• No results found

The Voting Patterns of the Settlers 2013 Knesset Elections

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Voting Patterns of the Settlers 2013 Knesset Elections"

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

The Voting Patterns of the Settlers –2013 Knesset Elections

Peace Now, Settlement Watch

Main Findings:

• The settler population constitutes 4.14% of the electorates in Israel, equaling 5 Members of Knesset (MKs) out of 120.

• 11 MKs (9%) of the 120 newly elected Knesset Members, reside in the settlements. 5 are members of the “Likud Beitenu” party, a composition of the “Likud” party, headed by PM Netanyahu and by “Israel Beitenu” party, headed by Avigdor Liberman (who himself lives in the settlement of Nokdim); 5 are members of the “Bait Hayehudi” (“The Jewish Home”) party led by Naftali Bennet; 1 is a member of “Yesh Atid” party, led by former journalist Yair Lapid.

• The voter turnout among the settlers was slightly over 83%, higher than the national average of 67.6%.

• The most popular party among the setters was the “Bait Hayehudi” party, with nearly 28% of the votes, over 3 times higher than the 9% support the party received among the general Israeli public. • The second most popular party in the settlements was the “Likud Beitenu” party with 21% of the

votes, however lower than its national 23% support.

• The ultraorthodox parties received an accumulated support of almost 28% (“Yahadut Hatora” – 17.1%; “Shas” – 9.5%), significantly higher than the 15% votes received by the general public. • “Otzma LeIsrael” (“Might to Israel”) party, the successor of the racist Kahane movement, received

7.4% among the settler votes, well over the 1.7% received by the general public (which didn’t pass the 2% election threshold).

• The vote among the setters for the Centrist parties of “Yesh Atid” and “Kadima” was 6.5% and 0.7% respectively, lower than the national voter turnout of 14.2% and 2.1% respectively.

• The Labor party was supported by 3.4% of the voters from the settlements, less than a third of its national result which was 11.4%.

• The politically dovish parties of “HaTnua” and “Meretz”, which during their elections campaign emphasized the two state solution and the need for negotiations that would evidently lead to evacuation of settlements, received 2.2% among the settlers, lower than the 9.6% received among the general public. “Hantnua” party received 1.4% among settlers, less than the 5% received by the general public, while the support for “Meretz” stood at 0.7% among the settlers, less than the 4.6% received by the general public.

(2)

Settler and National voting patterns

A closer look at the voting patterns within the settlements clarifies the differences among them. In order to understand the voting patterns, we created 6 subgroups of settlements, each with specific characteristics: 1. National Religious settlements; 2. Large, un-orthodox settlements; 3. Ultraorthodox settlements; 4. “Quality of Life” settlements; 5. Secular and or mixed (secular and national religious) settlements; 6. Secular settlements in the Jordan Valley.

23.25% 8.76% 14.91% 1.72% 17.50% 11.4% 9.61% 21.3% 27.93% 27.56% 7.40% 8.29% 3.41% 2.18% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Nationaly Settlements National Religious, 25.9% Ultraorthodox, 25.2% Large, unorthodox, Settlements (Ma'ale Edumim, Givat Ze'ev, Ariel),

23.0% "Quality of Life", 10.9% Secular and/or Mixed (secular + national religious), 13.3% Jordan Valley Secular settlements, 1.8%

Settlement Types

population percentage out

(3)

Settlements: Avnei Hefetz, Itamar, Elon More, Alon Shvut, El’azar, Elkana, Efrata, Beit El, Beit Horon, Bruchin, Bracha, Bat Ayin, Dolev, Hebron, Halamish, Hashmonaim, Talmon, Yitzhar, Yakir, Kochav Ha’shachar, Kfar Etzion, Kfar Tapuah, Karmei Tzur, Carmel, Mevo Horon, Migdal Oz, Mechola, Ma’on, Ma’ale Levona, Ma’ale Michmash, Ma’ale Shomron, Yatir (aka Metzadot Yehuda), Mitzpe Yericho, Neve Daniel, Nahliel, Susiya, Ofra, Ateret, Alei Zahav, Enav, Otniel, Pedu’el, Pnei Hever, Psagot, Kedumim, Kiryat Netafim, Rosh Tzurim, Revava, Shavei Shomron, Shadmot Mehola, Shilo.

