SECOND ATTEMPT

It was the second extraordinary parliamentary elections held in Israel during this year. It is difficult to predict if a new ruling coalition is formed after the elections. Apparently, Israel will retain its tough position in the Middle East conflict at least in general terms, since it is the approach that the political forces received the greatest electoral support for.

Coalition uncertainty

After the April elections, the ruling Likud party and the opposition centre-left bloc Kahol-Lavan (Blue and White) won 35 seats in the 120-seat Israeli parliament. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to create a government with the help of smaller right-wing and religious orthodox parties, since the Our Home Israel (YB) led by former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman refused to cooperate with the latter. In May, the Knesset was dissolved followed by the announcement of early elections, which took place on September 17.

According to Israeli experts, there hasn’t been such an election campaign in Israel before. Mutual accusations and criticism of politicians from different political blocks was no longer ideological but personal. Netanyahu was the primary subject of criticism as his political stance was weakened due to accusations of taking bribes, fraud and breach of trust. Although the incumbent prime minister and leader of the Likud party categorically denies the accusations, the attacks of his political opponents significantly affected the voting results.

Kahol-Lavan gained the largest number of votes, hence receiving 33 seats in the parliament, while Netanyahu's Likud has got 31 seats or five less than in April. Remarkably, the rest of the mandates were distributed as follows: 13 for the United Arab List, 9 for the ultra-orthodox Shas party, 8 for YB, which is considered a party supporting the interests of the Russian-speaking community in Israel.

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has begun consultations with parliamentary factions on the establishment of a new government. However, the difficulties along this path are so obvious that the possibility of the third elections to the Knesset this year is not ruled out.

In fact, the alignment of political forces after the September 17 elections does not at all contribute to forming a new ruling coalition. In theory, a party that won the election should form the cabinet with its leader becoming the prime minister. Following this logic, the president should have given the mandate to form the government to the leader of Kahol-Lavan, the former chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Beni Gantz. However, he is in no hurry to take the responsibility yet mainly due to tactical considerations. Perhaps he expects the ultimate failure of the incumbent prime minister, if Netanyahu agrees to form a new coalition.

The new government however must have the support of at least 61 members of the Knesset. But for the moment, this is extremely difficult for both Netanyahu and Gantz. It is expected that 57 deputies may support Gantz, including the representatives of the United Arab List, which, according to one of the members of this political bloc Ahmad Tibi, is trying to "make history, do everything necessary to overthrow Netanyahu."

Netanyahu can count on the support of 55 right-wing and orthodox deputies. Not only Likud, but also the religious parties Yahadut HaTora and Shas expressed their support for Netanyahu and decided to negotiate the coalition as a single bloc.

In this situation, much will depend on the position of YB, which however is not going to join any of the protagonists of the post-election battles. The YB leader has repeatedly stated that under no circumstances would he enter into a coalition with both Arab deputies and representatives of Jewish Orthodox parties. Consequently, Lieberman will support neither Ganz, who also relies on the support of 13 Arab deputies, nor Netanyahu, who is ready to take advantage of the loyalty of 17 Orthodox deputies. Lieberman openly stated his position shortly after the election: “After Prime Minister Netanyahu concluded a blocking agreement with orthodox parties and the national religious bloc, we decided not to recommend him as the head of the future Israeli government. The United Arab List is an outspoken enemy of the State of Israel. That's why we cannot recommend Beni Gantz to the post of prime minister either. Our decision is not to recommend any of the candidates.”

Government of national unity?

But is it possible in such an extremely uncertain situation to assume the seemingly impossible: the creation of a coalition by the forces of the victorious antagonists, Kahol-Lavan and Likud? Even before the September elections to the Knesset, Beni Gantz indicated the possibility of creating a government of national unity with together with Likud and even YB. According to Gantz, such a government will represent the interests of the majority of the country's secular population "without orthodox money obsession and right-wing radicalism."

Obviously, the alleged Kahol-Lavan-Likud coalition could rely on a stable parliamentary majority. Perhaps it would be able to agree on the issue of alternating premiership between Netanyahu and Gantz. But Gantz announced that he would enter into an alliance with the Likud only if Netanyahu resigned. In other words, the leader of Kahol-Lavan admits a coalition with Likud but categorically objects to the presence of Netanyahu himself in the new power configuration.

By the way, YB, which is invited along with Likud to work with Kahol-Lavan, almost mockingly rejected the possibility of an agreement between Netanyahu and Gantz. According to Lieberman, the stumbling block in the negotiations involving Likud and Kahol-Lavan is the right to be the first to take the post of prime minister. “Let them throw a tails-up or have fisticuffs,” Lieberman recommended ironically to Netanyahu and Gantz.

So, it seems that consultations on the establishment of a new Israeli government will be difficult. Nevertheless, it is very likely that the main parties of the process will reach an agreement soon or later. They are obviously tired of the election process, so it is unlikely that the parliament will be dissolved again and Israel will go for the third elections in the current year. It cannot be ruled out that the outcome of the “coalition” problem in Israel is affected by an external factor, which, like the course of internal political battles, will definitely influence the further development of the situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

What will be the global effect of the “highest point of change”?

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims the fifth premiership term during more than ten years (longer than all other Israeli prime ministers), counts on the support of the United States. The incumbent American president, Donald Trump, favours not only the State of Israel, the closest ally of Americans in the Middle East, but also personally Netanyahu. It was precisely during the reign of Netanyahu that Trump took his landmark demarches, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and the recognition by Israel of the Golan Heights, an occupied Syrian territory. Trump’s latest decision just before the April election was a clear indication of his personal support to Netanyahu and his Likud party.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu himself chose to personally strengthen his current election campaign with new initiatives of nationalist content. Before the election, he promised that if he won the election, he would annex a significant part of the West Bank, the territory occupied by Israel in 1967, in which Tel Aviv has been carrying out the construction of Jewish settlements in violation of international laws.

While Netanyahu, amidst attempts to put together a new ruling coalition, promises “the highest point of change in the history of the Jewish people and the State of Israel” and calls on compatriots “to show confidence in order to complete the historic mission and permanently strengthen the borders of Israel and its security,” Palestinians consider his last initiatives as a preparation for new war crimes that may ruin hopes for ultimate peace in the region.

Is it possible that Tel Aviv demonstrates a more flexible approach to the resolution of the conflict if Netanyahu and his political bloc nevertheless leaves the political arena of Israel? Although the leader of Kahol-Lavan, Beni Gantz, has not yet specifically expressed his attitude to Netanyahu’s plans on annexation, any talks about milder position of the ex-chief of the IDF General Staff seem unreasonable. Possible joining of Avigdor Lieberman to either one of the nominees also does not allow for assumptions about the expected change in the current foreign policy of Israel, since YB is known as a political force that maintains a tough stance towards the Palestinians. Actually, Lieberman’s reluctance to participate in the government coalition along with the Arab deputies of the Knesset is a clear indication of his position. By the way, the Merets party, which opposes the occupation of the Palestinian territories, could secure only five seats in the Knesset. This fact also points to the mode of Israeli voters.

In other words, the likely changes in the alignment of Israeli political forces do not promise any changes for the settlement of conflicts in the Middle East. In this sense, the outcome of the September elections in Israel are limited mainly by domestic content.