On Wednesday, the Knesset elected Israel’s next present, Isaac Herzog, who will assume office on July 9. Later the same day, Yair Lapid presented a coalition agreement to the current president, Reuven Rivlin. If the proposed coalition survives until its formal ratification by the Knesset, Naftali Bennett—who has spent the last several years trying to outflank the incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu from the right—will become the next prime minister. The agreement stipulates that Lapid, who leads the center-left party Yesh Atid, will replace Bennett after two years.

Daniel Gordis explains that the new government, although “rickety,” actually demonstrates the solidity of the Israeli center, and not only because it pulls together eight parties from across the political spectrum. He goes on to make some other observations:

Bennett will be Israel’s first religious, kippah-wearing prime minister. That reflects many important shifts in Israeli life. . . . Lapid, to my knowledge, will be the first prime minister who belongs to a Reform synagogue.

One New York Times headline declared that many Palestinians were viewing Israel’s developing political story with “little more than a shrug.” That’s not terribly surprising, since when it comes to the Palestinians, Israelis are fairly united, left and right. There’s no deal with the Palestinians looming anywhere on the horizon, regardless of which parties form the coalition.

[As if to explain why], another New York Times article noted that “The presence of Mr. Bennett at the threshold of power is testament to how Mr. Netanyahu has helped shift the pendulum of Israeli politics firmly to the right.” This, though, ignores the fact that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected overtures from Israeli leaders. . . . Israeli politics moved to the right not because of Netanyahu, . . . but because even centrist and left-of-center Israelis have despaired of the Palestinians making a deal.

The two-state solution is alive and well—in the imaginations of Americans. Closer to home, it’s tragically seen as an idea out of a Disney movie: a sweet and enchanting idea for an ending to the story, utterly unrelated to the world we actually inhabit.

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.