I hope Eisenkot is Israel’s next prime minister, so why won’t I vote for him?
Although I would be delighted to see Gadi Eisenkot become Israel’s next prime minister, I don’t intend to vote for his party, but for a different one: The Democrats. My reasoning is shaped by a lesson from Israel’s 2009 election: in a parliamentary system such as ours, you do not necessarily advance your preferred prime minister by voting for the party which is expected to win the most seats, but by giving your vote to a “bloc.”
In 2009, Tzipi Livni’s Kadima emerged as the largest faction in the Knesset, but Benjamin Netanyahu assembled a bloc of 65 and became prime minister. The decisive factor was not which party finished first, but which coalition could command a parliamentary majority.
That is why the real question for a voter to ask is not only who will head the next government, but what kind of coalition will be formed, which party best reflects the voter’s views, and how it will shape government policy.
For me, the defining issue is Israel’s future in the West Bank. For nearly six decades, it has influenced virtually every aspect of Israeli public life: security, the economy, social priorities, and Israel’s standing in the world. There are no magic solutions, but voters who oppose the current government can choose between endorsing deliberate ambiguity and strengthening a party with a clearly articulated political vision.
The Democrats advocate a diplomatic initiative aimed, ultimately, at achieving a two-state solution. Eisenkot’s new party focuses primarily on security arrangements. In essence, the difference is between wishing to resolve the conflict and seeking to manage it. To my mind, we have already seen where the doctrine of “conflict management” has brought Israel, and it is therefore not difficult to anticipate its future costs in resources, international relations, and Israel’s very future.
Two additional considerations distinguish The Democrats from much of what is broadly described as Israel’s opposition.
The first concerns their approach to potential coalition partners, or more precisely, whom they refuse to exclude. Beyond the strategic wisdom of ruling out Arab parties, I believe such exclusion is morally flawed.
As someone whose family emerged from the holocaust, I sometimes perform a simple mental exercise: I replace the word “Arab” with “Jew.” Imagine the reaction in Israel and elsewhere if the leader of a democratic country warned that “Jewish voters are heading to the polls in droves,” echoing Benjamin Netanyahu’s infamous (and false) 2015 election-day message about Arab voters, a fifth of the country’s population, which was successfully designed to rush voters to the polls and prevent his anticipated electoral loss.
Finally, there is the question of the candidates themselves. The top of Eisenkot’s team is impressive. But no one yet knows who will occupy the twentieth or twenty-fifth place on his list, or how each will behave once they hold political power.
By contrast, The Democrats’ candidates were chosen through competitive primaries. Their list includes legislators with proven records and activists who have established and led civic movements. All have demonstrated long-term commitment to liberal democratic principles. To my mind, too much is at stake to risk anonymous candidates, especially when recalling that the Bennet-Lapid government collapsed after several formerly unknown members of Knesset were promised plum positions, and switched loyalties.
Most importantly, voting for The Democrats does not diminish Eisenkot’s chances of replacing the long-serving incumbent prime minister, thus allowing Israel to embark on a much-needed process of healing. Rather, it strengthens those political forces that would help shape the character and policies of the government that he will hopefully lead.
