 |
As Israelis go to the polls in what could be a decisive election as far as the peace process is concerned, The Media Line presents this guide to the parties, their policies and the voting system.
The current Knesset (Israel’s parliament) comprises parties from all elements of Israeli society. Some groups are underrepresented, while others carry more weight than their numbers in society may suggest. With a series of shake-ups and splits during the course of the last few years, the Knesset on the eve of the March 28, 2006 vote looks considerably different from how it appeared immediately following the last election.
 |
The Knesset composition in early March 2006. (Ariel Barazani)
In this deeply factionalized country it is telling to see how the various ethnic groups voted in 2003:
Jews:
Labor-Meimad: 15.2%
National Religious Party: 4.6%
Likud: 31.9%
Meretz: 5.2%
Shas: 8.9%
Shinui: 13.2%
National Unity (Haichud HaLeumi): 6.0%
Am Ehad: 2.4%
Torah and Shabbat Judaism: 4.8%
Yisrael B`Aliya: 2.4%
Druze:
Labor-Meimad: 23.6%
Likud: 17.5%
Meretz: 2.9%
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash): 10.9%
National Democratic Assembly (Balad): 6.0%
Shas: 9.5%
Shinui: 1.7%
National Unity (Haichud HaLeumi): 3.9%
Am Ehad: 13.6%
United Arab List: 4.3%
Torah and Shabbat Judaism: 2.4%
Yisrael B`Aliya: 1.7%
Bedouin:
Labor-Meimad: 7.9%
Likud: 3.5%
Meretz: 5.9%
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash): 9.6%
National Democratic Assembly (Balad): 8.0%
Shas: 4.7%
Am Ehad: 5.1%
United Arab List: 46.2%
All Minorities:
Labor-Meimad: 7.7%
Likud: 3.5%
Meretz: 4.2%
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash): 26.8%
National Democratic Assembly (Balad): 19.8%
Shas: 3.1%
Am Ehad: 5.7%
United Arab List: 18.6%
(The remaining votes were either empty ballot papers or they went to parties that did not pass the electoral threshold.)
The total population that voted: 3,200,773 (67.8% of the electorate). 62% of the Arab population voted that day.
(Source: Nir Atmor IDI)
Explanation of election system
Before looking at the major parties’ platforms in more detail, here is an explanation of the electoral system.
Israel has an electoral system based on nationwide proportional representation. In other words, the number of seats that each list receives in the Knesset – parliament – is proportional to the number of votes it received. The only limitation on a list which participated in the elections being elected is that it should pass the qualifying threshold, which is currently 2%. Until the elections to the 13th Knesset the qualifying threshold was only 1%. It was then raised to 1.5%, and during the 16th and most recent Knesset, it was raised to 2%. The general framework for the elections was laid down in article 4 of the Basic Law: The Knesset, according to which the Knesset is to be elected in general, countrywide, direct, equal, secret and proportional elections. This article can only be amended by a vote of a majority of the Knesset members.
The principle of the generality of the elections ensures the active right of every Israeli citizen, who is at least 18 years old, to vote and the right of every Israeli citizen, who is at least 21 years old, to be elected. Even though the Basic Law: The Knesset gave the legislature the power to deny the right to vote to anyone as it may see fit, the Knesset has never made use of this power. Those holding certain official positions, such as the state president, state comptroller, judges or dayanim (religious judges), career officers, and senior civil servants, may not stand for election to the Knesset. However, they can run if they resign from their post 100 days or 6 months before the elections, depending on their public position, as the law specifies. The principle of countrywide elections states that Israel is a single electoral district insofar as the distribution of Knesset seats is concerned. Direct elections means that the voter elects the Knesset directly, rather than an electoral college (as is the case in the election of the President in the United States). Equal elections apply to equality amongst the votes given, and the Supreme Court laid down that the principle of equality relates to equality of opportunities for all the lists participating in the elections as well. The principle of secrecy ensures fairness in the elections and aspires to prevent the placing of effective pressure on voters, since no one has any way of knowing how anyone else actually voted. The principle of proportionality manifests itself in that all the lists, which pass the qualifying threshold, are represented in the Knesset by a number of members that is proportional to their electoral strength.
