In Likud and among Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s associates, officials are already analyzing the scenario that could emerge the day after the election, where neither bloc secures 61 seats, no narrow government is possible, and the political system reaches a deadlock.
Under such a scenario, one option being discussed by Likud officials is a broad government with a rotation between Netanyahu and Yashar party head Gadi Eisenkot.
The main question occupying them at this stage is what Netanyahu could offer Eisenkot to convince him to join a rotation government with him, and how he could persuade him that the rotation agreement would be honored this time, following the precedent of the Netanyahu-Benny Gantz government.
Among the possibilities being raised in closed Likud discussions is advancing Netanyahu toward the presidency in the future, creating both an agreed political exit path for him and a political guarantee that the premiership would eventually pass to Eisenkot.
At this stage, these are strategic assessments and scenario analysis surrounding Netanyahu’s “broad government” campaign ahead of the election.
The premise behind the scenario is straightforward: Likud officials believe Netanyahu could finish the election without 61 seats, but they are also counting on the possibility that the opposing bloc will not have enough seats to form a government. If both sides remain unable to build a coalition, officials estimate that pressure to avoid another election could reopen the possibility of a unity government.
Netanyahu would serve first, then transition to presidential role
Eisenkot, if he enters the election leading a large force in the anti-Netanyahu bloc, is viewed as one of the main potential partners for such a move. According to the scenario being discussed in Likud, one possibility is that Netanyahu would serve first in the rotation, before later transferring the premiership to Eisenkot.
However, the obvious obstacle to such a move is the crisis of trust created by the rotation government with Gantz in 2020. Eisenkot would need a mechanism to ensure he does not find himself in the same position Gantz held at the time: a partner in a rotation agreement that was never implemented.
Against this backdrop, the possibility of the presidency is also being raised in discussions. According to the scenario, the date of the leadership transition could be linked to Netanyahu’s future move to the President’s Residence after Isaac Herzog’s term ends.
Those raising the possibility believe such a move could give Netanyahu an agreed political destination after ending his term as prime minister, while also giving Eisenkot greater confidence that the rotation would take place.
Even within Likud, officials stress that the presidential scenario is far from being a finalized plan, and some describe it as a remote possibility. However, it is already being discussed as part of an effort to find a mechanism that could overcome the trust issue.
According to one assessment being voiced in Likud, if the presidential scenario becomes relevant in the future, Netanyahu’s criminal trial would need to be resolved. From a legal standpoint, the argument in these discussions is that no automatic legal obstacle prevents a person facing trial from running for president; the more complex issue would be public and political.
Those raising the scenario believe that as part of a broader deal that would end Netanyahu’s term as prime minister and allow for the establishment of a stable government, it would also be possible to present such a move to the public.
Netanyahu calls for 'broad gov't'
The discussion also explains the line Netanyahu has promoted in recent weeks regarding the need for a “broad government.”
Likud officials estimate that Netanyahu understands that a 61-seat right-wing government is not a guaranteed outcome, and therefore believes it is important to prepare in advance a public and political foundation for the possibility of bringing figures from the opposing camp into the government after the election.
If the results show that neither bloc has a majority, Netanyahu would be able to argue that voters did not give either side a decisive victory and that, under such circumstances, there is no justification for leaving a large segment of the public outside the government.
The Gantz precedent, however, will remain central to any future discussions. Likud officials understand that Netanyahu's political promise alone will not be enough.
Therefore, alongside the presidential idea, more practical mechanisms are also being examined in political discussions: commitments regarding the budget and no-confidence votes, legal mechanisms that would make it harder to violate the agreement, and even the possibility of depositing a resignation letter with a trustee, which would be activated if Netanyahu fails to uphold his commitments.
Likud officials also point to a fundamental difference between such a scenario and the Netanyahu-Gantz government.
If the election results leave Netanyahu without an independent majority and force him to rely on Eisenkot to maintain the government, that dependence itself would become another element of the guarantees system.
Unlike a situation in which the partnership could be dismantled and an alternative coalition formed, a breach of the agreement in this scenario could bring down the entire government. The number of seats Likud wins would also be decisive.
Likud officials estimate that, given current expectations, a result of more than 25-26 seats for Netanyahu would be presented as an achievement that would allow him to argue he remains the leader of a large political camp that cannot be ignored when forming a government.
By contrast, a significantly weaker result would damage his ability to demand the first turn in the rotation and would alter the balance of power in any future negotiations.