It Don't Mean A Thing If You Ain't Got That Swing (To The Right)

According to Arutz Sheva, the Israeli election didn't show any such swing at all:

In 2003, nationalist and religious parties held 67 seats, even more than in the government formed by Menachem Begin in 1977 when the Likud won 43 seats.

The nationalist and religious parties have held no less than 59 seats - and usually an absolute majority of more than 61 - in every Knesset since 1973, when the Alignment, an alliance of Labor and Mapam, won 51 seats.

However, the failure of the nationalist and religious parties to unite their many factions often left the Labor party able to wheel and deal with the religious parties to form a coalition.

The illusion of a leftist plurality in the outgoing Knesset was weaved by the existence of the Kadima party, a mixed bag of former Likud and Labor members. It included a hawkish bloc, headed by former IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, which at one point in the current government almost rebelled against constant concessions to the Palestinian Authority by outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

So if in terms of pure numbers the change has not been so radical, the nature of the change that has been revealed in the results of the election is that

while the nationalist and religious parties' numbers did not change dramatically from previous elections, they now are more committed to their ideology.

The real significance of the election is that Kadima's apparent strength "masks the deeper and much more enduring socio-political ascendancy of the political right, both nationalist and religious," according to Prof. Frisch.

But even if that analysis seems to clarify what Israelis want and in which direction Israel seems to be heading--this is, after all, Israeli politics we are dealing with. In Sure the Israeli right won? Peace lost? Look closer, BradleyBurston writes for Haaretz that the fact that not all of the different right wing parties is indicative of a contrary conclusion:

In fact, if the 2009 election has conclusively demonstrated anything, it is the overwhelming consensus across Israeli society for the rejection of the bedrock right-wing principle of a Greater Israel encompassing and annexing all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Shockingly, the Israeli public may have voted for the right not because it rejects the idea of peace deals, partition, and a two-state solution, but because it believes the right is better qualified to find a way to carry out that undeniably painful process.

According to this analysis, the horror exhibited by the West in general and in the US in particular at the prospect of a Netanyahu-led coalition is misplaced. In fact, the right wing is just misunderstood:

"The outcome of the elections indicates that Israelis view the 'peace process' with the Palestinians as a divorce process," writes economic analyst Elah Alkalai.

"As their unwilling embrace was arranged by global forces, so apparently will be their separation. Think of it as severance of an arranged marriage, and the vote Israelis cast last week was for what they perceive as the roughest, toughest divorce lawyer in town."

Avigdor Lieberman, the hands-down success story of the election, has repeatedly outraged the far-right by suggesting in the past that some heavily Arab-populated East Jerusalem neighborhoods and refugee camps be ceded to an eventual independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. He has consistently alientated the ultra-Orthodox - an essential building block of any right-wing dream coalition - by demanding civil-marriage and modified Jewish conversion legislation favored by Lieberman's ultra-secular constituency.

Netanyahu's Likud, the anchor of a potential rightist coalition, has been on record for years as favoring an eventual Palestinian state in the territories, as long as strict security guarantees were met. The Likud is also the only party ever to have headed a government which dismantled established settlements.

Only two parties, representing just seven seats in the 120-seat Knesset, still argue for a Greater Israel. Not even the fringe-right National Union with its frankly pro-Kahane wing, dares come out in public for a return to permanent Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, stating in its platform only that "There will be no uprooting of Jewish communities and no surrender of parts of the Land of Israel in any subsequent Israeli government led by the party."

"In other words," Alkalai concludes, "the majority vote was cast for a leadership - the right wing - that the public thinks can end the relationship with the most assets for Israelis and preferably no alimony at all for the spouse."

Whether this analysis is accurate or is wishful thinking by Burston remains to be seen. The facts he cites are accurate, but there are too many variables to give a meaningful prediction as to where things are headed. The first step will be to see who Peres selects to create the coalition.

Why can't US politics be this fun?

[Hat tip: Memeorandum]

Technorati Tag: Israeli Election.