Reports in the Israeli press suggest that President Isaac Herzog is seeking to promote a Netanyahu-Eisenkot national unity government after next week’s election. Apparently, sources within Gadi Eisenkot’s camp want this possibility placed in the public domain, claiming that Herzog had raised the prospect of a national unity coalition to avert another election if the vote on Oct. 27 fails to produce a clear result. While the President’s Office denied the reports, Herzog has long advocated this alternative, and there is little reason to believe that he will not pursue it if the election produces another stalemate.
Whether or not this possibility has already been raised, it is inevitable that the option of a national unity government will be widely discussed once the electorate has delivered its verdict. Most opinion polls suggest that neither the governing nor the opposition bloc will secure a majority in the Knesset unless supported by the Arab parties, an option that both blocs currently reject. Benjamin Netanyahu might prefer a national unity government without his current far-right partners, but he would still insist on serving as prime minister, even if his Likud party failed to emerge from the election with the largest number of seats.
Before considering whether a national unity government would be right or wrong for the country, there is a legal and constitutional issue to address. Netanyahu is in the midst of a corruption trial involving three serious cases of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. Under the country’s law, a minister indicted for serious criminal offenses must be dismissed by the prime minister. Yet, ironically, a prime minister facing comparable circumstances is not required to resign or suspend himself. This is one of the underlying reasons why Israel finds itself in such a dire situation: divided at home, engaged in seemingly endless wars, and increasingly isolated abroad.
In these circumstances, the only plausible conclusion is that any government including Netanyahu would have to be headed by him, regardless of whether his Likud party finished first, second or even third in the election. This might not be unconstitutional, but under any comparable circumstances, Netanyahu would be the first to denounce such an arrangement as a distortion of the people’s will. Worse still, allowing him to serve as a mere minister would require either the abrupt suspension of his trial, perhaps through a presidential pardon, or a retrospective change to the law by the Knesset which would allow ministers to serve while facing a criminal trial. Either course would represent a travesty of justice and undermine the standards expected of public officeholders.
Most opinion polls suggest that neither the governing nor the opposition bloc will secure a majority.
Yossi Mekelberg
Moreover, all the opposition parties have pledged not to share power with an indicted prime minister. Joining such a government would therefore constitute an immediate breach of their electoral promises, hardly a promising start for any administration. It would also reinforce the exclusion of parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel from the realm of legitimate political partners in government, regardless of their political position. That could only be regarded as racial discrimination.
However, it is not merely the legal implications that make this proposal unacceptable. The country’s interests also demand a change of leadership that will replace a prime minister who has held office for nearly 20 years over mainly two periods. Such prolonged dominance is difficult to justify in a democracy even under the best of circumstances, let alone when the individual concerned has presided over the country’s security and the well-being of its citizens and then failed so catastrophically on Oct. 7, 2023.
How could any opposition party share power in good conscience with someone who has consistently and stubbornly refused, over the past three years, to establish a state commission of inquiry into the events of that day, the war that followed and the way it has been conducted, including the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza? How could they justify keeping in power a prime minister whom they hold responsible for delaying a hostage-release deal for months — a delay that, by many accounts, cost the lives of at least 40 hostages? This will remain an open wound in Israeli society until the truth sees the light of day.
These are not merely matters of principle, important as they are in public life. They also have practical implications for the country’s ability to govern in the national interest. Under Netanyahu’s deeply questionable leadership, some of Israel’s closest friends, including key strategic allies, have been so appalled by the relentless terrorist violence perpetrated by settlers against innocent Palestinians and by the expansion of settlements that they have felt compelled to impose sanctions. For many of these countries, Netanyahu has become persona non grata.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli leader on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, his position makes it increasingly difficult for him to conduct an effective foreign policy or repair Israel’s strained relations with European countries and Canada among others. In the not-too-distant future, relations with the US could also be at risk.
National unity governments can be justified during short periods of emergency, as Israel’s own history demonstrates. However, they are hardly a magic formula for overcoming political deadlock. In the coming years, Israel will face several existential decisions, and a national unity government, particularly one including Netanyahu and some of his closest political allies, would be likely to delay solutions rather than resolve them.
Under these circumstances, such a government might remain in power while suffering from almost complete paralysis on the most consequential issues. One could argue that the voters themselves, or even the electoral system, with its low electoral threshold, are responsible for creating this predicament. That may be true, but the result is a Knesset that is highly representative of Israeli society while making effective governance and the adoption of a clear direction on the country’s most pressing issues almost impossible.
In the most disturbing way, the past four years have demonstrated what happens when a far-right government comes to power — one that prefers a merely nominal form of democracy to a true liberal democracy; that chooses to perpetuate conflict rather than seek political solutions; that alienates friends and allies instead of strengthening relations with them; and that serves vested interests rather than the nation as a whole.
All of this has taken place under Netanyahu’s watch. Unless the voters surprise us all by giving him a clear mandate, his reign must come to an end. It is time for others to restore some much-needed normality and then steer the country in a fundamentally different direction.
A unity government would do neither.
Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg
Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg