Israel rejects extremists. Coalitions, sacrifices, one certainty

Tel Aviv, from our correspondent. The day after the vote, the city – which, right up until the polls closed, was bursting with energy and celebrations – seems deserted. Everyone has returned to work; the posters declaring voting intentions are barely visible, many now crumpled, thrown on the ground or peeling off the walls. No one on the streets is wearing a T-shirt to show who they will vote for anymore. Even the stickers are no longer to be seen; everything has been layered upon the streets of this city, and the vote belongs to yesterday’s world. It is now a done deal, and Tel Aviv has absorbed the elections, returning to its usual routine whilst waiting to find out who will be given the first attempt at forming a government. There are many disillusioned people in the city, but the election result could actually lead to various outcomes and, so far, the only one that seems unfeasible for numerical reasons appears to be a repeat of this majority. Every party has lost seats, including Netanyahu’s Likud, but his four allied parties – ranging from the religious right to the ultra-Orthodox – have either remained at the same level as four years ago or seen their results worsen. The centre has grown in size but has become fragmented. 

The radicalisation that had been predicted has not materialised; the formation of the government will be a matter to be resolved by centre-right parties, or by imaginative, daring or courageous coalitions. The current government, however, has come to an end, and in the forthcoming election manifesto of the current Minister of Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir – leader of Otzma Yehudit – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will likely be included amongst the faces of enemies to be wary of. Netanyahu spent the election campaign claiming that everything would remain as it was, even though he knew this would not be possible. Ben-Gvir had realised this in advance; he had urged people to vote for his party rather than Likud, which might well have betrayed them. Only his staunchest supporters voted for him; few new voters came on board, whilst a few long-standing supporters changed their minds. Even the ultra-Orthodox, despite their demographic strength having been portrayed in recent weeks as a political threat, made little impact at the polls – particularly Shas, the party representing Sephardic Jews, which was partly drawn into the Prime Minister’s orbit. Netanyahu is accustomed to governing with whoever he chooses, with whoever agrees, and there are reasons to believe that the first person to whom he will propose a coalition – should President Isaac Herzog entrust him with the mandate – will be Gadi Eisenkot, his arch-enemy during the election campaign, whom he had previously appointed as Chief of the General Staff. Yesterday, Herzog said: “One thing must be understood, and I said this even before the election: we must do everything possible to avoid another round of elections. I expect everyone who comes to me to do so with an open mind.” Herzog knows Netanyahu; he knows he has no problem governing with anyone. The appeal is directed primarily at the opposition – at the “never” statements made by Gadi Eisenkot during the election campaign, at Naftali Bennett’s prohibitions, and at Avigdor Lieberman’s conditions. Every effort by the institutions is pushing for a government of national unity that keeps extremists out – particularly Ben-Gvir – whilst underestimating the danger posed by Smotrich. This is the wish not only of Herzog but also of the US administration.

Yesterday, the US President, Donald Trump, said that his support for Netanyahu, expressed on no fewer than two occasions, had been decisive. The polls do not bear out this claim, but the US President has made it known that he will ‘keep an eye on things’, meaning he will observe what is happening in Israel and will likely have his say. Netanyahu is indebted to Trump; he maintains that he has a job to finish with the US president: the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. But in the Middle East, the United States also has other projects for which it has assessed that extremist parties are an obstacle. For example, for the implementation of the plan for Gaza, but also for the future of the Abraham Accords. According to Ynet, the U.S. would like to see the Israeli government rotate between three prime ministers: Netanyahu, Eisenkot and Bennett. A figure for every phase of the Middle East situation, for every stage of the work to be completed. None of the three is opposed to war against Tehran; two of the three are more useful figures for future negotiations on the Abraham Accords, when Netanyahu is asked to step aside. The Likud leader, however, has a long history of saying ‘no’ to the Americans, including to Trump. His options are now few: either Eisenkot or nothing. The former Chief of the General Staff is now embarking on his political career, following an election campaign waged as a retired general. He will have to start weighing up his options and understand the difference between the battlefield and the political manoeuvring in the Knesset. He did not achieve what he had hoped for in the election, but now he must work out how not to be swallowed up by the Prime Minister whilst at the same time avoiding new elections in which his bloc would be at a disadvantage. Eisenkot could attempt to form a minority government, but his administration’s days would be numbered, as has happened in the past. At this moment, he is the most pulled-in-different-directions man in Israel: some are asking him to govern alongside the Prime Minister he was supposed to defeat at the polls, whilst others are urging him to form a government with external support from the Arab parties and their nineteen seats. The main criticism levelled by many at the ‘Block for Change’ is that it lacks the courage to reach out to the Arabs – the surprise of this election, which ended in a deadlock entirely centred on the political centre, a deadlock that can only be overcome through political sacrifice. Israel is seeking imaginative, flexible coalitions. It has reaffirmed its desire for normal politics.