A senior Likud minister and close associate of Netanyahu voiced harsh criticism of Gantz on Wednesday, claiming that Gantz still failed to understand that without partnering with the Likud and the smaller right-wing parties, he would not be able to form a government. According to the minister, there was little chance that Gantz would try to form a minority government that rested on support from the Arab parties, as he and Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman would pay a heavy political price for doing so.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"If there is a need, we'll even hold a fourth election," the minister told Israel Hayom.

"Blue and White needs to understand that it can't form a government without the Likud or the parties that go with it. That will always be the case, no matter how many rounds of an election are held. The Likud won't leave Netanyahu, and Netanyahu won't leave the parties in the right-wing bloc and they won't leave him," the minister explained.

The Likud minister said that if Gantz had accepted the proposal made to him after the April 9 election, "he could have been prime minister a few months from now. He was offering a seat in a rotation [for prime minister] within a year … which would have made him prime minister in March or April [2020] – the date when, as of now, we will be holding a third election if Blue and White doesn't wake up to the situation."

Meanwhile, most of the leaders of the small right-wing parties, with the exception of the New Right, signed a pledge on Wednesday that read, "If, heaven forbid, a minority government supported by the Joint Arab List or part of it is sworn in, we will not join that government at any stage. We will vote against it in every vote and work to bring it down in every way possible."

The right-wing leaders also made a commitment to join "only a government under Netanyahu that will include the undersigned, whether in the framework of a right-wing government or in the framework of a unity government with a rotation."

Former Education Minister Naftali Bennett and former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked refused to sign the pledge because they saw it as unnecessary.

Although MK David Bitan (Likud) said that he thought Netanyahu should return the mandate to President Reuven Rivlin, his fellow Likud MK Miki Zohar was staunchly opposed to the idea.

"The fact that Lieberman still hasn't declared that he will not allow the establishment of a minority government supported by the Joint Arab List is very disturbing," Zohar told Israel Hayom.

"It's mostly dangerous for Israel's security. Any government that is established and rests on support from the Arabs will be exposed to extortion on security issues that benefits our enemies. I call on the prime minister not to return the mandate to the president until Lieberman makes it clear he will not allow such a government to be formed," Zohar said.

However, Leiberman was still refusing on Wednesday to state that he would not support the formation of a minority government. In a Facebook post, he wrote, "We have no intention of addressing this spin from the Likud or any other spins. If they want to sit down with us for serious coalition negotiations, first they need to break up the haredi-messianic bloc and then we can discuss everything."

The smaller right-wing parties also aimed barbs at both Lieberman and Blue and White following the Israel Hayom report.

New Right chairman Naftali Bennett wrote, "the dark trick of establishing a minority government that is based on votes from the anti-Zionist Joint Arab List and Lieberman's refusal [to prevent it] is an immoral idea that will taint those who perpetrate it. It will also fail, because no party will join a government that is established that way, so it won't be in power for more than a few weeks."

Transportation Minister Bezalel Smotrich, however, did not reject the idea of a minority government and claimed that even if one were formed, it would be short-lived.

"It's actually not a bad idea," Smotrich wrote.

"A government like that wouldn't last very long, and then the Right would see a huge win in an election. A move like that would expose Lieberman's true colors and label him as far on the Left. This could definitely be the best solution for the crisis we're engulfed in," Smotrich argued.

The post Right circles wagons around Netanyahu following Israel Hayom report appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

But perhaps the more relevant example to what is currently happening with the coalition crisis in Israel is the double election compromise of 1974, which proved that a victor's determination can pay off if he is willing to take a calculated risk. In 1974, the British Parliament included 635 seats. In the election that was held in February of that years, the Conservatives – under then-Prime Minister Edward Heath – were voted out, winning 297 seats, compared to 301 for the Labour party under Harold Wilson. Wilson was named prime minister after the Liberals refused to sit with the Conservatives in a coalition. Interestingly, one of the main issues in that election was the conditions under which Britain would join the EU, which was then known as the European Community.

Either way, Wilson led a minority government that found it difficult to function. He sought a repeat election at the earliest possible date, and in October of that year, another election was held. This time, his party won 319 seats, which made things easier for him. In March 1976, Wilson announced he would be leaving politics because he was "mentally and physically exhausted." Some think that Wilson resigned because his doctor has spotted early signs of Alzheimer's. However, there is no doubt that the internal strife in his party over Britain joining Europe contributed to his decision. Indeed, history repeats itself.

There was a precedent for Wilson's determination in 1974. In 1964, he was voted prime minister for the first time, but Labour under his leadership at the time won such a tiny majority that it could not function. Wilson eventually decided to move the election forward, and it was held in 1966. His gamble paid off, and Labour won another 47 seats.

It is no simple thing to decide on an early election. Other than the 1974 election in Britain, it's hard to find instances of two general elections being held in a single calendar year. There are many examples, however, of leaders who decided to move up a general election finding that it boomerangs. But sometimes, a leader has no choice. The Wilson instances from 1966 and 1974 proved that gutsiness can pay off.

The post There's nothing wrong with a new election appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.