Electoral causes and consequences

The right did relatively poorly in the Israeli election: combining Likud (12
seats), NU-NRP (9) and Israel Beiteinu (11), the right received a total of
only 32 seats (using the final tallies). They could be combined with the
religious parties (Shas 12, UTJ 6) to give a total of 50 seats. This can be
compared with the left of center of Kadima (29), Labor (20) and Meretz
(5) for a total of 54 seats. Actually, on the face of it, not that much
different, so one might conclude that the Israeli electorate was split down
the middle. But, the religious parties are well known to go either way, so
with Shas, UTJ, and IB, whose leader, Avigdor Lieberman, wants to taste
power in the worst way, and Gil the Pensioner's party (7 seats) Olmert
might have a possible coalition of 90 seats! To this could be added the
Arab parties (total 9 seats) that can also be counted on to support Kadima
from outside the coalition in certain votes.
Four interpretations have been advanced for the poor showing of the Likud:
1. Because many of its leaders and voters followed Kadima to the center, and
this basically gutted Likud. Remember that Likud was the leading party in
Israel for 3 decades, so one could say that in effect Sharon destroyed Likud.
2. Because the security measures taken by the Government (the Security
Barrier and the targeted assassinations) have made central Israel feel much
safer, voters were able for the first time to focus on socioeconomic issues,
for example the election of the Gil Pensioner's Party.
3. Because Netanyahu, the Head of Likud, had been the Minister of Finance
and had implemented economic programs that had severely cut Government
spending on social issues (such as pensions, child allowances, etc.).
Although these factors (and denationalization) have lead to an overall
improvement of the Israeli economy, this was a way for the poorer electors
to punish Netanyahu.
4. Because the general tenor of politics in Israel have been moving to the
left for some time, as exemplified by the (failed) Oslo Accords, the (aborted)
Geneva Plan, the (unimplemented) Road Map and the (unilateral) Gaza
disengagement.
Whichever explanation one prefers to believe, the implications of each are
different for the subsequent outcome. If you blame Sharon, then not
much can be done, if you blame Netanyahu then maybe he will be
replaced, if your blame the socioeconomic situation then that must be
tackled, but if you blame the leftward drift of public opinion in Israel that
is a fundamental problem, because this may have nothing to do with reality.
Meanwhile the Palestinians have been moving to the right with the second
intifada, the expansion of suicide bombings, the rocket attacks and the
election of Hamas. In a recent poll approximately 60% of Palestinians support
the use of suicide bombings against Israelis, a lowering from the high of ca.
85% a few years ago, nevertheless it is still a majority. Also, the Hamas
Government spokespeople have made it clear that they support the use of
violence and military force to remove Israel from "all Palestinian soil."
Naive liberal Westerners may be duped into believing that when they talk about
"the Zionist occupation" they mean the West Bank, but in fact they mean the
whole of Palestine! Their Minister of Foreign Policy Mohammed A-Zahar
stated in response to the terror attack on Friday that killed four Israelis in
the West Bank, that they support the use of all means as part of the "armed
struggle against Israeli occupation."
It has been noted in this election that no party mentioned the possibility of
"peace" in its platform, that outcome seems to have faded with the victory
of Hamas. Whereas the left once acted as if the Palestinians were already
our friends, and the right as if they must be defeated, now the policy towards
the Palestinians can be termed "containment."
In implementing his "convergence plan" (what some are calling his
"capitulation plan") Ehud Olmert faces many difficulties. First of all, how
does one withdraw in the face of the anticipated increase in terrorist attacks
(the number of threats has shot up)? Second, how does one persuade or
force tens of thousands of unwilling settlers to leave the West Bank, when
removing 8,000 from Gaza was so traumatic. This factor alone may render
the plan impracticable. Third, where is the money going to come from to pay
for this operation, since the funds for the Gaza disengagement have still not
been paid to most evacuees, many of whom are still living in temporary
accommodation (seeing this would anyone agree to be evacuated). Also,
the emphasis on socioeconomic issues and the coalition with the Labor Party
is going to require increased spending on social problems, that will leave
less funds for defense and expensive withdrawals.
Nevertheless, the Israeli electorate in its wisdom (or lack thereof) has
spoken, and now Olmert is empowered to try to translate their decisions into
reality. Not an easy task, and quite possibly, given the real situation, an
impossible one.