Netanyahu Prioritizes Power Retention Over Electoral Gains Ahead of Israeli Elections

With Israeli elections just months away, questions arise about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategic moves amid a chaotic political landscape. Known for his political savvy, Netanyahu's insistence on maintaining the alliance with ultra-Orthodox parties over the contentious military conscription issue puzzles many, as this stance does not appear to be an obvious electoral advantage. He is aware that a significant portion of the right-wing electorate opposes the ultra-Orthodox exemption from conscription and the slogan "we will die before we enlist."

Analysts suggest Netanyahu's priorities may have shifted from winning the upcoming elections to shaping the post-election political environment. This is reflected not only in his alliance with the ultra-Orthodox but also in the legislation he promotes, including a Basic Law on Torah study, the establishment of a non-governmental investigative committee, splitting the role of the Attorney General, and reforms affecting the media. These initiatives focus on controlling power centers, oversight, and narrative framing rather than addressing pressing public issues like the cost of living or regional development.

The concept of "loss aversion" in decision-making psychology helps explain Netanyahu's approach. Faced with the threat of significant loss, leaders tend to shift from expansion to defense, aiming to protect what remains rather than broaden support. For Netanyahu, preserving the right-wing bloc, especially the ultra-Orthodox partnership, may be crucial for maintaining influence in a potentially losing scenario. However, acting out of fear of loss can lead to riskier decisions that might not have been considered otherwise.

This perspective invites scrutiny not only of Netanyahu's alliance with the ultra-Orthodox but also of other recent political decisions, questioning whether they aim to expand public support or secure control over power structures amid political uncertainty. The implications of these moves extend beyond politics, potentially affecting national security, institutional stability, and public trust. The article closes by posing an open question about what further developments might unfold in the coming months.

The analysis is provided by Dana Fan Luzon, a communications professional and doctoral candidate in governance and policy at the Hebrew University.