Netanyahu Hints At Rotation With Gantz, Cites Peres-Shamir Cooperation
Source: Jerusalem Post
A broad unity government is what is demanded now, he said.
I propose that we meet as soon as possible without preconditions to cooperate in establishing a broad unity government for all those who believe in Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," Netanyahu said. "There is no reason to go to another election. I am against it."
He recalled the unity government between Peres and his Likud rival Yitzhak Shamir that was created in the 1980s when the election results were similarly deadlocked.
Read more: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-calls-for-unity-gov-with-Gantz-cites-Peretz-Shamir-cooperation-602227
I think Blue & White would be willing to consider this; as long as Netanyahu isn't part of the deal.
IronLionZion
(45,264 posts)It's gonna be a conservative government anyway. But at least from my perspective, Bibi needs to go.
canuckledragger
(1,632 posts)He's a murderous piece of shit
Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)No way he's going tomstay out of jail this time and he knows it.
BumRushDaShow
(127,325 posts)<...>
In televised remarks later, Gantz stopped short of agreeing to meet with Netanyahu but expressed openness to the idea of a unity government, with himself as its head.
We will listen carefully to anyone but we will not surrender to any dictates, Gantz said in nationally televised remarks.
Gantz said that his party had won the election outright, receiving a larger share of the votes than Likud. He also said that he would continue to pursue the creation of a centrist, secular and liberal government.
Netanyahu expressed disappointment. I was surprised and disappointed that at this time Benny Gantz still refuses to respond to my call to meet, he said in a tweet.
(they had sent out a "correction" breaking banner to basically indicate that Gantz is grabbing the reins by claiming complete victory)
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)That said, it appear that Gantz would be a better choice for PM under a unified Government.
BumRushDaShow
(127,325 posts)so if a particular party doesn't quite meet the requirements for number of seats to be considered a clear majority, then they have to hustle around to find other smaller parties to join them as part of a "coalition" that would allow them to reach that magic number of seats required.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Choice in politics is much more limited and it allows for political ossification but it also keeps smaller parties from (mostly) having outsized power to act essentially as Kingmakers.
Could you imagine Obama having to suck up to the Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to have any chance to govern?
BumRushDaShow
(127,325 posts)we do the same thing but instead of calling the different factions "parties", we call them "wings of a party". So even though we have basicaly reduced it down to two major parties (not considering the Libertarians or Greens or Constitution parties as "major" ), you have the same type of cajoling and coalition-building that goes on within a party (and you hear that with terms like "the progressive wing" or "the blue dogs" or "the centrist/moderate wing", etc.).
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)But I would like your scenario of a parliamentary as I feel I would have more of voice than I do under a centrist party.
Either that or ranked choice voting.
Lesser of two evils is a Democratic Party thing.
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)They have more political parties with names that I don't understand, whereas the UK is dominated by two major parties.
Also in Israel, members of parliament (Knesset) are not elected. Voters go to the poll and vote for a party and representatives are appointed by the party.
SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)Maeve
(42,225 posts)Otherwise, their justice system will be seen as bogus.