The Likud primaries are over, the results are in, and the big winner – according to most political pundits – is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Those he favored prospered – Amir Ohana, Amichai Chikli and Almog Cohen. Those with whom he had clashed floundered – David Bitan, Tali Gotliv and Nir Barkat.
But in compiling a list of winners and losers, it is worth looking beyond the personalities and focusing instead on the trends inside the party. History is one reason not to read too much into a list of individual winners.
Such a list would likely begin with Eli Cohen, who received the most votes after Netanyahu, and Ohana, who came in third. Rounding out the top five, excluding Netanyahu, were Yariv Levin, Miri Regev, and Ofir Katz.
But before crowning them as winners simply because they finished at the top of the list, it is instructive to look back at the last four Likud primaries, going back to 2008.
Of the 15 people who occupied one of the top five slots during that period – some of them more than once – nearly half later left the party, either temporarily or permanently.
The reasons varied. Some clashed with Netanyahu ideologically, while others felt they had nowhere left to advance. Yoav Gallant, Yuli Edelstein, Moshe Kahlon, Benny Begin, and Gilad Erdan all eventually left the party. Silvan Shalom left public life under the cloud of scandal, while Gideon Sa’ar left the Likud because he felt his path to advancement was blocked, only to return later.
The lesson is that today’s winners – meaning those who finished in the top five – are not even guaranteed to be competing in the party’s primaries the next time around.
That being the case, the more revealing question is not which politicians won or lost, but which trends did.
Primaries showed the importance of loyalty to Netanyahu
Tuesday’s primaries showed the importance of loyalty to Netanyahu, with Cohen and Ohana the prime examples. Both men have consistently supported the prime minister while carefully avoiding presenting themselves as immediate alternatives. As a result, they are not seen as a threat.
Unlike previous top finishers such as Erdan, Sa’ar and Edelstein, Cohen and Ohana have never suggested that they intend to challenge Netanyahu, either now or in the immediate future.
Likud voters rewarded them for that. Paradoxically, by showing no eagerness to push Netanyahu aside, they have established themselves as clear front-runners to inherit the party leadership whenever the post-Netanyahu era begins.
Winning a general election requires electoral pragmatism
The results also suggest that the Likud rank and file understands that it is not enough to hold a primary. The party must then win the general election, and that requires candidates who can appeal beyond the die-hard Likud faithful.
Polarizing figures such as Tali Gotliv and May Golan do not fit that bill. Gotliv was relegated to the 20th slot on the list, while Golan – currently a minister – failed to secure a realistic position.
This upends, or at least complicates, the narrative that the party has been completely hijacked by its fringe. The voters appear to have understood the danger of alienating moderate right-wing and swing voters, and chose a slate in which the most prominent firebrands were either demoted or pushed out of realistic positions.
The Likud’s base did not abandon the Right
The strong showing of Cohen, Ohana, and Levin does not mean that the Likud base has moved toward the ideological center. It still wants a right-wing agenda, but it wants that agenda advanced by disciplined, experienced politicians.
Levin is the clearest example. His agenda is no less ideological than that of the party’s loudest firebrands. The difference is in style and method. He represents the determined, methodical pursuit of the Right’s judicial ambitions, rather than the shouting matches associated with Golan and Gotliv.
The base did not abandon the Right. It chose politicians it believes can translate ideology into policy over those who merely shout into microphones.
Voters do not want chaos populism
The voters also showed that they do not want political firebrands who pick undisciplined fights – often with members of their own camp – and rant on social media and in interviews, turning off many voters in the process.
Gotliv’s demotion and Golan’s failure to secure a realistic slot show that the Likud base does have an internal system of checks. The shock value of their rhetoric may generate attention and likes on TikTok, but the voters apparently concluded that the kind of political mayhem they sow is ultimately an electoral liability.
Those who seemed to be independent from Netanyahu paid a price
The results again showed the price paid by anyone who displays too much independence from Netanyahu. Bitan did so in this primary through his repeated criticism of the prime minister, just as in the past Gallant paid a price for independent thinking regarding military policy, and Edelstein over the haredi draft issue.
The primaries placed Bitan in the Likud’s borderline 23rd slot, as the polls are generally giving the party between 21 and 23 seats. Gallant and Edelstein never made it to the primary.
Those elevated to the top positions generally toe the party line – or, more precisely, Netanyahu’s line. There is room for differences on the margins, but little tolerance for dissent on issues important to the party leader.
The message is clear: Independence is acceptable only until it collides with Netanyahu.
Under Netanyahu, rising politicians and potential successors are perceived threats
A high primary finish in the Likud is a double-edged sword. It demonstrates grassroots popularity, media visibility, and support inside the party – precisely the qualities needed by anyone hoping eventually to lead it. But under Netanyahu, those same qualities can turn a rising politician into a perceived threat.
Sa’ar, Erdan and Edelstein all encountered this problem. Their strong positions inside the party made them look like possible successors, but also complicated their ability to advance under Netanyahu.
Sa’ar eventually left after concluding that his path was blocked, only to return after October 7. Erdan was sent to the UN – a prestigious appointment, but one that removed him from the domestic political arena. Edelstein, despite repeatedly finishing near the top of the Likud list, was gradually pushed to the margins.
The trap is obvious: To become a potential successor, a politician must build an independent base of support. But the stronger that base becomes, the more threatening he may appear to the man he hopes one day to succeed.
That helps explain the success of Cohen and Ohana. Both have demonstrated popularity, political ability, and leadership potential without behaving like immediate challengers. They have positioned themselves for the post-Netanyahu era by making clear that they are prepared to wait for it.
The bottom line is that Tuesday’s primary results show a party more disciplined than its critics sometimes suggest. The rank and file pushed down some of the loudest and most polarizing figures, favored candidates with broader electoral appeal, and did so without moving the party toward the ideological center.
At the same time, the primaries strengthened Netanyahu’s control. History suggests that neither Cohen nor Ohana should become too comfortable. If either begins turning his popularity into an independent power base, the same qualities that made them winners in Tuesday’s primaries could quickly make them a threat. Just ask Erdan, Edelstein, and Sa’ar.
In Netanyahu’s Likud, reaching the top of the list is only half the challenge. The other half is remaining there without appearing too eager to reach for the crown.
