Global media are reporting that the election results were “inconclusive,, “deadlocked,” or “no clear winner.” That’s only if you presume that Israelis governments exclude the Palestinian vote and parties. Which of course is racist. Though of course this has been the Jewish parties’ practice, with one brief exception, since the founding of the (so-called) Jewish democratic state.
If you do include the Palestinian parties in yesterday’s result, it was a resounding success for the broad, inclusive Opposition; and a resounding defeat for Netanyahu. His Likud collapsed, falling precipitously from 32 in the current Knesset to 26 in the next. His coalition of far-right and Orthodox parties has 53 seats. There are no other conceivable combinations that would get him to the 61 necessary to form a government. Unless he peels away one of the Opposition parties like Avigdor Lieberman. Though he hates Netanyahu, so this seems unlikely.
What does this defeat portend for Netanyahu? After five terms and endless protests against his cynical policies, he may be at the end of the road. Though of course he is the political vampire who continually rises from the dead. So he can’t be fully counted out. Nevertheless, any other leader facing such a defeat would be removed from Party leadership. Netanyahu is no normal leader. But neither is he immortal. This may be the final curtain.
Eisenkot’s Jewish coalition partners finished with a disappointing 48 seats. Considering the hatred which many Israelis feel toward the prime minister, it’s astonishing his parties did so poorly. This result has thrown him on the mercy of the Israeli-Palestinians. A place he does not want to be.
Eisenkot failed to generate excitement because he is a terrible, marble-mouthed speaker. His message, such as it was, offered little more than the amorphous “change.” Israelis are generally very cynical about election politics. While they flock to candidates who really seem to offer change, or a new approach, they remain unmoved by the traditional Jewish parties. They’ve been burned repeatedly in the past in terms of their expectations. The Opposition leader failed to resonate because he played it safe. “Safe” in Israeli politics means the status quo, which is disastrous.
Israel faces increasing ostracism globally (thanks to Netanyahu). The first meaningful set of sanctions have been imposed by 12 European nations. Without real change in national security policy, they will become more severe. It is an inexorable process unless it changes course. Additionally, in 2028, there is a strong possibility (or likelihood) of a Democratic president. Given the radical changes in the Democratic Party and attitudes toward Israel, relations with Israel could enter a downhill slide.
No doubt, the domestic Israel Lobby remains a formidable force. But as we’re seeing in the midterm elections, hundreds of millions in campaign cash doesn’t win many elections, as it used to. When you start out with an electoral base which has turned against you, it’s difficult to compensate for that with money and attack ads alone. Further, attempts to conceal its influence through stealth PACs with innocuous names which hide Aipac’s hidden hand, don’t have much success.
If a new more centrist government retains the same basic outlines as the current far-right one, along with a lukewarm Democratic administration, Israel drifts farther out to sea.
The number of countries prepared to impose sanctions will rise. They will become more severe, more draconian. They will begin to harm Israel industry including its arms exports. They will also damage the technology companies which provide an enormous share of the country’s export market. This, in turn will hurt the average Israeli consumer, who currently faces no impact from the country’s disastrous security policy in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
If he faces the music and brings the Israeli-Palestinians into his government, party leaders like Lieberman may bolt. He is a right-wing Judeo-supremacist. But more pragmatic than the other right-wing racists in Netanyahu’s coalition. Will he go or will he stay if Eisenkot adds the Palestinians? That is the perpetual unsettling drama of Israeli coalition-building.
The worst-case scenario is neither side forms a coalition and the country goes to a second set of elections. It has happened once before and led to an unstable center-right coalition which lasted barely a year. A second set of elections will change little and likely be almost as inconclusive. It may give one bloc an advantage. But the country will remain divided.
In the event that Eisenkot does form a coalition, the key question will be how much, if anything, will the country’s military strategy change? The key indicators will be:
- Iran
- Gaza
- West Bank
- Lebanon and Syria
If he climbs down from the current hawkish approach to Iran, it will be a welcome and radical shift. If he ends the continuing genocide in Gaza and withdraws some or all his troops occupying 70% of the territory, that too would be a serious change. If he clamps down on the settler ethnic-cleansing campaign in the West Bank and arrests the Judeo terrorists, it would unprecedented. If he ends the occupations of Lebanon and Syria, it would be an enormous shift from the current assault.
Will he make any of these changes? I would guess he will make some, but not all of them. Will these changes mark a substantive change from his predecessor? Pessimism is warranted. No Israeli government since 1977 has ever shown a willingness to compromise: to recognize a Palestinian state, to offer its Palestinian citizens full and equal rights, to embrace diplomacy over military force, to seek genuine peace with its neighbors. This government will likely not break much new ground on these issues. But even if it approaches these issues differently than its predecessor. it will be better than what Israel has now. How much better is an open question.
Discover more from Tikun Olam תיקון עולם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
