Lapid’s Proposal: A Safety Net to Topple Netanyahu’s Government?
The announcement by Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has brought with it significant implications for the future of the emergency government, the course of combat, and the aftermath of the war. Lapid’s proposal challenges Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to provide a “safety net” for any potential prisoner exchange deal that could lead to the return of captives held by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip.
The proposed “safety net” entails Lapid’s party, “There is a Future,” which he leads, supporting a prisoner exchange deal in the event that extreme right-wing parties oppose it, with a warning of toppling the government. Moreover, the safety net also stipulates Lapid and his party supporting Netanyahu’s government for a specific period without joining the coalition, by holding positions in the opposition during the war. Subsequently, consultations among the various parties would be conducted to determine a mutually agreeable date for early elections.
Analysts speculate that the current coalition government, reliant on extreme right-wing parties, may struggle to facilitate any prisoner exchange deal, especially given Defense Minister Eitam Ben-Gvir‘s stance on toppling the government in the event of a “bad deal” for prisoner exchange and a cessation of hostilities.
The proposal is viewed as a daunting challenge for Netanyahu, who is increasingly beholden to the extortion tactics of the far-right, represented by the “Jewish Power” party led by Ben-Gvir, the “Religious Zionism” alliance headed by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and the settler faction in the Likud party.
Observers perceive Lapid’s understanding of the pivotal role the captive issue plays in Israeli elections, and therefore seek to capitalize on any prisoner exchange deal as part of his election campaign. It is believed that all opposition parties, including Lapid’s “There is a Future” party, are convinced that any comprehensive prisoner exchange deal, regardless of the government’s concessions, would mark the beginning of fissures within the current coalition, deepen internal polarization, and herald a new phase in Israel’s political landscape.
Furthermore, Lapid’s proposal may have been made at the behest of entities in the United States administration, aligning with President Joe Biden‘s indications that Netanyahu should bring about changes within his government coalition.
However, it is worth noting that Lapid’s stance on the prisoner exchange and the war aligns with the approach of the US administration. Lapid strongly opposes Netanyahu’s continued premiership, holding him responsible for the failure to prevent the events of last October and to secure the return of captives through military operations. Lapid, like many other Israelis, views the war and the release of captives as conflicting objectives, prompting his proposal for a “safety net” as a response to the far-right’s rejection of any deal, threatening to dismantle the government.
The feasibility of this safety net, according to analysts, lies in its potential to sway the Knesset vote in favor of executing the deal, under the threat of Ben-Gvir and the far-right’s potential government dissolution. It is important to note that the safety net does not shield the government from collapse and disintegration; it primarily supports the prisoner exchange deal and its parliamentary approval in the Knesset to facilitate its implementation under the explicit threat from Ben-Gvir and the far-right of government dissolution in the event of its completion.
The proposal presents a real challenge for Netanyahu as he approaches the point where he must decide whether to approve or reject a potential prisoner exchange deal, knowing that significant concessions will be required from his government. The far-reaching potential concessions will be seen by many sectors of the Israeli public as a victory for Hamas, while the rejection of the deal by Netanyahu would signify the continuation of the war, as demanded by his coalition partners, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.
In light of the deeply entrenched concerns within the current extreme right-wing factions within the government, there is a growing recognition that halting the prolonged ceasefire would effectively end the war, allowing Hamas to retain power, at least in the southern part of the Strip. Netanyahu is also aware that the partial return of captives in exchange for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners would be interpreted by wide segments of the Israeli public as an admission of failure.
Yair Lapid’s staunch support for the war while differing with Netanyahu on the priorities, particularly regarding the release of all captives from Hamas in exchange for significant concessions from Tel Aviv. He opposes Netanyahu’s premiership and holds him accountable for the failure of the October 7th events and in achieving the objectives of the war.
In conclusion, the article depicts a fractious political landscape in Israel, heightened by Lapid’s proposal and its potential to upend Netanyahu’s government. The intricate balancing act between the dynamics of the prisoner exchange, the war, and the intricate dance of political alliances underscores a critical juncture in Israeli politics and the ongoing power struggle within the government.
