The “book of nature,” Galileo wrote in 1623, “is written in the language of mathematics.”
Simply put, to understand the universe, to understand nature, you have to understand math.
The same, it turns out, is true of Israeli politics. Or at least of Israeli politics over the last couple of weeks.
On Tuesday, Channel 14 released a recording of Democrats Party head Yair Golan saying he does not rule out forming a coalition with the haredi parties.
“People ask me, do you disqualify the haredim? I do not disqualify the haredim, absolutely not,” he was heard saying in the undated tape. “If the possibility of forming a government depends on a haredi party joining, I will vote in favor – on condition that the Likud, [Religious Zionist head Bezalel] Smotrich, and [Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar] Ben- Gvir are not there,” he said.
Golan also accused those pushing for rapid mass haredi conscription of engaging in populism.
“We need to work smartly, mainly with indirect pressure, not direct pressure. I want to say here that the entire Draft Law people are talking about is tainted by populism.”
The release of the tape – from a politician who, as one commentator observed this week, has a tendency to speak faster than he thinks – came shortly after reports that Yashar! Party head Gadi Eisenkot had met with United Torah Judaism chairman Moshe Gafni.
This is the same Gafni who vehemently opposes efforts to conscript haredim into the army; whose party this week advanced legislation designed to circumvent sanctions against draft dodgers by preserving childcare subsidies; and who called on his party’s representatives in local authorities not to cooperate with police over the arrest of draft evaders.
Why did Eisenkot meet him? Because it’s all about the math.
The opposition’s math does not add up
Israel is now effectively in election mode; all that is missing is the formal dissolution of the Knesset. The first reading of a bill to dissolve the Knesset is expected on Monday. But even if the bill does not pass – even if elections are not moved up to September 1 or September 15, the two dates most frequently mentioned – Israelis will still have to go to the polls by October 27. Election season is here.
And the polls show that, at least for now, the math for the opposition seeking to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu simply does not add up.
Without the Arab parties, which both Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu and Naftali Bennett’s new alliance with Yair Lapid have said they will not sit with, the current opposition bloc does not reach the magic number of 61 seats needed to form a government.
Both Channel 11 and Channel 12 polls published on May 20 gave the coalition 53 seats and the opposition 57. A Maariv poll on Friday gave the opposition 59 seats. Then, on Monday, a Channel 13 survey actually showed the coalition leading the opposition 56-54. In all those polls, the Arab parties won 10 seats.
One notable development in three of the four surveys was that the Religious Zionist Party crossed the 3.25% electoral threshold and won four seats.
That arithmetic explains both Golan’s comments and Eisenkot’s outreach to the haredim. Without the haredi parties – and without relying on the Arab parties, something highly unlikely in post-October 7 Israel – there is currently no path to replacing Netanyahu.
At least not within the current political constellation. But what if a new celestial body suddenly appears on the political firmament? What if a “Likud B” emerges, made up of figures such as Gilad Erdan, Yuli Edelstein, and Moshe Kahlon – disgruntled Likudniks fed up with Netanyahu and frustrated by what they see as the party’s capitulation to the haredim and failure to aggressively pursue universal conscription?
And what if another faction emerges, perhaps bringing together popular former Blue and White MK Chili Tropper and Yoaz Hendel of the Reservists Party?
There has not yet been much public polling on the viability of such parties. But it is not hard to imagine one – or both – barely crossing the electoral threshold, thereby pushing the current opposition bloc, even without the Arab parties, past the magic number.
There is no guarantee that it will happen. But it might.
Which is why the most important political development to watch right now is not mergers within the existing blocs, but whether entirely new parties emerge once an election date is officially set. That is potentially far more significant than the recent Bennett-Lapid merger, because while that alliance merely rearranged seats within the anti-Netanyahu bloc, a new party could conceivably move seats from one bloc to the other.
That reality also explains the furious reaction inside the opposition to both Golan’s comments and Eisenkot’s outreach to the haredim.
Golan, employing an old trick, accused Channel 14 of taking his comments out of context. In a video posted on X, he said: “We will not sit with haredim; that is a promise… [they] have disqualified themselves, period. You cannot encourage draft evasion during wartime. You cannot live at the expense of the state without giving back.”
Both Bennett and Lapid harshly criticized these overtures.
“The State of Israel will not survive when more and more of its citizens are educated to say, ‘We would rather die than enlist,’” Bennett said.
“In the next government, everyone – everyone – will enlist. Whoever does not serve will not receive a single shekel from the state. It’s that simple.”
Lapid echoed those sentiments, and both men quickly found themselves on the receiving end of an Eisenkot rebuke.
He dismissed their remarks as “populistic and not serious statements from people who were in senior positions of power in the state, said everyone would be conscripted, and did not move anything forward.”
Eisenkot was referring to the Bennett-Lapid government in 2021-2022, when there were no haredi parties in the coalition, yet no significant progress was made on haredi conscription.
He could have hit harder.
Eisenkot could have reminded the public that Bennett – now promising that anyone who does not enlist will receive no state funds – is the same politician who, during the 2021 campaign, signed a live televised pledge not to allow Lapid to become prime minister and not to form a government with Mansour Abbas.
He eventually did both because, in his mind, the electoral math did not allow for anything else.
The person metaphorically rubbing his hands in delight over this confrontation this week inside the anti-Netanyahu camp was, naturally, Netanyahu himself.
Because as Israel heads toward elections, the haredi conscription issue is certain to become one of the campaign’s defining themes. And thanks to Golan and Eisenkot, Netanyahu can now tell his voters: don’t criticize me for making deals with the haredim – the opposition will do exactly the same thing.
Between now and Election Day, much is likely to change. New mergers will form. New parties may emerge. New faces will appear both on fresh candidate lists and in prominent spots on existing ones.
That process is already underway.
This week, Tzvika Mor – father of hostage Eitan Mor and a leader of the Tikva Forum – joined Smotrich’s party. Other figures whose names became widely known after October 7 are also entering politics, including prominent hostage activist Sharon Sharabi, brother of former hostages Eli Sharabi, who was released, and Yossi Sharabi, who was murdered. He joined Liberman’s party.
Trump’s influence on the elections
Another major unknown is the extent to which US President Donald Trump will try to influence the elections.
Trump, who last week said that “99%” of Israelis support him and that he could run for prime minister in Israel, is widely expected – as he has done before – to try to boost Netanyahu politically before the balloting.
The question is whether such intervention actually matters.
Trump does remain highly popular in Israel. According to Channel 12 analyst Amit Segal, he is the most popular politician in the country, though not at the fantastical levels Trump himself suggested. A recent Channel 12 poll found that 58% of Israelis view him favorably, compared to 38% unfavorably, with support significantly higher among Jewish voters.
Still, those convinced Trump could become the decisive factor in the election may want to look abroad.
In Hungary, Trump openly signaled his preference for Viktor Orban, yet Orban still lost.
And American presidential involvement in Israeli elections has a long and mixed history.
In 1996, then-US president Bill Clinton did what he could – by his own later admission – to help Shimon Peres defeat Netanyahu. Netanyahu nevertheless eked out a narrow victory. And at the time, Clinton – much like Trump today – was exceptionally popular in Israel.
Barack Obama, who clashed repeatedly with Netanyahu, also made little effort to conceal his preference for a different Israeli leadership. Yet Netanyahu won both elections held during Obama’s presidency.
And during Trump’s first term, the administration repeatedly took steps clearly designed to help Netanyahu politically – recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights before the April 2019 election, and unveiling the “Deal of the Century” shortly before the 2020 vote – yet Netanyahu still failed to secure a type of victory that would ensure a stable government.
Ironically, the election that finally allowed Netanyahu to do this was in 2022, when Joe Biden was president, and his administration made no secret of its preference for a more centrist Israeli government.
The coming election campaign, like those before it, will feature no shortage of grand declarations, redlines, promises, dramatic gestures, and signals from Washington – all intended to change the equation.
Because, as Galileo suggested centuries ago, everything ultimately comes down to math. And to understand many of the political moves now unfolding in Israel – some of which may seem contradictory or illogical – all one really has to do is look at the numbers.
