In reviewing the platforms issued by the major political parties participating in the 1999 campaign, we find that in contrast to the platforms on political-defence issues, where the ideological cleavages between the political parties find clear expression, the socio-economic platforms consistently reveal considerable correspondence. This blurring of the differences between the two major parties representing the conservative, capitalist right and the socialist, egalitarian left has been evolving for some time. Nevertheless, the two platforms can be distinguished from one another at a number of points.

General agreement about economic difficulties is stated in the very introductions to the two socio-economic platforms, with the ruling Likud verily admitting its failure to cope with these problems — although each party relates to the events from its own perspective. The opposition, One Israel, stresses the social consequences of economic policy, warns of “intensifying economic gaps and the spread of unemployment, a situation causing suffering among hundreds of thousands of citizens and threatening the endurance and unity of Israeli society. The socio-economic neglect of certain sectors of society have given rise to individual distress and social dissension”. The Likud explains the distress in terms of the economic issues proper: “Israel has experienced three years of economic restraint and deceleration. The soaring budget deficit and negative balance of payments have checked and reduced”.

Unemployment has traditionally been a dominant issue in Israeli elections. But in this campaign, both parties are offering parallel solutions, meant to encourage growth and create jobs. Both parties acknowledge a fact obvious to all: many of the unemployed were dismissed and face difficulties finding work because they lack the needed skills. One Israel admits, with the Likud concurring, that “rapid growth cannot prevent the closing of traditional industries and the ousting of thousands of workers after decades of productive labour into a market in which they will be unable to find their way”. Both parties propose, in almost identical language, government assistance for professional training and the search for alternative places of employment.

Regarding employment opportunities, “hi tech”, a concept absent from the political lexicon only a few years ago, has surfaced in the platforms of both parties. The Likud and One Israel see a rosy future for this branch and with it, bright prospects for Israel and its workers. One Israel is promising to “expand the foundations of hi-tech and other advanced industries by increasing financial support for R&D and accelerated training of programmers and engineers”. The Likud speaks of “expanding Israel’s competitive advantages in the field of hi-tech and encouraging the nation’s entry into the information industry”. The Center Party summarises its position with these words: “It is imperative that Israel, which rich is human resources and a qualified workforce, should not base its economy on cheap labour”.

“Privatisation” is another major socio-economic concept that has entered the language of party platforms although it is already in frequent use. All the parties agree that privatisation is imperative for the economy’s recovery. One Israel, despite its socialist roots, is prepared to “privatise all government firms and selected government services”. The Likud cites “the great success of the government’s privatisation policy” and promises to expand this program with certain stipulations: “The government reserves the right to intervene in the areas of defence and social policy”.

The two major parties concede that employees of privatised firms have been injured and pledge to protect their rights. The Likud notes that “workers represent an integral element of privatised firms; privatisation will be undertaken in full awareness of the need to protect their rights.” One Israel states that it will strictly follow the “principle that a firm’s value was created from the efforts of its employees; therefore, they deserve to reap a portion of the profits made from the sale of a firm, whether directly or by acquiring shares in the privatised firm”.

The issue of public housing has also appeared in the platforms after becoming a salient issue on the public agenda. One Israel is guaranteeing that “tenants living in public housing for at least five years and who do not own a flat elsewhere will be able to purchase their rented flat at a subsidised rate”. The Likud reiterates that “the government has made it possible for residing tenants to purchase their flats at a subsidised rate and with state financial support”. It also vouches to continue to search for solutions to the housing needs of young couples, new immigrants, recently released soldiers, and the needy.

It appears, then, how the parties intend to channel available government resources is the distinguishing factor. The Likud is focusing on the weakest segments of society as it pledges to “continue changing the subsidy policy, which is being shifted from the item to toward the consumer. High-income earners will benefit less from public subsidies, while low-income earners will benefit in full”. In comparison, One Israel is offering an approach that implicitly censures the Likud’s tacit policy. According to One Israel, “the state’s resources will be allocated in conformity to criteria reflecting the citizen’s needs and the government’s policy goals, not according to sectoral interests or by capitulating to political pressures”. This approach is described as one following “the idea that national solidarity nurtures principles dedicated to serving the people and contributing to society”. It continues that “the order of priorities reflected in the budget will be altered to make sure that the greater part of state funds is allocated to education, health, and infrastructure in place of those budgetary items dedicated to narrow political interest groups”. One Israel’s platform pays special attention to the preference given to the ultra-orthodox and the settlers, a policy that made “these segments recipients of government largesse freed from making any significant contribution to the nation’s economy or its defence”.

It is here, with respect to the logic dictating the appropriation of funds, whose disparities separate the right from the left, that the Center Party sides with One Israel. In its platform, the Center Party states that the principle at the core of its socio-economic views is “the existence of national priorities favouring the general public as opposed to surrendering to extreme sectoral and ideological demands”.