In what will probably be Binyamin Netanyahu’s last hurrah, Israel will go to the polls on November 1, faced with what will surely be the choice of whether to give Bibi another term as Prime Minister, or whether to admit that his ship has sailed. As much as many people will assert that the election is about whether Israel wants to return to a more right-wing Government, with all that it entails, it seems clear that electoral choices will be about Bibi.
At the moment the various parties are preparing their lists of candidates in anticipation of the actual election campaign. The contest will decide whether a more centrist—non-Bibi led-coalition— represented by the Bennett-Lapid initiative during the past 15 months, is a more effective direction for Israel’s future both domestically as well as internationally.
There appear to be several important variables which will ultimately effect voters deciding Israel’s future direction. Many of these are old problems but some of them are more recent. Ultimately, they reflect the deepening polarization in Israeli society. Lapid and before him Bennett, surprised many observers with the effectiveness with which they governed and how smoothly they made their personal transition into the Prime Minister’s job.
Despite the fact that Israeli polls are extremely unreliable, the most recent polls suggested that the ultra-extremist Religious Zionist Party (RZP) could double its number of seats in the next Knesset, going from six to at least twelve. Even less optimistic figures suggest at least 9-10 seats for this group. The RZP is currently led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Kahanist Otzma Yehudit faction and includes the Noam party which is an anti-LGBT faction. If they reach those numbers, it would seem unlikely at this point that an anti-Bibi grouping of parties can prevent Netanyahu from returning as Prime Minister. The unknowns remain on the right among the ultra-Orthodox Charedi parties and what remains of the Ayelet Shaked group of what was formerly the party of Naftali Bennett, Yamina.
Among the more centrist parties of Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) and Benny Gantz (Blue and White) there are many new as well as old Members who are jockeying for spots on their respective lists. Their ultimate goal of achieving a coalition of 61 seats in the new Knesset seems to be this point illusory.
The participation of the Ra’am Arab Party worked remarkably smoothly and was one of the healthiest things to emerge from Israeli democracy in decades. Both sides of the Bennett-Lapid Government benefitted from Mansour Abbas’ joining the coalition. If anyone should be miffed it is Abbas. He did not get all that was promised for Israeli Arabs, but it was a positive start. Should the right leadership emerge as Prime Minister, his branch of the Arab List will be ready to once again join a new Government. The fact that even last week during Israel’s operation in Gaza, Abbas refrained from stirring up the political pot was indicative that he understand totally how to play effective politics.
There is a further observation which has received little recognition in the course of the past week. Israel’s capture of the Islamist Jihad leader on the West Bank followed by the targeted killing of Khaled Mansour in Gaza, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as other members of the hierarchy, received minimal public attention during the five-day confrontation. (There were actually only three days under PIJ rocket shelling and IDF air attacks.) First, Hamas (as well as the Ra’am Party leaders in Israel) barely reacted. In addition, beyond the usually concern for loss of life especially children, there was very little response to the three day “war” from Washington and in the West. At least part of the silence must be attributed to the speed with which Israel achieved its goals. In addition, as it came within days following America’s successful attack in Afghanistan against al-Qaida leader and 9/11 master-mind Ayman al-Zawahiri, it would have difficult for Israel to be chastised by its friends for their targeted attack against the Islamist Jihad leaders on their doorstep. Among Israelis, Lapid and his caretaker government have received very little commendation for their brief and effective removal of the radical terrorist leaders of Islamic Jihad.
----------
Meanwhile Back at Home
Despite its loss in population and consequential loss of seats in Congress, New York remains a largely Democratic state and city. It is, therefore, very significant who the New York Times endorses in a Democratic primary. As New Yorkers prepare to vote in the re-scheduled primaries on August 23, obtaining the Time’s endorsement is very important for those running in the Democratic primary. While the “grey lady’s” backing of the specific candidates is very important as collectively these selections are a significant statement of the Time’s editorial board. They also are making an implicit judgement as to the effectiveness of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. By endorsing Representatives Jerry Nadler and Sean Maloney, the paper was rejecting more progressive candidates, while at the same time suggesting that the other candidates have merits for the future. Even more dramatic was the fact the Times chose Dan Goldman, the most “establishment” of the candidates in a wide-open primary in New York’s 10th Congressional District.
The Times’s endorsements are even more significant when considered on national scale. As President Biden and Senator Schumer demonstrated over the past several weeks, government in Washington still works, when its goals are realistic and a system of conflict resolution and compromise reigns in the legislative process. Both the President and the Majority Leader would have preferred grander bills especially regarding climate change, childcare, and health care; the legislative interests of the progressive wing, however, were not attainable at this time. Incremental change is what works, and it explains what they achieved. Similarly, the New York Times’s endorsement of Nadler, Maloney, and Goldman was an indication that it supports candidates who can best continue to achieve change. In politics, these endorsements—as was the case with Biden and Schumer’s legislative victories—are about winning not just feeling good.
Comments