A narrow government is a narrow necessity

Human history is replete with ideological movements in which a deep gap opens between the values etched on their banners and reality. Different truths are proclaimed everywhere, but in practice, the conduct is entirely contrary to the stated platform. For example, socialism, which etched on its banner the value of equality, created regimes of repression, and liberal movements that preach tolerance conduct a dialogue of exclusion and boycott toward those who do not fall in line with them. In Israel, the situation is no different. Academia waves the banner of freedom of thought but produces conformity, and religious movements praise unity, yet in practice act to expand the rift. In our politics, this phenomenon works on steroids.

Party leaders warn about “influence networks” of foreign actors trying to break society from within. But, unfortunately, we do not need enemies from outside—we have enough of them at home. Almost no party contributes to the strengthening of social cohesion. At first glance, it is difficult to nurture expectations from our political culture. And yet there is hope that in the most fateful elections for the country, there will be different conduct.

When most parties, including those that spring up like mushrooms after the rain, wave the banner of unity, there is a legitimate and civic demand: act accordingly. When parties with clearly defined and rigid ideological characteristics act to impose their worldview on all of society, unity is not something that comes from them. But parties that claim the crown and promise “to heal society” act exactly the opposite—which is hard to forgive. We, ordinary citizens who do not threaten to leave the country, feel well that the continuation of the rift even on the day after the elections threatens our very existence. It is as clear as day that any narrow government—right or left—will be narrow for all of us.

How is it possible that figures such as Hili Tropper and Yoaz Handel, about whom there is no dispute that they are “the salt of the earth,” speak of unity yet declare their willingness to sit in a narrow Zionist government? The time has come to question the conduct of several players on the political field. How, with Smotrich, who aspires for his party to reflect the broad spectrum of religious Zionism, does the list come only from Yesha? How does Likud declare the importance of a broad national government, yet cling to forces that preach against the shared core symbols of Israeli identity? How does the Change bloc throw slogans about “healing society,” yet in practice aim again at a narrow government? Even the hope for a third bloc that would force unity dissipates in the face of the ego chasms that prevent a joint run. The disappointment is immense: from those who promise clean, complex, and inclusive politics, it is expected that they will overcome the obstacles of ego for the national goal.

To get out of this dark labyrinth, a leader of stature is required. Gadi Eisenkot can and should be the right person, in the right place, and at the right time. For that, he must stand up and say in a clear and unequivocal voice: “The threats around us and the challenges at home require us to join hands and leave the resentments behind. It is not possible to rebuild Israeli society with a narrow government. If the election results allow me to lead, I will call on Likud to join my government. The Likud movement does not belong to one person—it represents hundreds of thousands of loyal citizens, and it must not be boycotted.” Such a courageous call will match exactly the moving cry of that same reserve officer who said: “Boycotting Likud is invalidating half of my platoon.” The hour has come for politicians to rise to the level of fighters on the ground.