Despite of, or perhaps because of, the complexity of Israeli politics, the Israeli people may come out the big winner in the upcoming national elections. That’s because whether Benjamin Netanyahu is re-elected prime minister or is replaced by Ehud Barak, the One Israel candidate, there is a strong chance that the winner will form a national unity government. And that would mean a chance to further the peace process, which has been stalled for too long, from a position of political strength and widespread public support.
Another benefit would be to decrease the clout of those religious parties driving a wedge between themselves and the rest of the Jewish community, here and in Israel.
Here’s my scenario. First, it seems clear that Monday’s election will not produce a prime minister. In order for that to happen a candidate would have to win more than 50 percent of the vote. And with five men running for prime minister — Netanyahu, Barak, Yitzchak Mordechai of the new Center Party, rightist candidate Ze’ev “Benny” Begin and Arab candidate Azmi Bishara — none of them will come close to winning a clear majority.
Unless Mordechai decides at the 11th hour to throw his lot in with Barak in an effort to halt Netanyahu in the first round, a run-off election between the top two vote-getters will take place on June 1. That will pit Barak against Netanyahu, and whoever wins will no doubt achieve a narrow victory, based on recent history and current polling.
The 1996 election, in which Netanyahu upset incumbent Shimon Peres, was decided by less than 30,000 votes. At that time, in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist bus bombs, the issue was peace and security. Today, although those issues remain unresolved, the No. 1 issue is Netanyahu himself. This election will be, more than anything else, a referendum on his personality as well as his policies.
During his abbreviated tenure, Netanyahu has held fast to his campaign pledge of peace with security, putting the brakes on Oslo while demanding that the Palestinians make good on their own promises. But in seemingly fulfilling the mandate of the Israeli voters, he has alienated Israelis on the left — and officials of the Clinton administration — who blame him for the freeze in relations with the Palestinian Authority. What’s more, the prime minister has offended many Israelis on the right, including Begin and former Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir, who discredit him for signing the Hebron agreement and for abandoning the Likud principle not to give up Jewish land.
Stymied by a narrow, rightist coalition that would not allow him to advance last fall’s Wye accords with the Palestinians and the United States, Netanyahu was embarrassed by the premature collapse of his government four months ago. He knows that a one- or two-vote majority in the Knesset, as he had this past year, is a political straitjacket. He also realizes that to make any real progress on the peace front with either the Palestinians or Syrians, a prime minister needs to control at least two-thirds of the Knesset. That would only be possible in a national unity government bringing together Labor and Likud, Israel’s two biggest parties, as well as another 10 to 15 members from other parties sharing a common interest in moving forward, however cautiously, with Israel’s Arab neighbors.
Barak is well aware of these facts, and he, too, would be anxious to advance the peace talks. He and Netanyahu could work together in a unity government — the loser in the election would presumably be offered the post of foreign minister — because they do not have any particular animosity toward each other. Indeed, Barak was Netanyahu’s commander in the army and their relationship has remained cordial.
Both men have seen how narrow, cobbled-together coalitions this decade, under Yitzchak Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu, have been unable to keep pace with the Israeli public’s desire to resolve the Arab conflict.
Barak and Netanyahu also would prefer to decrease the religious-secular tensions in Israeli society. They understand that they could move toward that goal by building a coalition without participation from fervently religious parties insistent on making religious demands that alienate non-Orthodox Jews.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the outline I’ve sketched here will actually come to be. For one thing, it may be too logical. But it does offer hope to those who are concerned that with its proliferation of small, one-issue parties, Israel has become a hyper-democracy unable to govern effectively.
If a national unity government is a result of the election, then no matter who wins, it could well prove to be the impetus needed to set Israel on the path toward stability, security and lasting peace.