Will the Gantz-Netanyahu unity talks lead to a fourth election?

In Israel's current government--formed in 2015--there are the equivalent of 29 Cabinet Ministers. There are also an additional 4 'Deputy Ministers' (count them here). This week, Israel's two most important political leaders, Blue-White Party leader Benny Gantz and the Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, sit down to negotiate how to divide up those 29 Ministerial positions--and those 4 Deputy positions. 

These negotiations are crucial. In Israel, he who controls any given Ministry controls the ideological path that Ministry takes. In practice, this means, for example, that a new Leftist Education Minister might seek to install education policies for Israel's public schools that could be far different from policies a Rightist leader might promote. The  same is true in all Ministries. Israel is that ideological.

For example, a leftist Education Minister might want Arabic taught in all of Israel's Jewish public schools, where 95%+ percent of students are Jewish, not Arab. By contrast, a  Rightist Education leader might want more Judaism in these same schools (in Israel, a public school can be purely secular or a combination of secular-religious).

A Leftist Education Minister might mandate that the vehemently anti-Israel 'Palestinian Narrative' be introduced into Israeli schools as a required course in each grade--or, alternatively, for all (or some) High School grades.  A Rightist Education Minister would probably reject such a mandate.

A Leftist Education Minister might see no reason for Zionism to be taught in public schools. A Right-wing Education Minister might want to see more Zionism taught in schools.

The same applies to Foreign Affairs. A Left-wing Foreign Affairs Minister might pursue a 'two-state solution'. A Right-wing Minister might reject such a policy direction.

A Left-wing Foreign Minister  might open direct talks with the Palestinian Authority with the intent to surrender 'land-for-peace' within the year. A Right-wing Minister might reject such talks.

A Leftist Agricultural Minister might want to use his office to empower what has so far been illegal Bedouin building in parts of Israel. A Rightist Minister might actually start enforcing anti-building laws against such building not typically enforced. 

In Israel, ideology counts. That means that the person chosen to lead a Ministry counts even more.

That's what these unity negotiations are all about. From what we have already heard, many of Gantz's proposed Ministers appear to be Leftists who seek to change Ministries to support a Leftist agenda, not the current Rightist agenda. Clearly, Israel's political Right wing object to this.

One might think that a 'unity' coalition would suggest some kind of 50-50 split between what Gantz and Netanyahu want to see in Israel's new government coalition. This would mean that Gantz's Blue-White Party members--along with some of his allies from Left and Center-Left Parties--could receive half the Ministry leadership positions. Netanyahu's Likud Party--along with some of his own allies on the political Right--could receive the other half of Ministry leadership positions. That might represent a reasonable 50-50 split--a sharing of power, right?

But a simple 50-50 split doesn't automatically create a balance between how much  power each side wields, nor does it create an acceptable ideological balance. To achieve those two goals--or get close to it--two things still need to be done. First, regarding power, negotiations need to take into account the relative power of each Ministry. That is, the more influential/powerful Ministries should themselves also be split 50-50. 

Then, to protect each side's ideology, there will need to be some special arrangement. Conventional wisdom suggests that a 'veto power' is that arrangement.

It's a tough call, such an arrangement. It means that, no matter which side--Gantz/Left or Netanyahu/Right--actually ran a particular Ministry, the other side could have some kind of veto power over new rules, or rule changes. This could, in theory at least, prohibit "unwanted" ideological rule changes. But it would also immediately freeze the currently existing ideological status quo of each Ministry. 

Yes, in this scenario, both sides would be protected. Both sides would have their ideological biases held in check. But would Gantz accept the current status quo? Would Netanyahu?

The point of all this discussion of 'power sharing' is simple: if Gantz and Netanyahu truly want 'unity', unity is, in theory, possible.  But that's not where these talks appear to be going. 

Rumors have circulated. Gantz doesn't seem interested in a 50-50 split. He isn't interested in 'sharing'. He isn't interested in giving Netanyahu what he (Gantz) perceives to be 'the upper hand'.

Specifically, it's been rumored that Gantz has asked for more than half the Ministries. There's a rumor that Netanyahu, appearing to aid Gantz in this peculiar endeavor, seems interested in adding seven new Ministries (for a total of 36) so that Likud and its Right-wing allies won't be shut out if Gantz gets more than half the Ministries. 

How might Likud and the Right be shut out? It's been rumored that Gantz wants 30 Ministries to join a unity government with Netanyahu. That would be 30 of 36 Ministries in Gantz 's hand--or, if you're counting, more than 80% of the Ministries.

Are we to believe that Gantz expects Netanyahu to agree to a 'unity' government where Gantz gets 80%+ of everything? That's not a 50-50 split. That's more like a complete surrender to Gantz's demands.

It gets worse. It's also been rumored that Gantz is angling to control the most powerful of Israel's Ministries. The rumor is, Gantz wants control of Foreign Affairs, Justice and the Defense Ministries.

Why are these rumors spreading? Are they just political fake news? Or, are they preparing voters for something else--perhaps a completely unexpected outcome?

Voters are expecting unity. What else is there?

Before these talks began there appeared to be a growing belief that Gantz was a political lightweight--inexperienced, unable to grasp (or articulate) complex issues, and in thrall to his (at the time) co-leader Yair Lapid. Now, during these talks, there's a new question dawning about Gantz: is he actually shrewder than Netanyahu--or does he simply and cleverly brandish before Netanyahu some kind of threat over Netanyahu?

The rumors of rift persist. How accurate are these rumors? We don't know. We just know that Israel's Right-wing is certainly in a panic over what might happen to its values if Gantz gets a dominating control over the next government coalition (here).

What's going on here? Why is a supposedly unity negotiation going down a road that threatens to exclude Israel's political Right, not include it? Why do unity talks appear to mean, not 'a coming together', but an unraveling? 

What kind of unity is that?

These rumors don't pass the smell test. Something isn't right--and no one is talking. The only thing anyone knows is this: at this moment (early morning, April 1, 2020), Netanyahu seems to face a potential rebellion from his allies on the Right--and an "escalating showdown" with an "intransigent Gantz" (here).

This isn't the news voters want to see. But the ugly truth is, there still lurks in the shadows the possibility of a fourth election, something voters have said they don't want.  

Is this the message of these rumors--that unity won't happen? That we're about to go to yet another election?

Stay tuned. This drama hasn't ended.