After Benjamin Netanyahu failed to assemble a governing coalition by the deadline last Tuesday, President Reuven Rivlin passed the mandate to Yair Lapid, the leader of the Knesset’s second largest party. Lapid, a politician of the center-left, has now joined forces with Naftali Bennet, of the right-wing Yamina, to put together a seven- or eight-party coalition ranging from the far-left Meretz to the secular right Yisrael Beytenu. As of Sunday night, the two seem to have gained the support of the conservative Islamic party Ra’am. But, explains Haviv Rettig Gur, it’s still not clear if they will succeed:

Yamina’s Amiḥai Chikli declared last week he wouldn’t support such a coalition. Remove Chikli and add the four-seat Ra’am to the mix and you reach precisely 61 [seats], with not a vote to spare. It’s a terribly difficult puzzle to piece together. Each new part Lapid or Bennett might try to add seems to compromise another.

Some in [the center-right] New Hope and Yamina are working hard to bring ḥaredi parties on board in a bid to stabilize the government and, no less important for Bennett and New Hope’s Gideon Sa’ar, strengthen its conservative wing. But ḥaredi support (Shas’s nine seats and/or United Torah Judaism’s seven) would almost certainly mean the loss of Yisrael Beytenu’s seven and likely also progressive Meretz’s six.

The Arab Joint List quietly suggested to Lapid last week to drop right-wing Bennett (six seats without Chikli) . . . in exchange for the support of their six seats. But without Bennett, Lapid loses Sa’ar’s six seats as well. And therein lies the rub. It’s not at all clear that what Bennett and Lapid are trying to do is actually possible. Nothing quite like it has ever been done in Israeli politics.

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.