By Evelyn Gordon
Many Israelis are willing to tolerate a racist party in the Knesset because they fear that the alternative is a government that will make life-threatening territorial concessions. And when voters think human life is at stake, telling them to “just say no” won’t work.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s midwifing of a joint ticket that will bring a far-right extremist party into the Knesset was quickly superseded by new scandals. Yet the fundamental problem that prompted his move remains, and contrary to popular belief, that problem isn’t growing racism. Rather, it’s Israel’s electoral system.
The party in question, Otzma Yehudit, has run for Knesset several times under various names and never gotten in. On its own, it wouldn’t make it into the next Knesset either. In other words, its positions are no more popular than they ever were.
What has changed is Israel’s electoral threshold—the minimum number of votes a party must receive to enter the Knesset. In 2014, it was raised to 3.25 percent of the total vote, equivalent to 3.9 Knesset seats. That sounds like a minor increase from the previous threshold of 2 percent (2.4 seats), but it’s enough that in both the last election and this one, a small mainstream party which could easily have passed the old threshold found itself hovering just below the new one, and consequently hooked up with Otzma in an effort to boost itself over.
The higher threshold also threatens the entire bloc to which an at-risk party belongs since the main electoral blocs are fairly evenly balanced. Either bloc might be able to afford two seats’ worth of wasted votes. But neither can afford almost four seats.
That’s why Netanyahu used a combination of arm-twisting and sweeteners to persuade a veteran religious Zionist party, Jewish Home, to partner with Otzma this election (last election, Otzma’s partner was Yachad, a breakaway from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party led by former Shas leader and six-time minister Eli Yishai; their joint ticket still failed to clear the threshold). Jewish Home was in danger of falling below the threshold because its former leaders, Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, jumped ship in December to form their own party.
With a lower threshold, Netanyahu would have no interest in promoting a merger between Jewish Home and Otzma: By definition, any party that couldn’t get elected on its own would win few enough votes that the bloc could probably spare them. Today, however, Jewish Home could easily fail to pass the threshold while still wasting enough votes to cost the right its majority. So for anyone who considers a continuation of rightist policy essential, as Netanyahu and Jewish Home both do, shoring up the latter through a joint ticket suddenly looks essential as well.
Many people would obviously argue that partisan interests can never justify mainstreaming an extremist party like Otzma. Others might dismiss the policy justification as a pretext, given that Netanyahu and his main rival, former general Benny Gantz, largely seem to agree on key issues like security and the peace process.
The problem is that a critical mass of Israelis patently disagrees. When Netanyahu staked his prestige on the Otzma merger, he was betting that the number of votes his bloc would gain by boosting Jewish Home over the threshold would outweigh the number he’d lose from people disgusted by Otzma. And so far, the polls have proved him right.
To understand why, some history is needed. In the 17 years preceding Netanyahu’s 2009 victory, Israelis thrice elected former generals who campaigned against diplomatic concessions, which they promptly turned around and implemented once in office. Yitzhak Rabin promised no negotiations with the PLO in 1992, then signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. Ehud Barak promised not to divide Jerusalem in 1999, then offered the Palestinians half the city at the Camp David summit in 2000. Ariel Sharon campaigned against a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2003, then implemented one in 2005.
These U-turns reflect a fundamental fact of Israeli life: All prime ministers are under massive, continuous international pressure to make concessions to the Palestinians. Premiers with leftist coalition partners—which Rabin, Barak and Sharon all had, and Gantz almost certainly would as well—are also under pressure from their own coalitions to make such concessions. And most people simply can’t withstand such immense pressure.
But Netanyahu has proven for 10 years now that he can. Thus anyone fearful of further territorial concessions has good reason to stick with him rather than gambling on Gantz.
And given what previous withdrawals have cost, such fear is unquestionably justified. Rabin’s Oslo Accords and Barak’s failed summit both sparked upsurges of terror that together killed some 1,500 Israelis. Sharon’s disengagement led to 20,000 rockets being launched on Israel’s south.
In short, voters who worry that Gantz will be unable to withstand pressure for concessions see Otzma as the lesser evil because they believe that the alternative entails against a significant risk of many dead Israelis. And when voters think human lives are at stake, expecting them to “just say no to racism” won’t work. The only way to return Otzma to the political fringes where it belongs is by lowering the electoral threshold.
I’ve long favored a lower threshold for other reasons as well. First, as researcher Shany Mor persuasively argued in 2013, a low threshold provides a safety valve for fractured societies like Israel’s. By offering the possibility that even small groups can win representation in parliament, it encourages them to pursue their goals through politics as opposed to violence.
Second, as I’ve explained in more detail elsewhere, a lower threshold would facilitate the entry of new parties that Israel actually needs, like a moderate Arab party and a moderate haredi one. Demand exists for such parties in both communities. But a higher threshold discourages voters from taking a flyer on a new party, since it means the party will have less chance of getting in and will waste more votes if it fails.
Yet as the last two elections have counterintuitively proven, a lower threshold also reduces the likelihood of extremists entering the Knesset by eliminating a powerful incentive to merge with them. Thus anyone who wants to see Otzma relegated back to the sidelines should lobby for lowering the threshold. That would be far more effective than expecting voters to nobly shun extremists, even if they think doing so risks Israeli lives.
This article was originally syndicated by JNS.org (www.jns.org) on March 13, 2019. © 2019 JNS.org
I discovered your internet site from Google and I need to
state it was a fantastic find. Thanks!
@ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:
Yes you are correct. I also recall those days when there were tiny parties and the most desperate “horse-trading” in making a majority bloc. Although Labour always had a huge lead and great advantage. I was actually in favour of larger thresholds but didn’t realise the natural outcome -where many deserving would-be MKs fell short at the gate.
But my criticism of Gordon was in her villfying Otzma Yehudt, a Nationalist, Torah- observant, thoroughly Zionist Party. which she had no call to do. Why didn’t she concentrate on the terrorist parties …? She showed her yellowed fangs in that article which ruined my confidence in her future output..
Perhaps in one way it was good, because if I lived in Israel and was not strongly attached to a party, i’d be impelled by her article to vote Otzmah…….
Edgar G. Said:
Gordon’s arguments are wrong.
Low entry thresholds for political parties may have had their justification before independence. During British mandate era, political participation in institutions such the Jewish Agency and Zionists’ Congress was voluntary.
In order to motivate as many as possible to participate and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, every political current and opinion was allowed. This was reflected in one-man parties tolerated in the early Knesset elections.
It was also the cause of much horse trading when small splinter parties used their power to extort concessions way beyond their electoral weight. They capitalized on their ability to shift the balance of power from one block to the other, none of which able to form a government on their own.
This was done shamelessly with no concern for ideology just for tribal or sectoral gain, at the cost of the general public, and from time to time, it also involved personal bribery.
The level of current political post-election barter is tame in relation to the corruption incurred in early years. Also, even the smaller factions that may be paid off today, at least represent some constituency. Whereas the old one-man shows often only represented themselves.
No. Splintering up political parties again will do no one a favor.
I agree with you. Evelyn Gordon with her McCarthyite tactics of tarring anyone with whom she disagrees as “extremist,” “far-right” and “racist” only blackens her own reputation as an objective commentator. I too will treat anything she writes now with great skepticism.
So those who are blunt and call out who the enemy are in NON-PC language are in danger of not being allowed to run for the Knesset by the non elected dictators of the Supreme Court.
Yet those who are opposed clearly to the Jewish State of Israel are allowed to run because they are Arab.
Need change of law on power Supreme Court has and does NOT have! Shaked is correct!
Thks s the very frst Gordon Artcle that am totally aganst.’s both surprsed and ashamed of her. Otzma is a Nationalist Party dedicated to Zionism and Torah, and Gordon is totally wrong. To spew such vitriol shows me what she really is, and stands for.
I’ll never look at another Gordon article with anything but disgust. And I hope she reads these comments on her work. She was always so sensible and on the point. It’s as if she’s gone suddenly crazy…
Really? But why is the sandnigger party permissible?