The Parties
Some 30 parties are fielding candidates in the 2006 election, but most are not expected to pass the electoral threshold. The following are ‘executive summaries’ of the manifestos of some of the larger parties standing in the 2006 election.
 Likud: This moderately right-wing party, headed by former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, opposes further unilateral withdrawals and negotiations with the Palestinians until the leadership recognizes Israel’s right to exist and there is a full cessation of terror and incitement. It supports completion of the security barrier around the settlement blocs at a safe distance from the airport and the central highways. |
 Qadima: This centrist party was established in November 2005 by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after he bolted from the Likud party. Sharon has since been hospitalized and the reins were passed to his replacement, Ehud Olmert. Although this is a fledgling party, it includes many seasoned politicians and polls suggest Qadima will be the victor in the March 28 elections. Qadima believes in a sovereign Jewish and democratic state, and wishes to maintain a Jewish majority within the state of Israel and is willing to make territorial concessions. It supports the complete and speedy construction of the security barrier in a way that will ensure maximum security for Israelis while considering the needs of the Palestinian population. |
 Labor Party (Avoda): Headed by workers’ advocate ‘Amir Peretz, this left-wing party believes that negotiations with Palestinians should be based on the principle of two states for two nations, whose borders will be determined through negotiations. They believe that large blocs of Jewish communities in the West Bank should be part of the state of Israel, while isolated communities should be dismantled. They would strive to complete the security barrier within a year and maintain Israel’s military advantage. |
 Meretz: A left-wing party headed by Yossi Beilin. The party believes it is in Israel’s interest to end what it sees as occupation and implement the partition of the country. It stresses respect of equality and principles of social justice. |
 Shas: This party, headed by Eli Yishai, claims to represent Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin with a policy focused on returning to traditional Jewish values and a welfare state. It is known in Israel more for its social than its political agenda. |
 National Union and National Religious Party: These two hawkish parties joined their lists in February 2006 in order to strengthen the political power of the Israeli right and create an alternative leadership that will change the face of the Israeli government. They believe in preserving the Jewish identity of Israel which should be expressed in all aspects of life. They believe that since Hamas’ rise to power in the Palestinian Authority, all previous peace agreements with the Palestinians should be considered null and void. The parties believe in peace between Israel and its neighbors, but not on account of security for its citizens. |
 National Democratic Assembly (NDA): An Arab party known as Balad in Hebrew, or Tajammu’ in Arabic. The NDA advocates that Israel should be a democratic state for all its citizens regardless of their national or ethnic identity. It believes that a democratic secular state is the only way in which Arab citizens will achieve full cultural, national and minority rights. |
 Shinui: This party’s platform centers around the creation of a fully secular state expressing dissatisfaction with what it perceives as a lack of contribution to Israeli society on the part of ultra religious Jews. |
 Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash): This is Israel’s communist party. Although it includes Jewish members, it is seen as predominately Arab. The party speaks of a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of equality for workers and Israeli Arabs. |
 United Arab List and Arab National Movement (Raam-Taal): These two lists joined forces ahead of the elections. They support the establishment of a Palestinian state with eastern Jerusalem, removal of Jewish settlements in post-1967 territories and support the right of return. They are calling for more rights for the Arab population in Israel. |
The Palestinian Side of Israel’s Elections
“When you sneeze in Tel Aviv, we catch a cold in Jericho,” Palestinian chief negotiator ‘Saib ‘Ariqat once said.
In many ways, when Israelis go to the polls on March 28 to elect a new leadership, their choice will also determine the future of their Palestinian neighbors.
Israel has no shortage of social maladies on which some thirty parties participating in the race are focusing their election campaigns. However, it is the political issues that have far-reaching ramifications for Palestinians, who are themselves still adapting to the idea of a new government led by Hamas.
Many of the parties running in the elections are relatively small and are running on a platform of a particular social issue, while foreign policy is not a major part of their agenda. The Israeli Pensioners for the Knesset Party, for example, strives to protect the rights of Israel’s elderly citizens; the Party for Fighting Banks aims to push for legislation that will minimize harm to the public caused by banks.
Some of these parties will not pass the minimum threshold and will not be represented in the 17th Knesset.
The Media Line approached seven of the key parties which are likely to gain seats in the 120-member Knesset and asked them about their policies regarding the new Palestinian Authority headed by Hamas, and how they plan to tackle this unfamiliar situation.
