Netanyahu's Potential Pivot from Far-Right to Unity Government

  netanyahu-s-potential-pivot-from-far-right-to-unity-government.html
  Politics and Government on Wed, Nov 11th, 2026 by theyeshivaworld.com
      Locale: ISRAEL

The Fracture of the Far-Right Alliance

For the past several years, the stability of Netanyahu's government has been heavily dependent on the support of the far-right, most notably Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Ben Gvir, in particular, has occupied a volatile role as the National Security Minister, often clashing with both the security establishment and international allies. His presence in the cabinet has been a point of contention for those seeking a more moderate approach to governance and domestic security.

The prospect of Netanyahu being willing to "abandon" Ben Gvir signifies a realization that the far-right wing may have become a liability rather than an asset. The tension between the ideological rigidity of Ben Gvir and the pragmatic requirements of national security and diplomatic relations has reached a critical juncture. If Netanyahu is indeed moving toward a unity deal, it suggests a calculated decision that the political cost of alienating the far-right is lower than the cost of continued instability and international isolation.

The Eisenkot Factor

Herzi Eisenkot, the former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), represents a stark contrast to Ben Gvir. Eisenkot is viewed as a pillar of the professional security establishment, embodying a brand of leadership rooted in strategic discipline and institutional stability. A deal involving Eisenkot would not merely be a change in personnel, but a change in the government's fundamental character.

Bringing Eisenkot into a unity framework would likely provide Netanyahu with a level of legitimacy that has been missing during the current tenure. It would signal to both the Israeli public and the international community—specifically the United States—that the government is prioritizing professional security expertise over ideological populism. Eisenkot's involvement would likely act as a bridge to the center and center-left, potentially expanding the government's base and reducing the risk of internal collapse.

Motivations and Geopolitical Pressure

Several factors likely drive this potential realignment. First is the pressure for political survival. Netanyahu has long navigated a precarious path to maintain power, and the current volatility of his coalition makes the prospect of new elections a high-risk gamble. A unity government with a figure like Eisenkot could provide a more stable foundation for governance.

Second, the geopolitical climate plays a decisive role. The United States has frequently expressed concern over the influence of far-right ministers in the Israeli cabinet. By pivoting away from Ben Gvir, Netanyahu could mend strained relations with the Biden administration and ensure continued diplomatic and military support. The need for a cohesive strategy regarding regional threats necessitates a leadership structure that is viewed as reliable and rational by global partners.

Implications and Risks

This potential shift is not without significant risk. The far-right wing of the coalition is unlikely to exit quietly. A move to exclude Ben Gvir could trigger a fierce backlash from the right-wing base, potentially leading to accusations of betrayal and political instability in the short term. There is also the risk that the ideological gap between Netanyahu and a figure like Eisenkot would prove too wide to bridge, leading to a government that is wide but shallow in its shared convictions.

However, if the deal is realized, it would mark a return to a more traditionalist, security-centric approach to Israeli governance. The trade-off—sacrificing the loyalty of the far-right for the stability of a unity deal—reflects a pragmatic assessment of the current national crisis. The shift underscores the fluid nature of Israeli political alliances, where survival and strategic necessity often override long-standing ideological commitments.