Israel’s Enduring Political Puzzle: How Benjamin Netanyahu Could Govern Despite Electoral Defeat

Tel Aviv – As Israel braces for another parliamentary election, a familiar and intricate political drama unfolds. Despite consistent polling suggesting a potential loss of majority for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-led bloc, the veteran leader might still find a path to retain his grip on power. This paradoxical situation highlights the unique complexities of Israel’s proportional representation system, where the ability to form a government often hinges less on outright victory and more on strategic coalition-building and the opposition’s potential fragmentation.

According to numerous surveys conducted in recent months, Netanyahu’s traditional right-wing and religious allies are projected to secure approximately 50 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, falling short of the 61-seat majority required to form a stable government. The primary challenge is posed by a broad "Block of Change," an alliance of diverse Zionist parties often led by prominent figures such as former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. While this opposition bloc is frequently predicted to outnumber Likud, it too is unlikely to achieve an outright majority, setting the stage for a period of intense political maneuvering.

The underlying principle, as articulated by political scientist Ofer Kenig of the Israel Democracy Institute, is stark: "Netanyahu doesn’t have to win; no one else just has to win." Under Israeli law, a prime minister remains in office until a new government successfully secures a vote of confidence from the Knesset. This legal framework means that even as a caretaker prime minister, Netanyahu could wield significant power, potentially for an extended period, especially if his opponents fail to coalesce into a viable alternative. This dynamic offers three distinct, yet interconnected, pathways for Netanyahu to defy electoral predictions and remain at the helm of Israeli governance.

Main Facts: A Precarious Political Landscape

Israel’s political landscape is perpetually in flux, characterized by a multi-party system and a proportional representation model that almost invariably necessitates coalition governments. The upcoming election, regardless of its specific date, is set against a backdrop of deep societal divisions and a persistent stalemate that has seen the country hold multiple elections in a short span. Benjamin Netanyahu, the nation’s longest-serving prime minister, has demonstrated remarkable political resilience throughout his career, often navigating seemingly impossible scenarios to maintain power.

The central tenet of this election cycle is the projected shortfall for Netanyahu’s right-religious bloc. Polls indicate a consistent trend: the combined strength of Likud, ultra-Orthodox parties like Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the nationalist-religious factions (often including far-right elements) hovers around 50 seats. This figure is significantly below the 61 seats needed for a parliamentary majority, which would allow them to form a government independently.

Israel: Netanjahu könnte die Wahl verlieren – und dennoch regieren

Conversely, the opposition, often termed the "Block of Change" or "anti-Netanyahu bloc," is a heterogeneous collection of parties spanning the political spectrum from centrist-liberal to secular-nationalist, and potentially including Arab parties. While this bloc collectively garners more seats than Netanyahu’s camp in most projections, its internal ideological disparities make forming a stable, unified government a formidable challenge. The prospect of an opposition figure like Gadi Eisenkot (representing a hypothetical "Yashar" or similar party, as per the original text’s context) leading the largest single party, yet still falling short of a majority, underscores the fragmented nature of Israeli politics.

The key paradox lies in the institutional framework. An incumbent prime minister, even one whose party or bloc loses its majority, does not automatically relinquish power. They continue to serve in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed and approved by the Knesset. This interim period can be prolonged, especially if no single bloc can assemble the requisite 61 seats. For Netanyahu, this means that merely preventing his opponents from forming a government is a viable strategy for political survival, even in the face of electoral underperformance.

Chronology: The Path to Government Formation

Understanding how a government is formed in Israel is crucial to grasping Netanyahu’s potential avenues to power. The process, governed by basic laws, involves several key stages:

Election Day and Initial Results: On election day, citizens cast their votes for party lists. Israel employs a highly proportional system, meaning that seats in the 120-member Knesset are allocated based on the percentage of votes each party receives, provided they cross an electoral threshold (currently 3.25% of valid votes). Initial exit polls and partial results are released rapidly, followed by official results days later.
Presidential Consultations: After the official results are certified, the President of Israel begins consultations with representatives of all elected parties. Each party recommends a candidate to form the next government. The President then typically tasks the candidate with the best chance of forming a stable coalition with the mandate to do so. This is usually the leader of the largest party or the leader of a bloc that can command the most recommendations.
Coalition Negotiations (The 42-Day Period): The candidate who receives the mandate is given an initial period of 28 days to negotiate and form a coalition government. If they succeed, they present their government to the Knesset for a vote of confidence. If they fail to form a government within 28 days, the President can grant an extension of up to 14 additional days.
Returning the Mandate / Second Mandate: If the first candidate fails to form a government even after the extension, they return the mandate to the President. The President can then either give the mandate to another candidate (often the second-most recommended leader) or inform the Knesset that they have been unable to form a government.
Knesset’s Opportunity (21 Days): If no candidate successfully forms a government, the Knesset itself has 21 days to agree on a candidate supported by at least 61 Members of Knesset (MKs). If such a candidate is found, they are then given 14 days to form a government.
New Elections: If all these attempts fail, or if the Knesset cannot agree on a candidate within its 21-day window, new elections are automatically triggered.
Caretaker Government: Throughout this entire process, if a sitting prime minister’s government falls or no new government is formed, the incumbent prime minister and their cabinet continue to serve as a caretaker government. This means they retain significant authority, particularly in matters of security and foreign policy, though their powers are typically curtailed in policy-making that would bind a future government. The longer this period extends, the more powerful the caretaker prime minister becomes, blurring the lines between temporary and effective governance.

Supporting Data: The Anatomy of Israeli Elections

Israel’s electoral history is replete with coalition governments, reflecting a deeply fragmented political landscape. Since its inception, no single party has ever won an outright majority in the Knesset. This necessitates intricate negotiations and often fragile alliances, making the 61-seat threshold a constant challenge.

Historical Context and Fragmentation: The Israeli political system, rooted in proportional representation, encourages the proliferation of small, ideologically distinct parties. This fragmentation means that even large parties like Likud rarely command more than 30-35 seats. The necessity of coalition-building has led to a political culture of horse-trading, where smaller parties often punch above their weight, extracting concessions in exchange for their support.

Polling Accuracy and Limitations: Israeli polls are notorious for their variability and occasional inaccuracies, especially in the final weeks leading up to an election. Factors contributing to this include:

Volatile Electorate: A significant portion of Israeli voters remain undecided until late in the campaign.
Demographic Shifts: Rapid changes in the ultra-Orthodox and Arab sectors, along with fluctuating participation rates, can skew predictions.
Small Party Dynamics: The fate of smaller parties hovering near the electoral threshold can dramatically impact bloc calculations. If a few smaller parties fail to pass the threshold, their votes are effectively wasted, which can significantly alter the balance of power between the major blocs.

Key Demographic Blocs:

The Right-Religious Bloc: This includes Likud, the ultra-Orthodox parties (Shas, United Torah Judaism), and the Religious Zionist parties (often representing the settler movement and national-religious voters). This bloc typically votes cohesively and is ideologically aligned on many issues, particularly security and the role of religion in public life.
The Center-Left/Anti-Netanyahu Bloc: This is a more diverse group, comprising centrist parties (like Yesh Atid), left-wing parties (Labor, Meretz), and potentially Arab parties (like Hadash-Ta’al or Ra’am). Their unifying factor is often a desire to replace Netanyahu, but their policy platforms are disparate, making coalition formation difficult.
Arab Parties: Traditionally marginalized, Arab parties have become kingmakers in recent cycles, though their participation in Zionist-led coalitions remains contentious for both sides. Ra’am’s entry into the 2021-2022 change government was a historic first.

Netanyahu’s political longevity is partly attributable to his unparalleled ability to manage his right-religious base and exploit the inherent disunity within the opposition. His legal challenges (corruption trials) also galvanize his supporters, who view them as politically motivated, while simultaneously solidifying opposition to him.

Scenarios for Netanyahu’s Continued Rule

Despite the consistent poll data suggesting a loss of majority for his bloc, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political acumen and the structural realities of Israeli politics present several plausible scenarios for his continued premiership.

Scenario 1: The Polls are Wrong (and Likud Surprises)

This is the most straightforward path for Netanyahu: a stronger-than-expected performance on election day. Political polls are snapshots in time and are susceptible to several factors that can lead to discrepancies with actual results.

Underestimated Likud Base: There is a theory that some Likud voters, particularly those in more traditional or peripheral areas, are less likely to participate in polls or accurately convey their voting intentions. A surge in turnout among Netanyahu’s loyal base could push his bloc over the 61-seat threshold.
Late Swing: Israeli campaigns are intense, and a significant portion of the electorate makes up its mind in the final days or even hours before voting. A potent last-minute message or a perceived misstep by the opposition could sway undecided voters towards Likud and its allies.
Strategic Voting: Voters for smaller parties on the right might shift their allegiance to Likud if they fear their preferred party might not cross the electoral threshold, thus ensuring their vote contributes to the right-wing bloc’s overall strength.
Fear Factor: Netanyahu often campaigns on themes of security and stability, warning against the perceived dangers of a "left-wing" or "weak" government. This rhetoric can mobilize his supporters and even convince some swing voters that his experienced leadership is indispensable, especially during times of regional tension.

