The main reason (grounds, some might say) for the end to the time of repeated elections and an unsolvable draw is the epidemic that hit us and the rest of the world. Here is an example of uncertainty, dangers, and a mine-filled path ahead. But the coronavirus can be seen not only as a catalyst to a complex process that would have ended sooner or later but also as a symbol of the ills that have befallen us. For a long time, we expected to see Isaiah's bitter prophecy about the Kingdom of Judea come true: "Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly!"

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

One of the major challenges facing the new government stems largely from the pandemic. We went into the corona crisis with good numbers. In 2019, Israel saw growth of 3.5%, the per capita GDP soared to $41,300, and in December there was only 3.6% unemployment. However, the budget deficit stood at 3.7% of the GDP. Now, a few months later, "From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil." (Isaiah 1:6)

The new global circumstances have not eliminated the main existential threats. Iran and its satellites haven't turned into peace seekers and lovers of Zion. The desire to eradicate Israel using weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, bloodshed, incitement, attrition, and scheming have not vanished. Sworn enemies in the Muslim world, along with "friends" at home and abroad, are casting doubt of the justice of the Zionist enterprise.

But we are also seeing the start of an awakening in enemy states and the beginning of important cooperation, which is mostly unseen, with entities that were previously calling for our destruction. Israel is notable for baseless hatred among some parts of its population, whose shared lives actually reflect the development of an impressive human tapestry. It's no coincidence that the coalition agreement cites national reconciliation as a top priority. It won't be easy, but "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land." (Isaiah 1:19)

The battle to stop corruption and fix the law enforcement system will be a central goal for the new government. Again, the prophet's words are fitting. First: "How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers," (1:21) and then, "Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." (1:26)

Will the government that had such a hard time being formed be able to contend with the challenges at its door? There is only one solution. The arrangements for equality between the political camps must lead to an equal sharing of the burden, and not mutual paralysis. If the partners act responsibly, their sins "shall be as white as snow." (1:18)

The post The desire to eradicate Israel has never vanished appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

That decision to withdraw reduced the coalition base of the 34th government down to just 61 Knesset members. It's worth noting that after the 2015 elections, a 61-member government was formed. The base of support in that government grew when Avigdor Lieberman replaced Moshe Ya'alon as defense minister, but it narrowed again when he pulled out.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Comparative studies show that narrow governments – which still have a majority – tend to last longer. The problem with these governments isn't their stability but their day-to-day management. The dependency on the impulses of individual MKs is not easy to handle. But what was considered a nightmare scenario on the eve of the 20th Knesset's dissolution, is now the right-wing's goal.

After the election for the 21st Knesset in April 2019, and even more so after the election for the 22nd Knesset in September 2019, it became clear that Yisrael Beytenu is no longer part of the right-wing bloc. Lieberman, who in the past was a firm ally of Aryeh Deri, has become his arch-rival, and now everyone knows the real question is: Can the right-wing get "a majority of 61 without Lieberman" in the election for the 23rd Knesset.

It's not a new question. After election day in 2015 I had the chance to speak with a very senior Knesset member. The final results weren't in yet, and the senior politician summed it all up with one question: "Will there be a majority of 61 without Lieberman and with Kulanu?"

After a series of unprecedented, dramatic events, we have come back to the starting point set five years minus two weeks ago.

What will happen this time? In the scenario of a Knesset majority for the Likud and its three partners in the bloc, Benjamin Netanyahu will form the 35th government. This will happen despite an attempt to block him through appeals to the High Court of Justice. During the 18th Knesset, Netanyahu sought to rely on support from the center, and even from the left.

The situation today is completely different. All the polls during this campaign predicted difficulties for the right-wing bloc to form a government. The deviations between the final results and the polls may be minor, but politically they could amount to the exact opposite.

If Blue and White, Yisrael Beytenu, Labor-Gesher-Meretz and the Joint Arab List get a majority bloc, we'll need to answer questions similar to the ones we had back in April and September last year. Everything is possible: politicians switching sides, mutinies or dismissals inside either camp, a minority government, a unity government, or fourth elections. So it's not just the voters, it's also the whims of the leaders that will determine how this absurd show ends.

