Morning:
13°c
Israelis go to the polls in tight election race
Ed Harris10.02.09
Voters went to the polls in Israel today for a general election that pits Right-wing opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu against foreign minister Tzipi Livni and her ruling Kadima Party.
Opinion polls have predicted a decisive victory by Mr Netanyahu's Likud Party but some polls at the weekend showed the centrist Kadima party closing the gap. Neither is expected to get more than 30 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, meaning the winner will almost certainly have to form a coalition with smaller parties.
If Mr Netanyahu wins the most votes, as polls predict, the big question will be whether he will try to put together a Right-wing or centre coalition government. An alliance that relies on ultra-nationalists and hawkish religious parties would be likely to put paid to Middle Eastern peace efforts and put Mr Netanyahu on a collision course with the new US administration.
A partnership with the moderate parties of Kadima and Labor, whose leader is Ehud Barak, might push Mr Netanyahu towards the middle ground. But it is unlikely he would agree to far-reaching compromises, such as uprooting Jewish settlements or conceding partial control of Jerusalem, in an effort to make peace with the Palestinians.
Commentary: Israelis go to polls to choose between three hawks
By Mira Bar-Hillel
After the polls have closed and the counting is done, the usual horse-trading will begin in Israel's traditional party game known as “let's bodge up a coalition”. It can go on for weeks.
The Knesset is elected through the worst possible democratic system: proportional representation based on each party producing a list of candidates and seats being allocated to each parties' nominees in proportion to the number of votes. No Israeli gets to vote for, or against, anyone in a personal capacity.
The result has always been messy, with a proliferation of splinter parties, most of which run on behalf of sectoral interests to which they then have to deliver, and each tail-end then tries to wag the coalition-forming dog. That much has not changed since the State was declared in 1948. But something else has.
This time, and for the first time in my memory, it will not actually make much difference who votes for whom, who gets elected or which party gets the most votes. I don't believe it will even make much difference who manages to form a governing coalition and thereby becomes prime minister.
I reached this alarming conclusion during my last visit to Israel, which began on Christmas Eve 2008 and ended a few days before the attacks on Gaza halted in mid-February. The world, or at least its media, may be deeply interested in whether it is Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, Ehud Barak or Tzipi Livni who ends up in charge. But as for the effect on the future of Israel, the region or indeed the world — I don't think so.
The days when the Israeli Labour Party was Left-wing ended years before the birth of New Labour in Britain, but the party maintained a dove(ish) stance long after it had parted with economic socialism. That distinguished it from Likud, the party of the economic Right and the political hard line. These lines are now totally blurred.
Labor leader Ehud Barak is a former IDF Chief of Staff, a decorated soldier and as hawkish as they come. Netanyahu, whose brother Yoni, a classmate of mine, was the hero who died saving Jewish hostages from Entebbe in a breathtaking raid, has always enjoyed inflaming nationalistic emotions and reaping the political rewards.
There is hardly space for the proverbial cigarette paper between them nowadays, which leaves Tzipi Livni in a bit of a squeeze. Her main challenge was to deflect suggestions from the Bibi camp that she is not up to the job of defending the realm. Which is why, during the Gaza attacks she tried to present a tougher position than the chaps.
The upshot of it all is that Israel will be choosing between three candidates who think the same, believe the same and will probably act the same, whether out of choice or necessity. And that “same” is hard-line, hawkish, unyielding.
Israeli doves, who used to make up around a third of the population, have retreated and now account for possibly no more than 10 per cent of voters. On the Gaza issue I found the consensus striking in its uniformity. The old adage, that if you ask two Jews you will get three opinions, has dissolved in the face of Hamas.
Israeli public opinion is clear: it will not tolerate any threats to its population and it doesn't care what it has to do to achieve the ending of such threats. Given the support from the US, it doesn't really care what the international community thinks or says. It knows its leaders must pretend otherwise, but it can recognise a wink when it sees one.
So, as the world ponders whether it is to be Netanyahu, Livni, Barak or any combination of the three, most Israelis will be quite relaxed. They know that the future of their country was actually determined more in an election which took place on the other side of the world last November than in anything today's ballot may yield.
Reader views (5)
The original headline (now deleted) read: "Israelis go to the polls to choose between three warmongers."
This extreme prejudice rampant in most British media, explains why Britons are mostly so against Israel. It is a fascinating study in human evil that it continues, even as hatred of Israel translates into attacks against Jews all over the world. One recalls a conflict of 70 years ago that began with similar abuse and ended up costing 72 million lives; and that was without nuclear weapons.
- Brad Brzezinski, Ottawa, Canada
Peter: if England or the US had come into existence 60 years ago (whether or not via a UN resolution, as was the case with Israel) but had been surrounded by countries who immediately and openly called for the Nation's destruction, and had then been invaded by six neighbours, it might well affect the tone of internal politics (!)
- Alan, London
"What a choice", of course choice is the operative word, the Israelis have one and the rest of the middle east does not.
- Simon, Barnes London
two points:
1. when a country is surrounded by sworn enemies - a situation not faced by the new American wave -it is not surprising that the choice should be about macho and aggression.
2. How do you do detente, diplomacy and discussion with an entity like Hamas?
- Nosmo, Leeds, UK
What a choice. Each one is tripping over the other to be more macho and aggressive. Funny how Israel is so out of step with the rest of the world, and particularly the new American wave, where detente, diplomacy and discussion is acknoweldged as the only option, Bush's policies having failed so miserably.
- Peter Watkins, London England
