The outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987 introduced a new era of civil unrest and security challenges that profoundly impacted the Israeli political landscape. As the 12th Knesset elections approached in November 1988, the Israeli electorate faced a stark choice regarding the future of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This period was characterized by intense internal debate over the viability of territorial compromise versus the maintenance of security through control. The uprising forced Israeli leaders to confront the demographic and security realities of the territories more directly than ever before.
Background: The Status Quo Challenged
Prior to the Intifada, Israel was governed by a unique National Unity Government formed in 1984, which featured a rotation of the premiership between Shimon Peres of the Labor Party and Yitzhak Shamir of Likud. This arrangement had focused largely on withdrawing from Lebanon and stabilizing the economy, leaving the Palestinian issue on a secondary level of priority. However, the sudden and widespread nature of the 1987 uprising shattered the prevailing assumption that the status quo in the territories could be maintained indefinitely. The political consensus dissolved as both major parties struggled to provide a definitive solution to the escalating violence.
The civil nature of the protests, involving mass demonstrations and stone-throwing, presented a dilemma for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the government. Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a member of the Labor Party, initially responded with a policy of "might, power, and beatings" to restore order. This military approach, while intended to suppress the uprising, also highlighted the deep internal divisions within the cabinet regarding the long-term political objective. While Likud viewed the unrest as a challenge to sovereignty, Labor saw it as a signal that a diplomatic separation was becoming increasingly necessary.
Key Facts Regarding the 1988 Election
- The 1988 election saw a record turnout, reflecting the high stakes felt by the Israeli public during the height of the uprising.
- The Likud party, led by Yitzhak Shamir, campaigned on a platform of "Peace with Security," rejecting any territorial concessions.
- Labor, under Shimon Peres, promoted the "Jordanian Option," seeking to negotiate a land-for-peace deal with King Hussein.
- The elections resulted in a near-deadlock, with Likud winning 40 seats and Labor winning 39 seats in the 120-seat Knesset.
The Impact of King Hussein's Disengagement
A pivotal moment in the campaign occurred in July 1988, when King Hussein of Jordan announced that his kingdom was severing all legal and administrative ties to the West Bank. This move effectively destroyed the foundation of the Labor Party’s "Jordanian Option," which had relied on Jordan as a moderate negotiating partner. By removing Jordan from the equation, the King forced Israel to choose between continuing direct rule or negotiating directly with Palestinian representatives. This shift played into the hands of Likud, who argued that there was no "partner for peace" on the other side.
Labor’s platform was left in disarray as they scrambled to redefine their diplomatic strategy just months before the vote. Shimon Peres attempted to pivot toward an international conference framework, but the public remained skeptical of diplomatic overtures during a period of daily violence. The perception that the Arab world was hardening its stance contributed to a sense of "encirclement" among the Israeli electorate. Consequently, many voters who were previously undecided shifted toward the right, seeking a firmer hand in managing the crisis.
The Rise of Sectoral and Religious Parties
The 1988 elections also marked a significant rise in the power of religious and sectoral parties, which began to act as the "kingmakers" of Israeli politics. Parties like Shas, Agudat Yisrael, and Degel HaTorah saw substantial gains, as many voters sought spiritual or community-based stability in a time of national turmoil. These parties generally leaned toward the right on security issues, making it easier for Yitzhak Shamir to assemble a governing coalition. The fragmentation of the political center forced the major parties to make significant concessions to these smaller groups to secure power.
The influence of these parties meant that the next government would be more resistant to international pressure regarding settlement activity and territorial withdrawals. This domestic political shift reflected a broader demographic trend in Israel, where the traditional Ashkenazi-secular elite of the Labor Party was losing ground to Mizrahi and religious populations. The Intifada acted as a catalyst for these long-simmering social tensions to manifest at the ballot box. This new political reality ensured that any future peace process would have to navigate a complex web of internal religious and nationalist interests.
Analysis of the Political Outcome
Despite the slight advantage for the right-wing bloc, the result was another National Unity Government, again headed by Yitzhak Shamir but without the rotation agreement. The election proved that the Israeli public was deeply divided on how to respond to Palestinian national aspirations, with neither side able to secure a clear mandate. The inclusion of Labor in the government was seen as a necessity for national stability, but it led to a "paralysis of policy" as the two halves of the cabinet neutralized each other. More details on this era are available through the Knesset official government records regarding the 12th Knesset.
The political stalemate within Israel mirrored the situation on the ground in the territories, where neither the IDF could fully stop the protests nor could the protesters force a total Israeli withdrawal. This period of political friction eventually convinced leaders on both sides that the status quo was untenable, paving the way for the Madrid Conference of 1991. The 1988 election served as a crucial transition point, where the traditional Labor hegemony finally gave way to a more competitive and pluralistic political system. For a broader view of the uprising's progression, the Jewish Virtual Library provides a detailed historical overview.
Conclusion and Historical Significance
The impact of the First Intifada on the 1988 elections demonstrated that security and diplomacy are inextricably linked in the Israeli consciousness. By forcing the Palestinian issue to the top of the national agenda, the uprising permanently altered the priorities of the Israeli voter. While the immediate result was a shift toward the right and a focus on security, the long-term effect was the realization that a political solution would eventually be required. This era established the political battle lines that would define Israeli discourse for the next three decades, centering on the balance between territorial integrity and demographic security.