Adriana dreamed of giving birth naturally and could not imagine even in her worst nightmares that she would be pressured to take painkillers and induce labor. Bat Ami was recovering after giving birth to a baby girl when the nurse made her get up from the bed only to check out her back tattoo. Ariel was in agony when her obstetrician firmly pressed on her stomach – without prior warning – to get the baby out, using a maneuver considered outdated and highly controversial. Tal was told that unless she agreed to a C-section, she "was killing her baby." 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israel Hayom has spoken to dozens of women in recent weeks who had given birth and felt that their rights, especially those of bodily integrity and autonomy, were violated by the medical staff. 

A milestone as important as giving birth, which was supposed to have been intimate, profound, and exciting, turned horrific when doctors and nurses reportedly violated the patients' privacy, performing procedures without consulting them or asking their permission. 

"It felt like they took responsibility for your body, and you no longer had control over it," Bat Ami, who has gone through three difficult births in recent years, said. 

For Reut, who gave birth two years ago, the trauma is still present. 

Labor is when "I am in my most intimate state, and they take away my strength, control, and faith. They kept saying, 'The most important thing is that the baby comes out healthy,' which makes you think it's okay that they performed a procedure on you without asking first, and that maybe it's okay that the obstetrician pushed hard on your stomach to get the baby out, a procedure that is now not allowed to be performed in any hospital."

Reut was referring to the Kristeller maneuver, named after German gynecologist Samuel Kristeller, which was developed in the late 19th century and involves applying pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal, in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal birth. A highly debated technique, it is considered dangerous due to the risk of broken bones, organ damage, and other painful health problems. 

"But it is terrible, terrible," Reut continued. "And that is why I have decided to share what I went through. So that no other woman has to go through what I went through." 

"Why did you have to give birth tonight?"

The women often said they felt "helpless" during labor, and that their original plan – to give birth at the hospital naturally – went awry when against their will, they either had to have induced labor or even surgery. 

Reut, for instance, planned to give birth naturally and chose a hospital near Tel Aviv, because she was told the staff actually listened to the mother-to-be. 

"In reality, it turned out to be the exact opposite," she lamented. It took me some time to arrive at the hospital, "and the moment I walked in, they scolded me for not having arrived earlier. They took me to the delivery room, and the midwives were really sweet. In the evening, I began to have strong contractions, and for hours I was with an open uterus, which signals readiness for giving birth [naturally,] but the doctor began to pressure me to induce labor.

"He would enter the delivery room every few minutes, saying that the monitor showed that the fetal heart rate was dropping, which signaled possible danger. But the midwife had told me that everything was fine and that the fetus was not in danger and that the heart rate had dropped only because of the contractions. 

"Then all of a sudden, during a contraction, while the nurse was supporting me, he told her to stop and told me, 'Listen to me now, you are endangering the fetus, and you need to give birth now – vacuum or surgery.' I told him I didn't want to, that I felt that I could give birth naturally.

"The midwife told him that she could already see the baby's head, that I could give birth naturally, but he approached me, pressed on my ribs in an effort to expedite the process [through the Kristeller maneuver]. I screamed in agony and told him he was hurting me. In hindsight, I don't understand how I allowed him to do this to me, but he did. When I screamed in pain, he took a step back and said to stop everything. He decided to perform a vacuum extraction. 'It's your decision, but my responsibility and you are about to kill your baby,'" he said. 

"I didn't want to oppose the doctor, because he surely knew what was best. But I feel that everything could have gone differently. The doctor might be walking around thinking he saved my life and the life of my baby, but for me, it was a very difficult experience." 

Adriana chose to give birth to her son at a hospital far from home because she too was told that the medical team listened to the patient, and even encouraged natural birth. 

But when she arrived, already in active birth, with contractions and an open cervix, she felt she was giving birth under pressure to follow medical protocols, which included taking painkillers, contrary to earlier promises, and the doctors and nurses being inattentive to her needs and requests. 

"My pregnancy went well and I dreamed of giving birth naturally without any intervention. When I first visited the hospital, it sounded to me like the staff would be really attentive to my needs. But when I got there, at 41 weeks and 3 days, I realized that I had been deceived."

According to Adriana, from the moment she arrived, she was pressured to take epidural or laughing gas to help with the pain. "

"When I told the obstetrician I didn't want to, she shouted at me, 'You will do as we say.' I was shocked. I got up, while having contractions, and asked her why she was talking to me like that. In response, she sat me back down. I realized there was nothing I could do, and it was a very difficult feeling. I arrived at the hospital feeling well, and I thought I would have the birth of my dreams, but got to a point where I felt helpless. I was pressured to get epidural or painkillers, and no matter how much I explained that I wanted a natural birth, the staff kept pressuring me.

