Gadi Eisenkot, Israel’s former military chief, is all but certain on Sunday to be given a chance to form a new government, after he was recommended for the task by parties that won 67 seats in the 120-seat Parliament.
But completing that mission and replacing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may well be the toughest assignment of Mr. Eisenkot’s career so far.
The ideologically and ethnically diverse factions that recommended him for prime minister include left-wing, right-wing, centrist and predominantly Arab parties. Most would have to break seemingly ironclad campaign promises in order to unite behind Mr. Eisenkot, no matter how he arranges them into a governing coalition.
But the pressure is on him and his allies to do just that, because the alternatives, in their view, are far worse.
A failure to form a government could send Israel to another round of elections. It would leave Mr. Netanyahu in his job as prime minister in the meantime, with all the advantages of incumbency. And the opposition would be unlikely to perform as well as it did in October, when thousands of expatriate Israelis flew home to vote.
A unity government in which Mr. Eisenkot and Mr. Netanyahu share power, such as by taking turns as premier, seemed far-fetched before Election Day and seems unthinkable now. Some of Mr. Eisenkot’s campaign promises left wiggle room, but he was adamant in saying that Mr. Netanyahu, as the person with ultimate responsibility for defending the country on Oct. 7, 2023, when it suffered its worst attack in history, was unfit to continue in government.
Since the election, Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to delegitimize the result — by accusing Arab parties of stealing votes — have hardened those views. And the lopsided result of the U.S. midterm elections underscored the urgency of replacing Mr. Netanyahu, opposition leaders have argued: Israel’s standing with lawmakers in both the Democratic and Republican parties is so dismal, and Mr. Netanyahu so loathed, that only a new prime minister could possibly begin to repair it.
“Israel is already in the midst of a dangerous diplomatic tsunami,” Mr. Eisenkot said on Friday. He added that a situation in which Mr. Netanyahu “continues to exercise authority over Israel’s security system and law enforcement agencies is dangerous and must not be allowed to continue for even one more day.”
But what kind of government can Mr. Eisenkot form?
He starts with 48 members of Parliament, thanks to his own center-right Yashar party (21), Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s centrist Together party (12), Yair Golan and the left-wing Democrats party (8), and Avigdor Liberman’s right-wing but secular Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party (7).
That is more than Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition can count on: After an ultra-Orthodox party, United Torah Judaism, refused to recommend him for prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition has only 46 seats.
To form a bigger coalition, let alone a majority in Parliament, Mr. Eisenkot’s options include partnering with the ultra-Orthodox parties, which together have 13 seats, or the Arab parties, which won a record 19 seats. Either route is deeply problematic, according to opposition lawmakers, operatives and advisers, most of whom insisted on anonymity to discuss coalition talks.
Here is a look at Mr. Eisenkot’s possible path forward, and at one major roadblock standing in his way.
First, Take Control of Parliament
Until a new government is formed, Mr. Netanyahu remains a caretaker prime minister. But Parliament is another story. Lawmakers will be sworn in Tuesday, and Mr. Eisenkot is working to arrange for the election of a new speaker to replace Amir Ohana, a Netanyahu loyalist.
If he is successful, that could put Mr. Eisenkot’s allies in charge of key legislative committees. And it could allow his anti-Netanyahu bloc to begin enacting legislation — fulfilling key campaign promises and demonstrating Mr. Eisenkot’s ability to get things done.
The lowest-hanging fruit, insiders say, would be to repeal laws passed by Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition, such as controversial judicial changes allowing more political control over the appointment of judges and curbing the attorney general’s powers.
Equally important would be to deliver on a core campaign promise by all the opposition leaders to establish a national commission of inquiry to investigate the security failures that preceded the Oct. 7 attack.
Liberman Rules Out the Arab Parties
Mr. Eisenkot this week began speaking of the need to form a “national emergency government” — an important rhetorical shift.
“If it’s an emergency, you do things you wouldn’t do otherwise,” said Nimrod Novik, a senior fellow of the Israel Policy Forum who was an adviser to Shimon Peres when he was prime minister.
The Arab parties’ 19 seats would give Mr. Eisenkot a solid majority, but bringing them into a government could cost him other allies.
