Read this: Shattering the Post-Election Myths
 It's time for Myths and Facts: Post-Israeli Elections edition. Myth By now everyone knows that the results of the election add up to a mandate to end the occupation. Fact A close look at the election results for the 17th Knesset show nothing of the sort. * These elections had the lowest voter turnout in the history of the State of Israel. Nearly 40% of those eligible to vote, representative of nearly every segment of the population, chose not to, having either lost faith in the legitimacy / effectiveness of the current political system, parties and elected officials, or they just don't care anymore. *There were 3 non-Arab parties whose platform included some type of "end the occupation" concept that earned seats in the 17th Knesset (Kadima, Labor, Meretz), who, in total, earned 53 seats - well short of a 61 seat majority needed to form a coalition. Of the remaining seats that went to non right-wing parties, 7 seats went to the Pensioners party (a party that currently has no platform on anything except for taking care of the elderly), 18 seats went to the ultra-Orthodox Shas and UTJ parties who also do not have an official platform when it comes to the issue of borders (and neither of those parties would constitute Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria as an "occupation"), and lastly, 10 seats were split between the 3 Arab parties whose voters and leaders fail to accept Israel as a Jewish State. So, in short, these election results do not show any indication that a majority of (Jewish) Israelis are clamoring for an "End to the Occupation". Myth The surprisingly peaceful withdrawal from Gaza demonstrated that the majority of Israelis support territorial withdrawal and the dismantling of settlements in pursuit of disengagement from the Palestinians. Fact How can this be considered a proof? This represents the ultimate hypocrisy. Rosenberg and Israel Policy Forum advocated strongly against any refusal of orders and expressions of non-violent civil disobedience when it came to the opposition of the expulsion of the 10,000 Jews of Gush Katif, Gaza and the Shomron. To now argue that since the country did not erupt in violent revolt in the wake of the expulsion proves that the majority were in favor?!? What of the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated against the expulsion? What of the tens of thousands who involved themselves in acts of non-violent civil disobedience? Consider the following: * Ariel Sharon (Likud) was elected by a landslide in the 2003 elections on a platform that directly contrasted Amram Mitzna's (Labor) "Disengagement" plan. The true mandate that Ariel Sharon and the Likud received in the aftermath of the 2003 elections (where nearly 1 in every 3 voters voted Likud) was to eliminate the terror threat posed by the "Palestinians" against the Jewish State - and in that, his expulsion plan completely failed to represent the will of the people. * The only referendum held on the matter of the expulsion plan - which took place within Ariel Sharon's Likud party - suffered a resounding defeat: 60% opposed, 40% in favor. * Ariel Sharon was only able to garner a majority within his cabinet for the expulsion by firing those ministers who opposed the expulsion plan and replacing them with those who were willing to betray their ideological convictions in return for cushy ministerial positions (and a BMW, of course). The same tactic was used by Sharon to build support within the Knesset for the expulsion plan. At no point did the majority of (Jewish) Israelis ever give their support to Ariel Sharon's expulsion plan. Myth Ehud Olmert... has a specific policy mandate: getting out of most of the West Bank. He says that parts of Arab Jerusalem could be handed to the Palestinians either in the context of his unilateral plan, or in negotiations. Fact Ehud Olmert, and by extension, his Kadima party, have no mandate whatsoever. *For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, the ruling party in the Knesset will have won less than 30 seats (Kadima won 29). How can Ehud Olmert and Kadima have a "specific policy mandate" when fewer than 1 out of every 4 voters (less than 25%) cast their vote for Kadima? *Consider that from the very moment that Ehud Olmert took over the leadership of Kadima the party has been losing voters left and right (both figuratively and literally). When Olmert took over the party Kadima was polling at 44 seats, and in the end, they won a platry 29 seats - a drop of 15 seats, over a third of their support base! Furthermore, the other two parties on the left who advocated "ending the occupation" also had poor showings at the polls. Meretz dropped from 6 seats to 5, and Labor stayed at the same 19 seats that they had after the 2003 elections, which was viewed then as an unmitigated disaster. Myth Who would have imagined that Israeli politics would have shifted in this direction less than six years after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations and following the onset of the Aksa Intifada... Amazingly, even the coming to power of Hamas did not significantly erode the Israeli consensus in favor of territorial compromise with the Palestinians, either unilaterally or through negotiations. Israelis have simply had it with the occupation. Fact Wrong. Again, all this shows is that a large segment of the voting public in Israel has lost faith in the electoral system (see above), and explains why nearly 40% of those eligible to vote in the elections found better things to do on election day, and why a large percentage of those who did in fact vote did so while holding their nose. Consider that the Pensioners party won 7 seats, the equivalent of over 200,000 votes (a party that only came into existence a few months before the election). Many of those who voted for the Pensioners party did so as a protest vote, and others did so out of a feeling that while none of the major parties could be expected to look after their