A 'unity' government would block the reforms Israel desperately needs - opinion

An opinion column argues that a 'unity' government in Israel would block necessary reforms. The author, Dan Perry, contends that excluding Likud from a coalition is not undemocratic, citing examples from other democracies. He criticizes Benny Gantz and other centrists for accepting the premise that Likud deserves cabinet representation. The column claims that unity would preserve the damage of the Netanyahu years and that elections should impose consequences. It mentions the 'change government' and Naftali Bennett's hesitations, and argues that the haredi sector's influence is economically unsustainable. The author calls for a government committed to reversing the previous course.

In this opinion piece, Dan Perry argues against the formation of a 'unity' government in Israel, asserting that it would block the reforms the country needs. He criticizes the notion that excluding Likud from the government is undemocratic, pointing out that in other democracies, the winning party does not share power with the opposition. Perry specifically calls out Benny Gantz and other centrists for accepting this premise. He argues that elections are meant to impose consequences, and that a party that governs poorly should be sent to the opposition. He references the 'change government' and Naftali Bennett's hesitations as an example of how unity can paralyze reform. Perry also contends that the haredi sector's influence is economically unsustainable and that Likud is beholden to it. He concludes that a government committed to change should not hand veto power to the movement the electorate rejected.