For now, the question is moot: The Joint List, an amalgam of three smaller Arab parties that together won 11 seats, has ruled out joining a government, though it could provide support from the outside and enable a minority government to function. The United Arab List, or Raam, which won 8 seats, has not. But Mr. Eisenkot has insisted that any party joining his government must declare Hamas a terrorist organization.
Raam’s leader, Mansour Abbas, has refused to do so, though he condemns all terrorist acts. But he did say on Thursday that Hamas and all other Palestinian factions should be disarmed.
Even if Mr. Abbas were to satisfy Mr. Eisenkot, however, Mr. Liberman, the Yisrael Beiteinu leader, has repeatedly ruled out a government that includes Arab parties or even relies on their support from the outside.
That leaves relying on the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, parties.
A Deal With the Ultra-Orthodox?
This, too, is fraught with peril. The most important issue for the Haredim is to protect their young men, who now account for about one in four draft-age teenagers, from conscription into the military and punishment for draft evasion. But with the Israeli army overstretched, a core campaign promise of Mr. Eisenkot and his opposition allies was to compel Haredi men to share the sacrifice of defending the country.
Mr. Liberman has now chosen to break that promise but not his vow to keep Arab parties out of government.
On Friday, he wrote on social media that while he remained dead set on replacing Mr. Netanyahu, avoiding new elections and spurning any partnership with the Arab parties, “on all other issues, it is permissible and desirable to be flexible and compromise, and to understand that you cannot have it all. This includes the issue of the conscription law as well.”
Mr. Eisenkot was not entirely absolutist in his campaign rhetoric about drafting the ultra-Orthodox, but Mr. Bennett, of the Together party, was adamant about it and would have to accept going back on that pledge.
Mr. Eisenkot could also find it difficult to strike a deal with the Haredi party leaders, who are far more experienced at coalition negotiations than he is, and whose voters have grown steadily more right-wing and nationalist in recent years.
David Makovsky, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the fact that United Torah Judaism had declined to recommend Mr. Netanyahu for prime minister was a positive sign. “It means the store is open,” he said. “But how much they’re willing to go against their base, which is really right-wing — that’s the $64,000 question.”
Eisenkot Considers a Minority Government
With 48 votes to Mr. Netanyahu’s 46, Mr. Eisenkot said on Friday that he planned to form a minority government, at least initially. That would mean that the Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties abstain from the vote to form the government.
But he also said he would invite every political party — without exceptions — to join his government, now or later, provided it embraced his terms: recognizing Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, accepting the values in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, requiring universal national military or civilian service, and agreeing that Hamas is a terrorist organization that must be dismantled.
Mr. Liberman, however, is again standing in the way. On Friday, he ruled out forming a government with anything less than a 61-seat majority.
Gayil Talshir, a political science lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem who is advising the opposition, said it was unclear whether Mr. Liberman really wanted Mr. Eisenkot to be successful.
Mr. Liberman has complained publicly that Mr. Eisenkot ended his campaign by cannibalizing support for his allies in a way that Mr. Liberman contends cost both Yisrael Beiteinu and the anti-Netanyahu bloc several seats.
Ms. Talshir said Mr. Liberman may fear the wrath of his right-wing voters if he agrees to a partnership with Arab parties.
He also may be angling to take a shot at becoming prime minister himself.
Should Mr. Eisenkot fail to form a government, Mr. Netanyahu would be given a chance next. But if he failed, there would be a short period before new elections are called in which anyone in Parliament — including Mr. Liberman — could become prime minister by enlisting the support of 60 other lawmakers.
On Friday, Mr. Eisenkot appeared to allude to Mr. Liberman’s resistance — and possible ulterior motives.
“Anyone who seeks to delay or sabotage the formation of a government for personal rather than substantive reasons,” he wrote on social media before the start of the Sabbath, “will be remembered by history as someone who failed to rise to the occasion and failed to act to save Israel in a time of national emergency. They will not be forgiven.”
Adam Rasgon contributed reporting from Tel Aviv.
The post Why Israel’s Ex-Army Chief’s Next Mission Could Be Mission Impossible appeared first on New York Times.
