Likud's Moment

Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s antics throughout the course of his 2015 campaign has brought the state of Israeli politics to the global forefront. Despite winning the largest portion of votes for his party in the Knesset, Netanyahu has received heat for last minute hard-lining on the eve of an uncertain election. From criticizing U.S. foreign policy regarding a nuclear Iran, to reversing his position on Palestinian statehood not once but twice within a single week, his actions have won him no allies and a most tenuous hold on the Israeli premiership.

To understand the intents and motivations of Netanyahu’s latest campaign, one must first be familiar with how the Knesset operates and how the voting population interacts with it. The Knesset is the unicameral parliament that serves as the legislative branch of the Israeli government. Elections for the 120 seats available in the Knesset are supposed to occur every four years, but due to the nature of governmental dissolvement, they are usually more frequent; the latest election was a result of a Knesset dissolution in December, moving the election up from 2017. Due to the high volume of Israeli political parties, with there having been 12 in the latest election, politicians are forced to form coalitions because it is nigh on impossible for a single party to single-handedly achieve the 61 seat majority necessary for governing. This multilateral paradigm forces candidates to cater their platforms to an audience wider than their specific constituency and results in a notoriously indecisive citizenry. Indeed, statistics from prior elections show that anywhere from 19%-30% of voters were undecided on the eve of the country’s elections.

When contextualized by the structure of the Knesset, this inability for candidates to rely on sure votes- aptly referred to as the “shifting sands” phenomenon- gives us the proper jumping off point with which to judge Netanyahu’s campaign decisions. As the de facto head of the moderate right wing Likud party, Bibi knew he would have to garner appeal amongst more conservative Israelis, as targeting middle of the road voters would not be as a safe of a bet, due to overlap there with the rival leftist party, Zionist Union. It is this dynamic that led him to the United States congress, to the upper class Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, to make the case for his more radical platform points and to appeal to his base. Regardless of their feasibility, it was the statements that undermined nuclear talks with Iran and which threw a wrench into Israeli-Palestinian relations that won the Likud 30 seats in the Knesset and set the framework for  a coalition with the ultra-orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties. Netanyahu’s real challenge in the coming weeks will be to woo former Likud member Moshe Kahlon and his centrist Kulanu party in order to achieve the 61 seat majority, which will prove to be troublesome given Bibi’s recent alienation of Israeli moderates.

The aftershocks of Netanyahu’s campaigning are being felt far beyond the borders of Israel. The connection between the United States and Israel has been a long and storied one, a relationship whose most tangible aspects can be found in the powerful presence of AIPAC within the District of Columbia and the devotion of a third of U.S. foreign aid to the country. It allows for Israel to act bigger than its raw GDP or population alone would, while it serves as a base camp of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. But for all of its “win-win” aspects, the relationship is clearly weighted in favor of the United States and its objectives. It is no surprise, then, that American leaders were shocked by Netanyahu’s actions within the past month. When his speech at congress coincided with the subversive letter sent by senate Republicans to Iran, the United States looked weak and any momentum the nuclear talks at the United Nations had approaching the March 30th deadline was neutralized. When the Likud alienated Arab voters with the dismissal of the possibility of a two-state solution and claims that they were being shuttled in droves to the voting booths, the United States found its objectives at the United Nations insulted and called into question. When situated in the context of international affairs, Netanyahu’s political savvy comes across as brash arrogance, burning bridges abroad so as to secure his own power at home. However, as showcased by Bibi’s backtracking explanation two days following the election, that he had meant that a two-state solution was impossible only with current Palestinian leadership, the United States has made it clear to him that it will not have its agenda undermined by a lesser ally.

Regardless of how he won the premiership, Benjamin Netanyahu has secured his position of power at a time tensions in the Middle East are getting increasingly stratified. It is hard to a imagine a future Israel- where even the rival parties agree over further settlement of Palestinian land- does not find itself in a full blown conflict with its Arab neighbors. No major Israeli politicians stress a real message of peace, nor did last summer’s engagements with Hamas lend any credence to the seamless creation of an Israeli-Palestinian society.With an isolated, nuclear Iran a possibility, and the Islamic State on the horizon, Bibi’s innocuous political calculations may indeed spill over into the realm of actual foreign conflicts.