The near-consensus among Israeli political pundits is that the merger of the parties led by former Prime Ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid is a huge moment in the campaign ahead of the next Knesset election, scheduled for Oct. 27. 

However, judging by polls published by six major Hebrew-language media outlets after the merger on Sunday, not much has changed since the announcement that Bennett and Lapid were joining forces. 

The newly formed “Together” opposition party polled around 24 seats — nearly the same number of seats as the two parties combined before the merger. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party is, according to the average of the latest polls, still the largest party at 29. 

According to the latest polling, it would be difficult for either side to build a governing coalition. The opposition Zionist parties did not get a 61-seat majority in any of the six polls. The most favorable poll for the opposition showed the anti-Netanyahu Zionist parties at 60 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, while the current coalition received over 61 seats in two polls (from those commissioned by Channel 14 and I24NEWS, which are more sympathetic to Netanyahu than the other media outlets).

To be sure, polls taken within 24 hours of an event are not the most reliable, and much can change in the six months until the election. 

The key question after the Bennett and Lapid merger is whether they are fighting other opposition candidates for dominance within their bloc – in which case, Bennett has likely solidified his status as Netanyahu’s main competition for the premiership – or to broaden the bloc’s appeal to win a majority in the Knesset. 

Netanyahu famously said in 2018 and many times since, in reference to shifts in the opposition: “I don’t intervene in how the left divides up its votes.” That quip, made when Bennett was still in the pro-Netanyahu camp, is now reflective of Bennett’s weakness.

So far, the  polling has shown that Bennett, who was solidly on the right for the first eight years of his political career, will struggle to peel off voters from the right-wing pro-Netanyahu bloc into his camp. 

In his last election campaign in 2021, Bennett ran primarily on right-wing messages but ended up leading a coalition of mostly center and left parties, together with an Arab party in the government, something many right-wing voters, as well as two Knesset members who jumped ship, viewed as a betrayal. 

Add to that the fact that Lapid is to Bennett’s left — something both acknowledged several times in their Sunday night press conference, referring to their “differences” – likely referring to Bennett’s support for settlements and opposition to a two-state solution, which Lapid supports. Both candidates emphasized their shared views on domestic policy in response.   

Netanyahu has kept mostly quiet about the Bennett-Lapid merger, but his one response shows that he will try to widen the wedge between Bennett and the right. 

Netanyahu’s social media accounts posted an image from 2021 showing Lapid and Bennett sitting with Mansour Abbas, head of Ra’am, the Islamist party in their governing coalition. Ominous music plays in the background, and the words “they already did it once; they will do it again” are splashed across the picture.

The Ra’am factor will also likely be key after the election. The Zionist opposition parties have said mixed things about whether they would be willing to have an Arab non-Zionist party in their coalition in a post-Oct. 7 Israel. Revelations about the Ra’am party’s financial and historic ties to Hamas will also likely come up in the campaign.

As of now, the Knesset’s three Arab parties have said they will run in a single Joint List this year, as they did in 2015-2021, increasing Arab voter turnout and their representation in the Knesset. Ra’am is the only one of the parties that has to date been willing to sit in a coalition, and unlike Abbas, the other party leaders, Ayman Odeh and Ahmed Tibi, do not accept Israel as a Jewish state. 

Because of those realities, Bennett and Lapid’s Together party will likely have to make a concerted – and perhaps quixotic – effort to win over right-leaning voters if it wants to increase its bloc and unseat Netanyahu. That task will be easier said than done. 

Amid the ceasefire with Iran, new Israeli polls were split on the outcome for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party and coalition. Three television polls showed Netanyahu losing significant support as a result of the unpopularity of the ceasefire, while polls from two right-leaning networks projected he would still have a majority in the Knesset to form a coalition. 

The election is currently slated for the end of October. Israeli Channels 12, 13 and Kan 11 projected Netanyahu’s coalition would not receive enough votes to stay in power, but they also found that center-left parties — excluding Arab parties, which most Zionist parties have said would not be invited to join their coalition — would not get the 61-seat majority to form a winning coalition. 

Channels 14 and i24NEWS news projected that the coalition would be able to remain in power, but with a smaller majority than it received in 2022, as it has consistently received in polling since then.

Netanyahu appeared defensive in a televised statement on Saturday night, during which he argued that the results of the nearly six-week war against Iran had been positive, and the ceasefire may not be final: “There are people who say ‘we have no achievements.’ There are giant achievements.”

“The campaign is not yet over, but even now it can be clearly stated: We have achieved historic accomplishments,” Netanyahu continued. “Iran tried to squeeze us in a stranglehold; Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, the militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran itself. They wanted to choke us, and we are choking them. … Those who threatened to destroy us are now fighting for their own survival.” 

Netanyahu went on to list the war’s achievements: “We succeeded in crushing the nuclear program, crushing the missile program,” and brought Iran’s regime “to its lowest, weakest level since the establishment of the regime 47 years ago.” He also listed dozens of senior officials and military commanders who had been killed by Israel and weapons sites that had been destroyed.

Still, the prime minister acknowledged that the enriched uranium in Iran must be removed “either … by agreement, or it will come out in other ways.”

Netanyahu also spoke at length about negotiations with Lebanon as the IDF continued operations against Hezbollah. He said the talks would be about the disarmament of the Iran-backed terrorist group and “a real peace agreement” with Beirut.

In polls released the night before, Israeli channels 12 and 13 and public broadcaster Kan found that a narrow majority of Israelis (from 51% to 56%) said they oppose the two-week ceasefire with Iran. In addition, in a poll published Sunday by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, 61% of Israelis opposed the ceasefire, and less than a third (31%) said they believed that the Iranian regime was significantly harmed in the war. 

Elie Pieprz, an international political consultant who has worked on Likud campaigns, argued that Netanyahu doesn’t need the war to come to a conclusively positive end for Israel for him to use it to his political advantage.

“The prime minister has always thrived when something tantalizing is very close, and [he can say] ‘if you just give me another term, I can bring this home,” Pieprz said. “I think regime change [in Iran] is exactly one of those things.”

Conversely, Nilly Richman, a strategist who has worked with President Isaac Herzog and launched Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, told Jewish Insider that “there is no doubt that Netanyahu is stressed, and he is broadcasting it.” 

According to Richman, the stress comes from the fact that “the polls aren’t bringing [Netanyahu] to the point he hoped to be in after this war” and that he will have to testify again in the corruption trials against him this week, now that Israel is no longer in a state of emergency.

According to Kan’s poll, the current coalition parties were projected to receive 51 seats, while Zionist opposition parties got 59. Likud received 25 seats, down from 28 in the previous week’s polls, while former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s yet-unnamed party was steady at 19.

On Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news broadcast, Likud was projected to drop to 25 from 27 last week, and Bennett to rise from 20 to 22 seats. The coalition would get 50 seats, and the Zionist opposition 60, according to the poll.

In Channel 13’s poll, the coalition got 54 seats and the Zionist opposition received 55. Likud received 22 seats, up from 25 last week, and Bennett went from 18 to 21.

Newer, more right-leaning channels 14 and i24 News, however, showed Netanyahu would be able to form a majority coalition with his current partners. They did not ask about support for the ceasefire.

In i24’s poll, Likud received 32 seats and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar Party led the opposition with 14 seats. The coalition would win 64 seats and the Zionist opposition received 45.

Pro-Netanyahu Channel 14, whose pollster, former Netanyahu aide Shlomo Filber, most accurately predicted the results of the last election, found that the right-wing bloc received 66 seats while the Zionist opposition received 42. The poll also gave Likud 36 seats and Bennett’s party 10, with Yashar leading the Zionist opposition with 11 seats.

Filber’s poll was also the only one asking about the Joint List — a bloc of all four Arab parties, which they have said they plan to form — rather than polling them as the two separate blocs they have in the current Knesset – and found that the singular bloc received 12 seats, more than any Zionist opposition party.

Former Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s party did not pass the electoral threshold in any of the polls, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s party passed it in the polls from Channels 13 and 14 and i24.

Pieprz said that “polls taken six months out [to the election] are not super-relevant, [though] there is value to tracking polls.”

Richman argued that “polls taken a moment after something happened are meaningless. It takes a moment for everything to sink in.” She also noted that “people want to see what will happen in two weeks,” when the current ceasefire with Iran is due to expire.

However, she pointed to a poll Channel 12 took of residents of Israel’s north as especially significant. Residents of the north are worth about 35 Knesset seats, and continue to be attacked by Hezbollah multiple times a day. The poll found that 70% of them — including a third of those who voted for the coalition in the last election — give the government a bad grade in dealing with their issues. While in 2022, the number of coalition and Zionist opposition voters in the north were about even, the Zionist opposition is now leading in the north by eight points.

Richman estimated that “three to four seats could move between the blocs.”

Much of that movement is from Likud to former Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s Israel Beytenu party, which is “on the right, but against Bibi,” Reichman said. She said that Liberman has kept his distance from the center-left and right-wing blocs, saying that he can be part of a coalition without Haredim or Arabs or the left-wing Democrats Party, a claim that appeals to moderate right-wing voters.

Pieprz said that, in line with Liberman’s more independent messaging, he may be signaling that he would be willing to join a coalition with Netanyahu but without Haredi parties, and that Netanyahu may be willing to do that rather than enter another cycle of multiple consecutive elections. “I don’t think Bibi will feel indebted to the Haredim,” he said.

Richman said moderate right-wing voters who don’t want to vote for Netanyahu are not moving toward Bennett, who is hawkish and holds right-wing positions on settlements, the economy and more. “Bennett will have to betray the left so that the right will forgive him” for forming a coalition with left-wing parties and an Arab party in 2021, she argued.

Pieprz said that Bennett is “moving in a downward trend” in the polls, and that “people in the opposition express frustration that he’s not going after voters on the right, and instead trying to concretize a base on the left, creating a problematic dynamic. I don’t think he can maintain it for six months.”

Pieprz noted that there has been a lot of infighting within the Zionist opposition, especially between Eisenkot and Bennett for dominance in the bloc.While calling the infighting “a bad look, they will never win that way,” he said they “have enough time to reconfigure and get on the same page and act in a way that shows the Israeli public that there is a legitimate alternative to Netanyahu.”  

He posited that Netanyahu “is in relatively good shape, primarily because there is not a robust and developed opposition. … People supporting the prime minister are pretty solid. It would take a lot to dislodge [their votes]. In the opposition, there is fluidity.” 

Pieprz, however, said that Netanyahu “squeezed out a lot of the political benefit of the war itself” — such as passing a budget that will allow his coalition to survive months longer than it may have — “and now he has to frame [the war] properly over the next six months. … He can make that case ‘allow me and the team that got us to this point to push it over the top.’”

Richman noted that the successful attacks on Iran’s nuclear program during last year’s 12-day war did not impact Netanyahu’s political standing much, but projected that after this war, the prime minister is likely to decline further in the polls.

“Bibi built [a monster] that ate him,” she said. “If Iran is so scary … Well, [Israel] attacked Iran and not much happened to us, Israel wasn’t destroyed, so we don’t need [Netanyahu] anymore. It’s like [former UK Prime Minister] Winston Churchill” — who lost an election right after World War II and Netanyahu is known to admire — “Be careful what you wish for, Bibi.” 

Likud lawmaker Dan Illouz, in a speech to the Knesset on Monday, warned the American right about the dangers of rising antisemitism within its ranks.

“I stand here in Jerusalem to sound an alarm,” Illouz said. “We are used to enemies from the outside … but today, I look at the West — our greatest ally — and I see a new enemy rising from within.” 

Illouz, who was born and grew up in Montreal, took the unusual step of speaking from the lectern in English.

The right-wing lawmaker called for American conservatives to reject what he called the “poison” of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, mentioning the podcasters by name. 

“They claim to fight the ‘woke left.’ They are no different than the woke left,” Illouz argued. “The woke left tears down statues of Thomas Jefferson, the woke right tears down statues of Winston Churchill … It is the same hatred of the West dressed up in a different costume.”

He noted Carlson’s praise for World War II revisionism: “[Carlson] nods along when he’s told the Holocaust was a logistical error, a mistake by a camp that was unprepared. This is madness. He spits on the graves of American soldiers who stormed Normandy. … Why? To erase the line between good and evil.”

Owens, Illouz said, “spreads the sickest blood libels … claiming this state was founded by ‘pedophiles.’”

“She does not know history; she does not know the Bible,” Illouz added. “She only knows how to peddle hate.”

Illouz said that his message for Carlson, Owens and their ilk is that “we are the people of eternity. We buried the pharaohs who enslaved us. We buried the Greeks who tried to ban our Torah. We buried the Romans who burned our temple. We danced on the ruins of the Third Reich. And we will be here long after your YouTube channels are forgotten dust.”