HaBait HaYehudi, 64.04% Likud Beitenu, 13.76% Otzma LeIsrael, 14.14% Ultraorthodox Settlements, 3.90% Centrist Parties,

2.30% Labor, 0.78% Politically Dovish,

0.30%

National Religious Settlements

(4)

Settlements: Immanuel, Kochav Ya’akov, Ma’ale Amos, Asfar, Beitar Illit, Matityahu, Modi’in Ilit

Settlements: Ma’ale Edumim, Givat Ze’ev, Ariel

Yahadut HaTorah, 63.86% Shas, 25.04% Koah Lehashpia'a, 1.67% Otzma LeIsrael, 4.12% Likud Beitenu, 1.12% Habait HaYehudi, 3.35%

Ultraorthodox Settlemets

HaBait Hayehudi, 18.34% Likud Beitenu, 42.63% Otzma LeIsrael, 4.08% Ultraorthodox, 11.29% Centerist parties, 12.63% Labor, 4.37% Politically Dovish, 2.71%

Large, unorthodox, settlements (Ma'ale

Edumim, Givat Ze'ev, Ariel)

(5)

Settlements: Oranit, Alfei Menashe, Beit Arie, Har Adar, Har Gilo, Hinanit, Kfar Ha’oranim, Nili, Na’ale, Sal’it, Alei Zahav, Reihan, Shaked

Settlements: Adora, Eshkolot, Barqan, Geva Binyamin (aka Adam), Giv’on Ha’hadasha, Hermesh, Tene, Kfar Adumim, Mevo Dotan, Migdalim, Nofim, Nokdim, Almon, Etz Efraim, Tzofim, Keidar, Kiryat Arba, Karnei Shomron, Rimonim, Shim’a, Sha’arei Tikva, Telem, Tko’a

HaBait HaYehudi, 13.12% Likud Beitenu, 29.40% Otzma LeIsrael, 1.67% Utraorthodox, 2.77% Centerist Parties, 28.54% Labor, 12.32% Politically Dovish, 8.94%

"Quality of Life" settlements

HaBait HaYehudi, 34.3% Likud Beitenu, 29.62% Otzma LeIsrael, 11.49% Ultraorthodox Parties, 5.97% Centerist Parties, 9.51%

Labor, 4.09% Politically Dovish, 2.5%

Secular or Mixed (secular and national

religious)

(6)

Settlements: Almog, Argaman, Beit Ha’arava, Bqa’ot, Gitit, Gilgal, Vered Yericho, Hamra, Yitav, Yafit, Mechora, Ma’ale Efraim, Mitzpe Shalem, Masu’a, Niran, Na’ama, Nativ Ha’gdud, Petzael, Kalia, Ro’i, Tomer HaBait HaYehudi, 27.16% Likud Beitenu, 3.59% Otzma LeIsrael, 2.48% Ultraorthodox Parties, 17.3% Centerist Parties, 15.75% Labor, 9.23%

References

Related documents

An overview of input data gathering, modeling approaches, computational analysis, and applications of game player modeling is shown in Fig.. Although a lot of work has been done on

Larger radiation portal size could be a risk factor for severe dysphagia after chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancers.. Patients treated with broad radiation portals should

This product does not contain any substances regulated as hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act No chemicals in product are listed a

[r]

Councillor Riebeling, JP be appointed to act as second Deputy Member for Mayor Creevey and Councillors Blair, Brown, Jones, Knight, Pember and Williams on the Planning,

For example, the settlement of Elkana (socio- economic cluster 8 out of 10) received NIS 1498 per person in 2011, whereas the settlement of Beit Arieh (socioeconomic cluster 7 out

Table 1 shows a list of required components for building the Wi-Fi robot. The parts were selected based on the features, functionality of market availability, and

According to the updated Segregation Wall plan published on the web page of the Israeli Ministry of Defense in April 30, 2007; the Segregation Wall will extend for 10.34km on