äîøëæ äîãéðé ìéùøàì
ìîãéðä éäåãéú ãîå÷øèéú (ò"ø)
The Israel Policy Center
Knesset Watch
A Periodical Report on the Voting Behavior
of Israeli Government and Knesset Members
on Constitutional, Foreign Policy and Jewish Identity Issues
Vol. II #1
16th Knesset—Summer 5763 (2003) Session
Jerusalem, January 2004
For Further Information:
Dr. Yitzhak Klein, 972-55-743391
© 2004 The Israel Policy Center
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer. Knesset Watch takes pains to report votes accurately. We cannot be responsible however for errors in the Knesset’s official vote-reporting system or inaccuracies stemming from reliance on newspapers of record. We are not responsible for damage caused, or perceived to be caused, by reliance on the information herein presented.
Knesset Watch
Volume II, Number 1
Contents
A. Explanatory Material
I. Introduction
II. Israel’s System of Government
III. Methodology
IV. Sources
V. Disclaimer
B. Main Tables and Charts are located in the accompanying Excel file.
Table 1: Knesset Member Rankings
Chart 1: Party Scores:
Chart 2: Party Range Chart: High, Low and Average
Table 2: Government Ministers in Government Votes
Table 3: Votes Monitored (brief guide)
C. Brief Analysis of Results
D. The Votes
Appendices are located in the accompanying Excel file.
Appendix 1: Knesset Members’ and Ministers’ Votes
Appendix 2: Party Scores
Knesset Watch
A Periodical Report on the Voting Behavior of Israeli Government and Knesset Members on Constitutional, Foreign Policy and Jewish Identity Issues
Readers are urged to study the explanatory material below before going on to examine the voting scoresheets
A. Explanatory Material
I. Introduction
Knesset Watch is a scoresheet of the votes of members of the Israeli Knesset (legislature) and government on constitutional issues, foreign policy issues, and issues concerning the Jewish identity of the State. The first number of Knesset Watch appeared just prior to the Israeli elections of January 2003 and covered the period of the first Sharon government, from February 2001. The elections inaugurated the 16th Knesset since Israel’s foundation, and of course changed the composition of the Knesset. The party composition of the Israeli government changed as well. Volume II of Knesset Watch covers the voting behavior of Knesset members and members of the Israeli government during the tenure of the 16th Knesset. Ordinarily, the Knesset sits two sessions a year—a summer session and a winter session. Each session will be covered in a new number of Knesset Watch.
The Israel Policy Center is a private, nonprofit research and educational institution located in Jerusalem, working to promote Israel’s character as a Jewish democratic state. The Center publishes Knesset Watch to inform scholars and the interested public about the voting behavior of Israel’s elected officials.
The core of Knesset Watch lies in the appendix tables, beginning on page 17. These tables show the individual votes of each member of the Israeli Knesset and government on all the votes monitored by Knesset Watch. The rest of the material in Knesset Watch is commentary and explanation, but serious students of the Knesset will want to familiarize themselves with the appendices.
We are pleased to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Rivka Markus, Director of the Knesset Archives, and Ms. Irena Usviskii, also of the Knesset Archives, without whose generous contributions of time and courteous assistance this edition of Knesset Watch could not have been produced.
II. Israel’s System of Government
Israel has a Parliamentary system of government. The people elect a unicameral legislature (the Knesset) with 120 members. The system of election is proportional, and voters cast ballots for a party list, not individual legislators.[1] The government must enjoy the confidence of the legislature, though just prior to the 2003 elections Israel adopted the “constructive no-confidence” clause of the German constitution: The government cannot fall unless a majority of the Knesset membership (i.e. at least 61 members) endorses an alternative candidate for Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must be a Knesset member, but up to half the government ministers may be non-Knesset members. The government constituted in February 2003 consists of 23 ministers, three of them non-Knesset members.
A critical and increasingly controversial aspect of Israeli politics is the relationship between the legislature and government, on the one hand, and the Supreme Court, commonly considered one of the most activist in the democratic world. To a considerable degree, this is due to the unusual independence of the Supreme Court from the rest of the political system: Israeli judges are appointed by a committee of 3 Supreme Court judges, two representatives of the bar, and four politicians, only three of whom represent the governing coalition. Traditionally, the Supreme Court justices have dominated the nomination procedure, making the judicial system essentially independent of the people’s representatives. Political conflict over the role and independence of the Court is the main issue of Israeli “constitutional” politics today.
Israel has no written constitution. Every state has however a “constitution,” in the sense of rules of the political game determining how elections are held, what the relative power of different branches of government are, etc. For purposes of Knesset Watch “constitutional” issues are taken to mean issues touching the structure of government and the relative power of its constituent parts.
III. Methodology
Knesset Watch monitors “important” votes on three sets of issues: constitutional, foreign policy, and the Jewish nature of the State as reflected in the public domain. Broadly speaking, these three issues define the main fault line of Israeli politics. The Israeli Right tends to be in favor of increasing the power of the Knesset and, to a lesser degree, the government, while curtailing the autonomy of the judicial system and the state prosecutor’s office; to be skeptical of the possibility of peace with the Palestinians and other Arab states and opposed to the ceding of territory; and in favor of legislation strengthening or maintaining the Jewish identity of the State. The Israeli Left tends, broadly speaking, to take the opposite side on these issues. Knesset Watch assigns each Knesset member and government minister a composite score based on votes on all these issues together; votes on the same “side” of the major political divide are scored the same way.
Constitutional, Foreign Policy, and “Jewish” Votes. As the term of the 16th Knesset progresses and the database of votes monitored increases, we will break down individual members’ scores according to the three main categories we monitor, in addition to presenting composite scores. With this first issue devoted to the 16th Knesset, however, we felt the database contained too few scored votes (10 in all, 13 including votes in the government) for scoring according to the type of vote to be meaningful. However, each vote has been classified according to its subject matter: “Jewish,” constitutional, or foreign policy. The votes monitored for this issue of Knesset Watch are listed briefly in Table 3 on page 8 and described in detail in the Section entitled “The Votes,” starting on page 11.
What is an “important” vote? Knesset Watch tries to include in its purview all votes that are pertinent and important. In the Knesset this includes votes in which bills are voted down in the first reading and bills passed in the final (third) reading. In the government this includes votes on major policy decisions.
Hundreds of bills are introduced each session of the Knesset; very few are voted into law. Bills which the government introduces and has an interest in passing, usually do come to a vote. Most private members’ bills, however, never become the subject of a vote. Of the minority that do, most are first voted on in a “first reading,” after which they are passed on to one of the Knesset’s committees. Most bills passed in their “first reading” expire in committee. For a bill to be brought to a vote and lose in its first reading is unusual; it means that the bill’s proponents considered it important enough to bring to a vote, and its opponents considered it important enough to kill at the start of the legislative process. Such votes are important indicators of where Knesset members stand on the issues. They are therefore included in our database. Bills that becomes law, whether originating with the government or individual members’ bills, are obviously important and are included in our database.
In addition to votes on legislation, the Knesset conducts numerous votes conveying the sense of the Knesset on policy issues. While not binding, these votes sometimes play an important role in legitimizing (or otherwise) certain policies. Occasionally, Knesset Watch will monitor these votes. Thus for example we report in this issue on two votes held on the legitimacy, first, of the “Road Map” adopted by the government, calling for the first time for a Palestinian state, and second, of the dismantling of so-called “unauthorized” settlements in Judaea and Samaria, a policy pursuant to the “Road Map.”
Scoring. Each minister and MK is given a score for each vote. Our convention has been to grant a positive score of 1 for each vote in favor of increased power for the Knesset, for a more conservative foreign policy, or for strengthening or maintaining the Jewish nature of the state. Votes against are given a score of -1. It must be emphasized however that the assignment of a positive or negative score is merely a convention adopted to differentiate between different policy positions and allow the calculation of cumulative scores. Abstention is registered as 0; a Knesset member who refrains from voting or absents him/herself from the vote is assigned no score (functionally, the equivalent of “0”).
In this issue of Knesset Watch the scoring of the two “sense of the Knesset” votes on the “Road Map” and settlement dismantling constituted a special problem. Opposition to the government’s position was divided into two radically different sentiments: Those who felt that the government’s concessions toward the Palestinians went too far, and those who felt they did not nearly go far enough. In both votes, voting divided strictly according to coalitional lines. Someone who felt the government had gone too far was not likely to vote against the government, because that would appear to strengthen the opposition, which felt the government had not gone far enough. The most he or she could do was absent his- or herself from the vote (or abstain, amounting to the same thing). However, there is usually no objective way to distinguish between a Knesset member who attempted to express a political opinion by staying away from a vote and those who simply did not care enough about the issue to come to vote (one clear exception is the vote on settlement dismantling, in which the entire Shas party decided to abstain or not vote). Due to this ambiguity, we have simply recorded who voted for the government’s position (“F”), who against (“A”), who abstained (“0”) and who stayed away, without including these votes in our calculation of Knesset members’ scores.
In addition to the votes of individual Knesset members and ministers, scores are calculated for the various parties in the Knesset. This is done by adding the scores of all the party’s members in the Knesset and the government and dividing by the number of party members
Government Ministers and the Mofaz anomaly. Government ministers who are Knesset members, as most of them are, vote in the Knesset and also in the government. Each individual vote of a minister carries proportionally less weight than ordinary Knesset members’ votes in establishing their records. To get around this problem, each minister and Knesset member is scored on a uniform scale of 0 to 10. For ordinary Knesset members this means a simple sum of their individual votes. Ministers’ scores are divided by 1.3 (since they could potentially vote in 13 votes as opposed to ordinary Knesset members’ 10).
Three ministers are not Knesset members and could vote only in the three government votes monitored. Their “scores” are multiplied by 3.33 to conform to the 0-to-10 scale used elsewhere in this issue of Knesset Watch. For two ministers this gives a reasonably fair representation of their position. Shaul Mofaz, the Minister of Defense belonging to the Likud party, earned however a “-10” by voting “leftward” on all three government votes. Taken at face value, this score would make him the most left-leaning individual in Israel’s political system, hardly an accurate description. We have left his individual score intact, but have calculated the composite score of the Likud party both with and without his individual score.
IV. Sources. Knesset votes are taken from the Knesset’s records. Government votes are not, in principle, made available to the public. We have however based our scores on reports in reputable newspapers of record. In certain cases we contacted the offices of Ministers to verify how they had voted.
V. Disclaimer. Knesset Watch takes pains to report votes accurately. We cannot be responsible however for errors in the Knesset’s official vote-reporting system or inaccuracies stemming from reliance on newspapers of record. We are not responsible for damage caused, or perceived to be caused, by reliance on the information herein presented.
C. Brief Analysis of Results
Careful analysis of the Knesset Watch will, one hopes, reveal interesting aspects of Israel’s political system in the 16th Knesset. Our object here is to draw the reader’s attention to some significant first-order findings that emerge from the data.
I. The wide gap between Right and Left. Knesset Watch I, covering the period of the first Sharon government (February 2001-November 2002), found the gap between the Labor party’s score and the Likud’s to be small. During this period Likud and Labor were in coalition together, For the 16th Knesset, with Labor in opposition, the gap between the two is very wide. In fact, both left-wing parties that claim to be Zionist score to the left of every Arab party (see Chart 1 on P. 6)—Labor by a hairsbreadth, Meretz very significantly. Meretz is now the extreme left wing of the Knesset on constitutional, foreign policy and “Jewish” subjects. Am Ehad, headed by Amir Peretz, the head of the Histadrut labor union, is to the left of any coalition members but far closer to the coalition in its positions than to the labor party.
II. A Gap Opens between NRP and National Union. In Knesset Watch I The National Religious Party (NRP) and the National Union were unsurprisingly on the right wing of the Knesset. Their voting patterns and voting scores differed only slightly. During the 16th Knesset, National Union’s voting patterns are considerably to the right of the National Religious Party. The parties differed substantially on two votes: the NRP supported the continued transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority while the National Union opposed, and the NRP supported an amendment to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty that would make it easier for the Supreme Court to use the law to strike down ordinary legislation. The National Union opposed.
