Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Election Results or Why the united arab list is a better partner than the fundamentalist parties

Update:
The 99% results are in. Labor, Kadima, and Meretz all have one less seat than the results at the time of yesterdays entry. Yesterday's numbers had those three and Gil (the pensioners) at a combined 62 seats. Today the quartet's numbers have dropped to 59, below the 61 seat threshold necessary to for the government.

This math leaves Kadima with the choice of adding an ultra-orthodox or Arab party. If Barak wasn't willing to bring in the Arab parties i doubt Olmert will. Too bad, it would be a great step towards a good resolution as the arab parties support two state solutions.

Arab parties positions on final status issues:

  • Balad --> two states, israel as a secular democratic state
  • Hadash --> about the same as Balad I think
  • United Arab List --> influenced by Bedouins supports a Jewish state as well as a palestinian state, has 4 seats [best match]

Wouldn't a Kadima-Labor-Gil-Meretz-United Arab List government be great? of course it won't happen, but it was fun to write.

BZ blogged the results at Jewschool and his MahRabu. I will be following those comments.

7 Comments:

At 3/28/2006 , Anonymous alan said...

So what this means is....

Kadima: 0 -> 30
Labor: 19 -> 21
Shinui: 15 -> 0
Likud: 38 -> 10
Shas: 11 -> 12
National U+Mafdal: 13 -> 9
Meretz: 6 -> 5
UTJ: 5 -> 6
Pensioners: 0 -> 6
Arab parties: 8? -> 7
Israel Our Home: 7 -> 14

(i think i got these correct. lots of merges to track)

 
At 3/28/2006 , Blogger ZT said...

thanks for the new number alan!

google news had this entry:

"Ha'aretz (subscription), Israel - Feb 27, 2006
... The Aleh Yarok (Green Leaf) Party, which calls for the legalisation of cannabis, was barred from participating in the election and appealed to the High Court ... "

anyone know what happened to aleh yarok? i search haaretz and didn't get anything. perhaps the info isn't available in english...

 
At 3/28/2006 , Blogger BZ said...

Gil (Pensioners' Party) doesn't have an official stance on peace process issues - individual MKs are free to vote how they want. I'm hoping that we'll see a Kadima-Labor-Meretz-Gil coalition, so that Shas stays out. (And I don't think UTJ cares that deeply about settlement withdrawal, as long as they can keep cashing their checks.)

 
At 3/28/2006 , Blogger ZT said...

i imagine there will be an exciting fight to divy up the ministerial positions within the government. Labor, Meretz, Gil, UTJ, and Shas are all interested in the questions that the domestic portfolios contain. I expect that Education will be a fight between the ortho parties and meretz whereas the finance portolfio will be courted hard by the pensioners (Gilim?) who want to change those policies. That's why i think its a longshot for gil, meretz and labor to all sit toghether, though, like you BZ, it'd be my preference as well.

 
At 3/29/2006 , Blogger Josh Eidelson said...

Man, that would be a nice coalition to have though.

(Meanwhile, I belatedly responded to your BT post over at lwb)

 
At 3/29/2006 , Anonymous Y-Love said...

Well the preliminary coalition predictions are already coming out.

And guess what? Sha"s is in it.

You advocate a solution which would lead to nothing but hardship for religious ppl of all stripes.

Bad for the Israeli left = good for Jews?

 
At 3/29/2006 , Blogger ZT said...

y-love,

you bring up an important and difficult question. we need to worry for the welfare of everyone, not just our political allies.
i don't know if the coalition i mentioned would necesarily lead to hardship of religious people of all stripes.
if there was to be hardship, my sense is that it would primarily impact, religious people who don't work. that population is a fairly small percentage of praciticing jews, even in israel.
There is a long and proud tradition of mixing torah learning with groundedness in the world and occupational commitment.
if anything a progressive coalition would lead to fewer people sarving and better benefits for poor people of all sorts. it would be good for all kinds of economically disadvantaged folks including haredim who fit that category.
maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all.


josh--i saw your insightful piece and am very thankful you chose to advance the idea i had been playing with. i plan to respond soon.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home