Matzav5 hours agoAn extraordinary political scenario is emerging in Israel following Tuesday’s inconclusive Knesset election, with growing discussion of a possible unity government that would bring Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu together with his rival Gadi Eisenkot, establish a rotation agreement for the premiership, and potentially culminate in Netanyahu becoming Israel’s next president.
The proposal, examined in a political analysis published Wednesday by i24NEWS, would offer a dramatic solution to the parliamentary deadlock that has left neither Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc nor Eisenkot’s opposition alliance with the 61 Knesset seats needed to form a government.
Under one scenario, Netanyahu would remain prime minister for approximately two years before transferring the premiership to Eisenkot. Netanyahu could then become the governing coalition’s candidate to succeed President Isaac Herzog, whose seven-year term ends in July 2028.
The arrangement would represent one of the most extraordinary political compromises in Israeli history, potentially allowing Netanyahu to conclude his lengthy tenure as prime minister by moving into the presidency while enabling Eisenkot to assume leadership of a broad coalition.
However, the proposal remains speculative. No agreement has been reached, and Eisenkot has repeatedly rejected the possibility of serving in a government headed by Netanyahu.
Nevertheless, the deadlock emerging from the election has renewed discussion of arrangements that would have seemed politically impossible only days earlier.
The latest vote has produced a deeply divided Knesset, with Netanyahu’s Likud emerging as the largest individual party but neither major political bloc securing an outright majority.
The results have created a difficult situation for both leaders.
Netanyahu cannot form a government without finding additional parliamentary support beyond his traditional coalition partners. Eisenkot faces a similar problem, particularly because of divisions within the opposition over cooperation with Arab parties and the chareidi factions.
Those obstacles have raised the possibility that Israel could face prolonged coalition negotiations, a caretaker government, or another national election if no workable majority can be assembled.
Against that backdrop, a unity arrangement is attracting renewed attention among political observers and figures associated with the Trump administration.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Netanyahu’s allies have been promoting the possibility of a government bringing together Likud and Eisenkot’s Yashar party, with President Donald Trump receptive to the general idea of a stable Israeli government that could advance American regional priorities.
According to that report, Netanyahu has privately told American and European officials that a partnership with Eisenkot would enable him to establish a more moderate government without relying on some of his current right-wing coalition partners, particularly Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben Gvir.
Such an arrangement could dramatically reshape Israel’s political landscape.
It would potentially remove Ben Gvir and other right-wing figures from positions of influence while creating a coalition capable of pursuing diplomatic initiatives that have encountered resistance from Netanyahu’s existing partners.
Among the principal objectives being discussed is the expansion of the Abraham Accords, particularly a possible normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Trump has made regional diplomacy a central component of his Middle East policy, and some of his advisers believe a broad Israeli coalition would be better positioned to advance negotiations with Arab governments.
Netanyahu has also presented himself to American officials as a reliable partner for continued coordination against Iran, arguing that his experience and relationship with Trump would be valuable during a period of continuing regional instability.
The possibility of a unity government has therefore become intertwined with Washington’s strategic interests, although American officials have not publicly endorsed a specific coalition arrangement.
The proposed arrangement would also carry enormous consequences for Israel’s chareidi political parties.
In his analysis, i24NEWS political commentator Gil Hoffman suggested that a unity government could include Netanyahu’s Likud, Eisenkot’s Yashar party and other centrist and right-of-center factions, while leaving both the chareidi parties and Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit outside the coalition.
Under one possible configuration, Eisenkot could initially serve as defense minister, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett becoming foreign minister.
Such an arrangement would represent a fundamental departure from the coalition Netanyahu has led, in which Shas and United Torah Judaism have played central roles.
It would also create an opening for legislation addressing military service that the chareidi parties have strongly opposed.
The draft issue has been one of the defining controversies of the election, with Shas and UTJ insisting that any government seeking their participation must protect the status of yeshiva students.
A coalition excluding those parties could pursue a more stringent draft law without depending on their parliamentary support.
Hoffman suggested that this possibility could help Eisenkot justify an otherwise politically difficult agreement with Netanyahu, allowing him to claim that the new government would pursue policies fundamentally different from those of the outgoing coalition.
The implications for the yeshiva world would be substantial.
The chareidi parties could find themselves outside the government despite retaining significant parliamentary representation, with little direct influence over legislation affecting yeshiva students and the funding of Torah institutions.
At the same time, their exclusion would remove one of the principal obstacles to cooperation between Netanyahu and centrist parties.
The scenario is particularly striking because Eisenkot campaigned on replacing Netanyahu and repeatedly promised that he would not serve under him.
In an interview with Israel’s 103FM radio before the election, Eisenkot categorically rejected a rotation arrangement.
“Absolutely not. I will not serve under Netanyahu, not even in a rotation agreement,” he declared. “If that happens, you’ll see it. I’ll resign an hour later.”
Reversing that position would expose Eisenkot to fierce criticism from supporters who voted for him specifically to end Netanyahu’s premiership.
Hoffman argued, however, that the election results could alter the political calculation.
Without a parliamentary majority, Eisenkot must either seek cooperation with parties he previously rejected, consider a unity agreement, or risk another election.
A rotation arrangement would offer him a path to the premiership without requiring another national vote.
For Netanyahu, the attraction would be equally significant.
He could remain in office during the first half of the government’s term, preserve his influence over national security policy, and potentially secure a path to the presidency.
The presidential element is among the most unusual aspects of the scenario.
Under Israeli law, the president is elected by the Knesset for a single seven-year term. Herzog’s term is scheduled to expire in July 2028.
A unity coalition could theoretically agree to support Netanyahu for the presidency when the position becomes vacant.
That would require a separate Knesset election for president, however, and Netanyahu’s candidacy would raise questions connected to his ongoing criminal trial.
The proposal should therefore be understood as a possible political arrangement rather than an established plan or an agreement that has already been negotiated.
Another complication is Netanyahu’s history with rotation agreements.
In 2020, Netanyahu formed a unity government with Benny Gantz under an arrangement that was supposed to see Gantz become prime minister in November 2021.
That transfer never occurred. The government collapsed following a budget dispute, and Israel returned to the polls.
The episode has contributed to deep skepticism among Netanyahu’s political opponents about whether he would honor another agreement to relinquish the premiership.
Eisenkot would therefore face pressure to secure unusually strong guarantees before accepting any similar arrangement.
Meanwhile, President Herzog could play an important role in determining whether a unity government becomes a realistic possibility.
Following an Israeli election, the president consults with parliamentary factions before assigning a candidate the task of forming a government.
Although Herzog cannot compel rival parties to govern together, he can encourage negotiations and use the consultation process to explore arrangements capable of commanding a Knesset majority.
Herzog has indicated that he wants a broad, stable government that would prevent Israel from being drawn into another election.
With neither political bloc holding a clear majority, his consultations could become especially consequential.
Trump’s involvement represents another important factor.
According to reports in both Israeli and American media, individuals close to the president have discussed a unity arrangement that would allow Netanyahu to remain in office while reducing the influence of his more controversial coalition partners.
Some American officials believe such a government would be better positioned to pursue regional diplomatic agreements and maintain close coordination with Washington.
Other administration figures reportedly remain skeptical of Netanyahu and question whether he would honor commitments made as part of a unity agreement.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has denied that Washington is attempting to dictate the composition of Israel’s next government.
Trump himself has not formally endorsed the proposed unity arrangement, despite publicly supporting Netanyahu during the election campaign.
The reported discussions have already provoked a sharp reaction from Ben Gvir.
The Otzma Yehudit chairman accused Netanyahu of considering a deal that would exclude him from the next government and allow the prime minister to secure an eventual pardon.
Ben Gvir has urged Netanyahu to establish another right-wing government rather than pursue an agreement with Eisenkot.
Netanyahu, for his part, used his post-election remarks to defend his current political partners and call for a right-wing nationalist coalition.
Eisenkot likewise declared that the public had voted to end Netanyahu’s leadership.
Neither leader has publicly embraced the unity proposal, and their statements remain difficult to reconcile with the arrangement being discussed.
There are also major obstacles involving the opposition parties.
Avigdor Liberman has ruled out joining a coalition dependent on Arab parties, while other opposition leaders have strongly opposed legislation protecting yeshiva students from military conscription.
Those divisions complicate Eisenkot’s efforts to assemble an alternative majority without Netanyahu.
The Arab parties, which performed strongly in the election, could become influential in parliamentary maneuvering even if they do not formally enter a governing coalition.
