After decades of Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership – and nearly four years of the most extreme government in Israel’s history – there is a real chance Israeli voters will choose a different path. Poll after poll shows the governing ultra-right coalition unable to command a governing majority.
That’s undeniably good news.
One can see the outlines of a new coalition with a vital mandate: ending the Netanyahu era and halting the assault on Israel’s democratic institutions, judicial independence and international standing.
It will confront a tangle of complex issues: the unresolved trauma and failures surrounding October 7, the relationship between religion and state, military service and burden-sharing, the independence of the courts and perhaps even the long-deferred question of a constitution.
Tackling any of these challenges alone would be of epic importance, and strategic thinking is now underway in Israeli NGOs, think tanks and opposition circles to plan for what comes next.
But I fear much of the planning is built around a profoundly dangerous assumption: that Israel can restore itself internally while continuing to defer any meaningful effort to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. The theory goes something like this: when it comes to security and foreign affairs, a post-Netanyahu government can and should stop the worst excesses of the current coalition, crack down on settler terror on the West Bank, facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza, and improve relations with allies, Arab states and Democrats in Washington.
But on the core issue itself – Palestinian freedom, statehood, rights and self-determination – the assumption is that very little can be done.
Why? Because Israeli politics won’t permit it.
No coalition cobbled together with 61 seats in the Knesset, the argument goes, can survive if it makes a serious effort to resolve the Palestinian issue.
Israeli society is too traumatized after October 7. The words “Palestinian state” have become too politically radioactive. Better, therefore, to stabilize the situation and postpone the larger issue yet again.
I understand the politics and don’t question the conventional wisdom tactically.
Yet I think approaching the coming years this way would be a catastrophic strategic mistake.
We have seen this movie before.
The previous “change government” that briefly replaced Netanyahu advanced a doctrine of “shrinking” or “managing” the conflict. The idea was that with the Palestinian issue too difficult to solve, the best approach was a holding pattern of economic measures and limited improvements in daily life: more work permits, fewer checkpoints, somewhat stronger Palestinian finances and modest regional gestures.
But a conflict rooted in national identity, statelessness and denial of political rights cannot be “managed” through technocratic adjustments. A people seeking freedom and dignity will not be satisfied with a few more permits and a friendlier face on a catastrophic occupation. I understand that Israelis are not ready to negotiate final borders or sign a peace treaty the day after the election. Clearly they are not. And that’s not even what’s required.
Israeli politicians do not need to utter the words “two-state solution” again. J Street itself stopped using the term almost a decade ago and instead frames the goal in terms of a broader regional framework – a “23-state solution” – leading eventually to normalization, security and freedom for both peoples.
But rhetoric is not the heart of the issue.
The real question is whether the next Israeli government is prepared to say clearly – to Palestinians, neighboring Arab states, the United States and the world – that Israel does in fact envision a future in which Palestinians achieve genuine freedom, rights and independent political existence alongside Israel.
Absent that commitment, I believe it will be impossible for Israel to achieve any of its larger strategic goals.
The Arab states that would like deeper relations with Israel cannot normalize relations while Palestinians remain stateless.
Europe will not simply “move on” from Gaza without a political horizon.
Younger American Jews and many Democratic voters will not rally again to Israel’s side if permanent occupation and inequality are the end state Israel seems intent on preserving.
And the broader international community will have little patience for the argument that Israel’s domestic political constraints excuse it from addressing the central conflict shaping its future.
That, ultimately, is the strategic misunderstanding I fear guides many otherwise thoughtful people preparing for a post-Netanyahu era. They assume the world will empathize with their political plight and accept that the Palestinian issue is simply too difficult for Israelis to address right now.
But countries do not get excused from confronting existential challenges because those challenges are politically hard.
Particularly not when the can has arleady been kicked down the road for six decades. The world’s patience is at an end.
Israel absolutely needs a government committed to democratic restoration after the damage of the Netanyahu years. It desperately needs leaders who will repair institutions, rebuild trust and end the politics of extremism and incitement.
But none of that alone will secure Israel’s future if the country still cannot articulate a credible path toward eventual Palestinian freedom and statehood.
If all a new government offers is a kinder, calmer and more competent version of “managing the conflict,” then Israel will remain on a path toward deepening isolation, intensifying international pressure and growing estrangement from much of world Jewry and from large parts of the American public.
The next Israeli government does not need to solve the conflict overnight.
But it does need the courage to admit what the central challenge to the country’s future actually is – and where the only sustainable resolution ultimately must lead.
Indeed, a very realistic report by the outspoken Jeremy bin- Ami, reflecting more the new American Jewish youth and most international Jewish, ideas and ideologies, it is a logical and realistic outlook within the actual given situation and the actual development of the entire Middle Eastern/Palestinian/Israeli long overdue issue.
As always, my many thanks to all.
