Jerry McGlothlin is a geopolitical analyst and the founder and CEO of Special Guests Publicity.
Israel’s political leaders are searching for 61 seats when they should be exploring a coalition of 80. A government representing approximately two-thirds of the Knesset could provide the strength and durability the country needs, provided its members agree on two fundamental commitments: opposition to Palestinian Arab statehood and an obligation to contribute to national defense or public service.
I propose a Strong Israel Coalition bringing together Likud, Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar, Bennett and Lapid’s B’Yachad, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism-Zehut. Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu would have to swallow its exclusionary rhetoric and join it, or disappear in the next round of elections. Preliminary allocations put that combination at approximately 79 to 80 seats. Eighty should be the negotiating goal, rather than another government perpetually looking over its shoulder for the sixty-first vote.
Instead of courting parties demanding Palestinian Arab statehood as the price of cooperation, the coalition’s prospective leaders could tell those parties, on that demand, to “pound sand." In a desert region, the expression seems particularly appropriate. More importantly, it would demonstrate that this government intends to negotiate from conviction and strength, rather than surrender.
The case for such a coalition begins with taking threats to Israel’s existence seriously. When demonstrators chant “Death to Israel," there is no ambiguity about the message. Israel has every moral right to defend its people and reject demands advanced by those seeking its destruction.
The “From the river to the sea" chant is bluntly calling for the non-existence of Israel. Where the demand means replacing Israel rather than living peacefully alongside it, Israeli leaders should recognize the threat and respond accordingly.
Establishing a Palestinian Arab state would create unacceptable security risks, to say the least.
Israeli citizenship is a privilege and an honor and all her citizens must be committed to the strength and security of the miracle nation blooming like a rose in the desert.
There are clear obligations that come with citizenship. Israel cannot indefinitely ask the same families to supply its soldiers, endure repeated reserve deployments, and carry the economic burden while entire categories of otherwise eligible citizens receive blanket exemptions. A nation divided cannot long stand.
All Israeli citizens need to share unified responsibility and not have spectators on the sidelines drawing benefits without meaningful contribution to its defense.
Religious study deserves respect, yeshiva students who prove their commitment to that study can be eligible for supervised deferments, and the proposed coalition would protect that freedom while requiring eligible citizens to help defend or serve the nation that sustains it. Those already serving also have children to raise, businesses to maintain, and religious commitments to honor. Public benefits and protection should come with a fair share of public responsibility.
Where communities receiving blanket exemptions grow as a share of the population, the practical burden on those serving becomes an increasingly important question. The answer should be a service system that applies fair obligations across communities, with military service or meaningful, supervised civilian service according to clear rules.
That would be a condition of joining the Strong Israel Coalition, rather than an issue postponed until after the ministries have been distributed.
Both Shas and United Torah Judaism have demanded legislation protecting blanket exemptions for yeshiva students. Unless they change that condition, they must remain outside the Strong Israel Coalition. If they see the light, and embrace a Strong Israel, they are welcome to enlist.
To be clear, excluding other parties would not automatically produce agreement among the remaining six. Likud and its prospective partners would have to sign an enforceable service agreement, including an implementation timetable. Medical exemptions and narrowly defined provisions applied equally would remain matters for legislation; automatic exemption based on religious affiliation would end. The agreement must also define qualifying public service.
The commitment against Palestinian Arab statehood would require the same precision. Some prospective members reject it outright, while Eisenkot’s position has been framed around the circumstances following October 7. Every participant would have to accept a common governing policy rather than rely on language that means different things to different parties.
For Eisenkot, Liberman and others who promised not to serve under Netanyahu, the Strong Israel Coalition could provide a substantive reason to reconsider, appealing to principle over personality.
Netanyahu would also have to yield in areas including cabinet authority. Opposition leaders could not reasonably be expected to join his existing government merely in exchange for additional ministries and call that a new national direction. All members need to be given a meaningful role in contributing to and supporting the strongest-ever Israel.
An 80-seat coalition would still face serious disagreements over the courts, accountability for October 7, and economic policy. Its strength would depend on the quality of its agreements and its members’ willingness to honor them. Rather than overly focusing on past should have, could have, and would haves, the focus should be on a future with stronger-than-ever national security and burgeoning opportunities for Israel to continue to grow as the world’s leader in everything from technology to agriculture.
A unified government committed to resisting threats to Israel’s existence, opposing Palestinian Arab statehood, and sharing the responsibilities of national service is a goal worth pursuing. Israel’s leaders should begin negotiating toward that 80-seat majority. The Zionist dream is at stake.