The Likud Party is preparing to hold its primary on Monday, but days before the vote, the rules governing its next Knesset list remain caught up in reserved positions, internal petitions, conflicting explanations, and last-minute decisions. This is no way for Israel’s governing party to approach one of its most consequential internal elections.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was already granted eight slots for candidates of his choosing. Party institutions have since approved guaranteed positions for Defense Minister Israel Katz, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, and Likud Central Committee chairman Haim Katz – the latter of whose position was approved on Wednesday after the party tribunal initially froze the vote.
These developments followed an earlier attempt to create an emergency mechanism under which a committee of Likud mayors could choose the party list if security conditions prevented a primary. The tribunal insisted that the primary should be held in all circumstances.
The primary has not been abolished, and Likud members will determine much of the list. Nor are reserved positions inherently illegitimate – they can introduce new talent, honor merger agreements, or ensure a party presents a balanced and electorally credible slate.
But there is a point at which flexibility begins to hollow out the process it is meant to complement. When significant positions are removed from competition, exceptions are introduced shortly before voting, and the final structure of the list remains subject to internal litigation, party members are left with a diminished choice.
The message is difficult to avoid: Likud members are trusted to give the party its democratic character, but not fully trusted to determine its political face.
So what might be Netanyahu’s motives? Ynet reported, citing a senior Likud source, that Netanyahu is particularly concerned MK Tally Gotliv could place in the top 10 and shape the list’s public character.
More and more preferred candidates shielded from competition
That concern – if accurately reported – is not frivolous. A party leader is entitled to worry that some candidates may narrow the party’s appeal or allow provocation to become its defining public language. But a broad national camp cannot be restored if it shields more and more preferred candidates from competition.
It must be rebuilt, rather, through leadership, persuasion, recruitment, and a clear political program.
If Netanyahu believes that parts of the Likud have moved toward a style that is too extreme, too personal, or too confrontational, he should say so and make the argument to his party. He should encourage candidates who represent the national-liberal tradition he wishes to advance and explain why they deserve the support of Likud members.
Attempting to correct the result in advance is an admission that the leadership has failed to shape the political culture of its own movement.
The Likud has long distinguished itself from most Israeli parties through the role given to its membership in selecting its Knesset candidates, with only a small number of parties still using broad primary elections to choose most of their parliamentary slate.
This distinction is worth preserving, particularly because the Likud is not a marginal political organization; it remains the largest faction in the current Knesset, with 32 seats, and leads the government. Decisions about its list help determine not only who enters parliament, but who may become ministers and national decision-makers.
Israeli voters do not rearrange parties; they choose the entire party
This is especially significant under Israel’s closed-list electoral system. Voters choose a party on Election Day; they cannot rearrange its candidates or express a preference for particular individuals. The internal process therefore largely determines which candidates will enter the Knesset if the party wins enough seats.
Likud members, then, will still vote in a primary, but their choices will matter less once Netanyahu’s reserved candidates and the party’s guaranteed slots are added to the final slate. That may be permitted under the party’s rules, but it should not be presented as an undiminished exercise in internal democracy.
Likud members should be allowed to make genuine choices, including choices that Netanyahu or other senior officials may dislike. That uncertainty is not a defect in a democratic process – it is the reason for holding one.
The Likud’s size and influence give it substantial weight in Israeli society – they also give it a responsibility to maintain serious institutions, settled rules, and a democratic culture that extends beyond the party’s rhetoric.
It is time for the Likud to put its house in order.