National Unity MK Matan Kahana called for a unity government today, proposing in a Facebook post that his party and Yesh Atid would join the Likud.
The plan, which he titled the “Kahana Plan to Save the State of Israel from Crisis,” calls for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in power for two years and then resign ahead of a new election.
“Do you really think there is a better solution to the deep crisis the country is in now?” the former religious affairs minister wrote, “Such a government will be able to heal the deep internal divide between us and will give space to all parts of society in Israel, will reunify the military and deal with the increasing external threats around us, would be able to formulate a constitution, or at the very least enact a set of Basic Laws that would better balance the balance of power between the government authorities, will bring peace with Saudi Arabia, and will restore the economy and restore the confidence of the world markets in the Israeli miracle. Such a government will bring the peace we all long for.”
He added that he knows National Unity head Benny Gantz well, and that “he has already proven in the past, for him Israel really comes first,” expressing his confidence in the party leader to join such a government, despite previous refusals.
This would be with “basic guidelines in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”Following the two years, Netanyahu would “retire to his home in dignity” and a new election would be held.
RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS Minister Matan Kahana address the Knesset plenum last month. (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)Kahana goes back on his word
The new plan by Kahana is interesting considering that just two days ago, on Monday, he pushed back on Yesh Atid MK Elazar Stern’s call for a unity government. Stern said on Army Radio that “I would be delighted if Netanyahu puts forward such an offer [for a unity government]. If he does, it will be on the table and we will have a discussion.”
The former minister stressed that “I was never against the possibility of an extremist-free unity government.”
In response, Kahana said “It’s not relevant, it’s a shame to talk about it. Right now Netanyahu needs an extreme government and to be a prisoner of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.”
The proposals for a unity government initially came on the heels of a column by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who in his writings on potential peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia suggested that US President Joe Biden may require Netanyahu to drop his coalition partners – Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism Party and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit Party – and replace it with National Unity and Yesh Atid.
The turn of events by Kahana could be an opening, though it is still unlikely to lead to any progress. Yesh Atid head and opposition leader Yair Lapid, a strong critic of Netanyahu, said in an interview last month that he is against such a unit government that would “ruin the country.”
“I am a decent person, and this would be the death of decency,” he said about joining, adding that”It cannot be in Israel that there will be no opposition to corruption, no opposition to the idea of standing on the steps of the court and threatening judges, opposition to those who claim that moral integrity does not matter, and opposition to the idea that racism and messianism have a place in a government.
“If we declare that there is no opposition in Israel to the idea of corruption and to the destruction of all Israeli values… this does not save the country, it destroys everything that this country represents.”
In regard to Kahana’s proposal, officials from National Unity said that it was not coordinated with Gantz, saying that “His position is known to us, but it does not agree with us. It’s fine that this is his opinion, but there is only one who decides – Benny Gantz.”
If successful, the plan would not need the support of any other parties in the Knesset. The Likud’s majority seats, 32, combined with National Unity, 12, and Yesh Atid, 24, would be enough to form a majority in parliament.
Comments are closed.