Netanyahu's interim powers raise questions amid Israeli government formation

Two weeks after national elections in Israel, opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has been tasked by President Isaac Herzog with forming a government. However, the path to a new administration remains uncertain because neither Eisenkot’s coalition nor Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc has secured the 61 Knesset seats required for a majority. While Eisenkot negotiates with potential partners, including Arab parties, Netanyahu continues to serve as the caretaker prime minister. If Eisenkot fails in his efforts, Herzog may approach Netanyahu to attempt forming a workable coalition.

This transitional period creates a complex political environment where the incumbent leader lacks a fresh popular mandate yet controls key state institutions. Ehab Jabareen, an analyst and Palestinian citizen of Israel, noted that while Netanyahu lost the initial priority to form the government, he has not lost the position itself. Jabareen explained that Netanyahu’s current survival relies on the disagreements among his opponents, who need an agreement to remove him. This situation places Israel in what Jabareen described as a constitutional paradox.

Israel does not have a single written constitution but instead operates under a series of foundational legal documents known as Basic Laws. Article 30 of the Basic Law regarding the Government states that the outgoing administration continues to function until a new government is sworn in. Consequently, Netanyahu and his cabinet retain powers over state management, security, and foreign relations. However, Jabareen emphasized that their use of these powers is subject to a duty of reservation and restraint during the transition.

The most significant concern regarding Netanyahu’s interim status involves his authority over the military. He retains the power to make appointments and security-related decisions, though he faces increased scrutiny because he lacks the legitimacy of a new mandate. Under Article 40, the cabinet can vote to launch a new war, meaning Netanyahu cannot start a conflict unilaterally. Nevertheless, he can strategically influence existing threats. Jabareen pointed out that this involves igniting or employing current dangers, specifically citing Iran and Lebanon as primary examples.

Because Eisenkot and his allies are not part of the current security cabinet, Netanyahu holds unchecked influence over how intelligence is presented to ministers. Jabareen highlighted the importance of this informational advantage, noting that the prime minister decides what is framed as a manageable danger versus a final opportunity for action that cannot be delayed. Additionally, the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal intelligence agency, continues to report directly to the premier during this caretaker phase.

While Netanyahu commands security forces, his domestic and legislative powers have functional limits. Maysara Bahr, an expert on Israeli affairs, explained that financial decisions made by Netanyahu could negatively impact the next government. He warned that Netanyahu might take actions that hinder future work, potentially leaving the incoming administration with greater indebtedness. However, Netanyahu cannot push through new legislation to shield himself from his ongoing corruption trial.

Netanyahu is also using his position to attempt to fracture the opposition bloc. Jabareen observed that the prime minister is appealing to Zionist voters by portraying Eisenkot’s alliance as overly dependent on Arab parties. Bahr added that Netanyahu might encourage domestic unrest to derail the transition, suggesting he would use various tactics to remain in power.

Israel’s transition process is similar to those in other parliamentary democracies. In countries like the United Kingdom and India, caretaker prime ministers possess the same legal powers as elected leaders but are expected by constitutional conventions to avoid major policy decisions, including those regarding war. In contrast, the United States operates under a rigid deadline for presidential transitions, with outgoing presidents facing intense congressional oversight on budgets and appointments.

The current situation in Israel highlights the tension between legal authority and political mandate. As negotiations continue, the balance of power remains delicate. Netanyahu’s ability to manage security threats and financial matters gives him significant leverage, even as he awaits the outcome of Eisenkot’s coalition building efforts. The coming weeks will determine whether a new government takes office or if the caretaker administration extends its tenure further.