2007
DOI: 10.1080/13537120701204993
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peace and Security in the 2006 Election

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another fruitful line of inquiry may be how leaders’ traits correspond with public opinion and social trends. In the case of Israel, Rynhold (2007: 430) argues that the prominence of post-materialism in the country was important for the peace process. He elaborates how “low threat perception and lower levels of support for ethno-nationalism … strongly correlated with dovishness in Israel.” These changes, then, would point to lower distrust of others and in-group bias scores; would Israeli leaders exhibit a similar change before, after, or in sync with Israeli society?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another fruitful line of inquiry may be how leaders’ traits correspond with public opinion and social trends. In the case of Israel, Rynhold (2007: 430) argues that the prominence of post-materialism in the country was important for the peace process. He elaborates how “low threat perception and lower levels of support for ethno-nationalism … strongly correlated with dovishness in Israel.” These changes, then, would point to lower distrust of others and in-group bias scores; would Israeli leaders exhibit a similar change before, after, or in sync with Israeli society?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An examination of Figure 3 shows that Sharon moved to his electoral opponent's position (Labor) on security issues.The Labor Party, with its policy being implemented by Likud, joined the coalition.The Labor Party's support replaced the support of the National Unity Party, whose ministers were fired by Sharon in June 2004 since they risked his majority around the government's table.The National Religious Party (NRP) gradually left the government, starting in June and finally leaving in October 2004 (NRG, 2005). Moreover, during the process of implementation, the split between Sharon and the 'rebel' Likud Members of the Knesset (MKs) became fierce, with his Finance Minister (and contender for Likud's leadership) Benjamin Netanyahu resigning his office and supporting the rebels (Rynhold, 2007).…”
Section: Figure 3: Weighted Party Policy Positions: 2003 Knesset Elecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sharon decided to seek that mandate from the Likud rank-and-file members who elected him to be Likud's leader.Yet that support was not given and Sharon finally decided to lean on the government's majority decisions and a continuous plea to general public opinion while circumventing his party as a basis for legitimacy. During the implementation of the disengagement Sharon was able to maintain both a coalition and a high standing in public opinion surveys (Rynhold, 2007).…”
Section: An Illustration: Sharon's 2003-5 Disengagement Decisionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations