If the first three weeks of the current Bennett-Lapid government is any indication, expect at least one major political challenge to the coalition per week.
The first significant challenge to the government came on its second day of existence, when it had to deal with the postponed Jerusalem Day flag march in the Old City. Last week’s challenge came in the form of how it would deal with the illegal settlement outpost of Evyatar. And this week’s challenge is the passage, or non-passage, of the one-year extension to the Family Reunification Law preventing Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs from acquiring Israeli citizenship.
Three weeks, three challenges thrown at the government by Benjamin Netanyahu and the opposition. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, in a speech to the Yamina faction in the Knesset just hours before the vote on the reunification law, said that in his conversations with the world’s leaders since he took office, he describes the current Israeli government – one that represents a rainbow of diverse opinion – as the “Great Experiment.”
“This is an experiment – not only at the national level, but at the international level – of how reasonable people with goodwill and fundamentally different opinions on the most basic issues facing Israel, how do they succeed? And how they do it is through trust and dialogue,” he said.
With each challenge, the various components of the coalition “have to demonstrate restraint. It is hard, but it is a test for all of Israel,” Bennett said.
Politicians and pundits alike have characterized each of the challenges thrown at the coalition so far as a “test” for the government: an indication of how it will operate; how it will be able to reconcile its vast ideological differences.
While it was not known until late Monday evening how the coalition would deal with the family reunification challenge, it dealt with the first two challenges through compromise.
The flag march went ahead as scheduled, though the route was altered to reduce points of friction with Palestinians. And the settlers voluntarily left Evyatar after receiving assurances that the structures there would remain, a military outpost would be established, and – after a determination is made regarding whether the land was state land or privately owned – a yeshiva may be set up there.
Both of those land mines placed in the path of the nascent coalition were dismantled through compromise.
Finding a compromise on the Family Reunification Law, however, has proven more elusive, forcing the coalition to seek out opposition support to get a piece of legislation renewed that has not been much of an issue for the last 18 years.
This time, Netanyahu and the opposition took pains to make it an issue. Not because they are opposed to the extension of the law – they are not – rather, they are opposed to the government and deem all means acceptable in trying to weaken and embarrass it and make it difficult to pass legislation.
Yes, these challenges are a test for the government to see whether such a diverse government can find the will and the way to put aside ideological differences and compromise time after time. The intense debate over the Family Reunification Law, and the difficulty Meretz and Ra’am (United Arab List) had in supporting it, show the limits to mere goodwill being able to paper over all ideological differences.
These challenges are not only testing the coalition, but also the opposition.
How far will it go to try to weaken the government? And the operative phrase here is “weaken” the government, because a government-backed law that does not pass may embarrass the government, but it doesn’t bring it down. It would take a constructive vote of no-confidence to do that.
Netanyahu and the opposition know this full well. So why not support the measure that they supported for the last 18 years? Because they want to demonstrate that this government – made up of such a wide ideological group of parties – is unable to govern; to demonstrate that this “Great Experiment” can’t work.
If the coalition cannot pass legislation that the country’s security establishment deems critical for Israeli security – depriving terrorists who may want to enter Israel through the ruse of family reunification from the ability to do so – then it will have trouble governing.
Netanyahu’s overarching aim is to demonstrate that this government, which relies for support on an Arab Islamist party and a hard-left Jewish one, is unable to govern.
Why is that so important? Because one of the main criticisms of Netanyahu’s last government was that it did not function, was unable to govern, and that Israel under Netanyahu was facing nothing less than a crisis of governance.
Netanyahu wants to paint this government with that same brush. If the current government can’t pass laws it wants, even though this will not bring down the government, it will show that it can’t function properly.
And a government unable to govern because it can’t pass critical bills and promote policies it deems important, Netanyahu will argue again and again, will forfeit its right to exist.