Israel election deadlock: Why Netanyahu’s political future now rests on coalition arithmetic

Spread the word Israel’s October 27 parliamentary election has produced an outcome that could reshape the country’s political leadership, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing bloc losing its parliamentary majority despite his Likud party emerging as the largest single party.

The final results show that Likud secured 27 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament, but the wider bloc supporting Netanyahu won only 53 seats, eight short of the 61 required for a parliamentary majority.

The opposition bloc, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, secured 48 seats, while Arab-led parties won a combined 19 seats, their strongest representation in the Knesset. Blueprint reports

The figures leave neither of the two main political camps with an outright majority and place Israel on the threshold of potentially prolonged coalition negotiations.

For Netanyahu, the result represents a significant reduction in the parliamentary support that sustained his government. For Eisenkot, it presents an opportunity to challenge the prime minister, although translating the opposition’s electoral gains into a governing majority will require difficult political compromises.

The immediate constitutional responsibility now falls to President Isaac Herzog, who will consult political parties before assigning a lawmaker the task of forming a government.

But the significance of the election extends beyond the contest between two political leaders. It has exposed deep divisions over national security, military service, the role of Arab political parties, Netanyahu’s accountability for the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the future direction of Israeli politics.

The final results published by Israel’s Central Elections Committee show that Likud won 27 seats, followed by Eisenkot’s Yashar party with 21 and Naftali Bennett’s B’Yachad with 12.

The Joint List secured 11 seats, while The Democrats and Ra’am won eight seats each. Yisrael Beytenu, United Torah Judaism and Otzma Yehudit secured seven seats apiece, while Shas and Religious Zionism won six each.

The results leave Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats, the opposition grouping with 48 and the two Arab-led formations with 19.

Although Likud remains the largest party, the performance of its partners means Netanyahu cannot rely on his existing political alliance to command a majority in the new parliament.

The distinction between a party’s individual performance and the strength of the wider bloc supporting it is central to understanding the outcome.

In Israel’s parliamentary system, the party with the highest number of seats does not automatically produce the prime minister. What matters is whether a prospective head of government can assemble a coalition capable of securing the confidence of the Knesset.

The outgoing governing coalition had held 68 seats in the previous parliament. Its reduction to 53 represents a loss of 15 seats and a substantial weakening of Netanyahu’s parliamentary position.

Israel has a unicameral parliament, meaning it operates one national legislative chamber rather than separate houses of parliament.

The Knesset has 120 members, a number rooted in the traditional account of the 120 members of the Great Assembly in Jewish history. Its composition is fixed, and lawmakers are elected through a nationwide proportional representation system.

Under this arrangement, voters cast ballots for political parties rather than directly electing a prime minister. Seats are distributed broadly according to each party’s share of the national vote, provided it crosses the 3.25 per cent electoral threshold.

A party winning 20 per cent of the vote, for example, would receive a corresponding share of parliamentary representation, subject to the electoral allocation rules.

The system encourages multiple parties to enter parliament, reflecting the country’s diverse political, religious and ideological constituencies. However, it also makes coalition governments almost inevitable because no single party has secured an outright parliamentary majority in recent Israeli elections.

With 120 seats available, 61 represents more than half of the legislature and is the conventional benchmark for a governing majority.

That is why the 19 seats won by Arab-led parties have attracted considerable attention. In numerical terms, their representation could be decisive in a parliament where neither major bloc has reached 61.

However, parliamentary arithmetic does not automatically translate into political cooperation. Parties must be willing to work together, negotiate policy commitments and agree on the composition and direction of a government.

Israel’s electoral arrangement differs fundamentally from the United States’ Electoral College.

In the American system, voters participate in a presidential election in which electoral votes allocated to individual states determine the winner. The president is elected separately from Congress and serves as both head of state and head of government.

Israel operates a parliamentary system. Voters elect members of the Knesset through party lists, and the prime minister emerges from negotiations among political parties capable of assembling sufficient parliamentary support.

Consequently, a party can win the largest share of seats without its leader becoming prime minister. Equally, the leader of a smaller party can head the government if that person succeeds in assembling a coalition with the confidence of parliament.

The distinction explains why Netanyahu’s 27 seats do not automatically secure his continued leadership, while Eisenkot’s 21 seats do not rule him out of contention.

