Nobody won Israel’s election. That could be a victory for everybody
No one – with the exception of Israel’s Arab citizens – is happy with the election results. The right-wing bloc prevailed overall, but the loss of 15 Knesset seats has left it in an unfamiliar position: in the minority. The new Knesset will be hostile terrain for the right. The change bloc has also failed: it cannot form a government without cooperating with the two Arab parties. Even the exceptional, perhaps one-time, conditions for a change of government were not enough.
The ultra-Orthodox, Israel’s fastest-growing demographic sector, lost a third of their political strength. The ad hoc parties that sprang up after the war vanished below the electoral threshold. And the hopes of everyone else – from the Democrats to the far right – of translating their theoretical strength in the polls into actual power were dashed. The victory speeches delivered by every party leader except those of the Arab parties bear little relation to reality.
Can this lemon be turned into lemonade? Can the relative failure of every party – again, except the Arab parties – become the starting point for a political initiative that produces a collective victory? Here is the recipe. It requires every side to give up something it considers sacrosanct. In return, each stands to gain far more. Under the present conditions, Israel can turn its familiar zero-sum political game into a positive-sum one.
A broad-based government should be formed – without the Arab parties, the Haredim, or the far right – backed by 75 members of Knesset. On paper, this may look like a government built for paralysis, given the deep disagreements among its members. It is not. Such a government could move Israel forward decisively in confronting three wars that threaten us: the military war against our enemies, the war for global consciousness, and a potential civil war.
On the military front, the parties in such a government agree on the core tenets of Israel’s security doctrine and on how they should be applied against our enemies. A broad coalition would project national unity – the opposite of Israel’s condition on the eve of the October 7 massacre – and that unity is itself an important component of national security. We could end the wars in accordance with the national interest while translating the IDF’s achievements into diplomatic initiatives. The paralysis afflicting the current government, driven by fear that the far right will bring down the coalition, would give way to proactive security and diplomatic policies aimed at realistic arrangements.
Our adversaries in the war for global consciousness seek to delegitimize the Jewish state around the world. For the first time in decades, the American public is turning its back on Israel. The danger is real, and under certain circumstances – especially under an anti-Israel administration in Washington – the “Sparta” scenario could become reality. A broad-based government cognizant of the gravity of the threat would not settle for “hasbara.” It would respond through responsible policy and conduct. The statesmanlike, non-extremist right could once again be true to itself.
A tangible defeat in the war for global consciousness could exact an enormous economic price, potentially triggering a tsunami of crippling international sanctions. The prime minister himself has raised the possibility of Israeli banks being cut off from the international clearing system. If that happened, Israel would cease to be the country we have known. But a government without the far right could restore the rule of law in the West Bank, avoid inflammatory declarations, rebuild bridges with the wider world, and thereby pull the rug out from under the growing BDS campaign against us. Ireland and Spain may continue imposing sanctions, but the far more important United Kingdom, Germany, and United States would return to business as usual with the Middle East’s only democracy.
Civil war is what Israelis fear most. We came perilously close during the push for a judicial overhaul. Now, as the new Knesset takes shape, the right-wing bloc cannot proceed with its original plan. Nor can the change bloc, without the Arab parties, advance a counterrevolution that would be dangerous in its own right. This is precisely the right moment to establish a Thin Constitution – a compromise framework that meets many of the expectations of both blocs without fully aligning with the position of either. If a cross-bloc government enacts a Thin Constitution, it could stabilize Israeli democracy for generations.
A broad-based government without the Haredi parties could also advance a sensible conscription policy: those who are not seriously engaged in Torah study – more than half of the Haredi public – would be drafted, while those who neither study nor serve would face a noncriminal sanction: the loss of economic benefits. Once such an arrangement is enacted, the Haredi parties might even join the broad-based government, because it would guarantee that those who are genuinely engaged in serious Torah study could continue studying.
A state commission of inquiry could likewise be established through mutual compromise. The right would agree to establish it, despite its lack of trust in the Chief Justice who appoints the commission’s members, while the change bloc would agree to limit its mandate to examining “what happened” rather than “who is to blame.” This would be a sound approach in its own right. We would lose the catharsis of assigning personal blame to individual decision makers, but the commission could complete its work more quickly because there would be less need for lawyers to defend potential targets. Testimony would also be more reliable, since those involved would not have to shape their accounts to protect themselves personally. Israel could then correct what needs correcting with relative speed, before the next disaster and on the basis of wider agreement.
Taken together, these proposals would not fully satisfy any of Israel’s identity camps. Everyone would have to swallow some bitter pills. But if these proposals were implemented, every camp would find itself living in a better Israel – even by its own lights – than the Israel we have today. With courage and imagination, the lemon can indeed become lemonade.
