Who will succeed Netanyahu as his era comes to an end? - opinion

Having climbed his deceased father’s throne, King Solomon heard God – “in a dream, by night” – telling him what the rest of us can only wish God would whisper in our ear: “Ask: What shall I grant you?” 

The famous answer – not treasure, power, nor fame, but “an understanding mind… to distinguish between good and bad” – is a prerequisite for any leadership, but Solomon’s explanation of his choice was unique to his task, leading Israel: “Who can judge this vast people of yours?”

Those aspiring to take Netanyahu's place

Now, leading Israel is even more challenging than it was then. Even so, as the Netanyahu era approaches its end, a collection of aspiring successors all claim to possess the “understanding mind” that millions of Israelis think Netanyahu has lost. 

Whether the candidates carry such a mind remains to be seen, but before they set out to defeat each other, they must signal the end of the era of bravado, arrogance, and hatred that produced the worst catastrophe Israel has known. 

This column is not about any of these individuals’ personal merits but about what they must share: the sense of trauma that has befallen Israeli society; an understanding of its political roots; and the ability to radiate a new era’s dawn. 

The departing era’s central feature has been Benjamin Netanyahu’s soloist leadership. In terms of style, he repeatedly spoke in the first person singular. “I instructed, I summoned, I ordered.” In terms of governance, he worked alone, replacing ministers like socks, and making enemies of no fewer than six defense ministers: Yitzhak Mordechai, Ehud Barak, Moshe Ya’alon, Liberman, Bennett, and now Yoav Gallant, with whom Netanyahu is barely on speaking terms, even while running a war. 

So scornful is this leader of his own ministers that, as Gallant just reported, the prime minister assembled no forum for a discussion of this war’s aftermath. Evidently, as Netanyahu sees things, he needs no advisers, not even on such a fateful issue, not even in these days of awe. 

If this country is to turn a page the morning after Netanyahu’s departure, his successor will have to undo this legacy: consult colleagues, work collectively, respect everyone, think humbly, and speak modestly. But that will come later, when the successor is installed. Before that, something else must be done by all would-be successors.

NO ONE knows Netanyahu’s thoughts as the autumn of his career matures. He may be planning a resignation announcement, maybe surrounding his 75th birthday, or some other pretext. Conversely, he may be awaiting, or scheming, some cataclysmic event that he hopes will reboot his situation. 

Most likely, however, Netanyahu has no plan, improvising from day to day while the Jewish state drifts aimlessly with him. If this is the case, Netanyahu’s interest is that his aspiring successors multiply and sink into mutual mudslinging that will defeat all of them, and leave him in power by default. 

That is why they must all avoid the food fight, and agree in advance on one candidate that they will endorse. This should happen in two arenas: one in which it’s possible, and one in which it’s not. 

The arena where such agreement is impossible is the Likud. For Katz, Barkat, and Edelstein to meet and discuss a concerted succession would be politically suicidal. They would have to suspect that Netanyahu would learn of the meeting even before it ends, and deal with them the way autocrats deal with traitors. 

Outside Likud, however, such a dynamic is not impossible. 

A meeting held this week between Liberman, Lapid, and Gideon Sa’ar was a promising start. 

They are not made of one skin – Liberman and Sa’ar (who is not a contender) are rightists, Lapid is a centrist – but they evidently understand they must show that they can herald the post-Netanyahu era not just technically but also mentally. 

Lapid understands he won’t be the next prime minister. Israel – thanks to the Palestinians – has moved to the Right. 

That is why the polls’ consistent suggestion that Gantz will succeed Netanyahu is misleading. Gantz wins when pollsters present the current Knesset’s parties. 

When the real election’s party list emerges, studded with the likes of Bennett, Shaked, or Cohen, Gantz’s following will shrink, and the opposition’s need for one agreed-upon candidate will become glaring.

It follows that after leaving this government, the first thing Gantz must do is meet with Lapid, Liberman, Sa’ar, Bennett, and Shaked, all of whom worked well together in the previous government, and set up a weekly consultation forum that will then invite Cohen to join it. 

The forum will then say: One of us will be Netanyahu’s successor, with everyone else’s endorsement. Yes, Netanyahu the man will be replaced by only one of us, but Netanyahu the era will be replaced by all of us, collectively. We will thus display the humility he lacked, and the unity he spurned. 

The departing era’s motto of “What’s in it for me?” will be replaced with “We’re all in this together.” 

In this worst of Israeli years, we join this war’s thousands of fighters, volunteers, casualties, and mourners in saying what the departing era’s leaders never understood: A house divided cannot stand. 

www.MiddleIsrael.net The writer, a Hartman Institute fellow, is the author of the bestselling Mitzad Ha’ivelet Ha’yehudi (The Jewish March of Folly, Yediot Sefarim, 2019), a revisionist history of the Jewish people’s political leadership.