Considering all the recent tension in the Middle East, it is no surprise that the recent Israeli parliamentary election was watched closely by governments across the world, especially those keen on the Middle East peace process. The election was a test for the ruling Kadima Party and its leader Tzipi Livni and was also a referendum on what course of action Israeli citizens preferred to the violence that has come their way from Hamas and Hezbollah in recent years.
The recent Israeli election was started back in September of last year when the Kadima Party, created by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2006, decided to replace embattled prime minister Ehud Olmert with foreign minister Tzipi Livni. Livni was given six weeks to form a new government after Olmert submitted his resignation. However, Livni was unable to create a governing majority in the Israeli parliament, known as the Knesset, and on October 26th recommended that early elections be held to establish a new Israeli government. This kept Olmert in the prime minister post on an interim basis.
This brief will describe the outcome of the Israeli election, what message voters appear to be sending, and what a future Israeli government may look like.
Outcome of the Election
Looking at the outcome of the election, it is easy to argue that it is a blow to left-wing parties. Overall, thirty-three parties contested the election with right-wing parties winning sixty-five seats, enough to create a majority in the Knesset’s 120 seat chamber, while the left-wing parties that had aided Kadima’s governing coalition fell apart (most notably with the once powerful Labour Party finishing fourth).
However, despite the right-wing’s victory in the election, the Kadima Party still managed to finish first by taking 28 seats, with former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party finishing in second with 27 seats. This was considered somewhat of an electoral upset due to the fact that Netanyahu and Likud were leading many of the pre-election polls.
The biggest victor of the election was the far-right party of Yisrael Beytenu (Israel is Our Home) ledd by former Netanyahu ally Avigdor Lieberman. The party managed to win 15 seats in the Knesset and placed third in the election, making Lieberman the potential “kingmaker” for any future Israeli government. This is due to the fact that his endorsement and willingness to back any governing coalition would most likely give Kadima or Likud the governing majority it needs to establish a government in the Knesset.
Extempers should keep in mind that Israel’s political system has often been fragmented, causing larger parties such as Kadima, Likud, and (traditionally) Labour to rely on smaller, often religious or ideologically extreme parties, to establish a governing coalition. The inability to make many of these groups happy is the reason that no Israeli government has seen out its full five year term since 1990. In addition, no Israeli party has ever won an outright victory in any election (meaning that they have never been able to win the majority of the seats in the Knesset by themselves). The mixed results of this election bring with it the prospect that whatever government is formed from this election result will most likely suffer the same fate.
Message of the Voters
The voters in this recent election seem to have valued the issue of security above all else. This is hardly surprising considering the 2006 failed Israeli offensive in Lebanon that brought its problems with Hezbollah back into focus and the recent rocket attacks from Gaza that Israel retaliated against in late December and January.
Israeli voters have often tried three different approaches now to dealing with the “Palestinian question.” The first approach was to adopt a more hardline stance on the problem with the election of Netanyahu as prime minister in 1996. Netanyahu’s government, which lasted from 1996-1999, promised to not negotiate over the Golan Heights (a territory Israel and Syria have clashed over), negotiate with the Palestinians without preconditions, and not to compromise on Israel’s right to have control over Jerusalem. By 1999, though, voters had believed that Netanyahu’s positions had not provided them with the solutions they were looking for so they turned to Ehud Barak’s Labour Party to deliver them a peace agreement with the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors.
The Barak government withdrew Israel’s troops from southern Lebanon in 2000, which fulfilled a Labour campaign promise. However, Barak’s government failed to reach an agreement with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David during the waning days of the Clinton administration which touched off the second intifada, contributing to the downfall of his government.
With the governing coalitions led by Ariel Sharon beginning in 2001, Israel entered its third phase of disengagement from the Palestinian problem. Until a stroke rendered him incapacitated, Sharon spearheaded through an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, a move that led him to break away from Likud and establish Kadima. This is also where Benjamin Netanyahu made his return to the Israeli political stage, nearly upstaging Sharon in a leadership vote after he left Sharon’s cabinet after disagreeing with the withdrawal plan.
