Current Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, head of the newly created Zionist Spirit party and formerly of the Yamina party, continues to bang this drum:
“But ultimately, we have seen for four election campaigns already, that there was no majority of 61 MKs for a full-fledged right-wing government. Ultimately, we have to consider whether to form - and there’s no such thing according to any poll - a very narrow government that half the country’s residents will feel is not their government, and it is safe to assume will also not be stable, or to form a broader government and fight for what is important for us,”
First of all, all parliamentary systems require a majority government which is based on having 50% of the seats plus 1. In the case for Israel, 61 seats. There is nothing illegitimate about it because "half of the country's residents wmay feel it is not their government". That's the way the cookie crumbles in a democracy. As an example, in the US, regardless of what office you are running, except for that of the President, all you need is a plurality of votes to win. Regarding the presidency, all you need is a majority of electoral votes regardless of whether in achieving it, you don't have a plurality of votes, which is often the case.
Secondly in many if not most democratic governments, a super majority is required to change the constitution. or other such weighty matters. Oftentimes, the need for such a majority hamstrings the government and favors the status quo which less that 50% of the voters want. Is that fair to the majority?
Why is Shaked insisting on a super majority to run the country? What issues does she say should require a broad government? That's a prescription favoring inaction.
Would she be against a "broad Government" of both Center and Right parties, if it had only 61 seats?
Is her beef with any government of 61 seats or a government of exclusively right wingers?
Her prescription is to "to form a broader government and fight for what is important for us," I have no idea what she is talking. about What is the connection between a broad government and fighting for "what is important to us? Unless she is still naive enough to think that if her views are not those of parties who are members of the broad government, she could fight and have them accepted. She has already seen that this does not work. She also doesn't identify what "is important to us or who she means by "us".
Why is it "safe to assume" that a 61-seat right wing government would be just as unstable as the last government? I left out the adjective "narrow" intentionally. I believe that such a government would be very stable because all the players are more or less on the same page. The previous government was extremely unstable because of the wide divergence of opinion.
She justified forming the last government, because she felt that Israel was in dire need of a government, any government, even one including an Arab party. But now she rejects the need for a government other than a broad government.
I notice that all recent polls talk about the right-wing block and the left-wing block being very close. And for the first time they include the Raam party in the left-wing camp. If you leave out the Ra'am party the rightwing block dominates the leftwing block.
Which brings me to another issue. Should matters of state in Israel be decided by a Jewish majority or a majority of all its citizens?
Israel 's Nationality Bill is an Israeli Basic Law which specifies the nature of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional and did not negate the state’s democratic character. The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious — that Israel is a Jewish state — and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all.
What does this mean? What is the significance of being deemed a Jewish state? Except for the Law of Return with its controversial Grandfather Clause, this has yet to be decided. What are the "the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all." The Supreme Court has obviously declared that being a Jewish state is meaningless as it doesn't give the Jews the right to decide anything on their own.
This does not cease to bother me. Jews should be the sole determinates of who is allowed to immigrate, or what to do about sovereignty in Yesha or how to deal with the PA, terrorists, when to go to war and who is to be granted citizenship, for example. It is not the state of all its citizens in every matter. There are matters in which Jews, in the Knesset or by referendum, should have special rights.
Ted Belman is a retired attorney and the editor of Israpundit. He made aliya in 2009 and is now living in Jerusalem.