While it has become quite normal for the budget to drag into the new year, no Israeli government has ever fallen over the budget. But on March 15, 2005, there is still no State Budget for this year, and there is no apparent majority in the Knesset for its passage by the end of the month.
Ariel Sharon currently leads a coalition of 66 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. But as many as 13 members of his own Likud party are threatening to vote against the budget due to their opposition to Sharon's Disengagement Plan and his continuing stubborn refusal to hold a national referendum on the issue.
There is no question in my mind that the Disengagement Plan is a dreadful mistake. Every last remnant of Zionist ideology will die with the Plan's implementation, and what is completely unacceptable in any other country in the world – the forceful removal of Jews from their homes – will become implemented policy in the Jewish State. Such action is completely unconscionable, and its perpetrators deserve to be driven from office. Yet voting against the budget to achieve that aim would be wrong – for two reasons.
First, Ariel Sharon's government, under the spirited economic vision of Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has implemented far-reaching reforms in the economy's structure. To vote against the continuation of those measures would signal that Israel's leaders are not interested in the country's economic strength or future development, which in turn would send investors scurrying for the nearest shelter outside Israel. Such a vote would in itself cause grave damage to Israel's economy at precisely the time when strong growth is beginning to re-appear after Netanyahu almost single-handedly ended Israel's longest economic recession ever.
But there is another reason why bringing down the government now would be a mistake. Simply put, the Israeli right has no alternative to Sharon as Prime Minister. If an election is held now, in the shadow of the Disengagement Plan, there are only three possible outcomes. The most likely outcome is that Sharon will win re-election, which will give him an incontrovertible mandate to carry out the plan with no further delay. Another possibility is that whatever candidate runs at the head of the Labor party will be elected, and will carry out a much farther-reaching plan to evacuate Jews from their homes in additional parts of the country. The third possibility is that Sharon is unseated in the Likud primary and another candidate wins power with fewer seats. Let us examine each of these alternatives in reverse order.
It is almost unheard of for a ruling party to unseat the incumbent Prime Minister after the fall of the government. This gives voters the idea that even the ruling party does not trust its own leadership, which drives voters to other parties. But let's say that this does happen in the Likud. Who would take over?
Netanyahu could do so. But he has not given voters a clear picture of his own stand on Disengagement, and Netanyahu is one of the craftiest politicians around. If he waffles, the result cannot be good.
The other alternatives are all either clones of Netanyahu – no clear stand and therefore not likely to stop the Disengagement – or of Sharon – Ehud Olmert can be credited with conceiving the plan in the first place, and Shaul Mofaz is one of its most ardent champions.
If Sharon is unseated in the Likud, and the new Likud leader does manage to win an election, the Disengagement Plan will still be implemented in all likelihood, though tit may take a bit longer to do it.
If Labor wins the election, they will have a free hand to implement the plan plus whatever else they can scheme. If the main issue in the election is Disengagement, and the voters reject Sharon's plan in favor of something more left-wing, and even less Zionist, no one will be able to stop Labor from divesting Israel of all of Judea and Samaria in addition to Gaza – and possibly even re-dividing Jerusalem.
Lastly, if Sharon is re-elected, he will be able to claim a legitimate mandate from the people for his plan, and all opposition will be considered extremist and not worth relating to. The same attitude was held by the Israeli government toward its citizens in the summer of 1995, in the aftermath of Oslo II. Does the Israeli right really want a replay of that dreadful summer of doom?
Currently, Sharon has no public mandate for the Disengagement Plan. A national referendum could grant him that mandate, or it could reinforce the public vote against such a plan that was first voice in the 2003 election. Either way, the dangers for the right inherent in a new election would be avoided.
It is a sad truth that the idea of a referendum will likely never be implemented due to Knesset obstruction. For it is the only productive way to prevent Disengagement. It is an even sadder truth that there is no other way. For the Israeli right is so completely bereft of electable leadership that bringing down this government is the easiest way to grant full legitimacy to the Disengagement Plan. And that would be political suicide.
Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Yehuda Poch is a journalist living in Israel. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission of the author only.
