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel and Etzion
into Israel. At first, the settlers would be replaced by the IDF so that the
settlements would in effect become military camps, then these would be
consolidated, so that a defensive line would be formed, until such time as
these could also be withdrawn.
There are of course other parties, a total of 31 altogether, although only 11
of these are likely to receive enough votes to be elected to the 17th Knesset.
Among these are the Sephardic Orthodox party Shas, the combined right wing
National Union party , the ghost of Shinui and the Arab parties. There are
three Arab parties, each quite distinct, Balad which is nationalist (and would
replace Israel with a Palestinian State), the Arab Union which is Islamist
(and would replace Israel and the Arab countries with a new Caliphate) and
Hadash which is communist (and would replace Israel with a binational state).
Given the requirement for 2% of the vote and two mandates, some of these
might not be represented, yet it is a measure of Israel's democracy that all
of them are running.
Gil also mentioned the need for electoral reform and suggested that now was
the time to try to influence the parties to endorse it. Some of them have
platforms including reform, but its hard for them to do it once in office
because they might abolish their own jobs. Netanyahu's version of reform is
ironically very much like that of the PA system, half the votes determined by
parties, as now, and half by locality.
In the final analysis, any party receiving a majority would have to form a
coalition, and it is possible that Kadima would form one without Labor, or
Likud could put one together on the right. President Katsav has the
responsibility to choose who he thinks could form the most stable Government.
In just three weeks we'll know the outcome!
Gil ended by saying that he had tried his best to remain neutral so that he
hoped noone could in fact determine what his own personal preferences are.