Israel’s president on Saturday chose Gadi Eisenkot, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strongest rival, to try to form a new government, Israeli media reported, following a deadlocked election that left neither man with a clear path to power.
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader, is fighting to hold onto office after his religious-nationalist coalition lost its majority in an October 27 election but still emerged as the largest bloc in parliament.
So, I guess they won’t delay until the last possible minute, after all?
It’s not a done deal. Now he has to get enough people to agree.
The delay discussed above would be by the party leader picked by the President, not the President himself. The party leader has four weeks to assemble a coalition.
Yes, exactly.
The situation now is a bit like one of those riddles where the farmer wants to get a sheep, a head of lettuce, and a wolf across a river in a tiny boat.
Eisenkot doesn’t have 61 MKs willing to sit in coalition together. He has 48 votes.
He can either add the Arab parties or the Orthodox ones, but if he does either, some number of his current allies will leave him. In either scenario, it comes out to fewer than 61 left when the dust settles.
The way to square that circle is to have a minority government with fewer than 61 votes but with the Arab parties tacitly supporting Eisenkot’s coalition. But Liberman is adamant that his party will not be part of a minority government, which leaves Eisenkot with too few votes again.
So now it’s a game of chicken to see who gives up on their demands first. The Orthodox? The Arabs? The members of Eisenkot’s coalition who don’t want to sit with either? Liberman with his refusal to join a minority government?
The Orthodox might decide that they hate Netanyahu so much for lying to them that they’ll join an anti-Netanyahu government even if it means making concessions on service.
The Arab parties might decide that they hate Netanyahu enough to be willing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group and make a statement similar to the one Ra’am made in regards to Zionism - that they don’t like that Israel is the Jewish state but they recognize reality, essentially.
Eisenkot’s coalition might decide that they hate Netanyahu so much that they’re willing to let the Orthodox slide on military service for a little longer, even though ostensibly that’s one of the main things the coalition is built around.
Or Liberman might decide to get over his aversion to being part of a minority government.
My very uneducated guess is that the Arab parties will make some kind weak roundabout kind of Hamas criticism to satisfy enough of the other side to join up.
What does this actually mean? Are any of them pro-Hamas parties? Are they demanding Hamas be stricken from the list of terrorist organizations in exchange for their political support?
They just won’t explicitly condemn Hamas.
Yes, they will delay till the last minute. Just remember, the last minute is defined as 4 weeks from today’s announcement.
So the next 27 and a half days will be chaotic, totally byzantine, and full of twists and turns, claims and rebutals, back-room deals leaked and then denied, and open hypocrisy. Then, a few hours before the deadline, Eisenkot will announce that he has built a coalition. But it will an enforced coalition of unwilling partners who are committed to so many contradictory policies that Eisenkot will be a very weak leader.
Why not, though? Is there some shared DNA meaning they like Hamas? Or is it like, the only people they hate more than the Romans is fucking Hamas, but on the other hand Hamas have weakened Netanyahu and his ilk so for some reason it is not expedient, taking into account their own supporters, to attack Hamas right now?
Because why the fuck should they? Are other parties forced to take loyalty tests? In addition, their voters don’t want them to do so and it would potentially put them in danger. Just spitballing here but that’s what I think.
Sorta-
October 7: The Joint List unequivocally condemns the October 7 Hamas massacre. The Balad leader has apologized for an article he published the day after the massacre that did not condemn it.
Hamas as a terrorist organization: The Joint List declines to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, although it condemns Hamas’s killing of civilians.
Because Terrorism is a Crime Against Humanity. That level of Crimes rises above all. They do condemn Terrorism- at least vs civilian targets.
As you say, they (generally) did condemn Oct 7th specifically but not Hamas generally. They also don’t explicitly support Hamas.
Asking some party to make a “loyalty” (to whom???) declaration is, of course, FUBAR. I also cannot picture any politician making a statement that they support terrorism; it would be incredible if any party did not condemn terrorism.
I’m not them but even I can make an argument for them to condemn the violence of Hamas and their attacking Israel, while recognizing their being the de facto provider of services in Gaza, recognizing the Hamas political organization as a valid one to the Arab population across the region, and one that is for the Palestinians to determine if they want to choose or not.
And threading that needle is a fat thread into a very small eye.
OK, so those other parties haven’t officially joined the government… but they have recommended Eisonkot for PM. I’d have thought that, if the playbook was “delay, delay, delay”, they’d have delayed that part, too.
Then you risk the other guy getting there first.