Nothing hurts more than the truth

This morning's Haaretz Barak Ravid reports that PM Ehud Olmert went on a rampage at yesterday's weekly Cabinet meeting, striking out at, among others, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute for comments made in their 2008 Annual Report.

Ravid reports:

The official topic of the meeting was the institute's annual report assessing Israel's situation and that of the Jewish people as a whole. But as institute director Avinoam Bar-Yosef was finishing his presentation of the report's main findings, Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann passed a note to Olmert drawing his attention to page 31 of the document, which stated that Israel's leadership was about to change due to "its ongoing corruption problem." The report declared that Olmert's resignation last fall constituted "a depressing climax to the parade of corruption in the senior echelons" of government and expressed hope that "out of the ruins of the Olmert government, perhaps a cleaner political culture will emerge."

Olmert read this passage and erupted. "This is none of Diaspora Jewry's business and none of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute's business," he shouted. "On what basis do you conclude this? I haven't been charged with anything yet; these are only suspicions. And former president [Moshe] Katsav" - whose case the report also cited - "has also yet to be indicted."

Olmert was further outraged by a passage declaring that Diaspora Jews viewed the Second Lebanon War as a failure. "What are you talking about?" he demanded. "I can bring military experts who will prove that the war brought us great achievements. Who appointed you? Why are you sticking your nose into these matters, and on what basis do you draw these conclusions? Why don't you tell the truth? That's what happens when you let people who hide behind curtains write a report."

That remark was a reference to former institute president Prof. Yehezkel Dror, a member of the commission that investigated the Second Lebanon War, who hid behind a curtain at a public event a few weeks ago to avoid shaking Olmert's hand. However, the institute said that Dror had left his post a few months ago and was not involved in writing the report.

The report itself, in the English version of page 35, writes:

2008 was a dismal year in Israeli political life. The long-simmering crisis of Israeli political leadership brought to the fore by the Second Lebanon War of 2006 showed no signs of abating.

Following on the resignation in 2007 of President Moshe Katzav resulting from a number of criminal charges, including rape, 2008 saw the indictment of Finance Minister Avraham Hirschsohn for theft, money laundering, fraud and other crimes involving diversion of charitable funds for his own personal use. This was only the latest in a series of prosecutions and criminal allegations involving highranking
Israeli officials in recent years, including the former justice minister as well as the two chief rabbis.

The multiple criminal allegations against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, culminating in the police’s recommendation that charges be brought against him and the subsequent submission of his resignation on September 21, 1008, offered a depressing climax to this parade of corruption in high places. Olmert has remained unrepentant and defiant, confident that he will in the end be vindicated and have the last laugh over his many foes.

To respond to Olmert.

1. I think the report is a fair assessment of the situation in Israel.
2. If you expect Diaspora Jewry to support the State of Israel (not to mention your own pet projects and, as you are currently accused of, your pocket), you can't pick and choose what's appropriate and what's not. People deserve to possess all the information to make their own informed decisions.

What I see as the real issue is your inability to accept responsibility for your behaviour. Your defiant denial of having done anything wrong--screwing up with the (Second) Lebanon War, the rampant corruption on a personal (what the Police are currently investigating and the cause for announcing your resignation) and governmental (keep Haim Ramon around despite his criminal record, appointing Daniel Freidman as Justice Minister). While others accepted responsibility for their (failure) role in the Lebanon War--the IDF Chief of Staff (Dan Halutz) and Minister of Defence (Amir Peretz)--and resigned, you refused to follow their lead. Then, instead of outright resigning at the earliest opportunity, you stretched out your reign as long as possible. You must also accept responsibility for the need for the recent elections and the loss of rule for Kadima (your party). You placed personal interests over the needs of the country and your own political party.

You're just angry that others are calling it as they and others see it. Grow up!

Rather than having a temper tantrum, you need to quietly go away and hope to rehabilitate your political legacy.