"At some point, the birth stalled, and when the senior doctor walked in and saw that there was no progress, he said, 'Why did you have to give birth tonight?' I will never forget that sentence. He didn't say 'Hello,' nothing. 'Why did you have to give birth tonight?'

"I felt they wanted to hurry the process along. Some women spend 20 hours in labor, and I was actually further along, but then the monitor showed a slowing heartbeat. I was having contractions, in pain, begging to be allowed to focus on the process, but after countless doctors came and went trying to pressure me into agreeing, I gave in. 

"The staff pressured me to have a C-section and even told my husband that if I didn't, I would be 'killing the baby.'" 

Adriana was put on full anesthesia, but it did not fully take, and she continued to experience the birth and even heard her baby cry upon exit. 

"What happened next amazed me. I was still unconscious, and they [the staff] approached my husband, telling him that the baby was not breathing and that a ventilator was needed – as if they were trying to make up an excuse to legitimize the surgery. 

"My husband was very angry with me at the time, but later, when I requested the birth procedure documents like any mother is eligible to do, I saw written in black and white that the baby did indeed cry when he was born.

"They also kept my baby away for a long time and vaccinated him without my permission. When he was in my arms, finally, they again rushed to take him away for tests. I ended up signing for an early release."

Adriana is now suing the hospital for alleged emotional distress. 

"I want to bring about a change so that no other woman has to go through this. Women who are giving birth must stand up for their rights," she said. "I felt helpless during the process, and after a lot of pressure, agreed to everything. They didn't let me focus on the birth, and half my energy went to dealing with the staff. It was a very difficult experience."

(phot here)

In March, the Birth Freedom Israel organization published a report on the treatment of women in delivery rooms, alleging humiliating behavior and rights violations. 

The NGO analyzed the calls of 609 women to its helpline, which did not reflect how widespread the phenomena could be, but did point to cases of mistreatment. 

According to figures, 70% of the women said they were verbally abused, and 64% said their right to informed consent was violated. Over half (55%) said the medical staff communicated with them poorly, and almost a third (32%) said they were abused. 

In addition, 29% said they felt they were neglected and the doctors did not give them the necessary attention, and 16% felt their privacy was violated. 

On average, every woman who called the hotline reported 4.4 abuses. 

Moreover, in March 2022, Birth Freedom Israel conducted an online survey, in which 1,700 women who had given birth participated, that showed that over half (58%) felt that someone else made the decisions pertaining to their birth. Some 68% said their privacy was not respected, 32% said they were verbally abused by the staff, 26% said they were abused by the staff, and 13% said procedures were performed without their consent. 

"The solution is to raise awareness among the women and the medical teams of the rights of the mother, and to create a fundamental change in the public and personal discourse regarding childbirth," Director of Birth Freedom Israel Hayuta Goren said, which is why the organization holds training workshops across Israeli hospitals on the subject. 

As some of the trauma sustained during labor is not of physical nature, some new mothers are left with a sense of violation that is unlikely to hold up in court. 

"Oftentimes there's no point in filing a complaint or a lawsuit like that," attorney Dganit Sommerfeld explained. "Contary to medical negligence lawsuits, where you might prove that damage was caused, with mistreatment during labor it is difficult to prove that a tangible injury was caused. 

"When the mother returns to work [after a three-month maternity leave] and leads a more or less normal lifestyle, despite the trauma, she cannot request financial compensation and prove that as a result of the birth she suffered future wage losses. The legal premise in such cases is that the mother gave informed consent, and if and when the doctor performs an operation on her without informing her – there was probably a medical justification for it."

To remedy the situation, MKs Michal Shir (Yesh Atid) and Keti Shitrit (Likud) submitted a bill that would ensure a fair economic mechanism for both those that give birth in hospitals as well as at home and in private institutions. 

"As of now, women who give birth in private centers or at home, do not get a maternity grant, and the financial aspect might affect someone's decision in terms of location," Sommerfeld said.

In response to an inquiry by Israel Hayom on the matter, the Health Ministry said that it "expected all medical teams to treat patients with professionalism and sensitivity.

As such, the Health Ministry's Health's National Council for Women's Health adopted a gynecological examination convention – recommendations that are also relevant to mothers, as published by the Israel Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology last year. The convention established rules of respectful, sensitive, and considerate behavior toward the women being examined and improving the communication with them, it said. 