Hoffman suggested that a broad unity government could seek to address concerns in Arab communities through major initiatives targeting crime and poverty, potentially giving Arab lawmakers significant parliamentary committee responsibilities without including them in the coalition.
Such an arrangement would require extensive negotiations and agreement among parties with sharply different political priorities.
The alternative to compromise could be prolonged political paralysis.
If no candidate succeeds in forming a government, Israel could face another election, potentially as early as March 2027.
That possibility would leave Netanyahu in office as caretaker prime minister while extending the country’s political uncertainty during a period of regional conflict.
For Netanyahu, Eisenkot and the parties surrounding them, the question is whether the fear of another election will be sufficient to overcome years of political hostility and deeply entrenched campaign commitments.
The proposed Netanyahu-Eisenkot agreement remains an analysis of one possible outcome, not a confirmed negotiation or an announced agreement.
Nevertheless, the fact that a rotation government culminating in a Netanyahu presidency is being seriously examined by political commentators illustrates the extraordinary uncertainty created by Tuesday’s election.
With neither major bloc able to demonstrate a clear path to 61 seats, arrangements that once appeared inconceivable are entering the discussion.
Whether Netanyahu and Eisenkot could actually agree to share power remains highly doubtful. But unless one of them can assemble a majority through more conventional negotiations, the possibility of an unprecedented political compromise may become increasingly difficult to dismiss.
{Matzav.com}
Belaaz News🇮🇱 POLITICS: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben Gvir and Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich, telling them: "We are together and we are staying together."
Kol HaolamTHE HILL: Democrat Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign is denying a new investigation from The NYT reporting that they worked together to recruit candidates in an effort to pull votes from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska.
The Lakewood Scoop3 hours agoWhat should have been a teachable moment turned into a train wreck, when a campaign emphasizing the importance of boundaries crossed a line of its own, portraying a seemingly loving grandmother in what many saw as a predatory light.
A video released by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre showed grandparents coming to visit, with one child welcoming a kiss while the other clearly does not. The video went viral, with many disturbed by what they saw as an attempt to undermine familial relationships, even as it addressed the important topic of consent. The controversy made international headlines, with Ireland’s justice minister describing it as “inappropriate and demeaning to grandparents,” and unfortunately, the campaign’s larger message has gotten lost in the shuffle.
“The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre had a real opportunity to educate families and promote healthy boundaries,” says Amudim Executive Director Andy Lauber. “Instead, they missed the mark. The goal isn’t to create distance between generations, but to raise children who feel safe, respected, heard, and deeply connected to the people who love them.”
Children need to learn about consent, but the concept goes far beyond a grandmother’s kiss. That moment when one brother wants to wrestle, but the other prefers not to, is a teachable one. Explaining to a child who declines hugs that her sister has the right to turn down her well-meaning embraces is yet another valuable lesson. Our children learn through those exchanges, gaining the skills to express their own boundaries, while respecting someone else’s.
Amudim’s parenting series, My Space. My Feelings. My Voice, addresses those conversations, with guidance from experts in the field on how these lessons develop, how to teach respect alongside boundaries, and what to say when feelings get hurt.
Shira Berkowitz, LCSW, Director of Darcheinu, explains that social and emotional learning doesn’t start by treating the people around a child as a threat. It starts with the child: noticing what they are feeling, paying attention when something feels uncomfortable, and understanding the difference between a healthy boundary and an unhealthy one. “This is my body, and my body should be respected at all times,” Berkowitz says. That is what allows a child to recognize when someone oversteps, whether a stranger, a relative, or a close family friend.
And knowing isn’t enough. “Every skill that we teach, we practice,” Berkowitz says. “Who are we telling? What are we saying? What do we do about this?” A child who has rehearsed those answers can say no with confidence.
A loving Bubby can help teach that lesson by accepting a child’s decision to turn down a kiss, giving them the confidence to know that they have been heard, are respected, and still loved. And parents can be confident that children will speak up when something doesn’t feel right, even if it involves someone they love.
It wasn’t just the Dublin campaign that fell short – the resulting backlash did too. The public outcry could have asked what lessons could have been learned here. Instead, that question has yet to be answered, even as the arguments continue.
Jewish Breaking News1 hour ago