Approaching Hamas
Regarding their attitude to Hamas, the left-wing Meretz said Israel needs to talk with anyone who is prepared to talk with Israel. “We differentiate between talking and between negotiations for peace or a final status agreement,” said party spokesman Yonatan Touval. On day to day issues like bird flu precautions or security coordination, he said there is no choice but to cooperate.
As to negotiations for a final status agreement, Touval said Meretz believes that whoever wants to negotiate with Israel will have to renounce terrorism and to recognize Israel. “If a Palestinian government headed by Hamas wants to negotiate with Israel, it will have to fulfill these two conditions,” he said.
The Labor Party espouses a similar attitude towards Hamas. Igal Zahor, one of the formulators of the Labor Party’s policies, does not rule out talking with Hamas, as long as the party recognizes Israel and acknowledges previous peace agreements.
Member of Knesset Jamal Zahalkeh, who is number two in the National Democratic Assembly, said setting conditions for Israel to speak with Hamas is surprising, since Israel demands negotiations without prior conditions. “Why are they suddenly asking for conditions for negotiations?” Zahalkeh said.
The hawkish parties take a more stringent position on Hamas. Both Likud and National Union-National Religious Party (NRP) are against any negotiations with Hamas. Likud spokesman Ronen Moshe said the party “will operate through international pressure to cause the Hamas regime to be replaced with a more moderate leadership.”
Asked whether Likud will be willing to negotiate if Hamas recognizes Israel and renounces terrorism, Moshe said this is highly unlikely to happen and is a hypothetical question. “I can’t see this happening. I just see a continuation of incitement in the education system and a non-acknowledgement of Israel.”
Uri Bank, a candidate on the National Union-NRP list, said, “We didn’t recognize the Palestinian Authority as an authority before Hamas was elected and we don’t recognize the authority in any way now, since we always perceived the P.A. as a terror organization.”
Dr. Dan Ben David, a candidate for Qadima said his party’s position is that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, operates according to its stated platform of wanting to annihilate Israel, maintains a terror infrastructure and rejects previously signed agreements. “We think that is a definition of a pariah state and should be treated as such,” he said.
The religious Shas party rejects negotiations with Hamas, party leader Eli Yishai’s assistant Roi Lachaori said. “Shas will support negotiations but not with Mr. Haniyya and his friends. While Hamas is in government, nothing will change. We’ll wait and do what we can to change the situation.”
Aid to the P.A.
Regarding funding to a Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority, the parties are also at odds. Lachaori said Shas disagrees with international funding to the Palestinian Authority.
Likud makes a distinction between giving money to Hamas directly, which it opposes, or giving money to non-governmental organizations, which will distribute the money straight to the Palestinian people, without it having to go through Hamas. Likud is opposed to transferring aid directly to the P.A., explaining the money will be channeled to terror instead of reaching those who really need it.
Moshe said it is “obvious” that Israel should withhold taxes it collects for the P.A. and not transfer this money. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided not to give money to the Palestinians because of pressure from Likud, he said.
Bank, the National Union–NRP representative said that giving aid to the Palestinian Authority is like “funding Al-Qa’ida” and vociferously rejected any such notion, including the transfer of taxes. “As long as they are holding guns and using them against us, they cannot receive any kind of funding,” he said.
Touval, representing the left-wing Meretz, said the situation in the P.A. should not be allowed to deteriorate. The money should be given to organizations who can give transparent reports on the money’s destination. The money should not go to Hamas unless it accepts certain conditions, he said. Regarding taxes, he believes Israel is obligated to transfer this money to the P.A. and not violate agreements.
Zahor, of the Labor Party, voiced similar opinions regarding international aid. “If the money given will be supervised in accord with demands of the international community that Hamas recognizes Israel and returns to the negotiating table, then the answer is positive. They should give money,” he said. As to taxes, he said that if this is linked to previous agreements, Israel should transfer the money.
MK Zahalkeh said his party believes that Israel is obligated to transfer money it has collected, according to international agreements. As to international funding, unlike some parties that said the money should not go through Hamas, Zahalkeh said the money should go through Hamas and he believes it will reach the Palestinians who need it. “The world shouldn’t punish the Palestinian people,” he said.