The convention also stated that the patient must be given a preliminary explanation of her rights and procedures, receive her consent, provide warning and reassurance before painful operations, explain test results, and more. 

In addition, it includes a variety of ways to implement the improvement of communication between patients and medical teams in many settings, including medical faculties and different stages of specialization. This is through training, dedicated studies, control, and more. Every complaint that is received in the office is handled upon receiving, the statement said. 

The Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center said, "We make every effort to involve each patient in the decision-making, transparently and sensitively, while providing an explanation throughout all stages of the birth. We will make it clear that in Ariel's case, no Kristeller maneuver was used during the birth, and all operations were performed as usual. However, we regret her personal experience, And we took these things to heart."

The Shamir Medical Center said, "According to the records in our possession, this is a patient who received detailed explanations throughout the birth procedure, which was accompanied by her overwhelming opposition to any medical activity necessary to save the fetus and care for its well-being. Only towards the end of the birth did the patient agree to the intervention … when there was no other choice left. We regret that this is her personal feeling, but from our inspection, the conduct of the staff was flawless and enabled a successful birth. We wish health to the mother and her daughter. We emphasize that the medical center strongly condemns violence of any kind toward the patients and/or the staff."

The Soroka Medical Center said, "We are sorry for the feelings described by the woman, take them seriously and check every request that is received. At every moment and in every situation, the safety of the mother and the safety of the fetus is at the forefront of the team's attention, which will respond to her requests if they do not endanger her safety. The team does everything in its power to provide personalized treatment to each mother, to explain and update at every stage, and provides professional medical care according to her medical condition, to enable a meaningful and positive birth experience."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The Hadassah Medical Center said, "The case described in the article, which happened a decade ago, is not in line with the spirit of service and care in Hadassah, which sanctifies the dignity of the human being in all forms. Therefore, we are very sorry for the feelings described by the mother. The team of the women's medicine system at Hadassah, like the teams of the other departments, recognizes the right of women to make an independent and personal decision regarding any procedure, including during childbirth, and even encourages it while maintaining a high sensitivity and consideration of the medical staff.

"Furthermore, the midwives in Hadassah have a variety of choices regarding the course of the birth, pain relief, processing the birth experience, and even early and long preparation for those who are dealing with stress or anxiety. As part of that same sensitivity, Hadassah also operates a dedicated clinic for women who are about to give birth, and who have experienced difficulties throughout their lives, such as sexual abuse or difficult emotional distress, where you can receive significant emotional support in preparation for childbirth."

The Sheba Medical Center, said, "We see great importance in providing an empowering and safe birth experience to the mother and the newborn. At Sheba, there are delivery rooms equipped with innovative technologies, to enable a unique and pleasant birth experience through the use of multimedia, mindfulness, and more. We make every effort to allow the mother to give birth in the way she chooses, with as few interventions as possible and depending on the medical condition, when maintaining the safety of the mother and the newborn is before our eyes first and foremost. This was also the case in this case."

The post Doctor knows best? Israeli women speak about traumatic birth experiences appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An Israel Hayom exclusive on the efforts undertaken by the National Religious Party and United Torah Judaism parties to roll back gender equality reforms after a new right-wing government takes office caused a political firestorm on Sunday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israel Hayom had reported that the two parties, which are in the midst of intense coalition talks aimed at swearing in a Likud-led government, have indicated that any government they join would have to legislate rules that undo the rules, including those set by the attorney general and Supreme Court, that prohibit gender segregation at public venues in almost all cases that are considered to be affiliated with the state or its resources.

Prime Minister Yair Lapid took to Twitter to warn that this would be tantamount to state-led discrimination. "While the brave women of Iran fight for their rights, in Israel the national Haredim and Bezalel Smotrich [who heads the National Religious Party] are trying to send women behind barriers and to legislation segregation." He then continued and asked rhetorically, "Where is the Likud? Why is it silent? Israel is not Iran."

A whole host of politicians on the Left also joined Lapid in condemning this. "There is no such thing as separate but equal," Labor leader Merav Michaeli wrote on Twitter, adding, "We warned that a coalition without women would hurt women, and now they want a law that would put women in the back; but women are not worth less, we are equal. No one has any right to tell us where to sit, what to wear, and whether to carry out an abortion or not. This is a struggle over our democracy."

The post 'Israel is not Iran,' PM says after Israel Hayom reveals initiative to allow gender segregation appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Philippine Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III told ABS-CBN on Thursday that workers from his country will no longer be allowed to travel to Israel "until we can ensure their safety."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"From now on, we will not deploy workers to Israel," he said.

