DOCSLIB.ORG

REFORMING the ISRAELI ELECTORAL SYSTEM: WHAT’S NEEDED? WHAT’S POSSIBLE? by Tamar Friedman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REFORMING the ISRAELI ELECTORAL SYSTEM: WHAT’S NEEDED? WHAT’S POSSIBLE? by Tamar Friedman MAY 2015 REFORMING THE ISRAELI ELECTORAL SYSTEM: WHAT’S NEEDED? WHAT’S POSSIBLE? By Tamar Friedman Tamar is a graduating senior from the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in Political Science, and an intern at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Over a month and a half has passed since the March 17th Israeli parliamentary elections decisively granted Netanyahu’s Likud party more seats in the Knesset than the opposing Zionist Union. Yet Netanyahu was unable to form a working government until May 6th, only two hours before the deadline, and even then he scraped by with a coalition that gave him a narrow – and precarious – majority of one vote in the Knesset. Something is wrong with this picture. Since the birth of the country, Israel’s electoral system has been criticized for favoring small parties over large ones and for granting a disproportionate amount of power to fringe ideological groups. The polarizing effect of this electoral system has led to a rapidly changing political landscape with parties popping up and disbanding with great frequency. It has led to stagnant governments that are more and more often dissolving themselves before the end of their term. It has led to a wild political scramble to form a coalition that continues for weeks after the results of an election come in. In the aftermath of the 2015 election, some scholars have critiqued Israel’s electoral system and called for various reforms. This isn’t the first time in Israel’s 67-year history that the electoral system has been questioned but it has sparked an important debate about how the electoral system shapes government and how it will shape the government in the future. What are the basic contours of the Israeli electoral system? What problems have Israelis discerned in the system? What changes have been made to address those problems, and what reforms may still be helpful? The Development of the System Historically, Israel’s electoral system developed as a result of the Yishuv political landscape. At the time of its founding, Israel needed a system that supported many parties because the influx of immigrants from a wide range of countries led to a rapidly changing Israeli polity.1 Instead of a presidential system where the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch and the president is elected directly by the people (as in the US), Israel chose a parliamentary system based on the principles of proportional representation (PR). In this type of system, voters cast ballots for political parties rather than individuals and all parties that surpass the minimum threshold of votes are awarded a number of seats in the Knesset that is proportionate to the percentage of votes they received. By keeping this electoral threshold low, there were few barriers to political entry and the system encouraged the formation of new parties with a wide range of platforms. It allowed for many smaller, ideological parties to flourish, which is compatible with an immigrant population that is building a new national identity. At the country’s birth the electoral threshold was as low as 1 percent of the vote. Within a PR system, the candidates elected to the legislative body can be chosen through either closed or open lists. Israel adopted a closed list system wherein each party internally determines the order of the candidates on its party list before the 1 The Knesset. “The Electoral System in Israel.” http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_beh.htm#1. election. When voters go to the ballot box, they cast a vote for a party, knowing that if the party wins 15 seats, those seats will be filled by the top 15 individuals in that party’s fixed ranked list.2 This electoral decision served to increase the power of party elites in Israel’s burgeoning new state by giving them the power to determine the order of the candidates as opposed to voters who determine the order of candidates on an open list. Another electoral choice is district size. In the formation of the Israeli electoral system, Israel was not divided into subdistricts that each elected one or multiple candidates. Rather, the entire country is treated as a single constituency and candidates run on a national platform. This means that candidates are not territorially tied to their constituents and do not need to rely on concentrated local support for reelection. This makes sense in the context of the emerging Israeli state because Israel is a very small country geographically and did not have strong regional distinctions at its birth. The parliamentary elections are only the first part of forming a new government in Israel. According to the Israeli electoral law adopted at Israel’s formation, the leader of the party that wins the most votes is not automatically selected as the prime minister. After the election results are announced, the Israeli president is tasked with asking whichever party leader he thinks can succeed to try and form a governing coalition. While the president usually asks the leader of the party that received the most votes to form a coalition, this is not true across the board. This practice of the president selecting the prime minister is a response to setting up a system that creates many political parties, none of which are likely to gain enough votes to govern on their own. Therefore, Israeli governments rely on coalitions between different ideological parties and the president’s involvement serves to ensure that the new prime minister is capable of forming such a coalition. The Knesset member chosen to create a coalition is granted 28 days by law to form a coalition, with the possibility of extending for up to 14 additional days. If s/he cannot form a coalition by that time, the president is to select another Knesset member to form one. Finally, the Knesset’s Basic Law of 1958 establishes that the Knesset can dissolve itself before the end of its full term if a law calling for its dissolution is passed by a majority of Knesset members.3 The prime minister may call on the Knesset to dissolve itself if the government is at a stalemate. Proposed and Enacted Electoral Changes Since its founding, Israel has undertaken gone through some electoral reforms, relating to the electoral threshold and method of selecting a prime minister, and further reforms have been suggested that were never actually adopted. The electoral threshold has steadily increased since the birth of the state. The Knesset passed laws to raise it from 1 percent to 1.5 percent in 1992, then to 2 percent before the 2003 election.4 Just before the 2015 election, the electoral threshold was raised once more to 3.25 percent. These changes were made with the intention of excluding the smallest parties from government and thereby strengthen the power of the most popular parties. Nonetheless, the Israeli electoral threshold has only changed by small increments over the history of the country and still falls well below that of many other countries. Thresholds are a popular feature of electoral systems and are present in twenty out of twenty-eight EU countries, yet only two of those countries have thresholds below 3 percent. Thresholds in European countries are much more likely to be in the 5-10 percent range.5 Additionally, the country went through a brief period (1992-2001) in which Israeli constituents directly elected the prime minister, forming what was essentially a “presidential” system (though the Knesset still had to affirm the prime minister’s election with a vote of confidence).6 This new system was adopted after “the stinking maneuver,” 3 months of crisis and stagnancy in the Knesset in the early 1990’s, with the hopes of ending the political stalemates that resulted from the PR system.7 However, the new electoral reform only lasted for three elections (1996, 1999, and 2001) before it was repealed. 2 For example, the full Zionist Camp list can be found on the website of the Israeli Central Elections Committee. http://www.bechirot20.gov.il/election/Candidates/Pages/OneListCandidates.aspx. 3 The Knesset. “Basic Law: The Knesset – 1958.” http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic2_eng.htm. 4 Neri Zilber. “Israel’s Governance Law: Raising the Electoral Threshold.” The Washington Institute March 10, 2014. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/israels-governance-law-raising-the-electoral-threshold. 5 Ibid. 6 It is important to note that the Israeli Prime Minister does not simply function as the head of the largest party in the Knesset as the Majority Leader in the Senate or House of Representatives in the US, but also holds most of the real executive power (the Israeli president is the official head of state). 