Un gouvernement d'"unité" bloquerait les réformes dont Israël a désespérément besoin - avis

A proposed 'unity' government in Israel could potentially block essential reforms that the country urgently needs, according to an opinion piece published by The Jerusalem Post. The argument centers on how the current political climate, driven by a narrative of unity and inclusivity, might prevent necessary changes to governance and policy. During each election cycle, Israeli politicians often repeat the familiar refrain that "boycotts are bad." This rhetoric suggests that refusing to collaborate with certain parties, denying them ministerial positions, or keeping them out of power is both unfair and undemocratic. However, such claims lack grounding in the principles of real democracies. Instead, they reflect a long-standing influence of Israel's right-wing factions, which have successfully promoted these ideas over the years. Notable figures such as Benny Gantz, Chili Tropper, and Yoaz Hendel, who identify as centrist leaders, seem to accept this premise. They argue that since millions have supported Benjamin Netanyahu, excluding Likud from government should be considered a violation of democratic norms. Yet, polls indicate that a party advocating such views could gain seats in the Knesset, suggesting this issue may soon become central to upcoming elections. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently attended a session in the Knesset, formed his current government based on his preferred coalition, disregarding potential opposition members. He did not feel obligated to include his main rivals in the cabinet, nor did he consider their supporters as deserving of governmental roles simply due to their votes. The opposition, in turn, was left in the role of critics rather than participants in shaping policies. There is no precedent in any major parliamentary democracy for granting equal governing power to both the ruling coalition and the opposition. In contrast, nations like the UK, Germany, and India operate under different models, where the ruling party implements its agenda without requiring consensus from all major parties. These systems function without the notion that cabinet membership is a fundamental right. Supporters of the 'unity' government claim that Israel's unique circumstances, such as threats from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and international isolation, necessitate broad-based cooperation. While this argument is compelling, it can be countered by noting that even countries facing significant challenges, such as the United States, do not rely on consensus-driven governance. The U.S. operates under a system where the elected leader holds substantial authority, despite internal divisions. The upcoming election is viewed by many Israelis as a pivotal moment, reflecting public sentiment toward the policies implemented during Netanyahu's tenure. Citizens are increasingly aware of the need for change, particularly regarding governance structures that have remained largely unchanged despite evolving societal needs. As the political landscape shifts, the debate over whether a 'unity' government is beneficial or detrimental continues to unfold. With the possibility of a genuine electoral shift, the implications of this discussion will likely shape the future trajectory of Israeli politics.