The post Will we meet again for the 4th time?  appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Blue and White party's ultimate goal is to prevent the right-wing bloc from attaining a majority. Another central goal is to earn more Knesset seats than the Likud. If these two goals are achieved, the president will be more likely to task Blue and White chief Benny Gantz with forming the new government, regardless of whether or not more parties recommend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the job.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

All the talk of a government "with Likud but without Netanyahu" is aimed at gaining legitimacy among right-wing voters who have yet to decide just who they will vote for on Sept. 17. The chances of creating an obstructive bloc would increase were Blue and White to attack Yisrael Beytenu party leader Avigdor Lieberman over his (supposedly) belonging to the Right. This would cause more voters to defect to Yisrael Beytenu from the Right. However, such a move was prevented when Lieberman changed direction. He is now seen as a central partner to a Blue and White-led government.

Meanwhile, over at the Likud, the opposite targets have been marked. The Likud, of course, wants the right-wing bloc to garner a majority of Knesset seats and is interested in coming in first in the race with Blue and White. They are emphasizing Yisrael Beytenu's "leftism" in an effort to prevent the loss of anti-haredi right-wing votes. The Likud is acting to prevent votes being wasted on parties that are unlikely to pass the 3.25% electoral threshold. At the same time, it is very likely that the attempts to garner a large number of Knesset seats at the expense of both the Yamina and Shas parties will not harm those parties' chances of passing the electoral threshold.

But if the right-wing blocks earn fewer than 60 Knesset seats, and if Blue and White becomes the largest party, Gantz and his fellow party members will have no chance of forming a government without the help of elements from the right-wing camp. This is due to the vast differences between the parties that belong to the "anti-Netanyahu" camp. It is difficult to imagine a partnership between Yisrael Beytenu and the Joint Arab List, for example. Should Blue and White achieve both its goals, it will aspire to either trigger defections from the Right or set in motion processes that will force Netanyahu to resign from the role of premier in opposition to the will of his voters.

The Likud does not have a similar problem. If the right-wing bloc garners a majority, coalition negotiations will not be easy, but a right-wing government will be formed. There may also be other options, among them those that involve the defection of elements from the opposing bloc.

Although hostile to Netanyahu, Lieberman has shown a willingness to switch sides in the past. We may also see party members defect from Blue and White. A decisive factor on this front would be feelings of animosity among certain individuals, and not just over a political stance. Even the Labor-Gesher alliance, whose electoral standing is on shaky ground, could wind up joining forces with Netanyahu. The Likud has entered into partnerships with Labor but also the now-defunct Independence party in the past. Then again, there is always the possibility that the two biggest parties will lead the government together.

The post No zero-sum game appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to polls published in the past few weeks, it looks like the right-wing bloc does not have a majority. The race between the two biggest parties is close. In both blocs, there are small parties that have a lot of power. The big winner is Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, whose party (according to the polls) is gaining seats, will take over the middle of the political map, putting itself in the position to decide the outcome.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

We should qualify these statements. We've already learned that polls give us a picture that can be far from what happens when the election is over. We could still see major surprises. Four factors will determine the political makeup of the 22^nd Knesset: votes that move from one bloc to another; votes that move from one party to another within the same bloc; voter turnout in various sectors; and the effect of the minimum electoral threshold of 3.25% of the vote – below which a party does not make it into the Knesset.

The results of the polls I've seen indicate modest vote movement between the two biggest parties. Yisrael Beytenu will take floating votes from both blocs. A small but potentially significant trend is voters who supported the Likud and other right-wing parties but are now backing Lieberman. Some votes are also flowing in the opposite direction but not enough to make up for the loss.

When it comes to the smaller parties, the fate of Labor-Gesher is a particularly interesting question. Only a small number of supporters of both these parties have remained loyal. They are losing votes both to Blue and White and the Democratic Union. It could be argued that this marks the end of the Labor party. But the picture is actually different – a significant number of voters who cast ballots for Blue and White in April say they intend to support Labor-Gesher this time around – which improves the Likud's chances of winning.

Voter turnout in various sectors will have a major influence on the election results. Supporters of both Arab lists are showing more steadfast support than people who voted for any of the other parties. An overwhelming majority have expressed their intention of voting for the Joint Arab List. However, Arab voter turnout, which is relatively low anyway, could drop even more than Jewish voter turnout is expected to. The Likud is especially vulnerable to low voter turnout by past and present supporters. And if we're talking about votes likely to be "wasted" on parties that don't make it past the minimum threshold, Itamar Ben-Gvir's Otzma Yehudit list is a prime example.