7 Emanuele Ottolenghi. “Why Direct Election Failed in Israel.” Journal of Democracy 12:4, 2001, pp. 109, 111. Available through: Project MUSE. https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v012/12.4ottolenghi.pdf. Instead of limiting the power of the smaller parties that had caused political stalemate as expected, critics argue that the new reform led voters to split their ticket, voting for a prime minister candidate not associated with the party they voted for in the parliamentary election.8 Without the incentive to vote for one of the major parties so that its leading MK could become prime minister, voters were more inclined to cast ballots for smaller, fringe parties, further fragmenting the political landscape. Roy Isacowitz, a writer for Haaretz , argues that the negative experience of moving to the direct election of the prime minister and then repealing that measure soon after has made Israelis wary of instituting further electoral reform.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Annual Report
    Research. Debate. Impact. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 1 Table of Contents Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board 4 Sixth Meeting of IDI's International Advisory Council 8 The Center for Democratic Values and Institutions 11 The Center for Religion, Nation and State 23 The Center for Governance and the Economy 29 The Center for Security and Democracy 35 The Guttman Center for Surveys and Public Policy Research 41 IDI in the Media 47 Our Team 50 Our Leaders 51 Our Partners 52 Financials 53 Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board Dear Friends, 2016 was a year of change and upheaval throughout the jobs available to Haredim. The government adopted most of democratic world. Set against the tumult of Brexit and the the recommendations and is now in the process of allocating US elections, Israel seemed at times like an island of stability. a half-billion-shekel budget in line with these proposals. This However, under the surface, Israeli society is changing, and IDI success story illustrates the potential of turning relatively small took on a leading role in identifying those changes and working philanthropic investments into large-scale transformational with policymakers to address them. change by affecting policy and legislation on the basis of outstanding applied research. As the report that follows lays out, 2016 was a year rich in activity and achievements. In this letter, we have chosen to single Several new scholars joined our team in 2016. Ms. Daphna out the impact one program had on government policy in the Aviram-Nitzan, former director of research for the Israel employment area.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Compromise in Israeli Schools Since 1953. PUB DATE 89 0 NOTE 6P
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 308 :34 SU 020 127 AUTHOR Parker, Franklin TITLE Religious Compromise in Israeli Schools since 1953. PUB DATE 89 0 NOTE 6p. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Educational Change; *Educational Legislation; Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign Countries; *Jews; *Religion; Religious Differences; Religious Education; *Religious Factors IDENTIFIERS Educational Ideologies; Educational Issues; *Israel; Israeli Arabs; Israelis; Jewish Studies ABSTRACT Jewish schools, before statehood in 1948, were run by political parties. The "General Stream" (1913), formed by the General Zionist and Revisionist parties, agreed to have secular subjects taught in European-like schools, and to forego formal religious instruction. The "Religious Stream" (1920), formed by Zionist religious parties,' focused on religious and Zionist emphases in its schools. The "Labor Stream" (1926) arose mainly among rural and urban workers, and was imbued with child- centered educational ideals. These three school systems were joined by a fourth group, the "Ultra-Orthodox Agudat Israel Stream" (1948), led by the most religiously demanding group of zealots. A religious and political compromise in 1953, which placed all schools under a Ministry of Education and Culture, is the basis for the five kinds of schools currently operating. State Secular schools enroll 65% of Jewish youths and are considered to be religiously neutral. State Religious schools enroll 25% of Jewish youths, teach the "Bible" as the Word of God, and emphasize the religious nature of holy days. Ultra-Orthodox schools enroll 6.5% of Jewish youths, are extremely religious, require "Bible" study, and are governed by religion in all aspects of life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Israeli Anti-Boycott Law: Should Artists Be Worried?
    Peled.Note-final for publisher (Do Not Delete) 4/24/2014 4:42 PM THE ISRAELI ANTI-BOYCOTT LAW: SHOULD ARTISTS BE WORRIED? INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 752 I. THE ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF BOYCOTTS AGAINST ISRAEL ............... 752 A. The Arab League Boycott ................................................. 752 B. The Palestinian BDS Movement: Combining the Goals of the Arab League, the Methods of the African National Congress, and the Rhetoric of Apartheid ....................... 753 C. International Manifestations of the Cultural Boycott on Israel ............................................................................... 756 D. Domestic Manifestations of the Cultural Boycott on Israel ............................................................................... 759 II. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE BDS CAMPAIGN: THE LAW FOR PREVENTION OF HARM TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL BY MEANS OF BOYCOTT................................................................................ 762 A. Textual Analysis of the Anti-Boycott Law ........................ 763 B. Legislative History of the Anti-Boycott Law ..................... 766 C. Applicability of the Anti-Boycott Law to Foreign Nationals Located Abroad.............................................. 768 D. Potential Domestic Israeli Application of the Anti-Boycott Law ................................................................................. 772 III. THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT SHOULD FIND THE ANTI-BOYCOTT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • General 'Zionist Gain, Mapoi Strength Maik Vote
    .... ~-.-. }'.. '..\, PijQYJ~Ct~L lilAARY PA~lf~UEuf ILO~S ~--. \ '-------------------------··\YllfNIP£.C, • I Ex-1,nmi!lrant .Gives . , . , . • ··o·,-.. -n··-··. Hospital -$1 Million . -. ,'' .. :· ·. --~- .rive n . # ?.r:w YORK fYl1l?,OJ-A Ri:z.. l in ~ 1n 19C3. _ iun-J'n"..&!.. 1-.m'iµ-a.'lt "Jtr~? ar- i He e:scape,:110 G=r vhere ., rt-r~ l.'1 tbe 'C'S 10 l'C:2ni a:;:o re- ! h.e rr.ac!e a f«!.une 1n the b".abcs ~7 pe:,:l!us, 1art vttk TM l c;! lln;;em. tmlle:a li!ld bttt ny­ reTCaled r.o Ju-;e gtvm u.o-..n: l 1:,::.g. The rl<e o! Niul!m d.rtn"e £!:w .l!.oQ!tal bee ,11.m,000. h1m to ~-lz1= b'Jt I.he :.az: 1n- oon~ Tl.e ma.n wlw m:i.:e Ui-i:, dcn:i- ~ ca·ug!lt Ill> wlt.'1 him and - . t!.tm, Prant z. Atnn. 11'2.S a revo- · h1s ~ we7e c:on!l.scat.ed by • . ·' failom.-7 tn hlsO yD'".:th ln Ru:.:!a the Gmrui.ns. _ ' Th-? !-.ad to nee to · Gem.any, He came to the ua tn lW and 1"h."l"e "he made a ro:tu.'le Ia~ '!01:ll!n a zhon period, aucceeded ul::en tro=. him by the Naz!s. In renewing his_ cld com:ectlous Born l.'1 s::n~ia !."l the provinee a:id rebulldlng h1s ~ an an ot K!ev In 1£?5, Atran as a :;o-.:th .
    [Show full text]
  • Randomocracy
    Randomocracy A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Why the B.C. Citizens Assembly recommends the single transferable-vote system Jack MacDonald An Ipsos-Reid poll taken in February 2005 revealed that half of British Columbians had never heard of the upcoming referendum on electoral reform to take place on May 17, 2005, in conjunction with the provincial election. Randomocracy Of the half who had heard of it—and the even smaller percentage who said they had a good understanding of the B.C. Citizens Assembly’s recommendation to change to a single transferable-vote system (STV)—more than 66% said they intend to vote yes to STV. Randomocracy describes the process and explains the thinking that led to the Citizens Assembly’s recommendation that the voting system in British Columbia should be changed from first-past-the-post to a single transferable-vote system. Jack MacDonald was one of the 161 members of the B.C. Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. ISBN 0-9737829-0-0 NON-FICTION $8 CAN FCG Publications www.bcelectoralreform.ca RANDOMOCRACY A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Jack MacDonald FCG Publications Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Copyright © 2005 by Jack MacDonald All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system, now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in 2005 by FCG Publications FCG Publications 2010 Runnymede Ave Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8S 2V6 E-mail: [email protected] Includes bibliographical references.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Israeli Party System Gyula Gazdik
