H. Scott Prosterman Informed Comment
The October 27 election in Israel was a referendum on democracy, as are the US midterms. The results of those polls are inconclusive thus far, because of the Byzantine nature of Israeli party politics and the challenge of creating a majority coalition of 61 seats, which inevitably involves making alliances with some unsavory bedfellows. Israeli President Isaac Herzog has the unenviable task of consulting with the largest coalitions to determine who gets the first shot at forming a government.
This is the most consequential task the Israeli president performs, and a huge responsibility: His first pick has 28 days to form a coalition, with a possible 14-day extension. If that fails, Herzog can appoint the other party leader with the same 28-day timeline. Failure to form a government doesn’t automatically trigger a new election, but that might well be the outcome of a deadlock. Another possibility would be for the president to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to form a caretaker government, though that step would be a Faustian bargain.
What’s bad for Israel isn’t necessarily bad for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His selfish urgency to remain in office is dragging the nation down as never before.
The current results show the far-right wing Likud Party with 27 seats, and its projected coalition at 53. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot’s center-right Yashar Party stands at 21 seats, with his overall coalition at 48. The total seats projected to be held by the opposition parties add up to 67, a number that includes the 19 seats garnered by the Palestinian-Israeli parties of the secular Joint List headed by Yousef Jabereen, and Ra’am––the Islamically oriented United Arab List of Mansour Abbas.
The unprecedented 19 seats won by the Palestinian-Arab parties are a wild card. In most countries, that showing would make them kingmakers. They say they are willing to engage with anybody committed to Netanyahu’s ouster, but it seems improbable that Eisenkot’s coalition would be willing to allow them to join it. Prof. Juan Cole notes that the “19 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, nearly 16% of seats . . . isn’t quite equal to their 21.7% proportion of the population, but it is closer than they’ve been before.” He noted, “This rejection of political participation for over a fifth of the population illustrates the oxymoronic character of the phrase ‘Jewish and democratic.’”
Both major Zionist blocs are fractured, with tenuous, unpredictable alliances, as illustrated by the abrupt withdrawal from Eisenkot’s opposition coalition of Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beytenu (“Israel is our Home”) Party. He has cut off contact with his opposition allies, including Eisenkot and Naftali Bennett, chairman of the center-right B’Yachad (“Together”) Party. Lieberman says he wants a national unity government of Netanyahu and Eisenkot. He will not join a solely Netanyahu-led coalition, however, because of his visceral dislike for the latter.
If the two Zionist blocs refuse to form a national unity government, the numbers dictate that neither alone can put together a government without the Palestinian-Israeli parties. Given the revulsion against this idea expressed by Eisenkot, by Lieberman, and by Bennett, it seems most unlikely that the opposition will bring the Joint List and Ra’am aboard.
If Netanyahu prevails, it will be due to the demographics of the Haredim and religious parties, who tend to have very large families. Netanyahu enjoys overwhelming support in those Ultra-Orthodox towns, kibbutzim and neighborhoods. This popularity arises from his record of doing their political bidding, along with religious considerations. “Haredi” is derived from the Hebrew word meaning “to tremble,” as in trembling from fear of God. Their unwavering support for Netanyahu makes me tremble.
Eisenkot favors ending the draft exemption for Haredi young men, which makes them tremble. He also wants to keep all legal West Bank settlements in place and secure, but wants to dismantle the illegal ones. The International Court of Justice, however, has ruled that all Israeli squatting on the land of the Palestinian West Bank is illegal in international law.
Haaretz columnist Yossi Verter characterized the election as “a rout for both sides.” With his often amusing cynicism, Verter points out that Netanyahu has a history of accepting all manner of “criminals, Kahanists, racists, anti-Zionists by definition who do not recognize the state, who vilify the IDF and legitimize mass draft-dodging, people who mock fallen soldiers while calling them Nazis. Everyone has room in Uncle Bibi’s cabin.” That’s a succinct summation and nice nod to Harriet Beecher Stowe. Ronald Reagan had his “Big Tent,” with no room for liberal Republicans. Netanyahu has his world where he “does not agonize over values or ethical issues. All [Zionist] partners are legitimate and suitable as far as he’s concerned.” That doesn’t leave any room for the 19 delegates of the Palestinian-Israeli parties.
Following the template of his Siamese twin in criminality, Donald Trump, Netanyahu is loudly claiming that the election was rigged, even before all the results are in. That claim is an effort to sabotage any government that includes the Palestinian-Israeli parties. Undermining confidence in elections is a time-honored tradition of authoritarian dictators. But Israeli police have found no evidence to support the Likud Party’s allegations.
Among my American friends and associates who have immigrated to Israel, most share a deep devotion to Orthodox Judaism in some form. (“There are all kinds of Jews in this world,” I’ve often been told.) They comprise the full ideological spectrum, including Netanyahu supporters, “Anybody but Bibi” voters; and long-term, committed anti-Zionists. Netanyahu is facing unprecedented opposition over numerous issues, including his three criminal indictments and his administrative failures. But his ignoring security warnings, which led to the October 7 Hamas attacks, fuels the most vigorous objections.
An Eisenkot government would initiate a formal investigation into what led up to Oct. 7, the sort of inquiry that Netanyahu has repeatedly blocked and which he deeply fears.
An irony of history is that Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, and a forebear of the Likud Party, once proposed that “in every Cabinet where the Prime Minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab, and vice-versa . . .” Zionism arose in a variety of forms and functional goals, including a visible faction rooted in secular, agrarian ideals. The recent embrace of Christian Zionism is also counterintuitive to original Jewish Zionism because of its apocalyptic model of a world without Jews, a pesky fact the Likud Party and right-wing American Jews prefer to ignore. That mindset has fueled the current predicament.
File photo, Benjamin Netanyahu. State Department photo by Ron Przysucha. Public Domain. Via Picryl.
During the campaign leading up to the election, Eisenkot was dismissive of a potential coalition with the Palestinian-Israeli parties, but they are his only viable negotiating partners now. At the moment, it appears that he will fail to seize the opportunity to lead a government and dispense with Netanyahu, who primally fears being prosecuted for his three indictments when he’s eventually out of office.
Haaretz columnist Amos Harel said, “Merely avoiding a loss is a win for Netanyahu.” Netanyahu’s aspirations may be to emulate Trump, who after all escaped removal from office after two impeachments, and nevertheless won the presidency again. Harel notes that, given the deadlock, Netanyahu “gets to continue to be prime minister for now, and another election serves him since it’s likely that his rivals have exhausted their electoral capabilities in the present round.”
This election demonstrates how far right the Israeli electorate has moved. The “liberal” Zionists, who still hold to the “secular, agrarian-socialist ideals,” have been entirely eclipsed and sidelined. Conceptual Zionism was never a simple monolith, and was born with different, competing visions of social and religious goals. It’s never been more shattered.
Juan Cole’s Informed Comment delivers independent, expert analysis of war, the Middle East, climate change, and U.S. foreign policy. Help sustain this work
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.