Despite losing seats, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud remains Israel’s strongest political power, while neither the right-wing bloc nor the opposition appears capable of securing a parliamentary majority. In an interview, Dr. Ofer Waldman, head of the Tel Aviv office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, explains how Netanyahu defied expectations, why forming a coalition may prove impossible, and what the looming political deadlock could mean for Israel’s democracy and future.
The following text is an extended version of an interview for the Swiss Media Outlet 20minuten.
The Vote is out: 53 for Netanyahu’s Block, 67 for his opponents, of which 19 are of Arab(Palestinian)-Israeli parties.
Ofer Waldman explains why Likud remains in the lead despite its losses, and why Israel is facing the prospect of a prolonged political crisis.
Ofer Waldman, how do you view the current, still preliminary figures?
Following the elections, we have woken up to a morning full of contradictions. The coalition of October 7th has been voted out, yet Netanyahu’s Likud remains the strongest political force. The shift to the right continues, but the clear conservative majority in the Israeli parliament will not be able to agree on a coalition. The reason is Benjamin Netanyahu himself and his political responsibility for October 7th: Several right-wing actors as Avigdor Liberman (the leader of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, ed.) and former Premier Naftali Bennet reject his leadership and would not support his reelection.
“We have woken up to a morning full of contradictions.”
On the other hand, there is an anti-Netanyahu majority in the Israeli parliament, but it, too, will be unable to agree on a coalition. The reason is the – somewhat racist - decline of parties such as Liberman’s and others that are unwilling to form a coalition with Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli parties.
Another contradictory fact is the voter turnout among the Arab population. The record turnout has given the Arab parties a vast representation in parliament. They hold the balance of power: But they hold it on a broken scale, as large parts of the so-called opposition are unwilling to form a coalition with them.
“The Arab parties hold the balance of power on a broken scale.”
Likud remains the strongest political force, but Netanyahu’s coalition has lost a significant number of seats. What does this mean for him personally: a crushing defeat, a victory, or something in between?
It is by no means a crushing defeat. Over the past three years, Israelis have spent weeks and months in bomb shelters. Hamas is still in control is some parts of Gaza, as is Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is waging the longest war in its history and has experienced the worst massacre of Jews since the Shoah. The Iranians are negotiating with the US administration without any Israeli involvement.
The fact that the person, the party who bears political responsibility for this remains the strongest political force following the new election is a political achievement that must be acknowledged.
Of course, Netanyahu has also achieved this at the expense of his coalition allies, namely Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and others. But a crushing defeat? No.
All Israelis assumed after October 7th that Netanyahu’s days were numbered. As we are now seeing, they are not.
How did Netanyahu manage to achieve this?
His clear message was: If I am not elected, the opposition will form a coalition with the Arab parties. And that, he claimed, would be the greatest threat to Israel’s security. Large election posters could be seen all over Israel, bearing the slogan: “Right (wing) or Palestine.” Either you vote for me, or you get a Palestinian state. That obviously worked.
“Netanyahu’s voters, many Israelis actually, developed over the years a medial driven siege mentality. And Netanyahu is definitely the king of the besieged castle.”
In addition, large sections of Netanyahu’s electorate live in a media-driven parallel world.
In that world, the security establishment bears responsibility for October 7th, not Netanyahu himself. In that world, Netanyahu and Trump are still standing shoulder to shoulder in the fight against Iran and Hezbollah. People there do not talk about the fact that Israel is on the verge of a wave of international sanctions. Nor do they notice that Israeli artists and academics are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain ties with their colleagues around the world.
Netanyahu’s voters, many Israelis actually, have a siege mentality. And Netanyahu is definitely the king of the besieged castle.
Did the many civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip play any role in the election campaign?
None. Absolutely none.
More than three years in Gaza, more than 70,000 Palestinians killed, the fact that Netanyahu is wanted under an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity, and the ongoing settler violence in the West Bank — none of this played any role whatsoever.
This can perhaps be explained by the fact that Israeli society is deeply traumatized by October 7th. The current government has blocked every attempt to investigate and come to terms with October 7th. Israeli society is locked within an internal monologue.
This is not an excuse for failing to look at the situation of the people in Gaza, but it is the explanation. People are not yet ready to understand and see what is happening beyond the border.
Is it understandable that their own security remains the greatest concern for Israelis, who are still at war?
Indeed. I myself spent several weeks in a bomb shelter with my children. On the morning of October 7th, I asked myself how long it would take Hezbollah — I live in northern Israel — to arrive outside my house in its Toyota pickup trucks. That gives you a very distinct perspective. Israelis are extremely afraid for their security, and this was a defining factor in the election.
And yet, it is frustrating that a vast majority of Israelis refuse to acknowledge, that political solutions – the peace agreements with Egypt, with Jordan, the Abraham Accords for instance – have increased their security substantially, while aggressive politics such as those led by the current government have driven Israel into a dangerous deadlock over and over again.
“On the morning of October 7th, I myself wondered how long it would take Hezbollah to arrive outside my house in its Toyota pickup trucks. That gives you a very distinct perspective.”
Which coalitions are currently possible and conceivable?
It all comes down to the question: Who will break their election promise?
Will we see defectors from the opposition camp moving toward Netanyahu? Will Eisenkot overcome his election promise and form a coalition with Israeli-Arab parties? Will Netanyahu throw his current coalition partners, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, under the bus and seek to form a national unity government – and will he find the partners from the “Anti-Netanyahu” camp willing to cross the line?
“Coalition formation ultimately comes down to the question: Who will break their election promise?”
Mathematically, a so-called national unity government involving Eisenkot, Lieberman, Bennett, Lapid, and parts of the Likud party would be possible.
Another possibility would be a minority government led by Eisenkot, with the Arab parties providing external support, or a coalition with ultra-Orthodox parties. This, too, will be a contradiction of promised made prior to the elections.
If all election promises are kept, the result will be a political deadlock.
How likely is that scenario?
Very likely.
That would lead to repeated elections. We know this scenario in Israel too well: You keep rolling the dice until they come up with the number you want.
And we must not forget: Before October 7th and the Gaza war, and even during the war, the so-called judicial reform was being pushed forward. If Netanyahu wins the election, this judicial reform will be completed, bringing about a substantial transformation toward a formally democratic, but substantially non-liberal, semi-autocratic state, which, at its turn, will enable the overarching goal of the current government: Annexation of the West Bank.
What differences would be most noticeable from the outside between a government led by Netanyahu and one led by Eisenkot?
Eisenkot has made it absolutely clear that there will be no Palestinian state and no two-state solution under his leadership.
As in many other parts of the world, the choice in Israel is not between right and left, but between the far right and conservatism.
The differences would therefore not be immediately apparent in the major policy issues. Rather, there would be a new political dynamic. There would also be a greater willingness to engage in dialogue with European, with German partners.
And this raises the question of whether European interlocutors will clearly state what another violation of international law would mean. As well as the question, whether Germany finds the political courage and clearly state that it stands in solidarity with Israel within the 1967 borders – and not beyond them, based on the understanding, that only a political solution including a viable Palestinian state can secure Israels future. Time will tell.
«Eine Klatsche ist das nicht»: Experte über Netanjahu-Ergebnis
