As President Obama arrives in the Holy Land this week, he will be greeted by the same Israeli prime minister that has frustrated him since shortly after both men took office in 2009. Benjamin Netanyahu, also recently reelected, has just formed a new government—and the president and his advisors will find that anticipating how Israel’s new coalition might affect its foreign and defense policy is not easy.
The new government reflects the recent election’s confusing results. When added to other ambiguities of Israel’s electoral history, the results make it difficult to predict precisely what avenues the new government will take. The composition of the new Israeli government is the result of at least four new political realities.
1. The Moderate Stronghold
The enduring strength of the Israeli center is confirmed by the electoral success of the new Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) party headed by the former TV anchor, Yair Lapid. While Lapid’s party is new, the phenomenon is not. In the 1977 elections, as a belated consequence of the 1973 War, Israel’s Labor Party lost the dominance it enjoyed during the country’s first three decades. The result was not a surge of the right but rather the creation of a constituency for a centrist party encompassing some 15 percent of the electorate.
This new bloc was captured by a succession of centrist parties: DASH, Shinui (“Change”), Hamerkaz (“The Center”), and Kadima (“Forward”), each lasting one or two electoral cycles. Inheriting Kadima—a party that the then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon created in 2005 after the disengagement from Gaza—Yesh Atid is simply the most recent representation of the center of Israel’s political map.
2. Likud’s Shift to the Right
The Likud party headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu has recently moved further to the right. When Menachem Begin created the first Likud-led government in 1977, his party represented a coalition of the right wing Herut (“Liberty”) and the General Zionists, a truly liberal party. Since then, Likud has moved gradually but consistently rightward, a process accelerated when Sharon created Kadima, taking with him many of the more moderate and pragmatic members and leaders of Likud.
The results of the party’s primaries held on the eve of the recent elections reinforced this shift: centrists like Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, and moderates on certain foreign-policy issues like Benny Begin, were ousted and replaced by more right wing, even far-right politicians.
3. Alliances of Strange Bedfellows
The appeal of Yesh Atid and of the rejuvenated Labor Party under a committed socialist, Shelly Yechimovich, produced a higher than expected turnout by young, mostly first-time voters representing the country’s secular middle class. This brought about the most surprising result of the elections: a net loss of four to five seats by the block of right wing, orthodox and ultra-orthodox parties that comprised Israel’s outgoing coalition. Thus, Netanyahu was deprived the option of creating a stable narrow right-orthodox government, forcing him instead to create a center-right coalition.
In the post-election negotiations, Yesh Atid held strong cards. Netanyahu could not form a center-right coalition without its support. But then, in a series of tactical mistakes, he pushed a right-wing party—Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”), headed by his former assistant, Naftali Bennett—into an alliance with Yesh Atid. The alliance strengthened the bargaining positions of the two parties, allowing them to extract far-reaching concessions from Netanyahu—in cabinet and sub-cabinet appointments as well as in the policy sphere.
Yet Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi are strange bedfellows, representing entirely different constituencies and policy preferences: the first speaks for Israel’s secular-liberal centrists while the second represents its religious nationalists. Indeed, the two parties seem to agree primarily on only one issue: no more exemptions for ultra-orthodox and Arab citizens from national service; and no more subsidies that allow young ultra-orthodox Israelis to avoid work.
4. Lack of Foreign-Policy Debate
Neither Israel’s relations with its Palestinian neighbors nor any other foreign and security policy issue—from Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons to the implications of the tumultuous changes in Egypt and Syria—were debated in Israel’s recent elections. Two facets of these issues explain their absence: First, to varying degrees, Israelis do not think that their preferences are relevant to addressing them. This is most apparent in the case of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Rightly or wrongly, most Israelis do not see a real option of resolving this conflict under existing conditions. Thus, they regard quarreling over the terms of such a solution pointless. Instead, they turn their attention to domestic issues that directly impact their daily lives and—in contrast to the Palestinian issue—can actually be affected by their preferences.
Second, while Israelis clearly differ on many foreign and defense policy issues, these issues remain mostly non-partisan. For example, Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons were not debated in the recent elections, but this was not because Israelis regarded this issue as any less existential than in the past. Rather, the competing parties did not divide on foreign-policy questions. Lacking unified positions that distinguished them from one another—Labor did not have a different position than Likud regarding Iran or terror in the Egyptian Sinai—Israel’s parties avoided discussion of these issues altogether.