In Israel. We saw it coming
and now it's official: Prime Minister Netanyahu has made the announcement that
elections will be held in January. His preference would be the 15th,
although the 29th is also being batted about as a possibility. Perhaps by
the time you read this, the date will have been
determined.
Credit:
en.rian.ru
Elections, had they not been
advanced, would have been held next October. After it re-convenes
following the break for the holidays, the Knesset will, in short order, be
dissolved and the government will function in what is a sort of caretaker mode,
with only actions necessary for governance advanced (at least in
theory).
~~~~~~~~~~
The electoral system here is quite
confusing to people outside of Israel -- especially to Americans. I will
do my best as we proceed to provide clarifications, beginning here:
We do not elect individuals -- not
even the prime minister. We vote for parties.
Each party advances a list of
candidates, and the way lists are established varies from party to party.
Seats (mandates) are allocated to a party according to the percentage of votes
received, and persons on the list, starting with the name at top and counting
down, become members of the Knesset in accordance with that allocation.
Thus, placement on a list is exceedingly important.
There will be a great deal of
jockeying for placement in coming weeks and I'll undoubtedly be writing about
this. No where will this jockeying be more significant than in Likud,
which has both a left wing and a right wing flank.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the normal course of events --
there are exceptions and the last election was such an exception -- the head of
the list with the most mandates becomes prime minister. Actually, the head of
that list is given time to form a government via a coalition with other parties
-- the coalition must include a minimum of 61 out of 120 Knesset seats,
and preferably more for stability. (No one party ever receives that
number of mandates by itself.) If a coalition is established, then the
head of that leading party becomes prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I can tell my readers now
with a fair degree of certainty is that Netanyahu, via the Likud party,
will carry the day and will, again, become prime minister.
Polls have Likud securing a
greater percentage of the vote in the coming election than last time. Last
time, Kadima actually drew one more mandate than Likud (but failed to head a
government because Livni could not form a coalition); but now is
expected to lose big time in the election. Neither is Labor necessarily
expected to do well; it was split apart by Ehud Barak, who currently heads a
very meager Independence party, but may pick up Kadima defectors. And
so on. Votes will be divided among several parties, with Yisrael
Beitenu and perhaps a few others -- Shas? -- expected to hold their
own.
We're going to see some new
parties on the electoral scene -- with talk of a centrist-left party
established by Tzipi Livni and Haim Ramon -- and the possibility of at least one
merger with a combined list -- National Union and Habayit Hayehudi. There
will likely be some old timers (not all of them welcome) involved in this
election and some new people, most notably Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid
party.
Presuming that Likud does win
the election, what will have to be watched is the sort of coalition Netanyahu
will opt for. This will depend in part on the electoral success
of other parties -- that is, he can be expected to draw on parties
with many mandates to build that coalition. But there are other factors
involved as well -- in terms of deals struck, direction in which Netanyahu opts
to move, etc.
All coming down the
road...
~~~~~~~~~~
The BIG question is, why? Why
did Netanyahu, who, with real effort, could have sustained his government for
another year, opt to call elections now?
The reason he is giving is
that he cannot pass a satisfactory budget with the current government
line-up and he owes it to the people to improve the situation. Also
that a shorter election time is better for the nation.
His full statement is here: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=58540.
But there are those who are
involved in the process who have expressed the belief that Netanyahu's
budget might well have been passed with the investment of further
effort. So, if this is a cover for his real reason, what is that
reason?
There are a great many theories
out there, but I am going to be candid and say that I simply don't know. I will
share some thoughts on the matter, but want to point out that much of it
is speculation.
~~~~~~~~~~
What we do know is that
Netanyahu's popularity is at an all time high since his UN speech. This
undoubtedly gives him confidence that he can move ahead.
I've read suggestions that he gave
that speech purely for political reasons, to put himself in a strong
place. But I reject this out of hand. I know full well how slick our
prime minister can be in his political maneuvering -- he's a master at
this. However, I remain convinced that his stance against allowing
Iran to go nuclear is real. In my opinion, his position on this issue has
been too consistent and too sustained to be a political maneuver. And this
is hardly my opinion alone: one analysis of the situation said that those close
to Netanyahu believe that dealing with Iran is his political raison
d'etre.
~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, what occurs to many is
the question of how this impinges on the possibility that Israel may hit
Iran. Some suggest that a strong vote of confidence would put him in an
even better position to do this. Could be.
Others suggest that running an
election reduces the possibility that we will act militarily; but some point to
the fact that the Iraqi reactor was hit during an election
time.
As I said, speculation.
Informed or thoughtful speculation, perhaps, but speculation none the
less.
I do expect to have more to say
with regard to Iran; and I ponder, still, the entire issue of what time frame
there would be regarding our ability to hit successfully.
Another thought advanced: that
should Obama lose the election, he would, as a lame duck hungry for a place in
history, push on the parties for a negotiated agreement between Israel and the
PA. Were we in election mode, this would provide ample reason for not
going to negotiations. More speculation.
~~~~~~~~~~
One other reason for holding
elections now, a reason that is pure political pragmatics, seems quite
plausible to me: Much of the opposition to Netanyahu/Likud in
the center and on the left is in disarray. Lapid is still
establishing his party. Ramon and Livni are talking but haven't actually
established the new party they're hoping for. And so on.
In essence, Netanyahu has, as Mati Tuchfeld puts it, "pulled the rug out
from under the Center-Left":
"Netanyahu has seen the vacuum in
the opposing camp grow ever larger in recent years, like a black hole that
swallows anyone it encounters...
"Netanyahu knows full well that
this vacuum won't last forever. Something will eventually give. So instead of
anxiously waiting around for something to happen, he decided to pull the rug out
from under all of them. Get all the mice to come out of their holes now. That is
why he is insisting on holding elections as soon as
possible."
~~~~~~~~~~
What I will note here, before
moving on to another matter, is the fervent hope that I and many others feel
regarding this being the end of the political line for Ehud Barak. That
remains to be seen, but there is some cause for optimism. He has already
been denied a top spot on the Likud list, and his Independence party may not
make the cut-off of minimum votes for inclusion in the Knesset. Much
depends on Netanyahu, who should have dumped this guy a long time ago.
~~~~~~~~~~
A serious charge against the
Obama administration has come to the fore with a memo that has now been
made public by Reuters:
Eric Nordstrom -- a State
Department regional security officer who had been stationed in Libya until two
months before the attack on the Consulate -- twice asked his superiors for an
increase in security personnel in Benghazi. This was months before the
attack -- in cables to the State Department in March and July 2012.
Nordstrom cited the fact that there had been "over 200 security
incidents [in Libya] from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June
2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi."
He received no answer to his
requests.
In comments to a Congressional
committee, Nordstrom reported that a State Department official, Charlene Lamb,
wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially
low."
A public hearing on this
matter is to be held today.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment