Eisenkot Camp Explains Failed Bennett Alliance: 'One Plus One Doesn't Always Equal Two'

Gadi Eisenkot may have opted against a joint electoral list with Naftali Bennett if he concluded that such a union would not increase the opposition bloc's Knesset seats, and could even alienate voters, according to Alexander Gorodnitsky, head of Eisenkot's Russian-speaking campaign staff. Gorodnitsky shared this perspective in an exclusive interview with Boris Mirkin on MIG TV, addressing why Eisenkot and Bennett did not run together.

While Mirkin suggested a unified list could have boosted the opposition's chances of forming the next government, Gorodnitsky clarified he was not privy to the private negotiations. His explanation, therefore, is an assessment of the potential electoral logic behind the decision, not a report of the discussions themselves. "There is a general political principle: one plus one does not always equal two," Gorodnitsky stated, acknowledging the potential benefits of mergers, such as combining voter bases, funding, and organizational structures.

However, Gorodnitsky cautioned that electoral gains are not automatic. Differences in voter sentiment towards leaders, platforms, and potential coalition partners can cause a combined electorate to shrink. He cited his own experience with Yisrael Beiteinu, which had an established network, contrasting it with new projects that must build infrastructure from scratch.

Gorodnitsky suggested that Eisenkot might have concluded that the specific merger would decrease, rather than increase, the bloc's total seat count. He emphasized that simply adding the parties' individual ratings does not predict the outcome of a joint list. He also noted the Israeli system, where the president can task any Knesset member with forming a government, not necessarily the leader of the largest party. This means Eisenkot's strategy might prioritize building partnerships after the election rather than merging beforehand.