Benjamin Netanyahu may be approaching the end of his political career, only to discover that his most valuable ally is Avigdor Liberman. I think I speak for millions when I issue this request: Yvet, please think again.
After years of political upheaval, disastrous government decisions and mounting public disillusionment, the opposition has a plausible path to power, according to all credible polls. Arab parties have offered automatic parliamentary support that could make a change of government possible, effectively handing Netanyahu's opponents the votes they need.
Yet Liberman's insistence on rejecting that support threatens to rescue the very man whose removal has become the central objective of his political career. The opposition might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, with consequences extending far beyond the personal fortunes of its politicians.
Liberman's reservations about relying on Arab parties deserve consideration. Their positions on Zionism, national security and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict create real difficulties for parties committed to maintaining Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. A government requiring their outside parliamentary support would involve compromises, vulnerabilities and inevitable tensions.
Such an arrangement would be imperfect, yet political judgment requires comparing available alternatives, and the alternative here is another Netanyahu government, sustained by the same extremist and sectarian forces that have inflicted enormous damage on Israel's security, democratic institutions, economy and international standing.
Even a temporary government backed by Arab parties could accomplish enormous immediate good: establishing an October 7 inquiry commission, crushing Jewish terrorism, devising a serious plan to confront lawlessness in the Arab sector and beginning the repair of Israel's democratic institutions. Parliamentary support from outside the coalition would permit such a government to take office while preserving important political distinctions between its members and those enabling its formation.
Liberman's categorical rejection would instead elevate a political preference into an absolute prohibition, granting Netanyahu a lifeline that the electorate may have denied him. It would be an astonishing inversion of priorities for a politician who has spent years presenting himself as one of Netanyahu's most determined adversaries.
The electoral logic is equally perplexing. Liberman's current supporters have an overpowering desire to want Netanyahu gone, particularly after the prime minister's repeated capitulations to Haredi parties over military service, public subsidies and the distribution of national burdens. Many have come to regard Liberman as a principled defender of civic equality and responsible government. His present maneuver will alienate many while winning over almost no one.
Liberman may be calculating opposition's coalition-forming difficulties
There is a troubling possible interpretation. Liberman may be calculating that the opposition's difficulties in assembling a government will strengthen his bargaining position, allowing him to challenge Gadi Eisenkot's leadership claims or demand a prime-ministerial rotation arrangement reminiscent of Naftali Bennett's 2021 ascent to power.
Such maneuvering would fit his reputation as an exceptionally shrewd tactician, yes – but it is a colossal and reckless gamble. At a moment when the country's interests demand clarity and unity, the spectacle of opposition leaders maneuvering for personal advantage carries an especially vulgar quality that will alienate voters and stem momentum.
For those of us who have gradually come to appreciate Liberman, the disappointment is considerable. His break with Netanyahu, his resistance to Haredi demands and his willingness to challenge the political arrangements that sustained successive governments earned him respect well beyond his traditional constituency. He appeared to have evolved into a politician capable of placing the national interest above old alliances and narrow calculations.
His current position threatens to squander that achievement. The suspicion that he might become a Trojan horse for Netanyahu, whatever his actual intentions, would represent a remarkable reversal of the reputation he has worked so hard to establish.
The damage could begin well before coalition negotiations. Elections are contests of confidence and momentum as much as parliamentary arithmetic. A credible prospect of victory encourages participation, attracts undecided voters and persuades disillusioned citizens that political change is possible. Conversely, the spectacle of opposition leaders preparing to frustrate their own victory breeds a corrosive despair that convinces voters their participation will accomplish little.
Liberman's stance threatens to suppress turnout in anti-Netanyahu bloc
Liberman's stance threatens to suppress turnout across the anti-Netanyahu bloc, precisely when enthusiasm could bring additional voters into its ranks. It also exposes the costly failure of the center-left to unite behind a clear leadership candidate, leaving the opposition vulnerable to rival ambitions and competing claims to the premiership.
This political gamesmanship comes at a moment of extraordinary national vulnerability. Another Netanyahu government would likely accelerate the assault on judicial independence, perpetuate inequitable military exemptions and deepen Israel's international isolation. Economic sanctions, declining investment and growing difficulties with the United States and Europe could turn today's political dysfunction into a prolonged national crisis. The urgency of replacing Netanyahu derives from the cumulative damage already inflicted and the growing danger that another term would make much of it irreversible.
Liberman therefore faces a choice that will define his political legacy. He can help assemble the parliamentary majority needed to begin Israel's recovery, accepting the compromises inherent in democratic politics, or pursue a strategy that may preserve his negotiating leverage while delivering Netanyahu another term.
The former would confirm the stature Liberman has acquired among Israelis desperate for responsible leadership; the latter would probably end his career. Should Netanyahu survive because Liberman insisted on a government of impossible purity, or demanded a premiership of his own, history will have little difficulty identifying the man who turned historic opportunity into a national disaster.