Israeli Elections - Less than a week to go

[Panag]

hi ,

intresting , ......



**IDF Begins Voting Preparations


The Israel Defense Forces began transfering ballot boxes to units and outposts on Sunday for the general elections next week, HA'ARETZ reported. According to Chief IDF elections officer, the IDF will use 1,200 ballot boxes in the upcoming elections.
About two-thirds will be posted in bases, and the rest will be mobile. The army will use armored personnel carriers and in some cases even tanks to take the mobile boxes to battle units operating in the territories and on the northern border.
Meganzi said that the cost of holding elections in the army amounted to about NIS 4 million (approximately $1 million), and some 5,000 soldiers and officers would participate in the project, including election committees that would ensure the smooth running of the voting. Each committee will be made up of three soldiers, at least two of whom would always be on guard.
On Sunday the first ballot boxes were taken from the central storing facility in Holon to IDF bases in the north and in the center of the country, as well as to the navy and air force. More boxes were taken to the south on Monday and today the last boxes will be taken to the Home Front. Voting will start next Sunday with soldiers in the frontline units and at the distant outposts. The voting will continue Monday, though most soldiers are expected to vote on Tuesday, the official election day.


have a nice election day

[Meshelic]

Just out of curiousity, anyone know what Netanyahu or Barak are up to these days? It's been so long since I've kept up on Israeli news....haven't been there in a long time.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Meshelic
Just out of curiousity, anyone know what Netanyahu or Barak are up to these days? It's been so long since I've kept up on Israeli news....haven't been there in a long time.

I think Netnyahu is still Foreign Minister, and likely to maintain some position in the cabinet after the elections.

I have no idea about Barak, except for the occasional seeing him interviewed on cable channels.

[Meshelic]

Thanks Edan.

[Sirotnikov]

Doveish hawks

Israelis want a rightwing leader with leftwing policies. So most would prefer a national unity government - but they don't trust the big parties

Emanuele Ottolenghi
Friday January 24, 2003
The Guardian

When next week Israelis go to the polls, they will elect a parliament - but not, as in the past, a prime minister. Between 1996 and 2001, Israelis directly chose their prime minister, separately from parliamentary elections. The direct elections system was designed to bring political stability to the country and give leaders commanding majorities in order to lead Israel decisively through the challenges of the Middle East peace process, the absorption of one million Russian immigrants, the transformation of its economy and the changing geopolitics of the region.
In fact, under the direct election regime, Israel experienced unprecedented political instability and indecision. Instead of clear majorities and stable governance, the system produced broad coalitions of strange bedfellows - hawks and doves, secular and religious, free market supporters and social welfare diehards. Though each prime minister took office supported by a broad majority, as soon as decisions had to be taken on the crucial issues of the day coalitions fell apart.

Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon all faced the same problems. In the period after the 1993 Oslo agreement, Barak and Netanyahu had to deal with at least one left-of-centre partner who thought diplomacy was not moving quickly enough and a right-of-centre party that thought that diplomacy was moving too fast. After the intifada began, Sharon confronted the same challenge: on the budget, the government was either spending too much or too little; on war, it was either being too tough or not tough enough; on diplomacy it was offering too much or never enough.

Consequently, decision-making always meant losing coalition partners. Prime ministers spent more time trying to keep their government from falling apart than on policy making - and it is hardly surprising that prime ministers lost their political majorities. Direct elections produced unworkable coalitions: leaders were swept into power by popular support, only to quickly lose a consensus given their inability to translate promises into policies. The reform that was meant to strengthen governance and produce resolute decision makers backfired and was abolished. Therefore, on Tuesday Israelis will vote for a parliament alone in the hope that a clear majority will materialise.

For all the importance attached to electoral systems, these hopes are somewhat misplaced. Opinion polls suggest that the knesset which will emerge after these elections will not yield a fundamentally different picture. With Likud poised to win and Labour unable to cast itself as a credible alternative, three factors remain crucial to explain the vote. First, and overwhelmingly, security. A distant second comes the economy, whose crisis is viewed as being closely connected to security. And third, corruption, a marginally important factor mostly influencing the swing vote.

