Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Jul 20, 2016
The Likud doesn't promote its own agenda
MK Dovid Bitan, the Director of the Coalition, had MK Ohana's law proposal for protecting LGBT people from harassment removed from the floor. That means it was not voted on. This was after Minister Litzman threatened a coalition crisis over the law. Ohana has attacked Bitan for giving in to Litzman's demands.
Bitan explains that he had two choices:
1. let the proposal continue to voting in the Knesset today, wher eit would fail as too many people opposed it
2. removing the proposal from the agenda and giving Ohana time to rally support for the bill and raise it again later after he has enough support
My following question might be due to a lack of understanding of the process, so I would appreciate anybody who could both answer the question and explain the process.
My question is, why does UTJ get to threaten the coalition every time they want to pass a aw that goes against the natural beliefs of, say, Likud MKs and insist that coalition discipline is in effect and everyone must vote in favor of their bill. And they do. Yet, when a bill like Ohana's goes up (or bills from other Likud MKs that were not supported by the Haredi parties) we do not see the Likud telling its coalition partners that they must vote in favor of the bill with coalition discipline in place. Bitan somehow has the power to tell him muster the support yourself. Why doesn't this work in both directions? Why can't the Likud put its weight behind its place in the coalition and its proposals?
I understand coalition politics, but I don't understand why it pretty much always goes in one direction. Just like Likud, for example, has to support bills it does not necessarily favor because of its coalition partners, so UTJ, for example, should also have to do the same, yet we rarely see them supporting a bill they don't like.
Bitan explains that he had two choices:
1. let the proposal continue to voting in the Knesset today, wher eit would fail as too many people opposed it
2. removing the proposal from the agenda and giving Ohana time to rally support for the bill and raise it again later after he has enough support
My following question might be due to a lack of understanding of the process, so I would appreciate anybody who could both answer the question and explain the process.
My question is, why does UTJ get to threaten the coalition every time they want to pass a aw that goes against the natural beliefs of, say, Likud MKs and insist that coalition discipline is in effect and everyone must vote in favor of their bill. And they do. Yet, when a bill like Ohana's goes up (or bills from other Likud MKs that were not supported by the Haredi parties) we do not see the Likud telling its coalition partners that they must vote in favor of the bill with coalition discipline in place. Bitan somehow has the power to tell him muster the support yourself. Why doesn't this work in both directions? Why can't the Likud put its weight behind its place in the coalition and its proposals?
I understand coalition politics, but I don't understand why it pretty much always goes in one direction. Just like Likud, for example, has to support bills it does not necessarily favor because of its coalition partners, so UTJ, for example, should also have to do the same, yet we rarely see them supporting a bill they don't like.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Labels:
Homosexuals,
Likud,
UTJ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
It's simple. The Charedi parties will never be forming their own coalition, but they have enough seats to give the larger parties the majority they need. Therefore, the Charedi parties have nothing to lose by being forceful, and the Likud, who wishes to remain the head of the coalition, has everything to lose.
ReplyDeleteIf all non-Charedi parties could agree to a pact in which the Charedim were kept out of the ruling coalition no matter who won, the Charedim would find their power greatly diminished. Never happen.
A) whose values? The Likud is by definition, the liberal party of Israel.
ReplyDeleteB) All coalition parties joined and agreed to the coalition agreement. This was definitely not in it. If a coalition party wants to initiate a law that was not in the initial agreement, they have to send it through the committee that approves that law to get to the next step. This law obviously would not pass that and Ohana detoured around it for a private bill, if I understood properly. Nonetheless, the private bill is not just some parve something like requiring people to add a stripe to the license plate, something not against Torah but this anti-Torah subject.
Josh is absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteThis should not be a matter of politics anyway. If it is supposedly called a "Jewish" state, then such laws should not even be thought about, let alone implemented.
I disagree. there is no obligation in the torah to attack and/or harass homosexuals. In a halachic state, which we dont have, maybe we could justify stopping the parade, but treating people any lesser, especially when they haven't been convicted of any halachic crimes - show me a source that would give us the right to treat them badly.
ReplyDeleteI am not talking about supporting and promoting their lifestyle, just treating them like equal human beings.
and without a halachic state, how can you justify treating them negatively, as the law would have prevented?
If religious jews (of all stripes, charedi, DL, etc) want to march in support of anti homosexuality, would the coalition support them?
ReplyDeleteIf they want to march in support of heterosexuality (includingbin frontof some homosexual communityclandmark (NY has such a landmark, don't know anout israel), would they be permitted?
If they want to. March in support of shmirat shabbat, would they be permitted? (Flatbush, in brooklyn, new york, has such an annual march in support of encouraging storeowners closing on shabbat.)