One Post-Election Takeaway for all the Parties of the Change Bloc

It would certainly be helping things now if, in election campaigns, party leaders would lay out their principles and goals but then say, as an inseparable part of that message: my ability to see this through depends on your vote, on the outcome of the vote. This is what I, my party, stand for but what of this agenda I will be able to implement depends on your vote.

As opposed to saying, as they all did, in dogmatic, sometimes bombastic language, I will!… or, I will not!– fill in the blanks of whatever ultimate position. They could, should, speak passionately of their values and goals and try to convince voters of their merits and necessity but make clear that they are not magic workers.

This would spare us all the gratuitous agonies of the current moment, when the election results require adjustments of positions and walkback of “promises” that none of the leaders can keep, leading to cynicism on the part of voters about their vote and the electoral system  and partisan manipulation by the losing parties and bloc in this election (“liars!”as if that is a Change bloc monopoly) – when such walkbacks are the stock in trade of all election results.

This does not mean that all positions taken before the election are equal. Anathematizing the Arab parties that serve in the Knesset as terror-supporting and illegitimate partners in any governing scenario was and is indefensible, a vile lie and incitement.

Politicians could certainly say that their goal is governing with people and parties who accept– some stated, bottom line position– as Gadi Eisenkot did, though the fourth condition he added to the original three– all of which Mansour Abbas met– was ill-advised. He seems now to be revising that fourth condition with workable language: label Hamas a terror organization—and support ending its military and governing power– the latter of which,  Mansour Abbas and Raam endorse openly, explicitly; he and the Joint Arab List having repeatedly, consistently, condemned violence and specifically, that of the Oct. 7 attack. Accepting and working with shared positions in this matter while maintaining difference, even adamant difference, on other positions is no different in this situation, regarding the Arab parties (and certainly, regarding the Joint Arab List’s refusal to recognize the Declaration of Independence, as Raam does), than the rest of the parties of the Change bloc maintaining their substantial differences with one another while working to realize shared goals. That is parliamentary politics.

Short-sighted, dogmatic rhetoric comes home to roost, as it is now doing, making the formation of a government much more difficult that it needs to be– when the non-negotiable, urgent goal, of all the parties of the Change bloc was and is to end the reign of Netanyahu and his partners and to re-institute the rule of law and constitutional democracy, beginning with authorization of a state commission of inquiry into Oct. 7, followed by term limits for the PM and other necessary reforms to protect and strengthen the institutions of constitutional democracy in this country, so battered by the government of the past four years.

Declaring goals but specifying– more, emphasizing– that enacting them depends on the outcome of the vote would also be a much– indeed, a desperately needed public education in civics in a country where basic literacy about democracy and the rule of law is shockingly low. It would take us out of pre-election fantasy and the inevitable post-election crash to actionable reality, and encourage civic awareness and responsibility by all, across the political spectrum.