Israel’s election is the decisive electoral contest that will define international politics for the coming year, given the likelihood of limited-to-catastrophic Republican setbacks after the midterms. , likely to survive in some form given his opponents’ ineptitude, has gained a fresh window of opportunity for a move against Iran. But American policymakers should only endorse this adventure if there is a clear path to victory, defined in either broad or narrow terms. Otherwise, they should direct their Israeli partners to focus their efforts elsewhere, solidifying the coalition of regional powers against Iran.
Israelis went to the polls this week and delivered the result that any rational observer of the Jewish state’s politics could have expected. , while his preelection bloc of Haredi and Religious Zionist parties fell to 53 seats, short of a 61-seat majority. However, Likud remains the largest party in Israel’s Knesset. And crucially, Netanyahu’s opponents — Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, and Yair Lapid — are boxed into a corner. Eisenkot, Bennett, and Lapid hold a combined 48 seats, assuming Avigdor Lieberman joins their coalition. But this coalition cannot win a majority. An alliance between these centrist and left-wing parties, particularly Lieberman’s secular Yisrael Beiteinu, and the Haredi or Religious Zionist parties is impossible. It would create contradictions over Ultra-Orthodox conscription and a broader religious outlook that preclude a government.
Comments