coffeecups @usedgrinds-blog - Tumblr Blog

Hi,

I just moved my posts from Posterous! Do go though my blog for all the new posts.

Its easy to migrate try JustMigrate

3Crumbs app - Are you the local thrifter we all have been looking for?

G.F. Handel’s Oratorio Israel in Egypt

It’s hard to imagine a grander retelling of the Passover story than G.F. Handel’s Oratorio Israel in Egypt, first performed April 4 1739. Assuming that this date is given according to the Julian calendar then in use in England, the opening was about a week before Passover. The oratorio was not as popular as some of Handel’s other works, and underwent a certain amount of change; the original version started a little earlier in the story.

As it is almost always performed today, the libretto is nearly entirely passages from Exodus and from Psalms 105-106, with the first part drawing from Exodus and Psalms, focusing on the Ten Plagues, and the second part a setting of Ex. 15 1-21, the “Song of the Sea” chanted by Moses and the Israelites at the shores of the Yam Suf, usually translated “Red Sea,” and by Miriam with the Israelite women, singing and dancing.

In 1982, the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra recorded a performance on the shore of the Red Sea. Of course, the location was not in the West of the Sinai Peninsula, close to the Nile Valley and the seat of the Pharoahs: the performance was not at the Gulf of Suez, the arm of the Red Sea leading to the Suez Canal, and not in the marshland in the north-west part of Sinai, along the Mediterranean, sometimes identified as the likely model for the Biblical Yam Suf. Rather, it was in the Eastern part of Sinai, overlooking an island with a castle built by Saladin, called Iy ha-Almogim “Coral Island” in Hebrew, but Jazirat Far’un “Pharoah’s Island” in Arabic.

The performance was conducted by noted Scottish conductor John Currie; singers from from the Scottish National Chorus and the Edinburgh Festival Chorus came to sing the Oratorio; the video prepared by the Israel Broadcasting Company accompanies the overture with images of the singers arriving—and then swimming in the Red Sea near Coral Island.

The scenery is spectacular; the video pans Saladin’s castle and its island, the mountains and desert in the area, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan across the Sea, less than six miles away. It’s possible that some of the long shots to the Southeast reach the Saudi Border, about six miles further south. The cameras caught the ferry going back and forth to the Island, and a beduin camel caravan moving south along the shore.

And the singing is stunning as well.

There are several versions of this recording available on line. As far as I can tell, all the versions with Hebrew subtitles are about 45 minutes long—meaning that the recording was edited presumably for Israel Television—but all the versions with English titles are about an hour and a quarter or so. The Oratorio was sung in English, but the biblical verses flashed on the screen help! According to the information about the VHS recording, the actual published recording of the performance is about 90 minutes—I have not been able to peruse the VHS for this note.

I tried to find out whether the full oratorio was one that had been frequently sung in Hebrew, especially in the days of the Mandate and early State, when quite a few Biblical oratorios were translated into Hebrew and performed. (Fordhaus Ben-Tzisi was a major proponent of these Oratorios). In this case, there is very little translation to do—almost all the text is just the Biblical verses. I also looked into whether the Palestine Philharmonic (Predecessor of the Israel Philharmonic) included it in its concert program in Cairo—the PPO was able to travel to Cairo in those days and performed in Cairo and Alexandria in January 1937 shortly after its debut performance in December 1936. It was not on the program. I cannot find whether anyone mounted a performance of the work overlooking the Red Sea, at Suez or along the Suez Canal, or anywhere else along the Red Sea. The answer was not readily available. Readers: if you happen to have any information, please do not hesitate to write me!

The full roster of soloists, producers etc. for the 1982 performance is included in http://www.worldcat.org/title/israel-in-egypt/oclc/26280289 - this is the OCLC-World-Cat record, set up in such a way that you do not need library access to read it, although you probably would need library access to order the VHS copy on ILL. The World Cat version of this note mentions the involvement of Yehuda Fikler, a leading figure in the Jerusalem Symphony and in the recordings it made for the Israel Broadcasting Authority.

Presumably the arrangements needed to bring these forces together took several years. If the negotiations started before 1979, it’s possible that at the early stages of the project no one suspected that Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat would conclude peace between Israel and Egypt in 1979, and that 1982, this would be part of the last remaining strip of land that had not yet been returned to Egyptian control—and that this area too would come under Egyptian sovereignty not long after the performance.

There are a couple of videos and audio-only readily available on the web.

– full performance, with English title pages for texts. Length: 1:17:27 (The VHS is 90 minutes, or 1:30).

This is the Israel Broadcasting version with titles in Hebrew. It is an edited version of the concert—only 45 minutes long. This is one of many historic performances gathered on http://www.4law.co.il/shosh1.html

Hag Kasher ve-Sameah

Seth Ward

Associate Lecturer in Islam and Judaism

Religious Studies Program, University of Wyoming

http://uwyo.edu/sward

http://uwyo.edu/sward/blog

#JustMigrated

drsethward.wordpress.com

Unfortunately, Posterous is shutting down at the end of April. I have copied all my Posterous posts to http://drsethward.wordpress.com. I have reserved some other spaces, and ultimately will probably also copy much of the material to various places within http://uwyo.edu/sward. I am not sure whether Wordpress or UWYO or anything else will be the long term solution. The copying process copied a few posts that I had already copied “manually” in order to familiarize myself with the system. In some cases, the more recent version also has updates and corrections. Some of the Wordpress posts refer to files that Posterous had “housed in the cloud,” that may not survive the end of Posterous, and some of the posts have been or will be modified to address that issue—and sometimes updated in the process.

Thanks for your interest in my writings.

Seth Ward

#JustMigrated

The Singing Seder Table

I “grew up” with the Orchestra Song in Hebrew perhaps even more than in English, and of course heard and sang a version of this song for Passover: The Singing Seder Table.

The only recording of The Singing Seder Table on the internet of which I am aware is the original release, Stanley Sperber conducting the Massad Choral Group. To hear the recording, go to this site, http://faujsa.fau.edu/children/children_music.php?jsa_num=400942&queryWhe.... Scroll down on the radio on the right side of Menorah’s Little Seder. If you are unfamiliar with this recording, consider listening to the whole record!

The recording is from the 60s. Stanley Sperber (founder of Zamir Chorale) is conducting. The words are on the album cover, which you can also view on the FAU website. The words are by Sperber, Tzippy Krieger (now Tzippy Krieger Cedar, mother of Yossi Cedar) and Ira Gronowitz. Sperber was founder of the Zamir Chorale in New York and active in the Israeli musical scene from the 1970s.

(Gladys Gewirtz, who shared responsibility for this record, taught at Camp Ramah and at JTS, published a number of children’s records, moved to Israel, worked for Kol Yisrael and established the music service at Hebrew Music College in Jerusalem. She died less than a year ago, April 14, 2012).

The original is usually called the “Orchestra Song,” popular in Hebrew and discussed in Zemereshet at http://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=1566. According to Zemereshet, the Hebrew words are by Shmuel Bass, and it appeared in “50 Canons for Singing and Playing” (hamishim qanonim le-shira ule-neginah) by Puah Greenspoon and Max Lempel. Renanim, pp 22-23. The original was written in German by Willy Geisler (1886-1952); Zemereshet gives the German words, and notes on the Composer’s page for Geisler, that he was a Nazi and composed marches for the SS; he was also an arranger and composer of songs, operettas, and music for schools. On the website http://www.deutscheslied.com/en/search.cgi?cmd=composers&name=Geisler%2C+... there are a number of listed versions of the Orchestra song; the line which gives a date in the columns Melody/Year and Text/Year dates it to 1927 and calls it Die geige, sie singet (unser kleines orchester).

There are many versions of the Orchestra Song on the web in English. Here is a Hollywood version:

Seth Ward

#JustMigrated

Today I received a question about Jewish Divorce

Today I received a question about Jewish Divorce:

“This came up in my class and I was hoping you knew the answer. I know that a woman cannot get a get if the husband says no. But what about the reverse situation, i.e., if the woman opposes the get? Can the husband still get it?”

The following is adapted from my answer:

If this is a practical question, the simple answer is "Ask your local Rabbi." There are a lot of details that could have an impact on the situation.

For the theoretical side: Note that originally, a man could divorce his wife without her consent, but the Rabbis enacted legislation that prevented a man from divorcing his wife without her consent: she must accept the Get (Jewish divorce document) for it to take effect. The ramifications for a husband whose wife refuses the divorce are—as you can imagine—nowhere near the same as those for a wife whose husband refuses to divorce her.

A wife who refused to accept a Get cannot remarry, according to Jewish law. A wife might refuse to accept a Get in hopes of reconciliation, although it seems to me that in most cases, by the time a proper Get is executed, this is unrealistic. (Indeed, even though some couples remarry after divorcing with a Get, presumably the Get would only be executed after the Rabbinic Court overseeing the process concluded reconciliation was unlikely at the time). Once it is clear that the marriage is over, I'm not sure what responsibilities are owed to the wife by the husband who offers a Get that she refuses to accept (more on this below, from a case in Israel).

For the husband, if the marriage is clearly over, some Rabbis might approve what might be called a "technical exemption from monogamy,” i.e., special permission (heter) allowing remarriage for the husband whose wife does not accept the Get but whose marriage is clearly over. Similarly, if the wife has disappeared and that's why she cannot accept the divorce, the technical exemption from monogamy would also permit his remarriage.

No such solution is so readily available to the wife whose husband refuses to issue the Get: she is an aguna (literally: "chained woman") and cannot remarry. Generally these situations are resolved, but the process is individual, long, and often painful. And, I should note, although the situation is rarer, it can be as individualized, long and painful for the agun (“chained man”) as for the aguna.

