Gantz and Netanyahu now play the game of chicken?

The 'game of chicken' is a dangerous game.The game assures that at least one player will be crushed--or even destroyed--unless someone in the game backs down. The one who backs down is called, the chicken. He's the loser.

To picture this, think of two automobiles rushing at each other at high speed. Unless one of the cars' drivers backs down--or 'chickens out' by turning away--one or both of the drivers will probably be killed in the ensuing crash. Both would 'win'--and potentially die in the process.

That's the game of 'chicken'. Supposedly, some teenagers in the fifties played this game with real cars. Today in Israel, Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu  play it with the question of sovereignty over the Jordan River valley. If neither backs down from his position (see below), unity talks between Gantz and Netanyahu could fail. 

Yes, with such a failure, each could certainly return to his base and claim 'victory'. After all, neither of the two would have 'chickened out'--because neither would have backed down.

Burt if this happened, voters in Israel would not be happy. Israel, along with the rest of the world, suffers from a coronavirus pandemic. Because of lockdown and social distancing requirements, Israel's economy begins to shut down. Israel needs a fully functioning Knesset to put up the best fight it can against this virus--and to help protect Israel's economy. 

Remember, this Knesset is still in transition, its full powers frozen until a governing coalition is fully approved. It isn't exactly operating on "all eight cylinders".

If unity talks fail, both Gantz and Netanyahu would be instantly demonized by Israel's voters. Collapsed talks for unity means no fully functioning Knesset for the foreseeable future. It means a fourth election. It means campaigning against each other instead to uniting together to fight the pandemic.

One or both politicians would be blamed. One of them--or both--would see their political careers flushed down the proverbial toilet. 

Will there really be a fourth election? At this point, we don't know.

Now, let's look more closely at this political game of chicken. That game begins with the Jordan River Valley.

Currently, the Jordan River valley (also called, 'the West Bank', and situated east of Jerusalem) is identified as either 'disputed territory' (currently controlled by Israel) or, alternatively, as Palestinian land destined to be part of the new Arab-Muslim 'Palestine' (and currently 'occupied' by Israel). In reality, the Jordan River runs as a straight North-South line that marks Israel's entire eastern edge. It serves  as Israel's eastern border much like the Atlantic Ocean serves as the United States's own eastern 'border': that is, both are natural barriers-turned-into-borders.

You may remember that, during this past year's three-national-elections-to-choose-a-new-Prime-Minister cycle, US President Donald Trump published his 'Deal of the Century' Peace Plan (now on hold). The Jordan River Valley plays a role in this Plan. At least according to news reports in the US, Trump's Plan proposes that the Jordan River Valley remain as part of Israel. According to these US reports, this Plan proposes that Israel will declare its sovereignty over the Jordan River Valley (here with map, and here).

When the Trump Plan was published--or, perhaps shortly beforehand--Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue-White Party who was campaigning to be Israel's next Prime Minister, said that, as Prime Minister, he would declare sovereignty over the Jordan River Valley (here). He said the Jordan River Valley was "an integral part of Israel" (here).

Shortly after Gantz's 'sovereignty' announcement, Benjamin Netanyahu made the same promise (here). But there are real differences between the two men over this issue of sovereignty. 

First, Gantz did say he would declare sovereignty--but only with "international agreement" to do so (here).  By contrast, Netanyahu said he'd make his sovereignty declaration without such (international) approval--and he'd do it without waiting for the Peace Plan to take effect (here) 

The second difference was, Netanyahu had been promising sovereignty already. He spoke of "annexing" the Jordan River Valley before the second-of-the-three national elections Israel has just experienced (here). Gantz, meanwhile, appears to have waited for the unveiling of the Trump Plan to make such a statement.

The third and most important difference between Gantz and Netanyahu's promises of sovereignty/annexation of the Jordan River Valley was this: at the time Gantz made his 'promise' to annex, some tried to argue that Gantz's declaration meant he was "aligning with" Netanyahu's own stance on this question (here) . But that was untrue. As Netanyahu himself said about Gantz's 'vow', the idea that Gantz would act on sovereignty only with international approval wasn't a promise at all. It was a meaningless assertion because, as Netanyahu (correctly) stated, the international community "would never accept such a move" (here).

This entire discussion of "sovereignty/annexation" now comes home to roost for both Gantz and Netanyahu. It's a sticking point in their unity negotiations that stalls, at least for the moment, the entire unity deal. It creates a game of chicken between the two men--a game that could kill the chance for unity. 

Netanyahu wants sovereignty for the Jordan River Valley to be agreed upon in advance before he agrees to a unity government. Gantz refuses to declare for sovereignty, suggesting strongly that Gantz actually won't declare for sovereigny at all. 

If neither man backs down, unity talks can collapse. There could be no unity government--indeed, no government coalition. That could mean only one thing: a fourth election. 

Sovereignty for Israel's political Right is important. Netanyahu's courting of the Right during the three campaigns this past year was based, to a large extent, on his promise to complete sovereignty over (at least) the Jordan River Valley. If he backs down, and accepts Gantz's refusal to agree to it, Netanyahu might lose the Right's support. The political Right could rebel against such a 'betrayal'. His half of the Prime  Ministership--to serve as PM during the first 18 months, as things now stand--could be torpedoed by his own natural backers (that is, the political Right).

Gantz, on the other hand, appears to have less to lose than Netanyahu. In theory, a Gantz surrender to Netanyahu's pro-annexation position won't create the same shock a Netanyahu surrender to Gantz would cause.

Why? Because Gantz has already shocked everyone. He's already committed the 'original cardinal sin'. He's already burnt all of his bridges with his natural backers--the Left and Left-Center. 

By agreeing in the first place to enter into a unity coalition with Netanyahu, Gantz has abandoned his most important campaign position--to get rid of Netanyahu. If he now yet again betrays his former backers (by agreeing to sovereignty), he won't add to the shock he's already delivered. This second betrayal won't be so much a shock, as it would be one of those, well, would you expect something different from such a man?  

Netanyahu, by contrast, has yet to commit his own political version of the original, cardinal sin.  

So why does Gantz now hesitate? H'e already surrendered. Why does he now choose to gamble unity with a game of chicken? 

One has one's suspicions. He might be looking for something more from Netanyahu. He might not be finished 'shopping' for Ministries to control.

Plus, a Knesset vote to make it illegal for Netanyahu to lead Israel while under indictment may not yet be totally off the table. Does Gantz hold some kind of 'ace-in-the-hole' card as his ultimate bargaining chip? Or does he have something else in mind?

We don't know.

So now what? Will the unity talks collapse? Will Gantz back down? Will Netanyahu?

Stay tuned. The game of chicken hasn't ended. It's just begun.