Transcript [00:02] Welcome to Waiting for 61, JTA's Israel [00:05] election podcast, where we break down [00:06] the fundamentals of Israel's 2026 [00:08] elections, the politics to fire, and [00:11] what's at stake as each side scrambles [00:13] to put together a government. I'm Ami [00:15] Eden, CEO and executive editor of 70 [00:17] Faces Media, the organization behind the [00:19] Jewish car guy in the news and [00:22] >> And I'm Ruth Eglash, JTA's [music] [00:23] senior Israel correspondent. And today [00:26] it's been a week since the elections [00:28] [music] [00:28] here, and there's still no sign of 61. [00:31] >> Remember to send your questions to [00:33] waiting for 61 at jta.org. And if you're [00:36] enjoying Waiting for 61, please [00:38] subscribe and give us a five-star [00:39] [music] rating wherever you listen to [00:41] your podcast. [00:42] Okay, let's get into it. Ruth, [00:45] you mentioned there's still no sign of [00:47] 61. [00:49] But but [00:51] there's a new idea [00:53] that we wanted to talk about today that [00:54] might reframe the you know, reframe the [00:57] question about 61. And I'm even nervous [01:00] if it catches on, we might have to [01:01] change the name of the podcast, but [01:03] we'll we'll get to that later. So, why [01:05] don't you [01:06] get us started talking about [01:08] this new idea. [01:11] >> Yeah, so I mean, I you know, I've been [01:13] reading everything and looking into [01:15] everything, and while I've been writing [01:16] some of the stories for JTA, and I came [01:19] across this in really interesting [01:21] column. Um you know, as a very creative [01:24] person myself, I'm always looking for [01:26] creative ideas, ideas that that think [01:28] outside the box. And I came across a a [01:31] column in Ynet, uh which is an Israeli [01:34] uh news website, by uh Dr. Matan Gutman, [01:39] who's an expert in constitutional law at [01:41] at Reichman University and a legal [01:44] commentator for Ynet. [01:46] And he talks about the fact that [01:50] setting up a government or running the [01:53] country, you don't even need that 61. He [01:56] says [01:57] in his column, and we'll link to his [01:59] column in the show notes. But basically [02:02] he says that the basic law in Israel, [02:05] and I just take one step back on that [02:07] Ami, because Israel does not have a [02:09] constitution, a written constitution [02:12] like in the United States. It's not all [02:13] laid out very neatly with amendments and [02:17] you can just go and look it up and say, [02:18] "Okay, what's the constitution?" [02:20] Israel's constitution is a set of basic [02:22] laws and then on top of that the laws [02:25] that are passed by the Knesset which can [02:27] be changed [02:29] with a simple majority. And precedents [02:32] in the legal system. So it's kind of a [02:35] mishmash. Um but he says according to [02:38] the basic laws of Israel you do not need [02:41] to have blocks. And I've been thinking [02:43] for a long time anyway that the blocks [02:45] seem kind of superficial. That when [02:49] they talk about a right-wing block or a [02:50] left-wing block. Yes, Netanyahu's block [02:53] is a nice neat right-wing block, but the [02:55] opposition block is not then a left-wing [02:58] block. It's kind of a mix of different [03:01] parties. You have some parties that are [03:02] more right-wing than Likud. You have [03:04] some parties that are left and you have [03:07] some parties in the center. Even [03:09] Eisenkot's party itself is not so [03:11] different from Likud, Netanyahu's party. [03:15] So he talks about how you don't need [03:17] these blocks. And he also talks about [03:19] how setting up a government you don't [03:21] have to have these coalition agreements. [03:24] And in his theory building on top of [03:26] that he talks about how it's very [03:29] possible that Gadi Eisenkot who looks [03:32] like he's going to get the majority of [03:34] recommendations [03:36] when the parties meet with the president [03:38] later this week [03:40] that he might try something out of the [03:43] box that hasn't been done before to set [03:45] up a government without the majority. A [03:48] functional government that will get the [03:50] votes because the Knesset needs to say, [03:54] "Okay, we're going to vote on this [03:55] government." But will not have a [03:56] majority. And in the meantime he can [03:59] work on passing We talked about this [04:02] yesterday, passing certain laws, putting [04:04] a Knesset speaker in into the into the [04:07] chair and passing these laws and these, [04:11] you know, different things that he wants [04:12] to take care of. [04:14] >> So, [04:15] the professor's theory is step one, [04:17] Eisenkot [04:19] gets handed the mandate to form a [04:21] government from President Herzog, right? [04:24] You mentioned President Herzog is going [04:25] to meet with each of the parties, [04:26] they're each going to [04:28] recommend who the [04:30] um Prime Minister should be. Let's [04:32] assume for the sake of argument [04:34] Eisenkot gets the most recommendations [04:36] and the president hands him [04:39] the baton and says, you go form a [04:41] government. [04:43] Then, and this is, you know, where it [04:44] starts to veer into new territory, [04:47] normally, Eisenkot would go and you [04:49] would negotiate a coalition to get 60 [04:52] with that has at least 61 seats that he [04:54] would bring to the Knesset and the [04:55] Knesset would presumably vote and he [04:58] would get [04:59] a majority of the votes [05:01] uh for his government. But now, the [05:03] professor is saying, Eisenkot should [05:05] simply announce [05:07] that he has a government and bring it to [05:08] the Knesset to the vote. [05:10] But the the wrinkle is, he would not [05:12] have a coalition. He would just take his [05:15] party, [05:16] put his party in all the ministries, [05:18] and then he'd go to the Knesset and say, [05:21] I have a government. If you want to join [05:24] the government later, we'll we'll [05:25] absolutely have some ministries for you, [05:27] but right now, I'm standing before you [05:29] the Knesset saying, here's my [05:31] government, here's my ministers, [05:33] here's our principles, [05:35] including [05:36] moving Netanyahu out of office, [05:39] take it or leave it, right? Vote on it. [05:42] And this is, you know, as the professor, [05:44] now you have a big game of chicken [05:45] because [05:47] all of those anti-Netanyahu parties are [05:50] going to have a big dilemma on their [05:52] hands if he does that, right? Do they [05:55] say, well, we didn't get what we wanted [05:57] and, you know, we didn't get any [05:58] promises, [06:00] so we're not going to vote, but then [06:02] good luck if If another round of [06:03] elections, how are you going to go to [06:05] all your voters and say, "Well, [06:07] uh we could have had Netanyahu out, but [06:09] we decided not to." Or, do you vote for [06:13] the Eisenkot [06:15] Yashar government [06:16] just on the principles that they're [06:18] presenting and the fact that you'd be [06:19] replacing Netanyahu? And the professor's [06:21] point is [06:23] you don't actually even need 61 votes [06:27] to push to approve that. You just need a [06:29] majority. So, a bunch of the parties [06:32] could even sit the vote out. It's just [06:34] as long as if Eisenkot brings that [06:35] government and he gets the most votes. [06:39] The other wrinkle to this [06:41] um that the the professor noted is that [06:44] you have all these parties who have [06:45] said, "We won't sit with these people. [06:47] We won't sit with these people in a [06:48] coalition." [06:50] The brilliance or the [06:52] sneakiness, however you want to see it, [06:53] of this of this [06:56] plan [06:57] is that [06:58] you can vote for this Eisenkot [07:01] government, which doesn't have any [07:03] Haredim in it, any Arab parties in it, [07:07] Netanyahu in it. You're just voting for [07:09] his party [07:10] to run the government. And so, if I'm, [07:13] you know, we talked yesterday, Avigdor [07:14] Lieberman says he's going to recommend [07:16] Eisenkot, but he doesn't want to sit [07:19] with Arab parties still, or he won't [07:21] want to sit with Haredi parties, he can [07:24] vote for Eisenkot [07:27] and and say he was true. Same thing with [07:29] Bennett and Lapid. They they've talked [07:31] about not sitting with Arab parties. [07:32] They could vote for this Eisenkot Yashar [07:35] government and then they've stayed true. [07:38] So, it's actually quite interesting. I [07:39] mean, I think one of the big questions, [07:41] which he tried to, you know, [07:43] preemptively address, is even if you [07:45] were to pass this [07:47] government through this new approach, [07:50] how stable would that government really [07:52] be? Like, would it, you know, we we saw [07:54] in the last change block they brought in [07:56] Ra'am and in the Arab parties, and it [07:57] did you know, it fell apart within a [08:00] year and a half. [08:01] >> Part of me thinks [08:03] actually it's kind of smart because it [08:05] gives the like you said, the parties can [08:08] stick to their promises and one of all [08:10] of them all the opposition parties their [08:12] main promise was that they would replace [08:14] Netanyahu. So they're doing that, but [08:17] they're not breaking their other [08:18] promises by sitting with X, Y, and Z who [08:20] they said they wouldn't sit with. So, [08:22] you know, in a way it kind of helps [08:24] everyone save face, but on the other [08:26] hand, you know, I mean, I think everyone [08:28] in Israel