How to break Israel’s deadlock: A proposal for skeptical party heads and voters

Here is how to break the Israeli election’s deadlock. The Jewish-led “change bloc” should team with the Arab-led Ra’am party, and two of the three factions of the Arab-led Joint List, to form what I would call a “government of service and inquiry,” “memshelet sherut ve-hakirah” (combining terms that change bloc leader Gadi Eisenkot uses). This government would fulfill two great needs at this election’s core that no other coalition could: making Israel’s draft truly universal and equal, including ultra-Orthodox Jews for military service — and Israel’s Arab citizens, for civilian national service or military service as each person chooses — and establishing a state commission of inquiry into October 7.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc of parties plummeted from a majority of 68 seats in the 120-member Knesset to a minority of 53. This electorate is not enthusiastic about its status-quo leadership. The change bloc of Jewish-led opposition parties will hold 48 seats, and Arab-led opposition parties will hold a record-high 19. Thus, the overall opposition won 67-53. But three of the change bloc’s four party heads, Eisenkot as well as Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman, have said, following October 7, that they will not form a government with an Arab-led party. (The Arab-led parties also have pertinent, under-explored differences among them, on which more, below.)

For these parties to reverse and sit in government with Arab-led parties — or rely on their votes from outside the government — that government would have to offer striking achievements, to satisfy at least some of the Jewish voters who, rightly or wrongly, want these leaders to keep that promise. This moment offers just such an opportunity.

I write this not on behalf of any party, but as a rabbi who serves a community, with several members whose relatives have been called up for reserve duty. I have lived in Israel, and have run to its bombshelters. I draw these conclusions from Israel’s own highest values. Israel’s Declaration of Independence pledges “the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants,” adding, “We appeal… to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State… with due representation.” Menachem Begin, founder of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, said in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture: “You rise, you struggle, you make sacrifices to achieve and guarantee the prospect and hope of living in peace – for you and your people, for your children and their children.” Our question now is what strategy will best realize these values.

Since Israel’s founding, the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, have been exempt from the draft, in favor of Haredi men devoting themselves exclusively to Torah study. In the years of multi-front war since October 7, this inequity has become a crisis. Only some parents worry their children will die in combat. Israelis have been called up for reserve duty for tour after tour. Netanyahu’s coalition, featuring the Haredi parties, has perpetuated and endeavored to strengthen this exemption.

The change bloc’s leaders have promised to end this exemption. The only way they can is through a government with Arab-led parties. They can defend this plan to skeptical voters as the only path to Haredi enlistment — and to an even further victory: mandatory service for Arab citizens of Israel.

Arab citizens have also been exempt. Israel has avoided militarily pitting them with “their country…against their people.” But Israel has a civilian alternative, sherut le’umi, “national service,” in settings like kindergartens and national parks, particularly for Modern Orthodox young women with religious exemptions from military service. Arab citizens could choose either national service or military service.

Arab-led parties would give mandatory service buy-in, involve the right stakeholders, and help it succeed. Mansour Abbas, head of the Arab-led Ra’am party, has already floated national service for Arab citizens. Eisenkot speaks of “service for all”; Arab-led parties would help him fulfill his promise.

A government of service and inquiry would illustrate that Arab voters are not the “threat” some Israelis believe. A month after October 7, 70% of Arab citizens said they feel “part of the country.” A year later, nearly 60% said “the war has created a sense of shared destiny between Arabs and Jews in Israel.” This government would concretize this ethos of “partnership.”

It would also rebut the Netanyahu bloc’s justification that it won the “Jewish majority.” Former general and Democrats leader Yair Golan, calling for joining with Arab-led parties, wrote, “The change bloc has a Zionist majority,” because “[i]n Netanyahu’s bloc sit 16 Knesset members from non-Zionist Haredi parties, who promote mass draft evasion while our children are fighting and dying.”

If Netanyahu declares support for Haredi enlistment, this would be mere talk designed to keep power, like his 2020 promise to rotate the premiership with Benny Gantz, which ultimately did not happen. In fact, Netanyahu’s government in 2014 passed a law drafting the Haredim; then Netanyahu’s next government gutted the law before it could take effect.