No matter what kind of political map the voters draw, the decisiveness of party leaders will shape the next government.

The post Voter turnout will tip the scales appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

But perhaps the more relevant example to what is currently happening with the coalition crisis in Israel is the double election compromise of 1974, which proved that a victor's determination can pay off if he is willing to take a calculated risk. In 1974, the British Parliament included 635 seats. In the election that was held in February of that years, the Conservatives – under then-Prime Minister Edward Heath – were voted out, winning 297 seats, compared to 301 for the Labour party under Harold Wilson. Wilson was named prime minister after the Liberals refused to sit with the Conservatives in a coalition. Interestingly, one of the main issues in that election was the conditions under which Britain would join the EU, which was then known as the European Community.

Either way, Wilson led a minority government that found it difficult to function. He sought a repeat election at the earliest possible date, and in October of that year, another election was held. This time, his party won 319 seats, which made things easier for him. In March 1976, Wilson announced he would be leaving politics because he was "mentally and physically exhausted." Some think that Wilson resigned because his doctor has spotted early signs of Alzheimer's. However, there is no doubt that the internal strife in his party over Britain joining Europe contributed to his decision. Indeed, history repeats itself.

There was a precedent for Wilson's determination in 1974. In 1964, he was voted prime minister for the first time, but Labour under his leadership at the time won such a tiny majority that it could not function. Wilson eventually decided to move the election forward, and it was held in 1966. His gamble paid off, and Labour won another 47 seats.

It is no simple thing to decide on an early election. Other than the 1974 election in Britain, it's hard to find instances of two general elections being held in a single calendar year. There are many examples, however, of leaders who decided to move up a general election finding that it boomerangs. But sometimes, a leader has no choice. The Wilson instances from 1966 and 1974 proved that gutsiness can pay off.

The post There's nothing wrong with a new election appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

One week later, on Nov. 8, 1988, George H.W. Bush was elected U.S. president, crushing his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis in the Electoral College by 426 to 111.

Under Shamir and Bush, Israel-U.S. relations were far from ideal. Following Bush's death this month, three decades since those elections, Shamir's longtime media consultant Avi Posner wrote a column reviewing the tense ties between the two figures.

"Already by their first conversation, Shamir was surprised when President Bush demanded he commit to not establish new settlements in Judea and Samaria. Shamir was unwilling to heed the demand, and attempted to evade it by responding that settlements would not constitute a problem down the road. President Bush interpreted this remark as a commitment on Shamir's part, and he was very angry when the settlement enterprise in the territories continued," Posner wrote.

One of the more dramatic events to occur during Shamir's second tenure as prime minister was what is referred to in Israel as "the dirty trick," in which Peres attempt to topple the government in which he served and remove Shamir from office. On March 15, 1990, the government was defeated following a no-confidence vote – the only incidence in Israel's history in which this move has succeeded. However, Peres was unable to form a new government, and three months later Shamir formed a new government, one that did not include the Alignment.

Close associates of Peres to this day point to Bush's Secretary of State James Baker as one of the factors behind Peres' move. Known for his critical approach to Israel, Baker issued tough demands for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. While Peres supported the demands, Shamir opposed them. Another example of Baker's harsh treatment of Israel was his decision to bar then-Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from entering the State Department's offices.

It is interesting to note that when the Alignment was no longer in the government, relations between the two administrations calmed. Shamir met the U.S. demand for restraint during the 1991 Gulf War, even though this put him at odds with Defense Minister Moshe Arens. By the end of that year, the Americans were pushing to hold what would be known as the Madrid Conference. While the conference did not help advance peace in the region, it did serve to sharpen tensions between Washington and Jerusalem. Shamir's right-wing coalition partners resigned from the coalition in protest against his participation in the conference. Early elections were held in 1992 and resulted in the formation of a Labor government, headed by Yitzhak Rabin.

The post George H.W. Bush and Israel: Tense ties appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Midterm exit polls showed that around half of voters said they had decided who to vote for "in the last month" and even "in recent days." In this respect, there was no difference between supporters of Democratic and Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The polls indicated the final results long before the election was held. The same was also true in the past. When U.S. President Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, many commentators called it a "big upset," but it turns out early exit polls had been right.

