...
By Anna Rahmanan
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Israel's election has produced a result that Americans accustomed to a two-party system might find peculiar: Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud won the most seats, yet his principal opponent has been given the first chance to become prime minister.
Here’s a bit of an explanation. Israel is a single constituency, with voters choosing parties rather than individual district representatives. Parties winning at least 3.25 percent of the national vote receive seats proportionally in the 120-member Knesset. A governing coalition ordinarily needs 61 seats, although minority governments are possible.
That is all to say that, for all the criticism Israel receives over its democratic credentials, its electoral system is generous in giving competing political constituencies parliamentary representation. Arab parties! Religious parties! Secular parties! Nationalists! Socialists! Almost everyone gets a voice there. The problem, though, starts when all the different factions are asked to agree on anything.
Read More on Analysis
In the October 27 election, Netanyahu's bloc won 53 seats, against 48 for the Jewish-led opposition and 19 for Arab-led parties. On November 8, President Isaac Herzog asked former military chief Gadi Eisenkot to form a government after 67 lawmakers recommended him.
Eisenkot has 28 days, potentially extendable by two weeks. His success, or failure, could produce five different consequences for Washington.
1. Netanyahu Survives: Trump Keeps a Familiar Partner
Netanyahu could retain power by persuading opposition lawmakers to defect or join his coalition. The arithmetic is difficult, but Israeli political analysts have identified potential partners.
For President Donald Trump, Netanyahu's survival would preserve a familiar negotiating partner on Iran, military cooperation and regional security.
Professor Eitan Shamir, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, said Netanyahu's personal relationship with Trump could be especially important.
"Replacing Netanyahu would not necessarily improve relations with the White House, even if it improved relations with other Western governments," he told Newsweek.
The complication is Netanyahu's reliance on nationalist and ultra-Orthodox allies. Their priorities could limit Israeli flexibility over Gaza and West Bank policy, potentially frustrating American diplomatic initiatives, especially in light of the recent midterm elections.
2. Eisenkot Wins: America Gets a New Israeli Partner
Eisenkot could replace Netanyahu by assembling a coalition across opposition parties.
His election would offer Washington an opportunity to reset relations with Israel's leadership. A government less dependent on Netanyahu's far-right allies might also give Trump something that has proved elusive—an Israeli prime minister with the political freedom to make concessions substantial enough to change the course of American diplomacy in the Middle East.
Eisenkot’s security background is an important asterisk, though, as his government would likely still confront Iranian threats
Eisenkot's military background, however, places limits on how far such a shift could go. As a former army chief, he would be unlikely to abandon Israel's established security priorities or make concessions he believes could leave the country vulnerable.
Shamir cautioned against expecting a major change in Israel's strategic priorities.
"On Iran, Gaza, and other key security issues, there is more agreement among the mainstream Israeli parties than people sometimes realize," he said. "The changes would be more in style, rhetoric and diplomacy than in basic strategic objectives."
For Washington, the opportunity would lie in how Eisenkot pursues those priorities. Trump could find himself dealing with an Israeli leader who shares Netanyahu's security concerns but has greater political room to negotiate. Whether that translates into a diplomatic breakthrough would depend on the coalition Eisenkot manages to assemble.
Related Story
The Nvidia ‘Spy’ Was Real, But China Export Controls Are Realer
Related Story
Trump Wants Vance to Drain the Wrong Swamp
Related Story
The AI Revolution Meets America’s Measles Regression
3. Arab Parties Hold the Balance: Trump's Diplomacy Gets Complicated
Arab-led parties won a record 19 seats, enough to give them a decisive say in who becomes prime minister. Eisenkot may need their support, but some of his prospective coalition partners have already ruled out working with them.
One possibility is that Ra'am joins the government while the Joint List supports it from outside. Arab lawmakers would then have considerable bargaining power, including over Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Shamir warned that such an arrangement could prove difficult to sustain.
"An Eisenkot-led government relying on Arab parties or ultra-Orthodox parties is another possibility, but such a coalition would face serious internal disagreements and could struggle to survive," he said.
This could complicate matters for Trump. Arab parties might push Eisenkot toward concessions that Washington has long sought, but every concession could provoke resistance from his other partners. Eisenkot could find himself negotiating with two sides of his own government before he even gets to the Americans.
4. A Unity Government: Trump Could Gain Room to Negotiate
Netanyahu and Eisenkot could still end up governing together, although Eisenkot has ruled out serving alongside his rival. Israeli politicians have made such promises before and later abandoned them.
Shamir favors a broad coalition that would include Likud alongside parties led by Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman.
"But getting there would require major political compromises, particularly over Netanyahu's continued leadership, and the personal and political obstacles are enormous," he said.
A unity government could give Trump an Israeli partner with enough parliamentary support to pursue an ambitious regional agreement. Netanyahu and Eisenkot would have to agree on the terms, but neither would be as dependent on the smaller parties that have complicated previous negotiations.
There is also the possibility that Washington would find itself dealing with two rival leaders in the same cabinet. If Netanyahu and Eisenkot could not agree on the concessions required for a deal, Trump might discover that a government commanding a large majority in the Knesset is no easier to negotiate with than a fragile one.
5. Another Election: Trump Could Be Left Waiting
If coalition talks fail, Israelis could find themselves voting again. They have plenty of experience as the country held five elections between 2019 and 2022, as successive attempts to form stable governments collapsed.
If that were to happen, Netanyahu would remain caretaker prime minister, able to make decisions on urgent security matters but with a weaker political mandate to enter major new agreements.
Trump could therefore spend months negotiating with an Israeli leader who may soon be out of office. Any ambitious American initiative requiring Israeli concessions would have to contend with politicians reluctant to make unpopular commitments before another election.
And another vote might solve nothing. Israel could return essentially the same parliament, leaving Washington waiting for a government that can actually deliver on a deal.
Eisenkot's 28-day mandate began November 8 and can be extended by 14 days. If he fails, another lawmaker could be given a chance to form a government.
For Trump, the risk is spending months waiting for a new Israeli government, only to find himself dealing with the same political deadlock.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines