Israel’s New Coalition: A Government of Jewish Hope

The incoming 2022 Israeli government has provoked an unprecedented backlash among public figures, predominantly among the American left and the Israeli far left. Referencing recent reports of the incoming government’s plans to implement changes in the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary and issues regarding religion and state, Foxman said he would have a difficult time trying to get American Jews to support Israel and remarked that his support for Israel has transitioned from unconditional to conditional: “I want Israel to be Jewish, absolutely. But I want it to be a democracy.”

The picture of far-right representatives Ben-Gvir and Smotrich alongside an empowered Charedi block, not to mention Avi Maoz and his explicitly pro-family educational agenda, wielding dominant sway over a weakened Benjamin Netanyahu, sits badly with many on the Jewish left

Suggestions to moderate the overreach of Israel’s hyper-activist Supreme Court and amend the Law of Return back to what it used to be (striking the 1970 “Grandparent Clause”) do not seem to be the kind of nefarious plans that would undermine confidence in a prospective government even before it starts. Yet, it’s not only about what the government plans to do but mainly about who will do it. The picture of far-right representatives Ben-Gvir and Smotrich alongside an empowered Charedi block, not to mention Avi Maoz and his explicitly pro-family educational agenda, wielding dominant sway over a weakened Benjamin Netanyahu, sits badly with many on the Jewish (and non-Jewish) left. Some, it seems, are in full meltdown.

I recommend judging the incoming government by actions and results rather than words and personalities. Words matter, but actions matter more, and we should wait and see what the future holds. Yet, for the present, I want to place some positive light on the incoming government that might balance some of the prevailing negativity. Rather than a government of doom, allow me to frame the incoming coalition as a “government of hope.”

Some seven years ago, then-president Reuven Rivlin delivered his famous “Speech of Tribes,” in which he effectively announced the demise of the grand story of the State of Israel. We are no longer one country with one great story, he claimed, but four distinct tribes, each with its specific narrative. We should come to terms with this reality and find a new common denominator that can bind together the various groups. Rivlin gave this program the somewhat ironic name “Israeli Hope.”

I believe the results of Israel’s recent elections disprove Rivlin’s gloomy forecast and bury his vision of Israel as a “state of all its tribes.” They prove that the Israeli public values a unifying Jewish narrative over the rival tribal narrative. Contrary to predictions, the public’s identification with the enduring Jewish story is actually becoming increasingly consolidated. The Charedim, religious Zionists, the Sephardim, and the secular right—the group could have been bigger, were it not for the distortion of the “never Bibi” camp—united under the narrative that has always united us: the epic story of the people of Israel. The recent elections reflect the victory of the unified national narrative over the divisive tribal version.

The recent elections reflect the victory of the unified national narrative over the divisive tribal version

Famed Israeli commentator Amit Segal has claimed that the five rounds of elections Israel recently experienced captured the social processes of twenty years in just a few years. In my opinion, one of these processes is the accelerated integration of religious parties into the right-wing bloc. This process is not political alone. It represents a renewed public rally around the grand national narrative and a departure from the divisive sectarian story. The incoming coalition is not merely a partnership of right-wing parties struggling against their left-wing rivals. It represents a win for a common narrative that united a continuous spectrum of diverse communities. It gives us hope for the future.

Collapse of the Tribal Narrative

The condition of Israel’s center-left parties is a good illustration of the failure of the multicultural narrative. Each of these parties boasts an inclusive platform, supposedly giving a political home to minority groups regardless of religion or nationality. Party lists thus allocate space for Arabs, Druze, observant Jews, and representatives of peripheral towns (Charedim, for the time being, have not made their way into the tent).

Following the standard identity politics guidelines, party manifests will discuss discrimination against women, the neglect of the periphery, white dominance that excludes Arabs (talk of the exclusion of Mizrachi Jews has become less fashionable), and will encourage citizens to come out, influence and act as underprivileged members of society.

But a tribal state that lacks a central and leading majority is doomed to collapse. Every tribe, minority, or identity group will try to pull the government’s purse strings in its own direction, sabotaging the stability and prosperity of the entire country. The outgoing government is an excellent illustration of the failure of identity politics. Each group tried to squeeze as much as possible from the state. That is not to say that the government did nothing positive; there was some good, but the whole setup only lasted a few months. In the absence of a central, binding story, none of the coalition members feels too committed.

