Elections and the limits of change in Israel

Writer: Nabil Amr

Initial indicators indicate strong possibilities that the Israeli elections will bring something new, the title of which will be the removal of Netanyahu and his coalition from power, and the establishment of an alternative coalition whose government is so far likely to be formed by General Eisenkot.

In Israel, where polls predict with a close degree of accuracy the sizes of the main forces in it, whoever will form the new government will find himself shackled by the restrictions of the special programs of the forces involved in his coalition.

Let us take Eisenkot’s hypothesis, and his formation of a government that includes the partisan forces that enabled him to win, what are the limits of the change that he can do, keeping in mind that his coalition agreed on only one item, “No to Netanyahu,” and otherwise everything is disputed.

The situation of Eisenkot and his coalition is very different from that of Netanyahu, who ruled Israel for a long time and whose coalition was characterized by his strict discipline, due to the certainty of each party that he had no chance of ruling except through discipline of his president, who was able to adapt Israeli policy to the inclinations and programs of the members of his coalition.

They were all with him in any decision he made, and even when he overthrew generals and politicians who did not agree with him, he found decisive protection from his coalition, which was not out of conviction in what he did, but rather a necessity to remain in power.

Netanyahu was able to satisfy the leaders of his coalition, until each one of them felt like a prime minister in his field. Smotrich is a true Minister of Finance, and an effective partner in the Ministry of Defense, and Ben Gvir is Minister of Internal Security who leads the police even when it is outside its authority and work traditions. For example, when he stormed Al-Aqsa and attacked worshipers, in a way that harmed Israel’s relationship with Jordan, Netanyahu turned a blind eye to what was in fact a cover for his behavior. Netanyahu will not remain at the head of the government if Ben Gvir withdraws from his coalition.

Netanyahu's coalition was based on mutual interests between him and his leaders, which provided survival and stability for the coalition in a way that he completed his term without missing a single day. However, the matter is different with Eisenkot, who will form a government whose agreed-upon program is “No to Netanyahu.”

Future disagreements arose between the poles of his coalition before the elections. For example, Bennett, despite being the least likely in the polls, believes that he is more deserving of forming the government. Because he did it when he shared it with Lapid, which provided him with a certificate of service that distinguished him from the new general in politics and governance.

The same applies to Lieberman, who has more right-wing positions than Netanyahu. The Russian immigrant sees himself worthy of heading the government. He alone is capable of succeeding Netanyahu in the leadership of the entire right in Israel, including Likud, and Lieberman does not lack in the field of experience that qualifies him to present himself; He was Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and held other ministries.

The prior fight over the prime ministership has been postponed to ensure a sufficient majority to oust Netanyahu. However, what will happen after the victory will certainly be a resumption of disagreement over the position of the first man, and each of its poles will maintain its own agenda, waiting for the appropriate opportunity to pounce, and something like this has happened many times in Israel.

As long as we are talking about the hypothesis of Eisenkot’s victory and his formation of the new government, a serious problem faces the general, which is how he deals with the Arab representatives, who are described as the “pick’s egg” in forming any government, and the matter here is not just votes offered for bargaining. Rather, there are conditions to which the “pig’s egg” has committed itself regarding who it supports and who it provides a safety net for, including the condition of opening a political horizon to solve the Palestinian issue, and this seems to be the most difficult of conditions for consensus. Zionists do not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

How can Eisenkot address this dilemma? So far, the man is not revealing his cards in this regard. However, the calculations of the field are inevitably different from the calculations of the threshing floor, and what was before the elections in the stage of collecting votes is different from what happened after it. That is, when the creation of government is the basis, and maintaining it as well.

After a few days, the ambiguous matters become clear, and the questions that were necessary to avoid in the election campaign are answered. However, there is a certain fact that must be taken into consideration, which is that change must occur, but the question is: Where do its limits reach?