
It has nothing to do with how long they have been voting, as much as HOW
they have been voting.  Pick up a list of the Labor parties proposals
for MK prior to the election and pay attention to the order.  Correlate this
with the number of Arab party members eligible to vote in party elections.
Further correlate this with the voting results from Arab areas.

Lo and behold, you will discover that Israeli Arab Labor party members
did not band together unanimously or en large for a select group of
Arab candidates.  This problem is further exacerbated by the rifts
between Israeli Arabs.  Some claim membership to right wing parties
while others vote for parties that do not pass the minimum cutoff.

I worked within the labor party during the late 70's elections (not this
last one) as a volunteer and was privy to the voting results that
were returned from the local delegates elected.  At the time, the system
was structured differently but it did not cease to amaze me that there
was no massive effort to lobby for Arab reps. by their own delegates.


Quite simply, if all eligible Arab voters became members of the Labor
party and voted, they would be able to command more than %15 of
the delegates.  This is a power base that can not be ignored!
Especially when they are not ranked high in the party (once again
due to lack of political power).  I have seen how the labor party
works from the inside and my experience has been that, as in most
political situations, the MKs act out of their own self-interest.

And to answer your question, I "broke" with labor because I felt
that they were heeding too much to the right-wing and ultra-orthodox
coalition members.


Fair enough.  My take on the matter, and I will admit to the possibility
that this might be seen differently is that this was a dummy argument.
If he was sitting on the committee, then someone else obviously would not
be.  In drumming up support for his seat, MK [?] would not be averse to
using this argument, or it could be used on his behalf.

As to the proof presented in this article, I would find it very
interesting to know who proposed the compromise along with a followup
describing how the matter stands/was resolved.

Let me just take this opportunity to say that I deplore such actions
and groundless justifications.


For the record, Roni Milo, is a brash MK (self described) from the Likud
(note NOT LABOR).  Quite frankly, I don't think anything he would say could
surprise me.  Annoy and aggravate, yes, surprise - no.


Yes I do and thank you for providing it.  I would be most interested
in knowing how things turned out.  Anyone......?

