Any hope that presenting the public with a final lineup of parties would provide some clarity about the direction in which the country is headed was shattered by the polls published since last week’s deadline for submitting Knesset lists.
Rather than clarifying the picture, the final lists have made it more muddled – at least when it comes to the possibility of producing a clear decision on October 27.
Neither the “change bloc” nor the current coalition has been able to muster the 61 seats needed for a majority in the most recent polls.
A KAN News survey published this week had the two blocs tied at 52 seats each, with the Arab parties winning another 12 and the party headed by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha – which is not clearly identified with either bloc – winning four. Channel 12 had the change bloc at 54 seats, the current coalition at 50, the Arab parties at 12, and Hendel and Zelekha’s party at four.
This has forced the parties to recalibrate. If the country is headed toward another deadlock, the question becomes how it can be broken.
On the Likud side of the ledger, it is worth watching how the party decides to treat Ofer Winter and his People of Israel party.
Winter faces intense pressure to drop out, but stays the course
Until the lists were submitted, Winter was the target of Likud attacks, reflecting the governing party’s concern that he would attract Likud voters and then – if his party crossed the electoral threshold – either join a coalition headed by Gadi Eisenkot or Naftali Bennett, or fail to cross the threshold, meaning that all those votes would be wasted.
Despite intense pressure to drop out, Winter – true to form – stayed the course. He remains in the race and crossed the threshold in nine of the 11 major polls released over the last week.
This creates a dilemma for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his party. Do they try to win back some of Winter’s voters, potentially pushing him below the electoral threshold and throwing away four possible seats for the Netanyahu bloc? Or do they ease up on him – and perhaps even quietly help ensure that he crosses the threshold – knowing this might cost Likud several thousand votes but ultimately benefit the bloc?
The dismal polling also presents a dilemma for the change bloc and for Eisenkot.
Yoram Cohen, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and No. 2 on Eisenkot’s Yashar list, offered two possible scenarios in a Channel 12 interview Sunday night – scenarios that are clearly being considered, because the polls do not show the bloc reaching the 61 seats needed to form a government.
Without saying so explicitly, Cohen indicated that if the bloc failed to secure a majority, it might establish a minority government with outside support that, according to the present arithmetic, would have to come from the Arab parties.
Such a government, in his telling, could then try to attract other Zionist parties, including Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party and even Likud – though not a Likud led by Netanyahu.
Cohen said it would be dangerous to allow Netanyahu to remain at the head of a caretaker government if the country entered another cycle of elections, as it did from 2019 to 2022. During this period, Netanyahu served as a caretaker prime minister for more than 17 months, longer than either Bennett or Lapid.
To prevent a repeat of that situation, Cohen said, if the election ends again in a stalemate, Yashar will – if the polls are correct – emerge as the largest party and lead a minority government.
“We will replace him [Netanyahu],” he said, “and along the way, people from within the existing coalition will join us.”
Cohen said Yashar would approach other parties – including RZP and a post-Netanyahu Likud – and invite them to join the government.
He ruled out cooperation with Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit, calling Ben-Gvir a racist.
An unlikely scenario
“But regarding Likud, and Smotrich as well, I would approach them if they accepted our principles,” Cohen said. “They would not be the ruling party, but they could be part of the coalition if they accepted everything we’ve laid out.”
The scenario Cohen is describing seems far-fetched now. But if the October 27 election fails to produce a decisive result, possibilities that currently appear improbable are likely to come into play.
In this scenario, Yashar finishes ahead of Likud, but neither party can assemble a coalition.
Netanyahu would presumably be given an opportunity to form a government but fail, leaving Likud members with a hard choice: Remain loyal to Netanyahu and risk another election – and perhaps yet another one after that – or move him aside and join a broad Zionist government without the haredi parties or Ben-Gvir.
Pressure would also likely be placed on Eisenkot to keep Yair Golan’s The Democrats outside the government, with the argument that a broad Zionist coalition should exclude the extremes on both the Right and the Left.
Is this scenario likely? No. Likud has remained extraordinarily loyal to Netanyahu, and there is currently no sign of an internal revolt against him.
But the very fact that Cohen was willing to discuss bringing Likud – albeit a post-Netanyahu Likud – and Smotrich into an Eisenkot-led government indicates that both sides are already looking beyond their public insistence that their own bloc will emerge victorious.
They are beginning, however tentatively, to consider what they might have to do if it does not. And the parties are doing something else as well: turning to the Central Elections Committee in an effort to bar their rivals from the race.
The Democrats are seeking to disqualify Otzma Yehudit. Otzma Yehudit has responded with a petition against The Democrats and is also seeking to bar Ra’am. Likud, meanwhile, is seeking to disqualify the Arab parties.
None of these efforts has much chance of succeeding. And even if one wins a majority in the Central Elections Committee – a political body composed of representatives of the outgoing Knesset – the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the decision, as it has done with similar efforts in the past.
So, why bother?
Because with neither bloc currently showing a clear path to 61 seats, the campaign is becoming not only a struggle over votes, but also over which parties may legitimately be used to form a majority.
The Democrats want to portray Ben-Gvir as beyond the democratic pale and make it more difficult for Netanyahu to build a government dependent on him. Ben-Gvir wants to portray The Democrats and Ra’am as beyond the Zionist pale, making it harder for Eisenkot or another opposition leader to form a government with their support. Likud’s move against the Arab parties serves the same purpose: defining any government dependent on them as illegitimate.
The petitions, then, are less serious legal efforts than campaign weapons. Their purpose is not necessarily to remove rival parties from the ballot, but to tarnish them and, by extension, any coalition that relies on them.
They will probably do little to change the numerical path to 61. What they can do is narrow, in the public mind, the politically acceptable routes for getting there.
That is what this election is increasingly becoming about. With neither side confident that it can assemble a majority from its natural partners, each is preparing for the morning after – not only by considering alliances that once seemed improbable, but by trying to discredit in advance the alliances available to the other side.