An unusual coalition deserves an unusual coalition agreement, and that – according to what has been reported so far about that agreement – is what has emerged.
It is only natural that a coalition that includes enormous contradictions will be accompanied by an agreement that has the same. And the anti-Netanyahu coalition is nothing if not full of contradictions: two hard-right parties (Yamina and New Hope) sitting with two hard-left parties (Meretz and Labor), pro-settlement activists sitting with anti-settlement ones, and an Islamist party in a coalition with religious Zionists and parties waving the banner of gay rights.
Those contradictions are aptly represented in the coalition agreement, which are individual agreements signed between each of the seven parties with the eighth and largest party, Yesh Atid, and an overarching agreement signed between Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid and Yamina leader Naftali Bennett.
What are some of the contradictions? Agreements between Yesh Atid and Meretz, Labor and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu calling for public transportation on Shabbat, a repeal of the law banning grocery stores from opening on Shabbat, and recognition of gay marriages and civil unions, all fundamental changes in the status quo that governs issues of religions and state.
The agreement between Lapid and Bennett, however, which is the overriding agreement that all the parties are committed to, includes a pledge to retain the status quo, which means that all the pledges on this matter between Yesh Atid and Meretz, Labor and Yisrael Beytenu fall within the realm of pledges only.
Lapid and Bennett will rotate as prime minister, with Bennett starting and Lapid due to take over in August 2023. Even though the numerical strength inside the coalition between parties on the Right, Left and Center is not equal – Left 13, Right 12, Center 25 and two parties, Yisrael Beytenu with seven and the United Arab Party with four seats, that defy easy classification – this will be a Right-Left parity government, meaning Lapid will have veto power over Bennett’s policies when the latter is prime minister, and the other way around when Lapid takes over.
Likewise in the security cabinet – the most important decision-making forum when it comes to security and diplomatic issues – the Right-Left division will have six seats for Yamina and the New Hope Party on the Right, and six seats for everyone else. This breakdown explains why diplomatic issues got short-skirted in the coalition guidelines. When it comes to diplomatic issues, this government will be deadlocked, so don’t look to it for far-reaching diplomatic initiatives.
The coalition guidelines, according to Yediot Aharonot, have the following rather anemic statement on diplomatic/security issues: “The government will work toward strengthening national security along with a continuous pursuit of peace, and strengthening the Foreign Ministry as the body dealing with Israel’s foreign relations.”
On the surface, then, the parity makeup of the government seems a recipe for a continued stalemate. The previous government – the Benjamin Netanyahu-Benny Gantz government – was built similarly, with one bloc inside the government having veto power over the other. And that didn’t work out well at all.
So why should this parity government be any different?
One reason has to do with personalities. Lapid and Bennett, who worked together in Netanyahu’s government in 2013-2015, have shown that despite ideological differences, they were able to find common ground in the past. In addition, they radiate a sense of trusting one another, which never came across when Netanyahu and Gantz joined forces.
All the component parts of this coalition are aware that it is a unique construction, born of unique circumstances. This is not a government established with the goal of making headway on the major diplomatic issues, and the way it is set up will preclude that from happening, with Lapid vetoing moves that he may perceive as moving the government too far to the right diplomatically, and Bennett having that same power if Lapid turns the wheel too far to the left.
It is a coalition set up to deal primarily with domestic issues: to try and heal the societal rifts following an unprecedented two-and-a-half years of bitter divisiveness that began with the fall of the government in 2018, continued through four inconclusive elections, and was made worse by the coronavirus. This is a coalition built on the notion that there is a wide national consensus on most domestic issues, and that at this time, that is where the nation’s focus needs to be.
If the country wants its disparate parts to come together, as polls show it does, rather than go to a fifth election, and if it wants Right, Left and Center in the same government, then it is going to have to learn to live with contradictions in the coalition and in the coalition’s guidelines.
But if the coalition wants to survive, it is going to have to find a way to smooth over those contradictions while on the run – keeping in mind its stated goal that what unites is greater than what divides, and that what divides needs to be placed aside temporarily so the country can regain its equilibrium.