MK Gadi Eisenkot said he is prepared to sit in a coalition with chareidi parties, but only if they accept what he described as three fundamental principles, while also cautioning against a repeat of a situation in which a prime minister leads the country despite heading a relatively small party.

Speaking on Ynet’s political podcast 120 VeAchat, hosted by Moran Azulay, Eisenkot presented himself as a leading figure within the opposition camp and discussed national security, coalition politics, and the future shape of Israel’s government.

Addressing the Iranian threat, Eisenkot argued that Israel missed an opportunity to respond more forcefully during Iran’s first direct missile attack on the Jewish state.

Asked what he would have done had he been prime minister during an Iranian missile barrage, Eisenkot replied: “I would have carried out what I proposed to Netanyahu in April 2024, during the first Iranian attack. I proposed a parallel strike while the missiles were on their way here. He blocked it and ultimately accepted someone else’s opinion. That was the strike that the National Security Minister described as a ‘dradleh.’ It was the only time in recent years that I could justify his actions.”

Turning to coalition-building and the role of the chareidi parties, Eisenkot said Israeli politicians spend too much time discussing whom they refuse to work with rather than identifying potential areas of agreement.

“It is better to talk about what we are willing to do rather than what we won’t do, because otherwise you end up with candidates saying, ‘We won’t sit with the chareidim,’ ‘We won’t sit with the Arabs,’ ‘We won’t sit with Ben Gvir,’ ‘We won’t sit with Smotrich,’ and ‘We won’t sit with the Likud under Netanyahu.’ Apparently they intend to form a coalition with the Baloch or the Freemasons. In the end, this is Israeli politics.”

Discussing efforts to unite the opposition, Eisenkot revealed that he had attempted to create a broad political alliance that would include multiple parties.

“I worked to build a super-party with two accompanying parties—Liberman on one side and Golan on the other. When that effort failed, I moved to Plan B, under which four parties would run separately.”

He also appeared to direct criticism toward Naftali Bennett, arguing that the next prime minister should come from the largest party in the bloc rather than from a smaller faction.

“As for who should lead the bloc, it is highly desirable that the candidate for prime minister receive the broadest support possible. Certainly not someone who heads a party with six or eight seats. In my view, that is not democratic. It is neither proper nor desirable. We already had that experience, and it should not be repeated.”

Asked directly whether Bennett could again seek the premiership without leading the largest party, Eisenkot suggested that Israelis have largely rejected that model.

“The Israeli public delegitimized the previous situation, even though the change government under Bennett was a reasonable, good government. It would be preferable not to repeat it, especially in light of the realities of recent years. It is preferable to have a large party at the center and a coalition that is as broad as possible.”

When questioned about his political identity, Eisenkot rejected conventional ideological labels.

“I am a man of the State of Israel who deeply believes in the idea of statesmanship. I view myself as a security hawk. I suggest that people go back to my farewell ceremony as chief of staff, when Netanyahu listed my achievements—our achievements, of course—and praised me for the use of force throughout the Middle East. Today he sends his emissaries to attack me for the very things he praised me for then.”

Eisenkot also outlined his vision for a new draft law, arguing that the events of October 7 fundamentally changed the national conversation.

“On October 7, everything changed, and a law must be passed based on four principles: 1. Service for everyone—chareidim and Arabs—whether military or national service. 2. The arrangement between the Likud and Agudas Yisroel is null and void, and authority should return to a professional body that determines who receives exemptions. 3. The State of Israel must dramatically reward regular and reserve soldiers while imposing penalties and sanctions on draft evaders. 4. The State of Israel should permit exemptions for 3% of each annual class. Ben-Gurion did this during the War of Independence, and it can be done now.”

Asked about his relationship with Arab lawmakers Ahmad Tibi and Ayman Odeh, Eisenkot said he does not maintain political ties with them but evaluates all parties according to the same standards.

“I do not have political relations with them. I prefer to discuss issues rather than individuals. Therefore, when I am asked about the Arab parties, I give the same answer that I give regarding the chareidi parties: I will sit with anyone who accepts three principles—Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, the values of the Declaration of Independence, and the obligation of military or national service.”

{Matzav.com}