is in agreement that with this [08:30] system now or the way the way things [08:33] stand now in the political system [08:35] there's going to be another election at [08:37] some point in the next year. It might [08:38] come sooner, it might come later, but [08:40] it's probably going to be sometime in [08:41] 2027. [08:43] So, you know, this at least kind of [08:45] tries something different out. It saves [08:47] everyone from going to another election [08:49] like you said, it gets Netanyahu out of [08:51] the hot seat and it tries something and [08:54] if it works, then those parties that [08:56] were adamant about not joining [08:59] Eisenkot because of whatever, they could [09:01] say, "You know what? We see this is [09:03] working now. [09:04] And we've made a decision we're going to [09:06] join it. We're going to take the you [09:08] know, defense ministry or the the social [09:11] welfare ministry and we're going to [09:12] we're going to work on the issues that [09:14] our our voters that our people need to [09:17] dealing with." [09:18] >> I think one of the things that would [09:20] actually make this really interesting if [09:22] if I if I were Gadi Eisenkot or his [09:25] political, you know, advisors is that he [09:29] ran his whole idea was that he is not [09:32] really a politician. He's you know, I [09:35] mean [09:36] in the name of his party we talked about [09:37] it Yasha is straight. This idea that [09:40] he's not so charismatic, [09:42] but everybody thinks of him as [09:45] relatively salt of the earth. He's you [09:48] know, somebody you can trust. So there's [09:50] also something very in line with his [09:52] campaign, you know, if he gets up there [09:54] and he says, "Hey, this is what we [09:57] represent. I'm not sitting here [09:59] bargaining, bribing this party or that [10:02] party or whatever. I'm just saying this [10:04] is what we believe. [10:05] Are you Are you for it or against it? [10:07] Let's take a vote." And it it would [10:09] certainly [10:11] reinforce the the image that he's trying [10:13] to put out there that he's [10:16] not going to play the same old politics [10:18] game. [10:19] >> No, definitely. I mean, he I mean, we [10:21] talked yesterday. I mentioned his [10:24] his statements over the weekend where he [10:26] talked about, you know, he put out the [10:28] statement and he says, "I'm sticking to [10:30] these points and this is this is the [10:32] kind of government I want to set up. You [10:34] can join me if you want. You don't have [10:35] to, but this is what I'm going to do." [10:37] And he also talked about how he's going [10:39] to move forward with the things that he [10:40] promised, which was setting up a [10:42] commission of inquiry into October 7th. [10:44] It's setting in into law a draft [10:48] bill or draft law for the ultra-Orthodox [10:51] dealing with the with the judicial [10:53] reform or revoking some of the laws of [10:56] the judicial reform that were passed. [10:58] So, he he's definitely trying to create [11:01] a work plan and move forward with that. [11:04] And this way, this this outline that [11:08] that Dr. Goodman has laid out actually [11:12] is a pathway for him to do those things. [11:15] Whether it will happen is anybody's [11:17] guess, you know, Israeli politics is not [11:20] one of those things that you can [11:21] predict. Maybe someone will come up with [11:23] an even even more uh [11:26] unthought-of or unheard-of idea to [11:29] cobble together. I mean, you know, I [11:31] think we also talked about this before. [11:33] Before 2019, [11:36] who would have ever thought that Israel [11:37] would would just go from one election to [11:40] another election to another election, [11:42] you know, just [11:44] keep on going [11:45] for four five four or five elections. [11:48] Who would have thought that? Who would [11:49] have thought that an Arab party, we've [11:50] talked about this, too, would would join [11:52] an Israeli government. That was never [11:54] done before, but it happened in 2021. [11:56] So, there's always going to be a lot of [11:57] surprises. There's always going to be [11:59] expect the unexpected. That's what I say [12:01] about Israeli politics. [12:03] >> I think to just pick up on something you [12:05] mentioned about that the number of [12:07] elections that have been since 2019. It [12:09] is five, six, whatever. it's insane. [12:11] Like, imagine from an American [12:13] perspective, we're going to the polls, [12:14] right? Like, everybody's voting today. [12:16] And imagine if it was over, it was like [12:19] there was a chance that 5 months from [12:21] now we'd have to have a a redo [12:23] of the midterm elections. I mean, it's [12:25] crazy. And so, I think this idea that is [12:28] really is [12:30] the Israeli public does not want to