If Likud, the ultra-Orthodox parties, and the far-right Religious Zionism bloc collectively manage to secure 61 or more seats, Netanyahu would have a clear mandate to form a stable right-wing government, as he has done many times before. This would negate the need for complex maneuvers and represent a decisive victory against the predictions.

Scenario 2: The Opposition Fails to Form a Cohesive Government

Even if Netanyahu’s bloc fails to reach 61 seats, his continued rule becomes highly probable if the opposition bloc cannot unite to form a government themselves. The "Block of Change," while numerically superior in many polls, faces significant internal hurdles.

Ideological Diversity: The opposition includes parties from the center-right (e.g., New Hope), centrist (e.g., Yesh Atid, National Unity), and left-wing (e.g., Labor, Meretz), along with potentially several Arab parties. Bridging the vast ideological gaps on issues ranging from economics to security, the peace process, and the role of religion in the state, is immensely challenging. Each party has core demands that are often incompatible with others.
Personal Rivalries: Israeli politics is often driven by strong personalities and intense rivalries. Leaders within the opposition might struggle to agree on power-sharing arrangements, ministerial portfolios, or even who should lead the government. The "anyone but Bibi" mantra, while powerful, may not be sufficient to overcome these personal and political differences once the actual task of governing begins.
The Arab Party Dilemma: Including Arab parties in a governing coalition is a highly sensitive issue in Israel. While a previous "change government" successfully included the Ra’am party, such an alliance faces immense pressure from the nationalist right and even some within the center-left. If the opposition requires Arab party support to reach 61 seats, internal divisions over this issue could lead to a collapse of negotiations. Conversely, if Arab parties are excluded, the opposition’s path to a majority becomes even narrower.
Lack of Trust and Cohesion: The history of Israeli coalitions is rife with short-lived governments and defections. The inherent distrust between some opposition factions, coupled with the absence of a truly unified vision beyond removing Netanyahu, could lead to a quick breakdown of any attempted coalition.

Should the opposition fail to form a government, the mandate would eventually revert to the President, who might then be compelled to offer it back to Netanyahu, or the country would face yet another round of elections. In either scenario, Netanyahu would remain as caretaker prime minister, potentially for many months, continuing to exert influence and control.

Scenario 3: A Broad National Unity Government or Political Maneuvers

In a scenario where neither bloc can decisively form a government, pressure could mount for a national unity government. Netanyahu, despite a perceived electoral setback, could strategically position himself as the indispensable leader in such an arrangement.

National Unity Government: Facing prolonged political deadlock or a significant national crisis (e.g., a major security escalation, economic downturn), there could be a strong public and political call for a broad unity government that transcends traditional blocs. Netanyahu, with his extensive experience and international standing, could argue that he is uniquely suited to lead such a government, even if it means including centrist opposition figures. He might offer key ministerial portfolios to entice former rivals.
Exploiting Divisions and Defections: Netanyahu is a master of political horse-trading. He could actively seek to peel off individual Members of Knesset or small parties from the opposition bloc. Promises of ministerial positions, policy concessions, or other political favors could tempt vulnerable lawmakers to cross the aisle, thereby shifting the balance of power in his favor and allowing him to reach 61 seats.
Extended Caretaker Status: If successive attempts to form a government fail, and the country slides into a prolonged period of political uncertainty, Netanyahu’s role as caretaker prime minister could become semi-permanent. While constitutionally limited, a long-serving caretaker government can de facto govern, especially in areas of national security and foreign policy, which are often exempted from "caretaker" restrictions. This "governing by default" could allow him to remain in power indefinitely until a new government is somehow formed, a process he could strategically hinder.
Legal Maneuvers: While less common, the intricacies of the basic laws governing government formation could potentially be exploited. For instance, questions surrounding the eligibility of indicted individuals to serve as prime minister have been debated. However, existing legal precedents generally allow an indicted individual to serve unless convicted. Any legislative attempts by the opposition to change this could be met with fierce resistance and legal challenges, further prolonging the political deadlock.

Official Responses and Political Rhetoric

The rhetoric from both sides reflects the high stakes and the potential for a non-conclusive electoral outcome.