There are different Rabbis with different approaches to this issue. My guess is that as a practical matter, almost all would recommend the woman accept the divorce if the marriage is definitely over. In practice, what Rabbis would counsel the man whose wife refused, or the woman who was adamant about not accepting the Get, would depend on the specifics of the situation.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz carried a story about such a case; dateline July 26 2011. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/jerusalem-rabbinical-court-wants-woman-jailed-for-refusing-to-accept-divorce-1.375294. A Hebrew version of this story is at http://www.get.what2do.co.il/%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%98-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%A8/

In this case, the Rabbinic Court approved the divorce in 1996, and ordered the wife to accept it, but she has steadfastly refused. Eventually the Rabbinic court was willing to let the man remarry, but the Israeli Interior Ministry would not change the husband’s status, so he was prevented from remarrying not by religious law so much as by Israeli civil law's recognition of religious marriage and divorce. The husband appealed the Interior Ministry’s ruling. The woman apparently refused to accept the divorce because she claimed her settlement was unfair, and she was holding out for property and substantial cash (The husband and the court argued that she had been given a fair settlement). Note also that as a married woman, she would retain various rights with respect to pension funds, inheritance, taxes, health insurance and National Insurance (Israel’s Social Security). The Rabbinic Court ordered her to be jailed. According to the report in Hebrew, while the refusal of the husband to issue a Get is much more common, there were “not a few” cases in which the wife refused to accept a Get—yet no woman had ever been jailed before for refusing to accept a Get.

I was unable to find out what happened in this case following the date of these reports.

In another case, from October 2011, a woman was fined NIS 400,000 for refusing to accept a Get from her husband. Apparently this was within the Haredi community, and the judge took note of the special difficulty divorce—and refusal to accept divorce—had in the Haredi world, even for men.

http://www.smartdivorce.co.il/index.php/tag/%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%98/

Rabbi Jonathan Reiss of the Beth Din of America (Orthodox) mentions women who do not want to work with the Rabbinic Court (Beit Din) in http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/divorcebeit.html. His wording seems to suggest that he is not referring to wives refusing to accept a Get, but primarily referring to women who accept their Get but do not work with the Beit Din for any other purpose, feeling that the Jewish Religious Court will be biased against the woman regarding any division of property or other marital settlements.

At the end, he invites questions, and, in his role with the Beth Din, he may be the person with the best experience to give further practical discussion of this issue as it relates to contemporary American Orthodox practice. (As for the other main movements within American Judaism, this is much less of a problem for Reform Judaism; some strategies have been tried in Conservative Judaism to avoid this problem but in general, Conservative rabbis require a get to be issued and accepted in the case of divorce).

Seth Ward

#JustMigrated

Seth Ward’s University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey: Final Wrap up

This is an addendum to my previous report, posted at http://sethward.posterous.com/174853880 and http://www.uwyo.edu/sward/university%20of%20wyoming%20israel%20election%20sur...

Now that the coalition results appear to be final and the new Government of Israel is scheduled for swearing in on Monday, it’s time for one final assessment of the Survey.

One of the goals of the Survey was to create a set of data that allowed for indexing to determine which returns included the most accurate predictions. This exercise is necessarily arbitrary, and in order to create a “score,” several of the responses were scored.

The question about the incoming Prime Minister was scored at 5—perhaps it is the most important of all the questions but it also was the least in doubt. Other scored responses were graded on a basis of 10. Respondents were asked to predict the party lists with the largest mandates; 2 points were given for each (in other words, a respondent mentioning the five largest mandates received 10 points). Respondents were asked how many mandates would accrue to largest party list. Interestingly, the average response was pretty close to 31, but only one respondent guessed the correct answer. Responses from 27 to 35 got partial credit of 6 to 9 points (one point off for each mandate difference); no credit was given for more than 5 mandates off.

With respect to forming the government coalition: respondents were asked about which party lists would be represented in the government; two points were given for each correct answer; 2 additional points were given to one respondent who listed only the four party lists that are in fact included in the coalition. Two others had all four but mentioned an additional party that was not part of the coalition; they earned 8 points. Respondents were asked how many days they thought it would take to form the next Government; most respondents thought this process would be a lot faster than it in fact was! Only two responses earned points, for guesses 41 days or longer from January 22. Interestingly, the few respondents who projected a protracted coalition process were not otherwise very accurate in their projections; despite earning points where no one else did, none of them were in the “top performers” or even above the average.

The average projection for the size of the coalition was fairly accurate. But, as noted in my preliminary report, there were quite a few who thought the coalition would be narrower than it in fact is, and these numbers were “balanced” by some rather unlikely projections for super-large coalitions. Fewer than half the actual responses were anywhere close to the actual coalition size. Again, 10 points were given for 68, 9 for 67 or 69, etc., with no points for 5 or more mandates off.

No question was asked about the total number of ministers and deputy ministers in the government. This is unfortunate, given that deliberations about the size of the government seemed to be more important in recent days than deliberations about the number of Knesset mandates represented. The coalition agreement includes legislation limiting the number of ministers and deputy ministers in the future; only time will tell whether this will actually come to pass.

The “average score” for respondents was 21. Five achieved scores of 30 or more: an Israeli-born fundraiser; a professor trained in the UK who is both a British and an Israeli citizen but did not vote in this election; a self-employed Canadian; a retired lawyer; and a Harvard undergrad. The UK Professor had the high score—36. But I am not sure that the results would be the same if I had scored the open-ended questions. The respondents who scored 30 or more points discussed right-wing concerns, security, and Haredim getting their way, and in general had little to say about domestic issues and governance concerns. They did not predict that the Haredim would be excluded from the government. And perhaps it is significant that the choices made by those who turned out to be most accurate in their projections, at least in the way that I scored them, made quite different choices for their own “voting preferences.”

This survey was in no way scientific; the sample was not particularly large, and survey was circulated without any regard for a representative population except to the extent that comments I received from people who told me they were familiar with the project suggest (unsurprisingly) that respondents were very likely to be persons with personal and/or professional interests in Israel. The actual results were a little closer to respondent preferences than predictions in terms of balancing the right with the center (although voting for Kadima, Labor and Tzippi Livni rather than Yesh Atid), and in terms of not voting for Haredim. Perhaps the gap between the projection for the time needed to form a coalition should spark one more tweak to the process (in addition to the limitation of ministers, mentioned above, and an agreement to raise the threshold for entering the Knesset to 4%)—a shortening of the period given the Prime Minister designate to form a government.

The greatest significance of the survey probably lies in its role as a teaching tool; some researchers may find the open-ended responses to be a fascinating cross-section of views—and perhaps a humbling one, in that some of the results were, in the aggregate, reasonably close to what transpired even though the reasoning offered by respondents was not at all in line with the results.

Many thanks to all who participated in this survey!

Seth Ward

#JustMigrated

Paper on Holocaust Education in Wyoming with powerpoint

http://uwyo.edu/sward/HOLO.Paper.Like No Place on Earth.doc

http://uwyo.edu/sward/Holocaust-Wyoming.pps

#Holocaust

Posterous is closing down

Unfortunately, Posterous is closing Posterous Spaces at the end of April. I will be migrating everything somewhere, possibly to multiple places. The best place to check is http://uwyo.edu/sward

#JustMigrated

Paper on Holocaust Education in Wyoming

Paper on Holocaust Education in Wyoming with powerpoint

http://uwyo.edu/sward/HOLO.Paper.Like No Place on Earth.doc

http://uwyo.edu/sward/Holocaust-Wyoming.pps

#JustMigrated

Possible Etymon for North African Jewish Arabic muhajir

WARD-Possible Etymon for North African Jewish Arabic muhajir.pdf Download this file

#JustMigrated

University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey results

Seth Ward, University of Wyoming

January 31, 2013

This is an analysis of the University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey conducted December 2012-January 2013, regarding the 2013 elections for Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset.

The Israeli voter votes for a single slate of candidates for the Knesset (often called a “party list”) from among multiple slates proposed by various parties. Mandates for Knesset seats are distributed to these slates based on the proportion of the total vote; an introduction to the system and links for further information and essays were included material made available to those who took the survey, found in http://www.uwyo.edu/sward/israeli.elections.htm.

Thanks to everyone who took the survey. A preliminary report was published the day before the elections. This update takes into account a few surveys that came in after that time, with analysis. The complete results are given in the Appendix, with a few additional explanatory comments.

Size of the survey and a few other introductory parameters.

There were 73 returns, and some of these were incomplete. This was not a scientific survey, so the results may be instructive or suggestive, but not conclusive.

The survey was constructed using the University of Wyoming Survey Tool. It remained open past the date at which analysis was begun for technical reasons. Minor divergence may result because some analyses were done before the receipt of the final response, or due to minor differences in the way the Survey program handled data and results from analysis in Microsoft Excel. Sometimes these differences are due to the different ways of handling skipped questions, irrelevant or incomplete responses, or certain types of survey questions, including questions for which respondents could choose from a list but also write in a different choice.

The participants were largely from North America, but there were participants from Germany, UK, Israel and China, and US participants who had completed high school in Turkey or in Africa. Not surprisingly, a large percentage of respondents appear to be connected with Colorado and Wyoming (usually indicated by high school or university affiliation). As noted below, only one reported having completed high school in Israel. Part of the significance of this endeavor is the non-Israeli response. In the summer and fall 2012, electoral preferences of non-US voters around the world were reported for the US presidential elections (along endless surveys of those likely to vote). But there were relatively few surveys of persons unlikely to vote in the Israeli election process.

This survey was designed primarily as a teaching tool, and perhaps the best justification for it came not from the formal results but from comments received informally, explaining that it helped understand the process or some of the issues. Some of the questions were shaped in such a way as to make it easier to “score” the results to determine the degree to which predictions about Knesset and Government match the actual results.

My Prediction based on the survey

It was possible to make an arbitrary prediction the day before the election based on survey results, compiled not “scientifically” but “mathematically:” indices were assigned to various results, some of the lowest results dropped, the remaining ones added, divided and combined until reaching a result that could result in 120 members of Knesset. This approach took into account the predictions as well as the preferences of our survey respondents, but was independent of other surveys. Here is the list circulated in advance of the election—and the actual results.

“Survey Prediction” Jan 21, 2013

Party

Actual results

Am Shalem

Habayit Hayehudi

Hadash

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

Israel Labor Party

Kadima

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

Meretz - Israel`s Left

Shas

United Torah Judaism

Yesh Atid

United Arab-Ta’al + Balad

120

How this was done:

Some scores were eliminated: parties not receiving more than 10% in the individual vote, or more than 15% in the “vote for three parties” were excluded from the individual vote results; parties that received less than 15% in vote for three were excluded from the three party vote results. Similar limitations were imposed on the other categories.

% Individual party vote times 3

+ % vote for three parties result

+ Number predicting five largest parties

+ ½ % the vote for PM, assigned to the PM’s party

+ 1/3 % believing parties will be in the coalition.