keep [12:32] having elections is something that could [12:34] very well inform whether it's this [12:36] approach or some other creative approach [12:38] to get out of the logjam because it's [12:39] not as if [12:41] it's not as if if everybody goes to the [12:42] polls again in a few months, that [12:45] there's any reason to believe [12:47] that the results are going to be [12:49] radically different. And [12:52] so, what are they going to just keep [12:54] doing again and again? And I think [12:55] people are also talking about the [12:56] turnout for this election was very, very [12:58] high. [12:59] So, and that, you know, I think the [13:00] president's talked about that, where [13:02] like you had such a high turnout, we [13:04] should [13:06] get to a solution now, which is [13:07] reflecting the, you know, the highest, [13:10] widest will of the people. So, it it [13:12] feels like, again, I [13:15] I I wouldn't bet on this happening, but [13:17] I do feel like it's [13:19] it's tapping into something that I think [13:21] is out there that that all these parties [13:23] is going to be a lot of pressure on them [13:25] both from the president [13:27] I suspect also from the public mood to [13:29] come up with some [13:32] approach. Now, I just said all that [13:33] sitting in America. Do you [13:35] Am I right about the vibe, like, that [13:37] people are just like, we do not want to [13:39] keep having elections? [13:42] >> I think people, yeah, people are just [13:43] tired of it. But But I think you're also [13:45] right in what you said, that even if [13:46] there is another election in in 6 months [13:49] from now, and the results are going to [13:51] be the same unless something big shifts [13:55] something inside the political system. [13:57] And people are just like, you know, [13:59] getting fed up. [14:00] >> I'll say one last I've got to get up on [14:01] my soapbox and make one more comment [14:03] about some solution like this, which is [14:06] from afar, I've seen two very different [14:09] stories unfolding in Israel, which I [14:10] really think are the same story. [14:12] One is the push to try to get legal [14:15] reform. You know, the revamp of the [14:18] court that that we could block is really [14:20] like pushing through [14:22] against the will of a large segment of [14:24] the country, right? Like making a [14:25] massive change to the system simply [14:27] because they have control of the [14:28] government. Meanwhile, you have [14:31] the arrangement where the Haredim were [14:33] not drafted, which is basically as old [14:35] as the country itself. And you have this [14:38] new block that wants to take control of [14:40] the government and basically push a [14:42] change through. Each case you're talking [14:44] about monumental changes to the system [14:47] that would be defined by one side simply [14:50] grabbing control of the government and [14:51] pushing it through. [14:53] In a situation where the Knesset is sort [14:55] of more free-flowing and open, [14:58] it actually could create a different [15:00] kind of dynamic, which would be a little [15:02] bit more of like a US [15:04] Congress situation where instead of one [15:07] government imposing a solution on the [15:09] other half, you have all the lawmakers [15:12] in the Knesset who can presumably be [15:14] sitting at the table [15:16] in a negotiation around these very [15:19] massive [15:21] pieces of legislation that are going to [15:23] really change some of the fundamental [15:24] structure of the country. So, I I would [15:27] just say, as a matter of principle, it's [15:29] not a bad thing when you have to make [15:31] massive social change if you can bring [15:33] all sides to a table [15:36] and negotiate and come up with some new [15:38] type of compromise rather than one side [15:40] pushing their vision on the other. [15:43] But again, I I don't I don't want to get [15:44] all Pollyanna shouldn't Whatever, but it [15:47] it's it is something that feels like [15:49] would be a silver lining or a positive [15:51] of some sort of approach that [15:54] put put a government in place, whether [15:55] it's Bibi staying on or Eisenkot staying [15:58] on, but created some fluidity about how [16:01] these key issues were tackled rather [16:04] than one side just [16:06] pushing through against the other. [16:08] Okay, uh that's enough soapboxing for [16:11] me. Uh that's it for today. Thank you to [16:13] our producer Maya Rackoff. Please make [16:15] sure to join us tomorrow for the next [16:17] episode of waiting for 61 and don't [16:19] forget to send your questions into [16:20] waiting for 61@jta.org. [16:23] And if you're enjoying waiting for 61, [16:25] please subscribe and give us a five-star [16:27] rating wherever you listen to your [16:29] podcasts. [16:37] >> [music]
