News Analysis: Sharon set to win again, although voters prefer Labour's policies

When Danny Seaman, head of the Israeli government's press office, introduced Ariel Sharon at the Prime Minister's annual joust with the foreign press, just over a week before he faces the electorate, he said he was sorry that Mr Sharon had been unable to join the journalists for a glass of wine. "That's all right," said a notably bullish Prime Minister. "We can do it next year."

Mr Sharon's optimism is understandable. His Labour opponents have so far signally failed to capitalise on the seriously damaging corruption accusations that threatened at one point to immerse his Likud party. As a result, if the polls are borne out next Tuesday – and the health warning is that they give nothing away about how the 20 percent of the still undecided voters will jump – then he should be able to form a coalition with the Orthodox religious parties who account for a quarter of Knesset seats.

While this suggests a big swing to the right, it isn't ideal from Mr Sharon's point of view. He would certainly prefer exactly the kind of national unity coalition with Labour that Labour's leader, Amram Mitzna, has promised not to give him. This would make him, in the words of the Hebrew University political scientist Dr Reuven Hazan, "the pivot of Israeli politics" able to rely on Labour if the right tried to extract too many concessions from him – and vice versa.

Instead it looks possible that if Mr Mitzna keeps out of government, a Sharon victory could be less than stable, with the possibility that one or more of the religious parties could precipitate fresh elections within a year or so by withdrawing support.

The much-cited paradox of Labour's fairly dismal performance is that the polls suggest that a much larger number of Israelis appear to agree with Mr Mitzna's programme, which includes the unconditional opening of negotiations with the Palestinians, physical separation between Israel and any Palestinian entity and a partial withdrawal from the occupied territories – immediately in the case of Gaza – than want him as Prime Minister. So why isn't he doing better, particularly given his impeccable military record – something of an indispensible condition of successful Labour leaders, and emphasised in his television commercials?

The decision by the electoral authorities to pull the plug on a national broadcast in which Mr Sharon said he would defend himself against corruption charges probably worked in the Prime Minister's favour, turning him, if briefly, into an underdog. And while it's easy to exaggerate the effect of campaigns in any election, Mr Mitzna's has broken more of the rules of slick modern campaigns than Mr Sharon. According to Professor Gadi Wolfsfeld, another leading academic at the Hebrew University, he has not followed the example of Ehud Barak who freely relied on US and British consultants prominent in the Blair and Clinton campaigns, with the result that Labour is less relentlessly focused and "on message" than Likud.

Despite the potentially catastrophic corruption allegations, Likud's broadcast includes a carefully worded reference to Mr Sharon's "responsible, level headed, and experienced leadership". Professor Wolfsfeld says Mr Sharon's pitch steers clears of boasting of achievements – since there aren't any to speak of – and instead relies on a kind of "anti-charisma charisma", which makes a virtue of not being new or exciting. Professor Wolfsfeld adds: "Essentially he's saying, 'I'm Prime Minister, I'm good at being Prime Minister and who the hell is that guy?'"

More tellingly still, he suggests, Mr Sharon has deliberately tried to project an image of moving towards the centre, while Mr Mitzna, by ruling out a national unity coalition, has not reciprocated.

Another possibility is that Israeli voters prefer Mr Mitzna's policies but want Mr Sharon to implement them. The Hebrew University analysts suggested yesterday that there was a tendency among Israelis to think that if Likud delivered the "painful concessions" that Mr Sharon continued to insist Israel would be ready to make once Palestinian violence ended, they were likely to stick. By contrast, many electors fear that any attempt by Labour to negotiate a peace package will be sabotaged from the right. What's more, Mr Mitzna has concentrated on Palestinian and security issues, rather than, as Ehud Barak did in his successful 1999 campaign, making more of Israel's stricken economy under Likud. Mr Mitzna is expected to turn more to economic issues in the final days of the campaign.

