Israel and Election Shock: All Paths to Forming a Government... 'Closed'

The 26th Knesset elections in Israel delivered a pivotal shock, exposing structural contradictions within the political system between identity, nationalism, and religion. Within hours of the results being announced, Israel shifted from a shock over the numbers to a shock over accusations. The Arab parties secured 19 seats, blocking the path to a majority for Benjamin Netanyahu’s camp, and the machinery of demonization began working at full speed, accusing Turkey and an Arab state of “buying votes” and “stealing the election.”

In this context, political and military analyst Amos Harel described the situation in Haaretz, stating, “The elections have not yielded decisive results; rather, they may presage days of political paralysis. At present, it is difficult to envision a path that would allow for the rapid formation of a new government.”

The results caused a “political shock” in Israel, as Arab parties won 19 seats amid an Arab voter turnout described as historically unprecedented. This surge prompted leaders of the Israeli right to describe the results as a “quake” and to allege that the “elections were stolen,” prompting security and political agencies to swiftly open investigations into suspicions of bribery and foreign interference.

Maariv reported that “officials in the General Security Service (Shabak) confirmed the opening of an investigation following a referral by Judge Noam Solberg, based on recently gathered intelligence.”

Haaretz’s police and crime correspondent criticized the move by the head of the Elections Committee, considering that “Judge Solberg’s message to the head of the Shabak reflects a complete lack of responsibility,” adding, “In the absence of any documented information—in fact, Solberg himself admits there is no way to determine the nature of these suspicions—and while the police confirm there is absolutely no evidence to support them, the judge is undermining the election results himself.”

Netanyahu issued a statement on behalf of Likud, in which he said, “The issue of the scandal surrounding the United Arab List (Ra’am) is akin to an earthquake,” adding, “The elections in Israel have been stolen.”

Amid this deadlock, analysts are mapping out complex scenarios for government formation. Yuval Karni wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that “all avenues for forming a government have led to a dead end. To escape this predicament, the two blocs face two main options: holding new elections, which is the most problematic scenario for the country, or the most prominent option: a national unity government.”

- Scenario One: Mandate to Netanyahu. Immediately after the results were announced, and following consultations between the President of the State and Knesset factions, the leader of the Likud party would be tasked with forming the government after submitting a recommendation supported by 53 members. In this case, Netanyahu would have 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.

From Netanyahu’s perspective, this step aims to “buy time and keep him in the position of Prime Minister.” In this scenario, he would have two options: forming the government (possibly a national unity government) or calling for additional elections while remaining as head of a caretaker government.

- Scenario Two: Mandate to the opposition “Change” bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot. The leader of the Yesh Atid party could secure a larger number of supporters and receive the mandate to form the government first.

In this case, Eisenkot would need only the support of the United Arab List to secure 55 votes, compared to Netanyahu’s 53.

However, as Karni points out, the problem is that Eisenkot “would face difficulty in expanding the government so that it does not rely on the votes of a non-Zionist party for an extended period.”

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has touched upon the possibility of forming a minority government, stating, “Our mission is to form a Zionist government. There may not be a broad coalition on the first day, but we will expand it later.”

Netanyahu cannot secure a majority to form a government without the votes of Knesset members from the Change and Equality camp or the United Arab List.

The party’s leader, Mansour Abbas, stated that after the results were announced, a senior official from the Likud party contacted him to discuss the possibility of cooperation. Netanyahu might attempt to seek out “defectors” from the Change and Equality camp, but this would be a nearly impossible task.

In principle, the major parties from the two blocs are expected to form a stable government without involving marginal parties.

Currently, the formation of a national unity government is not being discussed, but over time, this option will likely be raised, partly due to the lack of alternatives.

The question at hand is whether a national unity government would operate under a rotation arrangement, and who would lead it first. This would require concessions from Netanyahu, as well as from Isaac Herzog himself, who pledged during the election campaign not to sit in a national unity government with Netanyahu.

Amos Harel, writing in Haaretz, asserts that “the emerging situation rests on fundamental racist assumptions, which Netanyahu has worked hard to entrench in the media and, through it, in public opinion for a long time,” noting that “throughout the election campaign, most of his opponents also refused to consider Arab parties as legitimate partners in any future coalition.”

For his part, Ori Nir provides a structural analysis of the nature of this rejection in Haaretz, arguing that Israel “does not have a parliamentary democracy, nor a presidential democracy, but rather a racist democracy—a state in which one-fifth of its citizens vote as second-class citizens, and their representatives are second-class elected officials. They are still permitted to vote and run for office, but they are condemned to remain outside the political game, and their votes are not taken into account when forming a government.”

This consensus points to a structural crisis in the political system: political deadlock is no longer merely the result of electoral arithmetic, but has become a reflection of a deeper crisis of legitimacy, rooted in structural and cultural racism.

While Arab parties have become a decisive voting force (with 19 seats), the Jewish political system, across its ideological spectrum, is unable to absorb this force as a governing partner. This means that any future government, whether led by Netanyahu or Herzog, will either be a fragile minority government or a forced national unity government compelled to coexist with its internal contradictions.