“You think your lies can break the bond between America and Israel? You are small. This bond is giant,” Illouz stated.

The alliance between the U.S. and Israel is about shared values between “two nations who hold the torch of liberty while the rest of the world falls into darkness,” he said.

“Together we protect the values of freedom, democracy and the Bible against the barbarians at the gates,” Illouz added.

The Likud lawmaker implored American supporters of Israel not to accept defeat.

“The story of America and Israel is not over. It is just beginning. We have achieved miracles together, and we will achieve greater miracles yet,” he said. “Reject the lies. Stand with us, because when we stand together, Jerusalem and Washington, no force on earth can defeat us. Am Yisrael Chai.”

Twenty years ago this month, Israel dismantled 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip, forcing 8,000 Israelis to evacuate and demolishing their homes, in what was known as the disengagement. That process was met with mass protests on the streets and the splintering of the Likud party, whose leader, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, initiated and oversaw the disengagement.

While Sharon did not promise peace as a result of the disengagement, the plan was presented as a move to make Israel more secure, while fewer soldiers would have to die protecting a small number of residents in the Gaza Strip. The prime minister and his supporters said that if even one rocket was shot from Gaza after the pull-out, Israel would respond militarily. They also promised that the disengagement would ensure that “this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, [would be] removed indefinitely from our agenda … all with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress,” as Sharon’s senior advisor, Dov “Dubi” Weisglass, put it at the time. 

Two decades later, Israel is fighting its longest war in Gaza, after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacres and attacks perpetrated by the Hamas terrorist organization that has controlled Gaza since 2006. In the interim years, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza shot hundreds and sometimes thousands of rockets at Israeli population centers each year, prompting five major Israeli military operations in Gaza.

As to Weisglass’ 2004 promise that international pressure to reach a two-state solution would be put in “formaldehyde,” Sharon’s political protege and the Israeli prime minister immediately following him, Ehud Olmert, offered the Palestinians a state in 2008. Last week, 11 countries announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state.

Key figures from that period told Jewish Insider that the Israeli government’s failure to formulate a day-after plan for Gaza — a criticism that has been leveled at Jerusalem in the current war — is in part to blame for the unfulfilled promises of the disengagement.

Gilad Erdan, a former senior Israeli cabinet minister and ambassador to the U.S., was a freshman Likud lawmaker when the disengagement was announced, and became a leading figure in the party’s rebellion against Sharon, which then-Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who voted in favor of the disengagement plan in early key votes — joined at a later stage.

Erdan noted to JI that Sharon not only claimed the disengagement would improve Israel’s security, he said that “if Israel doesn’t take this step, there will be other diplomatic plans [that the world will] try to force on Israel, and this step will free us of pressure from the international community. It’s clear that it didn’t reduce pressure, it increased it.” 

“What happened then, and is still the case now, is that Israel didn’t have an alternative plan on the table, whether for the coming few years or the short term,” Erdan said. “This is something to consider as a lesson of the disengagement.”

“I think a Palestinian state is now off of the agenda for many years … Something we can consider a lesson of the disengagement is that we should say no withdrawals, no unilateralism, no to a Palestinian state. I think those lessons were learned over the years at a great cost in blood,” said Gilad Erdan, who was a freshman Likud lawmaker when the disengagement was announced, and became a leading figure in the party’s rebellion against Sharon.

Israel now has “an opportunity to present a plan … that puts Israel’s security and our right to the land at the forefront, but we are not presenting any diplomatic plan for the world to discuss. Even if the international community doesn’t accept it — so what? What looks crazy today could look different in 20 years. It’s not like we’ll have peace with the Palestinians in five minutes,” the former ambassador stated. 

Erdan said that the aftermath of the disengagement underscored for Israelis the danger of a potential Palestinian state.

“I think a Palestinian state is now off of the agenda for many years … Something we can consider a lesson of the disengagement is that we should say no withdrawals, no unilateralism, no to a Palestinian state. I think those lessons were learned over the years at a great cost in blood,” he said.

Elliott Abrams, who was deputy national security advisor to the George W. Bush administration at the time of the disengagement, told JI that Sharon did have a larger overarching idea behind the move, but subsequent prime ministers did not follow through with it.