"As we can see, there are bombings everywhere. If we deploy workers in Israel and an incident occurs, it will be difficult, it will be my responsibility."

The announcement followed a rocket attack by Hamas that killed two Thai farmworkers and wounded at least seven others at a packaging factory Tuesday in southern Israel.

A week earlier, a Hamas strike killed an Indian woman who worked as a health aide in the town of Ashkelon.

The government of the Philippines is one of the largest sources of foreign labor in Israel. Some 30,000 Filipinos are currently working in Israel, mainly as caregivers.

A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect at 2 a.m. Friday morning, after 11 days of fighting.

This article was first published by i24NEWS.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Philippines temporarily stops 'sending workers to Israel' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Shortly before the original religious Zionist political movement turns 120, which will happen about a year from now, it is at risk of losing its Knesset representation. Recent polls tell us that only a minority of the national religious public still has any interest in the classic political home. 

What began in 1902 as the Mizrahi Histadrut merged 55 years later with HaMIzrahi, and then turned into the National Religious Party and eventually Habayit Hayehudit (Jewish Home) is no longer viable political capital. It's doubtful that in the upcoming election it will be represented, even as an element of another right-wing party. Habayit Hayehudi leader Rafi Peretz, who resigned from Yamina, joined the Likud this week and announced he would be leaving politics, which could make him the one to turn out the lights on the sector's party, at least as an independent entity. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

After Peretz leaves, only the members of National Union-Tekuma, under MK Bezalel Smotrich – who also left the National Religious Party and is now a member of Yamina – will remain in the Knesset. They will only rejoin the crumbling Habayit Hayehudi brand if their negotiations with Yamina don't go well and the arrangement goes south. 

Professor Asher Cohen, head of the School of Communication at Bar-Ilan University, one of Israel's most veteran researchers of religious Zionism and its politics, and pollster Menachem Lazar – head of the political desk at the Political Panels research institute – will soon be publishing joint article based on Lazar's doctoral thesis. The two describe the religious Zionist political parties of recent years as "an ineffective political system." 

"From 1955-1977, when the National Religious Party was still a base camp, it consistently won 10-12 seats. When politics started to diversity from 1981-2009, when other parties appears that openly reached out to the national religious public – parties that presented themselves as alternatives to the NRP – it won six seats at the most," they write. 

There were only two exceptions, Cohen tells Israel Hayom. "In 1996 and in 2006, years in which the national religious public united again as a political sector, because they felt threatened, with their backs to the wall. [In those years], the sectorial party won nine seats. The first time it happened was after [Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination, and the second time was after the disengagement [from the Gaza Strip]." 

Who remembers the historical alliance? 

Cohen underscores that the 12 seats Habayit Hayehudi won in 2013, under Naftali Bennett's leadership, "Are from another time, when Bennett and [Ayelet] Shaked turned the sectorial party into an open, more religiously diverse party. There was even a secular sector who voted for it then." 

Cohen notes that in the 2013 election, "More than a third of Bennett's voters weren't part of 'religious Zionism.' Today, that is even clearer: of the 13 seats that the polls are now projecting for Bennett, only about one-fourth are religious Zionists. The current polls show us that if Smotrich resigns and runs independently, he won't make it past the minimum electoral threshold. Politically, the national republic public no longer behaves like a single sector. It has a number of options, particularly the Likud and Yamina." 

In the past few elections, there were even some religious voters who cast ballots for Blue and White. Yair Ettinger, who recently published the book "Frumim" (Religious), defined the generation of religious Zionists that shapes the ineffectual political system that Cohen and Lazar studied as "the generation of individualization" of religious Zionism. Ettinger describes the disputes that are splitting the religious Zionist public, but mostly focuses on the broad spectrum of thinking along which the religious Zionist public is scattered: "Between conservatism and innovation … between national Haredim to religious liberals ... between conservation and progress." He describes the individualizing generation as "growing stronger, diversifying, radicalizing, moderating, splitting, sectorial, and non-sectorial," all in a framework of "more and more religious sub-groups." 

Cohen suggests a wide-ranging explanation for the process of individualization. He goes back to insights from Professor Menachem Friedman, one of the preeminent researchers of the Haredi and religious word, who passed away some 10 months ago. 

"Until 1977, the secular socialist movement in its various incarnations was seen by the national religious public as a threat and a danger. The moment the Likud under Menachem Begin appeared – a traditional prime minister who kept a kippa in his pocket, who was careful not to desecrate the Sabbath, who said 'Baruch Hashem' [Thank God] repeatedly, who unlike Mapai, did not keep religious Zionists away from the Education Ministry – was the moment the threat was lifted. That was the stage when many national religious people found a new home in the Likud. Many are still there today," he says.  

