Israelis went to the polls on Tuesday in remarkable numbers, with turnout reaching 77.7%, the highest in more than two decades. After months of bitter campaigning, voters have had their say. Now comes the considerably more difficult task of turning those votes into a functioning government.
As the counting continued on Wednesday, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud nor his principal challenger, Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot, had a clear path to the 61 seats required to form a government. The final results may yet alter that, but Israel is already confronting the possibility of another prolonged period of political uncertainty.
President Isaac Herzog appeared very much aware of that danger when he addressed the situation on Wednesday, urging political leaders to approach the coming coalition consultations with open minds.
“We must do everything, certainly after yesterday, to avoid another round of elections,” he said, adding that he expected everyone arriving at the President’s Residence to do so “with an open mind.”
His appeal deserves to be taken seriously by every party leader, regardless of which side of the political divide they occupy.
Why shouldn't Netanyahu, Eisenkot, and Bennett sit down and talk?
There is another possibility worth exploring before coalition negotiations descend into the familiar arguments over ministerial portfolios, political redlines, and personal rivalries.
Why should Netanyahu, Eisenkot, and former prime minister Naftali Bennett not sit down together and talk?
The three men have spent months campaigning against one another, sometimes fiercely. But elections are fought to determine who will govern, and governing requires considerably more than the ability to attack one’s opponents.
As The Jerusalem Post’s Shir Perets argued on Wednesday, the opportunity exists for the broad Zionist government that has been discussed for so long. Such an arrangement would demand compromises, particularly from politicians who have made their opposition to one another central to their campaigns.
Israel’s unique circumstances surely justify making the attempt. The country is still dealing with the consequences of the October 7 massacre, the security challenges posed by Iran and its regional proxies, the burden carried by reservists and their families, and the economic consequences of years of conflict.
For too long, governments have depended on relatively small parties whose demands have often exerted an influence far beyond their electoral strength. Coalition survival has repeatedly complicated decisions on matters of national importance, particularly the question of haredi (ultra-Orthodox) military service.
A broad government could create room for a more equal military service framework, particularly if it can be built without haredi participation, and a consistent approach to national security without every significant decision becoming a negotiation with the most uncompromising coalition partners. Such a government may also find support in Washington.
According to a report published by the Post on Wednesday, American sources said US President Donald Trump wants Israel’s next government to exclude National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The sources indicated that Trump regards settler violence as an obstacle to his broader regional diplomatic ambitions.
Earlier reports had already suggested that figures in Trump’s circle were encouraging the formation of a broad Israeli unity government.
These reports are significant, particularly given the importance of relations with Washington and the possibility of advancing regional normalization agreements. Israel’s government must ultimately be determined by Israelis, but the diplomatic implications of its composition cannot be ignored.
There are, of course, legitimate objections to a Netanyahu-Eisenkot-Bennett arrangement.
Eisenkot campaigned on replacing Netanyahu, and many of his supporters would regard joining a government under the prime minister as a betrayal. Questions surrounding responsibility for October 7, Netanyahu’s criminal trial, and the conduct of his government cannot simply be brushed aside in the name of unity. Nor should they be.
Any agreement would need clear commitments on the rule of law, institutional independence, military service, and the government’s priorities. The question of leadership would also require serious negotiation.
All parties must be prepared to enter the same room
Yet none of these matters can be resolved unless the parties are prepared to enter the same room.
There is precedent for cooperation. Eisenkot served alongside Netanyahu in the emergency government formed after October 7, while Bennett has previously demonstrated the possibility, and the difficulty, of governing across political divisions.
Nobody is suggesting that a unity government would be easy, or even necessarily successful. But Herzog is right to warn against returning to the ballot box, particularly before every reasonable avenue for forming a government has been exhausted.
The campaign is over. The public has fulfilled its democratic responsibility. Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, and the other party leaders now have a responsibility to examine what can be achieved through negotiation.
Whatever their differences, they owe the country at least a serious conversation.