Electoral reform - take 1

Today's Haartez has two articles about electoral reform in Israel emanating from the inconclusive results of this week's election.

Both suggest that the path will be a difficult one.

Shahar Ilan in his article “Major reforms are unlikely, but electoral thresholds could be raised” suggest that only minor changes will happen if only because it's unclear what people want and small parties--some of whom may be part of the next government--are against tinkering with a system that gets them elected and part of the government (cabinet/coalition).

Menachem Ben Sasson, the recent chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, and a former Rector of Hebrew University in his op-ed piece "Why we have failed to change the system" lays out what he sees as the goal of the process and why it didn't happen during the last Knesset.

If that is a true reflection of the public's mood to place the issue on the agenda of the next Knesset, then great. If it's just a elite sentiment or a momentary fit of venting to the results of the recent elections, reform is doomed to failure.

For me, the election hasn't made the issue any more acute than before the election. The fact that two parties won near identical number of seats and there's no clear 'winner' in terms of who's the natural person to be asked first to form the government. The fact that Kadima/Tzippi Livni won the largest number of seats suggests, if only to me, that the public doesn't want Likud/Netanyahu to be the government. On the other hand, the fact that right-wing parties have a clear majority of the Knesset seats, suggests that people want a nationalist/right-wing government which Likud is better suited for than Kadima. It's also fair to say that the country has drifted to the right--the need to take a harder line vis-a-vis the Palestinian issues. That would explain the demise of the Jewish left-wing parties, especially Meretz in the election. (Labour was also affected, but their demise may be a result of other more long-term and complicated reasons including the revolving door leadership.)

Menachem Ben Sasson lays out what he views as the goals of electoral reform. In terms of the goals, he writes:

...reduce coalition parties' ability to threaten stability include increasing (from 61 today) the number of Knesset members needed to propose a replacement prime minister; a law that grants the head of the largest Knesset faction the first right to try to form a coalition (which will encourage voters to choose large parties); and a return of the cap on the number of ministers to 18.

In response, he suggests:

This goal can also be brought closer by raising the percentage of the overall vote needed for a party to enter the Knesset. It can be furthered by the so-called Norwegian law, which would require all ministers and deputy ministers except party chiefs to resign from the Knesset and be replaced by the next person on their party's
list. There would also be an amendment to the way the budget is passed and supervised when carried out. Elected officials' commitment to the public would be strengthened by a new Elections Law in which half the MKs would be elected in local balloting.

Then he asks

If the problems are so grave and the way toward a solution is clear, where have we, the elected officials, been for the past three years?

Very soon after the establishment of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee in the outgoing Knesset, the coalition parties and most other Knesset factions embarked on a move to bring about the legislation discussed above. Thirty-eight meetings in 2007 were devoted to drafting bills to be voted on in the committee. But just when the work was prepared for the vote, some committee members (from the coalition as well) pulled out. The draft laws are languishing in the committee stage.

Just as the vote was coming up, Shas, who had until then strongly supported the bill (in increase the voter threshold) withdrew its support, supposedly due to pressure from the other smaller religious party.

These parties later hinted that if they did not win the required percentage they would join up with Shas, along with their rabbinical establishments, threatening Shas' rabbinical establishment. Shas' leaders explained their change of position on the "head of the largest faction" law by saying that their voters, who hold right-wing positions, would vote for Likud because of concerns that the head of a less-hawkish party might become prime minister. The way Shas conducted itself in the last election (the "distant-relatives" tango between Shas and Likud) indicates that their
concerns were sincere.

It's ironic how Shas was manipulated by the other haredi parties in the same way they have, in past, sought to extort concessions from the party seeking their support to join the coalition.