Unilateralism
Regarding unilateral measures, specifically a one-sided withdrawal from the West Bank, Meretz, the Labor Party and the NDA representatives said their parties will only agree to this if it is the very last option and all diplomatic channels have been exhausted. “If there is no other way to end the occupation, at least partially, then Meretz will certainly not protest against a situation in which Israel withdraws from [large parts] of the West Bank,” Touval said.
Zahor, from Labor, said that withdrawing from the West Bank is not the same as a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as this is part of a general strategy that also involves Syria and Jordan. “This solution cannot be unilateral because there’s no chance it will last,” he said. “But at the same time we’re saying that since you can’t live in a static system that takes no action, if in the near future there will be no partner for negotiations, unilateral measures should be considered if there is no choice.”
Zahalkeh said whether his party will support such a move or not depends on the purpose of the one-sided step. If it aims to prolong the conflict and postpone a solution, he rejects it. Zahalkeh agreed with Zahor that there is no comparison between withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and pulling out of the West Bank, since he said a unilateral withdrawal will leave half of the area under Israeli control.
“If Israel wants to withdraw unilaterally from the whole of the West Bank and dismantle settlements, we won’t prevent them from doing so and won’t oppose it, but I think it’s better to hold negotiations to reach a solution to the conflict.”
Founded by Ariel Sharon, who initiated the unilateral Gaza pullout, Qadima is a proponent of unilateralism. “If they don’t come to an agreement with us, then we take our destiny into our own hands,” Ben David said. “We will decide on the borders single-handedly and whether it will be to their benefit or not is their problem.” He said that a unilateral step means that Israel does what is necessary to maintain its security and remain a democratic and Jewish country.
Bank, from the National Union-NRP, said unilateral steps are acceptable if they make sense. As far as this party is concerned, a one-sided step that “makes sense” is not to withdraw from territories, but to regain security control over areas in the West Bank and Gaza from which Israel has pulled out.
The Likud party strongly objects to any notion of unilateralism, and leaving this as a last resort is also totally out of the question, Moshe said. “Any unilateral withdrawal without anything in return will strengthen the terror organizations,” he said. Likud says the deteriorating security situation and missile launches following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza are evidence that such measures encourage terrorism and weaken the moderates who support negotiations.
The Likud espouses a policy of what Netanyahu has called mutuality, according to which Israel will respond accordingly to what it sees as positive or negative behavior from the Palestinians.
Road Map
The Road Map for peace, initiated by the international Quartet (the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia) has been criticized by many since its inception. The principles of the plan were outlined by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002, when he spoke of a plan for a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.
While the incumbent Qadima party praises the Road Map as the “only plan that ensures real progress towards a full and comprehensive peace agreement,” and pledges that a Qadima-led government will implement the Road Map and encourage the Palestinians to honor their commitments, other parties are not so quick to embrace the strategy.
“We have criticism toward the Road Map because it obligates the Palestinian side to act, while the Israeli side only has to discuss issues,” Zahalkeh said. “I think it is unbalanced and sets difficult conditions for the Palestinians. When there are U.N. resolutions, there is no need for a Road Map.”
“No one is naïve enough to think the Road Map will be materialized,” Meretz spokesman Touval said. The party’s leader, Yossi Beilin was a co-author of the unofficial Geneva Initiative, a blueprint for a peace agreement launched in 2003 with the aim of pushing the peace process forward. Touval said the Road Map is a framework to which the world pays lip service but as long as it is needed to support processes in the region, it is positive. However, he said Beilin believes the Road Map is damaging to the peace process because it allows the sides to remain stagnant and not take any steps forward.
Zahor said his party agrees with some elements of the Road Map such as creating temporary borders which will be examined within a reasonable time frame. However, he said there are major issues, such as Jerusalem, the refugee issue and permanent borders, which the Road Map left wide open.
The Likud party does not address the Road Map on its website and no Likud representative could provide a clear policy on this issue.
“The Road Map is just a continuation of the Oslo Accords,” Uri Bank said, “and we think that any solution that has to deal with giving the Palestinians more land west of the Jordan River is doomed to fail. Therefore we think it’s time the world woke up to the fact that the Road Map and the Oslo Accords are over. We have to look for a different solution.”