By Matt Underwood The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has indeed approved a bill to dissolve itself, paving the way for early elections. This development, however, is far more nuanced than a simple dissolution and snap election, with considerable debate and differing predictions about the outcome, particularly concerning Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future.
It’s important to understand that the bill’s passage isn’t a done deal in the way it might appear at first glance. The initial vote is just the first of four required readings for legislation in Israel. Furthermore, this particular motion originated from within the ruling coalition itself, suggesting it’s part of intricate internal negotiations, likely with ultra-Orthodox parties. The intention behind this move appears to be more about managing internal coalition dynamics and political maneuvering than an outright desire to exit power prematurely.
Even if the bill successfully navigates all its readings and becomes law, the impact on the election timeline might be less dramatic than anticipated. Elections are already scheduled for October, and any early vote would likely only shift this by a few weeks. There’s also speculation that this timing could be a tactical decision, aiming to avoid holding elections too close to the solemn anniversary of the October 7th attacks.
Regarding Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral prospects, the narrative that he is definitively posed to lose is not universally shared. Instead, many anticipate a deadlock, a situation that historically has led to a cycle of repeated elections. This happened previously, resulting in four rounds of voting in quick succession. Crucially, during these periods of electoral uncertainty, the incumbent government, led by Netanyahu, remains in power.
The idea of Netanyahu leaving office is not necessarily viewed as an automatic positive by everyone. For some, any shift that potentially brings him closer to facing international justice for alleged war crimes is seen as a step in the right direction, however small. Yet, the question lingers whether a change in leadership alone can rectify what some perceive as a nation “run amok,” pointing to Israel’s actions since the October 7th attacks as evidence of a lack of restraint.
Criticism directed towards Israel’s actions sometimes faces a difficult reception, leading to questions about whether such criticism is even permissible. The sentiment is that if a country has nothing to hide or be ashamed of, criticism should not be a cause for concern. This perspective often leads to discussions about the systemic nature of political power, suggesting that individuals like Netanyahu or Trump are merely figureheads, with larger, unseen forces dictating policy and direction.
The upcoming elections are framed by some as potentially the last opportunity for Israel to maintain its democratic principles, especially if the current trajectory continues unchecked. The intensity of internal dissatisfaction with Netanyahu is acknowledged, with a significant portion of the Israeli public reportedly blaming him directly for failing to prevent the October 7th attack. Even before that, the Likud party’s electoral performance was not dominant, necessitating alliances with more extreme parties to form a government.
The hope is that a future government, perhaps one formed by a different mandate and supported by a broader coalition of non-extreme parties, might avoid the need to appease the most extreme elements of Israeli politics. Many Israelis, it’s suggested, are weary of constant conflict and simply desire peace and stability. With perceived threats like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran somewhat diminished, the “tough on terror” political rhetoric might lose some of its potency. Coupled with potential overtures from the Palestinian Authority towards renewed negotiations, there could be an underlying appetite for peacemaking.
The initial response to the October 7th attacks, widely viewed as justified given the severity of the assault, is sometimes seen as having escalated into “mission creep.” The justification for military action is debated, with some distinguishing between a justified initial response and subsequent actions that may have exceeded that initial mandate.
Elections in Israel are constitutionally set for every four years, and the current government was elected in 2022. The fact that Israel is still considered a democracy is noted, but there’s a concurrent question about whether the country has ever truly experienced a period without war or significant crisis.
Looking ahead, some predict that Naftali Bennett, with his new party “Together,” could potentially emerge victorious and form a coalition that includes left-wing and even Arab-Israeli political parties. While Bennett is a right-winger, such a coalition could lead to concessions like a freeze on settlement expansion and a tougher stance on settler violence. Other potential policy shifts could include legalizing civilian marriage and requiring the ultra-Orthodox to serve in the IDF.
The concept of a “proportionate response” in conflict is inherently complex and subjective. Comparisons are drawn to historical events like Pearl Harbor and the subsequent war against Japan, highlighting how overwhelming force was accepted as a response to a devastating surprise attack, without constant scrutiny of casualty ratios. The rationale was that complete victory, including unconditional surrender, was the necessary objective.
The current situation is also framed as a consequence of Netanyahu’s coalition government fracturing, particularly due to his decision to conscript ultra-Orthodox individuals into the IDF despite promises of exemptions. This has reportedly alienated key coalition partners.
The frequency of early elections in Israel is a notable characteristic of its political landscape, with five elections occurring within a four-year span prior to the last vote. The current government’s longevity, almost a full term, is seen as an exception, largely attributed to the ongoing war. Netanyahu’s perceived “luck,” however, may be running out, with even his own party supporting the dissolution bill. By proactively calling for elections, he is attempting to control the narrative and the timing, aiming for a date only a few weeks earlier than originally scheduled if he can influence the timing to his advantage. The question of whether war or a state of emergency could preclude elections is also raised, underscoring the fragility of democratic processes in times of crisis.