In terms of the goals of the process

• I agree that the government need to be made more stable and members of Knesset more accountable to the public and not just to their party members/ leadership.
• Raising the necessary threshold for election to the Knesset as well as dissolving the government more difficult and creating a form of direct elections for Knesset members makes sense. For the former, I hope it will "encourage" (force or dissuade) smaller parties to merge as a larger bloc and individuals to avoid turning small--often personal--slights or policy differences into a 'cult of personality' by creating their own party. Better, allowing for active intra-party factions.
• Having half the Knesset elected directly by a region/riding, will (hopefully) create an atmosphere of true accountability to the public (electorate) instead of the party apparatchiks who created the party list for public consideration/election.
• Enacting a law that the leader of the largest faction automatically is invited to form a government will cause people to vote for the bigger parties to be suspect. While, people should be encouraged to vote for a large party, I'm not sure having only a small number of large parties is either desirable (on the theoretical level) or workable in Israel (practicable). Israel continues to be a country full of divergent voices, divided not only on political lines--right vs left, free market vs socialist/protective, peace vs hard-line, pro vs anti settlements--but also on ethnic and national--Jew, Arab (Muslim, Christian, Druze, Bedouin)--and religious outlook--observant vs secular (and everyone--the majority--who define themselves as traditional and not in either extremist camp). Many groups deserve a voice in the Knesset, though not the 'right' to have their minority agenda foisted upon the majority population.
• Even worse, is his suggestion of enacting the "Norwegian law". What Israel needs is a more publicly accountable government. Ministers need to be directly accountable to the public and its legislative body. Having the cabinet not be members of the Knesset seems backwards to me. Unless and until there's a true presidential electoral system/framework, either like France or the US, cabinet members and the PM MUST be a member of the legislature [the Knesset].

The road will be a long one. Hopefully, the larger parties, either those elected to the largest number of seats (Kadima[28], Likud[27] and Yisrael Beitanu[15] = 70 seats) or the traditional large parties (Kadima, Likud and Labour[13] = 68), will put aside their egos and agree to form a national unity government for a specific period whose primary goal will be enacting electoral reform. It will "kill two birds with one stone"; (a) they'll be a stable government for a set period and no elections and (b) will keep the smaller parties out of the coalition so the best interests of the country (larger parties and more stable governments) can be considered and enacted.

While both options present a majority government, I'm not sure either will happen. Too much vested interests and ego involved to do the rational thing. Too bad.

A-rod or a-fraud?

Taking a short break from Israeli politics, to reflect upon the recent uproar over the disclosure that Alex Rodriguez, used performance enhancing drugs while with the Texas Rangers in 2001-3.

Unlike Timothy Egan in his "Outpost" blog "Young and Stupid" I don't see what's the fuss and anger about what Rodriguez did.

[AR] “I was young, I was stupid, I was naive.”

Whoooaaa, A-Rod. Stop the tape. For the record, he was pumped up on steroids and other drugs from ages 26 through 28, while the highest-paid player in baseball, with a 10-year, $252 million contract.

He was a man in full, but wants us to think of him as a boy. He was a corporation unto himself, a very calculated one at that. He cheated to get an edge. Then he lied about it.

But if nothing else, the A-Rod ‘roid admission this week — after he famously looked Katie Couric in the eye in 2007 and denied ever taking drugs to help him perform — gives us a chance to parse the oldest of lame excuses: young and stupid.

The best-known contemporary example is George W. Bush, who explained away spending nearly half his adult life in a stupor of alcoholic and self-indulgent excess by saying: “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.”

After that, no reporter dared to ask about allegations of cocaine use, or try to get him to explain his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

But Bush-the-life-story could have been a great teaching tool, or at least the start of a national debate on the young-and-stupid excuse and its consequences.

Comparing him to George W Bush who hid his drug use--alcohol and cocaine--from the American public is way overboard. GWB continues, even after he left office, to in any way acknowledge his condition; i.e. "My name is George and I'm an alcoholic/substance abuser (addict)".

