Israel heads to the polls in March amid increasing insecurity. It has been traumatised by Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian elections and the resulting uncertainty over the future of peace negotiations. With the election entering its final weeks, Labor and the left have failed to turn the election agenda to socio-economic issues where they are stronger than their opponents.
The most likely outcome of the election will be a coalition of diplomatic unilateralists dominated by Labor and Kadima. Such a coalition, however, could ultimately damage Labor. If it is to be politically successful in the long term, Labor needs to remain an independent force and a viable alternative to Kadima.
As part of Ariel Sharon’s government of national unity, Labor was unable to provide an effective opposition on domestic and diplomatic issues. Sharon stole the idea of unilateralism from previous Labour administrations; and the current leader of Kadima and acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, conveniently forgets that it was the former Labor leader, Ehud Barak, who unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon.
Labor’s newly-elected leader, Amir Peretz, has failed to put this message across to the electorate and lost support as a result. Labor is perceived as a carbon copy of Kadima, unable to formulate unique diplomatic policies of its own. Completion of the separation fence and the war on Islamic terrorism are prominent in both parties’ positions. They advocate the annexation of the large settlement blocks and are willing to give up parts of Palestinian Jerusalem, in order to secure a Jewish majority in the capital.
Based on these similarities, many are gambling that Kadima will opt for Labor as its main coalition partner. However, differences over the economy, poverty and welfare will need to be addressed before coalition principles can be formalised. Labor is promising increases in the national minimum wage and the lowering of tuition fees without tax increases. By contrast, Kadima is determined to continue with unpopular free-market economic and welfare reforms.
It is unfortunate that Labor’s attempt to highlight these unpopular policies has so far failed. The danger for Labor is that it will be too quick to abandon the areas where it has a distinct agenda, in order to receive government posts.
There is an outside chance that Olmert will decide to opt for a coalition partner closer to his party on socio-economic principles. In this scenario, Kadima will negotiate with Likud and fellow centrists, Shinui – if the latter wins any seats. In the aftermath of Sharon’s defection, Likud has repositioned itself by cleaning out its ranks of extremist and corrupt politicians, a move that seems to be attracting support back from Kadima.
Despite their personal differences, the Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Olmert agree that continued free-market reforms are necessary to continue the slow recovery in the Israeli economy. It may come to pass that the schism that took Sharon and Olmert from Likud can be healed. The obstacle to this is Netanyahu’s rejection of unilateralism.
Olmert would be taking a gamble in teaming up with Likud, as he would still have to rely on opposition left-wing support for any future military withdrawals and evacuations. A Likud-Kadima coalition could be good for Labor, allowing the party to present itself as a viable alternative and provide effective opposition on socio-economic issues. If Olmert goes ahead with unilateral withdrawal, Labor could support these moves from the opposition benches under the banner of national unity.
Despite the badly run election campaign, Labor has already started to redefine its appeal in the post-Sharon era. Organisationally, it holds a distinct advantage over Kadima and Likud. It has a large membership and an active youth wing. It has an increasing constituency among the working class of north African origin, and is starting to formulate ideas to attract middle-class Kadima voters.
By leading an effective opposition, Labor could forge a new progressive coalition in the event of a Kadima collapse. Centre parties in Israel have had a tendency to disappear in the past and, if this occurs, Labor needs to be in a position to pick up the refugees from Kadima’s ranks. With clever policies that put the party above the call to government portfolios, it is possible that Labor could eventually re-impose itself as the dominant force of Israeli politics.