Israeli Election Results Force Parties to Confront Campaign Promises

Following the latest Israeli elections, political leaders are facing the reality of coalition building, which clashes with the firm promises made during the campaign. They will soon need to decide which pledges to break and how to explain these shifts to voters, particularly concerning issues previously deemed "red lines." Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is cited as an example of a leader who struggled with such contradictions, having made conflicting promises in the past that led to a significant political cost. In contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is noted for his ability to change positions without alienating his base, often framing such shifts as part of political maneuvering.

As of the article's writing, Netanyahu lacks a clear parliamentary majority of 61 seats. His potential attempt to form a minority government of 56-57 Knesset members would face opposition from a bloc of 63-64 members. In response, Netanyahu emphasized in a speech the concept of a "Jewish majority" as a basis for legitimacy, aiming to sideline Arab parties. He stated, "The right-wing bloc has an absolute and decisive majority among the Jewish public and all those who support a Jewish state. We must establish a strong national-Jewish government... The Zionist majority must wake up and unite. Only then will we ensure the future of Israel." This strategy seeks to establish a public mandate based on national identity, even without a parliamentary majority.

The "change bloc," led by Gadi Eisenkot, is advised to learn from past experiences with Netanyahu by maintaining a united front of approximately 50 Knesset members to resist public pressure and potential division tactics from Likud leaders. The article notes that the Netanyahu bloc, historically united, has seen fragmentation, with United Torah Judaism and Shas indicating they would not join a government without prior guarantees regarding draft exemptions. To achieve political gains, Eisenkot's bloc is urged to present a unified public stance immediately.

The prospect of a minority government supported externally by the Joint List and Ra'am appears distant, especially given Avigdor Lieberman's public commitment against such a move. Even if Eisenkot, Lieberman, and others were open to it, the significant gap in mandates between Likud and the second-largest party would make public justification difficult. Eisenkot's political thesis was based on the assumption that the change bloc, even without Arab parties, would surpass Netanyahu's bloc, giving him the mandate to lead a transitional government. However, the emerging election results undermine this argument.

Further complicating coalition talks, parties like Yisrael Beiteinu and Yachad had pledged not to form any government with Ra'am or the Joint List, with Yair Golan being the sole proponent of considering such alliances during the campaign. Lieberman went further by demanding Ra'am be disqualified from running, a move rejected by the Supreme Court, which was seen as a tactic to appeal to right-wing voters. Lieberman's political strategy of seeking to replace Netanyahu while alienating potential coalition partners like the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties significantly limits his maneuvering room. The article concludes by questioning whether the change bloc leaders will adhere to their campaign promises, potentially leading to failure in forming a government, the dissolution of the 26th Knesset, and another round of elections, a scenario deemed unfavorable for most parties.