That no one from the press/media "dared to ask..." is the media's issue. They certainly had adequate access to him and could have raised the issue any number of times, either directly or through investigative reporting. That they didn't is a great disservice to America and because of the position of the President, by extension to the entire world.

A-Rod is a professional ball player and not the President of the US. Being an idol or proposed "role model" doesn't require him to be either paragon of virtue or even "nice." His contract requires him to preform his duty on the baseball field. If he's drunk or otherwise incapacitated, he's liable to be benched, fired/released or removed quite easily. See Micheal Vick and his awful behavior. See also many of the old time baseball players like Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb. The latter two, had the fortune of playing and living in a different era which wasn't as transparent (for good and for bad) as today.

The same can't be said for a President. Alcohol abuse, among other personal issues, disqualified John Tower from becoming the Secretary of Defense for George H.W. Bush (he was replaced by Dick Cheney). Somehow, for a position of far greater responsibility it was ignored. Also important to note is the impeachment process is far more time consuming and complicated than merely firing an employee.

The Henry Hyde comment,

The height of absurdity for the y&s excuse had to be Henry Hyde, the late silver-maned congressman who stood in judgment of Bill Clinton while chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. When it came out that the ever-pious Hyde had carried on a four-year affair with a married woman, he called it “a youthful indiscretion.”

Except Hyde was 45 years old, a married father of four, while engaging in this act of tender-age passion.

is well taken. However, here, too I see other parallels. J Edgar Hoover's homophobic image was a reaction to his closet homosexuality--which here too, was conveniently covered up until his death.

Lastly, you write:

A-Rod will likely face no legal consequences, nothing from the the toothless barons of baseball. Phelps took his hit for recreation. Rodriguez did his drug to cheat the game and himself. He lied about it. And then he blamed it all on his age and pressure to perform because of his oversized contract.

So, yes, while Rodriguez behavior is deplorable and maybe worse than Micheal Phelps "bong" incident, your reaction is over the top.

That Rodriguez "cheated the game", is not that newsworthy. Forgive me for being cynical, sports are full of cheaters. The object of the game is to win the game any way you can--just don't get caught. In comparison to some of the other "druggies", he has come clean (or at least cleaner) by (a) publicly acknowledging his stupidity (the same can't be said for Bonds, Clemens and others) and (b) stopping to cheat on his own.

So, while I doubt the whole truth is out either about A-Rod/Fraud or the entire steroid era in Major League Baseball, and I agree that the Commissioner (and the other leaders in baseball) will do nothing--meaningful or otherwise--to clear up the situation, I am satisfied with what's transpired over the last week or so. If Rodriguez stays clean and is pro-active in wiping away the stain of steroids/ performance enhancing drugs in sports and especially in youth sports while maintaining his star-ness, I believe he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. (I'll even accept an asterisk or note about his past behavior on his plaque.)

For a different perspective, see Doug Glanville's guest op-ed in Monday's, 9.Feb, New York Times.

It's clearly right, but is it good?

I am disappointed but not surprised with the results of yesterday's election.

Today's unofficial results, with 100% of the polls reporting but still waiting for the publication of the official results, show that Kadima and Tzippi Livni won the largest number of seats, the right-wing political parties won a majority of the seats in the Knesset. It appears that Bibi Netanyahu will be the next PM.

The media reports the following:

Right
Likud 21%/27 seats
Yisrael Beitenu 12/15
National Union 3/4
HaBayet Hayehudi 3/3
49 seats

Religious
Shas 9/11
UTJ 4/5
16 seats

Centre
Kadima 23/28
28 seats

Left
Labour 10/13
Meretz 3/3
16 seats

Arab Parties
UAL/Ta'al 4/4
Hadash 3/4
Balad 3/3
11 seats

The winners and losers

Winners:

1. The right-wing parties in general and Avigdor Lieberman in particular who is the "king-maker" as complicated as that role may be for him.
2. Tzippi Livni who fought off oblivion by actually leading Kadima to garner the largest number of seats.
3. Bibi Netanyahu who despite loosing the popular vote has the sufficient political backing to form the next government.
4. Bayit Hayehudi (NRP) who beat the predictions that they would only eek into the Knesset.