Results divided by 6 and rounded to produce 120. (more than 0.33 rounded up, otherwise rounded down).

Actual “Votes” by preference (percentages)

Respondents were asked to vote for one list only, and in a separate question, asked to consider which lists they would vote for if they could chose three lists. In this chart, the total responses by percentage for this question are divided by three.

Vote for One

Vote for three

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

16%

11%

Meretz - Israel`s Left

14%

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

12%

Israel Labor Party

11%

12%

Habayit Hayehudi

10%

Kadima

Yesh Atid

The Pirates

Am Shalem

The Green and Young for a Green Future in Israel

United Torah Judaism

Brit Olam Legeulat Yisrael

Green Leaf - Liberal List

Hadash

Hatikva Leshinui

Otzma Leyisrael

Shas

Ahim Anachnu

Da-am - Workers` Party

Dor Bonei Haaretz

Eretz Hadasha

Haim Bekavod

Hayisraelim

Koach Lehashpia

Kulanu Haverim

Light

Mitkademet Liberalit Democratit

Moreshet Avot

National Democratic Assembly

Netzach

One Future

Raam - Taal – Mada

The Economics Party

Tzedek Hevrati

A few respondents voted for “none of the above” in the “vote for one” question. Fewer responded to the question about voting for three parties, but almost all in fact voted for three parties; when actual percent voting was factored in (96%, 296%), there are minor changes in the result. For example, Likud-Beitenu would receive 17% of votes actually cast.

The top seven parties on the list should come as no surprise. There was a lot of support for Meretz in this survey. Tzippi Livni and Kadima fared much better than in the actual Israeli electorate. Survey respondents were less attracted to Likud, Ha-Bayit Hayehudi and the religious parties than the Israeli electorate.

It may however be something of a surprise that Likud, HaBayit Hayehudi and Tzippi Livni all fared much better in “vote for one list” than in the question which asked respondents to consider which lists they would vote for if they could chose three lists. Striking examples of the reverse were Labor, Hadash, Kadima and Am Shalem. In other words: The Labor party did better as a “second choice” than as a first choice, beating Likud-Yisrael Beitenu. For Likud-Beitenu, Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi, Tzippi Livni, and Meretz, apparently those who did not vote for them as their “sole” vote would not generally consider them as a “second choice” if they could vote for three parties.

Prime Minister:

Israelis voted directly for Prime Minister only in three elections, but the survey had a question about voting for the Prime Minister. Netanyahu collected 31% of the vote of this group. If the center/left parties united, they would have won, with almost half (about 47%) of the vote. Add votes for Avigdor Lieberman and Aryeh Elad, and at 35% the right wing is still far behind.

What coalition will emerge? How long will it take?

According to the results, over half the respondents predicted Likud-Yisrael Beteynu, and Shas would be in the coalition. 41% predicted HaBayit Hayehudi, About a third each predicted United Torah Judaism, Kadima, Ha-Tenuah-Tzippi Livni, and Labor would be coalition partners. Fewer than a quarter predicted Yesh Atid will be part of the government.

In the narrative response, the overwhelming sentiment was that the next government will favor security issues, right wing / nationalist and similar concerns. Most assumed that at least one Haredi party would be included. A few assumed that a centrist or left wing party would be included; one respondent said “as a fig leaf.” Only one respondent suggested that Yair Lapid would certainly take part in the next government.

The average prediction was that the coalition would include about 70 mandates. In the preliminary report Labor or Yesh Atid were suggested in order to round out 69 mandates.

The average prediction was that the coalition would be accepted by the Knesset 25 days after the election, which I am “rounding out” to Sunday, February 17.

Notable results

a. Netanyahu was widely expected to win of course: when respondents projected who they thought would be the next PM, they overwhelmingly selected Netanyahu.

b. But in this survey, the single-party vote and especially the three-party vote did not particularly favor Netanyahu. In general, this survey was further to the left than the actual Israeli vote—and the religious parties were not well represented.

c. Am Shalem did better in this survey than in the election; perhaps reflecting Haim Amsalem’s outreach to English speakers.

d. There was little response in this survey from the Arab sector—probably an inevitable result of the distribution of this survey.

e. Respondents were more realistic about who will actually be the largest parties: few thought Meretz would number among them. Likud, Shas and Labor (!) got the most predictions. About half as many thought Tzippi Livni, Habayit Hayehudi and Kadima would get the next number of votes (in that order).

f. The left/center leaning is not particularly surprising, although the strong showing of Labor is. Labor seems to be a solid “second or third choice.” If electors could vote for three parties, Labor polled just a little more than Likud and more than Meretz, both of which polled higher than Labor in the traditional “single party” vote.

g. Another surprise, to me, is that Am Shalem polled identical numbers to Kadima in the “vote for three parties” question. Am Shalem played no significant role in predictions for largest parties or coalition partners, but this could mean it is a party worth watching. (More likely though, given the fact that it did not gain enough votes to enter the Knesset, it could be the end of Rabbi Amsalem’s Knesset career). In the actual results, Am Shalem’s results were not far from Kadima’s either, although of course Kadima had more than 2% of the votes and Am Shalem did not.

What issues are most important?

Social issues topped security in the list of responses, with State of Palestine and economic issues coming not far behind. Religious Divisions were next. All these were noted by over a quarter of respondents. Fewer noted Iran or education. Although “social issues” topped this list, only 17% noted Israeli Arabs and only 5% noted Haredim.

My survey did not include “Peace” as one of the named issues—but this was the most frequently mentioned word in the “other” responses.

Many respondents reflected on their votes—in some cases at great length. Their views are are reproduced at the beginning of the appendix. Respondent comments make it clear that leadership, personal views about various leaders, personal political placement (left/center, right), security, relations with the Palestinians, and social and religious divisions inside Israel are important considerations. The considerations which loomed large in the narrative descriptions were not necessarily those in choices from the list; in particular, economic and social issues were much less frequently mentioned explicitly in the narratives. Despite great concern over Iran, it was not particularly high in the choices (20%), and played even less of a role in the narrative descriptions given by respondents.

Respondents

Few respondents reported growing up in Israel or being citizens. A few mentioned they were eligible to vote but would not be voting. Most respondents completed high school in the USA. One was born in another Middle Eastern country, and several completed high school in UK and Germany. South America, Africa and China were also represented.

About one third each were students, teachers (including professors, researchers, university faculty and others); or other (a rabbi, lawyers, professionals, etc.).

Significance

The study was hardly scientific. This survey provided respondents with a venue in which to express their political opinions—much as was provided in late summer and fall 2012 around the world with the proliferation of polling about the American Presidential campaign. I believe that asking both about preference and prediction, and inclusion of a question about voting for three parties, countered at least to a certain extent the bias inherent in some such surveys, in which people do not always articulate the breadth of their views, or “pick winners” rather than vote conscience—although there is no way to confirm this conclusion at this time. Most important, the many students who took this survey got a glimpse of the complexity of the process. Responses by and large showed choices were made carefully – many took the time to lay out articulate statements about their choices.

Yesh Atid was probably unfamiliar to the largely non-Israeli respondents; both Tzippi Livni and Kadima were familiar “brands” that did better among this group than in the Israeli electorate. This is a left-leaning crowd, as seen by support for Meretz and lack of support for Netanyahu.

Israeli election results included a tremendous showing for Yesh Atid—not at all mirrored in this survey, or in most Israeli surveys either. Otherwise, though, except for Meretz and other understandable differences, the results of this survey were not as far off from the Israeli electorate as I thought (or most people would have thought) when I processed them the day before the election. At least among those who responded to this survey, there was great awareness of Israeli politics, and enthusiasm about expressing opinions about parties, candidates and issues.

Seth Ward

Appendix: Why they voted as they did: selections from respondent comments

(the rest of the survey questions and responses are below).

Leadership

I'd like to see Israel have new leadership who are concerned with the welfare of all of its people and not just the powerful.

Strong leadership that understands Israel's right to exist is not up for discussion.

experienced leadership, strong security policy, & focus on economy.

Israel has need for strong leadership, committed to a non-apologetic stance on her right to exist.

A good leader must be a wise leader.

How to find a suitable big fish in such a tiny pot?

Left/Center Values

Progressive left-liberal values.

left orientation.

Centrist.

I'm a leftist in Israeli terms :-)

progressive centrist.

Only the left has a vision for justice and democracy in Eretz Israel.

Center-left views.

left wing votes.

Right

I want a stronger, far right Israel.

Jewish /Zionist Identity

I want to keep Israel alive and Jewish

I want most of all for Israel to be as secure as possible and I want it to remain a safe place for Jews to live.

A progressive, yet Zionist Israel that is prosperous, secure, and at peace with its neighbors

Tzippi Livni

Selected Tzipi Livni 'cause she is level headed and pragramatic.

Ideologically, I'd vote for Hatnua, but I don't trust Livni. I indicate support for Am Shalem because the issues raised -- re; the secular-dati divide -- are key to peace, security, and prosperity.

I trust Tzipi Livni. I hope that religious issues can be set aside from politics and real progress can be made.

Yachimovich

Yachimovich has a history of anti-war and two-state politics, and her background in journalism gives her a perspective on subaltern groups in Israel and Palestine that most of the current Knesset seems to love ignoring.

Labor party pays more attention on peace process

Yesh Atid and others (including Hadash!)

At first look my selections may not make the most sense, but they all relate to the biggest problems facing Israel. Before Israel can effectively discuss a peace process, largely and accurately regarded as the most significant issue at stake in the country's future, it must resolve its own demographic, economic, and societal issues. The party with the best approach and the greatest recognition of these issues is Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, explaining my selection of this new party. Yesh Atid is also composed largely of those new to politics, something necessary to break through Israel's deep political divisions and redirect the focus of government. As with most political systems, the best solutions involve moderation and compromise. Hatnua was founded based on this concept of moderation, and stands the best chance of effectively approaching many issues in Israel and displays, out of the largest parties, the most willingness to compromise with various groups within Israel following the collapse of Kadima as an effective party. After resolving Israel's current demographic and economic issues, lies the behemoth of the Arab-Israeli political process. While I support a two state solution, Israel must also recognize that it isn't just a nation of the Jewish people anymore. To not do so would blatantly ignore current demographic trends and endanger Israel's future. For that reason, I also support Hadash as a party working to bridge the divide between Jews and Arabs within Israel, and as a party that recognizes that Israel, while meant to be Jewish in its founding, is not Jewish in reality, and never fully will be.

