Talk:Prime Minister of Israel

Theres a part where it says that golda meir was the 1st israeli female leader and only third in the world... well what does leader mean because its forgetting margaret thatcher instantly (just immediatley off my head as a female pm) and then does not boudica or joan of arc count as female leaders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The table is misleading now because it says that Sharon "Left office" and "Took office" in 2005, which is false. He has only left the post as leader of Likud, and continues to serve on the same term of office as PM. It is not necessary to make a new row for someone who just has switched party. Levi Eshkol, who also switched party during his term, does not have two rows. /Slarre 18:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Eshkol didn't switch parties. His original party, Mapai, merged with other parties (Ahdut HaAvoda and Rafi) and became known as the Labour party. Mapai was the dominant part of the merged party. Sharon's case is very different. He and several other members were a minority who split from their original party and found a new party. This move was against the majority of the ruling party.--Nitsansh 00:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Why is the table showing rightwing parties as blue and leftwing parties as red? Is it different in Israel than in the United States? Jerse 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Isn't Olmert considered the 12th PM?

____

It's confusing to say Ariel Sharon has not yet been declared permanently incapacitated without a date on the assertion. Should read "As of [date], Ariel Sharon has not yet been declared permanently incapacitated."

According to my calculation, on April 14th, 100 days after Sharon was declared "temporarily incapable", his status will officially change to "permanently incapable" and Olmert's title will change from substitute of the PM (ממלא מקום ראש הממשלה) to acting PM (ראש הממשלה בפועל) until a new government, most likely headed by Olmert, will be approved by the Knesset and sworn in. For all practical purposes, Olmert has almost all the power of PM, whether he is substitute, acting or elected. The only authority that a temporary PM doesn't have, whether he is a substitute or acting, is to call for early elections. However, the legal advisor to the government has decreed that it's not appropriate for a "lame duck" PM and government to make major policy decisions.--Nitsansh 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As to Peres in 1995, he was active PM right after Rabin's murder, but within a few weeks he formed a new government.--Nitsansh 00:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New Prime Minister

a new prime minister was recently elected

Queston regarding change in election system

I came here specifically looking for an answer to these questions: When did Israel change its method of electing the PM and why? Unfortunately, the information given here only confuses me more. This paragraph—

The Basic Law was amended in 1992, providing for the direct election of the Prime Minister, separate from the Knesset election. Three elections were held under this system: 1996, 1999, and 2001. (2001 was the only time that a Prime Ministerial election was held without a Knesset election. Thus, from 2001-2003 Ariel Sharon (Likud) was Prime Minister while Labour held a plurality of Knesset seats.) In 2001, the Basic Law was amended again, abolishing direct elections and reverting to the original system. Thus, in 2003 and subsequent elections, the Prime Minister is chosen by a majority in the Knesset

either appears to presume that the reader already understands the system, or else is nonsensical. To say that there were three elections "under this system", but only 2001 was a PM election w/o Knesset election, means that we must be talking about two different types of elections, right? So, in other words, the elections of 1996 and 1999 were Knessett, and 2001 for PM? Is that right? If so, the writing here is incredibly poor, if for no other reason than the fact that it's taken me all the time I've been typing here to figure out the one possible way it could be correct. If they are different types of elections, then they shouldn't be included in some kind of sequence labeled "this system", which leads the reader to believe that they were all the same type of election.

On top of this, this information directly contradicts the information found in the Politics of Israel article, which says that 1996 was the only time a PM was elected directly.

Anyway, I knew that Israel had gone to a direct election, and had inferred from news accounts last month that they had reverted, but I know nothing more than that now after reading these two articles. I love Wikipedia, but this has disappointed me, and I wish someone who knows something about this could straighten this up.

I'd also like an explanation for the switch. I have some guesses, but I'd like more info. Unschool 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to explain: In 1992 Israel changed the election system, from what was a classic party list system into a unique (and untried before) mixed system in which MPs are elected via party lists and the Prime Minister is elected directly via a seperate ballot. In 1996 and 1999, on elections day, Israelis voted in two different ballots: one for prime minister and one for a party. In 2001 Israelis voted only for prime minister, without changing the formation of the Knesset. That's why Sharon, even though he was elected with a wide majority, wasn't the head of the largest party in the parliament. In 2001 the system was changed to the old single-ballot party list, with a few "improvements", chief among them is the introduction of a constructive vote of no confidence.

The (stated) reasons for the switch in 1992 are the inherent instability of the party list system coupled with absolute proportional representation (and a very low suffrage). It was believed that if the PM would be elected directly, he would be able to form more stable coalitions, by removing the threat of rival coalitions offering their own candidate (in the coalition building process after every election). In effect, the new system actually produced more instability, because it generated a motivation to vote for smaller parties. This created fragmented Knessets, where no one party had a clear majority. Thus the system was changed back. The introduction of the constructive vote of no confidence is supposed to enhance the stability of the government, by forcing the opposition in parliament to propose an alternate candidate for prime minister, rather than just going to new elections. The suffrage was also changed, and now stands at 2% of valid votes, rather than 1% at most of Israel's history.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer. The paragraph in the article, by the way, is fine by me - but if you think you can write it better, I won't object. --Lidless Eye 12:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused about numbering of PMs in table

Why isn't Yigal Allon number 4? I understand that he was acting PM and only served for a brief time; but the same is true of the current PM, Ehud Olmert. --ChrisWinter 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mbegin2.jpg

The image Image:Mbegin2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)