אחרי הימין יישאר זעם, וממשלה שתצטרך להילחם על כל שינוי | רן אדליסט

The article discusses the challenges facing a potential new Israeli government, particularly a "change government," emphasizing that the real struggle for Israel's identity and future will occur throughout its term. It posits that such a government, aiming for proper management, will face a frustrated, determined, and angry right-wing public. The author argues against immediate, sweeping investigations or reforms, suggesting these could drain the new government's resources. Instead, the priority should be on overhauling the defense system while it's operational.

The piece touches on a controversial incident involving settlers entering homes in Jericho, noting that Avi Bluth, head of the settlement movement, allegedly sought to conceal his involvement. The IDF stated the entry was uncoordinated. The author questions Bluth's actions, suggesting potential culpability or negligence.

Regarding the military, the article suggests that the Chief of Staff cannot or will not dismiss two regional commanders, fearing increased anarchy. It proposes that a new government should support a military that understands its limitations, potentially leading to a withdrawal from Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria to the 1967 borders. The author speculates that Netanyahu might delay such a move by waiting for a provocation.

The article also addresses the current balance of power with neighboring countries, stating it favors Israel, but warns of Netanyahu's successful fear-mongering campaign. It highlights growing resistance to the IDF's conduct in various regions and the need for Eisenkot to engage in open dialogue with the Chief of Staff to prevent escalation, as a transitional government is forbidden from unilateral actions.

Finally, the author describes the political maneuvering within the "change bloc" as a form of self-strengthening rather than an impediment to government formation. Eisenkot and his partners are expected to face personal attacks from Netanyahu's supporters aimed at undermining his leadership, while Eisenkot himself is portrayed as suppressing his own anger and desire for revenge.