In the congressional elections, the exit polls were right about 47 candidates across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In places where they erred, the polls had pointed to a tight race. Three of these states, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan, have a substantial number of electoral votes and they all tipped the scales in U.S. President Donald Trump's favor. The exit polls predicted that then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote by a margin of 2% and that is in fact what happened.

Many believe that voters' positions on political and social issue determine how they vote, but two trends indicate this is not necessarily the case. First, supporters of the ruling party believe their personal situation and the state of the nation are better than those who support the opposition. In a CNN exit poll, 86% of those who voted Republican said they thought the U.S. was heading in the right direction, while 85% who voted Democratic said it was not. Second, voters were familiar with the ideologies and policies of each party. Of those who described themselves as "liberal," 91% voted for Democrats, while 94% of those who described themselves as "conservative" voted for Republicans. Ninety percent of those who said Trump's immigration policy was too strict voted for Democrats, while 85% of those who said it wasn't tough enough supported Republicans.

The best predictor of how someone will vote is party affiliation. Around 95% of those who identify as either Republican or Democrat supported their party's candidate on Election Day. Ninety-four percent of those who supported Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections supported a Democratic candidate in the 2018 midterms. Of those who voted for Trump in 2016, 91% voted for a Republican candidate in 2018. This strong party loyalty aligns with a conclusion reached by University of Michigan researchers 60 years ago: Party identity dictates voter stance on any given issue more than the stance on an issue dictates party affiliation. A similar phenomenon exists in Israel.

Exit polls in elections in past decades have shown similar findings. The importance of party loyalty then begs the question: What causes a political upset? Is it demographic changes to the electorate or other factors that change someone's party affiliation over the years? In fact, it is not the voters who belong to either of the two largest political camps who are responsible for the dramatic upsets we see. It turns out that around one-third of U.S. voters do not identify as either Republican or Democrat, or as conservative or liberal. Party affiliation is a decisive factor in voter conduct, and the independents hold the key to revolution.

The post The power of party affiliation appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The U.N. Charter, which followed in the footsteps of the League of Nations, was passed at the end of 1945. In terms of membership, the U.N. is a success – 51 countries participated in forming it, and 193 countries are currently members. The U.N. has racked up many more failures than the League of Nations, but like its predecessor, it has also had some successes. One shining moment was when the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 in November 1947, which recommended the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel alongside an Arab country. But the U.N. failed to implement that resolution, and the next day saw Arab attacks that heralded the first stage of the 1948 War of Independence.

The preamble to the U.N. Charter is impressive and hopeful: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." There is not enough space here to list the wars, victims, or human suffering that have transpired since those aspirational words were composed. The U.N. and its satellite organizations encourage wrong and evil acts more often than they prevent them.

One of the only advantages to this hypocritical and failed organization is the opportunity it offers leaders to address its annual General Assembly. Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used that opportunity admirably, and not for the first time. A major part of his speech was devoted to discussing the U.N. and its branches' many failures. It's hard to argue with the facts that Netanyahu cited about the International Atomic Energy Agency; UNESCO; the U.N. Human Rights Council, UNRWA, and the General Assembly itself. Netanyahu emphasized how proud he was to be representing Israel. You don't need to be a fan of the prime minister to feel proud about how he exposed the ugly hypocrisy of the entity that gave him a platform.

The post The main purpose of the UN appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In one Knesset House Committee meetings on this law, I proposed that Basic Law: The ‎Knesset – not the nation-state law – be amended to ‎include a provision saying that, in addition to the equal right of ‎every citizen to vote and be elected, the state's sovereignty "will be in the hands ‎of all its citizens, regardless of race, religion or ‎gender." ‎

I also suggested that the aspiration for equality could, alternatively, be anchored in ‎Basic Law: The Judiciary.