Justice, Fairness, Civil rights, Social Divisions

The State of Israel must continue to pursue the path of equality of opportunity, civil rights and liberties, fairness, justice and security.

I think that those topics are the most important topics for a western democracy.

Support individual freedom, pro Israeli Arabs, and settlers

I vote for parties that support social justice and peace

Israel must work on its societal values and ongoing rifts between tribal communities.

Note: the party list did not include all the ones I was looking for. Israel needs a realist willing to stake out controversial, right-leaning on peace, independent economical, and co-optive haredi social positions in order to maximize ability to reach a balanced compromise.

I based my selections on what I see as Israel's biggest problem: division - both internal and external. The secular and haredi division (putting it very simplistically) and, of course, the Conflict. I think it falls to Israel to devise a two-state solution without negotiations, outline it, and present it to the UN for vote. It would force Fatah and Hamas to state their real intention (destroy Israel) for all the world to see or accept the state. Then, if violence continues, open war can be declared between nation-states. I don't think that would be great, but it would shut down a lot of some of the criticism because it would give the Palestinians what they ostensibly want while placing Israel on par, nation to nation, allowing for more leeway in military operations. The parties I selected and people I selected I think are best positioned to accomplish that task. Also, a similar division is appearing in Israeli society. A conversation must develop regarding what to do with a growing haredi population and the resentment and frustrations of the secular population.

Israel is in crisis because of religious divisions. Peace with its neighbors, or some sort of working relationship is crucial to advance within and without.

I believe that since Israel has been quite stable (economically) over the past few years, the focus should be on minority rights (both ethnic and religious) and foreign policy, including an open debate about a Palestinian State.

Security, Islam, Peace

Islam and Muslims are the biggest threat to the state of Israel

The security of Israel is of the utmost importance if Israel is to remain a country.

Pirates because I like pirates, security because Israel does not have kind neighbors. [This comment is more telling than it seems at first glance; the respondent was a young student who took some questions seriously—and “goofed off” on the others. Given the flippancy of many of the other answers of this respondent, the reference to Israel’s neighbors reflects a concern serious enough to overcome the comic or non-serious answers.]

I would want the prime minister and the party in power to be moving toward a solution with the Palestinian territories as their top priority

I favor a two-state solution, if possible (given Arabs' virulent hatred of Jews). I favor a democratic Jewish state in secure borders, with religious freedom and equal treatment of all Jews, including sharing of burdens and work.

I am primarily concerned with bringing about a two-state solution, whereby there would be a Palestinian State alongside Israel, which would be a Jewish State but with full equality for its Arab citizens. Secondarily, I would strongly support weakening the Orthodox stranglehold on Israeli religious and personal life so that non-Orthodox rabbis, communities and individuals would enjoy equal rights as well. It would be wonderful if there were a center-left coalition government with Livni as PM (although I realize that is highly unlikely.)

PM Netanyahu = continuity of service and clarity of position on issues, tho' stop the settlements where unjustified. Hatikva = hope for security and prosperity. Proper leadership ensures security, addresses economic issues, and should be able to galvanize itself against Iranian aggression

Survey questions and responses as of January 31 2013

The survey was left open until today for technical reasons. Some of the analyses in this report were done shortly before the closing of the survey, with only very minor changes to the numbers returned. The results below were examined on January 31, 2013

1. Vote for ONE party list for the 19th Knesset. The list names are displayed in random order.

(

The list names were displayed to respondents in random order; here they are displayed from largest to smallest vote, as is the case with most of the following tabulations).

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

16%

Meretz - Israel`s Left

14%

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

12%

Israel Labor Party

11%

Habayit Hayehudi

10%

Kadima

Yesh Atid

The Pirates

"Empty Envelope" (none of the above)

United Torah Judaism

Am Shalem

The Green and Young for a Green Future in Israel

Hatikva Leshinui

Brit Olam Legeulat Yisrael

Green Leaf - Liberal List

Shas

Otzma Leyisrael

Hadash

Raam - Taal - Mada

National Democratic Assembly

Ahim Anachnu

Kulanu Haverim

Koach Lehashpia

The Economics Party

Mitkademet Liberalit Democratit

Netzach

Light

Haim Bekavod

Da-am - Workers` Party

Tzedek Hevrati

One Future

Moreshet Avot

Eretz Hadasha

Hayisraelim

Dor Bonei Haaretz

1. Whom would you vote for?

Response Total

Response Percent

Points

Avg

Benjamin Netanyahu

29%

Tzippi Livni

29%

Other, please specify

22%

Shelly Yachimovich

12%

Yair Lapid

Shaul Mofaz

Avigdor Lieberman

Total Respondents

100%

The 11 “other” votes were: 2 for Zahava Gal-On (and another vote for Meretz, as noted) and 1 each for the other parties represented.

None

None or irrelevant

Meretz

Zahava Gal-On

Meretz

Yossi Beilin [Meretz. Beilin was given the symbolic honor of a place at the end of the list, with a number of other former leaders. His position was 118!]

HaBayit Hayehudi

Naftali Bennet

Labor

Hertog [presumably Isaac Herzog, Labor #2 position]

Otzma Le-Yisrael

Aryeh Eldad

2. Voting for more than one party list invalidates a ballot, but suppose you *could* vote for three parties for the 19th Knesset. Which would they be? (Select the party list you voted for above if you'd include it among the three). The list names are displayed in random order.

Response Total

Response Percent

Points

Avg

Israel Labor Party

37%

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

31%

Kadima

27%

Meretz - Israel`s Left

27%

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

24%

Am Shalem

18%

Habayit Hayehudi

16%

Hadash

14%

Yesh Atid

12%

Green Leaf - Liberal List

12%

The Pirates

10%

The Green and Young for a Green Future in Israel

10%

Mitkademet Liberalit Democratit

Otzma Leyisrael

Da-am - Workers` Party

Shas

Raam - Taal - Mada

Hatikva Leshinui

Kulanu Haverim

The Economics Party

Tzedek Hevrati

United Torah Judaism

Ahim Anachnu

Netzach

Moreshet Avot

Eretz Hadasha

Hayisraelim

National Democratic Assembly

Koach Lehashpia

Brit Olam Legeulat Yisrael

Light

Haim Bekavod

One Future

Dor Bonei Haaretz

Note: Average is based on maximum of 300%, that is, three parties mentioned. Percentages add up to 296%

3. Which types of concerns are most important to you in your vote for Knesset and Prime Minister? The list displays in random order.

Response Total

Response Percent

Points

Avg

Social Issues

43%

Security

41%

State of Palestine

33%

Economic divisions

29%

Religious Diversity

27%

Settlements

22%

Iran

20%

Leadership

20%

Education

18%

Israeli Arabs

16%

Gaza

10%

Infrastructure

Haredim

Only four responses to “other” in this question. Significantly, the Survey did not include “peace” as a choice, but two (4% of total) chose it as “other.”

Peace process leading to a two state peace agreement

Peace

Arabs

Women's religious rights and freedoms

4. In your own words, please explain your choices above (for party lists, Prime Minister, issues).

(results given above).

5. Now we turn to results, without necessarily referring to your own vote. Which five parties do you think will have the largest delegations in the new Knesset? List names are displayed in random order.

Response Total

Response Percent

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

95%

Israel Labor Party

85%

Shas

68%

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

46%

Habayit Hayehudi

44%

Kadima

41%

Yesh Atid

29%

Meretz - Israel`s Left

17%

United Torah Judaism

15%

National Democratic Assembly

Hatikva Leshinui

Am Shalem

Mitkademet Liberalit Democratit

The Pirates

The Green and Young for a Green Future in Israel

Eretz Hadasha

Ahim Anachnu

Kulanu Haverim

Koach Lehashpia

The Economics Party

Brit Olam Legeulat Yisrael

Hadash

One Future

Hayisraelim

Dor Bonei Haaretz

Raam - Taal - Mada

Netzach

Light

Haim Bekavod

Da-am - Workers` Party

Green Leaf - Liberal List

Otzma Leyisrael

Tzedek Hevrati

Moreshet Avot

The actual five largest lists in the Knesset are: Likud-Yisrael Beitenu, Yesh Atid, Israel Labor Party, Habayit Hayehudi, and Shas.

6. How large do you think the largest delegation will be?

Response Average 32.8

Note: The accuracy of this prediction is gratifying but perhaps misleading, as it includes several responses of 00 and one 99. With these removed, the average is 35.6. Here are the other responses:

Size of delegation

Percent of significant responses

17%

100%

7. Next Prime Minister?

Response Total

Response Percent

Benjamin Netanyahu

88%

Shelly Yachimovich

Other, please specify

Tzippi Livni

Yair Lapid

Shaul Mofaz

Avigdor Lieberman

The responses for “Other” were “?” and a period of time rather than a candidate name.

8. How many days will elapse from January 22 until the Knesset confirms a Prime Minister, Ministers, and governing coalition? (Choosing '0' or '50' means you think a new government will not be confirmed by the 49th day after January 22, 2013).

Response Average 22.63

The Survey Tool gives 22.63 as Response Average. But, eliminating responses of “0,” the average is 23.8. One respondent entered “5;” strictly speaking, this is impossible in practice as the election results have to be certified before the President can ask someone to attempt to form a government. Election results are generally certified a week following the elections.

9. How large do you think the coalition will be? Enter a number of Knesset Mandates from 61 (the minimum) to 120 (a unity government encompassing the entire Knesset).

The survey returned 69.76 as the average.

Mandate for Coalition

Number of respondents

61-64

34%

65-69

27%

70-79

24%

80 or more

15%

11. Select up to FIVE parties you believe will be in the government coalition. The list names are displayed in random order.

Response Total

Response Percent

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

85%

Shas

68%

Habayit Hayehudi

41%

United Torah Judaism

34%

Kadima

34%

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

34%

Israel Labor Party

32%

Yesh Atid

22%

Meretz - Israel`s Left

17%

Da-am - Workers` Party

10%

Hatikva Leshinui

Moreshet Avot

Hayisraelim

National Democratic Assembly

Kulanu Haverim

The Economics Party

The Pirates

Green Leaf - Liberal List

Otzma Leyisrael

Ahim Anachnu

Am Shalem

Mitkademet Liberalit Democratit

Brit Olam Legeulat Yisrael

Netzach

Light

The Green and Young for a Green Future in Israel

Raam - Taal - Mada

Koach Lehashpia

Haim Bekavod

Tzedek Hevrati

Hadash

One Future

Eretz Hadasha

Dor Bonei Haaretz

12. In your own words, what groups will be part of the Government, and what do you think will be the most important considerations for forming it?

