Jonathan Pollard: Chutzpah
In the 29 July edition of Ynet, Dr. Kobi Berda, a research fellow at the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Institute, reported that during his latest meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump allegedly told Netanyahu that he expected him, after the next Israeli election, to replace Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir with a national unity government. If that report is accurate, then, coming from a man who has long argued that his own defeat to Joe Biden resulted from foreign interference, such an attempt to influence Israel's democratic process can be summed up in one word: chutzpah.
How dare any foreign leader presume to dictate who may or may not serve in Israel's future government?
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu has recently indicated that he would like to form a national unity government, potentially without Otzma Yehudit and the Religious Zionism Party. Should that happen, he would, in my view, be playing directly into Trump's hands.
Leaving Trump's alleged intervention aside, Israelis should consider what such a coalition would actually mean. Including figures such as Gadi Eisenkot and Benny Gantz in the next government would, in my opinion, return to positions of power two senior military leaders who shared responsibility for the strategic failures that preceded the October 7 attacks. Yet many of our fellow citizens, driven by what some describe as "Bibi Derangement Syndrome," appear willing to overlook that record. They would rather give these former generals another opportunity to shape Israel's security policy than see Netanyahu govern alongside Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
For the moment, let us set aside Ben Gvir's sometimes counterproductive style and Smotrich's occasional poor choice of words. The fact remains that both were democratically elected, and both have every right to serve as ministers if their parties receive sufficient public support. Whatever one thinks of their politics, they were not responsible for the failures that culminated in October 7.
Many Israelis understandably want to remove every politician who held office when that tragedy occurred. However, treating everyone equally responsible risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Certainly, there are long-serving politicians whose failures of oversight or conduct justify ending their political careers. But I do not believe the same case can fairly be made against Smotrich and Ben Gvir.
The strongest criticisms that can reasonably be levelled against them are that Ben Gvir mishandled the establishment of a National Guard and waited too long before fully engaging the Shin Bet in combating organised Arab crime (although it is hard to blame him when Att'y Gen. Baharav Miara refused to allow Shin Bet involvement, and supposed civil rights agencies still pan the idea. The government has just passed a budget for the effort anyway.) Smotrich devoted too much attention to confronting the Hilltop Youth and too little to addressing illegal Arab construction in Area C, but one has to give him credit for all the new communities in Judea and Samaria, the farms and roads - and for the economy's stability despite three years of war. Even if one accepts the criticisms and ignores the accomplishments, they pale, in my view, beside the far-reaching mistakes made by Eisenkot, Gantz, Yair Golan, Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Yet these are among the figures whom Trump reportedly hopes to see in Israel's next government.
If true, Trump's attempt to influence the composition of Israel's future government comes at a time when the Israeli Right remains divided by competing ambitions and personal rivalries. Unless right-wing parties and leaders overcome their divisions, Israel could end up with a government that, in my opinion, would be more willing to tolerate Hamas remaining in power, allow Hezbollah to rebuild its strength, and advance greater autonomy for the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria.
One way to reduce that possibility would be for the nationalist Right to unite behind a single electoral bloc. If such unity were achieved, Netanyahu might have little practical choice but to include it in any governing coalition.
Nor should we ignore the Haredi electorate. I believe a united right-wing bloc could develop creative proposals capable of attracting a meaningful number of Haredi voters. For example, a system of mandatory national service offering civilian alternatives-such as employment in defence industries or local security organisations-combined with the loss of voting rights and certain government benefits, rather than imprisonment, for those who refuse to serve, might persuade more Haredim that meaningful integration into Israeli society is possible.
Above all, Israel must elect enough committed nationalists to ensure that its next government reflects the will of those voters rather than outside political pressure. Achieving that goal will require both a disciplined right-wing alliance and enough responsible voices within Likud to support it.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with this analysis, the decisions Israelis make at the next election will shape the country's future for years to come. The stakes could hardly be higher.