The Israeli—Palestinian Conflict in Israeli Elections
| Author | Michal Shamir,Jacob Shamir |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512107079641 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Shamir & Shamir: The Israeli–Palestinian Confl ict in Israeli Elections 469
International Political Science Review (2007), Vol. 28, No. 4, 469–491
DOI: 10.1177/0192512107079641 © 2007 International Political Science Association
Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore)
The Israeli–Palestinian Confl ict
in Israeli Elections
Michal Shamir and Jacob Shamir
Abstract. The Israeli–Palestinian confl ict is one of the most intractable
confl icts in the world today. During the period of the 1990s and early
2000s, its salience was especially high. In this article, we explore the role
of elections in the confl ict, focusing on deliberation, legitimation, and
representation. We analyze the fi ve Israeli elections between 1992 and
2003. Our fi ndings raise signifi cant doubts as to the quality of deliberation
on the confl ict in these fi ve election campaigns, and suggest that the
campaigns and election interpretations did not contribute to legitimation
of policy in this area beyond procedural legitimacy. Nevertheless, the
elections had a major impact in molding the confl ict through their
role in transferring power and in producing dynamic representation.
Although our focus is on a single case, this article falls within the body
of empirical research about elections as instruments of democracy and
their role in shaping the course of international confl icts.
Keywords: • Elections • Deliberation • Legitimation • Representation
• Israeli–Palestinian confl ict
Introduction
The Israeli–Arab confl ict, the more than 100 years of confl ict between Jews and
Arabs over the small piece of land Jews call Eretz Israel and the Palestinians call
Falastin, is one of the most intractable confl icts in the world today, at the center
of international politics and media attention. Over the years it has fl uctuated
between periods of armed struggle and armistice, as well as between periods of
peacemaking and apparent advances in confl ict resolution. Any visitor’s casual
glance, in line with scholarly studies of Israeli society, attests to the overwhelming
presence of this confl ict in every aspect of Israeli collective and individual life.
How does a democratic society contend with the dilemmas that such a confl ict
raises in terms of foreign and security affairs, domestic concerns and priorities,
and daily life? Obviously, the various apparatuses of state and society are at work,
470 International Political Science Review 28(4)
with greater and lesser success across institutions, realms of life, and times. One
clear ramifi cation is that security considerations reign, and the army and other
security forces are a dominant force in society and politics. The confl ict looms
in the background of just about all institutions, culture, and social relations:
the legal code and political economy, social stratifi cation by gender, ethnic and
Arab–Jewish relations, the welfare system, the role of religion, the media, and of
course politics (for example, Arian, 1995; Bar-Tal, 1998; Kimmerling, 1985, 2001;
Lissak, 1984; Shafi r and Peled, 2002).
Politics is our focus. The confl ictual relations of Israel with its Arab neighbors
have always been an important dimension in Israeli politics. Since the Six Day War,
they have become the major cleavage dimension, with the territories occupied in
1967 and Israeli–Palestinian relations its focal point. In line with the pervasiveness
of the confl ict in Israeli existence, this cleavage should not be seen as strictly one
over borders or over security and foreign affairs, but also as one with ramifi cations
for domestic politics, and as being closely tied to questions of collective identity.
This is the major cleavage dimension of Israeli politics, and Israelis have been
divided over it for years. Since the 1980s, the Israeli party system has had a two-
bloc party structure, and the confl ict defi nes the left and right camps and labels.
Left means a greater willingness to compromise with the Arab side and greater
emphasis on negotiations and talks than the right, which is more willing to employ
force and less amenable to concessions. The left includes the Labor Party and,
over the years, different small Jewish and Arab parties; the right comprises the
Likud and smaller secular and religious Jewish parties.
We focus here on one particular aspect of politics, elections, and explore their
role in the confl ict. The question we wish to consider is how elections, as the
most prominent mechanism of democratic politics, have molded the confl ict.
Are elections a meaningful tool for addressing this most fundamental issue that
the society faces? To what extent do elections in Israel center on the confl ict and
provide ways to come to grips with it? How does the confl ict play out in Israeli
elections in terms of agenda? Do voters vote on this issue? Does the election dis-
course deal with it? Do elections become a constructive arena for debate and
deliberation about the problems caused by the protracted confl ict and ways
to resolve it? To what extent do elections provide an effi cient outlet for public
opinion? Do elections translate public preferences into policy? Do they contribute
to the legitimacy of political decisions in this area?
Representation, Deliberation, and Legitimation in Elections
Our focus is on Israel, but our study falls within the tradition of empirical research
about elections as instruments of democracy, to use the terminology of Powell’s
(2000) landmark book. It builds on what is probably the strongest (normative and
empirical) claim for elections as instruments of democracy, that is, “that the com-
petitive election forges connections between the wishes of citizens and the behavior
of policy makers” (Powell, 2000: 14). Our study is broader than Powell’s or the
more recent study of McDonald and Budge (2005), both of which concentrate
on representation, because we also look at other important functions of elections
which pertain to this connection between citizens and policy-making. Our study
is narrower in that it is not cross-national and looks only at one country, albeit
over several elections and through a great variation of circumstances. Obviously,
To continue reading
Request your trial