Sharon’s attempts to defend himself didn’t help: a Supreme Court judge ordered Sharon’s live nationally televised press conference to be pulled off the air, citing a violation of the broadcasting law forbidding the airing of “election propaganda” within a month of the country’s Jan. 28 national election.
Sharon’s Likud party–itself besieged by accusations of party corruption–is suddenly fading fast. The latest polls show Likud taking 27 seats in the 120-member parliament, down from a projected 40 just two months ago. Most analysts believe Sharon is still the stronger candidate–Labor’s Amram Mitzna does not appear to be picking up Likud defectors. But a narrow election victory will leave Sharon with an unstable government and could bolster his rival for Likud leadership, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Gadi Wolfseld, a political scientist from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, says the Sharon plunge is only the latest twist in an election campaign that has continually defied expectations. He spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Dan Ephron.
NEWSWEEK: How bad do things look for Sharon?
Gadi Wolfseld: I think the basic question is not [about] the core voters of his Likud Party, who will remain loyal almost no matter what. The major question regards those who voted for other parties in the past but were going to back Sharon this time. These people are clearly upset by what they’ve seen in the last couple of weeks–and they have alternatives. I think it’s an open race now. Sharon is no longer a forgone conclusion.
But Sharon’s challenger, Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna, has not benefited from his rival’s misfortunes. Why are defectors going to other parties?
Mitzna is basically unknown and therefore suspect. In addition, he is seen as the same type of guy as [former prime minister] Ehud Barak–a young bright ex-general who hasn’t had any national political experience. Many people still feel that Barak was a terrible mistake. And many people believe that the Oslo deal with the Palestinians was a mistake, so that’s working against Mitzna.
Some people believe Labor can only win if it hides its doves. Mitzna has not been silent about his moderate views. What do you think?
As in any campaign, you want to play for the middle because that’s where the most votes are and where you can make a difference. But in Israel, the question is usually how people feel about the incumbent, how much resentment or anger there is against him. Up until now, Sharon has been the Teflon prime minister. Suddenly the Teflon is wearing off and things are sticking.
Other prime ministers have been investigated for financial wrongdoing. How bad does this scandal look?
This looks a little worse than previous ones because Sharon is not answering some central questions. He misled authorities by giving the statement that he raised the money [to pay back illegal campaign contributions] by mortgaging his farm, which is not true. And it’s not clear he was allowed to receive the money in the first place.
Is there any scenario in which Mitzna could win?
Probably not. But he might be able to get enough seats to prevent Sharon from forming a coalition without him. Some people are already talking about Sharon and Mitzna rotating as prime minister.
Who has gained from the corruption scandals in Likud?
Mainly the centrist Shinui party and the ultra-Orthodox Shas. Shas was heading for a tremendous defeat. [Now] most of the people who had left Shas are going back to it. And Shinui is looking very strong.
There’s a sense that politics here are fraught with corruption, much more than other Western democracies. Is that true or just a perception?
I think Israel has not yet thought carefully about the problematic relationship between money and politics. They’ve tried to fix the system, but there hasn’t been a serious comprehensive reform on separating money from politics. This happens elsewhere, but here there are just too many loopholes.
The predictable election mantras of peace and security are being heard less this time around. Why?
Conventional wisdoms have been all wrong in this campaign. People said that Sharon is really popular and nothing could touch him, but they were wrong. They said that terrorism would work in Likud’s favor, but the big attack this week [which killed 22 in a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv] failed to get people’s minds off the corruption issue. I could make a comparison between Sharon and [former U.S. president Bill] Clinton. When Clinton was in trouble for his sex scandal, his popularity remained high because he was giving the country peace and prosperity. But Sharon is providing neither, so the support for him is tenuous.
But it is said that Israelis have generally been shifting to the right, toward Sharon, since the start of the Palestinian uprising.
I think that’s another myth that’s been broken. If that were true then the people leaving Likud would be going to right-wing parties and not to the center. These parties are not doing well despite the intifada. Polls consistently show that Israelis are short-term hawks and long-term doves. Meaning that in the short term they want to make sure the other side doesn’t succeed in using violence to gain concessions, but in the long term they’re in favor of a two-state solution. So the idea that the Israeli electorate has moved radically to the right is nonsense.