interests (and since our war with the "Palestinians" doesn't seem to be ending anytime soon), perhaps this small party whose single issue is championing the rights of the elderly seemed, to many, as good a vote as any. Myth It is, of course, easy to be a militant on Israeli-Palestinian issues when you legislate from 6,000 miles away... Needless to say, the American student activists who voted to sustain the occupation will not be joining their Israeli counterparts in patrolling the West Bank and staffing checkpoints. Fact Rosenberg is half-right in this instance. He neglects to mention that it is no less easy to advocate expelling tens of thousands (if not hmdreds of thousands) of Jews from their homes, and for destroying dozens of Jewish communities in the Land of Israel, all to be carried out at the behest of the government of the Jewish State of Israel, while sitting 6,000 miles away. Of course, neither he, nor his supporters, are likely to ever end up moving to Israel, and as such, will never have to personally expel any Jews from their homes, nor will they have to suffer the consequences of the implementation of such actions. Also, Israel's electoral system creates governmental impotence In April 2003, Israel began planning to construct a security fence, effectively surrendering land in an attempt to prevent suicide bombings. In July 2003, Israel pulled troops out of Bethlehem and released several hundred Palestinian Arab terror suspects. In January 2004, Israel freed more than 400 Arab terrorists in return for three Israeli corpses and a kidnapped businessman. In August 2005, Israel threw 7,500 Jews out of their homes in the Gaza Strip and handed over those homes to Palestinian Arabs, who proceeded to torch the area's synagogues. In November 2005, Israel allowed the Palestinian Arabs to open the southern border of the Gaza Strip, allowing free flow of material and population from Egypt. In October 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Thousands of Iranians rallied in the streets in support. Last week, Iran refused to freeze its nuclear program. In January 2006, the Palestinian Arabs overwhelmingly voted for the terrorist group Hamas in their parliamentary elections. Hamas' charter pledges to fight for the destruction of the state of Israel. Last week, the Israeli populace responded to these imminent threats by electing to the prime minister's office a man who has said not a word about the Iranian threat, a man who has pledged more unilateral withdrawals, a man who seeks to offer yet more concessions to an intractable and single-minded enemy. Ehud Olmert is that man. His Kadima Party, created by recently incapacitated former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, plans "disengagement" at all costs. Kadima won 28 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset). The appeasement-minded Labor Party finished second in the Israeli elections, garnering 20 seats in Knesset. Center-right Likud, Ariel Sharon's old party before Sharon left to form Kadima, won only 11 seats. The rest of the seats in the Knesset are divided among a hodgepodge of smaller parties with whom Olmert will attempt to create a coalition government. Why do Israelis continue to sanction inaction and concession in the face of evil? They have no control. In these most perilous of times for the Jewish state, only 63.2 percent of voters turned out for the election – apathy reigns in a place where politicians routinely ignore the wishes of their constituents in favor of government patronage. Over the course of four decades, regardless of the identity of the prime minister, Israel has continuously conceded to the wishes of those who would destroy it. There is a reason for such continuity of inane policy over time: Israel's system of government is deeply flawed. The coalition government system means that only the most middle-of-the-road policies are pursued, even in the face of terrorism. The system means that the clearest of popular mandates still leaves political actors with their hands tied – no political party has ever won a clear majority in the Knesset. When political actors attempt to take hard-line stands, their coalitions fall apart. Aside from Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (1986-1992), no Israeli prime minister of the last 20-plus years has served a full term, and even Shamir was forced to reshuffle his coalition government mid-term. Instability in governance breeds unprincipled leadership. In order to get anything done, leaders must have power; in order to maintain power in Israel, leaders must get nothing done. This basic problem in governmental structure is amplified by Israel's "list" system for parties. Parties internally create ranked lists of members who will serve in the Knesset based on how many seats the party gets. For example, if Likud ranks Natan Sharansky 11th, and Likud wins 10 seats, Sharansky is out of the Knesset. The list system means that only those party members who can garner the support of the party leadership will ever win seats within the Knesset – if those who oppose the party leadership want to gain power, they usually start their own parties. Starting an independent party is not difficult, either, since a party may sit in the Knesset by winning only 2 percent of the vote. And so parties proliferate, destabilizing coalitions and broadening policy. Ariel Sharon, who campaigned as the ultimate hawk, was directly elected with 62.5 percent of the vote in 2001. To maintain power, Sharon had to form a broad national coalition after his 2001 election, and then call for early elections in 2003 and form a new center-right coalition. Finally, Sharon called for new elections again and created the Kadima Party. Throughout his tenure, Sharon never governed as he had campaigned. Now, his successor will attempt to follow in his footsteps. Within three years, his government, too, will collapse. The cycle will continue. And Israelis will continue to suffer, no matter how they vote.
|