“Sharon said at the time that Israel needs to establish its borders, and I think he would have done something … with the West Bank. Whatever the future of Israel is, it doesn’t include Gaza, which has no use economically and no significance religiously,” was the logic, Abrams said. 

“Establish a border, build a wall, and maybe something will change in 100 years, but for now, try to have a border for Israel,” Abrams said. “It was a larger plan and then Sharon had his stroke” in December 2005, followed by another in January 2006 that left him in a vegetative state until his death in 2014.

“Sharon refused for domestic reasons to work with the Palestinian Authority at all on Gaza, because it would make it look like a reward,” following the years-long wave of Palestinian terrorism called the Second Intifada, Abrams recalled.

“Sharon wasn’t going to have anything to do with [the PA]; he was just going to leave Gaza,” Abrams said. “It’s a question whether it would have been possible to avoid a Hamas takeover in June 2006, followed by the complete collapse of the PA [in Gaza]. It’s a question worth asking. It is a fact that there was zero coordination.”

Though Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat died after Sharon announced the disengagement, the Israeli prime minister did not reconsider his plan in light of the election of new leader Mahmoud Abbas — who remains PA president 20 years later.

Abrams argued that international pressure was not a major contributing factor to the disengagement, noting that the plan was entirely Sharon’s and not something Bush sought for him to do.

Still, Abrams said that “international pressure to make concessions to the Palestinians is Israel’s predicament. That is simply a fact … I don’t think this is a problem that has a solution. I think it’s a condition.” 

“Israelis have to decide when they’re going to say ‘drop dead,’ when they’re going to say politely ‘no, we can’t do that,’ when to take half measures and when they’re going to agree,” he added. “Those questions have not changed much. They get worse for a while sometimes, and then better and then worse again, depending on how successful Arab propaganda campaigns are and how unsuccessful Israel’s campaigns are. It also depends on how strong the support is from the U.S. in resisting the other pressure.”

Erdan similarly said that “Sharon sent Dubi Weisglass to convince [Bush], one of the most supportive presidents ever, to support the disengagement. Bush didn’t want to support it at first … there wasn’t such significant international pressure.”

Rather, Erdan, who was Sharon’s political advisor a decade before the disengagement, said the debate was more of a domestic Israeli one, after Sharon “changed 180 degrees from all of the ideas he had presented to us about security and ideology, Judea and Samaria,” the Biblical term for the West Bank.

The disengagement came after “Israel was under pressure from terrorism,” Erdan said.

“The disengagement was a terrible, historic mistake that inspired the Oct. 7 massacre,” Erdan argued. “It not only gave [Hamas] the opportunity to dig tunnels and arm itself, it gave them the motivation, the desire and the belief that they could do it. That the strong Israel, led by the decorated General Ariel Sharon, retreated unilaterally when facing terrorism strengthened the extremists in Palestinian society and led to the loss of deterrence we experienced two years ago.”

Erdan also argued that the disengagement did not reduce Israeli deaths, saying that the number of Israeli soldiers and civilians killed in attacks emanating from Gaza in 1967-2005, when Israel controlled the territory, was smaller than in the ensuing years 18 years before the latest war.

Abrams pointed out that Sharon and Olmert did not fulfill their promise of striking back if any attacks came from Gaza.

“The problem began very quickly,” Abrams recalled, “because Sharon in the first few months, and then after he had a stroke it was Olmert, never enforced their own statements about Gaza.”

Two Qassam rockets were shot from Gaza into Israel while the disengagement was still taking place, and another 33 during the remainder of that year. From 2005 to 2006, the number of rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza on Israel rose 42% to 1,777. Hamas also began building tunnels into Israel at that time.

Abrams recalled that when Sharon initiated the disengagement and presented it to Bush and then the public, Sharon argued that “if Israel got out of Gaza, there would be no excuse for any attack from Gaza on Israel, and if there were attacks, they would be met with the strongest, most forceful military reaction. It never happened.” 

“Don’t let your enemies get into a position where they can do you great harm. That was learned, and that explains the attacks on Hezbollah and Iran. That is the right lesson. That is the lesson Israel did not seem to learn when it got out of Gaza,” said Elliott Abrams, who was deputy national security advisor to the George W. Bush administration at the time of the disengagement. 