And a government of service and inquiry would create a state commission of inquiry into October 7, as Eisenkot has demanded and Netanyahu has blocked. This commission would represent an unsurpassably essential state role: revealing how Israel failed to prevent the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, so the people may hold those responsible accountable, and prevent these mistakes in the future.

Liberman’s argument this week for not teaming with the Arab-led parties — that the coalition would “survive less than a year” — is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the change bloc and Arab-led parties wish to stay in coalition, then the coalition will survive. (The 2021-22 “change government” dissolved for a different reason: the defections of two members of Yamina, a Jewish-led party more staunchly right-wing than any in the current change bloc.)

To the change bloc’s other heads and skeptical voters: Consider the alternative. No Haredi enlistment. No commission of inquiry. A second election, which would buoy Netanyahu’s bloc.

Israelis are right to fear the prospect of a government with parties and lawmakers whose program would destroy the state. There are several answers to this. First, “the Arab party leaders have condemned everything about Oct. 7,” analyst Dahlia Scheindlin noted.

Abbas, of Ra’am, has also acknowledged that Israel’s identity as a Jewish state “will remain.” As for whether the Arab-led Joint List will do likewise, change bloc leaders should look to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the proto-Israeli right’s founder during British rule. He opposed “special paragraphs explicitly safeguarding the ‘national’ character of [a state]… [rather, it] should be guaranteed ipso facto, by the presence of a certain majority.” Israel already is a Jewish state because of its Jewish majority and the Law of Return. Eisenkot would establish a Zionist government, and any party that would work to advance its goals should be accepted.

Ra’am supports a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side. The Joint List has said the same, as have Hadash and Ta’al, two of the three factions within the Joint List.

But the more radical Balad faction within the Joint List features support for a single state, or for a two-state solution as “a step” toward a single state. In practice, this would be Palestine with a Jewish minority. Israelis wisely fear no one would stop Hamas from carrying out its promise of “a second, a third, a fourth” October 7, and the words in its charter, “The Day of Judgement will not come about until… the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems… there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” As President Obama said when asked about a single state, “the Jewish people” need “a state that they are secure with, and that they can preserve from aggression,” particularly since “the neighborhood [i.e., the Middle East] is in such a mess.” (Balad chair Sami Abu Shehadeh also has mixed comments about October 7; under pressure from the Supreme Court, he ended his candidacy and will not be in the Knesset.)

However, the change bloc can form a government with the Arab-led parties minus Balad. Of the Joint List’s 11 seats, apportioned among its three factions, Balad will hold only three seats. Without Balad, the government would still have a majority of 64.

If change bloc leaders “want the Arab parties in, they’ll find a way,” Scheindlin wrote. Such a government would fulfill another Jabotinsky principle: “In every Cabinet where the Prime Minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab, and vice-versa.”

With respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only Eisenkot could unite the change bloc, Arab-led parties, and those who voted for Netanyahu’s bloc out of fear of terrorism, who want Israeli ethics not to cost them their lives. A former IDF Chief of Staff, Eisenkot advocates fairness and pragmatism. Regarding the Gaza war: Immediately after October 7, Eisenkot joined a national unity government with Netanyahu, but he left the following June, saying in effect that Netanyahu was prolonging the war for political gain.

Regarding the West Bank: Eisenkot has vowed to stop “Jewish terrorists,” whom Israelis widely oppose. He aims to “create the conditions for a permanent-status arrangement in the future,” even if one would not be feasible immediately, such as a Palestinian “state-minus” without an army.

A government of service and inquiry could start fixing the many problems shared by all Israeli citizens: cost of living, crime, cronyism, and more. A borderline-technocratic government, like the change government of 2021-22, would benefit all.

The change bloc parties already sat with Ra’am in that government. All they need to do is bring an expanded version of that coalition back to power.

Jewish and Arab opposition leaders: Show the bravery of Anwar Sadat coming to Jerusalem and Begin welcoming him. Israel’s democracy is at stake.