Netanyahu’s Camp: Likud and its allies consistently dismiss negative poll numbers, often branding them as biased or inaccurate. Their messaging emphasizes:

Experience and Stability: Netanyahu is portrayed as the only leader capable of navigating Israel’s complex security challenges and maintaining economic stability, especially in a volatile region.
Warning Against the Opposition: They frequently paint the "Block of Change" as a collection of disparate, inexperienced, and ideologically extreme elements, warning that such a government would be weak, unstable, and unable to govern effectively. They often highlight the potential inclusion of Arab parties as a threat to Israel’s Jewish and democratic character.
Fighting for the Right-Wing: They rally their base by asserting that the election is a battle for the soul of Israel, urging maximum turnout to prevent a "left-wing" government.
Legal Issues as a Conspiracy: Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trials are often framed as a politically motivated witch hunt orchestrated by the left, the media, and the legal establishment, further galvanizing his core supporters.

The Opposition: The "Block of Change" and its various components largely focus on:

The Need for Change: The central message revolves around ending the political deadlock, restoring stability, and replacing Netanyahu, whom they accuse of divisive politics and prioritizing his personal legal battles over national interests.
Focus on Governance: They argue that Netanyahu’s continued rule, especially while under indictment, undermines democratic norms and creates a corrupt political culture. They promise a return to principled governance and unity.
Highlighting Netanyahu’s Failures: Critics point to the repeated elections, the cost of political instability, and specific policy shortcomings under Netanyahu’s long tenure.
Economic and Social Issues: Many opposition parties attempt to shift the focus from security to domestic issues like the cost of living, education, healthcare, and infrastructure, areas where they believe Netanyahu’s government has underperformed.

International Perspectives: International observers and allies often express concern over Israel’s persistent political instability, which can hinder long-term policy planning, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regional security, and economic cooperation. A protracted period of caretaker government or a leader remaining in power despite an electoral defeat could raise questions about democratic health and predictability in Israel.

Implications: The Future of Israeli Democracy and Governance

The prospect of Benjamin Netanyahu governing despite losing an electoral majority carries profound implications for Israel’s political future, its democratic institutions, and its standing on the world stage.

Political Stability and Repeated Elections: The most immediate consequence is the perpetuation of political instability. If no clear majority emerges, Israel could be plunged into yet another cycle of elections, further eroding public trust in the political system and hindering effective governance. Each election costs hundreds of millions of shekels and diverts national attention and resources from pressing issues.

Erosion of Public Trust: A scenario where a leader remains in power despite a clear electoral rejection by a majority of voters could deepen public cynicism. It might reinforce the perception that the system is rigged or that elections are futile, leading to voter apathy and further polarization. This challenges the fundamental democratic principle that electoral outcomes should translate into governmental change.

Policy Paralysis or Radical Shifts: A caretaker government, while powerful, is generally expected to avoid major policy initiatives. However, an extended caretaker period under Netanyahu could see him making significant decisions, especially in security and foreign affairs, potentially without a clear mandate. Conversely, if a narrow coalition is eventually formed, whether led by Netanyahu or the opposition, it might be beholden to extreme demands from smaller parties, leading to radical policy shifts in areas such as judicial reform, settlement expansion, or the role of religion in public life.

Challenges to Democratic Norms: The prolonged tenure of a prime minister facing serious legal charges, especially if it occurs despite a popular vote setback, raises fundamental questions about accountability and the rule of law. Critics argue that it strains the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system and could set a dangerous precedent for future leaders.

Domestic and Regional Consequences:

Settlement Expansion: A Netanyahu-led right-religious government, especially if dependent on far-right factions, is likely to pursue aggressive settlement expansion in the West Bank, further complicating the prospects for a two-state solution and straining relations with international partners.
Judicial Reforms: Efforts to curb the power of the judiciary, a long-standing goal of parts of Netanyahu’s base, could intensify, leading to internal legal and social upheaval.
Israeli-Palestinian Relations: Continued political instability and a right-wing government are unlikely to foster progress in relations with the Palestinians, potentially leading to increased tensions in the West Bank and Gaza.
Iran and Regional Alliances: While a caretaker government can manage ongoing security threats, long-term strategic decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear program or the further integration of Israel into regional alliances (like the Abraham Accords) could be hampered by political uncertainty or driven by narrow, ideologically extreme interests.

In conclusion, Israel stands at a critical juncture where the democratic process, while robust in its conduct of elections, struggles to translate electoral will into stable governance. Benjamin Netanyahu’s ability to potentially govern despite losing the popular vote is a testament to his political prowess and the inherent structural complexities of the Israeli system. It also serves as a potent reminder that in parliamentary democracies, winning the election is often only the first step; the real challenge lies in the intricate art of forming and sustaining a government.