Connect with us

Middle East

Likud weighs rotation premiership between Netanyahu and Eisenkot

Published

on

Officials within the Likud party and Benjamin Netanyahu’s inner circle are analysing a scenario in which the formation of a narrow coalition proves impossible and the political system enters a deadlock.

According to a report in The Jerusalem Post, one option being discussed by Likud officials in such a scenario is a broad coalition government featuring a rotation of the premiership between Netanyahu and Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot.

At this stage, the primary question occupying analysts is what Netanyahu could offer to persuade Eisenkot to establish a rotation government with him, and how he could convince him that the rotation agreement would be honoured this time, following the precedent set during the Netanyahu-Benny Gantz government.

Among the possibilities raised in Likud’s closed-door discussions is nominating Netanyahu for the presidency in the future.

This would create both an agreed political exit route for Netanyahu and a political guarantee that the premiership would ultimately pass to Eisenkot.

At this stage, these discussions represent strategic assessments and scenario analyses surrounding Netanyahu’s “broad coalition” campaign ahead of the elections.

Likud officials believe that Netanyahu could conclude the election without reaching 61 seats, but they also rely on the likelihood that the opposition bloc will lack sufficient seats to form a government.

If neither side can form a coalition, officials anticipate that pressure to avert a new election could bring the possibility of a unity government back to the agenda.

Eisenkot is viewed as one of the primary potential partners for such a move, provided he enters the election at the head of a major force within the anti-Netanyahu bloc.

According to the scenario discussed in Likud, one potential arrangement would involve Netanyahu assuming the premiership first under the rotation framework and subsequently handing the post over to Eisenkot.

However, the most obvious obstacle to such a step is the crisis of confidence caused by the rotation government established with Gantz in 2020.

Eisenkot would require a mechanism ensuring that he does not find himself in the identical position Gantz occupied at that time: namely, becoming a partner in a rotation government agreement that was never implemented.

In this context, the possibility of the presidency is also raised in the discussions. Under this scenario, the date of the leadership handover could be tied to Netanyahu moving to the President’s Residence following the conclusion of Isaac Herzog’s term in office.

Those raising this possibility believe such a step could offer Netanyahu an agreed political destination after the end of his term as prime minister, whilst simultaneously providing Eisenkot with greater confidence that the rotation will take place.

Even within Likud, officials emphasise that the presidency scenario remains far from a finalised plan, with some describing it as a remote possibility.

Nevertheless, the matter is already being discussed as part of efforts to find a mechanism capable of overcoming the trust deficit.

According to an assessment voiced within Likud, if the presidency scenario arises in the future, Netanyahu’s criminal trial would need to be concluded.

From a legal perspective, the argument in these discussions is that no automatic legal barrier prevents an individual standing trial from running for the presidency.

The real complexity would lie in the public and political dimensions.

Proponents of this scenario believe that it would also be possible to present such a step to the public as part of a broader arrangement that would end Netanyahu’s premiership and enable the formation of a stable government.

This discussion also explains the line Netanyahu has advocated in recent weeks regarding the necessity of establishing a “broad government”.

Likud officials assess that Netanyahu understands a 61-seat right-wing government is not a guaranteed outcome, and therefore believes it is important to prepare the public and political ground in advance for the possibility of incorporating figures from the opposition camp into the government after the elections.

If the results show that neither bloc holds a majority, Netanyahu could argue that voters did not deliver a decisive victory to either side, and that under these conditions there is no justification for excluding a large segment of the public from the government.

However, the Gantz precedent will remain at the heart of all future discussions. Likud officials are aware that Netanyahu’s political promise alone will not suffice.

For this reason, alongside the presidency concept, more practical mechanisms are being examined in political discussions: commitments regarding the budget and no-confidence votes, legal mechanisms designed to make breaching the agreement difficult, and even the possibility of depositing a letter of resignation with a trustee that would take effect should Netanyahu fail to fulfil his commitments.

Likud officials also point to a fundamental difference between such a scenario and the Netanyahu-Gantz government.

If election results do not provide Netanyahu with an independent majority and he must rely on Eisenkot to keep the government afloat, this dependency would itself become another component of the guarantee system.

Unlike a situation where the partnership could be dissolved and an alternative coalition formed, a breach of the agreement in this scenario could lead to the collapse of the entire government. The number of seats Likud secures will also prove decisive.

In light of current expectations, Likud officials estimate that winning more than 25 to 26 seats would be presented as a success, allowing Netanyahu to argue that he remains the leader of a major political camp that cannot be ignored when forming a government.

Conversely, a significantly weaker result would undermine his ability to demand the first turn in the rotation and shift the balance of power in future negotiations.

Middle East

Eisenkot ties Syria pact to withdrawal of Russian and Turkish forces

Published

on

Gadi Eisenkot, Benjamin Netanyahu’s fiercest challenger in this month’s elections, has conditioned any agreement with Syria on the complete withdrawal of Turkish and Russian forces.

In an extensive interview with The Times of Israel (ToI), the leader of the Yashar Party and former chief of staff said it was necessary to take advantage of the “fluid situation” in Syria.

Contending that Syria’s transitional leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is “originally a very extreme person, an ISIS member,” Eisenkot remarked: “I have no illusions about him; together with the Americans operating in Syria, I killed many people from his organisation.”

Nevertheless, the opposition leader emphasised that a crucial question must be posed:

“Is there an opportunity to take the 1974 Kissinger interim agreements and significantly upgrade them, with tight security arrangements that will ultimately bring about the withdrawal of foreign forces from Syria?”

Asked by the reporter whether this included Israel withdrawing from Mount Hermon and key strategic positions in Syria, Eisenkot replied:

“The fundamental condition is the complete expulsion of the Turks and the Russians from the area. As for Mount Hermon and the relevant security arrangements, these must be negotiated.”

Arguing that Israel must speak from a “position of strength” backed by “unshakeable American guarantees,” Eisenkot added: “There must be an American protective umbrella, oversight, and commitment that will enable Israel to take calculated risks.”

Pointing to the “extremely problematic situation” created by Netanyahu over the past three years, the Yashar leader described it as an “ever-widening and dangerous gap between American interests in the Middle East and Israel’s interests.”

Noting that Israel shares “deep common interests” with the US, Eisenkot listed them as: “maintaining stability in the Middle East, strengthening the moderate Sunni camp, weakening the radical Shiite axis, weakening the fundamentalist Sunni axis, and subsequently achieving economic prosperity in the region.”

Stating that a “strong Israel as a strategic asset” for the Middle East is also an asset for the US, the Israeli politician emphasised his support for moving towards the establishment of a “NATO of Sunni states.” He stressed that Israel could make major contributions in early-warning intelligence and defence systems, adding:

“We have proven this capability. Today, there are Arab countries in the Gulf that quietly receive Israeli protection. I also connect this to the broader peace effort that Israeli leaders have unfortunately stopped talking about. We want peace.”

Within this framework, Eisenkot noted the necessity of strengthening already signed peace treaties: “These must never be taken for granted, as there is also deep concern that these agreements could slide backwards. Therefore, we must strengthen our relations with Egypt, Jordan, and the signatory countries of the Abraham Accords, and actively involve other countries in the process. I believe there may also be an opportunity regarding Lebanon.”

Contending that Netanyahu’s “blatant foolishness and dreadful political-strategic judgment” had dragged Israel to rock bottom, the opposition leader pointed out that 12 countries are currently waiting to impose sanctions on Israel.

“Even the Americans have begun considering the possibility of imposing sanctions on official Israeli actors in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank],” Eisenkot said.

Noting that the steps he would take in the West Bank would not be a political gesture aimed at bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords, but would be done “entirely in Israel’s interests,” Eisenkot said he would improve security conditions in the region, prevent the burning of Palestinian homes and villages by extremist Jewish settlers, and intervene with an “iron fist” against anyone acting outside the law.

“That is exactly how I acted throughout my military service. [Those attacks] did not happen when I was Chief of Staff,” Eisenkot said, referring to assaults by illegal Jewish settlers on Palestinian villages in the West Bank.

The Yashar leader argued that anyone seeking to establish full sovereignty over the West Bank and incorporate another 2.8 million Palestinians into Israel is “endangering the Zionist project and the Jewish demographic majority.”

Addressing Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul, Eisenkot said: “Anyone who seeks to weaken the Supreme Court and crush the judiciary is endangering democracy.”

Accusing Netanyahu of desiring “endless wars,” the opposition leader said: “We will change this through a rational government. Netanyahu’s government is pursuing an entirely irrational policy: it incites conflict solely to consolidate its domestic political base. For this single purpose, it clashes with everyone.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

CIA report warns Israel faces growing risk of civil conflict

Published

on

Deepening political fractures, economic strains, and societal fault lines in Israel are confronting the country with the potential for civil conflict and the breakdown of state mechanisms.

According to a report by Drop Site News citing two US sources, these findings are detailed in a classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment drafted in August.

The report by Aída Chávez notes that the assessment, titled “Fracturing from Within”, was authored by experts within the CIA’s Red Cell unit, which is tasked with examining alternative and contrarian scenarios.

The CIA declined to answer questions regarding the assessment, which was compiled by combining open-source data with US intelligence holdings.

The report emphasises that the assessment focuses solely on Israel’s Jewish population, excluding from its analysis the country’s Palestinian citizens, who make up approximately 20% of the population.

It notes that Amnesty International and various human rights organisations characterise the practices endured by this segment of the population as part of a broad apartheid system.

The report outlines multilayered risks accumulating across the country ahead of the 27 October elections.

These factors include economic bottlenecks fuelled by surging military expenditures, heavily armed soldiers returning from protracted combat with severe psychological trauma, escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank, and a constitutional crisis sparked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to retain power.

Speaking to Drop Site News, an intelligence source pointed out that the team responsible for the report comprises experts deeply familiar with the Israeli landscape, stating: “This is not an imaginary ‘what if’ scenario. Considering the upcoming elections and divisions in Israel, we must take seriously its findings that the country is only one spark away from real civil conflict.”

One of the sharpest points of tension in Israeli domestic politics involves mandatory military service exemptions granted to ultra-Orthodox men. The divide is widening between the ultra-Orthodox community, which continues to receive state subsidies while enjoying sweeping draft exemptions, and reservists being repeatedly mobilised to the front lines.

The rationale cited by religious leaders for rejecting military service is not opposition to war, but the argument that Torah study and religious life would be threatened.

A deteriorating economic landscape is also aggravating pressure on households. According to data, basic food prices, including fresh fruits and vegetables, have surged by 9.5% over the past two years, reaching record highs.

The report states that the majority of domestic opposition to Netanyahu focuses not on violence directed against Palestinians, but on how these policies are executed and on the security failures of 7 October.

Major Zionist parties remain divided over coalition strategies, while opinion polls indicate that neither the governing nor the opposition blocs can attain the 61-seat majority required to form a government.

Recalling historical eras in which traumatised, armed veterans coincided with intense political division, one consulted source cited the Freikorps units in post-First World War Germany.

The source remarked that while modern Israel is not identical to interwar Germany, certain parallels can be observed.

The CIA assessment also considers Israel’s mounting international isolation and the erosion of US support as factors that could accelerate collapse dynamics.

Israeli officials are reported to be concerned that reliance on billions of dollars in direct US military aid may prove unsustainable amid weakening political consensus.

Spring data from the Pew Research Center indicates that 60% of Americans view Israel unfavourably, up from 53% a year earlier.

The report projects that foreign technology and artificial intelligence investments could be withdrawn if the domestic crisis deepens. It underscores that such an outcome would further destabilise under-pressure economic fundamentals.

Additionally, regional countries could question the strategic value of normalisation processes, while Hamas or Hezbollah might exploit internal vulnerabilities within the country.

Intelligence sources emphasise that the assessment deliberately adopted the term “civil conflict”, warning that the compounding array of domestic pressures may ultimately prove impossible to contain through military means.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt

Published

on

The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.

The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.

Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.

A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.

Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.

A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”

This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.

An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”

The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”

“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.

The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.

The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.

A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.

In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.

The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.

Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.

Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.

In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.

Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.

This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey