Israel’s choice: Netanyahu remaining in power or a Palestinian-backed coalition

A coalition government is an agreement among several parties to govern together. It is needed when no party can command enough seats alone. In this election, a broader coalition could have joined most opposition parties with Palestinian-led parties. That would give the opposition a governing majority and remove Netanyahu from power.

The key barrier was political, not mathematical. Palestinian citizens make up about 20% of Israel’s population, and their parties won enough support to matter in coalition negotiations. Ra’am and the Joint List said they were ready to help oust Netanyahu. Opposition leader Yair Golan called for partnership with Arab citizens and rejected Netanyahu’s division between Jewish and Arab votes.

Such a government would be significant because Palestinian representatives would participate directly in national decision-making. It would challenge the idea that Jewish opposition parties must exclude them. If those parties refuse, Netanyahu could remain prime minister despite losing the election, through a caretaker government or another election.

The results showed that Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition had lost its mandate. It had assembled 64 seats in 2022 but lost about 10 seats in this election. By most counts, that was a severe rebuke from voters. The opposition, meanwhile, held a firm majority in the Knesset.

The important complication was that many Jewish opposition parties ruled out governing with Palestinian-led parties. This created a gap between having enough seats on paper and being able to form a government in practice. Gadi Eisenkot, who led the biggest opposition party, did not directly rule out cooperation, but his conditions made Palestinian participation politically impossible.

Netanyahu used that divide to argue that the right-wing bloc still represented a decisive majority among the Zionist public. If opposition parties maintain their self-imposed ban, they may fail to turn their numerical advantage into a governing coalition. That could leave Netanyahu as caretaker prime minister or produce another election.

Palestinian citizens account for about one-fifth of Israel’s population. That makes their political representation large enough to affect coalition arithmetic, especially when Jewish parties are divided. Their parties do not need to lead a government to matter. They can provide support that helps another bloc reach a majority.

The election offered a clear example. A survey taken as polls closed found that most opposition voters supported forming a government with the Palestinian-led Ra’am party to unseat Netanyahu. Yair Golan said the opposition had a majority and a responsibility to form a change government with Arab citizens. Ra’am also placed a Jewish former police chief second on its slate.

Their influence depends on whether other parties accept cooperation. If opposition leaders exclude them, the seats remain politically unusable for forming a government. If they cooperate, Palestinian representatives could help produce a change government. The debate therefore concerns both seat totals and who is treated as a legitimate governing partner.

A coalition needs more than a collection of opposition seats. Its parties must agree to govern together. The opposition had a firm majority, but many Jewish opposition leaders ruled out working with Palestinian-led parties. That self-imposed barrier prevented the majority from becoming a functioning coalition.

The mechanism is straightforward. Palestinian-led parties could supply crucial support for unseating Netanyahu. Ra’am said it was ready to help, and the Joint List called for Jewish-Arab partnership. But Gadi Eisenkot’s stated conditions made their participation politically impossible. Netanyahu then invited the opposition to prioritize opposition to Palestinian parties over opposition to him.

If the refusal holds, Netanyahu can exploit the deadlock. He might turn an electoral defeat into another term, remain caretaker prime minister for a prolonged period, or lead Israel into another election. The result would depend less on the opposition’s total seats than on whether it accepts Palestinian representatives as coalition partners.

Ra’am and the Joint List are Palestinian-led political forces represented in Israel’s election. The article describes Ra’am as Islamist and calls the Joint List the larger of the two. Their importance came from their potential to provide opposition support for a government that could replace Netanyahu.

The Joint List’s leader, Yousef Jabareen, said it was ready and prepared to pave the way for Netanyahu’s ousting. He said change would come through Jewish-Arab partnership. Ra’am also sent a signal of cooperation by placing a Jewish former police chief second on its slate. A survey found clear majority support among opposition voters for working with Ra’am.

Their stated priority was political change, not simply representation in opposition. They wanted negotiations to produce a government capable of removing Netanyahu. Whether that happened depended on Jewish opposition leaders, who remained silent or imposed conditions that effectively blocked Palestinian-led parties from joining. Their willingness alone could not overcome that refusal.

The article points to a precedent from three decades ago. Yitzhak Rabin relied on Palestinian political support for a minority government while seeking a negotiated end to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The arrangement is relevant because it shows that Palestinian support has previously played a governing role in Israel.

Its mechanism differed from a standard coalition. Rabin’s government was a minority government, so it depended on Palestinian political support rather than necessarily including Palestinian parties as full coalition partners. That history challenges the idea that Palestinian representatives can never be part of the parliamentary support needed to govern.

The precedent receives little attention in current Israeli political debate. That silence matters because the present opposition faces a similar choice: cooperate with Palestinian-led parties or allow Netanyahu to exploit the division. The earlier example does not guarantee a new agreement, but it demonstrates that Jewish-Arab parliamentary cooperation has existed before.

Israel describes itself as both a Jewish and democratic state. Democracy implies that citizens’ representatives can participate in government through elections. If Palestinian citizens’ parties are effectively excluded because they represent Palestinians, political power is being limited by identity rather than votes. That creates a conflict between the state’s two stated principles.

The article illustrates the tension through Netanyahu’s slogan, “The right or Palestine.” It framed about 20% of the population as an enemy within Israel’s borders. Many Jewish opposition parties then ruled out governing with Palestinian-led parties, even though those parties could help form a majority. The exclusion became a political barrier rather than an electoral one.

The consequences reach beyond coalition negotiations. Palestinian citizens face crime, discrimination and home demolitions, while their relatives and friends endure violence and displacement in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. If their elected representatives cannot help govern, Israel’s promise may become a choice between a Jewish future and a democratic one.