Likud-Beiteinu will head a coalition created by recruiting Haredi parties. L-B's sole consideration will be creating a coalition, the Haredi parties will be focused on maintaining ultra-Orthodox hegemony.

Right-wing nationalist and Orthodox religious parties.

centrist zionist parties, power for religious parties to support yeshivot etc., social issues

It will be a lot like the current government, meaning a right wing government

Right, Left, Religious and Secular groups in order to promote a unity government.

Centrality

I thing that right wing groups will be part of the new government.

It will be a primarily rightist government with one centre-left party for balance, which will receive one or two most senior Government posts in return.

nationalist parties

Stability should be considered for the coalition

The fact that there are not Arabs...

Right-winged, religious

Strong nationalism will win out

Largely a right-wing coalition with Yesh Atid as a fig-leaf for national unity.

Right, Religious, Moderates

The coalition needs to represent the diverse views of Israel's population.

I think security and religious issues will dominate, including the issue of settlements, so I think those groups who can fundamentally agree on at least two of those issues will form the Government.

The center left will prefer opposition to maintain its legitimacy, so a far right government will form.

A) the ones with the biggest war chest B) political self-interest

power mongering

I think that there will be a significant leftist presence in the government, but I think with growing fears of Iran, Egypt, and a Palestinian uprising, the more conservative parties will dominate.

I believe the 5 largest Jewish parties in Israel will comprise the governing coalition, on the basis of core ideology, with right-leaning parties having the edge in numbers and electoral representation

Current worries over Iran, Gaza and the Arab Spring have put security at the top of Israel's list of concerns. Thus, hardline parties, like that of Likud Yisrael Beitenu and the Jewish Home (Habayit Hayehudi), will likely have the most success. However, with these new fears and a general shift to the right in Israel, a rejection reaction will occur, and largely already has when looking at the recent protests over housing, social issues and the military draft of haredim. As a result, a coalition of moderate parties will form to challenge the ruling right wing coalition, forcing extreme right wing parties like Otzma Leyisrael to accept a compromise and join the ruling coalition. The most important considerations will involve security (Iran, Hamas, the Arab Spring) concessions to Palestine, or lack thereof, and the economic issues plaguing certain sectors of the Israeli population.

Keep Israel safe against all threats from the Muslim world

Likud because relations with other countries in the Middle East

Security. The Haredim will secure their privileges. Settlements will continue to grow and proliferate.

Likud will probably remain.

The most important considerations, unfortunately, seem to be the almost apartheid agenda held by the right wing of government. The most important considerations will be expansion, until power changes hands in a big way.

The large parties will remain part of the coalition. Voting results will show a more polarized and right-wing government.

I think that Likud and the religious parties are likely to control the government, in alliance with either more right-wing parties or else Labor. The main consideration will be whose votes can Netanyahu count on and what concessions need to be made by Likud.

Groups who've prevailed in the past when security was top issue: Labor, Likud. Resurgence of wide-spread anti-semitism in region; radical Islam infiltration; usurpation of resources trying to keep all citizens safe. Worldwide apathy and indifference re: willingness to work, get a job, be productive.

labor party

relations with arabs

ultra-orthodox; right-wing; settlers

Social Issues

13. Now for some demographic information. First, something about your nationality or nationality.

For Israelis, please indicate whether you are actually voting in the Israeli election, or potentially able to vote.

Response Total

Response Percent

I am eligible to vote in Israel and *am* voting for the 19th Knesset

I am Israeli or have Israeli citizenship or have voted in an Israeli election in the past (government or municipal), but am *not* voting.

20%

I hold dual citizenship

20%

I am a US citizen

68%

I am Canadian

Other

One each for China, Colombia, Germany, UK. This survey tool returned a response of [no answer entered] for all other respondents.

14. Please enter your age.

Current average: 38.98. One response was 0; removing it, the average is 39.95.

over 70

60-69

13%

50-59

23%

40-49

13%

30-39

20%

21-29

10%

20 and younger

20%

15. What is your profession? If you are currently in a college or university degree program, seeking an undergraduate or graduate degree, what school do you attend and which degree are you seeking?

Responses fall into three groups:

Teacher

University

College professor

Professor

Lecturer

Historian

Professor

University faculty

Researcher

Academic

Professor Emerita

Teacher, clerk

Shanghai university

Student at university of Düsseldorf

Researcher / doctoral candidate

Undergraduate Student. University of Wyoming, B.A. in Religious Studies minor in Psychology.

I am a student at the University of Wyoming studying International Relations

I'm currently an undergraduate at Harvard University pursuing a degree in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Modern Middle Eastern Studies) or International Development.

Student

[student]

Student

In High School

Writer (poet, literary translator, book reviewer).

Medical Dr

Fundraiser

Rabbi

Self employed

Lawyer

Attorney

Work in a non-profit organization

Technical field

I don't attend a university

Retired lawyer.

Self-employed.

homemaker

Commercial Architecture

Urban planner

Writer/office assistant

16. In which state (or country, if not within the U.S.) did you attend high school?

USA respondents:

Colorado

18%

New York

15%

Wyoming

13%

California

10%

New Jersey

Ohio

USA [did not mention State]

Non US respondents

Canada

Germany

china

Colombia

Iran

Israel

Turkey

Zimbabwe

Based on the context, “Iran” is a “joke” response. Based on other answers in this person’s response, this respondent is a high school student in Colorado, and should be added to respondents answering “Colorado” to this question.

#JustMigrated #Israel and Middle East

University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey results

Seth Ward, University of Wyoming

January 30, 2013

Israel Election Poll results:

http://www.uwyo.edu/sward/university%20of%20wyoming%20israel%20election%20survey%20results-jan.30.2013.htm

preliminary reports were posted as:

http://uwyo.edu/sward/israelielectionsurveyresults.htm

See also: http://sethward.posterous.com

#JustMigrated

https://survey.uwyo.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=m6KM9om2I University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey results so far (as of January 21 2013).

University of Wyoming Israel Election Survey results so far (as of January 21 2013).

If you have not yet taken the survey, please follow this link:

https://survey.uwyo.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=m6KM9om2I

1. The most arbitrary result: survey results compiled to predict Knesset representation. This was not done “scientifically” but “mathematically” in the sense that indices were assigned to various results, and the indices added, divided and combined until reaching a result that could result in 120 members of Knesset.

Am Shalem

Habayit Hayehudi

Hadash

Hatenua Chaired by Tzipi Livni

Israel Labor Party

Kadima

Likud Yisrael Beitenu

Meretz - Israel`s Left

Shas

United Torah Judaism

Yesh Atid

120

How this was done:

% Individual party vote times 3

+ % vote for three parties result

+ Number predicting five largest parties

+ ½ % the vote for PM, assigned to the PM’s party

+ 1/3 % believing parties will be in the coalition.

Results divided by 6 and rounded to produce 120. (more than 0.33 rounded up, otherwise rounded down).

Some scores were eliminated: parties not receiving more than 10% in the individual vote, or more than 15% in the “vote for three parties” were excluded from the individual vote results; parties that received less than 15% in vote for three were were excluded from the three party vote results. Similar limitations were imposed on the other categories.

2. Prime Minister: Netanyahu collected 32% of the vote of this group. If the center/left parties united, they would have won, with almost half (about 47%) of the vote. Add votes for Avigdor Lieberman and Aryeh Elad, and at 35% the right wing is still far behind.

3. What coalition will emerge? According to the results so far, it could include HaBayit Hayehudi, Likud-Yisrael Beteynu, Kadima, Shas, and UTJ. According to the projection above, this would be 58 MKs. The average projection for the size of the coalition is about 69. The next largest votes were for Tzippi Livni; in this projection that would yield 72 mandates. Or, Yesh Atid or Labor, with equal numbers of respondents predicting they will be part of the government, resulting in 69 or 67 mandates voting for the government, closer to the survey’s prediction.

4. Any notable results?

a. Netanyahu is widely expected to win of course.

b. But in this survey, the single-party vote is heavily left wing, and the three-party vote is left/moderate, with, for example, Meretz doing about the same as Likud/Beitenu. In fact, only Labor, Likud and Meretz got more than 25% in the “vote for three” question. In the calculations for MKs above, some results were excluded; using only the parties that were included in this calculation, % Individual party vote times 3 + % vote for three parties results in three times the raw inedixe for left wing parties. This is hardly representative of the Israeli electorate!

c. Respondents were more realistic about who will actually be the largest parties: few thought Meretz would number among them. Likud, Shas—and Labor (!) got the most predictions. Tzippi Livni, Habayit Hayehudi and Kadima got the next number of votes (in that order) but all around half the numbers of those predicting Likud, Shas and Labor to be among the largest three parties.

d. The left/center leaning is not particularly surprising, although the strong showing of Labor is. Labor seems to be a solid “second or third choice” 10% voted for Likud—but 32% would have included it if they could vote for three parties: same as Likud and more than Meretz, both of which polled higher in the traditional “single party “ vote.

e. Another surprise, to me, is that Am Shalem polled identical numbers to Kadima in the “vote for three parties” question. Am Shalem played no significant role in predictions for largest parties or coalition partners, but this could mean it is a party worth watching.

5. What issues are most important.

My survey did not include “Peace” as one of the named issues—but this was the most frequently mentioned word in the “other” responses. Security and Social issues topped the list of responses, with economic issues coming not far behind. Ten points behind Security came State of Palestine and Religious Divisions. Israeli Arabs and Haredim--two sectors of Israeli society who generally do not serve in the Army—had radically different levels: only 5% signified Haredim as an issue, but 17% noted Israeli Arabs.

6. Respondents

Only one respondent reported growing up in Israel. Most respondents completed high school in the USA. Two were from other Middle Eastern countries, and several completed high school in South America, UK, Germany, or Africa. About equal numbers were students; teachers (including professors, researchers, university faculty and others); or other (a rabbi, lawyers, professionals, etc.).