However, one should ‎remember that laws, in Israel as in the rest of the ‎world, mark differences between citizens on the ‎basis of religion, gender, and nationality. This is ‎true for women's rights, military service and so on. ‎

Unfortunately, my suggestions were rejected.‎

I have yet to encounter two identical human beings. ‎To my delight, even the advocates of absolute ‎equality share ‎this with me, which is why they so adamantly glorify ‎pluralism and demand total tolerance for the "other" ‎‎– especially if the latter happens to agree with ‎their positions.‎

The Druze protest arose in the context of the need ‎for this "absolute equality." This made me revisit ‎the nation-state law, but I could not find so much ‎as a hint to anyone being relegated to a "second-‎class citizen" or worse, as has been professed by ‎the Druze. ‎

The Druze are our brothers, but one must question the ‎equality between the Druze themselves. ‎

After recalling the harsh fate of the Druze in ‎Syria, the lynching of Druze wounded by Syrian ‎soldiers rescued by the IDF in the summer of 2015, ‎and the widespread use of Syrian flags in Druze ‎demonstrations on the Golan Heights, I took the ‎liberty of reviewing election results in Druze ‎communities.‎

As expected, significant differences were found ‎between the various townships. ‎

In the northern village of Yarka, for example, 37% ‎of the residents voted for the Joint Arab List, but ‎it Daliyat al-Karmel, only 7% of the Druze supported ‎it. ‎

Voter turnout in Druze communities within the Green ‎Line was 60%, but it dropped significantly in the ‎Golan communities. In Buqata, for example, only 17 ‎people voted (of them, only one voted for the Joint ‎Arab List, five supported Likud and four voted for ‎the Zionist Union). In Majdal Shams, the Likud and ‎the Zionist Union garnered 40 votes each.‎

This only underscores the fact that no two people ‎are alike and therefore the demand for absolute ‎equality – outside the desire to perpetuate the rule ‎of the legal oligarchy – is far too vague. ‎

It is a shame that those who long for equality did ‎not agree to guarantee it by amending Basic Law: The ‎Knesset as suggested. Perhaps they opposed it ‎because they knew agreeing to it would render their ‎arguments hollow.

The post Equality can be assured in other ways appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is credence to the claim that the line about equality in the Declaration of Independence was meant to emphasize the values of the residents of the 13 rebel colonies, something akin to the values of King George III's subjects in Great Britain, Ireland and Hanover. The individual inequality in the U.S. in those days was appalling. No one at the time imagined that anyone other than property-owning whites would ever have actual political rights. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. only after a civil war. Women were only given the right to vote in 1920.

As we know, total equality between people is a noble aspiration, but it cannot be fully realized for a number of reasons. We all aspire to uphold the principle of equality, as we preserve the principle of liberty. It goes without saying that there is a contradiction between these two principles. Moreover, almost all social norms constrict the principle of liberty. Indeed, a person, regardless of his social status, cannot simply do whatever he pleases in a proper society.

Meanwhile, there are also quite a few norms that constrict the principle of equality for reasons considered both legitimate and relevant. For instance, it is legitimate and relevant to grant special aid to citizens who suffer from a handicap, but it isn't reasonable or appropriate to prevent a handicapped person from voting or running for office.

Israel's Declaration of Independence seeks to recognize the right of the Jews to self-determination, while the national affiliations of the country's non-Jews aren't mentioned at all. To stress that the distinction between Jews and the others relates to the right to establish a Jewish national home – without infringing on individual equality – the declaration determines:

"The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

The Knesset only circuitously ratified the Declaration of Independence in 1994. In the amendments to the first clause in Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, and Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, it states: "Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."

Clearly, these principles encompass both the national Jewish character of the state and its yearning for equality among its citizens.

When the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty was first discussed in early 1992, some people wanted it to include the right to individual equality. The decision was made to exclude it due to its vagueness, and because of concerns that its inclusion would open the door to political interpretation by the High Court of Justice on matters of social and economic policy. Despite this exclusion, in Miller v. Minister of Defense (1995), the High Court ruled, in a 3-2 majority, that the principle of equality "has become a principle with constitutional, super-legislative status."

Equality between the state's citizens is also underlined in the fact that every citizen has the right to vote and be elected regardless of differences of religion, race, sex and nationality. The State of Israel, in addition to being the national home of the Jewish people, is a state of all its citizens.

There is no contradiction between these things, and anyone who objectively reads the nation-state law will see it does not infringe on equality between individuals and does not detract from the fact that the country's sovereignty belongs to all its citizens. This, as stated and guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, has been enshrined in the country's basic laws since its inception. The demand to add an equality clause to the nation-state law is intentional, unadulterated hypocrisy.

The post Equality: Already enshrined in law appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.