Israeli elections: The 5 candidates steering the debate

Israeli elections will be held Jan. 22.

2. Shelly Yacimovich, champion of pocketbook issues

Ariel Schalit/AP/File
In this September 2011 file photo, Israel's Labor party candidate and former journalist Shelly Yacimovich holds a ballot with her name before casting her vote in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Shelly Yacimovich is Labor’s first female leader since Golda Meir in 1969 and is credited with reviving the struggling party, which, after decades as one of Israel's two dominant parties, captured only eight seats in the current parliament. But this time, Labor is expected to be second only to Likud.
 
Ms. Yacimovich, former host of the Israeli version of “Meet the Press,” was elected to the Knesset in 2006 and has made a name for herself by championing socioeconomic causes, including fair access to housing, education, and healthcare. 

Yacimovich’s work has tapped into Israeli frustration with the widening income gap in the country – already one of the most pronounced in the world, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

While the socioeconomic protests that drew hundreds of thousands of Israelis to the streets in 2011 have since died down, 43 percent of likely voters say economic issues such as the cost of living and housing prices will be the most important issue facing the next government, according to a recent poll by the The Times of Israel.

In a distant second, 16 percent chose Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. Yacimovich has expressed support for a two-state solution but, perhaps because she is seen as lacking security credentials, she has remained largely silent on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian threat. 
 
Despite speculation that she would join a Netanyahu government, Yacimovich has pledged to remain outside a Likud-led coalition. But she has not been able to unite other center-left parties into a bloc that could defeat Netanyahu.

2 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.