Cohen thinks the religious Zionist vote is worth 12-15 seats and notes that this group is vanishing as a political entity nearly in parallel with the disappearance of the Labor party. 

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

"Two political movements with glorious pasts, which were founded at the start of the 20th century, and once had a 'historic alliance,' now need the mercy of God and help from other parties to survive in the Knesset," he says. 

The seminaries are fine on their own 

Perhaps the political failure of religious Zionism is actually a success. The story of religious Zionism has for years included an inherent paradox: the better it fulfills its stated goals of becoming part of mainstream Israeli society and even taking a lead role in major decisions for the country; the more it implements its ideology of mutual, anti-sectorial responsibility in a variety of fields – it effectively limits its own power as a political sector. 

It appears that it is impossible to educate the national religious public to become an inseparable part of the leadership, academic, economic, legal, and media elite in Israel while also running as a sectorial political party. It seems that they cannot present a politically isolationist exterior while conducting themselves in a non-isolationist manner everywhere else. 

In the outgoing Knesset, aside from 16 Haredi MKs and six Yamina MKs, there were 10 religious MKs from the Likud and six from Blue and White. Will the 24th Knesset, to be elected in March, look the same? In the election for the 21st Knesset, less than two years ago, the two parties that were competing for the national religious vote dropped the term "religious Zionist" from their names. The New Right and the United Right both emphasized the right-wing aspect rather than the religious aspect of their platforms and identities. The Haredi parties look up the banner of the Jewish sector. 

Moreover, the religious Zionist parties are no longer the only ones who worry about funding religious education, yeshivas, and seminaries. Religious and traditional MKs from many parties are advocates for these educational institutions. When the reality looks like this, it's no wonder that individualization is picking up speed when it comes to the political strength of religious Zionism.  

The post Right-wing individualism has replaced national religious isolationism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This follows an agreement reached two weeks ago with its flight attendants to save $30 million ‎annually.‎

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

El Al said the three agreements will result in a reduction of 1,700 employees in its workforce of 6,500.‎

Some workers will be offered early retirement while others will be let go with enhanced ‎compensation packages.‎

‎"The agreements signed have given a real chance to El Al's recovery and to the possibility it will return ‎to being the flag carrier of Israel's aviation industry," said Avi Edri, chairman of the transport workers ‎union at the Histadrut Labor Federation. ‎

On Monday, El Al's board agreed to a bailout that will likely put the carrier back under state ownership ‎after the coronavirus crisis pushed it to the verge of bankruptcy.‎

The government has offered to back $250 million in bank loans while El Al must issue $150 million in ‎shares, which the state will buy if no one else does. The bailout is contingent on its unions signing off ‎on cost-cutting measures. A deal with pilots still needs to be reached.‎

El Al, which has reported losses for two years running and racked up debt in order to renew its fleet, ‎suspended flights when Israel closed its borders and furloughed most of its employees.‎

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israeli flag carrier to fire 1,700 as part of gov't bailout plan appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The move is reportedly driven by Labor's concern that come the March 2 vote it will fail to pass the 3.25% electoral threshold, which translates into four Knesset seats.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The party, which ahead of the September elections merged with the Gesher party, won six Knesset seats and recent polls suggest it could retain its power.

According to Labor officials, the party would like to retain its partnership with Gesher, founded by former Yisrael Beytenu MK Orly Levy-Abekasis. It plans to launch a joint campaign with Gesher and explore merging with Blue and White if later polls show the union drops under the electoral threshold.

"We are preparing for an independent [Knesset] bid and we will explore our options at a later date," MK Itzik Shmuli said Saturday. "The only parameter by which we will promote any future mergers is if we see that it increases the power of the entire bloc, and with it the chance of winning the elections."

Labor MK Merav Michaeli said, "The Labor-Gesher union won the block votes and we intend to continue with it in the upcoming elections. Increasing the [power of the] Labor party and the bloc to replace [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is our top goal, and all options will be explored accordingly."

Labor Leader Amir Peretz and Levy-Abekasis both reiterated last week that they will not partner with Netanyahu to form a government.

It remains unclear, however, whether Blue and White is even open to a merger of this kind.

The post Labor mulling joining forces with Blue and White ahead of 2020 vote appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to the party leader, "It [the bloc] was the right move at the time. It was something that was important to do in order to prevent the rise of a left-wing government. But next time, it won't happen," he said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"We will not run as a bloc, hampering other political moves. If [Prime Minister] Netanyahu cannot put together a government, we won't go back to what happened these past few months. We will have to look at other options and other mergers," the leader continued.

Meanwhile, Channel 13 reported Tuesday that New Right MKs Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked were slated to meet on Wednesday to discuss their political future. Shaked is expected to make a decision about which party she will join in the next election – the New Right, or one of the religious Zionist parties.

On the Left, there is also talk about possible mergers and moves ahead of an election. On Tuesday evening, MK Stav Shafir told Radio Kol Barama that she saw potential success in the Democratic Union and Labor running as a joint list, despite criticism of "ideological differences."

"I'd like to hear where the chasm between the Democratic Union and the Labor Party lies," Shafir said.

"There are no gaps. Anyone who claims otherwise wants us to go down together. Most Labor voters want to run together with the Democratic Union. In the end, it's [Labor] chairman Amir Peretz who has to decide. When [Gesher leader] Orly Levy-Abekasis says that there is an 'immense gap,' she is essentially saying that our positions are not legitimate. We can't bring each other down,' Shafir said.

The post Leader of right-wing party: After the election, there will be no more 'bloc' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The prevailing belief is that Rivlin will be able to squeeze everything possible out of the opportunity. This time, everyone's eyes are on him. After calling for unity and urging the candidates to join hands, the president must, by law, assign on the responsibility of assembling the government.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Rivlin can decide that given the lack of a clear win, he will give the responsibility of assembling a government to the winner of the election – Benny Gantz, under whom Blue and White became the biggest party. That is what former President Chaim Herzog did in 1984 when he decided to make Shimon Perez responsible for putting together a government when Peres' Labor party received the same number of votes as the Likud under Yitzhak Shamir.

Rivlin could also go with whoever brings in the most recommendations from his fellow MKs. In that case, Netanyahu would appear to have an advantage. He has about 56 seats in his pocket, on the Right and from the haredi parties. Gantz, on the other hand, has only Blue and White and the other two left-wing parties, which give him only about 45 recommendations. And if Gantz doesn't up his number of recommendations, it will be a resounding political failure. Gantz could easily enlist the support of Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, who shares his message of a unity government without the haredim, as well as the support of the Arab parties (with the possible exception of Balad), which under Ayman Odeh and Ahmad Tibi have been heavily hinting that they wouldn't have a problem recommending Gantz if it helped oust Netanyahu.

It's not certain it would be a boon to either candidate to be the first one assigned to assemble a government. If the first fails, the second will get a chance. When the time allotted by law runs out, there is a difference between someone else being given a chance and knowing that the country will face another election. Party leaders will think twice before calling a third election and putting Israel on the list of politically unstable countries, like Italy.

A mandate from the president isn't the only thing on Netanyahu's mind when he analyzes the election results. Even if he manages to form a government, it will be a coalition that will bind his hands and possibly might not last long. If left-wing figures like Amir Peretz or Gantz become coalition partners, it will mean a freeze on planned reforms to the justice system, law enforcement, and will enable pressure for concessions when the Trump administration unveils its peace plan.

Many media pundits and members of the opposition think that this is a positive development. They see the moves the Right is initiating as designed to make Netanyahu immune from prosecution and allow him to be tried while serving as prime minister, as he works to weaken the court and the prosecution.

Law enforcement and justice officials' war against Netanyahu is a personal one, whose goal is to topple Netanyahu. The moment law enforcement doesn't come up with the goods, they become targets, like the attorney general.

For the Right, depending on left-winger to form a coalition is a major step back from what the right-wing government achieved, and there appeared to be a lot more to come. That is what the Likud supporters meant by their cries of "We don't want unity!" It appears that if Likud supporters were to vote on whether they wanted a unity government or a third election, most would choose the second option.

But as bad, or funny, or bizarre, as that sounds, the possibility of another election in February or March of next year is on the table. As of right now, none of the candidates have a chance of forming a government. Gantz walled himself off by his phone call to Ayman Odeh after the election. Netanyahu closed himself off with leaders of the Right and the haredim and formed an alliance with them. Now he needs them, and they will need him later one. Just like they could decide to join a government under Gantz, he could head them off and join forces with Gantz himself.

As far as Netanyahu is concerned, the only scenario in which he is not prime minister is a third election. The question is – do the other right-wing parties feel the same way? The only coalition Gantz could assemble would be a nearly impossible one: Lieberman and the haredim, or the New Right and Meretz. None of these are combinations that could work together and survive for long. So despite what party leaders were saying just before the election, a third round might be the best option for them.

While Gantz's achievement might be partial, it's the most he could have gotten out of this election. Even in the rosiest scenario, it was clear from the beginning he wouldn't have a coalition unless he went with the Arabs. Gantz's achievement, therefore, is in throwing a wrench into Netanyahu's plans. He could try to break down the right-wing alliance and bring some of its members to his side, or he could try to foment a rebellion in the Likud to have Netanyahu replaced as party leader. If one of those tactics succeeds, it could install him as prime minister, but neither one has much of a chance.

So Gantz has two bad choices: joining a government under Netanyahu and the Right, either with or without Lapid, or a third election. It's unclear which would be worse for him. If he has to run in a third election, it would be the toughest entrée into politics any candidate has ever had. Is Gantz built for a long-term campaign? He might be more tempted by an appointment to the post of defense minister in a Netanyahu-led government that would hold on for a few years.

Gantz would really like for the threat of a third election to spark a revolt in the Likud that would oust Netanyahu. Then he could form a unity government with the new party head. Unless Netanyahu resigns, that's unlikely to happen. The Likud ministers would prefer another election over facing off with Netanyahu. For Netanyahu to be ousted from the party leadership, a senior party member would need to call a primary election. If that happened, most senior Likud members would back Netanyahu.

The failure of the Right in this election stemmed mainly from Netanyahu's scare campaign, which started to sound like he was crying wolf. It was hard to convince supporters that the right-wing government was in danger when he said it twice already, and it turned out not to be. This time, when the right-wing government really was in danger, no one believed it. Likud strongholds in the periphery, in the poorer neighborhoods of major cities, and even in Judea and Samaria saw much lower voter turnout this time than in April. Left-wing areas, however, were fully engaged. A scent of a possible change of government was in the air and everyone lent their hand to the effort. The Arab sector also saw an unusually high rate of participation in the election. Netanyahu thought that the idea of putting cameras in polling stations and pressuring the Arab sector would make them feel desolate, but it did the opposite – it spurred them on to vote.

Just like the possibility of removing Netanyahu as head of the Likud isn't an option, the possibility of Blue and White splitting isn't an option now, either. If anything could help Gantz navigate the intensive months in which he was attacked and slandered from every side, it was the wall-to-wall support he enjoyed from the media from the moment he challenged Netanyahu. Scandals were swept under the rug, he was asked almost no tough questions, and even when he decided to boycott some media outlets he was afraid of, no one gave him a hard time or criticized him for it. So it doesn't look like Gantz is ready to give up his biggest asset, because he knows that the moment he cooperates with Netanyahu, he'll lose the protection he had and he will be marked by the media, as were so many who preceded him, and paid the price.

When Amir Peretz managed to become leader of the Labor party, it was clear to him what the next step was. With every fiber of his being, he wanted to do what he did in the 2006 election – bring Likud supporters to Labor. He set a goal of winning 15 seats, so he should have been disappointed with the results. But Peretz wasn't. He thinks it was a good result. He also thinks he lost a lot of seats to Blue and White but that his aggressive campaigning in Likud areas moved two seats from the Likud to Labor.

Peretz stressed that he wouldn't go back on his promise not to join a government under Netanyahu. Joining the government would have been advantageous to Peretz for many reasons. He would have been proof against being removed as party leader, for example. He would have been promised to be allowed to run for president a year and a half from now. His party colleagues would have received major portfolios like finance or other economic ministries. But Peretz kept his promise. Many of his predecessors hung onto their integrity but not onto power.

When we look at the election results for the Democratic Union, it's hard not to wonder what Ehud Barak's strange political turn meant. He started out as a kind of candidate for prime minister, went on to herald a unification of the Left, and finally joined forces with Meretz and disappeared into oblivion. His associated are convinced that he got back into politics to help bring down Netanyahu.

Others see his political foray as a business venture. In the many years since he last held public office, the former prime minister and defense minister has been forgotten by the public and the media. And nothing is worse for business than when it turns out that the person who was made a director because he could supposedly open doors can at most break into homes. This last run was very valuable for Barak. In three months, he became one of the most interesting, relevant figures in Israeli public life, and perhaps that the point from the beginning.

One of the people who came out of the election disappointed was Ayelet Shaked. The Yamina leader has taken quite the path in the space of a few months, but the election results have put her at an impasse. When party lists were finalized a month and a half ago, it looked as if no one was better for the job than she. Polls were favorable and activists who were hungry for success were mostly willing to swallow the humiliation of her jumping ship from Habayit Hayehudi to found the New Right with Naftali Bennett, and not only welcome her back on the list but to make her head of it. It was so obvious to everyone that she was only one who could lead it to success that Rafi Peretz turned over the keys without a fight and without preconditions.