President Isaac Herzog has become central to the government-formation process, not because he possesses the executive authority of the prime minister, but because Israel’s Basic Law assigns him a specific constitutional responsibility following parliamentary elections.

After the official election results are published, the president consults representatives of the parliamentary factions before assigning a member of the Knesset the task of forming a government.

The law does not require him to appoint the leader of the party with the highest number of seats. Rather, the established practice is to consider which lawmaker appears best positioned to assemble a government capable of securing parliamentary confidence.

This distinction could become particularly important in the present circumstances.

Netanyahu leads the largest party, but his wider bloc has only 53 seats. Eisenkot leads the main opposition grouping, which has 48. The president must therefore consider the recommendations and political commitments of the parties, rather than simply award the mandate to the leader of the largest party.

Herzog’s decision will determine who gets the first opportunity to negotiate a coalition. It will not, by itself, determine who eventually becomes prime minister.

Under the Basic Law: The Government, the lawmaker assigned the task has 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of an extension of up to 14 additional days.

If the first nominee fails, the president can assign the responsibility to another lawmaker. Further constitutional procedures allow a majority of Knesset members to recommend another candidate. If the process fails to produce a government, the country could return to the polls.

The final results are scheduled to be submitted to Herzog on November 4, while the new Knesset is expected to be sworn in on November 10.

Although Herzog has an important role in the current political process, Netanyahu occupies the more powerful executive office.

The president is Israel’s head of state, while the prime minister is head of government.

Herzog’s responsibilities include representing the state, performing constitutional functions, receiving foreign diplomats, signing legislation and exercising certain powers relating to appointments and pardons.

The prime minister, by contrast, leads the cabinet, directs government policy and oversees the executive administration, including the implementation of national security and economic decisions.

The president does not ordinarily direct the government or supervise the prime minister. Nor does the prime minister appoint or dismiss the president.

The two offices have separate constitutional mandates, with the presidency designed to provide institutional continuity beyond the political life of individual governments.

Herzog was elected by the Knesset in 2021 for a seven-year term. Before becoming president, he led the Labour Party and served as opposition leader. Netanyahu, meanwhile, is the long-standing leader of Likud and has occupied the premiership across several periods.

Their different political backgrounds do not change the constitutional requirement that the president perform his present responsibilities impartially.

In the current circumstances, Herzog’s influence lies in managing the process through which a new government may emerge, rather than exercising the executive authority that belongs to the prime minister.

The combined 19 seats secured by the Joint List and Ra’am represent one of the most consequential outcomes of the election.

The two formations have different political identities and approaches to parliamentary engagement. Their combined performance gives Arab political representation a potentially influential position in the new Knesset, but it does not mean that they will necessarily support the same candidate or government.

Ra’am, led by Mansour Abbas, has previously demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with Jewish-led parties on government formation in exchange for commitments addressing issues affecting Arab communities.

In 2021, it became the first Arab party to formally participate in an Israeli governing coalition, joining the government led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.

The Joint List, meanwhile, brings together political movements with a broader range of positions on Arab citizenship, Palestinian national aspirations and Israel’s political system.

Its leaders have indicated a willingness to support an alternative government from outside a formal coalition, subject to commitments on issues affecting Arab communities.

However, the prospect of an opposition government relying on Arab-party support faces significant political obstacles.

Avigdor Liberman, leader of Yisrael Beytenu, has ruled out joining a coalition that includes Arab-led parties or relying on them to sustain a minority government. Other opposition leaders have also made commitments that restrict their willingness to enter arrangements involving parties they regard as outside the Zionist political camp.

Eisenkot and his potential partners therefore face a difficult calculation: the Arab-led parties could provide the numbers needed for an alternative government, but securing their support may conflict with commitments made by some of the very parties seeking to replace Netanyahu.

This makes the 19 seats politically significant without making their holders automatic kingmakers.

Neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot is generally identified as a pro-Arab political leader, and the question is better understood through their positions on Arab political representation and cooperation.

Netanyahu has rejected depending on Arab-led parties to sustain his government. His political alliance includes right-wing and religious parties that oppose such arrangements.

Eisenkot, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, leads a centrist opposition grouping, but his potential coalition partners are not united on cooperation with Arab parties.

The issue is not simply whether a candidate is sympathetic to Arab interests. It concerns the political conditions under which Arab lawmakers can participate in government, support legislation or provide parliamentary backing.

Arab citizens make up a significant part of Israel’s population and have the right to vote and contest elections. Their parties have historically faced barriers to participation in national governments, although Ra’am’s role in the 2021 coalition demonstrated that formal cooperation is possible.

The present election has renewed the debate over whether Arab political parties can exercise influence beyond representing their constituencies in parliament.

Netanyahu has built much of his political identity around national security, his opposition to Iran’s regional influence and his promise to protect Israel against external threats.

His supporters point to his extensive experience in government and argue that his leadership has been essential during a period of war and heightened regional instability.

However, the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel remains a defining issue in the debate over his leadership.

The attack exposed serious intelligence and security failures, with Hamas fighters killing civilians and soldiers and taking hostages. Netanyahu’s critics have demanded accountability for the failures that preceded the assault, including an independent inquiry into the decisions and security arrangements of the period.

For many of his opponents, the question is not whether Israel requires strong security leadership, but whether the government under Netanyahu adequately discharged its responsibility to protect the country before the attack.

The handling of the subsequent hostage crisis and the wars that followed have also remained contentious.

The debate has been compounded by the prolonged military mobilisation, the pressure on reservists and disagreements over the exemption of many ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from compulsory military service.

The exemption has become particularly controversial as other Israelis have faced repeated reserve deployments and extended military obligations.

Eisenkot has called for a more equitable national-service arrangement, making the issue an important part of the opposition’s political agenda.

Netanyahu also faces a long-running corruption trial involving allegations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, which he denies. The proceedings have remained a source of political division, with opponents arguing that they raise questions about public accountability, while his supporters maintain that the prosecution is politically motivated.

Economic pressures, the cost of prolonged military operations and divisions over judicial reform have further complicated the political environment.

The election outcome therefore reflects a wider debate about Netanyahu’s record and accountability, rather than a simple assessment of his stated commitment to Israel’s security.

The current deadlock is not without precedent. Israel experienced one of its most prolonged periods of political instability between 2019 and 2022, when it held five general elections in less than four years.

The April 2019 election failed to produce a government after Netanyahu could not reconcile disagreements among potential coalition partners, particularly over legislation concerning military service for ultra-Orthodox students.

A second election was held in September 2019, but neither Netanyahu nor his principal challenger, Benny Gantz, succeeded in forming a government.

The March 2020 election eventually produced a power-sharing arrangement between Netanyahu and Gantz. That government later collapsed amid disagreements over the national budget.

Another election followed in March 2021, producing a broad coalition led by Bennett, with Lapid as a central partner. The government included Ra’am, marking the first time an Arab party formally joined an Israeli governing coalition.

That arrangement also eventually fell apart, leading to the November 2022 election, which returned Netanyahu to power with the support of right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties.

There is an additional precedent from 2009 that is particularly relevant to the present situation.

Following that election, Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party emerged with 28 seats, one more than Netanyahu’s Likud, which secured 27.

However, President Shimon Peres assigned Netanyahu the task of forming a government because he was considered better positioned to assemble a parliamentary majority. Netanyahu succeeded.

The episode demonstrated that the largest party does not necessarily produce the next prime minister, reinforcing the importance of coalition-building in Israel’s political system.

If the first lawmaker nominated by Herzog fails to assemble a government within the prescribed period, the president can give another member of the Knesset an opportunity.

The Basic Law also provides for a further route through which 61 lawmakers can recommend a candidate who has agreed to form a government.

If all available efforts fail, the Knesset can be dissolved and another general election called.

Until a new government is established, the outgoing administration continues in a caretaker capacity, handling the affairs of state.

Another election would prolong the political uncertainty at a time when Israel continues to face security challenges, regional tensions and domestic disagreements over the direction of government policy.

For Netanyahu, the immediate task is to preserve his political alliance and explore whether additional parliamentary support can be secured.

For Eisenkot, the challenge is to turn the opposition’s 48 seats into a viable governing arrangement without losing partners over the question of Arab-party cooperation.

For Herzog, the responsibility is to manage the constitutional process and assign the government-formation mandate in accordance with the law and the prospects of parliamentary support.

The election has not yet decided who will lead Israel. It has instead produced a parliament in which political alliances, ideological compromises and the willingness of rival parties to cooperate will determine the next government.