The dangers and challenges of a society divided into tribes are indeed very serious. However, precisely for this reason, it is unacceptable to cultivate the narrative of division promoted by Rivlin himself

Former President Rivlin spoke quite rightly in his speech. The dangers and challenges of a society divided into tribes are indeed very serious. However, precisely for this reason, it is unacceptable to cultivate the narrative of division promoted by Rivlin himself. The danger in this narrative, even if it is motivated by well-meaning intentions, is the acceptance of tribalism, as if it is our inevitable destiny, and being content with trying to minimize its damage. Israeli society is not divided into tribes. We still have a grand narrative that unites us. Some choose to deny the unifying narrative, which is why Israel’s Left looks the way it does: disorganized, conflicted, and directionless.

Is the Political Right the “Second Israel”?

In many countries worldwide, vulnerable minority groups tend to the political left, which offers them support, affirmative action, and socialist-oriented policies. In contrast with this trend, marginalized groups in Israel—specifically the Mizrachim (Sephardim), periphery residents, and Charedim—are distinctly identified with the conservative Right. The only minority firmly anchored on the left side of the political map is the Arab minority (and even they are showing the beginnings of disillusionment with this patronizing embrace). Why? Why is the Israeli story different?

According to the journalist and researcher Avishai Ben Haim, the right wing in Israel represents what he refers to as “Second Israel.” “First Israel” includes Ashkenazi, secular, wealthy, Tel Aviv elites; “Second Israel” houses marginalized and disadvantaged groups of Mizrachi Jews who revolt against the Ashkenazi supremacy of the rich and educated. To my understanding, however, Ben-Haim misses the point and buys into the same dismantling narrative of a tribal society that lacks a unifying narrative. What truly drives us is a war of one tribe against another, so “Second Israel” is a collection of tribes fighting another tribe.

The recent elections are not a revolt of aggrieved political factions but the triumph of the unifying narrative of the “Jewish people”—in which many on the center-left can also find their place—over the divisive tribal narrative

The true story, I believe, is completely different. The recent elections are not a revolt of aggrieved political factions but the triumph of the unifying narrative of the “Jewish people”—in which many on the center-left can also find their place—over the divisive tribal narrative. I see the choice made by the majority of the people of Israel as a vote for a united Israel. This is a rejection of the divisive speech of tribal identities. It is a choice that transcends identities and chooses the preeminent collective. Israeli society is becoming more and more harmonious. Of course, it still swings between extremes, but it has a goal and a clear, unified direction.

The minorities in Israel are identified with the right because they do not see themselves as minorities, as some on the left want to see them. They are simply an integral part of the people of Israel. The Charedim, the Mizrachim, the religious nationalists, and the periphery residents see themselves as an integral part of the grand Jewish story and the sense of destiny that accompanies it. A high percentage of Israel shares this deep recognition and inner consciousness; it unites us as one people. When questions concerning this identity are at stake, we see ourselves as Jews passionately concerned about the fate of our country.

Some on the left arrogantly slam residents of Israel’s periphery: you cannot both vote Likud and complain about your financial (or other) situation. In typically patronizing fashion, Mizrachi Jews and residents of the periphery are represented as being blinded by self-deception and requiring a sober awakening and a change in political orientation. Even assuming that they are correct and that the left would have cared more about the periphery, hats off to such residents for not falling for the honey trap of becoming “minorities.” It is precisely these “transparent,” weaker groups of our nation for whom the voting slip might be their only weapon that put aside their specific needs for the sake of the great national Jewish narrative. This is a very exciting development.

Demise of the Sectoral Divide

Some will be reading this piece and scratching their heads. Surely, parties such as Shas, United Torah Judaism, and even the Religious Zionists are a deep part of Israel’s sectarian sphere? What can be a better example of Israel’s identity politics than the Charedi parties? To some degree, this is a valid objection: Charedi tend to vote on party lines, and the parties tend to care more about themselves and their tribal interests than about the greater good of the state and nation. Yet, things are changing.

In the past, the political connection between the Charedi parties and Israel’s right-wing was a strategic alliance alone. For years the Charedi parties became the tipping point in achieving a coalition, and, as Rav Shach iterated in 1991, they reserved their partnership for those on the right. However, until the last two years, it seemed that this was a loose connection. The right, to note, wasn’t quite as right as it is today, and the Charedim were less interested in matters of state—the central one for decades was the matter of Jewish settlements and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and focused on their own internal affairs.

Lack of governance in the Negev, Arab terror that has raised its ugly in major Israeli cities, a court system that barely recognizes Jewish nationalism and tradition—these have served to unite the different sectors on the right under a single flag, notwithstanding the substantial daylight between them

Today, however, the burning issue on the right is Jewish identity itself—family values, the Jewish character of the public sphere, and general national pride in the face of an increasingly progressive cosmopolitanism. On these matters, the Charedim—the Charedi public, at least, and its representatives to varying degrees—seem no less passionate about than anybody else. Lack of governance in the Negev, Arab terror that has raised its ugly in major Israeli cities, a court system that barely recognizes Jewish nationalism and tradition—these have served to unite the different sectors on the right under a single flag, notwithstanding the substantial daylight between them.

Thus coalesced the current “right-wing block” that defined, together with the opposing block, the contours of the last elections. Voters had to choose less between individual parties, though this was also part of the choice and more between blocks. The success of the Charedi parties needs to be seen in this context: voters were happy to give them their voice in the knowledge that support would go not only to the specific group but also to the wider collective. UTJ’s list for the Knesset did not impress, but voters showed up nonetheless out of a mature sense of responsibility for the fate of the collective and the general Jewish identity of the country. I am certain that this drove people to the ballot boxes far more than the need for sectarian representation.

Jewish Hope

Instead of Rivlin’s “Israeli Hope” of the four tribes, I think the election results might allow us to raise the flag of “Jewish hope.” They demonstrate that Israel retains a strong foundation of Jewish solidarity—one that many on the center-left are also party to—and indicate that we are not marching, as some claim, towards the splintering and disintegration of society. A sense of cross-pollination pervades the different groups: the religious will focus on faith and Judaism, but the language of Israeli nationalism is less foreign even to the Charedim. This is a welcome development.

In conclusion, let me mention two small anecdotes to illustrate the point. At a conference of Shas women entitled (naturally) “Remembering Maran,” a crowd of Charedi women joined the popular (and talented) Israeli artists Yuval Dayan and Narkis, demonstrating a surprising fluency in the songs they performed. A second case-in-point I witnessed was Bibi’s famed campaign truck (named “Bibi-Ba”), which entertained a Zafed crowd with the Yeshiva song “Machshavot Tovot” by Motti Weiss.

We should remember that the trigger for the entire “tribes” discussion was the change in Israel’s demographic and that the only significant change was (and is) the growth of the Charedi group at the expense of (mainly) secular Jews. The growth of Charedi society, I wish to posit, is no reason for Israel to espouse a tribal mentality. On the contrary, it is a reason to strengthen a Jewish definition of the state that can include the Charedim alongside the great majority of Israeli Jews.

Charedi entry into the rank and file of Israel’s right is also an important step in the general participation of Charedim in Israeli society. It declares that we are still one people, it emphasizes the deep sense of partnership between all Jews in Israel, and it paves the way for entry into the labor market and other areas in which Charedi participation is essential for the future

Charedi entry into the rank and file of Israel’s right is also an important step in the general participation of Charedim in Israeli society. It declares that we are still one people, it emphasizes the deep sense of partnership between all Jews in Israel, and it paves the way for entry into the labor market and other areas in which Charedi participation is essential for the future. Even from a symbolic perspective, the fact that the Israeli public is getting used to the idea of a Charedi Finance Minister and a religious-Zionist Defense Minister (though Smotrich, it seems, will not ultimately get the position) is a real positive, cementing the fact that we are one nation with common responsibilities rather than a collection of tribes in a common space.

All of this gives me hope, “Jewish hope” for the future of Israel and the Jewish people. I am certain that the hope will be realized, for God will surely never abandon His nation—but the realization is up to us, each with the role he can play. Will the incoming government play a significant role? It could, and I think its very notion has done some good. The very least we can do is give it a fair chance.

Photo by David Holifield on Unsplash