On security, opinion polls confirm that most Israelis are what Prof Tamar Hermann, of the Open University in Tel Aviv, has defined as "tactical hawks and strategic doves". Most Israelis express scepticism that a peace agreement with the current Palestinian leadership would bring an end to the conflict. Yet they support a solution that includes Israel's withdrawal from most of the territories, the dismantlement of settlements, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. So the public supports a heavy-handed military policy towards Palestinian terrorism, while embracing the notion that there is no military solution.

That is why most Israelis want a national unity government, including both Labour and Likud but not the more radical parties. It should follow that Israelis would vote overwhelmingly for those two parties. Instead, the public is expected to cast its preferences elsewhere: the two parties might gain anywhere between 45 and 55 seats out of 120 overall, short of the majority required to govern without the aid of peripheral parties. The public does not sufficiently trust Likud and Labour. Israelis have very little faith in the system. But nearly 80% of the voters have still declared their intention to vote - an indication that elections matter. And almost 58% declared they do not believe Labour will stay out of the next government - a sign of mistrust in the political elites.

Labour is viewed as the "architect of Oslo", which is widely blamed for the current security situation. The dire economic conditions penalise Labour more than Likud for the same reason: the economy is seen as a casualty of the conflict, the roots of which are thought to lie in the failure of the Oslo process. But Labour's solution to the conflict is readily accepted by most of the public. This is Israel's paradox: the public would like a rightwing leader to implement leftwing policies.

Nor has the issue of corruption helped Labour. Polls show that Likud is widely regarded as corrupt, but so is Labour. Nearly half the public views both as equally corrupt, which explains the preference of many swing voters - those most likely to consider corruption relevant - for smaller parties.

But corruption has to do more with the leaders than their policies. Israelis are strategic doves - they want to make peace with their neighbours and are painfully aware of the political price peace entails territorially. But they are also tactical hawks - they do not believe peace to be possible in the short term, and want a leadership that will fight until a new opportunity for peace arises.

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a research fellow in Israel Studies at the Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford University.

[Bosh]

Hmmm what about Likud + Shinui + Russians + National Union, does that have any chances of working and providing an alternative a largely-religious government or an unwieldly national unity government? But is National Union too fascist to take part in a resonable government?

[Sirotnikov]

NU isn't that very fascist. It is very hawkish but less that Herut.

Mafdal may join such a govt. (it's not THAT religious - ie not haredi orthodox).

Shinui promised it would only join a unity govt.

[Az]

[QUOTE]It is very hawkish but less that Herut.
[QUOTE]
this hardly says... anything, really.

[lord of the mark]

IMHO, the problem is that there isnt a centrist party that is also moderate in religion (and so able to enter a coalition with Shas) at least not iwth Labor more ont he left under Mitzna. IIUC, the Israeli swing vote finds Mitzna too left, Sharon too right. Shinui looks like an alternative, but its not coalitionable with Shas, which is the other traditional partner for centrist coalitions. Some centrist israelis may put secularism ahead of a workable coalition, but given the war situation, i cant beleive most do. You'd think with a prop rep. system it would be possible to fill this gap?? Attempts to fill it always seem to fail, with parties like the Center party with too many leaders and too few followers - eventually collapsing over personality. This leaves the system very unstable.

My prediction - ultimately Labor will break up - the left wing, joining with Meretz - isnt this Beilins proposal? The right wing of Labor led by Ben Eliezer, etc, becomes a party with a centirst approach to the peace process, a moderet secularist approach to religion (so unlike shinui they could form a coalition with Shas) and with a strtong focus and social and economic justice so there is a voice on the left other than Mitzna and Lapids yuppies, one that can reach out to the Sephardim and underprivileged, and take them from Shas and Likud. Such a party would need enough of Labors old machinery to avoid the fate of the Center party, but not so much as to make the sephardim think its just old Labor in disguise.

In the short term , I agree no stable govt comes out of this election. Post-election - what happens in Labor - is loss seen as Mitna's fault, or can he shift blame to Fuad and Peres for staying with Sharon too long?

[Az]

Mitzna screwed both the country and the labour party with his stupid call for no National Unity government. National Unity worked well, imho, considering the immense outside pressures. We haven't had this amount of prologed medium-intencity conflict since the late 60s early 70s.

I think Mizna should have grabbed the second seat in Sharon's government, and tamed him, just like labor did in the previous government.

Btw, did anyone buy yediot ahronot today? a great interview with a palestinian journalist. gives a bit of hope.