by Moti Karpel, Makor Rishon, translated by Hillel Fendel
Netanyahu's Likud supporters love and admire him – preventing him from drawing the right conclusions.
"Netanyahu cannot quit; the public won't let him." So said recently a well-known nationalist journalist by the name of Avishai Ben-Chaim. "Even if [Netanyahu] would like to quit," continued the Channel 13 reporter, "the masses will not agree." In these short words, he summed up the trap in which the Likud Party finds itself.
The trap is this: On the one hand, the chances that the Netanyahu coalition – comprised of the Likud and the religious parties (Shas, United Torah Judaism, and Religious Zionism) - can form a government after the next elections are not high. They did not succeed after any of the previous four elections, and even now, at the height of the de-legitimization of the Bennett-Lapid government, surveys show that Netanyahu cannot garner the 61 Knesset seats necessary to form a government.
And on the other hand, the warmth and love and unbounded admiration of his supporters do not allow anyone in the Likud to call on Netanyahu to draw the appropriate conclusions and step down. The Likud leaders well understand the problem Netanyahu poses for them, but they also know that his supporters will never forgive anyone who dares challenge him. Yuli Edelstein, who announced several weeks ago that he would run against Netanyahu for the party's top spot, was made to feel their wrath, and the others haven't dared to chirp since then.
The one who can get the Likud out of its trap – and consequently release the entire country – is Netanyahu himself. But at this stage it appears that he is simply unable to do it. It is hard for him to take the step of leaving the stage, and it even appears he has no problem leaving scorched earth in his wake. After he burned and caused division within the nationalist bloc, he is now lighting the fire of discord and animosity burning the country, and he won't rest until he burns up the Likud as well. And so, in a dialectic manner, it is precisely the loving embrace from his Likud supporters that is liable to be his own grave and that of the entire Likud.
The concept of dialectics has many meanings. When analyzing historical and political processes, it means, inter alia, that history develops through a struggle between opposing forces. Many times, opposition to the opponent actually strengthens and empowers him, as the political move boomerangs against the one who took the action and brings about his own downfall. Examples abound.
When we look carefully at the political processes in Israel of late, the dialectical dynamics that dominate them are very clear to see. Netanyahu was always very careful never to allow anyone in his circles to endanger his position. Not only did he not groom a successor, he actually made sure to mow down anyone who sprouted up around him and might likely one day seek to be his successor. This was the case not only in the Likud, but also in the entire right-wing nationalist camp, of blessed memory. His fear of "the day after," when he would have to make way for someone else, was one of the main forces constantly driving his political moves. This is the explanation for the vindictiveness with which he behaved towards his supporters, partners, and allies. It was this, and nothing else, that brought about his downfall.
His former partners whom he used and then later turned his back upon – Lieberman, Saar, Elkin, Ganz, Bennett, Shaked and more – joined up with each other and together were able to do what none of them could have done alone. Netanyahu's fear of the day after is exactly what brought it upon him.
Furthermore: It was Netanyahu who prepared the way for Mansour Abbas, leader of the Arab "Raam" party that is part and parcel of the current government. After three election campaigns in which he did not succeed in forming a right-wing or even center-right government, Netanyahu designed a new political strategy: He would win by forming a partnership with Abbas and Raam. Here too, in a blatantly dialectical process, the very fact that Netanyahu "koshered" Abbas is what enabled the forming of the Bennett-Lapid-Abbas government that led to Netanyahu's downfall.
And there's more: Netanyahu bears primary responsibility for the breakup of the Yemina party just before the last election. It was he who supported, and perhaps even initiated, Smotrich's breakaway from Bennett and Shaked. It was also Netanyahu who helped Smotrich start his own party, and who further helped him to pass the minimum electoral threshold. [A party that receives less than 3.25% of the national vote does not enter the Knesset.] This move, too, boomeranged against him. For one thing, Netanyahu thus released Bennett from his dependence on Smotrich, enabling him to wage his own religious-Zionist political campaign [losing him votes in the more religious-nationalist sectors of the religious-Zionist camp and gaining him votes in other sectors of the general public – ed. note].
In addition, Smotrich's unyielding refusal to agree to any Raam presence in a Netanyahu-led coalition, whether as a member of the coalition or merely as an outside influence, also had a decisive role in Netanyahu's downfall. Smotrich would not have been able to insist on his refusal had Netanyahu not rendered him politically independent.
As of now, it appears that Netanyahu's unwillingness to draw the indicated conclusions from four consecutive electoral failures and to leave the political scene honorably, is precisely the glue that keeps together all the various factions – left, center, right and Arab – of the present government. The more Netanyahu seeks to delegitimize the coalition, the more he will apparently strengthen it.
It is too bad that outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not follow protocol during her parting visit to Israel recently and meet with the leader of the opposition – namely, Binyamin Netanyahu. She would have been able to share with him some of her own political experience, and could have reminded him that part of the greatness of a leader is knowing when to quit. She could have explained that stubbornly holding on to his seat will only diminish the prestige of the legacy he will leave after him. This is certainly a loss, for Netanyahu in fact has an impressive legacy to leave behind.