|
Israel just had another election. As always, the results tell us more than who won and who lost. They tell us something about Israeli society, what divides us, and where our country may be heading.
With most of the votes counted, Netanyahu's bloc has about 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot has 48, and the two Arab parties together have 19. No side has the 61 seats needed to form a government.
A quick explanation of how the system works: Israelis vote for parties, not directly for a prime minister. Each party receives seats according to the number of votes it gets. Since no party usually wins a majority, several parties must join together to form a government. This is called a coalition.
The success of the Arab parties
One of the most interesting results is the success of the two Arab parties. Together, they won 19 seats, a record. Arab voter participation increased significantly, reflecting a desire among many Arab citizens to have a greater say in the country's future.
But it is important to understand that these two parties are quite different.
Ra'am, led by Mansour Abbas, is an Islamist party. It focuses heavily on the needs of Arab citizens inside Israel, including crime, housing, education, infrastructure, and government investment. Abbas believes Arab politicians can achieve more by working with Jewish parties, including Zionist parties, when there is an opportunity to make a difference. In 2021, Ra'am joined the coalition government led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.
The Joint List represents a different approach. It places greater emphasis on Palestinian national identity, Arab political identity, equality, and opposition to Zionism. It is generally less willing to join a Zionist-led government, although it can cooperate with other parties on particular issues.
In simple terms, Ra'am is more focused on working within the system to achieve practical results for Arab citizens. The Joint List places more emphasis on national identity and the broader political struggle over the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people.
Both parties represent Arab citizens, but they do not have the same vision or the same strategy.
Their success also raises an important question. If the two main Jewish political blocs cannot form a government without Arab-party support, are they willing to recognize Arab citizens as legitimate partners in Israeli democracy, even when they disagree with them on Zionism and other fundamental questions?
The majority we sometimes overlook
Here is the point I think is often missed when people talk about Israeli politics.
A large part of the Jewish Israeli electorate is somewhere in the center-right or right. But that does not mean that all these voters support the same policies, or that they want a government dominated by the extreme right or the ultra-Orthodox parties.
Look at Netanyahu, Avigdor Liberman, Naftali Bennett, and Gadi Eisenkot. They have real disagreements, but they also have a lot in common. They believe in a strong Israel, a strong military, and the importance of protecting the Jewish state.
Why, then, should it be impossible to imagine a government that includes Likud, Liberman, Bennett, and Eisenkot?
Such a government would not agree on everything. No coalition does. But it could agree on some of the most important challenges facing Israel: security, the economy, restoring trust in government, and a fair system of military or national service.
The last point is especially important. Today, the burden of military service is not shared equally. A broad Zionist government could work toward a system in which everyone contributes to the country, through military or appropriate civilian service, with reasonable accommodations where needed.
I believe that a government built around these principles could represent a large part of the Zionist public. The problem is that our political system has become so personal and so divided that even discussing such a coalition seems almost impossible.
The Netanyahu problem
In my view, Benjamin Netanyahu is a major part of the problem.
After so many years in power, politics in Israel has become, to a large extent, about Bibi himself. His corruption trial, the deep distrust between him and his political opponents, and the question of his continued leadership have made it difficult to separate the interests of the country from the interests of one man.
If I could sit down for a coffee with Bibi, I would tell him:
“Come on, Bibi. I know you believe that nobody else can do the job. But what do you think Ben-Gurion thought? Or Menachem Begin, Golda Meir, and Yitzhak Rabin? And hey, you are living proof that they were wrong!
You are 77 years old. You have fought for this country, sacrificed for this country, and led Israel through some remarkable achievements. You have left your mark on our history. But it is time to let someone else have a chance.
Go to President Herzog. Resign, ask for a pardon, and give the country a chance to move forward. I believe you would have a good chance of receiving one. Then go and enjoy the rest of your life with Sarah and your children.
Bibi, you have given a great deal to this country. But you are not going to live forever, and neither is your political career.
I believe that if Netanyahu were willing to step aside, it would be much easier to form a broad government bringing together Likud, Liberman, Bennett, and Eisenkot.
This does not mean that Likud voters need to change their political beliefs. It does not mean that Likud should be excluded from the government. Quite the opposite. Likud could be an important partner in a government representing a broad Zionist majority.
But for that to happen, leaders must be willing to put the country ahead of their own political future. And that is something I believe Israeli politics is missing today.
When the right loses its way
I want to make a distinction here between the moderate right and the extreme right.
I have no problem with the political right. A strong right-wing party is a legitimate and important part of a democracy. People can disagree about security, territory, the Palestinians, and the best way to protect Israel while still sharing a commitment to the country.
My criticism is directed at the extreme right, particularly when ideology becomes more important than the needs of the state.
One of the great strengths of Zionism was its pragmatism. The founders of Israel understood that building a Jewish state was not just about having ideals. It was about making difficult decisions, accepting compromises, and finding ways to turn an aspiration into reality.
Israel was built by people who did not always agree, who faced enormous challenges, and who understood that the survival and development of the state had to come first.
If I could sit down one-on-one with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, I would tell them this:
“Zionism is no longer a dream that the Jewish people have been waiting 2,000 years to fulfill. It is a reality. We have a living, thriving, successful country to take care of. And in the reality of running a country, things will never be perfect. Zionism is not about getting everything you want. It is about being pragmatic, knowing when to compromise, and understanding what is possible.
When the Messiah comes, you will have your chance to discuss your utopia with him. Until then, it is time to come down to earth and deal with the reality of the country we have built.”
Today, I believe parts of the extreme right have abandoned that tradition. Territorial ambitions, religious demands, and the desire to preserve political power can become more important than the country's long-term interests. Some policies may satisfy a particular ideological group, but that does not necessarily make them good for Israel.
To me, this is a contradiction at the heart of today's Israeli politics: politicians who describe themselves as the most committed Zionists can support policies that weaken the state, deepen its divisions, and make it harder to govern.
What kind of Israel do we want?
The election shows that Israel is divided. We have Arab citizens who have their own national identity and political priorities. We have ultra-Orthodox parties whose leaders often put the needs of their religious communities first, including maintaining exemptions from military service. And we have an extreme right that identifies strongly with Zionism but, in my view, has moved away from the pragmatism that helped build the state.
Alongside these groups is a large Zionist public, from the center to the right, that may disagree on many issues but could potentially find common ground on the basic needs of the country.
The question is whether Israel's leaders can turn that common ground into a functioning government.
For me, the real divide is not simply between left and right. It is between a politics that is willing to compromise and take responsibility for the whole country, and a politics that puts personal loyalty, narrow interests, or ideological purity first.
Israel has always faced difficult choices. We will not solve them by pretending that our differences do not exist. But we also cannot allow those differences to prevent us from doing what is necessary for the country.
That, to me, is what pragmatic Zionism means. And I believe Israel needs it today more than ever.
Yours,
Motti
| 
