3

Sorry that this is technically two questions, but they feel inextricably linked to me.

A 60-59 vote (due to one abstension in the 120-member Knesset) voted for formation of the 36th government, in a coalition agreement between eight parties totalling 62 seats: Yesh Atid (17 seats), Blue and White (8), Yamina (7), Labour (7), Yisrael Beiteinu (7), New Hope (6), Meretz (6), United Arab List (4). The resulting deal will hand power to Yair Lapid, leader of by far the largest party in the coalition, in 2023. (It happens to be the second-largest in the Knesset; Likud comprises 30 seats.) For now, however, it's not even in the hands of the coalition's second-largest party, but one of the parties tied for third.

When a coalition forms a government in any nation, the most obvious leader is of a largest or joint-largest party within that coalition; as I've said, this would give power to Lapid. The second most obvious, though perhaps even more sensible, option is for a leader with greater overall acceptability within the coalition (or the legislature as a whole) to become the Head of Executive, albeit perhaps not realized through a formal vote by something like this. Knowing little about how each party views all others, I couldn't comment on whether that would give power to Bennett, although I admit it surprises me. But what was it about him or his party that led to a deal where he temporarily has power, only for a planned transition of power to Lapid?

It is especially confusing that a "let's have two leaders" deal would place Lapid second. A two-sequential-leaders deal suggests the candidates are equally or nearly equally acceptable as leaders. I'm not sure who "should" go first in such a scenario, but one could argue the person with the larger party should go first, or at least choose which one goes first. Did Lapid prefer to go second, so as to lead into the next election as the incumbent?

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    A lot of these "should" are really "since I do not know the intricacies of the deal I will make my own rule of thumb". For example, giving power in the first place to the party with most seats would mean that it could be way more difficult for the Bennet to force Lapid out of office if he reneged of the deal than the other way around (no matter what the pact says, there is no way to force PMs to vote to comply with it).
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 19:06
  • The above example is just an idea that crossed my mind, I do not know if it is part of the reasons or not. It is just a counterexample to the idea that there is a "natural" way to do these things.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 19:09
  • Other ideas: Bennet prefers to go to the next election being the PM (and attempting to show the acomplishments of all four years as his), Lapid is considering retiring soon and prefers the first turn, Lapid is in a better negotiation position because perhaps his party would not oppose much a pact with Nethanyaju...
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 19:24
  • Lapid is not considering retiring in the foreseable future
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 20:42
  • @SJuan76 The point of what I said was to motivate the question in the first place. A lot of good questions are of the form, "X happened, but Y makes it seem like Z should have happened, so what am I missing?" I'm glad to see multiple answers got into specifics.
    – J.G.
    Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 5:58

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

Bennett is the leader of a party that ran on an Alt-Right ticket. In fact, the literal translation for his party's name "Yemina" is "Rightwards".

In addition, he promised several times during his campaign that he will never ever form a joint government with the left wing parties. He even signed it on a document on national TV. See; https://www.93fm.co.il/radio/677589/?utm_source=site&utm_medium=search

Here is the video of signing the document on TV, sorry but it's in Hebrew; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os_CJSiPH4U

However, in order to persuade him to put his reputation at extreme risk and severely dissappoint his supporters (according to recent polls some 60-70% of his voters say that they won't vote for him again) - he had to be given the biggest prize.

Most of my sources are in Hebrew, will look for sources in English and post them later.

Improve this answer
10
  • 2
    the answer is factually correct. pity it is infused with irrelevant political snide remarks
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 20:36
  • 1
    "make a fool out of himself" this is subjective observation and needlessly derogatory. even if you could not help yourself and had to express your personal opinion on the person, you could make the same point in subtler, less cringe-worthy way
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 20:48
  • 1
    another misplaced word is "enticed". Bennet was not lured into this government by the promise of PM position, since Netanyahu offered him the same "enticement". the position is a consolation prize to acknowledge the sacrifices Bennet made in joining this coalition
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 20:55
  • one could say that it was Netanyahu who set the "price" for Bennet, and Lapid merely equaled the offer.
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 20:58
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Jacob3
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 21:02
3

I would like to complement @Jacob3's answer with the following points:

  1. While both Yisrael Beiteinu and New Hope are considered right wing parties, in reality, Yamina was the "deciding factor" and was the closest option to join the Likud coalition. the reason is that both Libermann, leader of Yisrael Beiteinu, and Saar, leader of New Hope, explicitly stated they will never join the Likud coalition as long as it is led by Netanyahu. the "official" reason for this refusal are the criminal charges against Netanyahu. However, all three party leaders have been in the past either Likud members or ministers under Netanyahu and have endured side lining and breaking of promises by Netanyahu. and add to that the collapse of the previous government that was caused by yet-another Netanyahu-initiated breach of the contract with Blue and White leader Gantz, and one can understand the total lack of trust that was prevalent in the recent coalition negotiations. Anyway, being the "deciding factor" naturally increases the rewards offered by both sides during negotiations.
  2. Netanyahu offered Bennet the same deal of being first in PM rotation. so in a way, Lapid only equaled the offer.
  3. Another way to view the facts listed in the other answer, is that Bennet made the greatest sacrifice in terms of loss of support from his voters and community so the position can be regarded as both acknowledgement of the sacrifice and as a consolation prize for the price Bennet will (probably) pay in the future elections
Improve this answer
2
  • Regarding #2, Netanyahu's offer to Bennett to serve as PM was an offer of the last few days, much after Bennett has received the offer from Lapid.
    – Jacob3
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 21:35
  • Netanyahu's offer to Bennett was made while the mandate for coaltion was still in Netanyahu's hands. globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001369615
    – Sharon Ben Asher
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 21:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .