Professor Avi Diskin, a researcher of Israel's electoral system and a political science expert, analyzes in an interview with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News the political alternatives facing Yashar party chairman MK Gadi Eisenkot in his efforts to form a government.
Eisenkot has several alternatives, Diskin says. "One is for Eisenkot to rely on the two Arab parties, which would give him a comfortable majority of 67 Knesset members. However, that is not a likely scenario because there are elements in his camp who would not be able to stomach it, and I doubt he himself could stomach it".
"A second option, which he is working hard on, is recruiting defectors from the other camp. This is very problematic, because the most likely defectors at the moment are United Torah Judaism, who, rightly or wrongly, have deep grievances over supposed promises made to them that were not fulfilled, regardless of whose fault that was. But they feel it may be easier for the left to make promises and deliver on them because it would have cooperation from the attorney general and the Supreme Court."
However, Professor Diskin notes that the option of joining forces with United Torah Judaism presents quite a few problems, including Yair Lapid's reaction to such a move. Although Lapid's goal is to remove Netanyahu as prime minister, that, too, comes at a price he would find difficult to pay. "Lapid is characterized by a highly critical stance toward the haredim. The question is whether something like this can be formed and how long it would last."
On the other hand, Diskin notes, Bennett, Lapid and Liberman are strongly motivated to become prime minister themselves, and a rotation agreement always remains a significant incentive that could persuade them to switch sides. Asked whether one of the three would indeed agree to switch sides and join Netanyahu in exchange for a rotation agreement, Professor Diskin remarks, "When someone says they would under no circumstances do something, it means they have considered the option..."
"If any of these three possibilities materializes, it will be a short-lived coalition that will not benefit the people of Israel either. We must remember that we are fighting for our lives on two fronts: the international front, led by Iran, and the front of polarization. In such a situation, forming a government on shaky foundations is not advisable."
Given this, Professor Diskin believes there is no choice but to pursue the additional option: "There is another possibility that also involves headaches, stomachaches and heartache: cooperation between Netanyahu and Eisenkot".
To advance such a possibility, Netanyahu would have to offer incentives to Eisenkot and his supporters, particularly given the distrust Netanyahu faces from both friends and rivals. "When people do not believe you, you are not in a good position in terms of alternatives. He needs to entice Eisenkot and also convince Eisenkot's supporters, including those who supported him financially and put him at Kaplan. The incentives could take various forms, and Netanyahu has the means to offer them."
Conversely, Diskin adds, if Netanyahu insists on taking a hard line, this could lead to an 'anyone but Bibi' government that would soon lead to another election.
Regarding the unity option, we asked Professor Diskin whether there was any chance Netanyahu would agree to Eisenkot's stipulation that Eisenkot head the unity government for the next government's entire four-year term. "There is no chance Netanyahu and his supporters would agree to that. There is a limit to concessions," Diskin says, convinced that such an alternative will not materialize.
However, the possibility of Eisenkot serving as prime minister for the first two years does exist, particularly since Netanyahu himself agreed to it in principle in the past, although the terms of the rotation would be a significant factor in such a case.
We also asked Professor Diskin whether Netanyahu could serve as a minister at all while legal proceedings against him were ongoing. Does the law not prohibit a minister from serving under such circumstances? He says this question could be resolved between the Supreme Court and the Attorney General, who, in his assessment, "will always do the opposite of what should be done," but the option certainly exists.
"There is no such thing as him being unable to serve as a minister. I have read the law. He can only be barred from serving as a minister once there is a final conviction involving moral turpitude," Diskin says, recalling Aharon Barak's directive as attorney general to the Rabin government in 1993, requiring the dismissal of ministers who had been indicted, which Diskin says had no basis in law.
Diskin considers it a foolish decision and says it also barred Rabin from being represented in court. He says it later became clear that the decision did not comply with the law, but the Supreme Court president ruled that it was the binding precedent; Diskin maintains that the precedent contradicts the law. "If the court rules contrary to the law, then let us cancel the elections and have Gil Limon, Miara and Amit decide for us together with Ahmad Tibi..."