Israel at the time, he said, “had an opportunity to respond very strongly to Hamas right away, and it would have had considerable American and international support … It was an opportunity that was missed … by Sharon, Olmert and later [since 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. It was a continuing problem.”

Abrams said that after the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel learned at least one lesson it had failed to internalize after the disengagement: “Don’t let your enemies get into a position where they can do you great harm. That was learned, and that explains the attacks on Hezbollah and Iran. That is the right lesson. That is the lesson Israel did not seem to learn when it got out of Gaza.” 

“Israel is a democracy and the whole Jewish people debate about everything nonstop,” Erdan said, but “the lessons of the disengagement are growing over the years. It didn’t happen overnight.”

“In the early years after the disengagement, we realized the Palestinians had the ability and desire to launch missiles and rockets, so we can’t live in the delusion that [Gaza would be] the Singapore of the Middle East,” he said. “Only on Oct. 7 did many more people in Israel believe that not only unilateral but any withdrawal is bad. Israelis totally lost trust in the Palestinians and realized that Jewish settlements have a great and significant security value … We cannot only rely on technology and smart cameras; physical presence is essential … I think a lot of us woke up from our delusions on Oct. 7 that withdrawals will lead the Palestinians to reconcile with us.”

Still, Erdan said, “there are people who continue to claim that the price of staying in Gaza would be even higher, so I can’t say all the lessons were learned. With time, more are learned.” 

“Having settlers in Gaza [would be] insane. It was a tremendous strain on the IDF. Do we really want to add that strain? It seems insane to me,” said Abrams.

It appears likely from Israeli leaders’ statements and positions in ceasefire negotiations that, at the end of the war, Israel will retain some of Gaza as a buffer zone between Israelis and Palestinians.

Beyond that, many on the Israeli right have called for Israel to retake part or all of Gaza. Some called for annexation as a military tactic to pressure Hamas, which was discussed in recent Israeli Security Cabinet meetings, and others have been calling from the beginning of the war to reverse the disengagement and for Israelis to be allowed to settle in Gaza again.

Abrams said that “having settlers in Gaza [would be] insane. It was a tremendous strain on the IDF. Do we really want to add that strain? It seems insane to me.”

Despite the lack of follow-through to reap the possible security benefits of the disengagement, Abrams said “Sharon was right.”

“First, we need to win the war,” Erdan said. “We are in a different situation today. Israel, unfortunately, already uprooted the [Israeli] towns and we are in a war with consequences for our future. I don’t think bringing the issue of settlements into it now contributes to our effort to win the campaign … We don’t have to give the international community more tools to make the matter of total victory in the war more complex … Israel should look at its interests and its priorities.”

“I personally do not believe that maintaining 7,000 [Israeli] settlers in the middle of 2 million hostile Arabs in Gaza, and using a substantial part of the IDF to protect them, was a sensible plan for Israel,” he said. 

Abrams also took issue with the idea of annexing parts of Gaza to pressure Hamas: “It strikes me that that’s not going to move the remaining Hamas leadership living in tunnels in Gaza to agree to let the hostages out. They don’t seem to care about anything. It is truly a death cult … It doesn’t seem to me — putting aside the legality or illegality — that it would work.”

Erdan said that, in principle, he believes “Jews have the right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel, and a solution to a conflict must include the moral principle that every population can choose where to live and the other side must accept it.”

However, he said that Israeli resettlement of Gaza is “not the most urgent or central thing.”

“First, we need to win the war,” Erdan said. “We are in a different situation today. Israel, unfortunately, already uprooted the [Israeli] towns and we are in a war with consequences for our future. I don’t think bringing the issue of settlements into it now contributes to our effort to win the campaign … We don’t have to give the international community more tools to make the matter of total victory in the war more complex … Israel should look at its interests and its priorities.”

Abrams called the idea of maintaining a buffer zone “very sensible to protect Israelis in Israel.”

Erdan also favored Israel retaining a buffer zone in Gaza, because “even if Hamas isn’t there anymore, we don’t know who will be.” 

“I don’t think the end lines of the war need to be the Sharon disengagement lines,” he said. “We don’t need to leave the Philadelphi Corridor [along the border with Egypt] and we don’t need the people of Gaza to return to live so close [to Israelis], almost up to my parents’ house in Ashkelon.” 

