Government formation and parliamentary priorities
Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of Yashar! with Eisenkot, met former Prime Minister Yair Lapid to coordinate ahead of presidential consultations expected this week.
Eisenkot claimed a majority had voted against the October 7 government and draft evasion, by more than half a million votes, including a majority among the Zionist public that serves the country. He pledged national reconciliation and an end to what he described as Netanyahu’s divisive culture of lies.
Eisenkot proposed using what he called a clear parliamentary majority to establish a state commission of inquiry, advance universal service, strengthen IDF personnel, reward those who serve and repeal judicial-overhaul laws. He emphasized that the Knesset grants confidence to the government.
His proposed broad government would require partners to recognize Israel as Jewish, democratic, liberal and egalitarian; uphold the Declaration of Independence; support mandatory military, national or civilian service for every citizen; and recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization whose military and governing power in Gaza must be destroyed.
Any Knesset member accepting these principles could join. Amit Segal noted that Eisenkot did not categorically exclude Netanyahu, leaving the omission’s significance unresolved.
Citing the October 7 failure and Israel’s subsequent challenges, Eisenkot urged rapid decisions to avoid another election and prolonged crisis. He said the war’s objectives remained unfulfilled, but until a new government took office, he would support operations only against direct and immediate threats that could not wait.
Lapid offered no guarantees of forming a government but said negotiations were underway behind the public silence.
Ahmad Tibi pledged support for replacing the Knesset speaker. He promised not to support Likud-initiated no-confidence motions or initiate legislation dissolving the Knesset. Avigdor Lieberman ruled out becoming speaker.
Yashar! claimed approaches from ministers, legislators and other political figures reflected concern about losing.
Segal’s assessment of coalition maneuvering and voters
Segal argued that speculation about an Eisenkot partnership with United Torah Judaism helped the ultra-Orthodox parties rebuild legitimacy after being made scapegoats, potentially easing a future Likud partnership.
He criticized Drucker and his associates for promoting what he saw as capitulation without recognizing the maneuver, and questioned whether Eisenkot understood the risk, comparing it to tactics used against Tzipi Livni in 2009.
Segal portrayed the election as exposing overconfidence and fragmentation on the right. He cited an unfulfilled claim that President Trump would call Rabbi Tau to seek Noam’s withdrawal for Netanyahu. Noam lost its seat with only a few thousand votes.
He described approximately 100,000 votes for Ofer Winter, mostly from former Ayelet Shaked voters, as wasted and unlikely to produce representation.
He blamed Ben-Gvir’s confrontation with Netanyahu on arrogance that undermined his double-digit-seat ambitions, predicting neither Ben-Gvir nor Tally Gotliv would become defense or justice minister, respectively.
Segal credited predominantly traditional and Mizrahi Likud voters with consolidating their votes and determining the outcome. He asserted their children constitute most of the IDF.
He argued that dismissing them as “Bibi-ists,” limited media representation and poor understanding of their priorities contributed to polling failures, including forecasts of 18 Likud seats and election-night exit polls.
He contrasted their cohesion with smaller Religious Zionist parties’ divisions and warned against assuming ethnicity alone would draw them to a rival.
