Editor’s note: Sign up for Dan’s new weekly newsletter and podcast, “Sanity Check,” at danschnur.substack.com. Politics … but calmer.
For the last quarter century, ever since the second intifada, the lines of political demarcation in Israeli politics have become increasingly murky. There have been differences between Likud and its opponents on some domestic policy matters, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal challenges have deeply divided the nation’s conservatives. But on international affairs, especially those relating to Israel’s relationship with its neighbors in the always-volatile Middle East, the options have long best been described as a choice between Bibi-ism with Bibi or Bibi-ism without him. Either way, Bibi-ism has been the nation’s dominant philosophy for a generation.
That may be about to change. For the first time since Labor’s last prime minister Ehud Barak left office in 2001, there may be a meaningful difference between Netanyahu and his opponents on issues relating to Israel’s safety and security. Top contenders Gadi Eisenkot and Naftali Bennett have fiercely criticized Netanyahu’s management of the Gaza War, most of their harshest attacks have centered around administration, logistics and communication, not that basic commitment.
Much of that is understandable. Throughout Israel’s existence, the Jewish state has faced existential threats from enemies who want to wipe it from the map of the Middle East. Fighting off those threats, defending their people and preserving the nation’s future our goals that cut across most ideological lines. The primary reason that Labor ceased to exist is the effectiveness with which Netanyahu has framed the options in his elections as a choice between those who were committed to the nation’s survival and those who are not.
In the early 2020’s, Bennett and Yair Lapid temporarily deprived Netanyahu of the prime minister’s office by convincing voters that they shared his commitment to protecting Israel and its people but differed with him on domestic policy and his legal challenges. Other would-be challengers who ran on that “Bibi-ism without Bibi” platform were defeated when Israelis decided that if they were going to embrace Netanyahu’s world view that they would prefer the original to oversee it in action rather than an imitator.
This has become an increasingly difficult challenge for Netanyahu, though, as he has been forced to rely on ultra-conservative and ultra-nationalist parties to maintain his majority. But the bargain that he has been forced to make with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich has pressured him to move steadily rightward on domestic policy, creating a larger opportunity for his challengers to exploit.
As has been the case so often in the past, the most visible points of disagreement have arisen on internal challenges, most notably the ongoing controversy over military service and other societal obligations for the country’s rapidly growing Haredi population. Large majorities of the Israeli population wants the strictly observant Orthodox Jews to be required to perform military service or some community-based alternative, but Netanyahu’s coalition relies heavily on parties who represent the Haredi’s interests so he has done his best to block these changes.
Debates over economic policy and judicial reform also loom large as next month’s elections draw closer. But the hot-button dispute over West Bank settlements may end up being an even more important point of distinction as Israeli voters prepare to go to the polls. Whether this issue is considered domestic or foreign policy reflects the core argument that has divided the country and the world. But both factions would agree that how Israel’s leaders resolve challenges relating to expansion, oversight and both Palestinian and settler violence are foundational issues for the welfare and safety of the Jewish state and its people.
There will be future columns that dig deeper into the substantive, security and political obstacles that make a path forward in the West Bank so difficult. But how Eisenkot and Bennett approach this political thicket over the next several weeks could end up determining the outcome of the election. Netanyahu’s entire career has been based on his ability to present himself as Israel’s ultimate protector. Perhaps even more than Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran, whether voters see his approach to the West Bank as the safest for them and their families may be what ultimately decides his fate.
Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com