I’ll keep this survey open until well after the elections, and I’ll rethink the results of this survey based on additional responses returned. (Survey results show time submitted, so it will be possible to make adjustments to read the results after the Elections).

Seth Ward

#JustMigrated

Vote for your choice in the Israeli Elections!

Invitation to a survey at

https://survey.uwyo.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=m6KM9om2I

What do you think will happen in the Israeli Elections?

In the US elections in 2012, not only were US citizens polled over and over about their choices, but it seems that similar polls were conducted around the world. I have not seen many such polls, however, for the Israeli elections.

So here is your chance: Please vote in this survey about your choices for the upcoming Israeli election, on January 22 2013. Vote for or against Netanyahu, Labor, religious or secular or Arab parties, or for one of the small single-issue lists!

Here's the survey link: https://survey.uwyo.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=m6KM9om2I

There is no introduction inside the survey itself. The material below serves as the introduction, and has some guidance for those who want to know more about the Israeli electoral system and parties, and about the Survey. If you are familiar with Israeli elections, you can go straight to the Survey.

On the Israeli elections, system, and parties:

There are many essays about the Israeli elections readily available on line. The Knesset website is the official elections website, with, for example, the complete directory of party lists at http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections19/eng/list/ListIndex_eng.aspx . Everything is available in English, Arabic and Hebrew.

I have written an essay about the elections: http://sethward.posterous.com/israeli-elections. A brief guide to the main party lists on Wikipedia is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2013#Participating_parties

Here is a website with a good, short summary of the political positions. http://tin.tv/site/article/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92/your-guide-to-the-2013-israeli-election

I was surprised at how few websites actually list the main points of each party in a succinct way. Both according to my memory, and to the results of websearchers (such as Google), there seem to have been more “platform” oriented websites for the 2009 elections, and more listings oriented more towards the “politicking” for the current elections. (However interesting this conclusion may be, remember it is an unscientific observation!).

The survey

First, the survey asks for your vote—who you would vote for. Don’t simply “vote for the likely winner”—the survey has a group of questions for that purpose later on.

Second, this survey has some additional voting questions: A “Straw Poll” or beauty contest: if you could vote in direct election of Prime Minister, how would you vote? And, Israel’s government will be formed by a coalition, not a single party, so if you could vote for multiple parties, which would they be? (The survey asks you to pick three). Remember, this is your vote for what you want, not necessarily for who will win!

Third, the survey is interested in your thoughts about what will actually transpire as a result of the vote, with questions about who will likely form a government, the size of the coalition, and its largest members.

There are spaces for brief narrative explanations of your choices, and some demographics at the end.

The tool used to create the survey randomized the list order. This may make the poll slightly more “scientific” although, regrettably, it’s more difficult to find the party list you wish to vote for.

The survey may send you a confirmation after you complete it, and it’s designed to report your choices anonymously to me.

[Update: so far, it's sending the respondent confirmation to ME, not to the survey participant. Although I set it up to be anonymous AND to send YOU an email confirmation, I am not sure it actually has this capacity.]

Background and Reporting

This survey reflects considerations developed in a classroom teaching and exercises in my “Modern Middle East” classes at the University of Wyoming in previous years. In my classes, I offered a small prize for the best prediction, written up as a short essay. I designed this survey in part to allow for machine scoring of a larger number of responses rather than reviewing a relatively small number of classroom essays. Scoring for the predictive part of the responses is based on the number of days before the election the survey was submitted, and the accuracy of predictions for prime minister, largest parties, coalition partners, size of coalition (Knesset mandates), and date of confirmation. Of course, I will also report the results of the actual “voting” section of the survey—I will send the results to anyone interested, and post them on http://sethward.posterous.com.

Unfortunately, no prize is being offered for this survey.

Please complete the survey before the elections. But, note that the survey will technically remain open after January 22, 2013, until the next government is formed (or until mid-March if no government is confirmed).

PLEASE take the survey yourself. PLEASE also circulate the survey as widely as possible, and feel free to post or distribute a link to this page (not to the survey itself, as it has no introduction page): on Facebook or Twitter, to classes, clubs, Hillels, groups, organizations, synagogues churches or other religious or social organizations, etc.

I welcome your thoughts about the survey: [email protected]. Or you can post comments on this document at my blog site. (If you are not reading it on my blog website, it 's at http://sethward.posterous.com/vote-for-your-choice-in-the-israeli-elections)

Here’s the survey link again, https://survey.uwyo.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=m6KM9om2I

Many thanks.

Seth Ward

University of Wyoming.

#JustMigrated

Visit Original Link

Talk About Nittel Nacht at East Denver Orthodox Synagogue, Denver, Dec. 24 2012.

Perhaps this talk should have been from a text, rather than extemporaneous. “Nittel-nacht” is a name found in many Jewish sources for “Christmas Eve.” Some Jewish communities had the tradition of not studying Torah at this time. The most compelling explanation is that the practice arose from staying home Christmas eve, rather than going to the House of Study—in order to avoid drunken hooligans celebrating Christmas eve. If that’s the case, the practice would reflect only practical considerations of safety—not theoretical discussions about the date or the meaning of the date. But many Rabbis offered explanations that make the observance reflect ideology or religion, not simply safety. These run from halachic arguments based on Tractate Avoda Zarah, which indeed has a discussion about what can and cannot be done surrounding the period from December 25 to January 1 (Saturnalia in Roman times) to numerological explanations “proving” that only 364 days of a solar year (365 ¼ days) can be devoted to Torah (no Torah Study on Tish’a Be’Av and 6 hours on Nittel)—to explanations that refer to impurity in the world or imitating non-Jewish practices. One argument I saw suggests that non-Jews are running to Divine Worship at midnight, so Jews could hardly be less religious—surprising in its positive implications for the value of Christian religious activity.

The dates of the Maharsho that I could not find in the talk are 1555-1631. The "Tekufa" is the "average calculated solstice or equinox," that is, Jewish tradition uses the figure 365 1/4 days in a year (as in the Julian calendar), and divides this by 4, so each Tekufa comes 91 days and 7 1/2 hours after the previous one. At least in theory, the Tekufa of Tevet, (the "period of Winter") was on December 25 in the year of Jesus' birth, giving rise to the notion that "Nittl" should be marked on the evening when the Tekufah occurs. In the current year, the Tekufah occurs at 10:30 on 24 Tevet, that is Sunday January 6.

In the talk I mentioned the "Matza Ball" - a phenomenon in a number of US cities. I should note that Denver's Matza Ball on Christmas eve was "unofficial" - unaffiliated with the group that organized the event with this name in other cities- and in any case is now continued under the name "Heebonism."

I cited the Yiddish translation of Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" -- a description of which can be found elsewhere in http://sethward.posterous.com

Seth Ward

Dec. 24 2012 (some editing Dec. 24-26).

One URL for image of Lubavitch Rebbes playing chess: http://www.crownheights.info/media/4/20061224-Rabaiyim-Playing-Chess.jpg

I have no idea whether this photo is authentic--it's widely disseminated on the web and never provenanced well. There are, however, many references to Lubavitcher Rebbes playing chess on Nittl Nacht.

#JustMigrated #Jewish Thought #Religion

Israeli Elections

Seth Ward

University of Wyoming

This essay is edited and updated from an essay I wrote for the elections to the 18th Knesset, Feb. 10 2009. Voting for the 19th Knesset is scheduled for January 22, 2013.

The Israeli System

The Israeli electoral system is so different from the U.S. system that many Americans have no idea about just how it works, and how the system shapes the meaning of Israeli elections. The Parliamentary system is used in elections throughout the Middle East (and much of the rest of the world), and proportional voting for lists is also common, so understanding this electoral system can be a key to understanding the systems used in other countries.

The Israeli system considers the entire country a single district. Voters do not vote directly for the Executive Branch, or even vote directly for representatives to serve in the Knesset (Israel’s Legislature). Instead, they vote for lists of candidates for the Knesset, and Knesset seats (sometimes called "mandates") are awarded to individuals on the lists, based on the percentage of the vote for party lists getting more than 2% of the popular vote, as will be explained in more detail below. The Executive Branch (called "the government") is formed by the leader of a Knesset faction who can assemble a Coalition and a Cabinet that can be confirmed by majority Knesset vote. The electoral lists are generally supplied by individual political parties, so they may be called “party lists,” but various factions can unite to form a common list, or secede from parties to form their own list and so forth.

Actually, in some cases Israelis are in effect voting for individuals. For example, in the current election, Tzippi Livni established her own personal list, and attracted a number of prominent figures to join her. Perhaps the most famous example of this was Sammy Flatto-Sharon, who sought parliamentary immunity to avoid extradition in 1977, and won enough votes to be elected.

Most important though, voters may be voting for the individual in the top slot on the lists of the major parties—the party’s candidate for Prime Minister. In early stages of the 2009 election, three individuals had emerged as likely candidates to become Prime Minister: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Tzippi Livni. At this point (December 2012), most polls show current Prime Minister Netanyahu with a substantial lead over the other candidates, but several other persons in top slots are often mentioned as possible candidates for PM. Those who vote for the smaller parties also may be voting because of the top person on the party list, too, who is most likely to get a government ministry if the party joins the government.

While it’s not likely, if enough Israelis vote for parties that could block Netanyahu’s bid to remain Prime Minister, it is possible that the leader of a list with a relatively small number of Knesset mandates could be asked to form the government.

The Knesset has 120 members; if only two lists were vying in the election and one received 60% of the votes and the other 40%, the top 72 from the one list and the top 48 from the other would be seated in the Knesset. In practice, there are usually many more lists vying for election (34 lists were presented to the Knesset by the deadline), and usually none gets more than 25%-30%. Polls for the election do not assume any party will get more than about 30 seats—25% of the Knesset—although they also assume that 60-75% of the Knesset seats will be from the top five lists.

The voter makes only one choice, a vote for one list, not the large number of candidates in US elections. At the polling place, he or she receives an envelope, goes into a private booth, selects a slip of paper with the symbol of a list and puts it in the ballot envelope. Then the voter steps out of the booth and inserts the envelope into the ballot box. If there is more than one slip of paper in the envelope, it invalidates the ballot.

