Netanyahu may seek broad national government after election, sources in Ben-Gvir's camp believe

Sources close to Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben-Gvir believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already made a preliminary decision to try to form a broad national government after the election, even at the cost of leaving Ben-Gvir outside the coalition.

According to sources familiar with discussions in Ben-Gvir’s circle, Netanyahu’s change in messaging, from the “full, full right-wing government” slogan used in previous elections to the current emphasis on a “broad national government,” is seen as a sign that he is seeking to move in a more statesmanlike and centrist direction this time.

The sources claim that Ben-Gvir believes Netanyahu does not want to repeat a term in which he himself is positioned as the coalition’s leftmost member, with all his partners to his right. In their assessment, if election results allow it, Netanyahu would prefer to bring in a figure from the opposing camp, and in one possible scenario even former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, while leaving Ben-Gvir outside the government.

Ben-Gvir’s associates point to several signs that they say indicate this direction. One is Netanyahu’s use of the phrase “broad national government.” According to them, the choice of this wording, instead of the previous emphasis on a right-wing government, reflects a strategic shift.

They also point to Netanyahu’s political relationship with Ben-Gvir during the election campaign. Among other things, they cite the fact that Netanyahu did not appear with him at the Altalena event, as well as moves regarding surplus-vote agreements with right-wing parties, which they interpret as an attempt to create greater separation between the Likud and Otzma Yehudit.

From their perspective, these are not isolated incidents but part of a broader trend: an effort by Netanyahu to create greater room for maneuver ahead of the day after the election.

The assessment: Netanyahu will want to return to the center

The main argument among Ben-Gvir’s associates is also based on how they analyze Netanyahu’s political conduct over the years. They claim that the current coalition, in which all the partners are positioned to the right of Likud, was an exception and not necessarily Netanyahu’s natural preference.

They point to 2009, when Netanyahu brought Ehud Barak and the Labor Party into his government, while the National Union remained outside the coalition. According to them, National Union figures expected for an extended period to join the government but ultimately remained in the opposition.

They also note that in 2013, one of the first partners with whom Netanyahu reached agreements was Tzipi Livni. A government was later formed with Yesh Atid and the Jewish Home, while the haredi parties remained outside.

According to Ben-Gvir’s associates, beginning in 2015, Netanyahu’s room for maneuver gradually narrowed, partly because of political boycotts against him. That year, he was initially forced to establish a narrow government with 61 Knesset seats, and only later was Yisrael Beytenu added.

They claim that the peak of this pattern came after the 2019-2020 election cycles, when Netanyahu formed a parity government with Benny Gantz. Ben-Gvir’s associates note that in that government Netanyahu effectively abandoned advancing a broad judicial reform and agreed that the Justice Ministry would be placed under Avi Nissenkorn of Blue and White.

Judicial reform could also be abandoned

Ben-Gvir’s associates estimate that a move by Netanyahu toward a broader government would require him to give up some of the issues identified with the current right-wing government, foremost among them the continuation of the judicial overhaul.

According to their assessment, bringing a centrist party or a party from the opposing camp into the coalition would require significant compromises on issues related to the judicial system and would allow Netanyahu to present a more statesmanlike term in office.

The sources also link this to the assessment that this could be one of Netanyahu’s final terms as prime minister and that he may place greater weight on the legacy he leaves behind.

At the same time, Ben-Gvir’s associates acknowledge the argument working in the opposite direction. Netanyahu knows that Otzma Yehudit, if it joins a right-wing coalition, could provide him with a stable partner for a full term. By contrast, a government with Eisenkot could be more complicated and include significant ideological gaps.

Therefore, if the right-wing bloc wins 61 seats or more, leaving Ben-Gvir outside in favor of a government with Eisenkot could represent a gamble for Netanyahu: choosing a broader government that may nevertheless be less stable.

One scenario raised by Ben-Gvir’s associates is that Netanyahu may assume that even if a centrist partner later leaves the coalition, Otzma Yehudit could join at that stage and extend the government’s lifespan.

Their assessment is even more decisive in a scenario where the right-wing bloc fails to reach 61 seats even with Otzma Yehudit. In that case, Ben-Gvir’s associates are convinced that Netanyahu would prefer to bring in a party from the opposing camp rather than be dragged into another election campaign.

From their perspective, the central question ahead of the day after the election is therefore not only how many seats the right-wing bloc will win, but how much freedom of choice Netanyahu will have.

The more options available to him for forming a government, they believe, the greater the chance that he will return to the pattern that characterized him in the past: a broader coalition with a balancing force to the left of Likud, rather than a right-wing government in which he himself is the most moderate figure.