What Do You Take for a Hangover

Israel’s election has exposed the cost of doing business in Israeli politics

The aftermath of elections in Israel feels to me like a bad hangover. Or something worse. Before deciding whether to celebrate or sink into the pit of despair, here is a brief attempt to understand what just happened and what’s next.

Let’s start with the amazing news. Four out five voters showed up at the polls yesterday to cast their vote. This was a referendum on the future of Israel. And the results tell an interesting story. More about that later.

This statistic is also partially the sad news. It is a clear indication of what the people of Israel are thinking. The People have spoken. I know that some think that the opposition block lost, but the clear math points to a Knesset majority for parties opposed to the outgoing government. Jewish and Arab voters together have made that majority possible. That is a blessing and a curse. Why, because that does not mean that these parties are willing and able to form a government together, or that this mathematical victory will translate into a legislative gold mine.

I know why people voted for the opposition block and Arab parties. They handed the Netanyahu coalition a big loss in terms of actual seats in the Knesset as compared to the 2022 elections. Likud will not enjoy a majority in the upcoming Knesset. That makes parliamentary life impossible, but it does not mean that Eisenkot can form a government.

What do these election tell me of the Netanyahu bloc voters? That they are willing to forgive Netanyahu for everything if he continues to offer them the perception of security. October 7? That happened, but good for you for what you have done since. Dealing with Hamas, Hizballah and Iran takes precedence over national inquiries, trials, alleged corruption, and espionage within your inner circle.  The same towns overrun by Hamas on October 7 or shelled by Hizballah voted for Netanyahu in huge numbers.

Back to the opposition bloc. Their voters chose different parties for varied reasons. Now, building enough agreement to govern is the main order of business if President Hertzog gives Eisenkot the nod to attempt and form a government.  Organically, they cannot form a government. They will need help from other parties. Will it be possible? Keep reading.

The questions confronting them are numerous: which campaign promise takes priority? Replacing the Netanyahu government, or refusing Arab parliamentary support that makes replacement possible? Should we entertain entering a national unity government with the person we swore must be replaced at all costs? Could we sit in a government with religious parties? The questions keep spinning like a whirling Darwish.

These question falls squarely on the shoulders of Gadi Eisenkot’s “Yashar” and his partners, the Bennett–Lapid “Together” list and Avigdor Liberman’s “Yisrael Beiteinu”. Why? Because throughout the campaign their positions have differed. Eisenkot left room for outside support from Ra’am, while Bennett, Lapid and Liberman rejected reliance on Arab support or abstentions. All said no to working with religious parties and all said no to sitting with Netanyahu. So the big question for me is who will blink first: are all possibilities on the table? The bigger question is: will they still act as a bloc, or will each party look to promote its own agenda?

Campaign promises are never taken seriously in Israel. However, the promise to replace the government matters. It matters to nearly two-thirds of those who bothered to vote yesterday.

The opposition bloc can pursue a different majority. Or can they? They can, for instance, explore an arrangement with Likud under a national unity government. If such a route exists, what are the terms. Will a national inquiry into October 7 headed by the judiciary be convened? Will the conscription exemption to ultra-religious men be revoked? Will the judicial reform headed by Likud and tore this country apart prior to October 7 at best be abandoned or at least redrafted?

Israel has little time for delays, as delays have consequences. Netanyahu will remain caretaker prime minister while all these options are contemplated. And the thought of another election offers no guarantee of a result more convenient to any party.

The Arab parties, meanwhile, have their own voters to answer to. They have a unique opportunity to sit at the table. However, the price to be paid also may be too high for them to accept. They are entitled to negotiate, to demand commitments and to decide whether an agreement serves the people who elected them. If Ra’am and the Joint List are approached as possible coalition partners (official or from the outside) remains to be seen. And here is an interesting factoid. If a national unity government will be formed, the Joint List, if the numbers remain where they are now, will become the largest oposition party and thus will become head of the opposition in the Knesset.

The final numbers, to be known in a few days, and the willingness of the parties to negotiate and compromise will determine what option is feasible and determine the future Israel.

Serious concerns over security and national identity will remain. As in any coalition negotiation, negotiators will have to identify where agreement is possible and where it is not and with whom. If talks fail because demands cannot be reconciled, we will fall into a political stalemate that serves no one.

Israel must decide what matters most now. I want an honest attempt to make lemonade out of the lemons we have just been given. That will require leaders to confront their own biases head on, acknowledge difficult compromises, and explain the consequences of the choices before them to the electorate that voted for them.