Israel’s election has produced a narrow lead for the opposition, but not enough to remove Benjamin Netanyahu from power. With neither political camp securing a parliamentary majority, the next Israeli government may depend on difficult coalition negotiations, the influence of Arab lawmakers and political compromises that several parties have already resisted.
Exit polls following Tuesday’s parliamentary election showed the opposition bloc, led by Gadi Eisenkot, winning between 52 and 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with approximately 50 seats for Netanyahu’s coalition.
The two Arab electoral lists made significant gains, securing a projected 17 to 18 seats between them, while voter turnout reached 77.7%.
The figures leave both major political camps short of the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority. They also place Arab parties in a potentially decisive position, despite the reluctance of several Israeli political leaders to depend on their support.
The result is a political contest in which Netanyahu could lose his parliamentary advantage without necessarily losing the premiership.
Four possible scenarios now stand between Israel and its next government.
1. A New Coalition: Can Netanyahu or Eisenkot Find 61 Seats?
The most conventional outcome would involve one of the political blocs negotiating agreements with smaller parties to assemble a governing majority.
But the parliamentary arithmetic makes that difficult.
Eisenkot’s opposition bloc is projected to control 52 to 53 seats, leaving it at least eight seats short of the required majority.
Netanyahu’s coalition faces an even steeper challenge. Its projected 50 seats leave it 11 short, while the failure of several smaller right-wing parties to cross the electoral threshold has reduced the number of potential partners available to him.
Under Israel’s political system, President Isaac Herzog will consult representatives of the elected parties before deciding which candidate should be tasked with forming a government.
The decision does not necessarily favour the leader of the largest party. Instead, the president considers which candidate has the strongest prospects of securing sufficient parliamentary backing.
That makes negotiations with smaller political factions central to the process.
Arab Parties Could Become the Deciding Factor
The Arab parties, particularly the United Arab List, commonly known as Ra’am, have indicated that they are open to working with Eisenkot’s bloc.
However, Eisenkot has maintained political distance from the party, regarding reliance on its support as a potential electoral liability.
This creates a contradiction for the opposition: Arab lawmakers could provide the parliamentary support needed to replace Netanyahu, but accepting that support could come at a political cost.
The negotiations may become even more complicated as individual parties seek guarantees that protect their political interests.
Even if an agreement is eventually reached, conflicting demands could leave the next government vulnerable to internal disputes and instability.
Israel has experienced lengthy coalition negotiations before.
Following the parliamentary election of 2 November 2022, Netanyahu required 58 days to form his government.
The latest results suggest that the formation of a new coalition could again become a prolonged political struggle.
2. A Minority Government: Could Arab Lawmakers Help Remove Netanyahu?
If neither major bloc succeeds in assembling 61 seats, another possibility would be a minority government.
Under such an arrangement, a prime minister would govern without a permanent parliamentary majority, relying on support from lawmakers outside the governing coalition to pass legislation and survive crucial votes.
This scenario could give Arab representatives considerable influence over the formation and survival of the next Israeli government.
There is already a precedent.
Between 2021 and 2022, Ra’am, led by Mansour Abbas, participated in the coalition government headed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.
The party played an important role in supporting a governing arrangement that brought together political factions with substantial ideological differences.
Following the latest election, Ra’am has again expressed willingness to cooperate with Eisenkot’s bloc.
The Joint List has also offered to provide parliamentary backing to any coalition capable of removing Netanyahu from office.
Such an arrangement could allow an Eisenkot-led government to function without formally incorporating every supporting party into the governing coalition.
Political analyst Tal Elovitz suggested that the relatively high turnout among Arab voters reflected a strong desire for political participation and partnership.
However, Eisenkot has not publicly demonstrated a willingness to pursue this option.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, has warned against establishing a government dependent on what he describes as non-Zionist Arab lists.
The dispute illustrates how Arab political participation remains a contentious issue within Israeli coalition politics, even when Arab lawmakers hold enough seats to influence the parliamentary balance.
Elovitz nevertheless considers an Eisenkot-led minority government possible, although its feasibility will depend on the final election results.
3. A National Unity Government: Could Netanyahu Join Forces With His Rivals?
A third possibility would involve a national unity government bringing together Netanyahu and Eisenkot.
Although political polarisation makes such an agreement difficult, some Israeli analysts have suggested that it could provide a more stable government with fewer far-right influences.
Under this arrangement, Netanyahu could abandon his existing alliance with far-right and religious hardline parties and instead negotiate a partnership with Eisenkot.
The two leaders share broadly compatible positions on several national security issues, potentially providing a foundation for cooperation.
Arab parties, however, would be excluded from the proposed coalition.
For Netanyahu, such an agreement could offer a route to remaining in government despite the decline of his existing parliamentary bloc.
For Eisenkot, it would require cooperation with the very prime minister his opposition camp campaigned to remove.
That contradiction represents one of the greatest obstacles to the proposal.
Most Israelis Prefer Unity Over Another Election
Despite the political difficulties, a national unity government appears to have considerable public support.
A poll published on 16 October found that 55% of Israelis would prefer a national unity government rather than another election if no party secured a clear parliamentary majority.
Israel has previously experimented with such an arrangement.
In 2020, Netanyahu and Benny Gantz reached a power-sharing agreement following three elections held within less than a year.
The agreement included a rotation arrangement for the premiership, intended to allow both leaders to share power.
However, the partnership collapsed after approximately one year, triggering another election.
That experience illustrates the difficulties of sustaining a government formed between political rivals whose cooperation is driven more by parliamentary necessity than shared political objectives.
The current opposition has also repeatedly challenged Netanyahu’s suitability for leadership and made his removal a central election promise.
Reversing that position could create substantial internal tensions.
For now, a unity government remains a theoretical option rather than an arrangement supported by clear political commitments.
4. Political Deadlock: Could Israel Face Another Election?
The final scenario is also one Israel knows well: another election.
If neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot succeeds in forming a government capable of securing sufficient parliamentary support, the political process could eventually lead to another national vote.
Such an outcome would prolong the uncertainty surrounding Israel’s leadership and leave the country facing another period of political instability.
Between April 2019 and March 2021, Israel held four parliamentary elections as political leaders repeatedly failed to construct a stable governing coalition.
The country’s fragmented political system, combined with disagreements between rival parties, made it difficult to establish a government capable of maintaining parliamentary support.
The latest election could reproduce similar difficulties.
Under Israeli law, a candidate tasked by the president with forming a government initially receives 28 days to negotiate a coalition agreement.
The president can extend that period by an additional 14 days.
Further procedural mechanisms also exist to provide opportunities for government formation before another election becomes necessary.
These provisions mean that a failure to secure an immediate majority does not automatically trigger a new vote.
Instead, the political negotiations could continue for weeks, with rival leaders attempting to attract additional parliamentary support or persuade smaller parties to reconsider their positions.
The final outcome will depend not simply on which bloc wins more seats, but on which leader can build a workable governing arrangement.
For Netanyahu, that distinction is critical.
The opposition may have gained a narrow electoral advantage, but unless it can translate those seats into a governing majority, Netanyahu could remain prime minister while his rivals struggle to agree on who should replace him.
Sources: Al Jazeera and Agence France-Presse (AFP).