Often parties will form joint lists. Quite a few such joint lists are understandable combinations of parties, but some joint lists represent smaller parties running together mainly to secure Knesset seats, because in the current Israeli system, 2% of actual votes are required in order for a list to gain representation. Thus in the 17th Knesset, three of the smallest lists to be successful were multiparty lists, which combined for 15 seats—more than 10% of Knesset seats. Meretz and Yahad were similar politically, and their combined list vote tally in 2006 was 118,000—which meant the first 5 on their combined list were seated in the Knesset. But the 2% cutoff was 62,000 votes, so if Meretz and Yahad had run separately and each received exactly half of their joint actual total, neither would have had any representation. In the 2009 elections, the Green Party (environmentalists) and Meimad (a liberal religious party), had a joint list—perhaps an unlikely alliance—and they were not successful in their bid to earn seats in the Knesset. This alliance though is a good example of why such alliances occur. Had this party entered the Knesset, it is quite possible that they might have been part of the Government coalition regardless of who became Prime Minister, in which case the leader of Meimad might well have been a Minister and the environmental platform would been included in the coalition agreement. In the current election, the most talked about combined list is Likud/Yisrael Beitenu, in which Netanyahu and Avigdor Leiberman are joining forces, easily expected to win the largest number of mandates.

Joint lists might alternate one candidate from each faction, or if one faction is small, one candidate from the smaller faction after each three or four from the larger faction. Lists are manipulated also for electoral visibility: most Zionist parties have Arabs and especially Druze Arabs in “realistic” slots—in other words, if the list is expected to win 15-20 seats, slot 10 is fairly sure, slot 15 is realistic, slot 30 is unrealistic. So too, a party can manipulate the number of women in realistic slots. Some parties have had “primaries” to organize their lists. As in US elections, the voting patterns of party loyalists have not always been seen as producing effective results for the general election.

The President (Hebrew “Nasi”) of the State of Israel is a largely ceremonial position. The President is elected by the Knesset for a five year term. The President receives ambassadors presenting their credentials, can issue pardons, and in certain circumstances can dissolve Parliament, and can use the prestige of his office in various ways to promote peace or other Israeli interests. But his major political role is that, after the election, the President meets with the parties, and proposes as Prime Minister the Member of Knesset who, in his judgment, is most likely to succeed in forming a coalition and presenting a slate of Ministers to the Knesset. This is not always the leader of the largest party list: In the current Knesset (2009 election), it was Netanyahu, the leader of the second largest delegation.

The Hebrew title for Prime MInister, Rosh Memshalah, actually translates to “Head of the Government,” which may be understood as “Head of the Executive Branch.” The Prime Minister desgnate has three weeks to cement a coalition and propose a slate Ministers and Deputy Ministers, including himself or herself as Prime Minister, and the Minister of Defense, Foreign Minister, and other ministers and deputy ministers. The Prime Minister must be a Member of Knesset, most of the others usually are but do not have to be. The slate represents a coalition of various parties totaling at least one more than half the 120 members of the Knesset: the coalition needs at least 61 votes. This vote confirms the cabinet officers all at once, not individual by individual as in the US Executive branch.

Small parties often have great power here: they can exact a heavy price in coalition agreements in order to push a coalition past 60 votes. A very small party can bargain both that their leader become a Minister and that the coalition adopt certain legislation, in return for even as few as two or three seats counting towards the needed 61 votes.

In some cases, the first person asked cannot put together a coalition, or cannot put together a coalition in the amount of time allotted, in which case more time may be offered, another person might be asked to form a government, or new elections might be called.

Since the Government coalition has a majority, they should have enough votes to pass everything they propose, and to defeat everything they oppose. In practice this means that all important decisions are taken within the Government coalition—usually at the level of the Ministers, or by the parties they represent, and those outside the government or outside the coalition parties have very limited power.

The prime minister may well attempt to put together a Government in which his or her party holds more seats than any other faction in the government, and to limit the number of ministers from outside his party to fewer than those from within his party. If the largest party has 31 or more seats, it can have a majority within the Government: 31 out of 61 mandates, the narrowest of majorities in the 120-seat Knesset. This scenario may be more likely if a party holds, say, 35 seats in a coalition of 65. The January 2013 election might make it possible for the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu combined list to do this, although not enough for the Likud faction alone to have more than 31 mandates or an absolute majority within the government. While coalitions in which one party dominated were more common in the early days of the state, this was impossible in the 18th Knesset, for example: the largest delegation was 28.

Sometimes, however, the Prime Minister Designate will propose a broad “Unity” coalition, bringing together diverse political entities. What this means is that the PM’s party does not dominate the Government, and a minority portion of the unity coalition may more easily assemble enough votes to cripple the coalition, or to topple the government.

For several elections (1996, 1999, and 2001), there was direct election of the Prime Minister. In other words, the Israeli voter had two slips of paper, one with the symbol of a Knesset List, and one with the name of a candidate for Prime Minister. Some Israeli analysts who had called for the direct election of Prime Minister believed that this system would never work without increasing the degree of independence and power of Knesset members, for example by making some or all Knesset members directly responsible to smaller electoral districts, such as is the case in the United States, and a higher threshold for election to the Knesset. This, however, did not happen, and Israel went back to a single-vote system.

If the Government cannot muster a majority on an important issue, the Prime Minister resigns and there is an attempt to form a new government. The Prime Minister may resign for other reasons. A Member of Knesset can also propose a Vote of No Confidence in the Government. The resignation of the Prime Minister requires confirmation of a new government by the Knesset: there is no automatic succession as there is in the case of the American Presidency. The old government continues as a "caretaker" until the new government is formed. Sometimes the new government in such situations looks a lot like the previous government, with small tweaks if necessary to maintain a majority. If a new government can be formed, the Knesset is not dissolved.

The Knesset must be dissolved and stand for reelection four years after it was elected. In the current situation, the Knesset could have served four and a half years, as Israeli law provides that the term of a Knesset elected after a Knesset dissolved itself extends to the Jewish month of Heshvan (October/November) following four years from voting. But elections for a new Knesset are more often than not called before the end of the full term. In the present case, Prime Minister Netanyahu called for elections in January rather than October 2013 to seek a mandate, to avoid a protracted election cycle, and to avoid compromises or agreements that might not be forthcoming and perhaps lessen his chances at reelection.

Wikipedia usually is a good source for Israel election results, for example for the last two elections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2006 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009

But the Knesset Website is the best and most authoritative source. Voting for the curent (18th)Knesset is here: http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_res18.htm and the list of candidates submitted for election to the 19th Knesset is here: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections19/eng/list/ListIndex_eng.aspx (as of this writing, only the Hebrew List Index has the complete lists).

Other systems

Above it was suggested that understanding the Israeli system will help understand other Middle Eastern systems, so before returning to the potential significance of the Israeli elections, a few notes on some other electoral systems in the Middle East. It should be noted though that whatever the electoral system, the electoral mandate is compromised or non-existent if the government does not submit to the electorate in an inevitable, timely fashion, or if the process or schedule precludes a fair contest.

The Palestinian parliamentary elections reflected some of the ideas of the Israeli reformers mentioned above: they were ½ (66 members) proportional for the entire electorate, on the Israeli model, and ½ (66 members) proportional elections in smaller districts, some electing just one representative, and some electing up to five. Some of the small-district elections had required seats for religious minorities, e.g. Christian or Samaritan. The Palestinian Authority did not adopt the direct election of the Prime Minister, but the Palestinians directly elect the President, who has much more of a political role than in the Israeli system. But in actual practice it is not constitutional roles but armaments and personal loyalty that have determined much about who does and does not exercise political power in the Palestinian areas. The winner of the Parliamentary elections in 2006, Hamas, nominated the Prime Minister, but after Hamas and Fatah fought in 2007, Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the Government and appointed a new Prime Minister. Moreover, the terms of President and Parliament expired long ago without new elections. Fatah holds power in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Salam Fayad's government in the West Bank has made great strides, but it is clear that the political realities trump the electoral results and conpromise the emergence of desired government and civic institutions.

The Iraqis vote by lists, and there are a large number of them. In provincial elections, Iraqis could vote for an entire list, or single out members of the lists for individual votes. These lists are to set up so that 25% of the persons on them are women, and an Iraqi Supreme Court decision has further provided that the women should be seated so that after two males seated a woman is seated. The Open List system was adopted by almost all parties for the national Parliamentary elections in 2010. There have been a number of decisions that have changed important aspects of the voting. Iraq has not yet achieved a stable system, but given the situation that gave rise to its Constitution, I think it's best to emphasise the positive electoral achievements.

Iranians vote for Parliament and for the President, and have local elections, including direct election of Mayors. But, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council vet the candidates and control the process, and the Supreme Leader's power seems to have been supported by the most recent Parliamentary results. On paper, you might say, there is at least the structure of a government responsable to the people with institutions that safeguard national values and regular voting--and indeed, the government is probably more responsive to the political will of the people than was the case under the Shah! Which is not saying much, moreover it was a much more open society in those days. Given the strife that erupted after the Ahmadinejad's reelection, there will be a lot of pressure on all sides. The next election is June 14, 2013, and will include Presidential as well as City and Village councils.

As of this writing, Egyptian debates about the political system have taken to the streets to protest the new constitution, and it remains to be seen whether the popular expression on the Egyptian street will result in broader representation in the legislature and executive. My guess is that the quick passage of the new constitution was designed to ensure the Muslim Brotherhood’s grip on the Egyptian government. and make government less responsive to responsible to minorities, to women, and to secularists. The Brotherhood may have a tighter grip on Egypt than Mubarak did. If protesters continue to press for more inclusive government, or unite and elect their candidates to Parliament, things may change--but I would not count on this in the short or intermediate term.

Since the Ta'if agreement brought an end to years of civil war starting in 1975, Lebanon’s legislature is evenly divided between “Muslims” and “Christians” although it should be stressed that these are political and community labels, rather than religious ones. Lebanon continues to require the President to be a Maronite Christian and the Prime Minister to be a Sunni Muslim. Nevertheless, the Shiite (and extremist) movement Hizbullah has enormous power, and appears to have been responsible for the selection of the current PM.

Turkey has a strong democratic tradition; even when the army has seized power, they have restored civilian, democratic process. The party currently in power, AKP, has been quite succesful though in neutralizing journalism, the army, and other potential sources of threats to its control--and in winning ever larger segments of the electorate.

