Skip to main content

Peres versus Netanyahu: Television Wins the Debate, Israel 1996

  • Chapter

Abstract

At 10 o’clock in the evening, on 29 May 1996, as election ballots closed, the news anchors on Israeli television announced: According to the television sample polling, Shimon Peres has won the election for Prime Minister by a two per cent margin. However, during the long night which followed, as the real results from the various ballots accumulated, this tiny advantage shrank gradually. By next morning it became clear that victory had changed hands, making Netanyahu the winner, with a 14 900 votes advantage over Peres. This virtual tie between the two candidates had been established on 27 May, two days prior to the election, following the only television debate between the two candidates for Prime Minster on 26 May. On the eve of the debate the polls still showed the small but steady advantage Shimon Peres had over Netanyahu in the polls. Two days later, on 27 May, the most popular tabloid Yediot Achronot (read by 70 per cent of Israelis) came up with a verdict ‘Netanyahu was more convincing’. The next morning, with 24 hours to go, Netanyahu closed the gap in the polls, equalizing the two camps. Shimon Peres, at 72 years old an experienced political leader, Prime Minister in office, and the architect of the Oslo peace accord, who took over the premiership following the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, lost to Biniamin Netanyahu, a 46 year-old, inexperienced politician, known for his telegenic qualities only.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arian, A. (1996) ‘Neither mobilized nor mobilizing’. Ha’ayin Hashvi’it4. The Israeli Democracy Institute: Jerusalem.[in Hebrew]

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M.(1984) Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. Routledge Kegan Paul: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auer, J.J. (1962) ‘The Counterfeit Debates’ in D. Krous The Great Debates in Carter vs Ford, Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, J.B., A. Black, N. Chovil, and J. Mullett (1990) Equivocal Communication. Sage: London and New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilmes, J. (1995) ‘Questioning in the American vice-presidential debate: A study in interactional rhetoric: Part 1’. Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Mexico, July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1983) ‘The dynamics of political interviews’. Text, 3: 131–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, D.B and P.J. Bicak (1993) ‘Toward a theory of vice presidential debate purposes: an analysis of the 1992 vice presidential debate’. Argumentation and Advocacy 30: 119–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewen, S. (1988) All Consuming Images. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp.43–59) Academic Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, K. (1992) Dirty Politics. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jucker, A. (1986) News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. (1996). Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 546: 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiss, W., S. Kline and S. Jhally (1990) Social Communication in Advertising. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebes, T. and Y. Peri (1998) ‘Electronic journalism in segmented societies: Lessons from the 1996 elections’. Political Communication 15: 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D.G. (1996) Social Psychology. 3rd edn The Mcgraw-Hill Companies, Ine: Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nir, R. (1988) ‘Electoral rhetorics in Israel - the televised debates’. Bikoret and Parshanut 24, 81–111 [in Hebrew].

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolson, A. (1996) Mediations. Edward Arnold, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, C.K and C.F. Black (1993) ‘Assessing the 1992 presidential and vice presidential debates: the public rationale’. Argumentation and Advocacy30: 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfsfeld, G. (unpublished manuscript). ‘Framing political events’.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2000 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blum-Kulka, S., Liebes, T. (2000). Peres versus Netanyahu: Television Wins the Debate, Israel 1996. In: Coleman, S. (eds) Televised Election Debates. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230379602_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics