While the incumbent Israeli prime minister, whose Likud party won a plurality of votes in the recent election, has two weeks to form a governing coalition, it seems that he cannot do so unless he is able to coax individual parliamentarians away from their parties. Meanwhile the Likud lost a Knesset vote on Monday for control of the “arrangements committee.” Haviv Rettig Gur explains:

The panel is a short-lived entity established by each new Knesset to manage the parliament’s agenda and conduct much of its business between the new Knesset’s swearing-in and the official formation of a ruling coalition a few weeks later.

The committee is immensely powerful for the duration of its brief lifespan. It is responsible for establishing the new Knesset’s committees, appointing their chairs and members for the interim period, and coordinating the legislative agenda between the parliamentary factions and with the as-yet interim government.

With control of the arrangements committee, Netanyahu might have had a chance at calling for a direct election of the prime minister, which could in theory end the political deadlock. But it was not to be, and the reason why is significant:

[Netanyahu’s challenger from the right, Naftali] Bennett, voted with Likud on the arrangements-committee question, after Likud promised to give him one of its own seats on the panel. . . . But Netanyahu neglected the Islamist party Ra’am, apparently feeling that its leader Mansour Abbas was in his pocket. And Abbas did not like being ignored. The opposition leader, Yair Lapid, made Abbas a better offer, and Ra’am’s vote with the center-left proved decisive, handing the right its first clear defeat in the new Knesset.

On Monday, even as Netanyahu discovered just how troubled his political prospects had become, Yair Lapid and his allies in the so-called “change camp” continued their efforts to block him at every turn, with the [Lapid] meeting the leaders of various factions, including publicly announced and photographed talks with the once-taboo Arab MKs in the Joint Arab List and Ra’am.

Of course, even with support from the Arab parties, there is no guarantee that Lapid will have the necessary seats for a coalition either.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.