The division of labor was supposed to have been clear – Peretz and Bezalel Smotrich were to bring in religious Zionist and national haredi voters, and Shaked would bring in the liberal religious and the secular voters, increasing the list's normal electorate.

That didn't happen. Very quickly, Shaked found herself pulled into a sectorial campaign. In the final stretch, the target audience was religious voters only, and she put all her eggs into that basket. Shaked saw how Netanyahu was trying to eat away at her religious Zionist base and she was forced to fight him for that constituency. It's uncertain how many religious Zionist voters moved to the Likud, but there's no doubt that the number of secular voters who switched to Yamina was negligible.

If we're talking about Yamina, we can't avoid mentioning the party that nibbled away at the Right. Up until the last, Netanyahu didn't know what to do about Otzma Yehudit. After he decided to wipe them out, he saw them rising in the polls and took care to make that clear, thinking that the party could bring another four seats to the right-wing bloc.

In the end, it turned out the attention paid to Itamar Ben-Gvir and Otzma Yehudit wasn't worth the energy. After the election, Smotrich rushed to attack Otzma Yehudit, claiming that ego had cost the Right precious seats. The Right did indeed lose seats, but their worth is questionable. In retrospect, Otzma Yehudit "burned" about 80,000 right-wing votes by failing to make it past the minimum electoral threshold. That number proves that Netanyahu was right by saying nothing could help the party. They were too far from the minimum threshold.

The election results also showed that in contrast to what Ben-Gvir had said, the right-wing bloc wouldn't have had 61 seats, even with Otzma Yehudit. Ben-Gvir might have wasted 2.5 right-wing seats, but as things stand, they wouldn't have been enough. Even if he had dropped out of the race and the votes were spread between the other right-wing parties, or if he had made it into the Knesset with four seats of his own, the basic picture – in which the Right doesn't have a majority – wouldn't change.

The post Searching for a tiebreaker appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"I'm not happy that we got [an estimated] six seats, but it saved the party from death," said Marciano, the only Labor official who agreed to speak on the record immediately after exit polls were announced.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Labor leader Amir Peretz kept away from the modest election headquarters in the Yad Eliyahu neighborhood of Tel Aviv.

Peretz knows that while he managed to keep the party out of the dustbin of history, he has a lot of work ahead of him.

A senior Labor official told Israel Hayom that there was "no chance" Labor would join a coalition with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Amir Peretz will keep his promise," the official said.

Approximately half an hour after exit polls were announced, Peretz sent a message to Labor activists.

"I ask that you wait until the final results are in, and all our friends at the polling places finish their work," he said.

"The media spent a month and a half slaughtering us," Marciano said.

"Right now is not the time to sum things up. … Amir Peretz was elected party leader two months ago. We got a party that was wrecked, with debts. A day after Peretz was elected, Shelly Yachimovich resigned, Tal Russo left, and [former leader] Avi Gabbay didn't do anything."

"[Ehud] Barak left, Stav Shafir left. Joining forces with Gesher was one of the good things that happened, and you'll see that in the end Orly Levy-Abekasis and her colleagues do a lot for us. We inherited a party that had a deficit of 8 million shekels [$2.3 million]," Marciano said.

The post 'We saved the Labor party from death' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"The conditions have been created for Netanyahu's political demise," Barak said, reiterating the Left's pledge not to sit with Netanyahu so long as he is pending indictment in three separate corruption cases. The Left hopes that by refusing to sit with Netanyahu, the Likud will replace him as party leader and agree to send him home.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Chairman of the Democratic Union Nitzan Horowitz did not wait to react to the exit polls, vowing to continue fighting the Right.

"I call on the Labor party to join us and create a large faction that will in future serve as a platform for all left-wing voters in Israel, and will go on to fight for the leadership of the country," Horowitz said.

Labor-Gesher leader Amir Peretz told party activists: "I thank everyone for their immense efforts and ask you all to wait until the final results are in, and all our friends at the polling stations finish their work."

Joint Arab List Chairman Ayman Odeh announced after the initial results were in: "Our votes have prevented Netanyahu from forming a government. This is something historic." Another Arab MK, Ahmad Tibi, ruled out sitting with the Zionist Left in a government, although he did not rule out unofficially backing a center-left government.

Blue and White apparently preferred to take the early results of the 2019 do-over election with a grain of salt, waiting before making any dramatic announcement.

This was in contrast to Chairman Benny Gantz's premature victory speech after the April election, which was widely ridiculed.

The post Barak: Elections created fertile soil for toppling Netanyahu appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.