You can't understand Israeli electoral politics without being aware of two key points. One is that the, frequently used, left-right labels should probably be "hawks and doves" since they apply only to attitudes to security and Palestinian issues and not to differences over social and economic policy as they do in Britain. And the other is that it's essential to think blocs, of which there are four, at least as much as parties, of which there are 29. Thus Labour's latest poll rating, giving it 20 Knesset seats instead of its current 26 is only part – though the biggest part – of a fall in the left bloc that also includes Meretz, which says it's passionate about getting negotiations started with the Palestinians, and the Arab parties, many of whose natural supporters are disillusioned enough to keep turn-out down to around 60-65 per cent. When Mr Barak won the 1999 election, well over 90 per cent of Israeli Arab voters opted for him as Prime Minister and yet he didn't even invite the Arab parties to open negotiations as possible coalition partners.

With this in mind, it does indeed look as if the right is on the ascendant – with the Likud-led bloc polling an equivalent of 45 seats compared with 33 in the outgoing Knesset. That said, the race is not over yet. The big story of the campaign has been the growing strength of Shinui, which has eschewed the dominant security and Palestinian issues for an unbridled attack on Jewish ultra-Orthodoxy's ability to suck in public funding and exercise a pervasive influence on the social life of the country while its adherents escape military service.

All the main parties are fighting for the undecided vote, including would-be boycotters among Israeli Arabs and the nationalist, right-leaning new Russian immigrants. And while expert opinion differs, Mr Mitzna's career might not be over even if, as the polls say, Mr Sharon returns as clear victor.

Mitzna opponents have suggested that under the 79-year-old Shimon Peres, foreign minister until Labour left the coalition last autumn, Labour would be doing much better. But, says Hebrew University's Reuven Hazan, Mr Peres's name is often invoked when Labour toils. He has never won an election as leader.

How could Mr Mitzna sur-vive as leader if the pressure within Labour to join a national government became irresistible? Perhaps the only circumstances in which he could eat his words on coalition would be if war on Iraq impacted directly on Israel during the weeks of coalition horse-trading that could still follow the results early on the morning of Wednesday week. But if Mr Sharon is forced to depend on the religious parties, and a second election is possible well before the end of a four-year term, Mr Mitzna could be given a second chance. Either way Israeli politics is a little more fluid than it looks at present.

THE MAIN CONTENDERS

By Justin Huggler

ARIEL SHARON

At present, the election looks to be a long victory march for Ariel Sharon. Only a few years he was considered beyond the pale by most Israelis, the renegade who led them into the mire of Lebanon. Today most Israelis view him as safe hands, and a moderate. A corruption scandal briefly threatened his campaign and there are whispers of more corruption claims, but Mr Sharon is likely to emerge from the election more powerful than ever.

AMRAM MITZNA

He took Labour into the election promising to return to negotiations with Yasser Arafat and if talks failed, withdraw from much – but not all – of the occupied territories. He convinced Labour, winning the party leadership by a healthy majority, but not the Israeli electorate. If the polls are right, he will record one of the party's worst performances. A former general and successful mayor of Haifa, he has looked a fish out of water in national politics. Whether he can survive a poor election performance remains to be seen.

TOMMY LAPID

Tommy Lapid is the other winner in this election. While Mr Sharon looks bound to win, Mr Lapid has transformed Shinui from a small fringe party to one that is tipped to come in third, and could hold the balance of power. His campaign has been simple: an attack on the disproportionate power wielded by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Mr Lapid has been accused of racism. But his demands to end big handouts for the ultra-Orthodox, and that they serve in the army with other Israelis, have struck a chord with the secular majority.

AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN

Avigdor Lieberman, a former nightclub bouncer, leads the far right. His National Union, an alliance of three small parties, supports harsher policies towards the Palestinians than those of Mr Sharon. It is one of three parties that openly supports "transfer", the forced expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories. Mr Lieberman, a Russian immigrant, relies heavily on the Russian community for support. He could well enter the government if Labour refuses to join. Corruption allegations have been made against him.

RABBI OVADIA YOSEF

He told voters yesterday that for every vote cast for his party, Shas, "an angel is created in heaven", and that Shas voters, when they die, will each receive a personal angel to escort him to his "royal suite in heaven". Shas is the largest ultra-Orthodox party, Rabbi Yosef its spiritual leader. Too grand to stand for election himself, Rabbi Yosef is the face of Shas, and calls the shots. Shas' agenda is simple: to get funding for ultra-Orthodox communities.