Losers:

1. All the parties, mostly from the left, who lost seats.
2. The Labour party who fell to 4th place and the opposition. (Though in the long run, it might actually work to its benefit.)
3. Political parties who focused on domestic issues with no comment on exsternal ones (i.e. the Arab-Israeli conflicts).
4. The Israeli public who, once again, may find itself going back to the polls in another 18 months.

For me personally, I was deeply disappointed that the Green Movement-Meimad only garnered 23,000 votes or 1%. With a mandate valued at around 25,000 and the voting threshold at 2% of the valid votes, all it's ballots are considered invalid and amount to a non-vote--a "wasted vote."

What does this mean?

As the Jerusalem Post reports, it's all in the hands of Leiberman and Yisrael Beitenu (which for all intents and purposes are the same, since Lieberman hand picks the party list). He remains valuable for all--to strengthen the rightist bloc, to bridge Kadima with the left-wing--but, several complications remain: (a) he needs to temper his demand for a senior cabinet post as I doubt anyone will agree to make him Defence Minister (Finance? maybe), (b) he's detested by Meretz (who's publicly said it would not sit with him), the Arab parties and the religious parties, and (c) he has the reputation of being fickle--joining an unexpected government and then unexpectedly bolting the government--creating uncertainty and instability.

Though the party had apparently won just 15 seats, half that of the Likud's 28 and Kadima's 30, the distribution of results makes any stable government very difficult.

In principle, party chief Avigdor Lieberman can comfortably join a center-left coalition, since his party does not oppose a Palestinian state and his primary voting bloc demands a social agenda closer to that of the Left.

But such a coalition would place Lieberman together with the same Arab parties whose leadership bore the brunt of Israel Beiteinu's campaign attacks over "disloyalty" to the state.

Without the 10 seats won by the three Arab parties, the left-wing coalition would shrink to a narrow 62 and place Israel Beiteinu in an unlikely partnership with the social-democratic Meretz, a situation that party's leaders are unlikely to countenance.

As the possibility for a strong ideologically consistent bloc wanes, Israel Beiteinu looks set to become the linchpin for a national unity government. A Likud-Kadima coalition would probably require an agreement of rotation in the premiership as one party - Kadima - has apparently emerged larger, but at the head of a smaller ideological bloc.

Even so, such a coalition would amount to just 58 seats, requiring a stable third partner. Lieberman may be the most attractive partner in such a coalition, as his domestic demands, including civil unions in lieu of marriage and governmental reform, would be palatable to the larger parties.

At the same time, his ability to make extravagant demands, such as the Defense portfolio, would be limited by the ease with which the two larger parties could replace him with the haredim or even the four-to-five seat Meretz.

Haaretz also agrees with the Post's assessment though it strongly suggests that Lieberman will join a right-wing government

Lieberman said that his party will prefer to join a national right-wing government, hinting that he would prefer joining forces with Netanyahu over Livni. "We always said that this is the government we want, and this is the way our hearts lean," he stressed.

Lieberman, who spoke with Kadima and Likud leaders on Monday, added that he does not intend to make any hasty decisions. "Tomorrow the faction will convene, we will appoint a negotiations team and we will make decisions," Lieberman said. "In this election, we set the agenda," he went on to say. "This is our biggest achievement, beyond any other achievement. Yisrael Beiteinu defined what the correct agenda is and what the central issue is "loyalty."

So it's now a waiting game. Waiting for the publication of the official results (scheduled for next Thursday 19.Feb), so the President (Shimon Peres) may begin determining who to invite to form the next government. Waiting for Lieberman to decide who he'll support/recommend to be PM. Then, waiting for the horse trading to create the new coalition government.

Whatever happens, and I suspect that it'll be a rightest government rather than some form of national unity government with all three large parties and a rotating PM between Livni and Netanyahu, the country and its political system remains impotent and broken. Despite some calls for a merger of Kadima and Labour, the country remains split and undecided as to how the country needs to be governed.

I also suspect that Shas and possibly also UTJ will be invited to join the coalition which will cost the country too much financially and further stifle modernizing the country--enacting civil marriage and better 'control' over the Rabbinic court system, as well as pushing a greener Israel.
Whatever government is created, no one from the public will be asked to ratify it but, will be left to cover its costs and bills.

While I recognize that the public has spoken and that it doesn't really speak to me, it will speak for me and, thus, it deserves my respect. Unfortunately, I can't see the new government doing much good. Its policies will be regressive--socially and economically as well as relating to the rest of the world--and will set the country back.

Random thoughts of the day

Election day was a relatively quiet one.

I went to vote around 10:30 am. I went right into the polling station and voted. The other polls had medium length lines. At 16:00, it was reported that the turnout was above the last election (around 42%). The 21:00 news opened with a turnout slightly under 60% (59.4). Not a huge turnout considering that the day was a civic holiday--no work, no school ...

Outside the voting place I met several parties attempting to convince to vote for them, Kadima, Likud, Meretz and Green-Meimad. When I volunteered outside the voting station, at 19:00, it was just Greens-Meimad for a long time. Meretz showed up later. I guess by the evening when the weather turned really cold and rainy, only the diehards were fighting for votes.

Whether or not the Green Movement-Meimad will, in the end, pass the voting threshold remains up in the air (it's now 22:15 and the TV stations have released their projections and it appears that G-M is out of the Knessset). Too bad.

A few issues that I percolated upon today:

1. The surprise election winner: The last three elections have had one party--previously viewed as fringe--made a impressive showing. The last time it was the Pensioner Party (7 seats). The time before, it was Shinui (Tommy Lapid 1st election as its leader) which won 8. Today, I expected that it would be the Green Movement-Meimad. In the end, it may turn out to be Avigdor Leiberman/Yisrael Beitanu.

• As difficult as it is to make the breakthrough, the real challenge is to repeat the success. In previous cases, the party for all intents and purposes disappeared from the map either during the sitting Knesset or the next elections. It splintered--both Shinui and the Pensioners--and fizzled out. (Shinui did appear in the subsequent Knesset, though no longer in the government.) It was a flash in the pan and not a paradigm shift of Israeli political life.
• Part of the difficulty of staying the course was an inability to put aside personal (and personality) politics for the sake of building up the party structure and policies. In both cases, the charisma of the leader was an integral component of its success. Once in power, the other 'leaders' wanted their time in the sun (i.e. ego issues).

2. Voting for a "fringe party" (one not expected to enter the Knesset) is a vote for the stronger parties and a wasted vote (since it's not considered a valid vote--it's not counted).

• For me, I didn't (and still don't) see any significant difference between the three large parties. All three will include Lieberman (extreme right-wing, even racist politician, whose also had his share of criminal investigations including one currently underway which could lead to an indictment for money laundering), especially if he gets 15+ seats. A matter-of-fact, there was no real/actual vote that could have prevented him [Lieberman] from being the balance of power -- a senior member of the cabinet and the effective determinant of who will be Prime Minister. To suggest otherwise--as someone told me outside the polling station--to be delusional (unlike naive as I was called, because I voted for a small party).
• None of the major parties expressed any real interest, either in policy statements or in their past behaviours, in domestic issues beyond taxes and government allowances. Their focus was on external affairs -- the military, the Israel-Arab (Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria ...) conflict. As such, I expect that all three--despite their campaign posture and rhetoric--will behave the same way. If, when, international pressure is applied--especially by the US--territories will be evacuated, negotiations will be conducted with all for establishing 'peace treaties', etc.
• Missing from all three is a serious domestic agenda. No one really spoke about education, environmental issues or closing the socio-economic gaps. I felt that the Greens-Meimad, davka, did address those issues. Unfortunately, either the issues didn't really resonate with the electorate or got lost in the push for larger parties.
• The leadership of the three large parties were uninspiring. While none really discussed recycling and other green issues, they practiced recycling of people (Barak and Netanyahu were part PMs) if not solid waste. The idea of having to vote for a large party because of a need for a stable (less smaller parties) government, works only on the theoretical level. On the practical level, it turns my stomach. Until the larger parties actually become accountable to the population and not the central committee / primary voters, little change in the quality of politics and political leadership can be expected.
• Lastly, the current political reality, stable governments remain more an exception than the the rule. Governments will rely on fickle (self-interested) partners who on a moments notice either over a policy difference (how it'll be cloaked) or personal slight (most likely) will bolt the coalition and force new elections. The four year term of office is more a hope or aspiration than a fact of political life. If correct, there's no real advantage voting for a large party. It doesn't speak for the larger public, to the important public concerns, nor present needed leadership.

Will discuss potential governing scenarios shortly.

The day before ...

As it turns out, today—Tu BeShevat (the new years for trees)—among other things is the anniversary of the first Knesset meeting in its own building (13.3.1950) in the "Beit Froumine" building on King George Street in Jerusalem. (Today it's the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court and before that the Ministry of Tourism.) It's an opportune time to reflect on tomorrow's elections for the 18th Knesset.

To carry the metaphor further. The seeds planted up until today, will start to bear its fruit tomorrow. (Today also has a personal twist. It's my paternal grandfather's 39th yahrzeit and would have been my Dad's 77th birthday. Both serve as my roots and primordial seed.)

Conventional wisdom is that Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) and the Likud party will form the next government. His coalition government will be right of center—Likud, Israel Beiteinu (Avigdor Leiberman), HaBayit HaYehudi [the new NRP], and the National Union. Together they're predicted to have around 68 seats.

What I don't want is a "wall-to-wall" coalition. The more parties included the higher the price exacted for their support, as each party demands its 'ransom'. This is especially true for the haredi (ultra-orthodox) parties who want money for their educational systems—which operate outside of meaningful (if at all) government supervision—and their pet projects. It also applies to other narrow special interests groups too. The time has come for the national interests to trump special interests. Money should be devoted to strengthening the general Israeli infrastructure; upgrading the public school systems—from nursery through graduate education, creating a real and meaningful (helpful) social welfare net, public transportation and better green technology from better solid waste management to green (renewable) energy and technology.

There’s also a real place for a real opposition. One that will offer viable policy and governing (legislation and priorities) alternatives for public consideration, hold the government accountable for its policies and make the Knesset an actual governing body instead of a rubber stamp for the government/cabinet decisions.

The polls have consistently shown Likud leading the race. However, their lead has been cut from a high of projected 35 seats to something closer to 27. In large part by Avigdor Leiberman coming from the hard right especially among the teen/younger voters and also by Tzippi Livni and the Kadima party attempting to come from the left (center). It also doesn't hurt—though I'm not it's really that much of a help considering how hated he is by most of the country (and me!)--that Ehud Olmert finally endorsed Tzippi Livni for Prime Minister yesterday.

So, whoever wins the plurality of the seats, the challenge will be to create a viable and stable coalition government.

Complicating matters is that 33(!) parties—each with their own electoral symbol (from one to three letters)—are running for the 120 seats. The Jerusalem Post created a guide for the voter on Friday. Haaretz discussed the smaller fringe parties on Sunday. Then there the medium sized parties who'll certainly get enough votes (>2.5% of valid ballots cast) to get a few seats and expect to be part of the government—if the governing party will pay their asking price.

I continue to believe that Shas who (a) refused to have a female PM and (b) demanded too high a price--which they cloaked in a demand for higher family (children) allowances, caused the current election. (And, then had the hutzpa to suggest that Livni forced the election and doesn't care about families.)

