By Daniel Lane ‘03

After the recent election in Israel, right wing nationalist hard-liner Arial Sharon became the Prime Minister of Israel, winning nearly sixty percent of the vote. The election in Israel holds great importance not only to the most volatile area in the world, but also to the rest of the world as well: especially the United States.  To understand the consequences of this recent election we must delve into the issues at hand and the political candidates who were running.  The main issue in this election was the problem of reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians led by Yasser Arafat.  This by no means is a new issue or one that will be easily resolved.  The issue is land. 

Both the Israeli’s and Palestinian’s have legitimate claims to the land.  The UN declared Israel a Jewish homeland in 1948 after the atrocities of the Holocaust. The Palestinians inhabited Israel before this, but the Jews also had a claim to the land that dates back over one thousand years.  So what does this all mean?  Why did it affect the election? After former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered East Jerusalem plus the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians as a homeland, the Palestinians rejected Barak’s proposal claiming that it was not sufficient.  This frightened the citizens of Israel, causing a general feeling that the Palestinians really are not looking for a peace settlement.  This fear rallied the people of Israel to quickly oust left-winger Ehud Barak, for the Hawkish Likud party leader Arial Sharon. 

What’s the difference between these candidates? It’s simple; the two leading candidates represent the two main schools of thought on the Palestinian question.   Ehud Barak represented the left wing approach: land for peace.  The premise of this platform is that peace is the most important outcome in any settlement. Should this mean giving up parts of Israel including East Jerusalem then so be it.  Arial Sharon, on the other hand, represents the right wing position.  He and his sympathizers are skeptical about the peace process feeling that Palestinians will never be satiated until all of Jerusalem and Israel is out of Jewish control.  This position puts the main emphasis on keeping Jerusalem in Israeli hands.  Usually Israel is split on these issues, however this election is indicative of a great right wing slide in Israeli political thinking. 

Israel, more than most other nations have a very politically-minded public. Israel boasts a voter turnout of about eighty percent, over thirty percent higher then the United States.  There are three reasons for this change.  The first is the current situation that has gone on for the last four months.  Violence has reared its ugly head in Israel claiming the lives of nearly four hundred people. After Barak’s peace plan was rejected, the Israeli people lost faith in him and his peace policies. The majority of Israelis backed Arial Sharon and his platform.  Sharon’s main premise during his campaign was to insure the Israeli people that no part of Jerusalem would be given up. 

The second reason deals more with Barak’s internal issues, which was his main issue back in 1998 while campaigning.  Barak made many promises to the Israeli people and was unable to deliver on most if not all of them.  So, the Israeli’s who supported him because of his internal policy proposals lost faith in him as well.  The third reason deals not with Israeli Jews, but the Israeli Palestinian population.  As Jews have lost faith in Barak so have the Israeli Palestinians.  They total about one million voters and were in Barak’s victory over Netanyahu in 1999.

With these three keys in mind it should be no surprise that Sharon won so easily.  But, the daunting task is not winning control of the country; it’s running it.  Can Sharon bring balance to a torn country?  Only time will tell.

Back To The Main Page

Tell us what you think.

About this page.