by Leonid Tsukanov
| No biggy — this is Israel’s process. |
That’s because the process is putting together a coalition, not merely getting the most votes or seats in the Knesset.In terms of points, supporters of the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retained the lead (53 mandates), but in terms of the level of support from relatively neutral (for example, Arab) forces, the opposition, represented by the Change Bloc, pulled far ahead.
| None of the Arab parties are neutral, they just ae measured by a different meteric than the usual left-right scale. |
"THEY STOLE THE ELECTION."
The government bloc is convinced that the Israeli elite has become the victim of a cunning international intervention operation designed to destabilize Israel.
Even during the preliminary vote count—when it became clear that Arab parties were receiving far more than predicted—loyalists of the ruling Likud party began complaining to the prosecutor's office, the Central Election Commission, and counterintelligence, calling for an investigation into "numerous violations" in Arab neighborhoods, including cases of vote-buying and systematic ballot stuffing.
Other politicians from Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc later joined the call : from their point of view, the actions were carried out with money from Qatar and, possibly, Turkey.
It's reached the point of ridiculousness. Netanyahu himself wrote on his official channel that Israel's neighbors "stole the election" and grossly interfered in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. These statements provoked vitriolic responses from opponents.
"It's great that Netanyahu has finally acknowledged Qatargate and the damage it has caused," one senior opposition figure wrote on social media.
Qatar reacted much more sharply to the unexpected attack. Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari called on the Israelis to stop speculating and not drag Doha into other countries' domestic political disputes and disputes.
"They accuse us of buying Netanyahu, the left—and now the Arab vote. If all this is to be believed, Qatar probably owns all of Israel," the diplomat snapped.
They also failed to appease the election controllers or even slightly reduce the percentage of support for the Arab list parties of the ruling coalition. The Central Election Commission declared the elections valid. As the chairman of the election commission, Noam Solberg, later stated, even if interference did occur in some districts, it did not fundamentally change the final balance of power.
Solberg's position was supported by counterintelligence chief David Zini and government legal adviser Gali Baharav-Miara. Both noted that most of the activists' complaints were unfounded.
Paradoxically, no "Iranian connection" was found in the Likud vote-stealing story. Although some bloggers loyal to Netanyahu wrote about Tehran's attempts to interfere with the vote on election day.
However, responsibility for these interventions was later retroactively shifted to the Arabs and Turks. Meanwhile, the prime minister's public hysteria caused confusion among his allies, especially among the ordinary electorate, who had become accustomed to the image of the "all-powerful Bibi" and did not understand his sudden bargaining with the Central Election Commission.
THE OPPOSITION IS ARGUING
The Prime Minister's opposition "Change Bloc," led by former Chief of the General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, would be happy to enjoy the vacillations of its opponents if it were not itself immersed in numerous squabbles, including those over the "Arab question."
It turned out that not all opposition members agree to form an expanded coalition with Arab parties (which together account for up to 19 mandates) in order to obtain a parliamentary majority.
Moreover, some of them would rather agree to a temporary alliance with Netanyahu as a more reliable and predictable political player. This came as an unpleasant surprise to Arab politicians, who had already put forward a lengthy list of conditions, including improving the standard of living in ethnic neighborhoods.
Moreover, with the start of behind-the-scenes negotiations to form an interim coalition, mistrust between the leaders of the opposition parties has naturally deepened. Even though almost all the leaders of the Change Bloc publicly and regularly declare the impossibility of an alliance with Netanyahu, mutual suspicions persist.
Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party and former close associate of the prime minister, is being targeted the most. His fellow members of the Change Bloc see him as a potential defector (especially since Lieberman has switched sides in the past to suit political expediency), and his attempts to lobby for his candidates for Knesset Speaker and to divide up the as-yet-undetermined ministerial portfolios are perceived as subversive.
But Eisenkot is bearing the brunt of the blame. His coalition allies are openly disappointed, calling his election strategy "the campaign of an egotist" who put his own political brand above the opposition's strategic goals and ultimately paid for it by losing some of his mandates.
And although the majority still see the former Chief of the General Staff as the head of the future government, his proposals for other portfolios are not received with much enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, tensions are rapidly rising. In the coming days, Israeli President Isaac Herzog is scheduled to meet with the leaders of the winning parties and choose the side that will be the first to attempt to form a government.
The intrigue is being maintained until the very end—Netanyahu and Eisenkot have virtually equal chances in this matter (the only difference being that the prime minister has more initial mandates, while the former Chief of the General Staff has more potential tactical allies). However, rumors are circulating that Herzog is increasingly leaning toward the "proven candidate" of Netanyahu.
If he gets the right to make the first move, he will have a better chance of gaining an advantage on the ideological front and convincing some of the nominal opposition parties to join his coalition.
Moreover, unlike Eisenkot and some of his supporters, the current prime minister is less principled and is willing to "share power" with the overwhelming majority of politicians from the opposing camp. And, if absolutely necessary, even form a "salvation government" with the opposition. After all, it is precisely such temporary structures that typically help Netanyahu maintain his position.
Meanwhile, tensions have further increased following the Republicans' disastrous US congressional elections, where they lost both chambers. Without a course correction, Israel risks becoming a toxic asset for both Democrats and Republicans, losing some of its weapons supplies and support for expansion in the Middle East.
This is precisely what the opposition is currently pressing hard, blaming Netanyahu for everything. For the prime minister, the situation, while risky, also offers an opportunity to increase his political clout by demonstrating to voters that his course is not dependent on the mood and distribution of seats in Washington.