As it turns out, the party I'm supporting, the Green Movement-Meimad, was included as a viable party (i.e. potential for getting a couple of seats) in the election in the Post article, despite not being included on any the poll results. Ya.

Polls seem to skew towards already existing parties and the larger parties. I received a computer-generated phone call asking me which I supported/will vote for. After mentioning the "usual suspects", it stopped and didn't even have an option for "other". I'm also not sure that polls take into account the undecided or not voting blocs into their projected results. Taking the latter in, which is frequently larger than the 'margin of error', presents a clearer picture of the probabilities and might even encourage those on the fence to decide vote (and for whom). Or... maybe that's too complicated for people.

As much as I would like to see a smaller number of parties contesting Israeli elections, I’m not sure the larger parties or the general Israeli polity/population seems willing or able to commit to that.

• The voting threshold needs to be raised to close to 5%, from its current 2 2.5% level, coupled with
• Some form of direct elections are needed, either on a regional basis or ‘traditional’ electoral riding/constituencies, to be augmented by ‘proportional representation’ by parties.

Unfortunately, the three larger parties—Kadima, Labour and Likud—refuse to use their collective strength (a majority of the Knesset seats) to enact such a bill. Maybe they’re afraid of offending the smaller, usually ‘balance of power’ parties and they won’t support them in the future. It’s baseless on several counts:

1. Only the small fringe parties, see the list below) would be excluded from the Knesset, as they are already.
2. The collective weight of the big three ensures its passage.
3. Parties with large scale either geographic concentrations or national support will continue to be elected to the Knesset. At minimum to the party seats and those with a geographic concentration or bloc voting, should also win some direct elections.

As it stands now, the thirty-three parties can be divided into three groups: the large Blocs (Kadima, Labour and Likud) who serve as the senior government partner(s), the medium sized parties and the nuisance parties (those too small to pass the voter threshold). The combination is lethal and makes elections and voting confusing.

A. Large [3]

• Likud
• Labour
• Kadima

B. Medium [15]

(a) 7+ seats:
Left: Meretz, the Arab parties combined [UAL/Tal, Balad].
Right: Israel Beiteinu
Religious: UTJ (the Ashkenazi haredim), Shas (the Sefardi haredim)
(b) 3-7 seats:
Right: National Union, HaBayit Hayehudi [aka NRP]
Left: Hadash (communist and Arab-Jewish)
(c) on the cusp/2-3 seats (minimum number):
Green Movement-Meimad, the Green Party and (in this election) the Pensioners

C. Nuisance [18]

• Israel Hazaka (fighting organized crime)
• Zomet
• Or (secular)
• 2 parties committed to legalizing marijuana [Green Leaf and the Holocaust Survivors (who joined up with a Green Leaf break off)
• 2 parties committed to electoral reforms [Israelim and Responsibility]
• Da’am (Arab workers’)
• 3 Russian immigrant parties [Leader, Lev and Israeli Renewal]
• Tzabar (young people)
• Men’s Rights
• Power for Handicapped
• Lechem (on behalf the poor)
• Power of Money (anti-banks)
• Lazuz (corruption) and
• Brit Olam (joint Jewish-Arab committed to a Palestinian state, separation of religion and the state)

Complicating matters further is that seats are assigned according to the votes deemed “valid”. Voting either a “white slip” (no party), a defaced ballot or for party that fails to garner enough to pass the threshold is not considered a valid vote/ballot. To get around this, parties sign “overflow votes” agreements. Those two parties then have access to the others ‘extra’ votes (beyond the precise number required for each seat/mandate) which are used to increase the votes for the bigger party providing them with an additional seat, or two.

Now you know all this, are you now excited to see how it all turns out?

More later—tomorrow with my first impressions, later on when the official results are published (Paper ballot take a while for formal approval.)