Israel's political roller coaster

By Barbara Plett
BBC correspondent in Jerusalem

There is a cabinet minister at large, playing hide and seek from the government. He pops up occasionally for furtive interviews with national radio.

Sacked minister Benny Elon used a loophole to challenge Sharon

Another two ministers have quit their posts. But their party has stayed in the ruling coalition, so it now has representatives in both the opposition and the government.

Welcome to another week in the roller coaster world of Israeli politics.

Things started to rock when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to ram through a policy that was popular with the Israeli people but opposed by his Likud Party and most of his government: a unilateral withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip and a small part of the West Bank.

Lacking a majority, he manufactured one - sacking two ministers who disagreed with him.

He also so worded his policy that while "disengagement" was approved by his shrunken cabinet, the evacuation of Jewish settlements was not - this will require another vote.

Despite the compromise, two members of his cabinet resigned. But they did so against the wishes of their party, which wants to stay in the coalition. That leaves Mr Sharon with a majority in his cabinet but a minority in parliament, and struggling to hang on to power.

Fractured society

This pattern of impasse punctuated by crises is familiar in Israeli politics.

Most immediately the recent antics were about exploiting legal loopholes for political ends. So ex-Tourism Minister Benny Elon dodged his letter of dismissal because it would take effect only 48 hours after he received it. This, he said, would allow him to vote against the withdrawal.

The real problem, though, is that Israel's political system reflects but cannot bridge the fractures in its society.

The Gaza plan is backed by many - but others strongly oppose it

The system was designed for a party with a clear majority that represented a unified public opinion.

In the beginning it worked. For the first 28 years of Israel's existence the Labour Party was the party of state, with widespread support for its vision of a new Jewish nation based on a secular European model.

But the mid-1970s saw the rise of the "second Israel", the religious, orthodox and Arab or eastern Jews who felt alienated from and discriminated against by a system they saw as European, secular and unrepresentative.

They found their wishes better expressed by small sectoral parties, or by Likud, which also championed the goal of a "Greater Israel", or no territorial compromise with the Palestinians.

Since then there have been two main political blocs, Likud and Labour. Sometimes they have governed together, sometimes in coalition with the smaller parties.

Historically they have divided on the issue of peace with the Palestinians and the withdrawal from occupied territory this would involve. Labour was in favour of the Oslo peace process, for instance, while Likud was opposed.

Sharon's odd situation

But there are other fissures on top of land and peace. There are also the splits between secular and religious, and between Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens.

The result is that Israel's government coalitions - left, right or unity - tend to be built on the lowest common denominator.

Take the current cabinet for example. It is made up of the National Religious Party (NRP), Shinui, and Likud.

The NRP is a far-right religious party which opposes territorial concessions to achieve peace with the Palestinians and is in favour of settling the occupied territories with Jews. It also wants to deepen the religious character of the state.

Shinui is a secular centre party. It is in favour of a peace process and believes settlements should be evacuated.

Likud now contains elements of both.

To keep this coalition together thus requires a policy in favour of peace while doing nothing in the West Bank and Gaza to achieve it.

So when Mr Sharon proposed his own version of territorial compromise - in essence giving up Gaza and settlements there in order to keep hold of the massive settlement blocs in the West Bank - the glue could not hold.

Now he is in an extraordinary position: opposed by most of his parliament and party, and supported by most of the opposition.