    The evolution of the Israeli party system Gyula Gazdik he Israelis pride themselves in being the only democracy in the Middle East. At first sight this claim seems to be the case. It is true to say that while the region's TIslamic countries made numerous attempts during the past decades to reform their institutional system - by contrast to the Jewish state - they made little progress with respect to the liberalisation of society and executive control. However, such comparison can only be ostensible, since the exercise of power is largely influenced by the historical and cultural diversity of the countries under scrutiny. The situation of the Palestinian population of Israel is the primary target of various critiques with respect to Israeli democracy.1 Israel - with a population of six million - is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multicultural country.2 Eighty per cent of the population is Jewish and - besides the 17 per cent-strong Arab community - there are also Druses, Circassians and other minorities. The coexistence of three regional monotheistic religions makes the country unique. While one half of the Jewish population was in Israel, the other half comprises immigrants from 70 countries. As a consequence of the wave of large-scale immigration from the successor states of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s, approximately 800,000 people arrived in the country. This enduring multicultural environment had an intrinsic effect on national integration. Whereas this persistent hostile environment, which has endured since the creation of the state in 1948, coupled with the feeling of insecurity following the Arab- Israeli conflict reinforced this process, the continuing division between the various Jewish communities retarded integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Letterhead 2014.07
    Wednesday, July 16, 2014 This most recent wave of rocket attacks on Israeli population centers serve as a reminder that asymmetric warfare poses a fundamental challenge to Israel’s national security, international standing, and democratic character. For a democracy like Israel, finding a way to defeat terrorist organizations within the bounds of the rule of law is essential for three reasons: first, no independent government can tolerate a threat that sends masses of its citizens to the shelters at a moment’s notice; second, no society can long remain free if it continually sacrifices its liberties on the altar of national security; and third, no democracy can maintain its standing among the family of enlightened nations if it does not adhere to the international norms of armed conflict. Twelve years ago, in the midst of a deadly wave of suicide attacks, the leadership of IDI established the National Security and Democracy Program. Born out of a dialogue with the leadership of the Israel Defense Forces, this flagship program seeks to help Israeli decision makers develop effective counterterrorism policies that strike a balance between national security, civil liberties and the rule of law. To help concerned parties in Israel and around the world understand the legal aspects of this extraordinary conflict, the leaders of IDI’s National Security and Democracy Program have put together a brief outlining the basic legal concepts involved and the boundaries of permissible action according to standard interpretations of existing international law. The authors of this brief are internationally recognized experts on the legal aspects of asymmetric warfare and counterterrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Party and the Peace Camp
    The Labor Party and the Peace Camp By Uzi Baram In contemporary Israeli public discourse, the preoccupation with ideology has died down markedly, to the point that even releasing a political platform as part of elections campaigns has become superfluous. Politicians from across the political spectrum are focused on distinguishing themselves from other contenders by labeling themselves and their rivals as right, left and center, while floating around in the air are slogans such as “political left,” social left,” “soft right,” “new right,” and “mainstream right.” Yet what do “left” and “right” mean in Israel, and to what extent do these slogans as well as the political division in today’s Israel correlate with the political traditions of the various parties? Is the Labor Party the obvious and natural heir of The Workers Party of the Land of Israel (Mapai)? Did the historical Mapai under the stewardship of Ben Gurion view itself as a left-wing party? Did Menachem Begin’s Herut Party see itself as a right-wing party? The Zionist Left and the Soviet Union As far-fetched as it may seem in the eyes of today’s onlooker, during the first years after the establishment of the state, the position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union was the litmus test of the left camp, which was then called “the workers’ camp.” This camp viewed the centrist liberal “General Zionists” party, which was identified with European liberal and middle-class beliefs in private property and capitalism, as its chief ideological rival (and with which the heads of major cities such as Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan were affiliated)­.
    [Show full text]
  • Burden Sharing and the Haredim
    8 Burden Sharing and the Haredim On March 12, 2014 the Knesset passed, on its which scholars should remain exempt, but also third reading, Amendment 19 to the Military states that draft evaders will be subject to arrest if Service Law, which aims to widen the participation quotas are unmet. !e comprehensive exemption of Ultra-Orthodox young men and yeshiva granting all Haredi yeshiva students aged 22 students in military and civilian national service. and over who join the workforce is of particular !is amendment also aims to promote their significance. integration into the working population. On April 17, 2014, the Ministerial Committee on Background: !e History of Burden Sharing in Military Service set concrete steps for the amendment’s implementation the Exemption (!e Arrangement and follow up. !ese were given the force of a for Deferral of Army Service Cabinet resolution. Under the new arrangement, by Yeshiva Students) the amendment will take full e"ect on July 1, Compulsory military service applies under the 2017, following an adjustment period. When in Security Service Law (Combined Version) of 1986. full force, the military or civilian national service According to this law, Israeli citizens are subject inductees will number 5,200 a year (two thirds to conscription at age 18 unless granted an of the age cohort according to current figures). exemption. Exemption was the subject of lively Until then, yeshiva students will be able to defer debates between yeshiva heads and the political their enlistment and receive an exemption at age leadership in the early days of the state. !e 22, as long as the yeshivot meet their recruitment executive committee of the Center for Service targets, which will be implemented according to to the People considered the conscription of the mandated schedule: in 2014, a total of 3,800 yeshiva students, and in March 1948 authorized Haredim are expected to join the IDF or national a temporary army service deferment for yeshiva service; in 2015, 4,500; and 5,200 in the years that students whose occupation was Torah study.1 follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Speakers on Israel 2004-2005
    Consulate General of Israel to New England We are pleased to present to you the 2004-2005 edition of the Consulate General of Israel’s Speakers Bureau “Guide to Speakers on Israel.” We are grateful for the vast wealth of resources that our speakers can provide to you and to us. Our speakers come Guide to Speakers from many different walks of life, vary in their fields of expertise, and can address a wide array of topics. Unlike the picture of Israel that is depicted through news reports, these on Israel speakers paint diverse views of life in Israel – politics, technology, arts, and culture – as seen through their own eyes. Each individual can provide his or her own views about the daily challenges and achievements that affect Israelis and Americans alike. We encourage you to use these speakers as a window into the diverse and rich culture that is Israel. We thank you for your continued support and hope you will take advantage of this excellent resource. We encourage you to bring these speakers to both familiar and unfamiliar audiences – their messages are universal. Hillel Newman 2004-2005 Consul 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Three Easy Steps to Book a Speaker 1) Choose your speaker or topic. When requesting a speaker, you Welcome .................................1 Professors & Researchers can either request a specific speaker by name, or you can simply How to book a speaker............3 Tal Ben-Shahar .................... 19 provide us with a general topic, and the Speakers Bureau staff will Ehud Eiran........................... 20 match the topic with an appropriate speaker. A list of speakers Consulate Officials Tamar Frankel.....................
    [Show full text]
  • Galia Golan Jay and Leonie Darwin Professor of Soviet and East
    CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Galia Golan Jay and Leonie Darwin Professor of Soviet and East European Studies (emerita), Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor of Government, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya (emerita) Education PhD. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1970 Diplome Sorbonne, 1962 B.A. Brandeis University, Phi Beta Kappa, 1960 Jr. year, Universite de Geneve and l'Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1958-1959 Summer exchange student, USSR, 1960 Awards International Studies Association (ISA) 2019 Scholar/Activist Award International Studies Association 2016 Distinguished Scholar Award (Peace Studies) Israel Political Science Association 2007 Award for Lifetime Achievement and Contribution to the Field Gleitsman Foundation 1999 International Activist Award New Israel Fund 1995Alice Shalvi Award for Women in Leadership Professional Governing Council Member, International Studies Association -2016-2017 Chair ISA Women’s Caucus – 2016-2017 Member, Senior Advisory Board, International Feminist Journal of Politics Member, International Editorial Advisory Board, Communist and Post-Communist Studies Member, Editorial Board, Palestine-Israel Journal Member, Women’s Studies International Advisory Board, Brandeis University Reviewer, Radcliffe Institute Fellowship Program Member, Board of the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research Member, Center for Applied Negotiations, Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) Formerly: Professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1966-2000 (full professor since 1985) Chairperson, Department
    [Show full text]