A House Divided, Losing Confidence : Outcome of Crucial Israeli Vote Is to Postpone a Solution

The results of the Israeli election, touted as the most significant in that nation’s history, may turn out to be significant not for what was decided but for what was not.

What is certain is that the outcome demonstrates that Israel remains deeply divided, and that the split threatens to become institutionalized. Even more significant is the electorate’s apparent loss of confidence in the ability of either major party--Likud or Labor--to solve the nation’s most pressing problems, principal among them a solution to the Palestinian problem.

Standing pat (as Likud did) or losing ground (as Labor did and continues to do) is not exactly an inspiring show of voter confidence or political strength. The parties that showed the most surge in strength and power were those on the extreme left and right, all carrying clear messages: from the left, for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state; from the right, for the annexation of the occupied territories and the “transfer,” or expulsion, of Arab residents.

The most significant factor was the role and strength of the religious parties, which will have 18 seats in the Knesset. When Israel was founded, David Ben-Gurion believed in a coalition government that did not include either the extremes of the right (Menachem Begin, for one) or the extremes of the left (communists). So he made concessions of a minor religious nature to the National Religious Party, allowing it to join his centrist government.

But by 1977 the religious parties had been radicalized, and they bolted Labor to join Begin’s Likud government. While the head of the National Religious Party, Avner Shaki, has always been a strong supporter of Likud, some of his colleagues have occasionally wavered. Still, the Labor Party of Shimon Peres has nothing to offer them in any substantial way.

Actually, the National Religious Party is no longer the single most powerful religious party. In these elections the Shas (Sephardic Torah Guardians) of Yitzhak Peretz, which did not even exist in 1984, has become the preeminent religious party. The Shas’ political leaning is radical and nationalist, and its followers come from fundamentalist religious institutions. In addition to the NRP and Shas there is the historically anti-Zionist Agudat Israel Party, which is uninterested in the Palestinian issue but is decidedly dogmatic in its determination to impose traditional biblical, literal orthodox Jewish law. In addition there is Degel, a splinter Shas party with one seat. Together, the four make up the major religious wing that now holds the balance of power in Israel.

What happens next? First, there will be at least two months of unseemly political bickering and dealing before a government will be formed. Both Peres and Likud leader Yitzhak Shamir will beat a hasty path to the doors of the various religious party leaders, probably to the point of embarrassment.

In the end, one of three things will likely emerge: a narrow, strongly nationalist Likud government in coalition with the religious parties; a national unity government without rotation between Likud and Labor, or a national unity government with rotation (as was the case for the past four years).

Technically, Likud could form a government if all 18 representatives of the religious parties would join in coalition. But it would be a limited government, at least partly at the mercy of the special interests and passions of the fundamentalists. Furthermore, such a government would be the most militant in Israeli history, calling for peace with Arab states while attempting to solve the Palestinian problem with severe and repressive measures, not excluding the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians. Such a government is not likely to emerge--or, if it does, to survive for very long.

I think that a national unity government will emerge, with or without rotation. Part of the reason is the plight of Labor. It behooves both Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, the leading lights of the party, to work hard for national unity government to preserve their own political careers and to protect the party’s trade-union and economic enterprises.

Likud leaders like Shamir and Moshe Arens want a national unity government to preserve Israel’s image in the world, to protect themselves from the always threatening Ariel Sharon within their own party and to protect the secular nature of their party and government. Likud would want a national unity government with no rotation, meaning that Shamir would remain as prime minister.

The religious parties want a rotating national unity government so that they can continue to play one party against the other.

What is obvious is that the most crucial election in Israel’s history has turned out not to be so at all. What the electorate has done, either in its wisdom or in its unwillingness to face the Palestinian issue head-on, is to postpone a solution. This result does not augur well for the prospect of any U.S. peace initiatives, no matter who is the American President. It also means that for now the ball is in the court of the Arabs when it comes to the Palestinian problem.