III. Shas in opposition votes much farther to the right than it did in the previous Knesset, when it was in the government. This no doubt reflects Shas’ attempt to be more attractive to disgruntled Likud voters. Shas’ foreign policy stance remains ambiguous. The party absented itself from the vote on the Prime Minister’s speech regarding the dismantling of “illegal” settlements (one member remained in the plenum to cast an abstaining vote), though in the vote on the Prime Minister’s statement in favor of the Road Map it voted with the opposition. Whether Shas opposes the government from the Right or the Left remains unknown.
Aguda’s score is close to the NRP’s, but an examination of the votes reveals a fundamental difference. Aguda comes out strongly to vote on issues of constitutional or “Jewish” significance. Its Knesset members seldom vote on foreign policy issues.
IV. Shinui’s score is almost identical to Likud’s. This represents Shinui’s apparent commitment to conforming to the coalition’s position, even when that position is to the right of Shinui’s foreign policy stance, not to mention its stance on the Jewish nature of the state. Shinui members voted against both measures we monitor which were intended to weaken the power of the Rabbinical vourts; the measures were introduced by Meretz, which is in opposition. Shinui’s discomfort at being in this position began to be reflected in the winter of 2003-2004, after the period covered by this number of Knesset Watch, in repeated attempts to break apart the coalition and replace the right-wing parties with Labor. While the coalition lasts, however, Shinui seems prepared to vote the coalition line.
V. The Government. The government as a whole votes (in government votes) rather to the left of the Knesset. This is consistently true for all parties (see Table 2, “Government Ministers in Government Votes,” p. 7).
VI. Noteworthy Individual Voting Records. The highest-scoring MKs in Knesset Watch 2.1 are Arieh Eldad and Michael Nudelman, both of the National Union and Nissim Ze’ev of Shas, all with a score of 9; Knesset Watch I’s high scorer, Uri Ariel, this time scored 8. Several Likud MKs received high scores, notably Omri Sharon, who scored 6. At the other end of the spectrum, Dani Yatom (Labor), Avshalom Vilan and Roman Bronfman of Meretz, and Ahmed Tibi of the Democratic Front for Change (Arab) all scored -8, Tibi retaining his place from Knesset Watch I as the “low” scorer.
Low scorers in Shas were the chairman, MK Eli Yishai, and MK Yitzhak Cohen. Eached scored only 1, having participated in only one each of our monitored votes.
Four Likud ministers collectively share the lowest Likud score (-1.54): Ariel Sharon, Meir Shetreet, Ehud Olmert, and Binyamin Netanyahu. Ayyub Kara, one of the Likud’s high scorers in Knesset Watch I, has slipped to a middle position (score of 2); he participated in less than half the votes. Uzi Landau, on the right wing of the Likud, scored only a 4 on his Knesset votes, and only 3.08 overall (he is a government minister).
Surprisingly, Amran Mitzna, one of the leaders of the Geneva initiative, shares with Binyamin ben-Eliezer the position as Labor’s highest scorer (-1 each). Each took part only in one vote. Dalia Itzik, Labor’s high scorer in Knesset Watch I, is now head of the coalition, requiring her, no doubt, to appear more often on the floor of the Knesset. She now scores a -7, rather lower than the average for her party.
Amir Peretz of Am Ehad and Minister Tzahi Hanegbi of the Likud did not participate in a single one of the monitored Knesset votes, though Hanegbi participated in all three government votes.
Shinui’s supposed “right wing” minority did not give particular evidence of its existence in this Knesset. MK Viktor Brailovskii got one of the highest scores in Shinui, but his score was not exceptional and was far short of his score in Knesset Watch I . Science Minister Eliezer (“Modi”) Zandberg scored well to the left of his party’s average, an outcome influenced to a considerable degree by his conformist votes in the government. Together with Minister Joseph Paritzky, a former Meretz member, Zandberg was Shinui’s lowest scorer.