What's important here? The most important consideration is not how the Parliament and President are elected, but the degree to which the election creates political power responsible to the broad electorate. The will of the People can never be seen as monolithic--so the democratic system has to institutionalize effective representation of those who do not form the governing majority--whether they are political, religious, ethnic, linguistic, gender or other groups, maintain civic institutions and promote an educated and informed electorate, and robust civil debate.Ultimately, we should ask such things as: Does the electorate control such things as the monopoly on legitimate use of force, usually considered a prerogative of government? Does the government ignore the electorate's mandate or favor majorities at the expense of minorities who then have no recourse? Elections should reflect political strength of various ideas in a society, facilitate a robust political discourse about these ideas, and allow for the exercise of power legitimately--and be prepared to face the people on schedule and to cede power to the next elected government. An interruption or cancellation of the transfer of that power within regular intervals, as a result of the expression of popular will, is inconceivable.

Many observers of the Israeli scene assert that Israel is the "only democracy in the Middle East." Since the rise of a nascent Iraqi democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein and especially since the "Arab Spring" (and one could even say since 1979 in Iran), the nature of democratic expression in the region is changing. But the players are not particularly committed to checks and balances, protection of minorities, peaceful change in government, inevitable reckoning by the electorate, and other cornerstones of democracy. I am not particularly hopeful for the benefits expected from the removal of tyrants and dictators in a few Arab countries in the short term. In Iran, in Egypt and elsewhere, we have seen people insist that the government serve the people and be responsible to them, rather than the other way around--but change is slow, and in this region there is every reason to suppose that new regimes arising after the Arab Spring and Syrian civil war will be no better--and perhaps worse--than the dictators they replaced. The solution is not simply replacing military dictators by elected regimes, but by the long and steady development of the institutions of a democratic, civil society, and succesful resistance when these institutions or the Press are being compromised. Also needed: development of open, responsible but robust discussion in political debate and journalism; an educated electorate; solving the question of inclusion of minority communities; and governments committed to general economic and social advancement of the governed more than their own political, ideological, religious or personal advancement (and, I should add, popular movements strong enough to demand this when governments do not live up to this expectation, as we are seeing these days in the Middle East). All these things take time: there is no "magic bullet" shortcut to end corruption, create civic infrastructure, and end illiteracy.

In the MIddle East, we should probably add also that it will take time and popular will to reverse and eradicate the poison of antisemitism (clothed in "Antizionism"), the results of religious coercion and the youth bubble, and the long history of disenfranchisement (or lagging enfranchisement)--of Palestinian Arabs, of women, of minority religions or nationalities, and other diversity groups throughout the region. And, that versions of many of the problems I've outlined exist in Israeli society, albeit within a robust, effective democratic system.

But let's return to Israel.

On the Israeli elections, 2013.

Netanyahu’s “Likud” and Avigdor Lieberman’s “Yisrael Beitenu” are strongly allied. Reviewing all the polls, this list seems slated to gain the largest number of seats in the Knesset, although not enough to make it impossible to block them from forming a government. In Israeli politics, elections generally have to do with attitudes towards security and peace. Issues stressed tend to be how much can be offered for peace with Palestinian Arabs, and whether or not, or exactly how, a Palestinian state should come about.

In this election though, social and economic issues may play a larger role than usual. A generation ago, Israel was a much less stratified economy and the gap between poor and rich was not as large as today. Labor, especially under the leadership of Shelly Yachimovich, is identified with social issues. Leadership also may be an issue. Tzippi Livni created a “movement” (tnu’ah) around herself; whatever else can be said for it, her ability to attract major names to her list may well indicate dissatisfaction with many of the others vying for leadership roles in Israeli governance. Nevertheless, Benjamin Netanyahu will most likely form the government. It will probably be fairly “narrow,” but that could easily change with the specifics of the election.

While most of the analysis is going to be about Likud-Yisrael Beteinu, Labor, Kadima and Livni, in addition there are several other types of parties. An important segment of the political debate has to do with religious parties, representing very different sectors of the Jewish religious community. Some are "National Religious"--fully engaged in the Israeli civic stream--sending their children to government religious schools, serving in the army and involved in all sectors of society. Others reflect "Haredi" (often translated "Ultra-Orthodox") streams, many of whom segregate themselves from Israeli society in various ways--an independent school system, no Army service, even maintaining separate transportation and busses in some cases. The question of Haredi national service is one of the issues that led to early elections. Arab representation is another such issue: Many Zionist parties have Arab and Druze participation, and there will probably be some 6-12 Arabs and Druzes elected on "Zionist" lists, as well as Members of Knesset elected from Arab or Arab-Jewish “non-Zionist” parties—although recent reports suggest that Israeli Arab participation in Israeli elections is declining. The next Government of Israel will most likely include a party or parties representing National Religious and/or Haredi. Some commentators have suggested that if the Arab parties participate in a succesful effort to block a Likud-led government, they will demand representation in the Government as a reward.

Although many Israeli jurists feel the 2% threshold is not enough to prevent small, one-issue groups from winning Knesset representation, such groups have won in the past, and sometimes won big: the 17th Knesset had 7 members from a party formed to support Pensioners’ rights, more than enough to have surpassed most plans for a higher threshhold. One-issue parties are represented in the current election, for example, the list called “The Pirates” which calls for protection for pirated software. As in the United States, small contingents with strong commitments to single issues can have immense political clout. So far, attempts to raise the threshold do not have much support in the Knesset.

The likely electoral results suggest that the Prime Minister designate will appeal to sectors of the Religious parties that can be attracted to belong to his or her coalition, as his pretty much always been the case. Internet chatter talks about some of the Arab parties not only being part of the group able to “block” Netanyahu, but demanding a place in the coalition if successful. These and other parties with a small number of highly defined goals will shape the policies of the new coalition, and in some cases be credited or blamed as the reason why the Government is not proceeding on some of the goals of the larger parties.

Significance

What kinds of things should students of the Modern Middle East watch for in this process?

Sliding to the right. One outcome of the Hamas conflict may well be a strengthening of the “security” side of the equation. Voting for the right-leaning parties may be seen both as a comment on the conduct and results of the operation against Hamas, and a statement that Israeli immediate security needs should outweigh long-term security that might come from such things as a truly independent Palestinian state. (Unfortunately, I have not had to change the wording of this observation from what I wrote in 2009! The only thing to add might be that solution to social and economic issues inside Israel would also add to long-term security and these too may well be outweighed by immediate security needs).

Minority vote. Ultra-Orthodox and Arab votes are extremely important. There is a tremendous concern in Israel about the role of these two sub-communities, seen as not part of the Zionist mainstream. Part of the reason for early elections is the strains introduced in the Israeli body politic around exemptions for army service for full-time Torah Study or whether Arabs will or will not be required to have national service. The relation of Israeli Arabs to the State is also an issue, and the overall voting patterns in both these communities will be carefully noted. The current election cycle seems especially rich in women in political leadership, although—given this fact—my guess is that a government formed without significant numbers of women in ministerial positions will disappoint many.

Speed of coalition. The speed with which a coalition will be assembled and approved will serve as a harbinger of the effectiveness of the coalition.

Israel ought to place tremendous importance on a few highly strategic considerations. Here the list is somewhat different from what I wrote in 2009.

Relations with the second term of the Obama administration

Relations with neighbors: Relations with Turkey—once a strong ally—is not as important, to my mind, as relations with Egypt, although Egypt today is a moving target and it’s possible that the situation in Syria could revive Turkey’s importance. Netanyahu has focused on the danger posed by Iran, and the elections may or may not be seen as popular vindication of his approach. My view is that any Israeli government would have to insist that “all options will be used to maintain the security of all residents.” One must hope that articulations of policy, whether strongly worded or not, will be balanced by careful consideration of the many responses and the ramifications of acting or not acting.

“Re-branding” Israel’s to the world, to neighboring governments, and to the “Arab or Muslim street.” I do not think there is much attention to "rebranding" for the Arab audience, although perhaps this is the most crucial target for rethinking attitudes about Israel. Operation Amud Anan “Pillar of Defense” and the UN vote on 29 November 2012 (65 years after the vote of 29 Nov. 1947 for partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab States) suggest that this is even more important than before. Israel’s security requires a strong military response—but ultimately politics, diplomacy, and changed mind-set must also be part of the equation.

It seems to me that “two states living in peace” is a desirable result—but the discourse about creating a Palestinian state as a solution rather than a result of a solution seems to me to have run its course.

In 2009, the recent operation against Hamas – Oferet Yetzuka usually translated “Cast Lead,” shaped the entire electoral process and its results were judged in its light. It’s not yet clear to me whether Amud Anan will similarly reshape the current process. Hamas’ victory celebrations are not surprising, of course: celebrating even the most ineffective attack on Israel as a victory is typical Middle Eastern practice, and celebrations can go on even when militarily the result was defeat or destruction of Arab military resources. In 1973, for example, Israeli forces were surprised by Egypt and Syria, but came back quickly to encircle the Egyptian army, and threatened Damascus and Cairo. The 1973 conflict made it possible for Sadat to come to Jerusalem seeking peace. If only the military results and diplomatic change-around would be taken into account, this might be called “losing the conflict to defeat Israel and suing for peace”—but Arab countries see 1973 as a victory and Israel sees it as a disappointment.

I do not think Amud Anan will be considered enough of a disappointment to endanger Likud; in fact it may strengthen Netanyahu. But, I do not think Israelis will vote solely on the basis of relations with Hamas and Fatah, and social and economic issues will have at least some hearing. It seems to me that Israel’s security long term will be most secure when Palestinian Arabs view the extremists in their midst not as brave freedom fighters who stood up to Israel, but as misguided militants whose promises were empty and whose resistance led only to massive death and destruction. In this sense, as for example, strikingly in 1996 (Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister), Fatah and Hamas may still be the most important factors in Israeli elections.

Seth Ward

Lecturer in Islam and Judaism (Assoc. Acad. Prof.)

Religious Studies Program, University of Wyoming

http://uwyo.edu/sward

http://uwyo.edu/sward/blog

#JustMigrated #Israel and Middle East

Holocaust in North Africa and the Sephardic World

Ward-HolocaustinSephardicWorld.pdf Download this file

#JustMigrated #Holocaust #sephardic studies

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

coffeecups