Amid haggling, Israel’s democracy keeps working
Israel’s politicians have entered that familiar period when campaign promises acquire qualifications, sworn adversaries become possible partners, and red lines turn out to have convenient openings.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s selection of Gadi Eisenkot to try to form a government has begun another round of coalition bargaining. There will be reasons to criticize the deals. But amid the maneuvering, Jewish communities abroad should recognize something consequential: Israel’s democracy is functioning.
As an Israeli citizen whose politics are on the right, I have preferences about the government that emerges. My confidence in Israel, however, cannot depend on whether my preferred politicians assemble the winning coalition.
Eisenkot received recommendations from factions representing 67 Knesset members, compared with 46 for caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. United Torah Judaism’s seven members recommended neither. Those numbers explain Herzog’s decision. They do not guarantee Eisenkot a government.
Recommending someone for the assignment is considerably easier than agreeing on what he should do with it.
Consider Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, who has made universal service and opposition to sweeping exemptions for Haredi men central to his political identity. He is now defending negotiations with the Haredi parties and a possible compromise on conscription.
Lieberman maintains that he has not abandoned his principles. The election results, he argues, require flexibility to replace Netanyahu and avoid another election.
Perhaps a responsible agreement can be reached. Voters are nevertheless entitled to ask why flexibility became so attractive immediately after they finished voting.
Politicians should explain which commitments they are modifying, what they expect in return, and why the public should accept the exchange.
Lieberman remains firmly opposed to a minority government dependent on Arab parties. That leaves Eisenkot confronting the difference between a coalition united against an incumbent and one united around a governing program.
• • •
Naftali Bennett faces his own questions. His campaign emphasized Israelis who serve, and his party has backed Eisenkot. But Bennett’s relative public quiet as Lieberman explores a conscription compromise leaves reservists and their families waiting for answers.
They deserve specifics: obligations, timetables and enforcement. Another declaration of solidarity will not shorten the next deployment.
As a religious Zionist, I respect serious Torah study. I also believe Israel needs a fairer distribution of national responsibility. Any agreement should explain how it will deliver that.
The Arab members of Knesset present another test of political judgment.
Their voters are Israeli citizens. Their ballots carry the same democratic weight as mine. Coalition negotiations must respect that fact while subjecting prospective partners to scrutiny.
A party’s positions on Hamas, Israel’s security and the Jewish state matter. Eisenkot’s conditions for cooperation include accepting Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and recognizing Hamas as a terrorist organization whose military and governing power must be dismantled.
Those are substantive requirements. The public deserves to know whether parties offering support will meet them, and what that support would require in return.
The allegations of Qatari and other foreign interference demand similar precision.
The initial claims have not publicly established that the election was stolen. The investigation remains open, and the Shin Bet security agency has described potentially serious foreign financing. Any substantiated wrongdoing must be addressed.
Meanwhile, the Central Elections Committee approved the results. Its chairman, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, said the suspicions did not cast doubt on Arab citizens’ voting and warned against undermining confidence in the outcome.
Israel can investigate suspected interference while proceeding with its democratic responsibilities. Indeed, that is what a confident democracy should do.
• • •
What comes next will probably test everyone’s patience: negotiations over conscription, control of the Knesset agenda, ministries, budgets and the terms of a possible unity government.
Expect declarations of principle, reports of breakthroughs and indignant denials. Some negotiating positions will prove more durable than others.
The important questions concern the resulting agreements. Will they strengthen security? Share national obligations more fairly? Produce a government capable of making decisions? Can the participants explain their compromises honestly?
Eisenkot’s success is uncertain. Further deadlock remains possible. Democratic procedures cannot guarantee political wisdom or spare a country another election.
They do require leaders to seek authority through established institutions and parliamentary support.
That is happening in Israel, despite war, bereavement, bitter divisions and enemies committed to its destruction.
Jewish newspapers rightly report the threats facing the Jewish state. We should also make room for the resilience of a country whose citizens keep insisting on a say in its future.
Israel’s politicians will bargain. Its citizens will argue. I expect to join them.
Through it all, Israel rises to the responsibility of governing itself. That deserves recognition — and a measure of pride.
Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered by Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorists in 1995.
