It is ironic that last Wednesday, a day after many Israelis attended the traditional Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year) synagogue services, repenting their sins and asking the divinity for forgiveness, the hearing of corruption allegations against Prime Minister Benjanmin Netanyahu opened in Jerusalem. Hardly anyone was naïve enough to believe that the two days of repentance would lead Netanyahu and his battery of lawyers to reflect and lean toward repentance, or at least ask for a plea bargain, rather than simply repeat his denials. In the offices of the Justice Ministry, for a full four days starting this week and continuing next week, Netanyahu’s lawyers have been attempting to convince the Attorney General and the General Prosecution that three years of an intensive police investigation and surgical dissection of the evidence by the General Prosecution’s lawyers led them to the erroneous decision to indict the Israeli prime minister. In the meantime, when the entire energy of Israel’s political system is being sucked into the prime minister’s legal issues, the huge task of forming a new coalition government is stuck in the quagmire of another indecisive election result. As much as most commentators, myself included, are directing most of our arrows at the politicians for causing the current political crisis, which began when for the first time the Knesset decided to dissolve itself in December 2018, some of the criticism should be aimed at the voters themselves. It may not be popular to apportion blame to those who exercise their democratic right to vote in good faith, but to have a second opportunity in the same year, as was presented to them last month, and to repeat a similar pattern of behavior in casting their ballots, and then expect a different and more conclusive outcome, may indicate lack of political understanding, let alone sophistication. As it stands, the Israeli electorate may have a third chance to rectify its voting transgressions, but in the meantime the country is being governed (and I use the word governed in a very loose manner) as it has been since the end of last year, by an interim administration with all the authority that comes with being in power, but none of the accountability to, and scrutiny by, the Knesset. This by and large explains why the President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, who by law is entrusted with the task of assigning one of the Knesset members to form a government, invited the leaders of the two parties with most members, Benny Gantz of Blue and White and Netanyahu of Likud, and urged them to form a broad coalition, emphasizing the need to avoid a third election within a year. Netanyahu, who over two election campaigns has been dismissive and venomous about Gantz and his abilities, is suddenly keen on Rivlin’s suggestion. After all, he would do anything to avoid a jail sentence, even share power with someone he has accused of being incompetent. Yossi Mekelberg It was an awkward meeting, knowing the history between the president and the prime minister. Rivlin is on the long list of Netanyahu’s nemeses, whose presidency the latter made every effort to block, though both are in the same party. It is no secret that Rivlin, along with other Likud veterans, would love to have seen the back of Netanyahu, but he also understands the realities of Israeli politics; that at least in these early stages of coalition negotiations neither side is capable of forming a majority government, and the block of parties that support the current prime minister is the bigger one. However, the president’s suggestion of a government in which for all means and purposes Netanyahu and Gantz would serve as prime minister concurrently, is somewhat outlandish. There is bait for both of them in the proposal, as explained by Rivlin himself: “As long as the prime minister is unavailable, his role will be preserved, and he will return to it when he is able to. That was my proposal and that is what I suggest.” In other words, he is telling Netanyahu that, if he were indicted, the president would continue to preserve his position as prime minister, which, most importantly for Netanyahu, would enable him to contest the corruption allegations against him from the most powerful position in the country. As for Gantz, he may be tempted by knowing that the court case could take years to be resolved, while he in the meantime would run the country’s affairs. Apparently a win-win solution. Nevertheless, this might benefit the politicians, but not the people or the causes of good governance and equality of all in the eyes of the law. Netanyahu, who over two election campaigns has been dismissive and venomous about Gantz and his abilities, is suddenly keen on Rivlin’s suggestion. After all, he would do anything to avoid a jail sentence, even share power with someone he has accused of being not only incompetent, but ready to compromise the country’s security. For now, Gantz has not fallen into this trap and is sticking to his promise not to sit in the same government as an indicted Netanyahu. How much credibility would he preserve among his supporters if he were to renege on his election promise? All this makes a third election in early 2020 a real possibility, unless either Likud gets its act together, weans itself off Netanyahu and replaces him with someone else, or there is a movement between the two blocs and enough Knesset members change sides to support either Gantz or Netanyahu. Moreover, as has become customary in the past few months, the wild card is held by Avigdor Lieberman, who thus far has not committed himself to any form of narrow coalition. If he changes his mind and throws his support behind either Netanyahu or Gantz, a narrow coalition becomes a real possibility. And in the meantime, for those who would like to dwell on more symbolism and irony, Netahyahu’s hearing will end on the Jewish day of judgment, Yom Kippur. And on top of all his other sins, one could add that of holding an entire country to ransom for his own vested interest in saving himself from the justice system.