It was clear before the balloting in Israel that the claims that the population was moving to the right, that radical extremists were about to take over (an argument curiously absent when the Muslim Brotherhood actually does gain power), and that democracy in Israel was imperilled, were flatly wrong. But the results amply demonstrated that fact.

 

To be generous, at best the external view of Israeli politics is two decades out of date. Elections are not between left and right ideological blocs, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not a hardliner or right-winger, and the “peace process” — which most Israelis believe no longer actually exists — is not the prime issue at all.

 

Roughly, as the 2013 election results confirm, the Israeli electorate does include three blocs which each gain about 10 per cent of the vote: the Arab-controlled parties (Communists, Arab nationalists, and Islamist) which never co-operate; Jewish religious parties (“European-origin” and “Middle Eastern” origin, to put it simply) which represent two distinct constituencies; and far right, whose vote count has remained roughly the same over many years. Another five per cent comprise a left-wing Zionist party.

 

The remaining two-thirds of the electorate votes roughly in a spectrum that coincides with that of Canada, and it is their choices that provide the main governing parties. They constitute five parties ranging from the centre-right Likud of Netanyahu, through three centre-centre parties, to the moderate left Labour party.

 

All of these voters are skeptical about Palestinian intentions. They support a two-state solution but doubt that either the Palestinian Authority which rules the West Bank and now says that Palestine is an independent state that doesn’t need to negotiate with Israel or, Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip and openly calls for genocide of the Jews, is likely to provide a stable, reliable peace.

 

Given this consensus, the lessons of Palestinian rejectionism in the 1990s’ peace process, and the lack of current opportunity, the election simply did not focus on these issues. It revolved mainly about domestic issues. In economic terms, Israel has done well in recent years, especially compared to Europe and the United States. Now, however, the budget has gotten too big in relation to income, while high prices — especially for housing — have stirred lots of complaints.

 

The three centre-centre parties — Yesh Atid (There’s a Future) of Yair Lapid; Hatnua (The Movement) of former prime minister Tsipi Livni; and Kadima (Forward) of former army chief of staff Shaul Mofaz — all appeal to those looking for moderation, attention to domestic issues, and promised good government. These three parties received about one-quarter of the seats.

 

Lapid did the best. A well-liked television personality who turned to politics, he followed in the footsteps of his father who did precisely the same thing. His success was due to being a fresh face and assembling an impressive team of people from the public sphere, none of whom had ever been in parliament before.

 

Netanyahu gained another one-quarter of the vote, slightly disappointing for him but enough to win. One reason for the slump is that many voted for Lapid with the intention that the two men form a coalition in which Lapid could press Netanyahu on economic reforms and more social spending, among other issues.

 

Aside from those specific issues, the policies of the next government are likely to be pretty much the same as during Netanyahu’s previous term.

 

Of course, it will face the big question of whether or not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities if and when that country gets the bomb. There is no clear answer as to what will happen. As on other issues, there is no simple left-right divide on this point, with political, military, and intelligence leaders taking individual stances on both sides of the debate based on their judgment regarding the costs and benefits of such an operation.

 

There was no turn to the right. Indeed, the two leftist Jewish parties received double the vote of the far right party, which united that portion of the spectrum and had a dynamic new leader but got the usual portion of the vote for that standpoint. Nor is there any enhanced hard line stance. Netanyahu accepted a two-state solution in 1996 and is dealing with a situation in which the Palestinian Authority refused to hold serious talks throughout his entire term, despite favourable concessions and encouragement offered to it by President Barack Obama.

 

Now the political stage turns to building a new government coalition. President Shimon Peres will give Netanyahu a (renewable) three-week period to get the signatures of parties holding at least 61 seats (a majority of the 120 members) in parliament. This is a complex game of deal-making to establish what each potential partner wants in terms of policies, cabinet posts, and money from the government for its constituencies.

 

Netanyahu’s personal relations with the right-wing leader Naftali Bennett are quite strained, though it is possible he would join the government in a position of weakness. Netanyahu would prefer, however, to make a deal with Lapid and the small Kadima Party, which would bring him to 52 of the 61, bridging that gap with a religious party. Both Labour and Livni refuse to join a coalition with him. The process of assembling a coalition is going to be messy and full of rumours.

 

The bottom line, though, is that Israel has just held a thoroughly democratic election with remarkably little rancour, extremism, or ideology in the midst of the world’s longest conflict and in the world’s most turbulent region. That is the kind of signal achievement the world should be accurately understanding and appreciating.

 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.

 

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen