Israel’s latest parliamentary election has left the country without a clear governing majority. As the vote count reached 85 % on Tuesday, both incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud bloc and challenger Gadi Eisenkot’s coalition fell short of the seats needed to form a government. The stalemate has revived discussions of four plausible routes that could finally break the impasse.
Why the deadlock matters
The country has already endured five elections between 2019 and 2022, each ending in fragile coalitions or caretaker administrations. A prolonged stalemate threatens policy continuity on critical issues such as security, the ultra‑Orthodox draft exemption, and Israel’s relationship with its Arab citizens, who this time turned out in unprecedented numbers.
Four scenarios that could resolve the impasse
- Eisenkot abandons a key platform. To secure a majority, Eisenkot would need to drop his promise to oust Netanyahu and possibly negotiate with right‑wing parties that currently oppose him.
- Netanyahu builds a unity government. This would require Likud to shed its far‑right and ultra‑Orthodox partners and bring in parties from Eisenkot’s bloc, such as Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad alliance or Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu.
- A renewed external threat. Escalation with Iran could pressure rival factions to set aside domestic disputes and form a broad‑based coalition focused on national security.
- An Arab‑Jewish opposition coalition. The United Arab List (projected ~7 seats) and the Joint List (projected ~12 seats) have signaled willingness to support an opposition government, though such a bloc would be fragile on matters like Gaza and the West Bank.
Assessing the likelihood of each path
Eisenkot’s concession appears unlikely. He has built his campaign around being the sole alternative to Netanyahu, and his recent rally speech called for Netanyahu’s retirement, not a partnership.
Netanyahu’s outreach faces its own hurdles. While he thanked his “loyal partners” and advocated a “strong right‑wing government,” his rhetoric suggests he intends to keep the ultra‑Orthodox parties in his coalition. Moreover, both Bennett and Lieberman campaigned to remove Netanyahu and to extend military conscription to the ultra‑Orthodox, putting them at odds with his current allies.
An external conflict could act as a catalyst, but it also risks being perceived as a political ploy. Analysts note that Netanyahu has previously pushed for strikes on Iran and sought U.S. involvement, a move critics could frame as an attempt to secure his own political survival.
An Arab‑Jewish coalition would be historically unprecedented. While the Arab turnout was record‑high—projected to secure a combined 19 seats—their parties have traditionally refrained from joining governing coalitions. The only Jewish leader openly supporting such a scenario is Yair Golan of The Democrats, underscoring how fragile this option would be.
What a new election would mean
If none of the above scenarios materialise, Israel will likely head back to the ballot box. Netanyahu would remain caretaker prime minister, and analysts speculate that the high Arab turnout may not repeat, especially if the new parliament fails to deliver substantive change. Additionally, about 70,000 Israelis who flew home to vote—generally seen as a demographic that leans against Netanyahu—might stay abroad, potentially shifting the balance in a second round.
Outlook
All four pathways carry significant risks and uncertainties. Eisenkot’s willingness to compromise, Netanyahu’s flexibility on coalition partners, the unpredictable nature of regional security dynamics, and the historic rarity of an Arab‑Jewish governing alliance each present formidable obstacles. As Israel watches the remaining vote count and awaits final projections, the nation stands at a crossroads where political pragmatism may finally outweigh entrenched campaign promises, or where another election could extend the cycle of instability that has defined Israeli politics for years.