Israeli political observers believe that left-wing voters decided to abandon Labour and Meretz (another left-wing, socially democratic party) in the waning days of the election so that they could deny Netanyahu and Likud a victory and with it the mandate to create the next Israeli government. Similarly, it appears that right-wing voters decided to abandon Lieberman in the waning days of the election because they did not want to give too strong of an endorsement to his agenda, which includes instituting civil marriage in Israel and requiring that all Israeli citizens sign an oath of loyalty to the Israeli state. These proposals have touched off anger in both the right-wing and left-wing parts of Israeli society. Therefore, Israeli voters seem to have endorsed a more right-wing agenda on security, but not extremely right-wing.
The Future Israeli Government
According to The Los Angeles Times on February 16, 2009, Israeli President Shimon Peres will begin meeting with the twelve parties in the Knesset on Wednesday in order to figure out whether Livni or Netanyahu has the best chance at forming a coalition government. According to procedure, the Israeli president traditionally gives the winning party the first chance at forming a coalition government. However, considering the close nature of the election and the fact that Netanyahu could establish a right-wing coalition that would have a majority in the Knesset, while Livni would need some of those right-wing parties to create a governing coalition of her own, it would not be surprising to see Peres throw out protocol and give Netanyahu the first chance at establishing a government.
While it may appear easy for Netanyahu to become the next Israeli prime minister, there are some simmering tensions within Israel’s right. The first is that Lieberman has not endorsed a side yet and refused to on election night. Netanyahu has promised Lieberman any cabinet post he would like in exchange for Lieberman joining his coalition. However, the Orthodox Shas Party does not like Lieberman’s proposal on civil marriage because it could weaken the role of the Orthodox church in marriage. Insiders to the talks suggest that Lieberman may now not want to join into a coalition since Netanyahu is cool to the idea of civil marriage.
For her part, Livni has expressed an openness on the issue of civil marriage and is willing to incorporate some of Lieberman’s campaign pledges into her future government’s policy. However, for their part, left-wing parties do not want to be in a coalition with Lieberman because they do not like his loyalty oath proposal, believing it to be racist, especially against Israel’s Arab citizens. The Labour Party for its part seems to be resigned to being in opposition and not wanting to join a coalition that includes both left and right-wing parties. Kadima ally Meretz is following the same path.
As the Los Angeles Times article also reported, a possible strategy for Livni is to deny Netanyahu a majority in the Knesset by keeping Lieberman outside of his grasp. The article says that Livni may be content to let Lieberman’s ambition of one day leading the Israeli right block Netanyahu’s bid at returning to power. However, this strategy could make it easier for Netanyahu to create a majority, which he can do without Lieberman in the first place. This is because as The Christian Science Monitor pointed out on February 13th, the Shas and United Torah Judaism, another Orthodox Jewish party, are willing to unify into one bloc (which would be 16 seats). Due to the fact that they have one more seat than Yisarel Beytenu they would allow Netanyahu to form a coalition government without Lieberman. However, Netanyahu has said he would like a broad ranging coalition as opposed to just one of right-wing allies.
There is the possibility that Livni and Netanyahu could form a unity government, potentially swapping the prime ministership between them as Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir did in 1986-1990, which was the last time Israel had a government live out its full term. Netanyahu may prefer to have Livni in his government due to the fact that his last government was brought down by a revolt on the right. Livni and Netanyahu are expected to meet on forming a unity government and Livni has shown some interest in forming the coalition. Analysts predict that it is possible for Kadima to come into a government if it was able to keep the defense and foreign portfolios and Likud getting the prime minister position and finance portfolio. Internationally, it is seen that the best government possible would be a Kadima-Likud-Labour coalition, due to the fact that a purely right-wing government may be seen negatively, especially by the Obama administration which has signaled that it wants the next Israeli government to be prepared for more serious negotiations with the Palestinians. However, Kadima and Labour will both have to wrestle with the prospect of whether it would be better for them politically to be a part of the opposition or to be part of the existing government.
One thing is certain, the next Israeli government will be more hawkish than the Kadima coalition that it is replacing. Faced with Islamic militants within its borders and outside of it and also faced with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, many Israelis have turned to politicians that want to emphasize military force over negotiations. Netanyahu, if he becomes prime minister, has indicated that he wants to adopt a more hardline stance (which might include military action) toward Iran and has not given an indication that he wants to stop settlement building in the West Bank, a source of many Palestinian and international grievances. Instead, Netanyahu has said that settlement building should be expanded to cope with Israel’s population growth and if this move occurs it will most likely cause more tensions with the Palestinian side.