To understand the political game played by Yisrael Beytenu leader Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman in recent days, we must carefully consider how he weighs public interests against his own interests.
Preserving economic stability aside, Lieberman has an interest in remaining in the coalition, and even more so – remaining the defense minister, as there are important tasks ahead, most notably naming the next chief of staff and ensuring the defense establishment is ready for whatever security crisis may unfold next year.
Lieberman is a capable defense minister, even better than his predecessors Moshe Ya'alon and Ehud Barak, both former chiefs of staff. The solution to the coalition crisis, sparked by the ultra-Orthodox parties demand to pass a new conscription bill, affords Lieberman another year and a half in office – plenty of time to navigate the military in the direction it needs to go to stay at the top of its game.
With all this in mind, there is a growing assessment that Yisrael Beytenu is heading toward an electoral disaster in the next election. If this is true, by the time Lieberman implements changes in the IDF, his party may disappear off the political map. This may teach us something about the importance of having a deep political bench. Lieberman is now the only recognizable figure in his party after MK Orly Levy-Abekasis left Yisrael Beytenu once it became clear it would join the coalition in 2016.
Moreover, there has been a change in personal popularity trends with respect to the defense minister's position. The days when defense was the most coveted portfolio in the government are long gone and Lieberman is quickly discovering that his popularity is waning.
Populism encourages robust electoral outcome much more than the stateliness identified with the Defense Ministry, and it is safe to assume that the next election campaign will see Lieberman garnering support over issues such as burden equality and the death penalty for terrorists, which would keep him a viable political player.
Lieberman's problem is that no one can guarantee he will be able to demand, let alone receive, the defense portfolio after the next elections. Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett, despite his irresponsible lambasting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is qualified to assume this role and implement the necessary changes in the defense establishment.
As far as Netanyahu is concerned, his personal interests concerning early elections are consistent with national interests, and this is exactly where Bennett went wrong. There is an actual need to curtail the anti-democratic agenda by which the police, the State Attorney's Office and the media seek to control the public narrative and become a major political force.
Netanyahu and Lieberman both arrived at the same conclusion – polls are only a part of the story, and the public's disinterest in elections at this time must prevail. It is more important that the public does not really want to go to elections. If the public sought early elections with any sense of urgency, it would be for the sole reason of unseating Netanyahu, and that is not the case.
Netanyahu successfully drove this point home, proving that even when the opposition was handed an opportunity to usurp him via elections, it was incapable of capitalizing on it. Opposition parties know that the public supports the prime minister and that the political system lacks the will to go to elections. This gives Netanyahu a fresh mandate.
