Israel and The Blessing of Incremental Change

Now that Israeli citizens have cast their ballots, the democratic process truly begins, as the various parties will jockey for position in the hope of forming a governing coalition. With no party reaching anywhere close to the 61-seat majority required for such a government, the horse trading will begin over platforms, ministries and budget lines, all towards creating a ruling coalition.

Critics of the current government came into these elections with several priorities.  First and foremost stood the push to remove Netanyahu from his perch as prime minister, which now seems highly unlikely, given the election results. After all, Netanyahu’s Likud party received the largest share of mandates, putting him in the driver’s seat as the coalition negotiating begins, much to the chagrin of those who were hoping to turn the page before entering his third decade of leadership.  Netanyahu is also emboldened by the knowledge that should a coalition not be formed and Israelis forced to vote once again next April, he is likely to gain further seats, as the unprecedented Arab turnout of this election will be hard to replicate, and the 75,000 mostly liberal-minded voters living abroad are unlikely to once again fly home to vote in a second election.

While this may be a bitter pill to swallow for many, hope remains that other priorities could be achieved. After all, the previous coalition featured a partnership between Netanyahu’s center-right Likud and the most extreme religious and nationalistic elements of Israeli society. That coalition prioritized major changes to the country’s judicial system, creating an even larger financial support system for the ultra-orthodox Haredi community, and turning a blind eye and even an affirmative nod towards rogue hilltop settlers in their harassment and terrorism campaign against local Palestinians. Each of these issues could be potentially addressed in a center-right government, if only Netanyahu’ rivals are able to sublimate their own ambitions, not to mention hatred of Netanyahu, to make meaningful incremental change in Israel’s policies.

A centrist governing coalition anchored by the three parties who received the most votes (Netanyahu’s Likud, as well as Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar, Naftali Bennett’s B’yachad) already sits at 60 mandates, on the precipice of a governing majority.  They could then negotiate with the more marginal parties, such as the center-left Democrats, secular-hawkish Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel our home) and even elements of the Arab parties or the Religious Zionists, towards joining them. Together, they could create a platform for meaningful incremental change in Israeli society:

• National conscription for military or national service for all Israeli citizens, including the Haredim and Arab Israelis. Those choosing not to enlist would forfeit basic economic benefits provided to all other citizens.
• A decrease of overall economic support to non-working Haredim and their institutions, with additional funds going towards those serving in the military reserves.
• A real crackdown of rogue settler violence in Judea and Samaria, including prosecution of all assailants.
• Enhancing policing and support for Arab-Israeli communities, whose needs have been often ignored by the current government.
• The appointment of competent and representative individuals to important ministries, along with support for their budget priorities.

I realize that for many, such initiatives fall short of expectations, including the passionate hope of ousting Netanyahu or at least establishing an official state inquiry around the failures of October the 7th, 2023. However, we ought to keep in mind that the coalition government system, as featured throughout much of Europe, is designed to favor tempered rather than wholesale change. 

Here in the US, especially as the legislative branch has increasingly ceded power to the executive, we have become accustomed to the possibility of political sea change every four years. Even in a divided government, the winning presidential candidate has almost complete authority to appoint members of the cabinet, nominate judges and establish political priorities. Recent presidents have increasingly used the power of executive orders to bypass congress entirely, creating sweeping changes in the first days or even hours of the term. Major issues of immigration, government spending and international relationships can swing dramatically from one period to another. In this way, we have come to expect wholesale changes in our elections.

Perhaps then, we can consider the blessing of incremental change. No, many of us who hold a close and critical connection to Israel are not going to get everything that we want. Netanyahu is likely to endure and enter his third decade of leadership. An October 7th state inquiry is unlikely to be established. Any discussions around Palestinians and steps to be taken towards an eventual two-state solution are nowhere near the top of Israeli voters’ minds, especially after October the 7th.  However, the opportunity for meaningful change persists, should those in power be willing to compromise and enter into a coalition which would represent the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens.  

As government negotiations continue over the coming weeks, may the spirit of compromise embolden Israel’s leaders towards forming a government which will allow the country to address some, but surely not all, of those issues in desperate need of attention.