It will have been just 161 days — five months, one week and one day — between Israel’s last national election and the one slated for Tuesday. For the first time in the country’s history, nobody was able to form a government after April’s vote, and a redo election was called. What has changed over the past five months and what remains the same? What are the likely outcomes of this week’s election — and could a third round be a possibility? 

It’s unlikely that many Israelis have changed their political views over the past five months. Indeed, polls show that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White are once again running neck-and-neck to become the largest party in the next Knesset. In April, they each garnered 35 seats, and the final polls published before the redo election showed them each poised to receive between 30-33 seats. 

The overall party landscape is relatively similar as well, though there have been a few changes. Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu merged with Likud. Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked’s New Right Party — which didn’t pass the 3.25% electoral threshold in April — has joined back up with Jewish Home to form Yamina, this time excluding the far-right Jewish Power Party. Amir Peretz replaced Avi Gabbay as Labor head and merged with Orly Levy’s Gesher, which also missed the threshold earlier this year. The Arab parties reformed their merged Joint List, and Moshe Feiglin’s failed Zehut dropped out after cutting a deal with Netanyahu. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak reentered politics and joined up with Meretz and renegade Labor MK Stav Shaffir to form the Democratic Union.

And while in April, a record 47 parties registered for the election, this time just 31 will be on the ballot. More than 350,000 votes — 8.4% of all ballots — were thrown out earlier this year after being cast for parties that fell beneath the threshold. With the number of competing parties dropping, that figure is likely to fall as well.  

But perhaps the biggest change between the two elections is voter apathy. Israelis are largely sick and tired of the politicking, the campaigning and the money wasted in restaging the election. Anecdotally, many Israelis have indicated they will stay home from the polls come Tuesday, and voter turnout is predicted to drop significantly from April’s 68%. That drop in turnout is expected to strengthen the haredi parties, whose constituents tend to vote out of a sense of religious obligation — so much so that Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Lieberman has been pushing for mandatory voting legislation to help counter the ultra-Orthodox voting edge. 

In a twist of irony, while Lieberman is largely responsible for the redo election, and the do-over vote is unpopular, the former defense minister himself appears poised to benefit. In the April vote Yisrael Beytenu received 5 seats, but the latest polls show it getting 8-11 in next week’s election.  

Lieberman heads one of the few parties that has not promised to join either Likud or Blue and White in a governing coalition. Instead, he has vowed to join the two parties together in a unity government that includes Yisrael Beytenu and leaves the haredi parties in the opposition. 

By 10 p.m. on Tuesday evening, Israelis will have completed voting in their second national election of 2019. Exit polls will be published immediately, but official results will only begin trickling in overnight. Counting of the “double envelope” votes — from soldiers, prisoners and hospital patients — likely won’t be complete until Wednesday evening or Thursday morning.

Once the seats alloted to each party are finalized, party leaders will begin to meet with President Reuven Rivlin and recommend someone who will be tasked with forming a coalition. That person gets 28 days — plus a potential extension — to fashion a 61-seat majority government. 

What are the likely outcomes? 

The final polls published before the election show that both Netanyahu and Gantz are likely to struggle to build a coalition. Unless the right-wing and haredi parties vastly outperform the polls, Netanyahu will likely try once again to convince Lieberman to join a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties, which is exactly what he refused to do in April. 

And unless the left-wing parties and Blue and White significantly surpass polling expectations, Gantz won’t be able to form a government either. Even with the support of the Arab parties — something Blue and White has dismissed and many of the Joint List members have derided — Gantz will be unable to form a coalition without Lieberman, who will never sit with the Arab factions. 

Lieberman — who former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren dubbed the potential kingmaker and the kingslayer in The Atlantic last month — appears to hold all the cards. And he has vowed to push Likud and Blue and White to sit together in a unity government. Likud has vociferously sworn against such a move, and Blue and White leaders have said they will never sit with Netanyahu. Speculation has also run rampant that somehow Netanyahu will be forced out of the Likud leadership, and a new party leader will agree to a unity coalition. That rumor spurred Netanyahu to force 40 members of the party to swear a loyalty pledge to him last month. 

No matter the outcome, the normally quiet news period in Israel over the High Holidays will instead be dominated by headlines over coalition engineering. The only thing that appears clear ahead of the vote is that some — if not all — of the parties will be breaking their campaign promises. 

And if no government is able to be built at all once more? That’s right — a third election.