It should be emphasized once again that a “high” score need not be interpreted as inherently good, nor a “low” score bad. These are merely conventions Knesset Watch uses to indicate individuals’ relative position on the political spectrum.
D. Guide to the Votes
I. Votes for Which Data Could Not Be Obtained
In the spring and summer of 2003 the 16th Knesset held two sessions (the third began October 20, 2003 and will end March 24, 2004). The first session was a truncated one, held in February and March 2003 after the elections of January 28, 2003. During this session the Knesset’s automated vote-recording system broke down and failed to function. The votes of individual Knesset members during this period are lost to posterity. The Knesset protocols record only the total number of votes for or against a motion, and sometimes not even that—only the laconic statement that a motion passed or failed to pass.
This short session included at least two important votes. The first was the vote of confidence which established the second Sharon government. The second was a vote on a resolution (actually, several resolutions) regarding the Akaba Conference, at which Prime Minister Sharon, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Mazen), and the President of the United States met to endorse the notion of a territorial compromise and a Palestinian state. This was the first formal step Prime Minister Sharon took toward realizing his objective of permitting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The Sharon government had not intended to bring the subject of the Akaba conference to a vote in the Knesset, preferring not to have to expend political capital drumming up support for a controversial policy. The opposition was determined to have a vote on the issue, however, and force the Likud party and its coalition members to put their support for a Palestinian state on record. A “sense of the Knesset” resolution supporting the Prime Minister’s policy passed, but we have no official record of the votes cast. We do not know how extensive support for the motion was in the Likud or its right-wing coalition members, or how the opposition voted and whether its support was necessary for the resolution to pass.
II. Votes Monitored
All our scored votes date to the second (summer) session of 2003, when the Knesset’s automated vote recording machinery resumed functioning.
These votes are recorded in Table # and in the Appendix tables by number, roughly corresponding to the date (and time) of each vote. The subject of each vote is described below.
Vote #1, May 14, 2003: Amendment to the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law
Forum: Knesset
Type: Jewish
Subject: Private bill P/95, MK Zehava Gal-On (Meretz). 1st Reading (defeated)
This proposal would limit the authority of Rabbinical courts to deal with matters such as child custody, property rights, and alimony. Such matters could be dealt with only by consent of both parties; absent such consent, the Rabbinical courts’ jurisdiction would be limited to the actual granting of a divorce. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this bill as 1; support for it as -1.
Vote #2, May 14, 2003: “Chief Legal Advisor” to the Government.
Forum: Knesset
Type: Constitutional
Subject: Private bill P/244, MK Roman Bronfman (Meretz) et al. 1st reading (defeated)
The Attorney General in Israel’s system of government enjoys wide powers and considerable autonomy in determining the legality of government actions. This bill would rename the office of Attorney General “chief legal advisor.” Substantively, it grants the government authority to dismiss the “chief legal advisor” but vests authority to nominate this official in a committee of five, only of two of whom are elected officials. The rest would be unelected representatives of various branches of the legal establishment (the Supreme Court, the bar, and faculties of law). In practice, this would lessen elected officials’ influence over the appointment and strengthen the role of bodies traditionally in favor of lessening this influence. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this bill as 1, in favor as -1.
Vote #3, May 21, 2003: “Dismantling Settlements in Friction Zones”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Private bill P/30, MK Ran Cohen (Meretz) et al. 1st reading (defeated)
This bill would authorize the immediate dismantling of 12 (or perhaps 11) Jewish settlements in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this proposal as 1, a vote in favor as -1.
Vote #4, May 21, 2003: “Prohibiting the Transfer of Funds to the Palestinian Authority”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Private bill P/299, MK Arieh Eldad (National Union) et al. 1st reading (defeated)
This bill would prohibit the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority unless the government certified that the Authority had engaged in a sustained and serious campaign against terror for a period of at least 18 months. Knesset Watch scored a vote in favor of this bill as 1, a vote against as -1.
Vote #5, June 11, 2003: Amendment to Basic Law: Human Liberty and Dignity
Forum: Knesset
Type: Constitutional
Subject: Private bill P/16, MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz). 1st Reading (defeated)
This amendment would make a majority of 61 MKs necessary to amend the Basic Law on Human Liberty and Dignity.
The purpose of the amendment was not to prevent amendment of the law, but to grant it special status as a “constitutional bill,” making it less politically controversial for the Supreme Court to use the Basic Law as a basis on which to overturn a broad range of legislation. Since no human rights issue was actually at stake, but only a tactical maneuver meant to increase the power of the courts at the expense of elected representatives, Knesset Watch scores a vote against the amendment as 1, a vote in favor as -1.
Vote #6, July 2, 2003: Amendment to “Jewish Religious Services Law”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Jewish
Subject: Private bill P/393, MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz). 1st reading (defeated)
This bill would invalidate judgments of the rabbinical courts that contradict any judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court. The effect would be to curtail the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical courts and, to a considerable degree, force them to apply Israeli civil law. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this bill as 1, a vote for as -1.
Vote #7, July 23, 2003: Amendment to “Civil Courts Law.”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Constitutional
Subject: Private bill P/596, MK David Azulai (Shas) et al. 1st reading (defeated)
Judges in Israel are appointed by a 9-member Judicial Appointments Committee, whose deliberations are confidential. This bill would require the committee to record and publish its protocols, increasing the transparency of the judicial appointments process. Knesset Watch scores a vote in favor of this bill as 1, a vote against as -1.
Vote #8, July 23, 2003: “ ‘Road Map’ Law”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Private bill P/881, MK Ahmed Tibi (Democratic Front for Change [Arab]). 1st reading (defeated)
The “Road Map” calls for the Palestinian Authority and Israel each to carry out certain steps, independently of whether the other party is fulfilling its obligations. This bill would require the government to authorize the “Road Map” as drafted by the American government (i.e., without the 14 reservations originally appended by the government of Israel) and to implement the Israeli obligations under the “Road Map” immediately. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this proposal as 1, a vote in favor as -1.
Vote #9, July 31, 2003: Amendment to the “Law on Citizenship and Entry to Israel”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Government bill amending the “Law on Citizenship and Entry to Israel;” 3rd reading (passed)
In order to combat the growing phenomenon of Palestinians, including terrorists, gaining citizenship and the right of entry to Israel by marrying Israeli citizens, this bill established a committee empowered to deny entry and citizenship to Palestinians (this bill was eventually strucj down by Israel’s Supreme Court). Knesset Watch scores a vote in favor of this bill as 1, a vote against as -1.
Vote #10, July 31, 2003: Amendment to “Law on Emergency Regulations in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza—Jurisprudence.”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Private bill P/659, MK Uri Ariel (National Union). 3rd reading (passed)
Israeli law has hitherto prohibited the registration of corporations and nonprofit organizations whose address of record is in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. This amendment legalizes such registration, and constitutes an extension of Israeli sovereignty in these areas. Knesset Watch scores a vote in favor of this amendment as 1, a vote against as -1.
Vote #11, May 25, 2002: The “Road Map.”
Forum: Government
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Vote on acceptance of the American government’s “Road Map” for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement (passed)
The “Road Map” calls for unilateral Israeli actions to implement its share of the “Map” and for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The government appointed 14 reservations to its acceptance of the “Road Map,” including the provision that the status of Israeli settlements in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza would not be discussed prior to a final settlement, with the exception of so-called “illegal outposts” (i.e. not approved by the Israeli government). Knesset Watch scores a vote against the “Road Map” as 1, a vote in favor as -1.
Vote #12, August 4, 2003: Primaries in the Likud party.
Forum: Government
Type: Constitutional
Subject: Vote to authorize the submission to the Knesset of a law requiring candidates for the Knesset to be elected by membership-wide primaries in large political parties (passed)
Despite its ostensibly “democratic” character, this legislative proposal is aimed at one party, the Likud, and for one particular purpose: to help Prime Minister Sharon reduce the power of his opponents within his own party. The law applies to parties with 15 Knesset members and 30,000 registered members; the latter clause was added in order to exclude the Shinui party, which has 15 MKs but an exiguous membership. Personal primaries are, moreover, inimical to Parliamentary-type democracies, of Israel is one, in which political party institutions generally play a central role in shaping the policy and leadership options presented to the public. Knesset Watch scores a vote against this proposal as 1, a vote in favor as -1.
Vote #13, August 7 & 27, 2003: Prisoner exchange deal with the Hizballah
Forum: Government
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Decision to free a large number of prisoners and security offenders in exchange for the remains of Israeli soldiers abducted by the Lebanese Hizballah (passed)
This decision raised much controversy. Proponents of the decision argued that it was essential to bring home the remains of fallen Israeli soldiers. Opponents encouraged a tougher stance, arguing that the decision essentially paid ransom to the Hizballah and encouraged further abductions. Voting took place on two occasions: the first authorized the exchange in principle, the second approved the list of prisoners to be freed. Knesset Watch scores a vote against the proposed deal as 1, a vote in favor, on either of the two occasions, as -1.
Vote #14, June 16, 2003: Prime Minister Sharon’s statement on the “Road Map.”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Vote on Prime Minister’s statement
This vote was held in the wake of the Prime Minister’s statement to the Knesset defending the decision to accept the “Road Map.” Due to ambiguity in interpreting the significance of abstentions, Knesset Watch simply records the ayes and nays and excludes this vote from Knesset members’ scores.
Vote #15, July 21, 2003: Prime Minister Sharon’s statement on the policy of dismantling “illegal outposts.”
Forum: Knesset
Type: Foreign Policy
Subject: Vote on Prime Minister’s statement
As part of the government’s policy of implementing the “Road Map,” it was announced that the government would dismantle so-called “illegal outposts,” established supposedly without proper formal authorization (in fact all had been approved informally). Prime Minister Sharon’s statement to the Knesset defending this policy was the subject of a vote. Again, due to ambiguity in interpreting the significance of abstentions, Knesset Watch simply records the ayes and nays and excludes this vote from Knesset members’ scores.
Appendices
Guide to the Appendices
The appendices contain the basic information on which Knesset Watch is based. They show the voting behavior of each Knesset member and each minister for each vote monitored in this number of Knesset Watch.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1 lists the Knesset members alphabetically, showing how each voted and giving a cumulative score on a scale of 1 to 10. Knesset members are scored on 10 votes. Government ministers who are also Knesset members are scored on 13 votes, including three in the government. Their score is divided by 1.3 to produce a final score on the same scale as ordinary Knesset members. Three ministers who are not Knesset members are scored on the three government votes. They are grouped separately at the end of Appendix 1.
A vote of “1” is not necessarily a vote for a bill; depending on the bill’s content, it may be a vote against. A detailed guide to the votes and to the way each one is scored begins on page 11 above.
The two votes held on Prime Minister Sharon’s foreign policy statements were not scored. We only record whether Knesset members voted for (F) or against (A).
Appendix 2
Appendix 2 groups Knesset members and ministers by party. This makes it possible to calculate average scores for each party, based on the votes of their Knesset members and ministers. A separate score for the Likud is calculated without the score of Shaul Mofaz, whose voting presents an anomaly (see explanation on page 4).
Appendix 2 also gives each party’s average on each particular vote scored; this is the sum of the party’s member’s votes, divided by the number of members. The result is a number from -1 to 1. This is an indicator of the intensity of a party’s support for any particular bill (an average score of 0.8 shows more intense support than 0.2) and also is an indicator of where parties differ on the issues. For example, on vote 4, a bill to prohibit the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority, The National Religious Party scored -0.50—it opposed the bill—while the National Union scored +0.43, supporting the bill.
Party averages on Knesset votes are based on the votes of Knesset members. Scores on government votes are based on the votes of the party’s ministers only (where relevant).
[1] From 1996 to 2002, the Prime Minister was elected directly in a separate ballot cast at the same time as the ballot for the Knesset. This system was considered to contribute to the instability of governments and was abolished just prior to the 2003 elections, when Israel reverted to a single ballot for Parliamentary lists only.